Marketing/Selling the Egodeath Theory (Psychedelic Eternalism) as a Type of Compatibilism, not Determinism or No-free-will/ Monopossibility Prison
By this manipulative rebranding that came from the bowels of the Marketing department instead of Engineering, now I can brag that my sophisticated, compatibilism theory (the Egodeath theory; psychedelic eternalism) is way better than crude advocates of mere eternalism.
Unlike James per Bricklin’s book, the Egodeath theory manages to affirm BOTH practical experience AND the Nitrous Revelation of eternalism.
Normally I identify as no-free-will/monopossibility , and reject “compatibilism’ as confusion and a contradiction in terms.
Not only is no-free-will/monopossibility a hard sell, it’s contradicted by experience, or by the form / shape of our experience.
Affirming Freewill Thinking, in a Way
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.
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.
Spacetime: Minkowski’s Papers on Spacetime Physics (Minkowski, 1908)
The Illusion of Will, Self, and Time: William James’s Reluctant Guide to Enlightenment Jonathan Bricklin, Jan. 2016 https://www.amazon.com/dp/143845628X
image: my book: Aligned with the Egodeath theory. Purchased before it was available; preordered.
“William James’s work suggests a world without will, self, or time.
“How research supports this perspective.
“A Seminary Co-op Notable Book of 2016
“William James is often considered a scientist compromised by his advocacy of mysticism and parapsychology.
“Jonathan Bricklin argues James can also be viewed as a mystic compromised by his commitment to common sense. [ie our experience is always in the form of the egoic personal control system]
“James wanted to believe in will, self, and time [egoic, possibilism-thinking], but his deepest insights [WHILE TRIPPING HIGH ON NITROUS!!] suggested otherwise.
“Is consciousness already there waiting to be uncovered [preexisting control thoughts per eternalism; snake-in-rock revealed in alt-state] and is it a veridical revelation of reality?” James asked shortly before his death in 1910.
“A century after his death, research from neuroscience, physics, psychology, and parapsychology is making the case, both theoretically and experimentally, that answers James’s question in the affirmative.
“By separating what James passionately wanted to believe [freewill thinking; branching possibilities with monolithic, autonomous control], based on common sense, from what his insights and researches led him to believe [iron block universe], Bricklin shows how James himself laid the groundwork for this more challenging view of existence.
“The non-reality of [free] will, [autonomous] self [control], and [branching-possibility] time is consistent with James’s psychology of volition, his epistemology of self, and his belief that Newtonian, objective, even-flowing time [domino-chain determinism] does not exist.
/ end of blurb
Rush Quote and Obstinate Contrary Assertions by Egocentric Individuals
Sung:
If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice
Jacket lyrics:
If you chose not to decide, you still haven’t made a choice
Jacket lyrics:
If you choose not to decide, you cannot have made a choice.
There’s a line in one of the songs by Rush which Michael Hoffman has talked about where he says, “Even if I decide not to decide, I’ve still decided; I’ve still made a choice.”
Max Freakout:
You can’t escape from being a decision maker, in the ordinary state of consciousness, because no matter what you do, you could be said to be choosing to do that thing, as opposed to doing something else. An absolutely basic configuration of the self is decision making.
Michael Hoffman:
“Future pre-decided; opinions are provided, in the mass-production zone”, which is pretty much the whole world.
Cyberdisciple:
That’s a very funny line, in that the singer sings one line, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice”, but the original lyric sheet printed “If you choose not to decide, you cannot have made a choice.”
So there’s a strange confusion between the song and the original lyric sheet. That was even addressed by the lyricist at one point, who said that “Well those are the words I wrote” or something, “I can’t control what was printed.”
Michael Hoffman:
In a newsletter, Peart said:
“That’s a funny question. I’ve had a few lately from people who are so sure that what they hear is correct, that they disbelieve what I’ve put in the lyric sheets! Imagine!
People have quoted me whole verses of what they hear, as opposed to what’s printed, sure that they are right and the cover (me) is wrong.
Scary stuff, these egocentric individuals.
I assure you, other than perhaps dropping an “and” or a “but,” we take great care to make the lyric sheets accurate.”Neil Peart, Rush Backstage Club newsletter, December 1985
That’s copied from Egodeath.com > Rush Lyrics Alluding to Mystic Dissociative Phenomena > Freewill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Peart – “His parents bought him a drum kit for his fourteenth birthday and he began taking lessons from Don George at the Peninsula Conservatory of Music. His stage debut took place that year at the school’s Christmas pageant in St. Johns Anglican Church Hall in Port Dalhousie. His next appearance was at Lakeport High School with his first group, The Eternal Triangle. This performance contained an original number titled Ergot Forever. At this show he performed his first solo.”
A lot of this double-speaking and mumbling and saying one thing while claiming to have said something else, goes back to Prohibition, affecting song lyrics vs. official lyrics.
Cyberdisciple:
It’s a funny moment that speaks to Rush’s interest in in double meanings and the whole topic of being a control agent.
I think more recent lyric sheets only printed what the singer sings, but the original lyric sheets don’t have that; they have a different version. For such a crucial line, they have a different wording of it that seems to point to the opposite.
“Not to derail us into Rush trivia; this is not a Rush trivia podcast, even though I know plenty of trivia about them.”
/ end of unmodified copypaste from Rush trivia podcast
Lexicon: Parallel Phrases: monolithic, autonomous control 2-level, dependent control
Lexicon: Can elaborate to be parallel, via 2 terms in both models:
monolithic, autonomous control
2-level, dependent control
4-part terms:
literalist ordinary-state possibilism with monolithic, autonomous control
analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level, dependent control
but those latter sound as if they are 6-part. 4-part (as just 4 words – very hard to achieve) would be like:
literalist sober possibilism autonomy vs. analogical psychedelic eternalism dependency
Substantive Conceptual Errors and Bad Argumentation from Affirmers of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art (not Merely Editorial Errors)
This was supposed to be merely a Comment asking Cyberdisciple:
What about when an entheogen scholar makes real actual error?
It’s not always the case that an entheogen scholar makes a petty error and then a MICA Denier tries to elevate that as if a substantive error.
Also concerning in a different way, perhaps somewhat addressed by Cyberdisciple, is what about when:
An entheogen scholar makes a substantive error, and then MICA Denier does not even HAVE to elevate it b/c it really is a substantive error.
Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art make many substantive Conceptual errors. So, no mushrooms in Christian art.
Terminology
Cyberdisciple differentiates two types of errors when critiquing the main position of entheogen scholars.
Editorial error – an error of citation and precise historical context information.
Conceptual error – an error in combined theoretical, methodological, and evidential analysis.
MICA – mushroom imagery in Christian art.
MICA Affirmer – says there’s mushroom imagery in Christian art.
MICA Denier – says there’s not mushroom imagery in Christian art. Says “You guys are wrong, there’s no Secret Christian Amanita Cult.”
Cyberdisciple presents the scenario where a MICA Affirmer makes a mere Editorial type error, but a MICA Denier tries to elevate that to a Conceptual (substantive) error. The MICA Denier acts like “the MICA Affirmer is wrong; so, not mushrooms.”
But I’m noticing a worse scenario: a MICA Affirmer makes a Conceptual (substantive) error, then a MICA Denier acts like “the MICA Affirmer is wrong; so, not mushrooms.”
Actually, the main thesis of the MICA Affirmer is correct, it’s just that they tried to reach it by a false route; misinterpretation.
In the latter case, the MICA Denier is not elevating an Editorial error to the level of Conceptual error; the MICA Affirmer really did make a substantive Conceptual error, a misinterpretation about mushroom imagery. Substantive errors of arg’n; bad arg’n from MICA Affirmers.
Cyberdisciple re: Editorial Errors vs. Conceptual Errors
“Hatsis and Bennett advocate for more rigor in scholarship in this field and for more attention to be paid to the historical context of evidence.
“There is some good in this, and they have provided corrections to errors in citation and basic historical information published by some authors.
“There is a limit to such correction, however, and in their criticism they have elevated what is essentially an editorial problem to the level of conceptual error, and in some cases to intellectual deficiency on the part of the target.
“This last tactic confuses criticism, turning scholarly criticism into personal attack.
“What amounts to citational errors and imprecision about historical context serves as part of Hatsis’ and Bennett’s rationale forradically dismissing their targets.
“This is a dangerous tactic, because using such an all-or-nothing attack requires that the attackers’ own writing be error-free.
“Employing such tactics in public criticism is tricky and should be reserved for special circumstances.
“Indiscriminate use of such tactics can result in a kind of arms race, with scholars breaking out into hostile camps.
. . . .🔍🧐🤔
“Advancing the field requires a combination of theoretical, methodological, and evidential analysis.
“Errors in citation and historical context are of lesser importance. They should merely be corrected, ideally behind the scenes before publication by a judicious editor or through a peer-review process.
“They should not be turned into principles of dismissing other scholars.”
/ end of Cyberdisciple quote
Entheogen Scholars’ Substantive Errors
(not a comprehensive list, just off the top of my head)
Entheogen Scholars in General
Misinterprets artists’ message as “mushrooms” instead of: Adopt non-branching eternalism with 2-level control, when on mushrooms, instead of branching possibilism with autonomous monolithic control, which collapses and is unstable, not viable.
The Amanita Primacy Fallacy.
Presupposition of Amanita = Europe; Psil = Americas.
Assumes, superstitiously based on just the shape, that Amanita effects = Psilocybin effects = Psychedelic effects (even after disconfirmed by Wasson), and so proposes as useful the obfuscating wildcard construct “sacred fungi”, “psychoactive mushrooms”, “sacred mushrooms”, “the mushroom”, etc.
Assumes suppression of psychedelics; secret, hidden, heretical groups.
Arbitrarily disallows an individual using mushrooms, automatically frames as “certain groups” (Samorini 1997), to construct a barrier wall to prevent mushrooms from being mixed in among the general population. Arbitrarily casts any use of Amanita or Psilocybin mushrooms as use by members of “cults, sects, communities, heretical sects, secret cults”.
James Arthur
Claims Day 3’s 4 plants are Poppy, Rue, Psil, Ama, river Cannabis, to try to formulate a SOMA recipe. (It’s Pan, Lib, Cub, Ama.) He’s not interested in Day 3 being entirely mushrooms; he abuses it to make a 5-plant recipe for SOMA.
Chris Bennett
Bernward door: Ignores the other six Liberty Cap mushroom-trees in the door and column, while highlighting that, against Brown, the tree of knowledge in the “Eat from Tree” panel is not a Liberty Cap mushroom-tree.
Urges us to look at the “Eat from Tree” panel above the oft-attended “Blame” panel — but if we are to expand scope, we’d certainly expand scope to the panel above Eat Tree: the “Eve Presented to Adam” panel, which has two Liberty Cap mushroom-trees.
Jerry Brown & Julie Brown
[Brown, also Brown; 2016, also 2019; = 4x penalty]
Botanical misidentification based on serrated base of Amanita.
Single-meaning fallacy re: Walburga holding vial shaped like Amanita.
Claims to give better interpretation (while misinterpreting) due to field research (didn’t travel to Walburga). Stakes credibility on this one example, botches it.
Claim that Bernward’s Blame panel depicts the tree of knowledge.
Claim that the four mushrooms shown in Day 3 of Great Canterbury Psalter occur throughout the Psalter. (Day 3 shows a four-type classification into Panaeolus; Liberty Cap; Cubensis; Amanita. Mushroom-trees throughout the Psalter recombine such elements, and tree features, in various ways.)
Poor classification of the four plants in Day 3 of Great Canterbury Psalter: Psil, Pan, Psil, Ama. (It’s Pan, Lib, Cub, Ama.)
Amanita Primacy Fallacy: In GCP Day 3’s 4 plants, & when claim they appear later, lists them starting from the Right instead of Left, because Amanita on Right, to list Amanita first. (GCP has more Psil than Aman.)
Claim that the limitation of Marcia Kupfer’s description of Saint Martin trees is that Kupfer should use mushroom words rather than tree words. (Description requires {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs, as well as {mushrooms}.)
Unjustified use of ‘secret’ and ‘tradition’ in 2016 book subtitle and in Conclusion of 2019 article. Article has ‘secret’ 13x; ‘tradition’ 19x.
Overuse of ‘tradition’: undefinable, indeterminate, morass.
{visible ribs} indicates the shamanic altered state — but is an analogy for which aspect of altered state? How is this specific motif like things that are observed and experienced in the altered state?
Saint Martin: Entry Jeru: Claims to report only what she sees, yet does the opposite: 2016: “offering Jesus three stems … whose tops have been painted over or somehow obscured“; 2019: “Christ … arms outstretched to receive a plant-like gift (of which only the stems are visible)”. (It’s sticks and feathers.)
Saint Martin: Entry Jeru: Claims “Jesus … reaching out toward the youths … offering … stems”; “Christ … arms outstretched to receive a plant-like gift”. (Jesus displays splayed L fingers, parallel R fingers, receives signalling.)
Editorial error: Mis-transcribed Panofsky letter, changing meaning: changed “finished product” (the prototype) to “finished project” (the fresco).
Too many substantive conceptual errors to list here. (Conserving server space, b/c too many mushrooms.)
My historiographical methodology is far superior, as the present $20 book emphasizes, and I have already disproved his claim of a Secret Christian Amanita Cult – see my writings somewhere on the web, at my site that’s been down for months.
Failed to state the title of Bennett’s article, in his Bennett page. So, not mushrooms.
Claims “the notion of “entheogenic religion” does not strictly imply such substances.” (‘Entheogen’ means psychoactive substances; can’t redefine as opposite.) https://www.academia.edu/3461770/Entheogenic_Esotericism_2012_ & cites that bad idea in his book
re: astral ascent mysticism: A footnote says he doesn’t know whether to put fixed stars in level 7 Saturn planetary moving sphere or in level 8 Ogdoad. (Fixed stars is level 8 by definition, a basic elementary given.)
Claims that the best identification strategy of MICA is complete ignorance of the text that is attached in support of art; that the context for interpretation is psychedelic experiencing, not text and history.
Brags about complete effectiveness of the diamond hammer of interpretation, which merely means commitment to a forced interpretation regardless of degree of fit.
Begins by assuming all art means psychedelic eternalism, and refuses to disconfirm that, because no disconfirmation could ever possibly be enough to disturb his floating sky-castle theory.
Conflates MICA with his own theory of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Is described at Graham Hancock site as: No one pays any attention to Michael Hoffman, a joke of a web scholar who keeps pushing the Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory.
Jan Irvin
In THM gallery, for Dancing Man, forces palette from blue to red.
Uses wildcard term ‘sacred mushrooms’ to attribute Hopkins’ Psilocybin effects to Amanita, after writing that Psilocybin mushrooms are irrelevant to the study in the book.
In THM, criticizes Ruck for trying to restrict mushrooms to heretical sects and mystics, citing AstroSham (in which Irvin tries to restrict mushrooms to elite).
In SHMM article series & God’s Flesh, demonizes Psilocybin, while remaining silent about Amanita.
Andy Letcher
Treats only a single instance of MICA, in Bernward Door, when Bernward has 7 Liberty Cap mushroom-trees, and Conjuring Eden 2001 was published 5 years before Shroom 2006.
Misattributes the Graves/ Wasson/ Allegro/ Ruck Secret Amanita paradigm to Stamets 1996 & Gartz 1996, who write basically nothing, like 3 words, and only use ‘hidden’ to describe a mushroom in grass.
The key words from Stamets’ caption, Gartz’ caption, and Letcher’s straw manning:
depiction of taxonomical facsimile of Liberty cap (Stamets)
Cover of Entheos 3 reverses tauroctony so looking up at Taurus, which means being trapped below fixed stars heimarmene, instead of liberated above fatedness looking down at Taurus.
Cover of Entheos 3 forces palette from blue to red, hiding the Psilocybin mushroom.
Corruption of tauroctony palette to hype Amanita, fails to see Psil mushroom in Mithras’ leg.
Over-reliance on colors, a speck of red & white, or any other color (Apples of Apollo’s color lists) means Amanita.
Jumbles Anthropology theory & Structuralism theory with pre-Modern psychedelics.
Ruck in Sacred Mushroom & The Cross writes “One example alone should suffice to silence the art historians”. (Bets everything on one instance, botches it.)
… “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.” (Its cap is blue, little mushrooms dissimilar.)
Ruck claims “The sacred marriage often involves an entheogen (either chemical or purely symbolic) as the means for summoning the possessing spirit.” (‘Entheogen’ means psychoactive substances; can’t redefine as opposite.)
Bernward: In ConjEden 2001 article, poetic wording fails to practically state the count of Liberty Cap mushroom-trees, so Deniers pretend there’s only 1 Liberty Cap mushroom-tree in Bernward. Bernward has 7 Liberty Cap mushroom-trees: 3 in Left door; 4 in column.
Editorial Error: Mark Hoffman in Journal Toxicology Mystery Religions says ‘entheogen’ was coined in 1976. (It’s 1979).
Claims GCP Day 3: God holds something, mushroom, in hand. (Hand is empty.)
Gallery of art images showing random images, random lines, few mushrooms.
Claims Saint Martin: Entry Jerusalem “clearly represents mushrooms being handed out.” (It’s sticks & feathers.)
Andrew Rutajit
Enthuses about the most potent psychedelic mushroom, Amanita. (It’s a deliriant, unreliable)
Extremely conflates Psil & Aman, by using wildcard wording, eliciting “WHICH type of mushroom are you now referring to?”
Georgio Samorini
Argues: Veil can look like branches. (Gills and veil look like branches.)
2-column table 1998 tries to use Plaincourault as paradigm for classifying mushroom-tree branching form.
Arbitrarily disallows an individual using mushrooms, automatically frames any individual who ingested mushrooms as thereby being a member of “certain groups”. p. 31, 1997 article The mushroom-tree of Plaincourault:
the relationship certain Christian groups in the Middle Ages may have had with entheogens.
Insults, berates, & chastises mycologists, repeatedly for decades, as blundering ignorants that should have “consulted” (via pers. corr.) art authorities/ historians who are expert on topics “related to” mushroom-trees — while simultaneously covertly, duplicitously censoring Panofsky’s double-strongly urged citation of Brinckmann’s published, written book — the only thing art authority experts ever wrote & published about trees (which historians consider merely peripheral, so never write about, per Huggins).
Excuses the art historians’ coined term “mushroom-trees” as “merely for convenience in discussion”. (A bluff; there was no such discussion, or published writings.)
In 1968, claims to be the first and only person to realize a consubstantial association between tree of knowledge, serpent, and mushroom, after insulting mycologists (as blundering ignoramuses) for asserting essentially the same idea since 1910.
Insults the painter of Plaincourault as ignorant of having painted mushrooms by painting a serpent.
Claims to be the first to study mushrooms in “our own cultural history”, by which he means, in ancient Vedic pre-history, and in 1000 BC before Genesis 2-3 text was written — but if you assert mushrooms in Christian history, you are a blundering ignoramus who failed to “consult” the art experts, who have written nothing about trees in Christian art except this one, “little”, 1906, German book (duplicitously censored by Wasson simultaneously while berating mycologists for not “consulting” the art authorities).
1968 SOMA, claims Europeans have no word for the most powerful psychedelic mushroom, Amanita. (It’s a deliriant, unreliable.)
Do Not Call Mushrooms “Secret, Heretical, Normal, Traditional, Mainstream, or Counterculture”
Asking “To what extent mushrooms in Christianity?” Does NOT imply adding explanatory constructs like “heretical groups, suppressed, mainstream, traditional, counterculture”
Guaranteed Technique of Egodeath; If This Prediction/ Prophecy of Achieving Doom-Threat & fully killing childthinking Fails, the my theory has been Disconfirmed, FALSIFIED! BEEN DEBUNKED! [no guar]
NeuroDeletion of Cognitive
“Psychedelic Philosophy Positions”? What’s that supposed to mean — “only mind exists” vs. “only matter exists”? [percep dualism]
The trees are drawing me near, I’ve got to find out why 🌪
Article by McPriest about Psychedelic Christianity
Greedy opportunist scholarship: Squeeze full value out of the worst writers on topic of mushroom imagery in Christian art
Why only Psilocybin Is the Teacher of Righteousness [the Reference]
Why Psilocybin is the gold standard of Reference for mental model transformation/ maturation [the Reference]
Mere “A” Mystical Experience (eg Unity feeling), vs. the Ultimate, Definitive Mystical Experience: transformation from possibilism to eternalism [mystical experience]
Recognizing My Breakthrough Experiences in My Posts
Brown: “Psychedelics Weren’t Suppressed, but to the Contrary, They Were Secret”
Browns’ Wording After Deleting the Albatross Unjustified Narrative words ‘Secret’ and ‘Tradition’
About My Rewording of Browns’ Wording
There’s copious evidence for fully developed Psilocybin use in European history – regardless of the nebulous, unneeded constructs ‘secret‘ & ‘tradition‘
Unthinking Collectivist Thinking by Entheogen Scholars: Critical Discourse Analysis of Rhetoric Narrative Framing: Samorini: “certain groups”
‘Tradition’ Is a Forbidden Word in Effective Entheogen Scholarship re: mushroom imagery in Christian art
The Useless, Biased Construct “Traditional” Psychedelic Use
Why 1 Liberty Cap mushroom-tree in Bernward Column is Very Significant for Debate of mushroom imagery in Christian art
Habitual Presupposition that Amanita Use Makes You a Member of a Closed, Bounded Group: Active Barrier Construction by Entheogen Scholars
Keyboard shortcuts: samo, hane, plainc
Definite Confirmation of Nursing Eve mushroom hem: {lifted garment} mushroom hem in bronze, angel left of Eve nursing [regretfully, no longer a heading here; moved to Bernward page]
“This special issue focuses on the Philosophy of Psychedelics (OUP 2021) by Chris Letheby in the form of a book symposium.
“Introduced by Matthew “Lose the Buddha Statue” Johnson (2022), Letheby presents the main claims of this book that explores the apparent conflict between psychedelic therapy and naturalism in a précis (Letheby, 2022a). [i think i’ve read that, & mentioned it?]
Seven contributions criticize, expand or comment on Letheby’s arguments, focusing either on his proposed mechanism for psychedelic therapy (Colombo, 2022; Hoffman, 2022; Lyon and Farennikova, 2022; Martin and Sterzer, 2022) or on the epistemic implications (Bortolotti and Murphy-Hollies, 2022; Caporuscio, 2022; Fink, 2022).
The symposium concludes with Letheby’s replies to these commentaries (Letheby, 2022b).”
Through the Psychedelic Looking-Glass: The Importance of Phenomenal Transparency in Psychedelic Transformation (article in special issue of Philosophy and the Mind Sciences about Letheby’s book Philosophy of Psychedelics)
Chris Letheby asserts “phenomenal opaqueness”. That’s an ambiguous label: Does this mean the mind doesn’t perceive the egoic control system, during loose cognition?
todo: examine article, to answer that.
Lyon asserts “phenomenal transparency”. Does this mean the mind is able to perceive the egoic control system, during loose cognition?
Philosophy and the Mind Sciences [a journal, has special issue symposium about Letheby’s book]
Article abstract:
“What makes psychedelic psychotherapy work?
“Is it the induction of psychedelic experience, with its distinct patterns of hallucinations and insights, or is it the neural ‘shakeup’ that moves the brain out of its regular mode of functioning and into a more disordered state?
“We consider the role that attention-related phenomenological changes play in psychedelic transformation and psychotherapy.
“We review Letheby’s account of psychedelic psychotherapy, which appeals to increases in phenomenal opacity as the central mechanism of psychotherapeutic transformation.
“We argue that there is an alternative vehicle of psychedelic transformation that this account overlooks, involving radically transparent experiences.
“We outline the common kinds of phenomenal transparency shifts typical of psychedelic experiences, and argue that in many cases, such shifts are responsible for the psychotherapeutic benefits.
“This argument motivates an alternative approach to possible mechanisms of psychedelic self-transformation, and opens up a new venue of empirical research into the role of attention and phenomenology in psychedelic psychotherapy.”
“This article is part of a symposium on Chris Letheby’s book “Philosophy of Psychedelics” (OUP 2021), edited by Chiara Caporuscio and Sascha Benjamin Fink.”
Article: Epistemic Risk Reduction in Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy (Chiara Caporuscio, Sascha Benjamin Fink, Nov. 4, 2024)
i think i’ve read this article: Chiara Caporuscio and Sascha Benjamin Fink – “Abstract Nov. 2, 2024
“Belief change is crucial to therapeutic benefit in psychedelic-assisted therapy as well as in more traditional forms of therapy.
“However, the use of psychedelics comes with a few unique challenges that require extra caution.
“First, drastic belief changes may occur faster than in regular therapy.
“Facing radical and transformative insights all at once rather than through a gradual process of discovery and integration can lead patients to a volatile, confusing or disorienting epistemic state.
“Additionally, we know psychedelic substances generate hallucinatory experiences that come with a high degree of confidence and noetic certainty despite not necessarily being connected with reality.
“On the other hand, telling a patient which ones of the beliefs are true and which ones are not seems beyond the competence of a psychotherapist, if not an abuse of their authority and power.
“This is even more dangerous when psychedelics are involved, because power imbalance between patient and therapist is exacerbated by the therapist’s role as a guiding figure throughout an intense altered state of consciousness.
“Because of this suggestible state, the therapist’s beliefs might have a disproportionate influence, and even well-intentioned nudging might significantly stray the patient’s beliefs.
“How can a therapist help a patient navigate their epistemic uncertainty around psychedelic insights while preserving the patient’s autonomy?
“This chapter will attempt to answer this question through a philosophical and epistemological lens.
“We will review different strategies to mitigate epistemic risks in psychedelic-assisted therapy and argue that such risks can be significantly reduced by adapting these strategies dynamically to the individual patient’s needs.”
The agency-first epistemology of psychedelics (Bortolotti, 2022, in Journal Philosophy and the Mind Sciences)
Bortolotti L, Murphy-Hollies K (2022) The agency-first epistemology of psychedelics. Philosophy and the Mind Sciences 3. https://doi.org/10.33735/phimisci.2022.9283 – https://philosophymindscience.org/index.php/phimisci/article/view/9283 – Vol. 3 (2022) The Agency-First Epistemology of Psychedelics SPECIAL ISSUE of Philosophy and the Mind Sciences Published 2022-04-19 Lisa Bortolotti+Kathleen Murphy-Hollies+ Keywords: Epistemology, Agency, Psychedelics, Self-know-how, Skills, Self-regulation
“Letheby’s book is an engaging and crystal-clear exploration of the philosophical issues raised by the use of psychedelic drugs.
“In this paper, we focus on the epistemological issues Letheby examines in chapter 8 and argue that his analysis requires an agency-first approach to epistemic evaluation.
“On an agency-first approach, epistemic evaluation is about identifying the skills agents needs to acquire in order to pursue and fulfil their epistemic goals.”
The epistemic goal of the Egodeath theory
The epistemic goal of the Egodeath theory: Gain Transcendent Knowledge, study the experience & demonstration of the threat of catastrophic loss of control, to disprove the egoic source of control thoughts.
Post-Ahistoricity, Post-Debunking of Literalist Religious Myth, Post-Debunking of literalist ordinary-state possibilism
Many videos about ahistoricity. Boring in a way, I’m post-ahistoricity.
There’s a dead-end feeling. ITS ALL JUST MYTH!! Great news, we converted another!
Former intense Christian has progressed from misunderstanding to incomprehension.
“MythVision Podcast (MVP) brings you some of the finest information surrounding mythology from a variety of people in search for better understanding of ancient texts.
“We discuss
mythology
syncretism
astrotheology
gematria
sacred geometry
secret societies
ancient languages
history
prophecy
scholarship
conspiracies
heretical ideas
myth interpretations
deconversion stories
“we really want to take down authoritarian cults like Scientology, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Children of God, FLDS (Spin-offs of Mormons) and other harmful cults.”
audio podcast: Secret History of Western Esotericism (SHWEP) (Earl Fontainelle) – academic research in the study of Platonism, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, the Kabbalah, alchemy, occultism, magic, and related currents of thought
The Letters of Paul in their Roman Literary Context: Reassessing Apostolic Authorship (Nina Livesey, Dec. 12, 2024)
“Since the late-nineteenth century, scholars have all but concluded that the Apostle Paul authored six authentic community letters (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, and 1 Thessalonian) and one individual letter to Philemon.
“In this book, by contrast, Nina E. Livesey argues that this long-held interpretation has been inadequately substantiated and theorized.”
“In her groundbreaking study, Livesey reassesses the authentic perspective and, based on her research, reclassifies the letters as pseudonymous and letters-in-form-only.
“Like Seneca with his Moral Epistles, authors of Pauline letters extensively exploited the letter genre for its many rhetorical benefits to promote disciplinary teachings.
“Based on the types of issues addressed and the earliest known evidence of a collection, Livesey dates the letters’ emergence to the mid-second century and the Roman school of Marcion.” [Egodeath.com said that in 2005, 20 years ago]
“Her study significantly revises the understanding of Christian letters and conceptions of early Christianity, as it likewise reflects the benefit of cross-disciplinarity.” / end of her book blurb
Paul the Apostle Never Existed! | Dr. Nina Livesey (Interview on History Valley ch.)
I Published Ahistoricity of Paul in 2005 (& Mythicism in General)
YouTubers are slow, compared to my work around 2005, 20 years ago. Today Feb 28 2025, new vid by History Valley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3zIpgYNmkY – It takes the ENTIRE show before the host Jacob Berman finally switches from thinking “Paul didn’t write the authentic Pauline epistles”, to “Paul didn’t exist”. The show is NOT about ahistoricity of Paul, but essentially weaker: Paul is not the author of the Pauline epistles.
Historical Paul has been debunked already, by Dutch Radical Critics, Edwin Johnson 1895, Robert M. Price Journal of Higher Criticism.
The first thing that happened around 1998 when I searched graduate library for “Christian mushroom”, I found the name Allegro, but more memorable and ground-changing for me was, I found a book about the ahistoricity of Paul.
By 2005, Egodeath.com had tons of content on ahistoricity of founder figures, and 2006 wrote article for Journal of Higher Criticism/Price, which mentioned Paul’s ahistoricity.
Darrell Doughty’s special issue/ article in Journal of Higher Criticism, is a major article about the ahistoricity of Paul.
Neal Sendlak (Gnostic Informant)
In one vid w/ Ruck, he claims to Break the News, live, that Ruck Is a Mythicist.
The Unoriginal Resurrection of Jesus | Dr. Richard C. Miller History Valley YouTube channel
0:45 —
“Dr. Miller is a trans-disciplinary research scholar exploring the cultural and literary nexus between Classical antiquity and the social origins of earliest Christianity.
“His published work focuses on the mythological roots of New Testament’s gospel portraitures of Jesus, the sacrilized founding figure of the Christian religion.”
The Origins of Christianity & Did Jesus Exist? | Dr. Richard C. Miller
5:00 – Miller is known as a mythicist. What is Millers’ view on ahistoricity of all religious founder figures, as the strong norm, implying something about genre.
Tauroctony Fails
In a YouTube video at the start, I just saw an ignorant drawing of the hi-res Tauroctony that shows Cautes and Cautopates standing on both legs; legs not crossed. The artist went out of their way to omit the legs-crossed motif.
The worst of all, is the museum statue where they re-attached Mithras’ head, looking forward and down at the bull instead of looking right / up/ back.
A book and Entheos issue 3 reverse the hi-res tauroctony.
{rider above horse|donkey|mule}, {look up above & behind you}, {look to right, see, perceive}
2 special cases of {rider above horse|donkey|:
* Jesus entry into Jerusalem
* Mithras atop bull.
Compare:
Mithras turns to the right to look up and behind him at Sol, while inserting blade disrupting the personal control system as the bull.
Mithraism {torch light to see}, Cautes (weight on right foot) & Cautopates (weight on L foot, torch illuminating downward
Torch light – I force, by academic trickery, this correlation:
stand on right foot = torch light up stand on left foot = torch light down
as the predominant standard mapping.
Look behind you and above you
To see is to transcend; to transcend is to see the lower.
look back and up
look behind and up
See multiple translations of Sacr of Isaac when Abraham looks at ram, looks up and SEES RAM CAUGHT IN THICKET, brings that to the rock blade wood fire altar sacrificial offering in place of son.
I saw Christ on the cross, vision provided, in a place that Abraham called “God Will Provide”: look and see the ram caught in a thicket, provided by God.
Angel Talking to Abraham Shifts to God Talking to Abraham
Does Angel say something, and then God says something to Abraham? Mustn’t it switch at some point from Angel talking to God talking?
Confirmed; indeed as I wondered here, the attribution wording is interesting:
“Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son.
11 But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!”
And he said, “Here I am.”
12 He [the angel of God] said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I [God] know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me [God].”
13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns.
And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.
14 So Abraham called the name of that place, “The Lord will provide”;[b]🔍🧐🤔b = The Lord will see
as it is said to this day, “On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided.”[c]
On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided. On the mount of the Lord he will be seen. entirely different!
Abraham turns to the right to look up and behind him at ram caught in a thicket while lifting the knife on the wood fire rock altar to sacrifice Isaac as an offering to God; angel … is it angel says, or God says? Abraham’s blade/ rock/ fire/ wood disrupt the personal control system as Isaac.
The angel says “Don’t harm the child.
Prince Absalom (2 Samuel 18:9)
Absalom Picture, in World Chronicle by Rudolph von Ems
Mule left ear touches blade of Absalom’s sword. (In Great Canterbury Psalter f134, a major theme is {left limb touch blade}.)
YI tree, via {cut right trunk}/ {cut right branch}.
{blade in right side} x2.
L hand of Abs. is exactly at the branching of tree.
No rider; ego illusion.
Both mules have front {right foot down}; {weight on R foot}.
R hand is touching cap of tree. I read cap as a non-branching zone, like crown of Dancing Man salamander tree.
Caption: The death of Absalom, hanging from a tree by his hair.
14th-century German miniature, 1350.
German: Rudolf von Ems: Weltchronik. Böhmen (Prag), 3. Viertel 14. Jahrhundert. Hochschul- und Landesbibliothek Fulda, Aa 88. Bildbeschreibung nach Martin Roland. Miniatur 174 286r Abschaloms Tod
English: Rudolf von Ems: World Chronicle. Bohemia (Prague), 3rd quarter of the 14th century. Fulda University and State Library, Aa 88. Image description based on Martin Roland. Miniature 174 286r – Absalom’s death
Picture in Rudolph von Ems’ book World Chronicle “von ems liberty cap tree cut branch.jpeg” 13 KB, 4:39 pm Feb. 23, 2025 todo: put in a correct gallery spot. Liberty Cap mushroom-tree w/ {cut right branch}; tree on right has visually {cut right branch}.
Rudolph von Ems, from World Chronicle
Features:
Liberty Cap mushroom-tree with {cut right branch}.
tree on right has visually {cut right branch}.
When the tree form is this extreme, I classify it as {cut right trunk}, not {cut right branch}.
Not sure where cutoff is between {cut right trunk} vs. {cut right branch}, but when simple this way, like this tree, it’s plainly the same thing as literal {cut right trunk}, eg:
Great Canterbury Psalter folio f134 row 1 L, where hanging guy’s R hand touches a literal {cut right trunk}.
Dancing Man’s tree where R heel touches a literal {cut right trunk}.
“9 And Absalom happened to meet the servants of David. Absalom was riding on his mule, and the mule went under the thick branches of a great oak,[a] and his head caught fast in the oak, and he was suspended between heaven and earth, while the mule that was under him went on.”
Compared to the broad word {child} or {young man}, the term {king’s son} is superior myth.
ruler/ prince/ king’s son riding mule
Richard Miller & Carl Ruck on the Ahistoricity of All Religious Founder Figures, and What that Myth Refers to
Religions founder figures are a genre: mythic description of loose cognition with other components mixed in and carrying analogies integrating eternalism.
Is the {mature} mytheme an analogy, or a direct referent?
the spectrum from analogy to direct referent, ie not binary. ‘mature’ is halfway between
Binary relation:
{analogy} on left, direct referent on right
Which side does ‘mature’ go on?
‘mature’ — psilocybin-type transformation from possibilism to eternalism, which is like {beard}.
{analogous thing} = referent
does ‘mature’ go on the left or right? Halfway; {=mature}
That’s like saying the notation:
{=mature}
{mature} = mature
Thinking is analogy-based.
Science is inherently analogy-based. But avoids basing on analogy;
Science is the extreme of directly specifying the referent – as the basis – and using analogy to help explain the non-analogy basis.
Some terms, such as ‘mature’, are
* halfway between analogy and direct referent; or
* include both analogy aspects and direct referent aspect,
Degrees of analogicity.
That breaking an over-simplistic dichotomy between
the Key Mythemes catalog (= analogy for purpose of explaining) and
the Egodeath Core Concepts catalog (= direct referent).
‘mature’ is a semi-analogy; semi-direct referent.
Per Douglas Hofstadter, thinking is analogy-based.
Does Hofstadter say in his two Analogy books, that Science is analogy-based or dependent on inherently analogy-based language?
Is It Arbitrary, or Inherently Justified, to Use the Type of Maturation that Psilocybin Produces, as the Paradigmatic Main Example of Maturation?
Psilocybin Produces Ultimate Maturation
Is Psilocybin’s Type of Maturation Effect the Most Important Type of Maturation that the Mind Is Capable Of?
The mytheme {mature} is used to explain and clarify & help understand maturation, according to the transformative result of Psilocybin.
If Psilocybin is used to define ‘maturation’, the main paradigmatic instance of a kind of ‘maturation’, the main definer of the sense of ‘maturation’, is Psilocybin; the main effect of Psilocybin.
The main Psilocybin effect is transformation from possibilism to eternalism. Art depicts, by analogies, transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Psilocybin-type transformation is the master example of maturation, because we experience that maturation.
considered the standard of … if Psilocybin-type , transformation from possibilism to eternalism is
Two-level consciousness of the completed initiate, the Psilo-mature mind has a higher, adult component, and a lower, child component.
The ‘mature’ mytheme is somewhere on the spectrum from analogy to direct referent: mature is a bit of analogy, and a bit of literal/direct referent
Rider Above Horse; Adult Raise Blade Above Child while See Behind/Up
Rider on horse, adult riding the child-thinking all the time —
The mind forms a 2-level model of oneself — I don’t mean God level + human level; I mean… if we say “the transpersonal level”, we could mean either the God/createor/ ultimate-controller level, or, we could mean the transpersonal level of the person’s mind.
… of the mind, and seen as a model of mental model transformation held by the adult mind.
“transcend and include” is Ken Wilber’s formulation, not part of the native internal lexicon of the Egodeath theory, or not coming from Egodeath lexicon.
The adult mind transcends and includes the child-mode personal control system, a temporary monolithic-experienced virtual foundation and source of personal control; egoic agent as source of personal control power.
The high peak consciousness looks down at a separate system: the pleading sacrificed child is perceived by the adult mind, looking down perceiving egoic thinking, possibilism-thinking, from vantage point outside “looks Abraham looked back up and behind him”.
Mature Adult Vantage Point vs. Immature Youth/Child Vantage Point
Throw that vantage POV: Higher consciousness awareness mind perceives looking forward and down — see the hi-res tauroctony, Mithras turned to look right behind ,
(Sol looks left, forward, and down)
(Luna looks left, to dark)
Trace all looking-lines and relate all figures in term of looking.
Mithras looks up back behind at Sol. Sol looks forward down at knife blade bull, like rider above horse.
Elevated awareness looks at the egoic personal control system.
‘egoic’ is a bit roundabout/indirect; better directly say: the possibilism-premised personal control system.
Elevated awareness looks at the possibilism-premised personal control system.
This section contains my good Tauroctony-related art:
Arrange as 3-level model highlight rider above horse/donkey
God
Adult
Child
Adult rides child
In the case where the adult is Jesus Entry Jeru, a God-level figure is the rider, talks of “my father”.
ld Testament
I’m positively interested in myth – Earl Doherty covers mythic celestial perspective. The travelling Jesus is the other mythic angle complementing the first type of myth.
Carl Ruck Discusses Ahistoricity with MythVision
Several vids of Carl Ruck with Derek Lambert (MythVision channel):
3 So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac. And he cut the wood for the burnt offering and arose and went to the place of which God had told him.
4 On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place [the personal control system] from afar. [from mental vantage point behind, above, outside of that lower system]
5 Then Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; I and the boy[a] will go over there and worship and come again to you.” alt:
5 Then Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; I and the young man will go over there and worship and come again to you.”
Geez, [11:58 Feb 22 2025] substantial: bible footnote [a] also modifies peak of story.
12 He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”
alt:
12 He said, “Do not lay your hand on the young man or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”
That’s like when I discovered ‘Kore” (= Persephone) means “maiden”.
Positive Interest in Myth, vs. Negative Interest in Myth to Accomplish Nothing More than Disproving Historical Jesus
I’m positively interested in myth. Lambert/MythVision is pathetic b/c they are only negatively interested in myth, to facilitate deconversion from literalist Christianity to literalist atheism.
Earl Doherty’s book is good in that is separately, in two sep. parts of the book, covers:
* Pauline vision of mythic celestial Christ experience. I was cosmos trekkin and reached the place where Christ was crucified in the mystic heavens.
* The travelling-around Jesus crucified in a place in the world.
Complementary types of myth.
/ end of 6 emails of Feb. 22, 2025 to Cyberdisciple
Have Calm Understanding of Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article – Mad at the Secret Amanita Paradigm Instead
I feel no longer frustrated and mad about Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article.
Mad at the Secret Amanita Paradigm
Wasson’s Disconfirmed 1952 Hypothesis: Amanita Is the Greatest Psychedelic
Instead, replacing that anger, I returned to being mad at 1st-Gen entheogen scholarship and their insane use of the ‘secret’ premise, and their horrible elevation of stupid Amanita that was dismally disconfirmed by Wasson.
Wasson’s disappointment and frustration with Amanita is the biggest disappointment within entheogen scholarship.
Telling others about the cold snap of Halloween 2024, Amanitas came up a week before the cold snap, then the cold triggered the non-Amanita mushrooms to come up.
This reminded me vividly, about the REALITY of mushroom spotting, vs. outsider academics’ IMAGINING and artificial, unreal separation between Amanita vs. Psilocybin species.
In practice in the real world, anyone who observes mushrooms sees that many types of mushrooms come up, of which Amanita is only one type.
Academics overly assume that people who used Amanita see it appearing in isolation from other mushroom species.
Artificial Fabrications that Confuse Everyone: “The Scientific Method”, “Disconfirmation”, & “Sacred Fungi”
After Wasson’s wishful hypothesis that “Amanita is the greatest psychedelic” was disconfirmed by 1986, entheogen scholars continued their wishful fantasy pretense.
Scientists historically did not abandon a science theory the moment it was “disconfirmed” — things are only so cut-and-dry in 7th grade just-so story about “the scientific method”.
The Amanita Primacy Fallacy + Secret = the Secret Amanita paradigm
the Secret Amanita paradigm is a superset of the Amanita Primacy Fallacy
also: the primacy of ‘secret’ over ‘amanita’ the Secrecy Primacy Fallacy (where you forget about psychedelics and get lost caring instead about secrecy.
Ruck Delivers a Theory of Secrecy, Supported by Psychedelics – and Is Rightly Demolished by a Single Example by Letcher in 2006
Letcher 2006 picks up on (but mis-atttributes to Stamets & Gartz) the Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck averaged together hypothesis, the Secret Amanita paradigm, or Secret Christian Amanita Cult.
Letcher only needs to consider a single instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art (a single isolated Liberty Cap mushroom-tree on Bernward Door), to disprove their malformed narrative or explanatory framework.
Letcher, in effect, catches the incoherence of p. 14 in “Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise” by Hoffman, Ruck, and Staples, in Entheos 1, 2001 (& Daturas for the Virgin), where Ruck tells a story, where the familiarity masks the incoherence:
The returning crusaders repeatedly reintroduced The Secret Mushroom into their communities and displayed it brazenly in their heretical places of worship.
Letcher 2006 & Irvin 2008 catch Ruck being incoherent and not resolving the evident contradiction.
What, specifically, are “their places of worship”? Bernward Door heretical place of worship?
SHEER CONFUSION FROM RUCK COMMITTEE.
The more I inspect p. 14, — you have to look really hard to see it — it’s double-talk.
You have to read p. 14 with extremely critical, skeptical lens AND DON’T BUY THE too-familiar NARRATIVE.
The narrative is so familiar, it seems coherent.
You have to MAKE yourself reject and spot the incoherence, the cobbled-together reasoning. An incoherent, but familiar, explanatory construct.
Instead of discussing Psychedelics and mentioning secrecy along the way, you end up discussing Secrecy (as the master topic), and merely mentioning psychedelics along the way.
The fable “the scientific method” is no more reality-based than the fake phony category, “sacred fungi”, confabulated to artificially force ergot, Psilocybin, and Amanita into a wildcard bucket of false interchangeability.
Irvin approves Rutajit’s book that has a frenzy of conflating and jamming together Psilocybin and Amanita, and that pronounces Amanita the greatest Psychedelic ever – complete fantasy.
Irvin’s THM 2008 even steals Hopkins’ synth Psilocybin, to falsely attribute Psil fx to Amanita BY SHEER TRICKERY OF SHELL-GAME WILDCARD TERMS “MAGIC MUSHROOMS”, “SACRED MUSHROOMS”, WE HAVE TO MAKE Amanita HAVE Psilocybin EFFECTS! — a BS move by Irvin after he worked with me.
In THM, Irvin is laboring under a malformed model (the Amanita Primacy Fallacy), and then trying to write in such a way as to uphold the malformed model.
In THM, Irvin is laboring under a malformed model (the Amanita Primacy Fallacy) (even though — in retrospect you could say — I got him to start moving away from the Secret Amanita paradigm), and then trying to write in such a way as to uphold the malformed model.
In the Amanita Primacy Fallacy (& in the Secret Amanita paradigm), 1st-gen entheogen scholarship tries to SUBSUME Psilocybin under & in service of Amanita, where Amanita is assumed to be the greatest psychedelic ever.
THM says “I won’t show Hofmann’s passage about Psilocybin mushrooms, b/c that’s irrelevant to this project/book/ treatment.”
That is just like Brown in a way: brag about throwing Walburga into the river to prove your credibility and astuteness to (TO PROVE TO HATSIS! YOU ARE A COOL MICA Denier too) — AND, display Walburga tapestry in your gallery of Amanita imagery, to sell. Similarly:
Irvin: Demonize Psilocybin mushrooms, except when you can rob Psilocybin mushrooms to falsely elevate your idol, Amanita.
Why does Irvin include Psilocybin mushrooms imagery in THM’s gallery, if instead Amanita is “the” holy mushroom (as Irvin rabidly emphasizes right in step w/ 1st Gen entheogen scholarship), and Psilocybin mushrooms is so irrelevant that you don’t bother quoting Wasson on it, and you go on to demonize Psilocybin mushrooms in 2013 article series & 2024 book, yet remain silent about the idol of 1st gen entheogen scholars, “holy” Amanita the pseudo-psychedelic.
Brown Overuses the Unnecessary Concepts “Traditional” & “Secret”, Which Cause More Confusion than Clarity: Orthogonal, Peripheral Concerns that Muddy the Water
Brown double talk: mushrooms traditional, and we need to have a new open minded CONCLUSIONS section in Brown 2019 article, YET, can’t resist ruining by saying “for SECRET initiation”.
Brown is forbidden from ever using the word-pair ‘traditional’ & ‘secret’ ever again.
MICA Deniers take advantage of that strategic opening; they prove no mushroom imagery in Christian art, by simply proving not cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in – see Letcher p 35 2006 Shroom re: Bernward Door’s single isolated Blame panel.
The Letcher move, USING RUCK’S FOLLY FOOLISH CONFLATION OF PSYCHEDELICS = SECRET, to debunk psychedelics.
Thanks to Ruck (Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck), you merely have to barely tap the tower to bring it crashing over.
You merely have to disprove Ruck’s SECRET component (which Ruck mis-uses as a foundation of his paradigm), to disprove mushroom imagery in Christian art. Ruck’s fault!
Ruck set us up to fail, by letting the “Secret” tail wag the Entheogen dog. The emphasis is backwards, and Letcher cashes in the opportunity opened to him when Ruck lost the plot.
The plot is not “heretical Christians used The Mushroom secretly.”
The plot or the question is: Christians used mushrooms. Remove all that weakening junk that Ruck attached to the central point.
2nd Gen entheogen scholarship – Samorini revolution: Christians used mushrooms.
1st Gen entheogen scholarship – Ruck stodgy incoherence: heretical Christians used The Mushroom secretly.
1st Gen entheogen scholarship: “Heretical Christians used The Mushroom Secretly”
2nd Gen entheogen scholarship: “Christians used Mushrooms”
No narrative confusions added, for Letcher to attack and bring down the theory.
Andy Letcher took advantage of the opening that Ruck left him, where Ruck pushes SECRET and couldn’t care less about actual psychedelics.
Feb 17, 2025, I recorded spoken further points that Letcher is right that all he has to do to disprove Ruck is show that a single instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art is not secret – and Ruck’s paradigm comes crashing down.
Ruck 2001 Committee 2001 wrote that heretics returning with The Mushroom from holy land crusades repeatedly reintroduced and BRAZENLY DISPLAYED THE MUSHROOM IN *THEIR* PLACES OF WORSHIP – meaning, closed group private place.
BUT, then, all Letcher has to do to disprove that, is show a single lpmt Liberty Cap mushroom-tree that is in not “heretics’ place of worship” —
Irvin attacks, sucessfully, Ruck on this same point in Daturas Virgin.
Irvin worked with me 2006 so he is a better MICA Affirmer than Ruck committee = 1st gen entheogen scholarship = the Secret Amanita paradigm.
Irvin was moving into 2nd Gen = the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm. only halfway though in 2008.
Ruck Committee never writes about secret ENTHEOGENS; they always write about SECRET entheogens.
They are wrong and bad and conflate; their narrative is wrong and self contradictory, especially over time from 1970 to 2006 – Ruck deserves Letcher to steal his lunch.
It is Ruck’s fault for pushing to the extreme, Rucks’ fantatical extremist hyper overemphasis on “secret”.
RUCK: LIVE BY “SECRET” AMANITA; DIE BY “SECRET” AMANITA
LETCHER KNOCKED OVER YOUR FLIMSY FAULTY WRONG NARRATIVE TOWER; “Various writers have suggested cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in” – not from Stamets/Gartz as Letcher’s poor, fake endnote 31 claims; rather; this FAILURE IS the fault of Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck.
Analogy: Brown Fumbled Walburga, Bet the Farm and Botched It; Browns’ Psychedelic Gospels Theory v1 Failed
… so I picked up Browns’ fumble, now I own the psy gosp theory v2.
I’m the leader of the Ardent Advocates, in that Egodeath.com is listed first in that section in Browns’ article.
I swiped Browns’ psychedelic gospel theory, I destoryed it, I took it over as v2 — the Cybermonk version of the psychedelic gospels theory
Browns’ theory died, they botched it.
I re-tell that POV, to say that my above framing is like:
1st-Gen entheogen scholarship failed, died, was wrong and false and was disproved
The Secret Amanita paradigm was a self-contradiction and incoherent, fallacious elevation of “secret” over psychedelics.
Why are 1st-gen entheogen scholars SO OBSESSED WITH “SECRET”?
Letcher Hatsis is right to take down entheogen scholarship that’s so malformed, that’s driven by the motivation of ‘secret’ as the driving obsession.
Sound, relevant entheogen scholarship is correctly motivated by caring about psychedelic effects and sheer psychedelics history, as the driving concern, NOT “secret hidden suppressed” narrative as the driving concern.
Not that Ruck’s facts are wrong, but that his motivations are malformed and are mis-leading entheogen scholarship.
The bunk result (the Secret Amanita paradigm) is rightly debunked by Letcher Hatsis.
Why Did 1st Gen entheogen scholarship pay any attention to the notion of ‘Secret’?
The Letcher Opportunist Debacle in Entheogen Scholarship
LETCHER wrote “Various writers have suggested (cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in — and he wrongly said that ALL writers asserted that, including Stam & Gartz, which is not true; he picked the worst examples!
The ONLY writers (1996-2006) who are NOT insanely obsessed with “secret” is Stamets & Gartz!
Stamets page 15 is a good generational periodization.
John Lash also providees a 3-era periodization; and Brown does a 2-phase; and Stam 96 does a 2-phase.
Generally, these match my claim:
1st-Gen entheogen scholarship = the Secret Amanita paradigm: Elevate “Secret” and “Heretical vs. Mainstream”, over Psychedelics
, which is False and Wrong and is insane for elevating secret over psychedelics
2nd-Gen entheogen scholarship = the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm: Keeps Focus Only on Psychedelics, not Narrative Drama
, which is True and Correct and is sane for ignoring ‘Secret’ and focusing on psychedelics
And ignored the unhelpful, confusing, unneeded explanatory constructs “mainstream, traditional, counterculture, underground”.
What do you imagine that you are being asked to explain or discuss, or construct through narrative formation discourse?
Discussing to what extent mushrooms in Christianity.
Tell a narrative drama about Us vs. Them and the perpetual Prohibition war.
The 1st-Gen, Secret Amanita Paradigm was Rightly Demolished by MICA Deniers
vs. the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm (2nd Gen) – a {stable tower} undefeatable that will not fall, is balanced ⚖️
How did MICA Deniers defeat 1st-gen MICA Affirmers? By taking advantage of their error, of elevating secret far above actual psychedelics.
Gen 1 entheogen scholarship deserves to die, because it failed to advocate repeal of Psilocybin Prohibition, and because it married a mere deliriant instead of a real, actual psychedelic.
Gen 1 entheogen scholarship is merely deliriants, not psychedelics.
1st-Gen entheogen scholarship = Deliriants; Ruck’s non-drug entheogens; and Idolatrous Worship of Secret instead of Psychedelics
1st-Gen entheogen scholarship: “Amanita and Datura produce Psychedelic effects, When you use Psilocybin Instead”
Joke: so telling: AstroSham 1 speculates that ppl used Amanita together with Psilocybin. That’s like saying “Amanita and Datura produce psychedelic effects, when you use Psilocybin instead.”
They were defeated in battle because THEY HONORED THE WRONG GOD, “secret” and deliriant, WHILE while Gen 1 honors the true god: explicit (ie non-secret) , actual psychedelic, proved by advocacy — woven into our 1st pricniples — of repeal of Psilocybin Prohibition
repeal of Psilocybin Prohibition rpp
1st Gen Entheogen Scholarship Accommodates Prohibition, Elevates ‘Secret’ above Psychedelics, Fantasizes Amanita Is the Greatest Psychedelic
Guilty, of failing to integrate repeal of Psilocybin Prohibition. (to hell with their accommodation).
Guilty, of making an idol of “secret”, elevated far above entheogens.
Defeated, by Let Hat Hug/ MICA Deniers, who rightly took advantage of the foolish conflation of secret & entheogens.
Given my expose of Letcher’s endnote 31, I proclaim Stamets to be 2nd Gen, per Brown’s periodization — the 21st C scholars starts not in 1998, but in 1996.
Stop Abusing entheogen scholarship for the perverse purpose of pushing “secret” and accommodating Prohibition
for the twisted purpose of baloney Structuralism & Anthropology – you should care above all, about real, actual psychedelics, and Repeal of Psilocybin Prohibition.
You should care not at all about “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in” – live by that false god, die by that false god (a mis-focus).
Gartz too: neither of them is obsessed with secret; neither of them ABUSE entheogen scholarship / ethnomyc. to push a false narrrative of ‘secret’ that Letcher Hatsis pounces RIGHTLY on.
Irvin HALF moved to the the Explicit Cubensis paradigm in 2008: he started to reject the ‘secret heretical groups’ paradigm in 2008, but still retained strongly the the Amanita Primacy Fallacy.
Brown 2019 mostly, but not enough, abandoned the focus on ‘secret’, and — highly bold and perspicacious of me — part of the problem is Browns’ pleading that psychedelics were “traditional”. That assertion warrants more explanation — placeholder heading: …. rather, I need to gather my writings rencetnly of why we must reject the construct “traditional”
Do Not Call Mushrooms “Secret, Heretical, Normal, Traditional, Mainstream, or Counterculture”
STOP ADDING NARRATIVE FRAMING, and just restrict the focus to the sheer, unadorned question: To what extent mushrooms in Christianity?
Is that question-framing part of the problem? It CAN be, if mis-handled.
Asking “To what extent mushrooms in Christianity?” Does NOT imply adding explanatory constructs like “heretical groups, suppressed, mainstream, traditional, counterculture”
My solution is to destroy and burn and delete all traces of such narrative:
Without employing concepts like “secret” or “traditional”: To what extent mushrooms in Christianity?
I am ONLY asking about frequency — I am NOT asking you to construct an explanatory narrative about mainstream vs. counterculture!
STOP HABITUALLY ASSESSING IN TERMS OF mainstream vs. counterculture, secret, etc. ‘
When I ask you to what extent mushrooms in Christianity, I am NOT asking you to construct a narrative in terms of “mainstream vs. counterculture, secret, cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”.
John Lash: he’s Psilocybin mushrooms, anti-Amanita. How “secret” is he?
In order to condemn Ruck’s attempt to restrict The Mushroom to heretical closed groups, after working w me in 2006.
In 2006, I converted Irvin from the Secret Amanita paradigm to non-secret.
Irvin debunked Ruck by pointing to Irvin’s AstroSham 1 2006, which (great irony) attemptss to restrict The Mushroom to elites. So Irvin deleted that restricting from AstroSham 2 2009.
the Explicit Cubensis paradigm and … the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm [epp]
Gen 1 (Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck) foolishly placed SECRET HIGHER than psychedelics; they wrongly pushed a false theory, the Secret Amanita paradigm, which is wrong and false. So, Brown = Gen 2 picked up their fumble, their error.
Letcher (MICA Deniers) disproved and exposed and kicked-over the FLIIMSY tower that is Gen 1 entheogen scholarship — the Secret Amanita paradigm — but MICA Deniers did NOT knock over the {stable tower} THAT that is Gen 2 entheogen scholarship; the Explicit Cubensis paradigm.
The Explicit Cubensis paradigm = The Explicit Psilocybin paradigm
the Secret Amanita paradigm the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm
Those are the two terms, b/c Cubensis too specific. Strict parallelism isn’t viable here. No obscure words.
The commonplace vocabulary includes ‘Amanita’ and ‘Psilocybin’; doesn’t included ‘muscimol/ ibotenic acid’ or ‘Cubensis’.
The Explicit Cubensis paradigm is aka the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm b/c Cubensis grows in abundance no further North than the 30th parallel.
However, I have been told of a tradition of gathering Cubensis in Northern U.S.
1st Gen entheogen scholarship got its ass kicked/ handed on plate, by oo opportunist Letcher. Letcher, slimy, mis-citing Stam who fkking GAVE Letcher tha the Bern picture!! then accused Stam of hyping “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in
What Should Letcher Have Done Had He Accurately Attributed “Secret Christian Amanita Cult” to Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck?
The narrative comes from that group of writers, including Wasson.
The infuriatingly / bafflingly bad argumentation of Letcher p. 35-36 Shroom 2006, where he claims “Various writers have suggested cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in, but the Bernward door liberty cap mushroom-tree in the Blame panel is not hidden; therefore, it’s not mushroom; there’s no mushroom imagery in Christian art.”
It’s true that various writers (indiscriminately averaging together Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck) assert Secret Christian Amanita Cult.
Given that Letcher carefully tracks the history of assertions by Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck, how does he make such grave mistake as to attribute THEIR narrative instead to Stamets and Gartz, who do show the Blame panel (Stamets gave Letcher the photo), but give no ‘secret’ narrative whatsoever, but only 3 bare words, “it’s Liberty Cap”?
Letcher’s entire hyped up focus that he whips up in order to ridicule, is entirely emphasizing ‘secret’, yet Stamets & Gartz are the exact opposite of that narrative, having absolutely no such ‘secret’ hype and no narrative framing whatsoever.
Hatsis, who originates from Allegro fanboi club leader, does the same: he correctly observes that the Pop mind jumbles together Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck, and the Pop mind comes away with “Secret Christian Amanita Cult”.
But Hatsis is wrong when he then falsely projects that — his own childhood notions of “Secret Christian Amanita Cult” – onto the entire field/topic of mushroom imagery in Christian art; onto every entheogen scholar.
Even going so far as to violently dictate to Brown & me (pers. corr.) that we come from Secret Christian Amanita Cult, and that OUR childhood belief was Secret Christian Amanita Cult. The quote is at this site.
In fact that was Hatsis’ childhood belief – not ours!
Similarly, Letcher is half-right when he says “various writers have suggested [Secret Christian Amanita Cult]” — but terribly wrong when he attributes that view to Stamets.
Stamets gave Letcher the photo of Bernward door! from p. 15 of Paul Stamets’ 1996 book Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World: An Identification Guide.
In a garbled/botched-citation way, with poor critique of the pop theory of Secret Christian Amanita Cult, Letcher should have made the valid criique that I made:
Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck are incoherent, and present an unresolved self-contradiction, when they insist of framing every instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art as “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”.
Such narrative might stand, at the start of gathering evidence, in 1970 — but when you pile on more and more instances, that must force — Letcher’s book implies — by 2006, YOU HAVE TO CHANGE YOUR ORIGINAL NARRATIVE.
When you are only aware of the Plaincourault fresco in 1970, you can tell the Ruck story of “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in” — but by 2001 “Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise” by Hoffman, Ruck, and Staples, in Entheos 1, 2001, it’s time to abandon the “secret” narrative and recognize it as an increasingly problematic, non-viable, mere early hypothesis, that’s been disconfirmed more and more with every instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
“Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise” by Hoffman, Ruck, and Staples, in Entheos 1, 2001.
“Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise” by Hoffman, Ruck, and Staples, in Entheos 1, 2001 conjeden p. 14
“Daturas for the Virgin” by Ruck & Celdran, in Entheos 2, 2001 datvir p. 56
By the time of the 2016 Brown book, that initial 1970 narrative – like a gradually disconfirmed hypothesis — is no longer tenable: entheogen scholarship has gathered too much evidence of “hidden mushroom imagery” for the concept of “hidden mushroom imagery” to be viable any longer.
When entheogen scholarship’s initial HYPOTHESIS HAS BEEN DISCONFIRMED, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION TO REJECT IT & revise it, AND ANNOUNCE ITS FAILURE AND YOUR REPUDIATION.
There comes a time, when you must REVISE your original hypothesis after it has been disconfirmed.
A detailed study of how science in history really works, can refute the notion of “disconfirmation”.
It is NOT the case that scientists held a theory, and then the moment it was “disconfirmed”, they immediately rejected and abandoned the theory – reality is far more complex and nuanced.
The mushroom imagery in Christian art theory has problems.
MICA Deniers have problems, of some type.
MICA Affirmers have problems – of some type.
I simply reject taking any responsibility for alleged problems.
The captions on mushroom-trees do not say “This is a Liberty Cap used to have peak religious experiencing, for transformation from possibilism to eternalism.” Too damn bad, that doesn’t at all change the fact that the image depicts that.
Entheogen Scholarship Fails to Revise Its Original Hypotheses After They Have Been Disconfirmed
1952-1970-era hypotheses that entheogen scholarship failed to revise after they were disconfirmed by further research, and continues to blindly use, out of habit & addiction: which Letcher 2006 then ridicules:
the Secret Amanita paradigm
Amanita Primacy
Amanita is a psychedelic
What if Letcher had written in Shroom in 2006:
“Various writers have suggested Secret Christian Amanita Cult[endnote 31].” “Endnote 31: Graves book x page y; Wasson book x page y; Allegro book x page y; Ruck book x page y.”
Suppose Letcher had proved his key, massive, very strong claim that multiple authors tell a tale of “Secret Christian Amanita Cult”.
Suppose Letcher continued to treat only a single instance — incomplete and isolated and misrepresentative of Bernward’s doors & col & chandelier, which includes {mushroom hem}, {floating mushroom hem}, Lib Cap roof toppers.
Letcher would have told Ruck like I have said, that Ruck is inconsistent and needs to resolve his conflicting narratives.
Over Time, as Supporting Evidence Accumulates, Entheogen Scholars’ Master Narrative “The Church Got Rid of Psychedelics” Becomes Increasingly Untenable and Self-Contradictory
By 2006, Andy Letcher in Shroom sort of leverages that resulting contradiction, to ridicule it.
Letcher could not have done his atrocious mishandling of Bernward door, which my early book review pointed out and people asked him about, had not the entheogen scholarship (by Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck) by 2006 worked itself into a dead-end contradictory narrative by hyper asserting “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”, while also continuing to amass instances of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
By 2016, Brown was relatively starting to move away from ‘secret’; was starting to de-emphasize the first assertion – “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”, and was driven more by the latter: simply amassing instances of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
STFU about “secret suppressed” narrative (compared to previous writers), and simply, only, produce the copious evidence of presence — and do NOT do the Ruck move of hastening to neutralize the evidence by wrapping it in a barrier which *Ruck* – no one else! – labels as “heretical”;
“Thank you for presenting yet more evidence of psychedelics in heretical Christianity.” So I added the subtitle on Entheos issue 1: Evidence for Psychedelics in Heretical Christianity.
By 2006, that now ridiculous, outdated, and no-longer-tenable initial hypothesis/narrative is held up for ridicule — rightly although extremely clumsily – by Letcher.
The first-gen entheogen scholarship from Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck had reached such a ridiculous welding together; fusing; conflating, and literally identifying psychedelics with “secret”, that it’s understandable that Hatsis — copying Letcher’s atrocious mishandling of a Bernward single instance in isolation — felt he could disprove psychedelics simply by disproving secret; Hatsis 2013 copied Letcher 2006 in simply taking it straight-up like given by Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck.
Hatsis said to the 1st-gen scholars:
“Ok, have it your way: If psychedelics in Christianity are secret, then debunking psychedelics is the same thing as debunking secret.
I have debunked secret, and therefore — by the emphatic reasoning of Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck — I have debunked Psychedelics, in Christian history. Notice how intensely Hatsis, like Letcher, ridicules secret – not simply ridiculing Amanita.
MICA Deniers hold up for ridicule NEVER simply psychedelics in Christian history (a broad, flexible assertion), but specifically, Secret Christian Amanita Cult (a narrow, rigid/brittle assertion).
I’d have to check again how many times Huggins writes ‘secret’. If Huggins doesn’t fixate on ‘secret’, that strongly corroborates my assessment that Huggins is the first MICA Denier worth engaging. Impressive: hug24 Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case” only uses ‘secret’ 1 time!
“This results on the one hand in the PMTs [psychedelic mushroom theorists; MICA Affirmers] presenting themselves as having access to the secret inner meanings of the images while on the other displaying a lack of familiarity with surface meanings known to every expert of Christian iconography.”
And, losing 1 point for Brown, harming the case for MICA Affirmers, Brown is guilty of the 1 other instance of ‘secret’ in that article: Biblio: “Brown, J.B. / Brown, J.M., Psychedelic Gospels: The Secret History of Hallucinogens in Christianity, 2016″
Huggins loses points when I search ‘hidden’: 3x:
“For decades, a small group of scholars and popular writers have been claiming to find images of psychedelic mushrooms hidden in dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of historic pieces of Christian art, and most especially medieval art.”
“Next to the GCP the Ottonian treasures of
Hildesheim—Bishop Bernward’s doors, column, and chandelier, along with
the painted ceiling of St. Michael’s Church—
are among the most often discussed pieces of art by PMTs seeking hidden psychedelic mushrooms.63“
Ambiguous Footnoting: What is Huggins claiming these writings concern: Bernward & St. Michael’s ceiling? or HIDDEN mushroom imagery in Christian art?
Where is Huggins getting this “hidden” component? Is he falsely attributing the assertion of ‘hidden’ to these writers? I don’t care what art these writings cover.
I care, here, specifically about where the “hidden” component is coming from, given that “hidden” is the ENTIRE foundation for Letcher’s “debunking”, and is a large part of Hatsis’ “debunking”, and is at least part of Hug’s “debunking”.
It’s easy for Brown to argue that it’s reasonable to say “secret” in subtitle of book — but that acts like we’re in a reasonable level situation, we are not, it’s war.
In today’s conditions we CANNOT use the word ‘secret’, bc MICA Deniers WILL take the opportunity that MICA Affirmers leave open to them, to disprove ‘secret’ and “therefore” “disprove” mushroom imagery in Christian art — given that the foolish 1st Gen entheogen scholarship welded, fused, and absolutely emphatically conflated Psychedelics and “secret”/ “hidden”/ “suppressed”.
Periodization of generations of entheogen scholars, based on asserting “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”
The main thing dividing 1st Gen vs 2nd Gen entheogen scholars:
1st Gen entheogen scholarship: SECRET HIDDEN SUPPRESSED mushroom imagery in Christian art. Encourages Prohibition of Psilocybin.
2nd Gen entheogen scholarship: Mushroom imagery in Christian art. Advocates Repeal of Prohibition of Psilocybin.
Paul Stamets’ 1996 book Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World: An Identification Guide — list 1st gen vs 2nd per that book on page 15:
“If we are to consider Wasson and his colleagues [p. 14: Ruck, Hofmann] the first generation of ethnomycologists”
“then Ott, McKenna, Weil, Ratsch, Gartz, Samo, and other contemporaries could be considered the second generation. See p 218-229 for list of their works.”
Ruck Committee does not care AT ALL about actual psychedelics, and merely abuses the topic of psychedelics to push the only narrative Ruck REALLY cares about, which is “secret”.
Carl Amanita Promoter Ruck.
Robert “Tabu Suppressed Amanita” Graves.
John “Secret Christian Amanita Cult” Allegro.
Clark “Rev 22:2’s tree of life with 12 fruits + healing leaves = Amanita only” Heinrich.
Number of words Ruck Committee has written advocating repeal of Psilocybin prohibition: ZERO.
Why would they give a sh!t about mere Psilocybin mushrooms?
The only thing that matters is our fkking GOD that we worship, bow down to, sacrifice to, and give all glory to: Secret Amanita muscaria, the fly agaric, which is most noteworthy for its successful avoidance of transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Our Lord, God, and Savior, Secret Amanita
There is no other name by which we are saved, than our Lord, God, and Savior, The Holy Mushroom, Amanita.
The Secret Amanita paradigm, coming from Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck, is designed, perversely, to accommodate — and even depend on! — perpetual Prohibition of Psilocybin (which started around 1971).
footnote 63: Hoffman / Staples / Ruck, Conjuring Eden, 22–24, 28–30, Brown and Brown, Psychedelic Gospels, 152–176; Jochen Gartz, Narrenschwämme: Psychotrope Pilze in Europa (fig. 1); [i cannot verify this, and thanks to Letcher p 35 endnote 31, I assume bullsh!t until proved otherwise] Samorini, “Mushroom-Trees,” 102–103; idem., Funghi allucinogeni, 197–199; Irvin, Holy Mushroom (pl. 9–12).
“However, as historian Bernhard Gallistl points out:
The hidden symbolism in a picture can only be proven from the available textual sources.”
also, check Ronald Huggins’ 2022 article “Dizzy, Dancing or Dying?”
Ronald Huggins’ 2022 article “Dizzy, Dancing or Dying? The Misappropriation of MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 27v, as ‘Evidence’ for Psychedelic Mushrooms in Christian Art” – ‘hidden’ __ hits ‘secret’ __ hits.
But the more that Ruck pushes in that direction of broadening the scope of where you can identify entheogens, the more that his overall picture starts to look like a blatant self-contradiction, because what he’s saying is:
Absolutely everybody everywhere knew about entheogens and was tripping, but it was all kept secret – it was all a secret, and nobody really knew about it.
But you know, which one of those is true?
Max Freakout, Transcendent Knowledge Podcast, episode 3, 57:00
And so, that’s how, thanks to Ruck welding together ‘secret’ and ‘entheogen’, along comes Andy Letcher in 2006, easily kicking over Ruck’s brittle, outdated, disconfirmed 1952-era hypothesis of tabu, structuralism, anthropology, TAIL WAGGING THE DOG; THE ‘SECRET’ TAIL WAGGING THE ‘MUSHROOMS’ DOG.
If mushrooms are identically the exact same thing as “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”, then all we have to do to disprove mushroom imagery in Christian art is disprove “secret”.
Moving from 1970 to 2006, the unresolved contradicting narrative becomes worse, until no longer viable at all – and entheogen scholarship must take action to CHANGE the no longer viable original storytelling; the original initial hypothesis.
Check: does “Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise” by Hoffman, Ruck, and Staples, in Entheos 1, 2001 frame the Bernward Door Blame panel’s Liberty Cap mushroom-tree as “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”?
keyboard shortcut: Paul Stamets’ 1996 book Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World: An Identification Guide keyboard shortcuts: pmotw & stam96 [innov from this morning: TWO keyboard shortcuts]
Entity Encounter or Equivalent
My experience that was most like an “entity encounter”:
My thinking and intentions were taken over by Dionysus (as far as structure of my experience, by analogy), a jokester invading king that lifted my thinking to a higher level and proceeded to violate or disprove my usual, lower thinking.
My thinking had been taken over by a new part of my mind, that stood above and distinct from my usual control thinking.
I can understand why, if Science searches for aliens, it is justified for Houot to cover that kind of thing, as part of Science Explorer/ Discoverer that we should be prepared for by writing about that possible eventuality, we should be equipped, not blindsided and completely unprepared.
Letheby a Poor Leader for Psychedelic Philosophy Options [perceptual dualism]
Mondays: “Only matter exists”; Tuesdays: “Only mind exists”
Chris Letheby, a Psychedelic Philosopher who has entered the field of Psychedelic Science, recounts how he switched between a really stupid philosophy in his dorm room, and now he ridicules that, and advocates a different (stupid) philosophy (“naturalism materialism”) instead of “only mind exists”.
Stupid options, as unprofitable as low-grade debate over “Does God exist?”
On Monday he asserts one stupid view, ,then on Tuesday … afternoon … a different stupid view.
Letheby, this poor mis-leader in Philosophy: On Mondays and Wednesdays, he advocates “only mind exists”, and on Tuesdays and Thursdays, he advocates “only matter exists”.
Junk views, both. Unhelpful, irrelevant. Same goes for entire the Mysticism Wars – which aren’t even about mysticism! they are only about begeinner level mysticism, not Advanced Msyticism.
There are stuck merely at Walter Stacean “mysticism” of beginners’ Unity experience – that’s far from reaching the guarded gate with rock altar where you are made to sacrifice your reliance on child-level thinking, in order to get through the fatedness gate to get the SECRET HIDDEN GUARDED Transcendent Knowledge treasure and return with it.
Canterbury imagery: {rock altar at temple entryway with clean curtains} [rock sacr, gate]
f109: Clean Temple Bus: right-limb ossuary, not altar, at temple entrance; clean cloth inner sanctum in bus
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Caught in Hell-Mouth Furnace Net, Summoned to City Gate Entrance Past Ossuary Corpse, Stable Building Protected by Cloth Washed Clean
Rock altar with ox and rams, next to the temple entrance doorway with clean clothes, purity, no pollution/ no freewill thinking/ no monolithic, autonomous control
Strange Loop Keeps Me Humble: I greedily make the most from bad writers and from failures of the Egodeath theory [no guar]
Kafei was not a failure of the Egodeath theory; he contributed changing from lexicon from determinism to eternalism.
Strange Loop, member of the Egodeath community, on Transcendent Knowledge podcast, was a deep fundamental failure of the Egodeath theory.
My idea for my page at egodeath.com is great, and it is a good page, instructing how to make your control fail, how to ride elija whirlwind to heaven.
Cyberdisciple succeeded at following my instructions.
My instructions filaed failed for Strange loop.
I have been handling that as follows, separately from Stranage loop’s failure / testing of my page: ie,
I Am a Failed Prophet of Cybernetic Doom/ Successful Disproof Demonstration [no guar]
I cannot threaten people:
YOU HAVE TO THINK LIKE I TELL YOU TO OR ELSE I PROPHECY A CURSE ON YOU: IF YOU DON’T AGREE WITH ME ON NO-FREE-WILL/ MONOPOSSIBILITY, I CURSE YOU TO LOSE CONTROL.
I cannot make that prediction.
I disagree with everyone in the world, who all claim Sicence = Prediction – no it doesn’t; poor framing.
The Egodeath theory is Science, therefore it is prediction:
According to the Egodeath theory, if you do not agree with me that no-free-will/ monopossibility, that you are a helpless puppet, you will have loss of control.
Per historians of Science, real science does not reject a paradigm when it is disconfirmed. How Science develops theories is more nuanced and unique each time, than that. See Paul Thagard page here.
If you approve of me, then you will avoid loss of control.
If you buy my ideas, I GUARANTEE you will the experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control, during this session.
I cannot make such gauarntee htere therefore THEREFORE the Egodeath theory IS A FAILURE AND A DISCONVER DIC DISCONFIRMED THEORY THAT WE MUST IMMEDIATELY DISCARD fi you if you beleieve 7th-grade just-so story about how Science always wrorks.
Simply follow the Science steps and you are guaranteed to advance science. Turn the crank on The Scientific Method. In 7th grade reality tale.
Actually the goal/ technique is to EXPLORE/ demonstrate the ABILITY/ CAPABILITY of the mind to make itself — or, be made to make itself fail.
My instructions failed for Strange Loop, who did not access the control vortex and successfully make his personal control system fail in loose cognition / intense mystic altered state.
But I had already (a year ago; 2023-2024) realized, I cannot predict loss of control for you if you don’t adopt my mental worldmodel.
I am NOT telling ppl “when you loose cognition you WILL experience abiality to make our your control go unstable.”
Rather, I CAN only assert:
The mind in loose cognition / intense mystic altered state , has the POTENTIAL to POSSIBLY make the personal control system fail, to transcend stable control and demonstrate:
The Egodeath Theory Doesn’t Work!! Thanks a Lot, Strange Loop 😠 [no guar]
This is a much more fundamental problem than merely Kafei misinterpreting my special usage of the term ‘determinism’ in 2007 main article.
Guaranteed Technique of Egodeath; If This Prediction/ Prophecy of Achieving Doom-Threat & fully killing childthinking Fails, the my theory has been Disconfirmed, FALSIFIED! BEEN DEBUNKED! [no guar]
Then trashcan the Egodeath Theory, because it has been falsified. the Egodeath theory has proved to be WORTHLESS and FALSE.
That is the crude Popper theory, which is completely divorced from messy historical reality.
“The Scientific Method” is nothing but a tale, a reasoning, a conjecture; an armchair sky-castle, that collapses the moment you compare it to messy historical reality.
Popper tells a story about , a speculation about how Science proceeds.
Join the long line of debunkers of such 7th-grade tale; the reality is opposite of such FAKE CONFABULATED JUST-SO STORIES ABOUT HOW SCIENCE WORKS.
I guarantee this general pattern. I cannot guar a partic instance of this pattern, for a specific person & session.
This picture, f145 row 1 L, or f134 row 1 L, is not guaranteeing that the trader must stand on right leg or else certainly will have loss of control/ control instability.
f145 row 1 Left: Teaching the cubensis traders
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Or, threatening them: I guarantee you will, in this session, lose control, experience the threat of catestrophic loss of control.
The experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control AS A SUCCESSFUL MATURATION DEMONSTRATION CAPABILITY.
To be mature is to be able to bring yourself to cybernetic climax by the god, higher transpersonal transcendent control system.
unless you agree with my theory of no-free-will/ monopossibility/ puppethood/ monolithic, autonomous control
f134 row 1 L: Class and Trees
Crop by Michael Hoffman
f177 vertical: Stand right foot & Hellmouth rams
Stand right foot held up by God and avoid / also, burn your ram up , burn up your chjild thinking; burn up DEPENDING RELYING on , your child egoic thinking/ freewill thinking
moved from page: Journal of Psychedelic Studies, where I describe the journal:
neurobio? bleh.. [I am against, bc Neurofoo is a hostile invader that kills and replaces the most important, cognitive approach]
[“psychology” — I can MUCH better deal with “psychology”‘s nonsense folly, than neurofoo’s.]
“Psychedelic Philosophy Positions”? What’s that supposed to mean — “only mind exists” vs. “only matter exists”? [percep dualism]
🤔🤨 ‘philosophy’? What’s that supposed to mean?
Chris Letheby’s false dichotomy between, on Mondays he asserts “only matter exists” and on Tuesday afternoon he asserts “only mind exists” — then on Wednesday, he provides “leadership” of Psychedelic Science, via halfwit Psychedelic Philosophy, by ridiculing mysticism because — according to Letheby’s dorm-student confusion — mysticism is the view that “only mind exists”.
But when I was a dorm student, instead, in Electrical Engineering in April 1987, I formed the lexicon and model, mental construct processing [MCP] & loose cognitive association binding [LCAB] — not “only mind exists”.
The trees are drawing me near, I’ve got to find out why 🌪
[anthropology? see Ruck’s jumble of heavy-handed confabulated academic Structuralism theory, Anthropology Theory, tabu theory, & — by the way; almost forgot: entheogen scholarship]
[it’s online only journal, which confirms my speculation that only in 2019 did we become well-positioned to do expose of Wasson’s duplicity in censoring citation of Erich Brinckmann’s 1906 book Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings etc.]
Article by McPriest about Psychedelic Christianity
move my fulminations against McPriest to idea development page.
This is the main article by McC & P, that does a sh!tty, abysmal job of handling & dismissing the psychedelic origin of Christianity, by ignorant scholars who shouldnt be writing about sh!t they haven’t read about – “But we have read Muraresku, who has read Ruck, therefore we are qualified to write stuff dismissing the psychedelic origin of Christianity”
[how did this article pass review? Ans: Winkelman rebuts them, and Brown rebuts them, and they IGNORE Wink & Brown, who throw up their arms – “I give up; ignoramuses“] – Hunt Priest = “the” website about psychedelic Christianity, Ligare.org.
McC&P: “IT’S OF NO IMPORTANCE OR RELEVANCE THAT Christianity MAY HAVE HAD PSYCHEDELIC ORIGINS, FOR OUR ARTICLE ABOUT INTRODUCING FOR THE FIRST TIME, PSYCHEDELICS – ARTIFICIALLY & UNNATURALLY — INTO Christianity – OUR INNOVATION PROPOSAL“:
I am echoing the published sentiments of Wink & Brown.
It is disgusting, the flippant, careless, biased, prejudiced, IGNORANT dismissal by McC+P of the psychedelic origin of Christianity
It sucks how McC+P treat Muraresku – and the catch flak rightly for this — as if he is definitive of the theory & evidence for the psychedelic origin of Christianity:
WTF?! SO NOW THE INVADER ALIENS FROM TOP DOWN PHONY ARTIFICIAL AUTHORITIES…
“The Enterprise” [per Robert Forte of Ruck Committee] has delivered down to us, from on high, our new representatives, hard-working alien outsider expert promoter who arrived on the scene 5 minutes ago, and was assigned to travel the world on a million dollar obscene budget, to meet with all the Big Names, to write a book for the Masses – all the real people who’ve been in the field forever rightly grumble.
When Jan Irvin, in contrast, met with the 80 top authorities, he wrote an expose of the whole operation, social engineering. Unlike Michael Pollan & Mura, who wrote fake, engineered “best sellers”. Those authors did great work but the System STINKS. The fakeness of it. Artificial.
I hope i do not here reify the boundary, “establishment vs. grassroots”.
WHO THE F IS “Michael Pollan” and “Brian Muraresku”? Who appointed them as the authorities, fkking 5 minutes ago?! Stinks!
These newcomers (I mean The Enterprise backing them) think they can just march in and define the whole field, like gods mechanically dropped down onto the stage, appointed by the archons rulers of this world.
NOW MICHAEL FKKING POLLAN [not really relevant directly here, but same idea] AND BRIAN FKKING MURARESKU ARE USED AS IF THEY ARE THE REPRESENTATIVES of the theory of the psychedelic origin of Christianity. I guess Ruck “Dr Secret” fumbled the ball and now Mura & Pollan deserve to run off w/ it , what a fkking disaster.
I read most of this article & the reply & meta-reply article.
Winkelman (editor) & Brown strongly call for psychedelic origins of Christianity, but McC & Priest ignore them and dismiss the idea, and other reviewers insult the idea – HAVEN’T YOU HEARD? ALLEGRO’S BEEN DEBUNKED
Greedy opportunist scholarship: Squeeze full value out of the worst writers on topic of mushroom imagery in Christian art
I transformed wretched Hatsis treatment to gain extreme value, eg decoding Great Canterbury Psalter thanks to Hatsis’ 2013 Dancing Man original pdf article published in UK journal. (long full version of his article
I didn’t have that version; i had the over-flashy truncated 2015 version
Xmas 2015 decoded mapping 2 legs to 2 mental models as hypoth, in the Egodeath Yahoo Group.
That hypoth was massively confirmed Nov 2020 f134 row 1 left Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter, leading to full decoding of all mushroom imagery in Christian art / mushroom-trees genre, in terms of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
I transformed wretched awful treatment by Letcher….
When judged as a way of debunking Ruck the Secret Amanita paradigm , Shroom is pretty good — except mis-citing Stamets instead of Ruck Committee (1st Gen), and pretending that debunking that is same as debunking mushroom imagery in Christian art.
When judged as an attempt to debunk the entire broad psychedelic gospels theory, Shroom is really, really BAD, b/c only handles 1 isolated instance.
I transformed the bad Hug article to gain lots of value from it. mostly Foraging Wrong; also Ronald Huggins’ 2022 article “Dizzy, Dancing or Dying?”
I extracted/converted to get much value from book by Rush 2011 AFTER I brilliantly TRANSFORM his work.
Panofsky’s terrible arg’n: after I transformed it, it was highly valuable, I turned it into a source of much value.
I am feeling pretty good, satisfied, with my interp of MICA Deniers’ works. Have good, very good handle on them. their pros & cons. I am the most sure-footed guide to these works.
Not to go up against Cyberdisciple / Brown team though, they are formidable. We are, with Samo, the 2nd Gen entheogen scholars. the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm.
Early Christianity was against altar, temple, priest, sacrifice, worship, bowing down
My Feb. 15, 2025 email about history of altar temple worship priest sacrifice worship service REJECTED by early Christianity:
Dear Priest who conducts the sacrifice ritual in the temple building on the rock altar,
I don’t really think our psychedelic church needs our doctrine/ practice to include altar, temple, priest, & animal sacrifice.
Tom Wadsworth would approve of our lack of those 4 elements or analogies for those elements; SGC, like early Christianity, omits those 4 elements.
Unbelieveable amazing, quite surprising:
Original Christianity didn’t have “worship”, “service”, or “worship service”, or bowing down.
Rejected “temple” concepts.
Christianity had a different relationship with the divine — perhaps more a personal relationship as scholars claim about the character of Christian mysticism.
Trained theologian/ Christian (Tom Wadsworth) reports that early Christians were seen as atheists because they did not use temple, or (animal) sacrifice, or priest, or altar.
But then, gradually, later Christianity couldn’t resist adding those (traditional Jewish / Hellenistic-type) features back in again.
So in later Christianity, you can find analogies of
“Eucharist = sacrifice“,
priest, [an elite conductor of the sacrifice ritual]
temple (eg: “church means a building” instead of a gathering),
altar [vs. simply a table or dinner table, or perhaps symposium banquet]
— Michael
Presbyterian church had great classical music & organ which I recorded & produced but wow the lead preacher became so toxic! so aggressive & accusing, that long-timers spoke up at brunch about it! I bailed.
So, in this way, I can relate to others who were “traumatized by church” – in my own way, I was.
Not traumatized by Christianity, but by: they changed church into a kind of activism that was bad & accusatory; toxic. Very much not what I signed up for.
Thank goodness your site is back up. Your interp of Mithras is the most profound, highly useful for the Egodeath theory: revelation of eternalism (heimarmene, fatedness) – and then, practically, transcending that rock prison.
In books like Wouter Hanegraaff on hermeticism, I automatically go straight for the most important level: fixed stars.
But in his book I arrived at Alderaan: planet gone entirely ie his model has no stars!
But stars = the most important level! Everything revolves around that: arriving there, then rising above that.
Hane. is confused by the fancy tricks of late ant’qy.
Bold history theory:
Early antiquity glorified heimarmene/fatedness prison;
Late antiquity instead went higher, transcending fatedness (ie, in their interpretation framework).
Bold history theory:
Not true that Christianity invented freewill – so did Gnostm, Herm’m, Neopl., Mithr’m. Competitive marketing of the era.
After the Psilocybin state (in which eternalism/ heimarmene was experienced) wears off, return to ordinary state, but now, qualified freewill thinking – = rising above fatedness.
Bold history theory:
Everyone said no Psilocybin mushrooms in Europe history.
2006 they admitted wrong – shift goalposts:
ok, there was one type, only: Lib Cap. but no one knew about it.
Baloney/ overstatement. Europe had many Psilocybin mushrooms and 1200 AD heyday fully developed use of it, proved by mushroom imagery in Christian art. Every year, ppl get closer to admitting my view.
Hanegraaff’s footnote says he doesn’t know whether to put the FIXED stars in PLANETARY level 7 Saturn, or Ogdoad. Utterly baffling to me how he can be so clueless on this most basic possible point of geocentric model.
I love astral ascent mysticism: using geo cosmology as mystic transformation framework, especially your area: yes, we pass through Saturn gate to reach fixed stars prison fatedness (boo hoo) but that is not the end! pass through higher gate – what to call it? from 8th to 9th.
can call it the fixed stars gate or the empyrean gate (5 diff. spellings) to step outside cosmic rock snake-wrapped wrapped by the heimarmene snake.
todo: shrink emojis NOTE I PUT RAM OVER ROCK OF SACRIFICE JUST PRIOR TO GOING THROUGH THE TEMPLE DOOR IN EADWINE IMAGES.
Eadwine/ Great Canterbury Psalter shows that to get into the temple, the price of entry = child thinking = sacrifice ram / ox.
My focus here: the rock altar is right at the temple doorway, or IN the doorway. That means:
You can’t bring child thinking impurity – monolithic, autonomous control, into the eternalism temple guarded gate/door. pollusion, = instability that casts you back through the gate in terror of loss of control.
Get into holy city = get into temple, zone of the purified, repudicated possibilism-thinking although you totally always use possibilism-thinking – but now, qualified; redeemed, sins forgiven, etc.
Thomas Hatsis’ site has been down. mid-grade entheogen scholarship but beggars/choosers. too few ppl in field of entheogen scholarship.
John Rush died and his site went down including gallery for book about mushroom imagery in Christian art.
I got mad at my host for egodeath.com and built out my WordPress site instead.
I assume the material world exists AND I emphasize entirely [against “Cognitive Neuroscience”], in the Egodeath theory, all of our experience is mental constructs.
Citation Shortcuts
Goal: alternate between short & long form while writing.
Shortcuts: Brinckmann
Erich Brinckmann’s 1906 book Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings tsmp brinc1906
Shortcuts: Dizzy
long form: Ronald Huggins’ 2022 article “Dizzy, Dancing or Dying? The Misappropriation of MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 27v, as ‘Evidence’ for Psychedelic Mushrooms in Christian Art” dddm hug2022
med form: Ronald Huggins’ 2022 article “Dizzy, Dancing or Dying?” ddd
long form: Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case” hug2024
med form: Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging Wrong” rhfw
short form: Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article hfwa
Citation-style shortcuts/ acronyms
New type of keyboard shortcut/ acronym: citation-style shortcuts/acro’s
hug22
hug24
astrosham1
astrosham2
irvin2006
irvin2008 = thm
irvin2009 = smc 40th ann ed.
smc = allegro1970 = smc (book, vs. serialization)
bb16
bb19
samo97
samo98
pan1
pan2
was68
Shortcuts: What Food the Centaurs Ate
Robert Graves’ 1957 article “What Food the Centaurs Ate” wfca graves57
Published in New Yorker, according to diary entry found by Cyberdisciple.
graves58 book STEPS (s t e p s) not the article that briefly mentions kykeon recipe, that graves 73 or journal editor 1970 got mixed up
graves60 book Food for Centaurs
graves70
graves73
New strategy for shortcuts: multiple shortcuts for same result
Central Importance of “Entry into Jerusalem” [gate]
The scene smells most important.
Saint Martin art centralizes it. Golden Psalter has a good version. Palm branches have varying shape like feather.
You come through gate of city to welcome — epiphany — the ruler/ emperor. Non branching control. Psilocybin. Cut branches.
REAL ART CRITIC: Donkey should stand on right foot, not left. Right foot art is superior.
My Page About Blading Control to Make It Seize Failed [guar]
Email 2, Feb 15 2025 [failure to seize]
Egodeath community member Strange Loop, in episode of Max F’s Transcendent Knowledge Podcast, reported not being able to bad trip in my defined way despite following my page that tries to instruct how to do that; how to contact the control instability vortex (Elijah’s whirlwind chariot up to heaven).
That’s a failure/problem for me.
If my description of exactly how the control seizure climax works (to engender new life & sacrifice; to demonstrate disproof of egoic control power) were adequate, Strange Loop would have been able. He tested my instruction page, and my page failed the testing (unlike Cyberdisciple’s experience, which experientially confirmed the Egodeath theory).
The mind has to first locate the bad trip gate (guarded by snake dragon) while pursuing treasure, and then, figure how to transform to pass through gate to get treasure – golden apples, tree of life.
Irvin’s book AstroSham uses my photos of dried Amanita proving the merit of “golden apples” analogy.
My 2010 photo of shiny red Amanita with no while veil remnants proves the “apple/red fruit” analogy. Holy tomato.
Pop beginners’ spirituality = newage = Unity [unity]
Some ppl continue to equate psychedelic mystical experience with unity. But recent scholars call for a broader model of mystical experience that’s not limited to the unity experience/ framework.
I continue to see “explanations” of psychedlic enlightenment as “unity”.
But I experienced that kind of unity at the START of my research in 1986!
That was a year before discovering advanced spirituality/ mystic experiencing, ie 2-level control; dependent control; block-universe eternalism – ie, real, adult, full, “perfected”, completed initiate.
Aptitude testing claimed that I’m off the charts (too much for their job placement model) at everything, including spatial – except poor fine motor.
I was a little skeptical, and credited coffee.
I felt that I only scored well b/c I cheated by coffee.
Constructive Corrective Criticism of Brown that Builds the Field per Cyberdisciple
I’m never angered by Brown. It’s extremely interesting/ intriguing, their cluster of errors and contradictory narratives/ reasoning/ positioning.
Browns don’t merely make separate errors of botan. ID’n. I had to study in full detail the book & article together, to piece together their reasoning and story/tale. All their treatment around their non-field-research “during our field research” around Walburga tapestry, is a garbled mess, a tangled web of folly.
I criticised Brown to Cyberdisciple recently, saying “Brown doesn’t understand at all the ramif. of the Panofsky letters & Wasson’s mistreatment of them.”
Brown 2019 merely said valuable b/c the art historian & MICA Denier Panofsky admitted mushroom-trees might mean mushrooms — Panofsky did not admit that.
It’s much more interesting & serious, what Panofsky & Wasson actually wrote – or omitted. Soon after I said that to Cyberdisciple, Browns confirmed that my Nov. 2020 – Jan. 2025 interpretation of Panofsky’s letters was profoundly better, more substantive, than Browns’ initial 2019 assessment.
It’s very personal, my anger at Wasson: in 2006, I wanted to see what citations Panofsky gave Wasson – but Wasson refused to give them to me.
I wanted to read all of the discussion by art historians of mushroom-trees – but Wasson wouldn’t let me, despite his (angering) B.S. haranguing mycologists for failing to “consult” the art authorities.
Kind of like we tell Hatsis “STFU about your superior methodology, and instead DO decent methodology, instead of talking about doing it.”
Wasson, STFU about “you failed to ‘consult’ art historians”, and instead, give us the damn citations, you Phony, obstructionist!“
I am soon going to gather my accusations from my 2006 article, and I am going to make the case as much as possible, that I in effect, caught Wasson’s censorship + Panofsky’s feeble citations, back in 2006.
I wrote around 5 short paragraphs that essentially amount to: “I bet Panofsky provided feeble citations, and Wasson censored them.”
My biggest mistake in my 2006 article about Plaincourault fresco, Wasson, & Allegro:
I failed to note that right where I expected Panofsky to provide citations to back up his big-talking scholarly claims, in that exact spot, Wasson writes ellipses “. . . .” in place of the expected citation(s), therefore, I bet there’s a censored citation(s) right there.
I didn’t speculate “or Panofsky may have even attached art images of mushroom-trees.” – he attached two.
I haven’t heard back from Ruck / Hoffman whether these art images photostats are in the drawer at Harvard.
And I failed to include a list item at start of article, in the “Takeaways” section, saying “Wasson apparently withholds citations, dishonestly, from Panofsky, and I bet it’s a feeble citation that actually supports MICA Affirmers.”
I now in 2025 am going to gather what I did write, in that article, that’s tantamount to asserting those things.
My 2006 article’s accusations were confirmed, by Brown 2019, 13 years later.
Prayer
I’m inept at Christian popular prayer, but, I have deep substantive ideas for “real” / esoteric prayer, and, I now more understand Christian mysticism vs. other forms: Christian is about 2-level control; about marriage of transpersonal & personal control levels.
wrmspirit questions in email feb 15 2025 [mystical experience]
wrmspirit wrote:
“No such word as Staceanism. What does it mean? What does it refer to?
“I absolutely love mysticism, because it is the portal into God’s arms.
“When discussing, refuting any claims for and against ‘mysticism’, shouldn’t dosage be mentioned as a control factor?
“Isn’t there a difference between degrees of shadow?
“Isn’t it true that what becomes, what opens into mysticism, is dependent upon dosage, differences within human experiences and interpretations and difference in age of receiver?
“How is true debate determined when it is God playing tug of war with words. The latter here, in and of itself, shuts everything down.”
I wrote:
Definition of Stacean, Staceanism, Einsteinian, Minkowskian, Jamesian
Stacean means the William James 1902 & Walter Stace 1960 model of mystical experience, which is, in Griffiths’ words, “positive-balanced” (and thus false, or — at best – inadequate and basically incomplete).
There is recently increasing criticism of the Stacean model of mystical experience: Staceanism is only correct in a limited way.
When the Mysticism Wars in Psychedelic Science argue about “mysticism”, they are not actually talking about mysticism; they are merely, instead, arguing over Staceanism.
Staceanism is mysticism as mis-conceived by 2006-era Psychedelic Science, based on Stace’ book in 1960, which is based on James 1902.
Probably a number of writers in that debate have used the word Stacean.
I might be the first to use the cynical construction “Staceanism” to disparage his so-called “mysticism”.
Studerus’ 11-Factors q’air article, page 1, literally argues or takes for granted:
As Erik Davis writes, this “science” basis for Psychedelic Mysticism research is “vouchsafed” by outdated and dubious Stace 1960, over half a century old.
I was glad recently to see other critics of Psychedelic Science/Mysticism use the term ‘Stacean’ and maybe ‘Staceanism’ – check Erik Davis & my page list of articles in the Moving Past Mysticism debate: some such articles have used this legit standard contruction, this is grammatical:
Jamesian, Wilberian, wrmspiritean, Max Freakoutean, Einsteinian / Einsteinean
Dosage: Why non-drug meditation, Amanita, & non-drug entheogens are fake and inadequate [the Reference]
Why only Psilocybin Is the Teacher of Righteousness [the Reference]
Why Psilocybin is the gold standard of Reference for mental model transformation/ maturation [the Reference]
Dosage level is a big emphasis made by Hopkins/ Griffiths teams: They emphasize that degree of mystical experience & challenging experience is a function of dosage level.
Many of their articles / research defines 3 dosage levels of synth Psil: eg 10 mg, 20 mg, 30 mg = low, med, high dosage.
The source of mystical experience is not significantly other than Psilocybin.
Non-drug meditation can slightly produce the mystic altered state, but not sufficiently reliably & intensely to produce THE effect.
Mere “A” Mystical Experience (eg Unity feeling), vs. the Ultimate, Definitive Mystical Experience: transformation from possibilism to eternalism [mystical experience]
“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.
Recognizing My Breakthrough Experiences in My Posts
I’ve read, to some extent, most of your [wrmspirit] recent emails.
You seem intuitive/perceptive, or lucky guesses/assessments, about which of my recent posts/ findings are signif. for me.
I was glad you recognized them. eg
Letcher Only Needed to Use a Single Instance of Non-Secret Mushroom-Tree to Debunk 1st-Gen Entheogen Scholarship, Which Brittly Identified with the Secret Amanita Paradigm
Today I realized Letcher is right that he only has to use 1 isolated instance of mushroom-tree to disprove Ruck Committee’s bunk, false-based, SECRET mushroom theory.
Letcher screwed up by citing in p 35 endnote 31 the ONLY entheogen scholars who do NOT worship the idol of SECRET = psychedelic: Stamets & Gartz (they are 2nd Gen, so, not idol worshippers of “secret”).
They don’t let the “secret” tail wag the “entheogens” dog.
In effect, Letcher 2006 noticed that 1st gen entheogen scholarship — Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck — made the “secret” tail wag the “entheogens” dog, and Letcher EASILY destroyed and debunked Ruck’s particular theory/ paradigm/ storytime narrative.
Letcher holds up that narrative for ridicult, just like I do.
Letcher is correct, here.
Letcher is wrong to extrapolate – that is fallacious — from debunking the Secret Amanita paradigm, to the ACT LIKE he disproved broadly the broad mushroom imagery in Christian art theory; the psychedelic gospels theory. He did NO SUCH THING AT ALL.
I have destroyed & disproved Ruck’s the Secret Amanita paradigm.
In no way have I destroyed & disproved the psychedelic gospels theory – that is an entirely different matter!
Only the malformed MONSTROSITY YALDABAOTH *version* of the psychedelic gospels theory was disproved easily by Letecher and all it took was 1 isolated mushroom-tree.
For the legit purpose of disproving specifically the the Secret Amanita paradigm VERSION of the psychedelic gospels theory, it’s true that AL only needed to treat a single instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
LETCHER IS VERY INVALID AND FALLACIOUS IN CLAIMING A BIGGER VICTORY THAN MERE DEFEAT OF RUCK/ the Secret Amanita paradigm.
It is SO easy to demolish/ disprove Ruck’s version of the psychedelic gospels theory you only need to show one instance that’s not in heretics’ place of worship.
Irvin demolishes even that; Irvin proves Plainc chapel is legit Catholic, NOT heretic!
So Ruck is WRONG on p. 14 “Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise” by Hoffman, Ruck, and Staples, in Entheos 1, 2001 when claiming the returning heretics “brazenly displayed the mushroom in THEIR” places of worship”.
Plaincourault chapel was not a heretical place of worship!
This means, even the Plaincourault fresco fails the ruck claim of being “secret” or restricted to only heretics’ places of worship displaying mushroom imagery.
I completely hold Ruck responsible for calling mushroom users heretics. He can’t hide behind his string in all 3 print Entheos: “so called heretical sects” – nobody is calling them heretics but YOU ruck!
Hatsis kind of backs me up on this – though I would never partner with Hatsis, who is toxic, uncooperative, adversarial.
It so happens that Hatsis argues same as me here, there is no evidence in 1200 that Church said Amanita is heretical.
Ruck fabricated that, and it is a bad idea to fabricate that; counterproductive.
Much of the goodness and inspiration for Rucks’ 2001 “Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise” by Hoffman, Ruck, and Staples, in Entheos 1, 2001 was actually to the credit of Samorini 98. (= 96, 97)
Ruck betrayed (he let us see) how bad his strategy, because as soon as Ruck stopped recycling Samo 98, Ruck went straight back to awful narrative of the Secret Amanita paradigm – which is not really directly found on p. 14 of “Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise” by Hoffman, Ruck, and Staples, in Entheos 1, 2001.
Samo 98 momentarily got Ruck headed in right direction – but Ruck quickly reverted to the wrong direction (focusing on ‘secret’ drama instead of psychedelics), and so in 2002/2003, I officially bailed and split; ie declared that my approach is contrasted against the Ruck paradigm.
I was never “in” 1st Gen entheogen scholarship – I guess i am willing to identify as “2nd gen entheogen scholar”, but still on the whole the Egodeath theory is not within entheogen scholarship; the Egodeath theory stands outside of — and above — entheogen scholarship, and descends down from on high on wings of angels to redeem and lift up the fallen, earthbound, unable-to-fly, 1st-Gen entheogen scholarship of 1998-2002.
The inability of 1st-Gen entheogen scholarship to fly was proved by the book by Hoffman & Ruck, Entheogens, Myth & Human Consciousness, which lacks any content about mental model transformation, mental construct processing, loose mental functioning binding / loose cognition enabling experiencing heimarmene; mythemes
The book lacks how various specific mythemes describe by analogy the mental model transformation effects of bona fide psychedelics (not deliriant Amanita or Scopolamine), eg:
the book The Sacred Mushroom & The Cross by John Allegro, 1970 smcl
The Sacred Mushroom & The Cross by Allegro smcm
Sacred Mushroom & The Cross smc
Citation Shortcuts: The Holy Mushroom
The book The Holy Mushroom by Jan Irvin 2008 thmm
The Holy Mushroom thm
I Accept Brown Classing Me as 2nd-Gen entheogen scholar – I reject the framing from 1st-Gen entheogen scholarship [mica]
Thomas Hatsis flubs and projects. He unthinkingly assumes that Brown & I came from the Allegro 1970 framework.
I only heard of allegro 1998/1999, and thn, my main use of Allegro was ahistoricity, but his book SMC was poor for that and for entheogen scholarship.
I cannot be any LESS influenced by Allegro.
I was I always held myself as outsider to entheogen scholarship – or, a DROP DOWN FROM ON HIGH VISTOR to set straight the directionless field of entheogen scholarship by bringing my hallowed Transcendent Knowledge that cannot have come from entheogen scholarship either gen 1 or …. gen 2??
Gen 2 = 1996 gartz / stamets… not Hein; Hein’s DNA is Gen 1 : the Secret Amanita paradigm, abusing Psilocybin mushrooms as a mere supporting role, temporary cast.
Obviously, easily, Samo 98 is the looming towering point of ref for everyone; clearly, self evident, Samo 98 is the huge beacon of light explosion announcing end of the world for Gen 1. So: coincidence:
In 1998, Samo article mushroom-trees in Christian art
In 1998, I looked to religion or myth or enth-myth like Ruck textbook, and Samo sent me articles not really long after that… by 2004 at latest, probably.
I finished outlining core theory feb 1997. 1998 started learning Mystery Religions more than Gnosis magazine 1990s showed me.
That’s an amazing finding from maybe 2010 bookstore: amazingly, there are no Mystery Religions books in the spir’l bookstores! not even theos (but their library might have them.
1998 marks start of 2nd Gen entheogen scholarship bc samo 98 article & b/c I began in earnest, using myth & history / entheogen scholarship to corrob my core theory;
by 2007 my main article really great including pictures i failed to comprehend branching in art, found that by 2013 nov – tho 2001 posted branching in Physics vs manyworlds bad QM braching vs spacetime nonbranching.
You Better Get Straight on the Mushroom Imagery in Bernward Doors, Column, & Chandelier [mica]
Pop Sike song “Kicks” by Paul Revere & The Raiders
Bernward; [especially when i finally broke out short gallery of the 7 Liberty Cap mushroom-trees: fruit of long years/weeks of work to finally get straight]
Splendor Solis cover of Irvin AstroSham book; [due to timing, hiatus, etc, I may have acted cool but this was a pretty big deal discovery, a “sign” of green light]
Conceptual Errors, Misinterpretations, and Bad Argumentation from Entheogen Scholars [sudden summarizing of most of my flaw-finding, was a really great thing to do – i realized, after reflecting on the pros & cons of Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case” and other MICA Deniers] https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/02/03/conceptual-errors-misinterpretations-and-bad-argumentation-from-entheogen-scholars/
Entheogen scholars must correct each other [mica]
My recent post summarizing what’s mistaken, by entheogen scholars – I have to backtrack to trace my steps to answer: why was i inspired to write that post that i threw together so quickly & effectively the other day?
Answer: I have been struggling recently, and 2007, to assess: MICA Deniers suck so bad, it’s infuriating, YET I had to give Letcher 2006 Shroom no less no fewer than 4 of 5 stars.
Reading Huggins’ Foraging Wrong, he finds plenty of screwups by entheogen scholars, such as Chs Stang saying Great Canterbury Psalter > Day 3 shows “bowl of mushrooms”. That’s quite a poor statement/ interp/ framing by Stang, if Stang says that.
Huggins points out that Brown is simply wrong & false, when Brown claims that Day 4’s 4 plants appear throughout Great Canterbury Psalter. They do not.
What appears — as Huggins starts, but only starts, to point out: combinations of features of those 4 plants, or like those 4 plants, and of trees, — THAT is what appears thoroughout Great Canterbury Psalter.
So Huggins is JUSTIFIED in saying that MICA Affirmers are full of baloney. That’s why I wrote my page. My page conforms to Browns’ call for a database catalog to organize commentaries.
That Brown catalog would be more effective than poor articles by overwhelmed entheogen scholars or overwhelmed MICA Deniers like the grossly underinformed Letcher 2006 book Shroom that considers 1% of the evidence; a SINGLE instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
I had cog. dissonance between “Huggins & Letcher suck so bad” vs. “Hatsis & esp. Huggins make some solid points against mushroom imagery in Christian art”.
Huggins credits Hatsis for pointing out Ruck’s huge error about Dancing Man cap color – again, probably even more of a faceplant than Brown re: Walburga tapestry.
I wrote the page/article Conceptual Errors, Misinterpretations, and Bad Argumentation from Entheogen Scholars b/c we MICA Affirmers need to correct each other which means I needed to list — in one spot — my main corrections of bad interps by entheogen scholars.
Friend says I shouldn’t waste time on MICA Deniers eg Huggins – I disagree!
I can’t deny, that MICA Deniers point out & have a field day, with the stupid mistakes made by Ruck, for example, Ruck in Irvin’s book by Allegro, horribly extreme screwup by Ruck, when Ruck claims Dancing Man has red cap. Plainly it’s blue!
How the hell did Ruck make such a colossal, obvious, basic mistake?!
A separate question is: Rank how bad the various errors by MICA Affirmers.
Ruck’s huge screwup (blame the Amanita Primacy Fallacy) is probably worse even than Browns’ failure to botanically identify Amanita’s typically/ often serrated base.
The most sophisticated-level error made by entheogen scholarship/ MICA Affirmers: they are wrong to say art means mushrooms; that is NOT the message.
As [censored by Wasson] Panofsky/Huggins points out, branching is a major question, failed to address by most entheogen scholars.
You can’t say “Huggins sucks, ignore him”, when Huggins astutely picks up on censored-Panofsky who says ‘the main reason i reject mushroom-trees purposefully meaning mushrooms is b/c they have branches.”
It’s LAZY and shirking scholarly responsibility to simply declare “HUGGINS IS BAD & WRONG”. Not true. Huggins makes many valid points, and branching is an ESSENTIAL point.
Letcher’s Shroom book is 4 or arguably 5 stars re: recounting pop history of entheogen scholarship – even though the book is only 1 star, re: mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Welcome to scholarship Hell: Your job is to sort the wrong from the potentially right [ie, can be transformed by me, to be right & useful] aspects within a work.
Hold your nose while you separate the awful from the pretty good.
In discussion with Brown, re: emphasis Brown added in 2019 article re: Marcia Kupfer describing Saint Martin “Entry Jeru”, I realized that branching is the MAIN message, in a way bigger than merely “mushrooms”.
Scholarship is the activity of separating wheat from chaff [mica]
I recently struggled to get as much from studying Golden Teacher (a Cuben. strain) as from the synthetic stuff studied previously (1985-2020). [this intro continues below at: rendered “speechless”]
So far, I like the book TIK by Muraresku a lot more than Cyberdisciple likes it – i like the bold assertive speculation about early Christianity using ergot [or Psil.]
All books & theories are glass half full; a mix of good & bad.
Scholarship is the hard work of rightly dividing the scriptures that is, identifying what is correct from Hatsis, deniers, even Panofsky, Irvin, Ronald Huggins (2022 Dancing Man article & 2024 Canterbury article), and that awful yet pretty good book Shroom by Andy Letcher 2006.
Ken Wilber books against Quantum Mysticism: 1984: Quantum Questions, edited by Ken Wilber.
What book was around 2010-2015, about history of dubious Pop Quantum Mysticism? tbd
I struggled so hard after my 4 star review of Shroom, re: whether to reduce to 3 stars b/c Andy Letcher’s MICA Denial is so awful.
MICA: mushroom imagery in Christian art
Letcher literally uses 1 instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art, to dismiss the entire topic, and uses incredibly bad reasoning (not secret proves not mushroom — non sequitur! Does Not Follow!).
Wretched, awful, logical fallacies by MICA Deniers:
* MICA Affirmers are bad because we don’t care about mundane details.
* MICA Deniers are bad because they don’t care about good argumentation.
Of greater value is Letcher’s reply to my review, at his site, where he claims a chain of 4 things we cannot prove (my interp. in Nov. 2020 of Great Canterbury Psalter proved all 4 points + 1 even greater point).
Exoteric-type Mythicism is lame and they need a 3rd alternative like us mythic/esoteric Christians.
I can optionally provide that but I must not take on additional burdens or that would prevent me from contributing anything.
I have to stay narrowly focused and deliver the basic Theory of mental model transformation, before making my todo list too long & onerous.
I’m thinking of the MythVision youtube channel.
It is so limited & sad when someone leaves literalist Christianity (exoteric) and is left empty handed with nothing but materialist atheism; full-time debunking.
When literalist religion is outgrown, most ppl are left empty handed, unless they discover esoteric-type mythicism.
Debunking is so limited – that’s a reason I spend some time but only spend limited time debunking the historicity of religious founder figures.
Unlike Atheists, I don’t care about Jesus’ ahistoricity. There are other esoteric Christians, who, like me, are apathetic about that.
What I care about is: how does Jesus figure describe – by analogy – mental model transformation to psychedelic eternalism?
/ end of Feb 15 2025 email
Psychedelic Cognitive Science and Psychedelic Neuroscience Are Fundamentally Different, Distinct, Contrasting Fields
Neuroscience Is Misused to Eliminate and Prevent Cognitive Science, a Kind of Eliminative Reductionism
Nese Devenot defines ‘science’ narrowly and pits it against a call for multidisciplinary “psychedelic studies”, the opposite of Houot’s new book advocating a “science discoverer explorer” framing/narrative.
My 1988 theory, the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence, including the mytheme theory of 2023, originates from STEM, including Science & Engineering, and useful Technology.
Math: I got the Minkowsky book, w/ 1908 articles, about block universe, non-branching (opposite of manyworlds) – 1988 the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence was influenced by Minkowski but — unlike Quantum Mysticism — this eternalism-based mysticism is in no way based on or dependent on Minkowski’s spacetime math framework.
Ancients described block universe experience without needing Modern Physics.
Ken Wilber in 1980s wrote: There’s overlap between transcendent psychospiritual dev’mt and Physics, but psychospir devmt is not based on or dependent on Physics.
I define Loose Cognitive Science (though I am anti-Neuroscience).
To advocate my truly Cognitive Phen’y approach, I have to kick Neuroscience to the curb.
[GTFO, Neuro reductionism! You’re NOT going to take over and eliminate Cog Sci, which is ALWAYS how NeuroBullsh!t is mis-used.]
The Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) is half bunk, b/c based on wrong, bad, false so-called “mysticism” which is not mysticism but is Staceanism (1960) instead.
The Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) is much worse, omits 18 of 21 of Dittrich’s Angst dimension items: Ppl should not use CEQ; use OAV 1994’s Angst dimension instead.
I’ve taken to writing “psychedelic pseudo science”.
The field is in the pre-Science phase, aspiring to become Science one day.
It can’t be Science until my simple model of mental model transformation transformation.
Cognitive scientists are not equipped to tolerate the Psychedelic state until able to function within the psychedelic eternalism model of control, with 2-level control.
Until then, the dragon monster rules this pre-Science territory and we can’t get through the guarded gate.
“Argues for the establishment of psychedelic studies as a legitimate interdisciplinary field.
“Emphasizes the cultural and philosophical dimensions of psychedelic experiences.
“Critiques the current focus on objective scientific research, advocating for a broader dialogue that includes humanistic perspectives.
“Calls for deconstruction of disciplinary boundaries to foster a more comprehensive understanding of the implications of psychedelics across various domains.”
About Neşe Devenot
About the author: Neşe Devenot Johns Hopkins University, Faculty Member
“Neşe Devenot is the Medicine, Society & Culture Postdoctoral Scholar in Bioethics at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine
“Received her PhD in Comparative Literature & Literary Theory from the University of Pennsylvania. Her current project,
Chemical Poetics: The Literary History of Psychedelic Science
“explores the function of metaphor and other literary devices in narrative accounts of psychedelic experience.
She was a 2015-16 Research Fellow at the New York Public Library’s Leary Papers and a Research Fellow with the New York University Psilocybin Cancer Anxiety Study, where she participated in the first qualitative study of patient experiences.”
My “reason for downloading” the article
The Psychedelic RenaissanceTM — imposed top-down by the archons of this world — is bankrupt, as the companies are removing key words from their names and distancing themselves.
Every real person has taken a stance against the fake, imposed, medical therapy model.
I am regularly writing “psychedelic pseudo science”, because the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) is based on a false, pollyanna, “positive balanced” model (that’s Griffiths’ defense when challenged in a video interview by Charles Stang).
[should add: globally search and replace in the entire body of writings: change “mystical” to “Stacean”; change “mysticism” to “Staceanism”.
What’s being discussed and disputed is NOT mystical experience; everyone is focused instead on the wrong, false, Stacean model of “mystical experience”, which is not mystical experience in any adequate sense.
As you read, always cross out “mystical” and write “Stacean” instead.]
The Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) is the worst failure ever produced by “science”: it simply discards 18 of 21 Angst items from Dittrich’s OAV 1994, and replaces them by familiar-sounding “Grief” experiences instead; obviously the Marketing dept. took over.
By quirk, I’m the first to receive and review Houot’s book [became avail Feb 2 2025], which calls for a “scientific explorer/ discoverer” model instead of other frameworks such as Big Therapy.
“One can imagine deniers’ jaw- dropping thoughts of unbelief as “How the heck did he do this?””
My Email Reply ~Feb. 11, 2025
The long labor is rewarded by discoveries & a clear view of Bernward imagery, at long last.
The past 2-3 weeks, I have been slogging away, hammering away, still failing to get my arms around the set of tree imagery from Bernward, until 1-2 days ago.
Consider how many times, about 10 publications, since Stamets’ book PMotW 1996 (also Gartz’ book M.M.) — little bits of Bernward have been kicked around by M.I.C.A. Affirmers & Deniers; mushrm imagery in Christian art.
Finally there is an actual gallery — I am greedy though worn out, to add all the minor imagery as well, some 5 other motifs in Bernward, because only by presenting organized catalogs of ALL the imagery is full enough commitment, 100% vigorous total assertion of ALL of the imagery, to be consistent.
The past months, past years, since May 2023 (and count my 2007 critical review of Letcher’s book Shroom), I’ve been struggling to get a clear, organized view of Bernward, getting confused, making mistakes, correcting the mistakes, scrapping and re-doing the page from 2023.
After my usual initial doubt the other morning seeing the Eve Nursing image w/ mushroom hem, and then seeing in your [web search] pictures the nearby {floating mushroom hem} of the angel teaching Adam to work the land (a MUCH welcome corroboration), now I feel I have no choice but to be the extremist Ardent Advocate and vigorously assert, that:
Every similar image in Bernward means Psil mshrms; we *are* to count every last one of them, including imagery that’s doubtful when in isolation.
“I doubt the roof means Lib Cap, b/c that’s an odd, unpopular assertion, and when viewed in isolation, it means nothing.”
Too bad; the vigorous mushrm overlay filter reveals those shapes. My job is to inventory the shapes that match – not to persuade committed doubters & isolators.
Interpretation is not about an isolated image or 1 isolated Bernward Liberty Cap mushrm-tree. It’s about the entire genre of interlinked motifs.
Like my white boxes (a filter) around many features in Psalter major scenes:
The filter doesn’t lie: those are, in fact, the msh imagery – has nothing to do with artist intent or viewer interpretation; objectively, the filter reveals those images, eg a building roof topper that’s a ball on a stem —
A video about the ring chandelier explained the large elevated balls above each tower as “to distribute the light”. A metal, mushrm shape, “to distribute the light”, they explain!
My picture doesn’t show the msh toppers above 12 towers; see other angles:
So [4:59 pm, Feb. 11, 2025, or Feb. 9] — I now have increased the case, that just as the Psalter and Bernward show lib cap roofs, and mushrm roof toppers, we see the same shape on top of the 12 towers of the ring chandelier. I am the first entheogen scholar to even MENTION these.
Victory goes to the Bold; the maximal entheogen theory of religion.
I acknowledge the boldness of Samorini 1998 & Hoffman/Ruck/Staples 2001, as I do not shirk back but press the case FORWARD through to complete consistency and full vigor in the spirit of John Rush, who was as freewheeling and reality-detached, as he was bold.
It is understandable that after John Rush’s over-promising but disappointing book in 2011, we have broad skeptical replies like
Letcher 2006,
Hatsis 2013 articles,
Bennett 2021 article Fungi Paraeioeoieoiea
Huggins 2022 & 2024 articles
rolling their eyes and even:
Contradictory Positive and Negative, MICA Affirmer & Denier at same time
Brown joining in, to throw overboard Ardent Advocate John Rush AND even Walburga tapestry to seal & prove Browns’ certified skepticism (hyper-) & try to earn Brown credibility points via negation — at the same time as cashing in on Walburga by including it in gallery of Amanita imagery in both 2016 book & 2019 article.
“Walburga tapestry is not Amanita, so I win credibility points; AND, it is Amanita, so I win gallery points.”
Photo credit: Not Julie, since “during our field work”, they decided not to do field work – based on Irvin’s copy of photo, also provided by the abbey. As self-contradictory a mess as Ruck’s narrative.
Ruck Affirms mushroom imagery in Christian art at the same time as Ejecting that Evidence from Christianity and Assigning it to what Ruck HIMSELF Labels as “Heretical Sects”
Sort of like Ruck neutralizes his own evidence by forcing it into a confused mold of “yet more evidence that alien infiltration of The Mushrm made it even into the very heart of Christendom”; asserting such imagery but then discounting it as merely “heretical”.
Gotta be consistent, and don’t dither and self-contradict your narrative as is the hallmark of Ruck.
Recently, mid 2024 article in the Journal of Psychedelic Studies by McCarthy & Priest, claim that Brian Muraresku claims that Carl Ruck claims that the institutional church “elided” (got rid of) mushrooms, and I knew that’s a misrep. of Ruck.
I hastened to study Muraresku’s book TIK, but especially I was motivated to scour the two 2001 articles by the Ruck crew: Conj Eden + Daturas Virgin.
My re-study of Ruck’s 2001-2002 writings just confirmed: the Ruck narrative is an incoherent mess.
I’m still not sure what Mura. claims Ruck’s position is. I can’t blame McC & Priest; it’s hard to state the confused narrative of the moderate (aka minimal) entheogen theory of religion. Borrowed 2nd printing (hardcover) of Mura book TIK, and my own copy (9th printing hardcover).
I don’t think I have Ruck’s book Effluents of Deity, with or without its DVD gallery. Brown praises it, and claims there’s no gallery, a half truth (publisher failed to include their promised DVD).
Others have struggled too, as we see with Letcher’s 2006 book that dismissed mushroom imagery in Christian art purely by arguing that a single tree was not secret therefore doesn’t count (utterly ludicrous, and my early review called him on it).
It’s remarkable how good, broad scope, the 2001 Conjuring Eden article was – like the staggering famous “mother of all demos” when 1960s demo of 2010-era technology.
That article in Entheos Issue 1 did a pretty good job covering Bernward, if you completely comprehend the online gallery that supplemented the article. It did not show all 7 trees. It did not say there are 7.
And so, “refutations” of msh imagery in Bernward’s art act like there is only 1 tree. In fact there are not only 7 such trees, but also – NO ONE has mentioned — several other motifs of such imagery.
In Great Canterbury Psalter and Bernward, ppl get overwhelmed, they get fixated on the first image they see, and can’t imagine going deeper with 10x as much imagery being present.
My struggle, my being overwhelmed by Psalter & Bernward’s metalwork, is compensated by my incredible discoveries in the G C Psalter and finally, a summary of imagery in Bernward.
The ConjEden article was so good, building on Samo’s 1998 excellent article, I was spoiled: when Ruck Committee didn’t keep up that positive contribution, but they fell back to a negative, “secret” mental frame (limited to heretics; limited to elites; limited, limited always the emphasis), I broke from them — not that I ever came “from” entheogen scholarship.
I expected Samorini 1998 article –> ConjEden 2001 article –> to continue positively forward, but I felt by 2002, the field was in a retreat!
I wanted to keep that same trajectory going.
So I declared a break from them, I declared the maximal entheogen theory of religion – a commitment to extrapolate from Samo 1998 to ConjEden 2001 to my main article 2007, after my 2006 Plaincourault fresco article where I dismissed the dead end fixation on Allegro’s small mental world, again with its key word, “secret”.
As I am stressed about writing my articles and book for publication, it’s time to summarize my accomplishments, breakthroughs, ifield- field-transforming new theory+data+interp that has produced large shipments of ideal quality, ideal quantity of evidence, like I do every 6 months or few years.
I’m also struggling with how to communicate to ordinary people, but as done before, I write firstly for the Egodeath community, then share with broad audience.
I have come to think, that I must let go of expectations applied to me: I can’t worry about reception of my ideas; I have to just focus on expressing my ideas as-is, and not worry about how my proposed model is received. Otherwise it is too hard to write and I cannot write.
I can only write if there are no demands laid on my back. My theory IS WHAT IT IS, and the reception will be same: reception will be whatever it is.
“Preach the gospel to all; Christ’s sheep will hear.”
It’s not my job to save the world and convince unbelievers. My only job/ burden/ obligation is to clearly and honestly write up my ideas.
I am not burdened with trying to/ obligation to “persuade” anyone, who doesn’t like or doesn’t understand these basic ideas: transformation from possibilism to eternalism; the theory of psychedlic pre-existence; etc.
Noticing Branching and Non-Branching in Physics and Art
Listening to interview including manyworlds quantum mechanics being described skeptically as an “infinitely branching” model, as I posted in 2001 in the Egodeath Yahoo Group – long before any trace of perceiving ‘branching’ in religious art, as included in excellent pictures in my 2007 main article which I included for barely comprehended, tip of iceberg reasons:
“Look mummy, theres a mushroom – but ignore the malformed, wrong, bad, false branching one on the Left; look at the good, correct, non-branching, perfect literal cubensis on the Right.” (Eustace crossing river)
/ end of email
Odd Statements about Specifically Visionary Scenes in Bernward [mica]
Bernward Liberty Cap mushroom-trees are always “in visionary scenes” per Brown 2016 and who Brown cites on that point, that alleged claim: WTF IS A “VISIONARY SCENE”? T OR F CLAIM BY BROWN. NO ONE no one can list the 7 trees: BOIL THE Flotsam DOWN:
Which scene is religious art is NOT a “visionary scene”? I shall announce with great fanfare:
OMG EVERY MSH IMAGERY HAPPENS TO BE IN A VISIONARY SCENE!!
That’s a mere tautology, since I assert that all authentic religious art depicts Psil experience; to depict and explain psychedelic eternalism; transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
A too-verbose attempt to list the 7 Liberty Cap mushroom-trees:
In the “Present Eve” panel of Bern door, there are L & R mushroom-trees that each have 5 crowns, 2 of which are ball caps, the two trees mirror each other.
Too verbose. Need fewest words possible; just the KEY WORDS.
Ride Donkey = Climb Tree (Saint Martin: Entry Jeru)
ride donkey climb tree higher vantage pov over the egoic control system , see it as always used now as qualified possibilism-thinking .
possibilism-thinking = dmon donkey Jesus donkey properly drawn weight on R front leg, L front leg bent/ lifted – sometimes, but often not using {handedness} mapped strictly to eternalism-thinking vs possibilism-thinking .
L vs R limb / side. arm, branch IYI arms and actually mushrooms photos show trident branching at base cluster arms eg 2 arms actual mushrooms cluster
~~
“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.
true/false?
Brown wording is too rigid, implying whole-specimen form matching, which Hug pounces all over at lenght by some STILL EXTREEMLY SSKETCHEY & barely really engaing
the Egodeath theory the mytheme theory enables engaging with the body of art. {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs , incl {mushroom hem} {floating mushroom hem}
3 Types of John Rush’s {celestial erection} motif
mushroom hem eg black arrow in hem in Great Canterbury Psalter
celes erec eg arm under garment holding book, blow below book is phallus closely
{floating mushroom hem}
my old term lifted garment: can all available terms:
all the terms:
{floating mushroom hem}
{mushroom hem}
{celestial erection}
{lifted garment}
{phallic garment}
{floating mushroom hem} eg:
behind Diony in victory mosaic
behind dancing man
behind bernward door work the land angel directing adam instructing adam
Crop and analysis by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025 Day 3, Great Canterbury Psalter
III / IYI / YI / IY/YI
Panaeolus, Liberty Cap, Cubensis, Amanita
Relate Erwin Panofsky’s branching critique to Day 3 image in Great Canterbury Psalter.
Branching form progression naive simple branching vs. 2-layer model red Amanita form IY/YI lower & upper-level of tree:
branching analysis ~= qualified possibilism-thinking / eternalism-thinking, using everyday all the time possibilism-thinking of a type that’s now qualified per eternalism; per the revealed underlying layer/ level of frozen control that’s pre-given from outside the personal control system.
Future control thoughts are unavoidably inherently dependent on the hidden, uncontrollable source of control-thoughts.
The lower, relatively passive control-thought receiver vs. the higher, relatively active (initator) control-thought inserter.
The lower, local, personal control system is dependent on the control source, the upper level of 2-level, dependent control
the personal control system, the qualified egoic personal control system, the egoic control system; the qualified egoic control system now accommodated to eternalism, the personal control system revealed to higher, elevanted awareness looking at the personal control system from outside of it (a la Ken Wilber).
{building mushroom topper}: Use fully GREEDY SEEING OF MUSHROOMS EVERYWHERE, PER THE ARDENT ADVOCATES OF mushroom imagery in Christian art.
See my version of Great Canterbury Psalter folios f134, f145, & f177 with my boxes added around every instance of possible mushroom imagery.
Every instance of possible mushroom imagery is justified interepreting as mushroom, worth committing to, by using the forceful diamond hammer of interpretation to dredge out/ filter-on the key motif of mushrooms, including {building topper}, {mushroom hem}, and {floating mushroom hem}.
The Held Sticks are YI Form in Saint Martin: Entry into Jerusalem
riding a tree on right = riding donkey on left – ears to right past hand.
branching ears touching good right non branching arm.
Crop, color adjust, & annotations by Michael Hoffman. “agefotostock-com entry jeru recolored hands sticks lines.jpg” 17 KB, 7:37 am Feb. 9, 2025
noticed Feb 9 2025: above hand, there’s a band holding together the sticks and feathers as a bundle. Need clearer photo of the held items.
Noticed a few days ago eg Feb. 6, 2025: The 3 sticks held by youth to signal to Jesus have gap to left, forming YI. Photographers are still not stepping up to the real job: NEED A CLEAR PHOTO OF THE ITEMS HELD NEAR JESUS’ FINGERS. Jesus’ fingers are fortunately not damaged, and are fully visible.
Jesus’ right hand index finger and middle finger pressed together are like the sticks 2 & 3 held together.
Jesus’ left hand splayed pinkie finger and ring finger are like sticks 1 & 2 held apart.
scope consideration: within scope of jesus L hand, thumb = good = nonbranching, it is parallel w good R finders held together non-branching.
within local relative scope, within bad L hand, is good thumb = non-branching vs the bad, 4 branching splayed L fingers,
the Thumb = Truth/good/ stable control nonbranching 2-level ctrl model , 2-level, dependent control with 2-level control
Santa Sabina wooden doors, posted by Cyberdisciple 2011: YI trees, handedness
re: Bernward Doors, wrmspirit pointed out/ reminded me of similar doors from Cyberdisciple 2011:
Thanks, It’s helpful having additional doors with mushroom imagery. Seen before, but have to see again through the 2022-era lens of the {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
There are YI trees on Cyberdisciple’s doors, including angel: left foot touching branching crown of tree & right foot near cut branch / non-branching.
It is interesting the lack of attention to YI branching form of trees, and handedness (right & left limb) by Cyberdisciple 2011.
Prior to 2015, like with the 2011 book by John Rush w/ hokey-pokey pantokrator motif, I only was wondering about one foot floating high and the other foot on ground, which wasn’t productive.
Concept of branching as key = my Nov. 2013 big confirmation that branching is a key motif, in pair of art images: Kranach Eve & Serpent + kylix by Douris showing Jason coming from the serpent with Athena.
Concept of mapping two feet to two mental models = Dec. 2015 (Hatsis’ presentation of Dancing Man clearly for first time).
Bernward Column Has Four Liberty Cap Mushroom-Trees, Left Door Has Three; Seven Total [moved out]
moved to Bernward Door page
Bernward Column Photos Cut Off Liberty Cap Mushroom-Tree as if Merely “Peripheral” per Huggins
One pair of Bernward Column photos is awful: cuts mushroom-tree in half at edge of frame – b/c no one cares about the stupid tree.
The tree is the least important feature, to the photographer. ok to cut off the tree branches, no one cares, just a stupid tree, b/c trees are merely “peripheral” to “expert” art authoritties, per Huggins Foraging Wrong.
He says the most welled noted book is Brinckmann 1906, a unique exception, the one and only published writing by any art historian on the boring topic of trees.
Mycologists are REQUIRED to SUBMIT to the ARGUMENT BY AUTHORITY off-the-books via “pers. corr.”
& leveraging double censored works out of thin air, Panofsky letters & their payload, Brinckmann citation
A citation double strong urging to actually ACTUALLY CONSULT PUBLISHED WRITING & diagrams & paintings in the only book or article that any art historian ever wrote about the boring topic of trees in Medieval art. per Hugs claim, “peripheral”.
So we must bow and scrape to the art authorities who argue from authority,
ARGUMENT FROM TONE AND CRISPNESS OF DISAVOWAL
ARGUMENT FROM TONE AND CRISPNESS OF DISAVOWAL by the authority on “related topics”
Consult in person the art experts who disavow “with impressive celerity”, like a trained dog with no actual argumentation and nothing written — yet we are to act respectful toward:
Huggins’ Lack of Credibility Due to Creepy Handling of the Censored Panofsky Letters
DISHONEST HUGGINS COVERING FOR DISHONEST WASSON
Huggins IS SO SKETCHY GOT SOME EXPLAINING TO DO: WHY does Huggins not CITE BROWNs’ 2019 ARTICLE, WHICH IS THE ONLY PLACE the WEB WHERE WE CAN CHECK CLAIMS AND *TO THE SOURCES!* — PUBLISHED THANKS TO BROWN, no thanks to Huggins.
NO THANKS TO HUGS, WHO DOESN’T EVEN SAY HOW he FOUND out about the SECRET HIDDEN SUPPRESSED PANofsky LETTERS TO WASSon IN DRAWER X at Harvard.
Huggins, HOW THE F DID YOU 2024 LEARN ABOUT DRAWER X containing the Panofsky letters?
When and why did you find the letters?
Why don’t you cite brown who published them 2019?
Why do you make believe that we’ve all had Brinckman “little” book citation since May 1952 – in fact, since 2019 only.
Really Poor Conclusion Section of Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article
Huggins PARROTs Panofsky’s argumentation about branches, MORE RIDICULOUS THAN PANofsky in Huggins’ Conclusion section:
“Panofsky says if it has branch, its not mushroom.
“Panofsky says if no branch, fails to be a mushroom tree, so, doesn’t count.”
I have to imagine latter arg, b/c Huggins is silent about the set of 4 mushroom-trees in Great Canterbury Psalter Day 4 (pointing at the little brown items in the balance scale pans & branching A compass by the grid-cap mushroom-tree Left = branching, pair of mushrooms. No branches… depending on definition of “at least traces of ramification”.
“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.”
Panofsky is correct “in a sense which he was unaware” [Wasson’s insulting & insane wording]: in Day 4, no L & R arm shown at macro scale, but the left two mushroom-trees have trace of / a type of branching indicator: grid cap of Liberty Cap mushroom-trees.
Crop by Michael Hoffman f11, Day 4. Y Y I I. Lib Cub Pan Ama.Crop by Michael Hoffman June 10, 2023. f22
f11 Day 4 + mushroom mount f22: Huggins points out that both scenes have the smaller plants among the mushroom-trees. Hug does NOT point out that Day 4 & mushroom mount have two mushrooms with no branches.
Day 4 has 4 mushrooms that have no branches.
Mushroom Mount has 2 mushrooms that have no branches. The bottom two plants are mushrooms that have no branches.
The lack of branches on these 6 mushrooms is not mentioned by Huggins; he draws attention to the smaller plants instead, in both pictures.
Day 4 Plant 1 & 2 (L pair) have grid caps; grid-cap mushroom-trees.
The two scenes DISPROVE, FORCIBLY, PAN CLAIM “AT LEAST TRACE OF RAMIFN BRANCHING” B/C we have equivalent various mushroom-tree branching forms mixed together, some with NO trace of branching eg Day 4 Plant 3 Paneolus & later pic’s mushroom mount:
White dud mushroom-tree: lower: trident; upper: YI YI I.
Left building doesn’t touch the threatened defeated men; touches stable heaven. Men fall down, building stands and touches sky upper level.
Red lib cap roof of building.
Left side men fall, vulnerability revealed. Right side men stand.
Rightmost tree:
Amanita features: white dots on red, in cap.
Cubensis features: blue stem trunk.
Liberty Cap features: grid of Liberty Cap mushroom-trees in crown; each Lib Cap has L & R spots.
In f22, there is same # of outer as inner mushroom-trees: 5 in middle of f22; 2 on L of f22 + 3 on R of f22 = 10 mushroom-trees + 1 leaf-tree = 11 trees total.
L side of f22: YI; ITrident R side of f22: IY; Trident; YI or IY
On rightmost mushroom-tree, the lower grid cap is unusual, grid-cap not of Liberty Cap mushroom-trees, flipped caps, no stems.
Panofsky’s Shaky Reasoning Parrotted by Huggins
7:55 pm Feb 7 2025
BROWN PUBLISHED in 2019 THE SUPPRESSED COVERT SECRETIVE PANofsky LETTERS IN DRAWER X.
todo: gather my accusations of Wasson censoring Panofsky and Panofsky had WEAK citations to back up HUGE claims by the MICA Deniers.
We know ALL about mushroom-trees, we even published a single little book 1906 German that lays out every 1000 mushroom-tree and assigns an exact year to it and there is a perfectly ruler flat smooth line of looking like pine to gradulatelly like mushroom,
and this is PROOF that there is NO MEANING, NO PURPOSEFULness, NO INTENTATIONALITY, NO FREEDOM OF ARTIST EXPRESSION, NO INTENT
THE F’D UP GARBLED PROTOTYPES “THE ART WORLD CAME TO ACCEPT” AND ARTISTS – FREE ON EVERY OTHER ASPECT – RE MUSHROOMS, ARTISTS WERE ROBOT SLAVES WHO WERE FORCED TO FOLLOW THE NOW TOTALLY MUSHROOM-LOOKING GARBLED PROTOTYPES even if the artist was anti-mushroom they were FORCED to follow the totally mushroom looking prototype, 100% purpose-free painting following the dictate of the prototype
Purpose-Free Painting, Mechanically Following the Dictate of the Prototype
As a mushroom-tree artist, Panofsky’s “developed from pine to mushroom” prototype FORCED me to make the viewer think of mushrooms, against my will; I disavow any purposefulness of the “even more emphatic mushroom-like” imagery.
“The Art World Came to Accept” the Garbled Pine Prototypes That, Due to Artists Slop, purposelessly “even more emphatic mushroom-like”
“An even more emphatic instance of this development is galss painting is attached for you to CONSULT”
Pine came to look like intensive deliberate “even more emphatic” mushroom imagery in Christian art
quote pan here: https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/#Sentence-1-7 “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.”
Samo date of fresco 107 years earlier than 1291 is 1184 – Samo 1997 end note 4 says Wasson is wrong re: year of Plain chap as 1291, it’s actually 1184.
The emphatically mushrooms mushroom-trees glass painting was TWO Centuries after Plaincourault fresco.
After the year of the Plaincourault frsesco, which was mushroom-like, the glass painting two hundred years was.
THE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED a long time stayed in the range of mushroom imagery.
From 990 miniature pine looks like mushroom, 1184 Plainc Amanita tree trident branches L, C, R.
It’s a way the V arms branches beams are to think L vs. R. tree has 4 limbs (traditional trope).
Many mushroom-trees have {4 arms/ limbs/ branches / fruit}.
{hold branch} is a common trope.
Feels always strong L vs R and one foot vs the other, and simple creative stark branching features. Diagrammatic branching form.
Foot height also has much activity.
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.
Panofsky letter censored by … in Wasson’s paragraph simult’ly chastising mycologists for ignorantly blunderingly failing to “consult” art authorities & check their crispness of disavowal with no argumentation but “expert on related topics”, specifically the little book by . . . . . ‘cos its the basis of our expertise on trees, the only thing we expert authorities ever wrote or thought on this topic.
I do not consider Pan …. i think said Egodeath Mystery Show – notes page — Panofsky is stupid. Wasson is a liar. d/k if i’d pick ‘liar’ first but its a saying; i fit the Pair that way into the saying either stupid|liar. = Pan/Wasson
Stupid :: Liar = Panofsky :: Wasson
Stupid is to Liar as Panofsky is to Wasson
Stupid : Liar = Panofsky : Wasson
I dare the # to climb to make my article title WRONG and UNDER-ESTIMATE mushroom imagery in Christian art — eg Eadwine is a MAJOR HEAD who takes EVERY OPPORTUNITY to show mushroom imagery & play w developing the era’s standard motif-set:
{mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
Fully {guarded gate}: Eden Is Depicted with Gate and Wall: {guarded gate, fire blade}
12 gates of wall of heaven city tree of life eden
Sacrifice ram to get through gate into the city, been done/paid for his followers by the mysteries-godman Christ, who resides outside heimarmene and lifts us up into virtual freewill; qualified possibilism-thinking / eternalism-thinking.
immature mental worldmodel
ram/lamb sacrificed for all his followers, who are taken by and married by, in, the mysteries god.
To get through the gate, sacrifice childish immature ram-caught-in-thicket; pure, washed clean; mature transformed personal control system / ctrl basis.
mental worldmodel transformation from the Possibilism to the Eternalism mental model of time, self, possibility, and control
literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control – branching; weight on left foot.
analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level control – non-branching; weight on right foot.
Bernward door liberty cap mushroom-tree Blame panel, <– BENNETT 2021 says I can’t use this construct any more, I’m an academic fraud if I do, b/ c it’s not mushrooms.
But he overstates; I don’t agree w/ simple-minded “that tree is not tree of knowledge in the Blame scene.”
Consider Chris’ Bennett’s argument in the full light of MY INTERP OF THE SET OF PANELS, then his arg is weakened, and a different emphasis of mushrooms is presented via my motif analysis per the mytheme theory of psychedelic eternalism.
psychedelic eternalism; the theory of psychedelic eternalism; the theory of psychedelic eternalism analogy
psychedelic eternalism pset
the theory of psychedelic eternalism tope
the theory of psychedelic eternalism analogy topea
Bernward Doors, Bernward Column, and Bernward Chandelier bdbc
Bernward Column = stem, Bernward Chandelier = cap
“Conjuring Eden” conjeden
“Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise” by Hoffman, Ruck, and Staples, in Entheos 1, 2001 conjedenl
Look forward to inspecting Bern door/col on my own, hi res – we are privileged recently — the whole thing, just like i did w Great Canterbury Psalter: not through the filter from other entheogen scholars who are fixated on Amanita and fixated on Tree of Knowledge and can’t get past that to see other scenes.
Brown dragging in the words ‘traditional’ and ‘secret’ guarantees permanent failure for Brown and a rejection of the Psychedelic Gospels theory.
Brown should delete all 13 ‘secret’ and all 19 ‘tradition’. The article would be stronger and based in a different, stronger paradigm.
Brown: “Psychedelics Weren’t Suppressed, but to the Contrary, They Were Secret”
ENTHEOGENS AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY
The prevalence of this psychedelic tradition in a wide variety of texts and artistic media including illuminated manuscripts, bronze castings, and stained glass windows in the high holy places of Christianity shows that this tradition was not suppressed by the early Church, but to the contrary was made available as a secret practice for initiates.
CONCLUSIONS
based on the presence of these images in the high holy places of Christianity, these psychedelic traditions were not suppressed by the Church, but were rather maintained for the secret instruction of initiates and possibly for the education of the illiterate masses
Browns’ Wording After Deleting the Albatross Unjustified Narrative words ‘Secret’ and ‘Tradition’
ENTHEOGENS AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY
The prevalence of psychedelics in a wide variety of texts and artistic media including illuminated manuscripts, bronze castings, and stained glass windows in the high holy places of Christianity shows that psychedelics were not suppressed by the Church, but to the contrary were made available as a practice for initiates.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the presence of these images in the high holy places of Christianity, psychedelics were not suppressed by the Church, but were rather maintained for the instruction of initiates and for the education of the illiterate masses.
About My Rewording of Browns’ Wording
The heavy-handed, totally dominant constructs of ‘secret’ and ‘tradition’ focus on the wrong things, things other than the sheer evidence itself.
The words ‘secret’ and ‘tradition’ cause the debate to be centered on the wrong, irrelevant points of dispute.
In Letcher’s Shroom pages 35-36, ‘secret’ TOTALLY OVERSHADOWS ENTHEOGENS, to the point where Letcher stops looking for mushrooms, and ONLY looks for, and argues based exclusively on, ‘secret’.
Charles Stang tells Brian Muraresku to give up, because there can never be enough evidence that ergot was “traditional, mainstream, normal, ordinary, commonplace”, as opposed to merely “underground, counterculture, heretical, deviant, abnormal, rare, an exception”.
My wording above is Browns’ without the pointless albatross words dragging it down.
I speak in relevant terms: We have ideal quantity and ideal quality of evidence to reach the conclusion to conclude: …
Qualifier ‘early’ in the 1st but not 2nd passage: the early Church. That word ‘early’ is problematic b/c as Brown sometimes expands, “early and Medieval”. The options are
the early Church
the early and Medieval Church
the Medieval Church
the Church
I had to pick between:
the early and Medieval Church – awkward, and visibly encourages attack.
the Church – aggressive, forceful, dominant, punchy. omit qualifiers that can delayed – the section heading where Brown writes “early Church” ALREADY says early! Brown feels no need to weaken/ qualify w ‘early’ in Concl section, so why needed in the “early ch” section?
There’s copious evidence for fully developed Psilocybin use in European history – regardless of the nebulous, unneeded constructs ‘secret‘ & ‘tradition‘
There’s copious evidence for fully developed Psilocybin use in Christendom — that, I have proved — the nebulous, confused, addled, biased, irrelevant constructs of ‘tradition’ & ‘secret’ be damned.
Similarly McC & Priest’s Reply to Replies in the Journal of Psychedelic Studies mid-2024, a big theme by everyone was, the construct of “tradition” is useless and just contributes confusion and irrelevant debate, as was claimed for the construct of “gnosticism”.
There’s ample evidence for fully developed Psilocybin use in European history.
Demonstration of self-sabotaging, defeatist, pointless, unnecessary ALBATROSS of the words ‘traditional’ and ‘secret’, which accomplish nothing but dismissal of mushroom imagery in Christian art:
That’s worded per the maximal entheogen theory of religion, instead of Browns’ moderate (aka minimal) entheogen theory of religion.
My revised wording, above, is much more radical, aggressive, and punchy, and unified in a single positive voice with no waffling and self-weakening like Browns’ wording.
My wording sidesteps the red-herring morass of the construct “tradition”.
My wording is less vulnerable to the strategic committed-skeptic move, “There can never be enough evidence to constitute ‘traditional’ usage of psychedelics.”
I never claimed psychedelic use was ‘traditional’, ‘secret’, ‘suppressed’, ‘mainstream’, or ‘underground’.
All such narrative is biased to reach the pre-decided conclusion “so, not mushrooms; so, not traditional; so, doesn’t count.“
That deletion fixes the self-contradiction in Browns’ writing, where they say psychedelics were not suppressed, but were secret instead.
Unthinking Collectivist Thinking by Entheogen Scholars: Critical Discourse Analysis of Rhetoric Narrative Framing: Samorini: “certain groups”
When any person in Medieval era uses Amanita, the person is no longer an individual, but is demoted by the the (Secret Amanita paradigm) entheogen scholars to “a member of certain communities”; “a member of a heretical cult/ sect/ secret cult”.
Not individuals. Never does an individual ingest The Mushroom.
Any ingesting ALWAYS is assumed to necessarily be in “sects, cults, communities, groups”, never an individual.
A negative, biased presupposition narrative framework is held unconsciously and habitually, in a self-blinding way, by entheogen scholars.
p. 31, Samo, 1997 article The mushroom-tree of Plaincourault: certain Christian groups;
the relationship certain Christian groups in the Middle Ages may have had with entheogens.
‘Tradition’ Is a Forbidden Word in Effective Entheogen Scholarship re: mushroom imagery in Christian art
The Useless, Biased Construct “Traditional” Psychedelic Use
The word “tradition” is nothing but treacherous, because the evidence is never enough to meet the ever-escalating moving goalpost of never measuring up to the level of “tradition”.
“tradition” is useless concept in this controverted special topic, b/c deniers will never grant mushroom use the status of “tradition”, there will never be enough evidence for heavy enough use to be ‘tradition’,
now the debate topic is forgotten and changed to “yes it is sufficient to be called tradition, no its not, yet it is….”
— indeterminate, dead end, unproductive, unwinnable, undecidable, undefinable.
There’s no way to reach agreement whether meets the measure for “traditional”.
The word “traditional” prevents ever affirming mushroom imagery in Christian art; in practice, “traditional” is circular reasoning and assuming that which is to be proved.
MICA Deniers (eg Chs Stang) will forever say “fails to meet the ‘traditional’ measure, so, doesn’t count; no mushroom imagery in Christian art.”
MICA Affirmers will forever say “There are 2+ instances, therefore, meets the criteria for being ‘traditional’.”
It’s impossible to adjudicate and resolve the question “Does the evidence support status of mushroom use as ‘traditional‘?”
The concept of ‘traditional vs. non-traditional’ is nebulous, indeterminate, poetic characterization, driven by narrative-framing commitment bias.
The term & concept of ‘traditional’ is biased against mushrooms.
Deniers are committed to defining ‘traditional’ as non-mushrooms by definition.
I explicitly define ‘traditional’ as “If there are 2 pieces of evidence, that constitutes a tradition.
Affirmers hold a lenient criteria for ‘traditional’.
Deniers hold a strict criteria for ‘traditional’, with strictness level defined by “higher than mushrooms evidence”.
When tons of mushrooms evidence, redefine ‘traditional’ to be higher than that.
Add more evidence?
Raise bar for ‘traditional’ above that level. Great Canterbury Psalter adds massive evidence of ideal quality and qty?
Raise definition of ‘traditional’ higher than that.
So ‘traditional’ inherently can’t ever be met, no matter how much evidence is piled how high for MICA, the bar for ‘traditional’ simply & effortless is re-set to higher than that.
Either the bar is easy to meet, or impossible.
Debating whether MICA evidence meets the bar for ‘traditional’ is impossible for Affirmers to win.
Chs Stang’s arg’n against Muraresku demonstrates that: Stang says no matter how much evidence, no way to ever prove that ergot wine & bread was “normal, mainstream, common, standard”.
So, give up, and maintain the entrenched negative conclusion: the Eucharist was not psychedelic; there was no “TRADITION” of psychedelic Eucharist.
This denial is rewarding because scholars like Stang use the topic of Psychedelics for personal profit by putting on a public show of righteously dismissing psychedelics.
The debate over whether “gnosticism” is a real thing in antiquity, or an unreal fabrication.
How much evidence for MICA is required, to meet the deniers’ bar for ‘traditional’? More than whatever amount of evidence has been found.
No matter how much evidence for mushroom imagery in Christian art, the term ‘traditional’ BY DEFINITION and bias, is always higher than the amount of evidence for mushroom imagery in Christian art.
‘traditional’ is defined as “higher than the amount of evidence for MICA.” Unwinnable.
Failure — reaching a negative conclusion re: MICA — is baked into the definitional concept of ‘traditional’ and ‘mainstream’.
Like saying “By definition, the ‘mainstream tradition’ is anti-psychedelic; therefore, Prohibition is inherent and permanent.”
Reification of Prohibition as if objective reality.
Scholars are biased & committed to “the traditional, non-drug methods of the mystics”.
Why 1 Liberty Cap mushroom-tree in Bernward Column is Very Significant for Debate of mushroom imagery in Christian art [moved out]
moved to Bernward Door page
Valid Criticisms by MICA Deniers
Bennett article Fungi-Paraeiieaiiolia worst article title ever, in the /__trashed/ directory at Cann Culture, — as senseless and crazy as using a term like ‘eternalism’ no one ever heard of —
The article is TYPICAL of deniers: bad arg fallacy: I showed that an affirmer (Brown) is wrong on a point, therefore, I have proved there’s no mushroom imagery in Christian art.
I am senseing that something is missing from Cyberdisciple page about differentiating minor errors of punctuation vs. argmentation errors: divide into two, arg errors…. outght to correct each others argn erros con CONSTRUCTIVEly , THAT IS that is not happening.
Deniers are not correcting the errors of Affirmers in a constructive way to make progress in entheogen scholarship. insetead, deniers… when an Affirmer makes an error of argumentation – I could liist 10 such errors — the Deniers try to turn that into scorched earth wholesale entire denial of any mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Cyberdisciple defines one scenario, but I’m seeing a different scenario problem in the debates over mushroom imagery in Christian art: to exaggerate:
Cyberdisciple defines one bad scenario: “Mechanical Error vs. Arg’n Error”: where Affirmer makes a mechanical citation error or typo, then Denier acts like that’s an error of Arg’n, as if that Mechanical Error is disproof of the general affirmer postion, disproving mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Instead (in addition) what I’m seeing is a more serious scenario: Affirmer makes not merely a trivial mechanical error, but makes an error of Argumentation. Then Denier
Terms (simplest expression):
MICA – mushroom “imagery” in Christian art (broader), or “mushrooms” in Christian art (narrower).
Affirmers – writers who assert there’s purposeful mushroom imagery in Christian art. Or in Christendom art (broader). Or in Western/Hellenistic art (broadest).
Deniers – writers who deny there’s purposeful/intentional (or, less specifically, “intentional”) mushroom imagery in Christian art or in Christendom art (broader) or in Western/Hellenistic art (broadest).
Terms (detailed expression):
MICA – mushroom “imagery” in Christian art (broader), or “mushrooms” in Christian art (narrower).
“purposeful” – inferior synonym is “intentional”. purposeful (or, less specifically, “intentional”.
“Christian art” — or in Christendom art (broader). Or in Western/Hellenistic art (broadest).
Deniers – assert… (crucial wording here to set up a genuine productive debate on what is ACTUALLY at issue):
Deniers assert that although there is imagery in Christian art that the artist and everyone agrees makes viewers think of mushrooms (implicit in art historians’ term “mushroom-trees”).
I have examples of deniers saying “certainly this does make viewers think of mushrooms; objectively this DOES certainly look like mushrooms or mushroom imagery features mixed with eg tree imagery/features.
It would be a lie to pretend we focus our debate on “Did artist know their imagery causes viewer to think of mushrooms? Losers / deniers might try to change the topic of debate to “is the artist a zombie moron idiot too stupid and totally uninformed to realize mushroom recognize mushroom imagery.
I have NOT seen deniers directly make that move but it is easy to imagine deniers increasing their hints they made in that direction.
Panofsky hypothesizes about such ignorant blithering idiot artists.
The Crook Wasson Tries to Steal Credit as the Only Discoverer, for the Very Same Thing He Emphatically Denies: tree of knowledge = mushrooms
Wasson also deeply insults Plainc artist – major a-hole Wasson jerk rude — this is like accuasations of Western Imperial dominators:
WASSON ACTS LIKE A WESTERN IMPERIAL DOMINATOR EXTRACTION OF VALUE FROM INDIGINOUS when he DEEPLY INSULTS the Plain painter WASSON STEALS CREDIT FROM THE PAINTER by claiming that Wasson comprehends a mushroom connection (via roundabout PREPOSTEROUS argument “tree and snake and mushroom were “CONSUBSTANTIAL ASSOCIATED WITH” BUT ONLY I, Wasson the Great, am the first person ever to comprehend this) while Wasson states that UNBEKNOWN TO THE Plaincourault PAINTER, PLAINC MEANS MUSHROOMS.
How dare you, Wasson, accuse the painter of being an idiot, while you claim to be the only person ever to think of tree of knowledge as mushroom – plainly, the French mycology group in 1910 already thought of what Wasson is claiming to have discovered, and they — long before Wasson — already thought of all variants of “tree of knowledge = mushroom”, whether in art or text in Genesis, obviously the French MYCOLOGISTS BEAT WASSON TO IT.
1184 (“1291”) – Plaincourault Painter Says tree of knowledge = mushroom, in art & Genesis text
revised year 107 years earlier than 1291 = end of 1997 article samo “The mushroom-trees of Plainc” says Wasson is wrong about 1291, cites Berry, Plain is 1184 not 1291.
1910 – French Mycologists Say tree of knowledge = mushroom, in art & Genesis text
1968 – Wasson: the French mycists are blundering ignorants for saying tree of knowledge = mushroom, in art
1968 – Wasson: I am the first and only person to think of tree of knowledge = mushroom in Gen text & art
Wasson reaches perfect incoherence, SELF-CONTRADICTION & unclarity of writing, where he tries to take credit for being the first and only person to figure out there’s a connection between tree of knowledge & serpent & mushroom.
There’s a long long line of ppl who knew that before him, but to steal credit, he insults them and calls them all blundering & wrong – for asserting THE VERY SAME THING HE ASSERTS as his own “innovative discovery”.
WHAT A SLEAZY SCUMBAG! SELF-PROMOTER BY DEFAMING AND LYING ABOUT OTHER PPL. STEALING CREDIT FOR WHAT EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS. SELF-CONTRADICTION.
in a subtle roundabout way of which the Painter was unaware, & mycists are blundering ignorants for saying this & Genesis text the French mycists are blundering ignoramus for saying tree of knowledge = mushroom, in art
Wasson says your wrong, its not a mushrooms – then he says “hey i am the first and only one ever to figure out, its a mush , in a way the painter was too stupid to know.
Total garbed SELF CONTRADICTORY LIAR, CHARLATAN, SELF-PROMOTER, THIEF OF CREDIT STEALING CREDIT FROM PAINTER AND FROM FRENCH MYCology GROUP.
Incidental Errors vs. Argumentation Errors; things that Errors that Disprove the Main Assertion, vs. Errors that Don’t Disprove the Main Assertion
The worst title of any article ever, Cyberdisciple didn’t even attempt to include the title in the present article, but merely linked to the [article] mid-sentence:
Cyberdisciple makes a basic distinction — not developed further — between just two types of errors, and the relation between them. x and y.
Cyberdisciple makes it seem as if the only kind of error made by MICA Affirmers is mere X errors.
MICA Affirmers make many Y errors, and MICA Deniers seize upon these more serious errors to present themselves as if they have disproved MICA.
That dynamic is not captured by Cyberdisciple’s basic distinction between X vs Y errors.
By the ultimate adequate standards, mushroom imagery in Christian art interpretation is incorrect until the true message of the mushroom-tree artists is received; branching-message mushroom trees.
Brown commits an error of interpretation or arg — type X — when saying Kupfer is wrong to use ‘tree’ words instead of ‘mushroom’ words to describe Saint Martin frescos.
I corrected Browns oversight, the big news is that where Kupfer wrote “tree, branch, cut”, correct interpretation of
Low MICA Affirmers vs high MICA Affirmers:
In the mushroom-tree art genre, the correct interpretation is not “it’s a mushroom”, but rather: adopt non-branching eternalism with 2-level control, when on mushrooms, instead of branching possibilism with autonomous monolithic control, which collapses and is unstable, not viable.
I have corrected the Brown database in time to avoid getting off to a bad start and baking-in the incomplete interpretation, “mushroom imagery in Christian art means mushrooms.”
To yield correct adequate completeness of interpretation, the Brown database of MICA interpretation must cover not only mushroom imagery, but also integrate {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
An interpretation “mushroom-tree means mushroom” is incomplete; it’s correct, so far as it goes, but not helpful or complete or adequate.
Samo 1997 end note 4 says Wasson is wrong re: year of Plain chap as 1291, it’s actually 1184.
That’s an incidental error, that does not make Wasson wrong about Wasson’s main assertion re: interp the fresco.
MICA Affirmers make argumentation errors, not only incidental errors.
eg Brown 2016, when play-acting the part of a Denier, rejects Walburga tapestry as Amanita by committing the single-meaning fallacy and by botanical trait mis-reading (“the art shows serrated base, but Amanita has smooth base”).
eg Brown 2016 falsely claims that Day 3-type “Numerous red, blue, orange, and tan stylized mushrooms dot the pages throughout the Psalter” – Huggins catches this basic error of argumentation and acts like Hug thereby disproved MICA.
eg Chs Stang says Great Canterbury Psalter Day 3 is a “bowl of mushrooms” – how serious of an error is this?
Cyberdisciple’s division into 2 types of errors: mechanical vs. argumentation — would benefit from elaboration by studying various assertions by MICA Affirmers. A reader might get the impression that MICA Affirmers only make mechanical mistakes but never make arg’n mistakes.
But a main dynamic I see is that a MICA Affirmer makes an arg’n mistake, and then a MICA Denier rebuts that arg’n mistake AS IF that disproves MICA.
In fact the goal — proving MICA — remains true (it’s the inevitable right conclusion), but the MICA Affirmers need to reach that goal by valid argn instead of invalid argn.
The Affirmers’ route to the goal is incorrect (at the level of arg’n) but their goal remains undefeated. When a MICA Denier points out the error of arg’n, the denier acts like they have thereby disproved MICA but they actually just proved that the arg’n was false, not that MICA is false.
eg Brown falsely argues that Bernward Door panel “Fall from Grace”/Blame panel is tree of knowledge – it’s a Lib Cap tree.
That’s fallacious argn by a MICA Affirmer. Bennett then acts as if pointing out Brown’s fallacious arg’n = disproving MICA.
Browns’ arg is fallacious, their interpretation of the scene’s Liberty Cap tree is wrong in important ways, yet, Browns’ thesis of mica MICA remains, in a way, completely untouched by Bennett’s disproof of Browns’ interpretation of the Blame panel.
Bennett is right: the Liberty Cap mushroom-tree in the Blame panel is different than the non-mushroom tree of knowledge in the “Eat from Tree” panel above the Blame panel, yet Brown conflates the two trees in the two panels and acts like the tree of knowledge (in Eat from Tree panel) is shown as a Liberty Cap mushroom-tree. Bennett is right, this tree of knowledge is only indirectly associated with the Lib Cap tree in the Blame panel below it.
My wording there is to shut out fallacy and position-misrep’n, “the entire whole tree must look identical to an entire whole mushroom else “doesn’t count”).
Deniers assert there
todo – the … 2 contributions from me in past 2 days:
I’m working toward a clear set of photos of all 7 Liberty Cap mushroom-trees of Bernward – first ever.
THE ONLY THING ACHIEVED BY PAST WRITEUPS OF BERN MUSHROOM-TREES WAS CONFUSION.
Simple question that entheogen scholarship failed to answer:
How many mushroom-trees are there in Bern? WHAT DOES BROWN SAY?
NO ONE EVER TRIED TO GIVE A MERE COUNT! Seven: 3 on L door, 4 on col.
TOO MUCH TO ASK.
WHY SUCH POOR SUMMARIZING FROM RUCK COMMITTED THAT WE ENDED UP WITH CRAPPY “REBUTTALS” — of a SINGLE ISOLATED MUSHROOM-TREE!
As if that’s adequate and appropriate when discussing Bern door! No progress here, no clarification.
Stam 1996: 1 mushroom-trees only.
Gartz 1996: 1 mushroom-trees only.
vague and wrong list choppy from overambitious ARTICLE TO END — “mother of all demos” ; “mother of all MICA articles: 2001 ConjEden. yet failed to give mere count! 7.
Better art online now than 2001.
LIKE LOUSY 1/8 WRITEUP FROM BENNETT 2021 & FROM LETCHER 2006. BLAME Ruck’s elastic poetic confusing way of writing. per Huggins’ exasperation w/ Ruck Committee writing style.
Against the purposes of Cyberdisciple, it’s necessary to include Allegro as if entheogen scholar, b/c everyone fixates on “secret”, which was emphasized by Allegro.
Habitual Presupposition that Amanita Use Makes You a Member of a Closed, Bounded Group: Active Barrier Construction by Entheogen Scholars
Generations of “ethnomycologists” – am I an ethnomycologist of European motifs of psychedelic eternalism, advanced Psilocybin use, fully developed — no verbiage narrative about “mainstream”, “heretical”, “underground”, “cults”, “communities”.
GOOD JOB ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP: NOW I CAN’T EVEN USE the WORD “COMMUNITIES”, b/c you RUINED THAT TERM TOO – boundary containing barrier containing The Mushrooms =
The fairly good writer Giorgio Samorini wrote badly in 1996, in “The mushroom-tree of Plaincourault article, “certain communities”.
Bad writers using bad theorizing in entheogen scholarship, never permit an individual in Christendom to ingest Amanita.
The moment you ingest Aman The Mushroom you become classified per Ruck’s barrier classifications “a member of a heretical community certaini communityees retrurning holy land repeatedly reintroduced displayed brazenly in their places of worship –
What the heck are you on about, Ruck committee?
What places of worship? Do you mean giant cathedrals? Did The Big Bad church by your implicit logic “repeatedly elide” The Mushroom?
I’m quoting from memory p. 14 of “Conjuring Eden” & p. 56 of “Daturas for the Virgin”.
p. 14 of “Conjuring Eden” & p. 56 of “Daturas for the Virgin” 14&56
“Conjuring Eden” conjeden
“Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise” by Hoffman, Ruck, and Staples, in Entheos 1, 2001 conjedenl
“Daturas for the Virgin” datvir
“Daturas for the Virgin” by Ruck & Celdran, in Entheos 2, 2001 datvirl
I need to read that passage aloud and comment on it, now that I digested that, since my review of the Literature (June 2023? see date of photo of book spread) re: the Amanita Primacy Fallacy.
I need to more trace the history of the idea of “secret” in entheogen scholarship:
Backwards Brown, Amanita Advocate: “Numerous red, blue, orange, and tan stylized mushrooms dot the pages throughout the Psalter”
False, misrepresentative — so, No Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art. — per Huggins’ scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel, bad argumentation.
Considering specifically Day 3’s 4 mushroom-trees: it is false and misrepresentative what Backwards Brown claims, that numerous red, blue, orange, and tan stylized mushrooms are found throughout the Great Canterbury Psalter.
Crop and analysis by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025 Day 3, Great Canterbury Psalter
Internet Pictures Not Too Blurry
Ruck is an affirmer of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Ruck, p. 30, Entheos 1, 2001, Conjuring Eden article:
“But the very next episode, … is the Cursing of the Fig Tree.122[19]
“The tree is now only a* leaf, without fruit, that is to say, its taseled top, for Chris went to the tree and found it fruitless.”
*The fig tree is on the right w/ two leaves, not “only a leaf“.
Drawing shows empty circle on top, but photo shows ball.
per Kornbluth photo: “Christ healing at Gennesaret; Christ cursing the bare fig tree”
Brown’s dubious claim to authority (because we did field research instead of relying on pictures) collapses: if I do field work, I cannot get so good a view as Kornbluth Photo.
see also: [before almost all the bern content got pasted here, i was trying to copy the korn 2 links from top of Se Also in Bern page to here and then I treid to paste just the url for bern page here but almost entire bern page pasted here – BELOW FIND TWO KORN LINKS BY SEE ALSO ~~]
Jan 31-Feb 1 I did massive work on my Bernward page. Still lots of info is in my idea development pages instead [fixed; moved]. Most [all] info is copied to my Bernward page.
Eadwine: Hands and Feet in “Do Not Eat” & “Eat” Panels
This section is copied from my Bernward page.
[Jan. 31-Feb.1, 2025]
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 29, 2025
Do Not: God: L hand down Do Not: Eve: R hand down, L hand up touching halo Do Not: Adam: R hand down
Do Not: God: R foot down Do Not: Eve: R foot down Do Not: Adam: R foot down touching God’s R foot
Eat: Eve: L hand down Eat: Adam: L hand down
Eat: Eve: Right foot down Eat: Adam: L foot down
Jan 30 2025 where the heck did i put my pics of the 4 Lib Caps per Conj Eden on Bern Door early 2025??
A quick copy from there to here: dup content is bad, but obviously the present spot is the master copy.
pp 29-30 of “Conjuring Eden” lists 4 tassel trees (Liberty caps) on the Bernward Column
from idea development in Bernward page Feb 1 2025: from end of page lacking links in See Also section:
See Also (Dead-End Version with Emojis)
Dead End – No Links – fixed stars boundary of cosmic page 🌌
♄🌌
♄🚪🌌
♄🐑🔥🗡🐉🗝🚪🌌🚪💎🏆🔥🔥
need to add {rock} eg under {ram}
What’s in the Balance Scale Pans? Little Brown ________
NO POSSIBLE WAY TO TELL UNLESS 4 MUSHROOMS AND GOD AND BOOK WITH BOTH HANDS IS POINTING UP UP UP + UP UP UP UP AIMING — I LEFT OUT ONE POINT: THE *LEFT** ARE BRANCHING, THE *RIGHT* THEME IS – INSTEAD, STABILITY, AND NON-BRANCHING
Left mushrooms grid cap Liberty Caps point to a branching A compass
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Great Canterbury Psalter f11 Day 1 & 4. Jan. 13, 2025
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Great Canterbury Psalter f11 Day 1 & 4. Jan. 13, 2025 Solved in conjunction with Day 3 pattern reading finallly a coherent system: READ AS TRIDENT: 🔱Ὗ
Why “III” Notation Is Better than “Trident 🔱” for Mushroom-Trees with Arms and Not a Grid of Liberty Cap Mushroom-Trees, in My Branching Form Notation System [mica & YO branches]
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Great Canterbury Psalter f11 Day 1 & 4. Jan. 13, 2025 Solved in conjunction with Day 3 pattern reading finallly a coherent system: READ AS TRIDENT: 🔱Ὗ
Day 3 pattern: Creation of Plants:
ψ IYI – ii III is fair b/c consistent w/ IYI notation.
III is a notation.
Not “it looks literally like YI”.
TRIDENT IS INCONSISTENT re: allcaps convention
TRANSLATE FROM VERBOSE ARTICULATE FORM OF MUSHROOM-TREE, to substitute rough similar but different system of all caps, of ALLCAPS NOTATION TO INDIRECTLY — NOT LITERALLY — REPRESENT BRANCHING FORM.
Interpreting Grid Cap vs. Solid Cap in Great Canterbury Psalter
Grid cap of lib caps is to be read as “branching”, BAD, unstable.
Solid ringed non-grid cap is to be read as “non-branching”, GOOD, stable.
Day 3: III, IYI, YI, IY/YI
The “wrong” III instead of trident is one Plant 1 of Day 3.
III is more consistent than trident.
X IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WHOLE SET, FORMS A COHERENT SET, a viable system of motifs
4-term name of the Egodeath theory: each of 4 puzzle pieces
III IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SET, WHOLE SET, COHERENT SET.
TRIDENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SET, WHOLE SET, COHERENT SET.
III is sufficient approx for PITA trident
f11 Day 1 & 4.
Day 4:
Left pair of mushrooms Pan & Cub point to branching A compass, they have grid cap of Liberty Caps.
Right pair of mushrooms Pan & Ama point to balance scale pans, they have singular non-grid cap.
L theme: branching (grid caps & A compass) R theme: stability (balance scale), non-branching (solid caps)
{open book} – not only points to scale – while making points about handedness & branching — but says I AM SHOWING YOU OPENLY THE ANSWER TO YOUR OBV Q WHATS IN THE SCALE LITTLE BROWN _________
Panaeolus caps (brown rings) in Great Canterbury Psalter are considered non-branching, aka “solid“. Singular, not a grid of multiple mushrooms in the cap.
Trident Letter Characters
Ψ
ψ
Ѱ
ѱ
𝚿
𝛙
𝛹
𝜓
𝜰
𝜳
𝝍
𝝭
𝞇
𝞧
𝟁
Ⲯⲯ
ⲯ
ᴪ
ϒ
Ὗ
Y
iIi
iIi
Modern Corruption of Myth and Art
When I do an image search of the web, to examine ancient art, the modern version of the scenes gets in the way. I wish I could omit the modern, 20th C art, preventing seeing the Medieval and ancient art. https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=entry+into+jerusalem
When I read books about myth, like written 1890 (evolutionism), or 1955 (Jungianism), 2024 Yugler (shamanism + Jungianism + psychedel.), I can’t see the actual greek myths; they are obscured by the heavy-handed modern interpretive overlay that covers over the myth.
Simon Yugler (who joined our final book club session about his new book) flips between ancient myth telling and modern bad myth making, he contradicts himself and
* has Perseus look at Medusa’s face(!) (and not turn to stone as said 1 page ago). * has Medusa as invisible (no, she is excessively visible; it’s Perseus who is invisible, as said 1 page ago, wearing cap).
The modern lens tries to make myth say the opposite – I hadn’t seen modern telling of myth demonstrate this so clearly, flipping to contradict itself from page to page.
MindSpace Forum, 1996
I disparaged it as “HeartSpace”.
Where I met Beat Hippie Raver 1996. When I posted Feb. 1997 core theory summary outline.
Between cybtrans.com & starting Egodeath.com, I posted at MindSpace forum.
I don’t think any links are in the Egodeath Yahoo Group. Old Outlook email logs are on a drive.
Conjuring Eden 2001 Article Is Almost Comprehensive Count of Liberty Cap Trees in Bernward Door & Column
todo: paste entire passage by Bennett: just CB’s rebuttal:
Bennett wrote:
“this panel [#4, Blame; but also #3, Create Eve] on ‘The Door of Salvation’ with similar claims, leave out the proceeding panel, which is clearly depicting the ingestion of the temptation of the forbidden fruit, and instead use the panel that follows that one, which shows the covering themselves in fig leaves, which is what the panel being used for the suggestion of mushroom imagery, actually represents.
“In the depiction Eve is using the same material that is on the tips of the branches which are being interpreted as ‘mushrooms’ to cover herself.
“In the proceeding panel [#3, Eat Tree], we can see Eve being tempted by the serpent who holds the classic apple in his mouth, and her offering it to Adam from a tree that has no indication of mushrooms.”
“Clearly the proceeding panel,[#3, Eat Tree] with the classic forbidden apples is depicting the ingestion of the forbidden fruit.
“The panel [#4, Blame] being used by the Brown’s for the mushroom like imagery of the trees, is in no way connected to the forbidden tree of knowledge, but is instead a tree from which fig leaves were broken off and Adam and Eve covered themselves.
“and they knew that they were naked; so they sewed together fig leaves and made coverings for themselves”.
“As the Browns took the trouble to visit St. Michaels in person, I think it remains without question, that they left out this panel [#3, Eat Tree] which shows the forbidden tree as a the classic apple tree, and the actual ingestion of the forbidden fruit by Adam and Eve.”
LIKE BENNETT LEAVES OUT THE TWO-LIBERTY-CAP TREES PANEL [#2, Create Eve] ABOVE THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE PANEL.
what the F! did Chris NOT NOTICE that above the two panels that he details, there is an ADDITIONAL TWO Lib Cap trees?
Read entire passage in his article re: all points about Bern Doo Bernward door liberty cap mushroom-tree Blame panel, Bernward column four liberty cap mushroom-trees.
This Continent, for Some Strange Puzzling Reason, Has No Psychedelic Plants (Because We Haven’t Bothered to Look)
Which article did I read this exclamation in, about Africa? Author ridicules the established baseless and nonsensical claim that “for some strange reason, Africa lacks psychedelics.”
Most likely reason: Africa doesn’t have any psychedlelics (very puzzling), BECAUSE NO ONE HAS BOTHERED TO TRY TO LOOK FOR THEM. I think an article author wrote that.
Gartz book 1996 Magic Mushrooms:
“So far, the mycoflora of the African continent has been studied only peripherally and remains largely unknown.
“During the late 1980s, Italian mycologist G. Samorini and Terence McKenna, working independently, found evidence for the oldest known mushroom cult in Africa.
“Their discoveries were not just sensational, but most surprising as well.”
I appplaud Samo & McK for following their intuition & expectations so that Theory reveals Data, as happened many times with me, against eg. McK 1992 book FotG‘s negative, defeatist expectations.
Crop by Michael Hoffman
“I know blue vase contains Cubensis, too bad no way to prove that [assuming artist didn’t provide indicators to confirm].” [March 2022?]
image: mushrooms cases in Row 2 middle: dispensary [July 2024?]
“I know God’s balance scale pans contain Cubensis, too bad no way to prove that [assuming artist didn’t provide indicators to confirm].” [June 2023?]
image: Day 4 two branching grid cap mushrooms pointing at V compass, two non-grid cap mushrooms pointing at balance scale [Jan 13, 2025]
Gartz Book: Magic Mushrooms Around the World: A scientific Journey Across Cultures and Time: The Case for Challenging Research and Value Systems (1996)
God I HATE Jungianism, I cannot stand to read it, everything is wrong with it, it’s all made-up, theorizing in the worst sense. Arbitrary invention, irrelevant to ordinary state mundane life and & the altered state of consciousness. Sky castle built with ignorance of the intense mystic altered state.
Psychology Lexicon Concepts Poor: “the Subconscious”, “Individuation”
I would have to translate and rewrite the question in terms that make sense to me, especially ‘subconscious’. I can handle the first part:
* The insight into what appears as the controller with predetermined or pre-existent thought.
The egoic control system has a model of personal control where future control-thoughts are not existing, but I am the autonomous creator of them, by my mental steering power, steering into an open, non-existing future, so that I create the future, I create my future.
If future control-thoughts are pre-created, pre-existing on my worldline ahead, that’s a problem for the egoic control system, for king ego.
Thoughts as not merely “inevitably preset”, per domino-chain determinism which “closes” the not-yet-existing future.
Rather, future thoughts pre-EXIST (stronger than “pre-set”).
Experiencing future thoughts as not merely “preset” but rather, future thoughts pre-EXIST, leads to a control system failure, ego death, a revelation that’s offensive to egoic thinking, and contradicts the essence of the egoic control system.
In the loose cognitive state, as one can mentally observe during meditation combined with Psil., normally hidden aspects of the personal control system are revealed. It becomes possible to observe from outside, the underlying, revealed workings of the the personal control system: the wellspring in the cave, the hidden, uncontrollable source of control-thoughts.
That’s my equivalent of the concept of ‘the subconscious mind’.
My model of revealing the mind is not about personal suppressed memories to be brought up and resolved, as “the shadow”, during psychotherapy.
* The subconscious mind. The word ‘subconscious’ doesn’t mean anything to me. I don’t know what that word means.
I created the Egodeath theory because existing fields and their conceptual vocabularies aren’t working.
In 1986, I took on the project of figuring out for myself, the things I needed to understand (how to fix the mental model of personal control, by ego transcendence), because existing approaches weren’t addressing the relevant needs.
I’m a little more familiar with words:
‘perennialism’/ ‘perrenialist’ — not entirely confident I know what that’s supposed to mean.
Article authors: many disparage ‘perennialism’ as a very bad thing.
Others gladly assert perennialism.
It is a debate that hasn’t fully flared up, it’s a debate that’s likely to flare up next b/c two camps hold opposite views: comfortable advocating perennialism vs. demonizing it.
This concept might be part of the growing debate about ‘mysticism’ in the field of Psychedlic “Science”.
‘common core mystic experiences’ — requires checking what that term is supposed to mean.
Laden with wrong presuppositions from Stace 1960. Authors are finally starting to turn their attention to critiquing the Stace model, in the Psyched. “Science” debate.
‘default mode network’; ‘neuroplasticity’
The above terms are semi-clear but have problems and debates around some of them; I have different kinds of critiques of them.
I can barely critique ‘subconscious’ or answer a question that uses that term, because I don’t know what it is supposed to mean.
I looked up another Jungian Psychology term, like “individuation”, and felt:
The field of Psychology invents obscure, unhelpful, arbitrary, unjustified terms or concepts, conceptual vocabulary; lexicon.
For me the word ‘subconscious’ evokes mainly the exclamation that Psychology just invents constructs, that are unclear and not justified and not useful.
To me that’s first a theory translation question, of translating terms from the Psychology paradigm’s lexicon to the Psychedelic eternalism paradigm’s lexicon (as I have developed that lexicon in my expression of that paradigm).
In formulating the model of mental model transformation, I have not used the concept or term ‘subconscious’.
I found existing fields and their lexicons (conceptual vocabulary) to be unhelpful or only helpful after transformation — fields such as Psychology, Mysticism, Neuroscience.
Letcher Mis-Attributes the Graves/ Wasson/ Allegro/ Ruck “Secret Suppressed” Narrative to Stamets & Gartz
Letcher should have quoted and cited with page numbers Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck instead of Stamets and Gartz, to set up his straw man try hard to emphasize secret even more than the extremists the
Team Secret Amanita: Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck – mixed wine for initiation mystery meals food of the gods = Amanita = Datura
Delirious entheogen scholarship theory in the Secret Amanita paradigm.
How can you exaggerate their hyper emphasis on ‘secret’ they already self-parody.
Letcher omits the Academic Anthropology “taboo because potent” aspect from his regurgitation of the Secret paradigm.
Stamets, PMofW: AIG book 1996 p. 35 Bernward door liberty cap mushroom-tree Blame panel, silent about Bernward column four liberty cap mushroom-trees.
the only thing Stamets writes (p. 15):
“depiction of taxonomical facsimile of Liberty cap”
, Mis-Attributed to Stamets & Gartz Instead of Graves/ Wasson/ Allegro/ Ruck
(Who Already are Self-Parody of this Narrative Over-the-Top) –
Letcher Has the Right to Complain Justifiably –
The Main Instance of this Book’s Feeling All the Way Through: Who the Heck Are You Rebutting?? — Bernward Door Liberty Cap Tree “Fall from Grace” Blame Scene
The p. 35 “various writers suggest”
This particular instance of “who is he rebutting???” was my experience cover to cover, puzzling my way through the book.
This was the main instance of that puzzlement WHO ARE YOU REBUTTING??
HOW BOUT SOME CITATIONS FKING NEEDED AND SPELL OUT QUOTES AS PUNISHMENT FOR FALSELY CITING
TOO BAD YOU PICKED THE VERY WORST OPPONENTS WHO WROTE NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE SECRET NARRATIVE YOU RIGHTLY GET FROM RUCK AND ITS SO OVER THE TOP PAR SELF PARODY ALREADY… try to out-Ruck Ruck, Letcher.
1952-2006 – Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck drive HARD the narrative “secret, cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously”.
Ruck’s passion for SECRET SUPPRESSED completely overshadowed any interest in real psychedelics & in full repeal of Psilo Prohibition.
2006 – Letcher ridicules Ruck’s narrative framing and Letcher claims that various writers have suggested that narrative framing as secret. He neither quotes nor actually cites who is saying secret.
Easy answer: Letcher should have quoted and cited with page numbers, Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck, to ridicule them without appearing to be possibly strawmanning.except for endnote 31 whatever that is,
“various writers suggested secret, such as Stamets thanks for letting me publish your photo, says Letcher, while lying about Stamets narrative framing, which is actually from Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck and that
Graves, Wasson, Allegro, and Ruck
he GIVES NO QUOTES LOCALLy in the book, Shroom, and he gives no NO ACTUAL CITATIONS or page numbers
Either quote here, or point outside specifically and relevantly to support your — he IT IS SOME KIND OF STRAWMANNING , misattribtion
leading to statements Letcher claims they lead to.
Letcher sets up the most rHe Is Mocking Setting Up for Purpose of Ridiculting Wiothiout Giving any Quotes, just a vague mis-attribution citation
Shroom Page 36: Bernward Door
🤫🍄😯
The Ruck Barrier Wall Keeping Separate the Orthodox Mainstream vs. Heretical Sects
Initiates bc have The Mushroom 🤫🍄😯
Full Exoteric Esotericism Initiates 🤫🍄😯
full exoteric esotericism
kiddie myth full initiates
low myth
hierophant amanita promoter reveals the great HIDDEN SECRET SUPPRESSED SO-CALLED HERETICAL SECTS mystery: its a mushroom!! 🤫🍄😯 gee i wonder where Letcher 2005 writing book Shroom, where did he get the secret narrative he strives to put forth as the strawman postiion of Stamets and Gartz but Letcher where did he pick up this caricature of secret suppressed narrative?
Did Letcher invent that narrative that he erects as a strawman to build up and cite Stamets? No, the obvious culprits are the “taboo” theory/ explanation from Graves/ Wasson/ Allegro/ Ruck, concocted by the fantasizing sky castles from the academic Anthropology Theory Evolutionism department.
The Lack of Mushrooms in Christian art Proves The Mushroom 🍄 Was Tabu Because the Potent Engine of Christianity
The Mushroom was potent therefore tabu therefore non existing though prominently existing.
Lack of any evidence for mushrooms in Christianity is proof that mushrooms were the powerful central engine of the power of the holy spirit.
Stam PMofW p 15 couldn’t be FURTHER from having writing anything remotely like that – bad choice!
depiction of taxonomical facsimile of Liberty cap (Stamets)
My dominant feeling whole time reading Shroom in 2007, from cover to cover:
Who the hack is Letcher rebutting??
Letcher Must Provide Quotes Supporting His Claim that “Various writers have suggested Secret, Oppression”
Citation Needed, that is, Quotes Required
Quotes not in Letcher, PROVE THAT SOMEONE IS WRITING THAT – don’t just ASSERT that ppl say and give a BLUFFING wrong footnote that leads to NO SUCH NARRATIVE SET selected for ridicule by Letcher from where?
Letcher’s strawman Secret narrative was selected by Letcher from Robert Graves, Gordon Wasson, John Allegro, and Carl Ruck – NOT from Paul Stamets & Jochen Gartz.
Stamets gave Letcher permission to use Stamets’ photo of Blame panel of Bernward Door.
Stamets writes extremely little.
For going on and on about passionate retelling of “secret suppression” as if that’s the motivation and value of entheogen scholarship, see Robert Graves, Gordon Wasson, John Allegro, and Carl Ruck — NOT Stamets and Gartz, who have NONE of that narrative, framing, mentality, consciousness, or motivation.
The photo & discussion (by various writers) omits mentioning, from two panels above, the two mushroom-trees Liberty Cap trees in “Create Eve” panel, which is mentioned in Conj Eden w/o saying how many Lib Cap trees (two).
Every entheogen scholar asserts “secret hidden suppressed cults” EXCEPT for Stamets & Gartz!
Worst possible choice to attribute your strawman narrative dredged up by with no quotations, no real citation by Letcher 2006 Shroom book p 35
everywhere except in EXCEPT in Stamets PMotW 1996 & Gartz MM 1996
Bernward door liberty cap mushroom-tree Blame panel, Bernward column four liberty cap mushroom-trees bdbc
What is Hatsis way of theology to show so, it doesn’t count: not mushrooms. blah blah so, not mushroom. sound, tried & true historiographical methodology that Hatsis sets the standard for.
Huggins is a better witch than Hatsis, pulling the Panofsky letters out of thin air.
See drawer #whatever at Harvard.
Huggins goes trance channels Panofsky
Huggins Goes into Trance, Channels Panofsky Letters, pulled out of thin air
as if we all have them and have had them & their arguments
as if we have and have had [“noted exception”] Brinckmann citation since 1952
Timeless Huggins Art Historiography; 1952 is same as 2024
Huggins Wears a Suit of Panofsky arguments, and
huggs channels Panofsky in the Conclusion section where
So Mushroom Is “Ruled Out” Based on Obvious Logical Fallacies including: False Dilemma, Reductionist, Literalist, single-meaning fallacy
The phrase “ruled out” is Huggins’ crude, stiff wording and shallow arg’n.
The special pleading, exceptional case of mushroom-trees, where all rules of art interpretation are the exact opposite of all other aspects of art interpretation.
The “quickness and tone of assertion by authority argument.
Argument from quickness and tone of denial by expert authority
From Foraging Wrong:
“One prominent PMT [psychedelic mushroom theorist], J.R. Irvin, even complained that
Irvin wrote:
“Wasson adopted Panofsky’s interpretation and thenceforth began to force it upon other scholars. Uncritical acceptance of the Wasson-Panofsky view lasted, unchecked, for nearly fifty years.”61
61 Irvin, The Holy Mushroom. [doesn’t give page #]
Hug cont:
“It might be noted, however, that many of the works in which the PMTs express contrary views were published during the fifty years to which Irvin refers.
🤥 🐮💩
“The only real advantage [SCUMBAG LIAR] Wasson has enjoyed was perhaps the result of his [FORMERLY] trusted reputation,🤢 based partly on his willingness to engage scholars in other fields as a way of cross-checking his own work, a feature not often encountered in the more generally insular PMTs.
[i trust Wasson to lie, deceive, censor Pan & Brinc; playact; con people, harangue & insult mycologists, repeatedly, for decades 1952-1986]
[“engage” via personal communication, not by reading published writings, because there are no writings about trees or mushroom-trees, by these “EXPERTS IN RELATED MATTERS” 🐮💩
The proper normal way of “cross-checking your own work” is by READING what experts wrote, and their expertise is because of what they wrote on the topic of mushroom-trees, which is NOTHING.]
“In the meantime, the few art historians with expertise in Ottonian and Romanesque art who are aware of the PMTs claims continue to echo Panofsky.
“When questioned on the topic by the writer, prominent 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.]
Hug cont:
“Next to the GCP the Ottonian treasures of Hildesheim—Bishop Bernward’s doors, column, and chandelier, along with the painted ceiling of St. Michael’s Church—are among the most often discussed pieces of art by PMTs seeking hidden psychedelic mushrooms.63
63 Hoffman / Staples / Ruck, Conjuring Eden, 22– 24, 28– 30, Brown and Brown, Psychedelic Gospels, 152– 176; Jochen Gartz, Narrenschwämme: Psychotrope Pilze in Europa (fig. 1); Samorini, “Mushroom-Trees,” 102– 103; idem., Funghi allucinogeni, 197– 199; Irvin, Holy Mushroom (pl. 9– 12).
“However, as historian Bernhard Gallistl points out:
[“points out” improperly and abnormally, not via published writings — wrote NOTHING on this topic — but by personal comm.]
“The hidden symbolism in a picture can only be proven from the available textual sources.
[note the Letcher-type false argument, or mis-attribution to Stamets & Gartz instead of the true source, Graves/ Wasson/ Allegro/ Ruck, the “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, slipped in, secret cult, surreptitiously slippped in” narrative pulled out of thin air:]
“In my more than 30 years of experience as a manuscript expert at the Hildesheim Cathedral Library and researcher of the Hildesheim Middle Ages – preferably the 10th and 11th centuries – I have yet to come across a text in which I can see evidence of symbolism of this kind.64
64 Gallistl to the author (Nov 27, 2023). See especially Gallistl’s Die Bernwardsäule und die Michaeliskirchezu Hildesheim and Die Bronzetüren Bischof Bernwards in Dom zu Hildesheim.”
Hug cont:
“Gallistl’s point about the absence of textual support for the PMTs theories is an important one that applies as well to their treatment of the GCP and of Christian art throughout early and medieval Christianity.
“Charles Stang, director of Harvard’s Center for the Study of World Religions, states the problem well:
Stang wrote, & said in a speech:
“if the original Eucharist were psychedelic, or even if there were significant numbers of early Christians using psychedelics like sacrament, I would expect the representatives of orthodox, institutional Christianity to rail against it.”
“I would expect we’d have ample evidence.65”
end of Stang quote in Huggins –
We have not even STARTED to TRY to look. The “premature closure” fallacy.
Looking for A while we say we are looking for B: evidence for what? evidence for SECRET FUNGI? Just look for fungi, not secret suppressed fungi.
Obvious circular reasoning by Stang, confused by his own UNCONSCIOUS PRESUPPOSITION of suppression.
The Ruck-like barrier construction Stang strives to construct: orthodox vs. heretical sects, with a dividing barrier, with The Sacred Fungus on one side of Stang’s imagined barrier.
Letcher in Shroom 2006: England historian Henrietta Leyser when probed about mushroom imagery in Christian art, Bernward Door: denial, not via published writings, but abnormally, via “pers. comm.”, so, not mushroom. page 36, shown in present page above.
on topics related to mushroom-trees who wrote nothing
It’s not mushrooms, because of the quickness and tone of the art authority who wrote 0 words on this expert topic of
peripheral motif of boring mere peripheral trees, so you must “CONSULT” [OBEY] [
Hug has audacity to casually weirdly bring up the Brinck book – he writes “Noted” AS IF the public had that letter since 1952 – where the hell did Huggg get the censored secret Panofsky letters both strongly citing Brinckmann 1906 Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings.
Normal humans only got the Panofsky letters & their double strong urging to see published writing from Brinckmann 1906, via Brown 2019 article, which Hug omits to cite, nor cites Panofsky in Biblio, nor cites Brinckmann in his Biblio.
The weirdest thing about Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article: the way he uses the Panofsky letters and their Brinckmann citation, out of the blue
HUGS WEIRDLY USES PANOFSKY & BRINCKMANN — the WEIRDEST THING ABOUT HUGGINS FORAGING WRONG.
Wasson’s other hand simultaneously deleting the Brinck citation
the expert art authorities expert in related fields [ie 100% ignorant in this topic]
Huggins makes Panofsky State False Dilemma, Reductionist, Literalist, single-meaning fallacy in non-realism Medieval art.
What Stamets and Gartz Wrote About Bern Door Blame Panel Liberty Cap mushroom-tree – and What Letcher Cites them as saying
depiction of taxonomical facsimile of Liberty cap (Stamets) [2]
CITATION fkking NEEDED! quotations. Not just bunk end note “31” that utterly fails to come up with ANY support for the claim:
“Various writers have suggested cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in, such as Stamets & Gartz.”
— Letcher, Shroom, p. 35, shown in the present webpage, in full; condensed here.
fake bunk non citation fa fal false citaiton, MIS ATTIBUTION OF THE POP TALE GRAVES WASSON ALLEGRO RUCK paradigm.
Dr. Secret, where do you think Letcher 2005 picked up the secret narrative, Dr. Secret? Ruck
Secret Christian Amanita Cult
the “secret Amanita cult” theory
the Amanita Primacy Fallacy
taxonomical variant he gives stamets, all 3 names: psil semil lib cap witches hat
“taxonomical facsimile of Liberty cap”
“mushroom motif”
IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY ANYTHING LESS ON THE TOPIC THAN THE CITED AUTHORS; WORST POSSIBLE CHOICE, THEY WRITE BAREST EXTREME CONCISE ALMOST ZERO WORDS. it is the barest assertion, and Stamets ONLY makes the point that the image is a tax’ly confirmed Lib cap – not other point at all. Cited a poor choice REGARDING THE STRAWMAN NARRATIVE LETCHER CONCONTS – OR RAISES UP BY …. WHAT NARR SECRET
LETCHER SETS UP AND MOCKS THE SECRET NARRATIVE FROM RUCK ALLEGRO POP — NOT FROM STAMETS GARTZ! citation needed!
Letcher dredges up words that came from Anthropology theory, eg. Graves, Wasson, Allegro, & Ruck, and Mis-attributes them to Stamets & Gartz
tabu taboo cult secretly oppression slipped into hidden secret cult surreptitiously slipped in
In Letcher’s 2006 book Shroom, what does endnote 31 quote from Stamets & Gartz, not shown here? I now have multiple copies of multiple summaries of that: summary of key words of:
what Stamets wrote
what Gartz wrote
what Letcher wrote
Contrasting — the strenuously constructed strawman from Letcher; what Letcher wrote (key words).
Letcher got his ridiculed strawman that he constructs in order to mock, from Graves/Was/Alleg/Ruck, Carl “Dr. Secret” Ruck. NOT from Stam/Gart per phony fake make-believe suckers’ endnote 31.
All religious art clearly represents psychedelic eternalism
That’s a joke based on Rush quote regarding Saint Martin: Entry into Jerusalem:
“This … painting … clearlyrepresents mushrooms (manna) being handed out.” – John Rush
The word “clearly” and John “Not Clearly” Rush do not fit together.
What do you mean by “represents”, Rush? Consubstantial. Associated with.
per Wasson, the serpent is associated with The Mushroom.
So even though the Plainc painter had no thought of Amanita, Wasson gives himself credit as the first one to ever think of tree of knowledge as mushroom, and the IGNORANT STUPID DUMBASS PAINTER HAD NO IDEA THAT THE SNAKE IS ASSOCIATED WITH AND CONSUBSTANTIAL REPRESENTING THE SACRED MUSHROOM.
So the painter did paint a mushroom, but was not brilliant enough to realize it, unlike brilliant Wasson, who figured out that Amanita produces Psilocybin effects.
Father of ethnomycology idiocy and scummy self-promotion requiring tearing other ppeople down, such as the leading mycologist in 1953, who retaliated by publishing Wasson’s bullsh!t in a 2nd printing of Ram’s book.
That was then quoted ‘rightly or wrongly’ — by Allegro’s book SMC, mocking Wasson, who still took years to figure out he’s been turned into a joke with no credibility about mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Wasson has the same rude, insulting stance toward artists as Panofsky has, when it comes to mushroom-trees, that topic that is superstitious and tabu for scholars like Graves, Wasson, and Panofsky.
Blurry Internet Photos 1, Brown 0
I proved and explained that sticks and feathers are held out, not mushrooms as falsely claimed by Rush 2x & Brown 4x.
Elasticity of Writing by Entheogen Scholars
As ever, roundabout evasive writing, implausible deniability: “We never wrote a sentence that states the youth holds out mushrooms. You can’t prove we asserted that.”
Pieced together, Brown did write such.
“stems” “caps” “I see caps that have been made not visible.”
Brown, 2016, Saint Martin, Entry Into Jerusalem, What Jesus and the Youth Hold Out
“Jesus is sitting on an ass with his arms reaching out toward the youths who are greeting him. One of the youths is leaning forward, holding on to the stem of an oblong mushroom in his left hand, while offering Jesus three stems with his right hand, whose tops have been painted over or somehow obscured.”
Brown & Brown, 2016, page 112.
Transcribed by Michael Hoffman from paperback, Jan. 30, 2025
Brown, 2019, Saint Martin, Entry Into Jerusalem, What Jesus and the Youth Hold Out
“Christ is riding on an ass with his arms outstretched to receive a plant-like gift (of which only the stems are visible), offered by one of the youth who with his other hand is holding the stem of one of the mushrooms.”
Copypaste from Brown 2019 PDF: bold added.
John Rush, 2022, Saint Martin, Entry Into Jerusalem, What Jesus and the Youth Hold Out
What do you mean by “clearly” and “represents”? That’s what Rush wishes to see. It’s not there.
A field day for deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Alternative phrases: pre-existence; non-branching possibilities; eternalism [top-level termy for the theory]
(within the set of 4 terms like “analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level control”)
analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level, dependent control Too many words at end; not consistent verbosity.
Similar:
the theory of analogical psychedelic eternalism cybernetics apec ‘cyb’ is too vague: what ABOUT control? what ABOUT control changes? The mental model of control changes to 2-level, dependent control?
Shorter awkward 4th term: 3 words better than 4, for term 4:
analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level control ape2
I wrote:
The following is about 80% toward constructing a response to the questions.
wrmspirit wrote:
> Terminology: How do you get pre-existence from eternalism? Eternalism – mystic state experiencing
I wrote:
Eternalism is a different quadrant than mystic-state experiencing. Overlapping, relation between the 4 parts (analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control).
eternalism = pre-existence of control thoughts = determinism = block-universe determinism = block-universe eternalism
analogy = metaphor
control transformation = cybernetics
wrmspirit wrote: > Pre-existence. How can it be experienced? The soul doesn’t separate until physical death, is the big belief.
I wrote:
Pre-existence of control thoughts embedded in timeless block-universe is 100% offensive to king ego/ egoic control.
Such pre-existence of control-thoughts is experienced in the altered state. (per the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence; the theory of psychedelic pre-existence)
wrmspirit wrote: > who is to say what is ‘pre’ Without a timeline. Time disappears in mystic altered state.
I wrote:
The term ‘pre-existence’ tries to make time vanish, pulling rug out from under king ego / egoic control.
If your control-thoughts already are created “for you”, and you are being forcefully pushed forward in time when these control-ideas will be forced unavoidably into mind, scary-to-death for egoic control agent.
_______________
My attempt to replace the word ‘eternalism‘ by ‘pre-existence‘ is from a couple years ago, to emphasize different things and to use common words.
The size or scope of the terms differs, so might not work – is my current feeling.
* ‘eternalism’ per Stanford Phil. omits any attention to the non-control idea or ctrl transformation, which is the most important idea – so ‘eternalism’ must be clarified or supplemented by also saying something about control or cybernetics.
* ‘non-branching’ is similarly narrow, not big enough to encompass all 4 basic elements: per 2007 main article puzzle quadrant lexicon:
url for puzzle piece, check new copy of main article at my new site:
* metaphor –> analogical [thank God, a straightforwardly perfect, single word]
Problem though: need to highlight the most offensive-to-ego points:
Problem: Point out: Future control thoughts are already existing and set in stone, frozen in rock. Thus my attempted term ‘pre-existence’ – which has advantage of being common English words.
Problem: Need terminology about branching –> non-branching, because so extremely easy to depict visually in art. To represent transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
2020 4-part term: analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control
‘cybernetics‘ (2007 term) vs. ‘control model transformation‘ (2020 term); 2-level, dependent control — either word is ok, but “control” is far more common language. Nice but not “transformed POV” enough: “non-control”.
Only egoic thinking would say that “qualified possibilism-thinking” is “non-control“. We do not end up w/ non control; we end up with – MOST NEUTRALLY — “2-level control”.
Ego fears wholesale vague “loss of control“, but what we actually undergo is transformation of control.
The term “dependent control” is a little too close to egoic concept of “loss of control”.
The term “2-level control” avoids any whiff of egoic type simple thinking like “loss of control”.
I am not comfortable with “dependent control“, because it draws all attention to weak helpless non-control, which is NOT how the FULLY transformed mind emphasizes.
The term “dependent control” is misleading emphasis; whereas the neutral term ‘2-level control‘ doesn’t highlight that debatable emphasis.
So I am more comfortable with the term ‘2-level control‘ than ‘dependent control‘, and I like “control transformation to 2-level control‘ from monolithic autonomous control.
‘metaphor‘ (2007 term) vs. analogy (2007 term) — ‘metaphor’ is too literature-focused; analogy (2020 term) is used by Science: analogy is comparison for purpose of explaining something.
‘determinism‘ (2007 term) vs. ‘eternalism‘ (2020 term) — ‘determinism’ definitely means egoic domino-chain causality model, which is irrelevant and has to be shaken off; ‘eternalism’ (& Superdeterminism) — discovered like the day after finishing the Sep 2007 main article — evades that causality model but Josie Kins psychonaut scientist botches definition of ‘eternalism’.
FAIR’S FAIR: if everyone gets to talk about “determinism”, it’s reasonable to use similarly technical term ‘eternalism’.
‘dissociation‘ (2007 term) vs ‘psychedelic‘(2020 term)
/ end of reply, Su:
Crafting a Set of 4 Terms
These first two “goal” points stood out when composing previous msg – especially that I’m crafting a SET of terms, a system, together.
todo: wrmspirit wrote about downside of the term ‘pre-existing’, ancient theory of preexisting soul attaching to body, gets tangled/ is a connotation inadvertant; connotation baggage.
To give more insight on why attempting — as a replacement for technical jargon ‘eternalism’ — to use terms like “pre-existence” or “non-branching”.
On March 21, 2022, I first wrote “branching-message mushroom trees”, in email to Brown re: Marcia Kupfer’s passage, which Brown better highlighted in 2019 than 2016 with bold formatting where Kupfer wrote “tree … cut … branch”.
Brown bolded to criticize her for saying “tree” but not “mushroom” – but I noticed her words “cut” and “branch”, a totally different seeing than Brown.
Browns’ 2019 bolding on Kupfer’s words highlighted entirely different things for me than for Brown.
I continued to spot “non-branching” motif in familiar art pieces, after that.
Goal: Craft a SET of 4 Phrases/Terms; not just working on alternatives for the term ‘eternalism’ alone in isolation
* Goal: Craft a set of short terms that effectively convey & express the right set of connotations, for a SET of 4 areas of focus.
Craft an entire SET of 4 focuses/ concept-labels.
Develop the best short terms (concept-labels) to represent and convey each of the 4 distinct areas of focus. Not too much overlap. Not leaving out crucial ideas, with a huge gap between the 4 terms/ areas of focus.
Goal: Avoid jargon or special uses of common words; use common words
* Goal: Use common words, not specialized jargon.
Avoid non-words eg debranched, worldmodel.
Do not try to ingratiate and hop on Pop board jargon of the day: “default-mode network”, “neuroplasticity” that are laden with meaning-networks that are not controlled by the Egodeath theory’s carefully controlled lexicon/ meaning-network.
Trying to construct a SET of 4 distinct terms or areas of focus.
In transformation of mental model, model goes from first set of 4 areas of focus, to the 2nd set of 4 areas of focus:
from literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control
to analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control
Try straight replacement:
to analogical psychedelic pre-existence with dependent control
to analogical psychedelic non-branching with dependent control
These terms can be grouped as equivalent:
eternalism
determinism per Minkowsky block time, time as 4th dimension; block world.
pre-existence (of control thoughts, though control is a different “quadrant”/focus within the set of 4)
non-branching — trying to communicate with mushroom-tree artists; trying to express my core theory in a way easy to map to their “non-branching” idea/motif.
Keeping the focus of that group of terms distinct from the interacting other quadrant, Cybernetics/ control/ the personal control system & its transformation.
“possibilities branching” “possibility-branching”, vs. non-branching of possibilities – similar to saying “timeless preexistence”; block-universe eternalism
/ end of pair of posts ie emails
Entheogen Scholars Make Tons of Mistakes — But They’re Still Right (So Far as They Go, Toward Psilocybin Eternalism): What Are Their Top 5 Foolish Assertions?
Mushroom-tree deniers have a field day when affirmers make a big mistake.
I could write article listing the many poor assertions by mushroom-tree affirmers, like I specialize in finding instances of the Amanita Primacy Fallacy eg. where magician Irvin attributes Psil fx to Amanita through shell game wildcard term “sacred mushrooms”.
Short list of my rebuttals against entheogen scholars:
Biggest faceplant ever, in the field: Ruck, 2009, “Dancing man has red cap.” HOW Ruck did you manage such a colossal mistake? Irvin corrupted the art forcing it from blue to red? First decent copy ever was from Hatsis afaik.
Brown Walburga tapestry – especially folly when include the set-up, 2 ppl, 2 publications, not doing field work, “while we were doing field work we realized”, “held photo up to light [with Jan Irvin & book attached to it]”, photo credit: same as in Irvin book; serrated base as shown on Golden Guide book cover in Brown era of 1976, etc.
Brown Day 3 when id’ing plants, starts from the Right, drives car in reverse and walks around on his head, because Amanita is on the right. Copies Arthur…
Smaller mistake: Brown mistranscribed Panofsky letter, changing Pan’s meaning, changed “finished product” (ie prototype) to “finished project” (ie fresco).
James Arthur 2000 not interested in Day 3 being mushrooms; abuses it to make 5-plant recipe for SOMA, give me back my diamond hammer of interpretation (vigorous, forced, committed interp’n).
Day 3: God holds something/msh in hand – everyone yells: “no he doesn’t wtf Rush”.
Rush gallery of art images showing random whatever, and 1-2 mushrooms too.
Entheos 3 cover: forced blue to red deleting Psil mushroom in leg, Reversed = removes enlightenment. Ruck Committee sees speck of red & white paint, fails to see Psil mushroom in Mithras’ leg on their journal cover b/c corrupted art b/c chasing their “The Sacred Mushroom; Amanita“.
Julie Brown: “the mushroom cap has been painted over or somehow obscured … the mushroom stem has been re-painted beyond all recognition“
John Rush: “This … painting … clearly represents mushrooms (manna) being handed out” – John Rush, 2nd Ed 2022 of 2011 book, p. 207. What do you expect deniers to do with such easy-to-demolish claims?
copied from present page to here: accur 2016: “Jesus is sitting on an ass with his arms reaching out toward the youths who are greeting him. One of the youths is leaning forward, holding on to the stem of an oblong mushroom in his left hand, while offering Jesus three stems with his right hand, whose tops have been painted over or somehow obscured.”
NOT transcribed from 2016 book:
The dialog while Brown, Brown, & Brown wrote their 2016 book: “Brown, do you see painted-over caps?” “Yes, Brown, I see very clearly painted-over caps above the mushroom stems of the plant-like gift.”
Julie specifically agrees to ONLY describe what she SEES, yet the passage describes instead what she DOESN’T see; mushrooms, because they are not there in the image. “caps painted over” is bizarre in this context. Strange writing.
Here is a picture of that mushroom:
Beautiful, isn’t it!
Brown 2019: “We can only speculate why a mushroom tree is growing on top (or out of) the roof of a stone tower.”
The mushroom-tree is above the gate; a mushroom gate. Like Eadwine: above temple door passageway, {mushroom toppers} at roof peak.
Dancing Man’s mushroom-tree’s cap with red cap spotted white, to silence the art historians:
Crop by Michael Hoffman serpent has knowledge, indic’d by cut right branch next to cut neck of serpent; neck segment = cut right branch – the L branch cuts the R branch and the serpent neckCrop by Michael Hoffman
Eating from tree of knowledge, looking at topmost Liberty Cap’s L & R branches
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman “f11 row 3 right looking lines.jpg” 276 KB, 10:55 pm Jan. 29, 2025
redo [done, above], they are looking a little higher – also show the lines converging like the four horses’. Where do Adam & Eve’s looking-lines intersect? With straightedge, try: the topmost Lib Cap’s L & R branches.
Crop by Michael Hoffman, April 10, 2023Crop by Michael Hoffman, April 12, 2023Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 27, 2023Photo credit: Julie M. Brown. Crop by Michael Hoffman.
May require Irvin to jam the color palette violently from blue to red to get rid of all that undesirable blue, and force it to red; bc blue is too much like Psilocybin mushrooms, which is “not relevant for this discussion” per Irvin 2008 book THM.
THM has the stated purpose: to vindicate & build out/ build on the solid foundation that is Allegro’s entheogen scholarship.
Irvin copied Mark Hoffman’s technique for the cover of Entheos 3 — violently CORRUPTING ART by forcing it from blue to red — but Irvin FORGOT TO REVERSE the picture like Mark Hoffman reversed, disastrously, the Tauroctony, as Hoffman fell from above the sphere of stars to below it like a non-initiate.
See, art historians: the leading entheogen scholar PROVES this is our sacred holy mushroom
The Fly Agaric, Amanita muscaria, big name, lots of formatting and ceremony in REVEALING the SECRET of our The Holy Mushroom,
Secret Christian Amanita Cult
Sect Group Community
Boundary Wall Separation Dividing Barrier
Suppressed Underground So-Called By Ruck Heretics but better by far is heretical SECTS, never care about indivudals “having” The Mushroom gnosis fully initiated gnosis secret eucharist … the few inner p 56 p 14 —
closed small circle only a few are in on it – what is the ruck lexicon here?
the secret was only known among the inner exclusive circle of knowers, THE INNERMOST CIRCLE OF initiates, esoteric initiates are the ones who know the secret Amanita cult. they are MEMBERS of “so-called heretical sects” — writes Ruck, in all 3 issues of Entheos.
If you “know about” Amanita, you HAVE GNOSIS. You are in on the holy secret, which is Amanita.
One example alone should suffice to silence the art historians: a typical mushroom-tree is shown beside Dancing Man. The mushroom has a red cap spotted white, and similar mushrooms branch from its stipe-like trunk.
[10:01 pm Jan. 29, 2025] – dancing man tree salam touch cap w right foot and the CUT CUT RIGHT BRANCH POINTS AT salam R foot the bestiary salamander image with Y-branching mushroom tree [that sounds wrong, “Y-branching” – more import… it is not Y like — TWISTED Y — IT’S n AN X NOT A Y! 10:03 PM
Adam and Eve Lose Transcendent Knowledge When Eat from Tree
Adam and Eve Lose Enlightenment When Eat from Tree
Adam and Eve Gain Anti-Enlightenment; Lose Enlightenment, When Eat from Tree
They change from right foot down & right hand lower, to left foot down & left hand lower
Crop by Michael Hoffman “f11 row 3 middle and right.jpg” 488 KB, 10:47 pm Jan. 29, 2025
noticed the other day: like Jan 27, 2025: f11 row 3 middle [on left in this crop], Do Not Eat Tree of tree of knowledge:
God and Adam and Eve have right foot down, correctly, and,
Adam & Eve have right hand lower than left hand, correctly.
But when they eat tree of knowledge row 3 R [on right in this crop],
their feet are strangely both down, and
L hand lower to the ground than R hand (bad, per f134 which extremely emphasizes that handedness). So:
THEY HAVE GONE FROM ENLIGHTENED TO UNENLIGHTENED WHEN THEY EAT THE FRUIT.
They gain un-enlightenment; anti-enlightenment.
A longer-distance but solid point against Bennett’s article against Brown, Bennett’s Fungi Paraeieieaoal article (worst title of any article ever) argued that Bernward Door DOESN’T COUNT and that Brown and everyone is an academic FRAUD because the Liberty Cap mushroom-tree is merely in the Blame panel, not in the all-important Eat From tree of knowledge panel.
Bennett emphasizes that the the tree of knowledge panel lacks Liberty Cap mushroom-tree.
Yet the Great Canterbury Psalter tree of knowledge and do not eat panels contradict that bc they, too, differ from each other, in the opposite way: so, they are PAIRED and you CANNOT UN-PAIR THEM.
IF ONE PANEL IS MUSHROOMS, THEN THE WHOLE SET OF IMAGES IS MUSHROOMS.
Great Canterbury Psalter Day 3 as a Test Case: Huggins’ Proposal for Battle in the Forest of mushroom-trees in Christian Art
to Bet Everything – All or Nothing:
All the Art that includes mushroom-trees all means mush mushrooms
all such art entire set of images all means {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
All Art Around mushroom-trees
mushroom imagery in Christian art
All art that’s connected with mushroom-trees means psychedelic eternalism.
Mushroom-trees mean psychedelic eternalism, not trees or mushrooms
A mushroom-tree means psychedelic eternalism, not tree or mushroom
If either the Do Not Eat panel or the Tree of Knowledge panel has mushroom imagery, then both panels mean mushrooms – ie, psychedelic eternalism.
Bernward Door (increased by column 4 panels plants mushroom-trees of same matching Blame panel.
f11 row 3 and 4: Eden: Lacks a Blame Scene Like Bernward Door Has
No Blame scene like Bern Door. from Eat tree of knowledge, to guarded gate by flame and blade.
correct foot & hand height in Do Not Eat scene; wrong foot and hand height in Eat tree of knowledge scene panel.
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Do Not Eat panel
Eat from tree of knowledge panel
Blame Panel – Bern has , Great Canterbury Psalter lacks, jumps from Eat scene to Gate guarded scene (by {blade} & {fire}), skipping Blame scene.
Kicked out guarded gate flame sword angel death walled boundary space of immortals
If Do Not Eat has mushroom or tree of knowledge panel has mushrooms, all of the plants in all of the panels mean mushrooms
If there is 1 mushroom image in Great Canterbury Psalter, then every image in the Psalter means mushrooms.
Photo credit: Julie M. Brown. Crop by Michael Hoffman.Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman “f11 row 3 right looking lines.jpg” 276 KB, 10:55 pm Jan. 29, 2025
X branching form theory: birth of nomenclature “X”. {cut right branch} via cross-behind; X. cut right branch via sword
cut right branch via cut off
cut right branch via botched cross unaligned cross behind Great Canterbury Psalter f177 row 1 L mushroom-tree with 4 horses – an offset X two legss of branch don’t align – HOR CUT VIA HORIZONTAL SHIFT – it is a cross between cut branch end, vs. visually cut by cross-behind
or recognized, the theme/ motif/ technique: {visually cut branch by crossing behind another branch}
an X where the right line is behind the l line; you see / but you don’t see \ X
Crop by Michael Hoffman I; X / -\; Y; X \ -/; I I X / -\ Y X \ -/ I
Crop by Michael Hoffman I; X / -\; Y; X \ -/; I
I X / -\ ie, right cross-behind Y X \ -/ ie, left cross-behind I
This image proves attention to cross-behind and this type of branching form.
X where / -\
X / -\ right cross-behind
start from bottom
where the branches moving bottom to top
the right branch is visually cut by the left branch
Right branch cut by left branch
Dancing Man: X right cross-behind / -\
Dancing Man: X / -\
tree of knowledge: X, / -\
tree of knowledge: X, right cross-behind
its branching form is X, right cross-behind
not: X, left cross-behind
X, left cross-behind
X, right cross-behind
bad: left branch cross-behind
good: right branch cross-behind
cut right branch via cross-behind
X \ -/
Cut right branch via 5 Different Ways
Crop by Michael Hoffman
cut right trunk
cut right branch visually cut by other branch
cut right branch
cut right crown/cap
cut right Liberty Cap cap in grid in crown/cap
cut left branch visually cut by border
grid of Lib Caps in cap = branching; sword cuts — with blue fruit disc handle — the right part of the branching; = cut right branch
similar for cutting the right side of the Liberty Cap WHICH IS DEFINED IN TREE OF KNOWLEDGE AS HAVING A L & R BRANCH ARMS. “pink key tree” indeed: tree of knowledge is pink key tree defining every Lib Cap cap/crown in the Psalter. Given: It is a given that every grid cap w Lib Caps containing grid of Lib Caps , each Lib Cap has L & R arm.
noted also tonite dancing man has bunch of L & R arms but note that one thing is steady: any given flat any given feature of a tree in this genre is definitely L or R or crosses L to R…. it is NATURAL to employ L & R in this flat tree composition. we see flashing before eyes: this thing on LEFT, OTHER other thing on RIGHT. blah blah LEFT blah blah RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT VS RIGHT THING L THINK IN TERMS OF LEFT VS RIGHT THERE ARE TWO SIDES TO EVERY TREE LEFT SIDE RIGHT SIDE LEFT RIGHT HANDEDNESS WHAT IS LEFT WHAT IS RIGHT AMPPED
WHAT IS THE L-VS-R PAIR DIAD DYAD MAPPED TO WHICH DYAND? WHICH TWO “THINGS” can be opposed contrasted like L vs R are contrasted? Side Two directions, two sides, two arms, two X, which arm = “cut”? Branching on L, non-branching = right side. YI
literally cut branch f193 row 1 L? the one cut 5 ways
visually cut branch via offset cross-behind [f177 row 1 L]
a separator:
Fungus Redivivus Carl Ruck, 2009, in book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, John Allegro, 1970
[9:24 pm jan 29 2025] neck cut right branch –
Why have serpent go behind branches?
reg ans: its a snake he has to wrap branch.
alt ans: exact same concept as cross behind cut visually occluded right cut branch
cut via x vs via y
serpent has knowledge, indic’d by cut right branch next to cut neck of serpent
neck segment = cut right branch
the L branch cuts the R branch and cuts the serpent neck
the L branch cuts the R branch
the L branch cuts the serpent neck
cut right branch via serpent going behind instead of … whenever have snake in tree, always snake is visually cut branch.
dancing man salamander is not twined behind a tree limb as a snake serpent always is cross behind the branch a trunk or branch. trunk and branches.
not salamander tho; beside tree.
has 4 limbs, different morph conventions apply than snake shape than BECAUSE SNAKES HAVE TWO LEGS BUT SALAMANDERS HAVE 4 LEGS THATS THE DIFFERENT MORPHOLOGY
Dancing Man: salamander 4 legs
tree of knowledge: serpent 2 legs
no legs in Day 6 serpent
cut right trunk
crt
cut right branch
crb
Crop by Michael Hoffman
1987-Type Acronyms/ Keyboard shortcuts for key concepts of the Egodeath theory
‘Shadow’ Is Defined as Personal History, so Can’t Use ‘shadow’ as Label of the Common Core Psychedelic Dynamic
The ppl taking over the Psychedelic Renaissance are biased against Psil-specific effects, and they try to reduce those to OSC ordinary-state effects.
Misuse of the term “shadow” – the term is inherently laden with wrong, bad assumptions: it is assumed that “the shadow” is specifically personal, not inherent to the altered state.
The term ‘shadow’ is ASSUMED to be and defined as “personal shadow”.
I must stop writing “terror of the shadow dragon monster guarding the gate”.
Stanislaus Grof’s Breathwork and Psychedelic Therapy Is Premised on Remembering of your Birth Trauma, to Process It
The word ‘shadow’ BY DEFINITION means personal issues, your biography history issues, that you need Grof to make you physically remember when you were being born.
Grof therapy is premised on: you have personal trauma because of birth labor, and the source of your problem is that.
You need to PROCESS those FIRST MEMORIES to resolve the trauma that you remember from your own birth process when you were born, and ergot, or bunk breathing, accomplishes that, which is why Grof is so popular.
Bunk Breathing, aka “Groffian breathwork”, can/ could/ might/ may [ie, doesn’t] produce the same effects as a 10-strip of blotter: special breathing enables you to remember your SHADOW experience of birth trauma, to PROCESS and resolve your personal shadow experience.
The Psychedelic RenaissanceTM Died 🍄😵
The Psychedelic Renaissance has plummetted and died as far as startups. Startups are removing Psychedelic from their name, and distancing/ detaching themselves from ‘psychedelic’ branding.
— per venture capitalist startup funder yesterday jan 28 2025 on Joe Miller’s podcast youtube, Psychedelics Today. https://psychedelicstoday.com
The War Between Psychedelic Scientists vs. Psychedelic Mystics
the war among the mystical scientists
Both Worshipping the God and Savior Walter Stace: The Foundation of Mystical Science of Stacean “Mysticism”.
“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, which I already printed out.
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 does Max Freakout say about we hold same view: …. trying to remember my exact aspect to check w/ Max.
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?
FAD-Plus: Free Will and Determinism Questionnaire (Paulhus 2011)
Key Phrases per Keyboard Shortcuts: Valuable, Powerful Lexicon
What acro would I expect to write?
Acronyms are powerful like my April 1987 huge change of approach — THIS HUGE PIVOT NEEDS TO BE DOCUMENTED — where the Egodeath theory development technique was born when father died, my big fresh new 2nd start 2nd attempt, new approach:
Switched to big expansive empty INFORMALbinder sheets 8.5×11″. Way more elbow room. Same as idea development pages at this site. Instead of the Oct 1985-March 1987 awkward smaller blank books.
Introduced the use of acronyms: plus new mechanism: i invented the acronym. Instead of writing out every word. Fundamentally changes the way of thinking, to modular idea concept components – enables building and scaling up to multiple levels of abstraction, powerful.
Changed to thinking of this as working on a theory.
I no longer thought in terms of “writing to fix my thoughts”, now I started aiming bigger: I am figuring out in order to explain and document for other people. April 1987 change of mindset. Now I was doing a R&D project. Not goal of just “fix myself right now”.
It would not be THAT much snap of the fingers. Took a long time, 9 months!!, April 1987 to Jan 1988, to figure out (started Oct. 1985) the garbled mess that ppl before me wallowed in unclarity.
The blank-books-based initial effort Oct 1985 to March 1986 was a failure, but I knew I had potential. I had to succeed. I had to change my approach.
Once I had momentum and new technique April 1987, took 9 months to solve the problem, then huge pivot Jan. 1988 as my conception of what’s possible entirely changed.
Jan. 29, 2025, developed efficient way of showing and developing further, the 2021 work on shortcuts; started filling in page from A-E of alphabet – VALUABLE/POWERFUL:
{king steering in tree} -> {wine} -> {snake frozen in rock} {kws
{snake} {s
{snake frozen in rock} {sfr
the altered state a-s
autonomous personal control agency, operating in a branching-possibilities world aa-bw
transformation of the mental world model from literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control, to analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level control tla
that is missing “model of time, self, and control”. omit “self”? see also phrase “mental model of time, self, possibility, and control” in other entry below. try just “model of control”.
mental model of what? transform the mental model from X to Y, answers that question (indirectly). transformation from possibilism to eternalism; the possibilism model or the eternalism model of what? of …. time, self, possibility, and control? [and of analogy?] Change the mental model of analogy from literalist to analogical.
“mental world model” vs. “mental model”
There is no net gain by adding “world”, to change from “mental model” to “mental world model”.
transformation of the mental model from possibilism to eternalism tmmpe
from lop to ape Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control
analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control apedc
literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control lopac
mental worldmodel transformation from possibilism to eternalism mwtpe
transformation of the mental worldmodel from Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism to Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism tmwla tmmlopape lopape
literalist ordinary-state possibilism lop
analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control
analogical psychedelic eternalism ape analogical psychedelic eternalism
literalist ordinary-state possibilism
analogical psychedelic eternalism
transformation from literalist ordinary-state possibilism to analogical psychedelic eternalism
transformation of the mental world model from literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control, to analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level control copy of
transformation of the mental world model from literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control, to analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level control copy of transformation of the mental world model from literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control, to analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level control
transformation of the mental world model from literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control, to analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level control
cognitive neuro-reductionism cnr
the mental model of time and control
The Maximal Mushroom Theory of Christianity
the maximal mushroom theory of Christianity mmtc
transformation of the mental model of time and control from literalist ordinary-state possibilism literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control to analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control
2-level, dependent control
Low Esotericism 🤫🍄🙌
from Amanita, Christianity, Surface Form, Low Esotericism to Psilocybe, Greek + Christian, Cognitive Effects, High Esotericism
from:
🤫🍄🙌
to:
💡💎🏆🏅🍄🟫
from {Amanita, Christianity, surface form, low esotericism} to {Psilocybin, Greek + Christian, cognitive effects, high esotericism} ap
Amanita –> Psilocybin Christianity –> Greek + Christian surface form –> cognitive effects low esotericism –> high esotericism
Amanita –> Psilocybin; Christianity –> Greek + Christian; surface form –> cognitive effects; low esotericism –> high esotericism apa
The Secret Amanita paradigm vs. the Explicit Cubensis paradigm
Secret Christian Amanita Cult scac
transformation of the mental worldmodel from possibilism to eternalism tmwpe
transformation of the mental worldmodel from possibilism to eternalism
from
literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control
to
analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control
transformation of the mental model of time, self, and control tmmtsc
mental model of time, self, and control mmtsc
transformation of the mental worldmodel from possibilism to eternalism tmwpe
transformation of the mental worldmodel from possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking tmwptet
transcending no-free-will tnfw
things that are observed and experienced in the altered state toeas
transformation of the mental worldmodel
{blade} is a a top-10 mytheme
{flame} is a a top-10 mytheme
the traditional methods of the mystics tmm
a top-10 mytheme ttm
re: time, control, mental model transformation mental model transformation
mental model transformation mmt
monolithic control-agent mca
2-level, dependent control 2l
autonomous control-agent aca
mental model of time, self, and control mmtsc
monolithic control-agent mca
the traditional methods of the mystics tmm
mental worldmodel transformation from the Possibilism to the Eternalism mental model of time, self, possibility, and control
transformation from possibilism to eternalism tpe
Recent Posts
The previous idea development page 23 reached record length of 208 sheets, so there is lots there to read or Find.
{balance scale} and {mushroom} motifs Together in Great Canterbury Psalter
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025Crop by Michael Hoffman, June 8, 2023Crop by Michael HoffmanCrop by Michael HoffmanCrop by Michael Hoffman, June 3, 2023Crop by Michael Hoffman, Dec. 15, 2024Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 30, 2025
John Rush is central to Psychedelics and entheogen scholarship.
I agree with John Rush’s general approach to art interpretation.
All religious art is Psilocybin art.
Jungianism forces a thick obscuring overlay onto actual myth.
My thick, heavy-handed interpretative overlay is thicker and more obscuring than your thick, heavy-handed interpretative overlay.
The data trembles when it sees my forceful, coercive theory coming: the diamond hammer of interpretation.
The {mushroom hem} motif
Rush oddly didn’t come up w/ a term – a concept-label — for {mushroom hem} motif; he uses awkward unwieldy wording only.
The {celestial erection} motif
The {celestial erection} motif is very common theme in Christian mushroom art, found together with {branching-message mushroom trees}, {mushroom hem}; mushroom imagery along with 3-5 other motifs.
{lifted garment} was my original reject term.
The better new term is {phallic garment}.
Rush’s term {celestial erection} is superior to my new term in most ways.
A b.s. euphemism term from me: my new term {phallic garment} is adequately semi-specific.
Rush owns the {celestial erection} motif.
Rush didn’t form a term for {mushroom hem} like he did for the {celestial erection} motif.
In John Rush’s book (Amanita-fest cover):
He defines term {celestial erection} motif.
He describes, but doesn’t define a useful term for {mushroom hem}.
Passing Student Includes {phallic garment} motif
Crop by Cybermonk
For my present purpose, this specific crop is perfect and happens to exactly match what blurry inkjet crop John Lash uploaded to web around 2008, that I decoded in blurry form in Nov. 2020:
The hanging red guy is indicated as stable self-control in the Psilocybin peak window.
Classroom in f134 row 1 left: passing student on left, is indicated as stable and transformed from (relying too much on) possibilism to eternalism (as a new established capability and compatibility, the helpless thought-receiver.
Control that is {stable} is indicated by the leftmost student in many ways:
Standing on right foot.
Displaying right hand.
Unfurrowed brow.
John Rush’s {celestial erection}.
(Black-line) {mushroom hem} near ground.
Weight on right foot.
Weight on right foot touching {stable column base}.
Strongly passing student.
Student is able to explain the relative handedness of the hanging guy decently well
Student can explain how red guy is indicated as stable self-control in the Psilocybin peak window.
The basic elementary concept:
{weight on left foot} = naive possibilism-thinking (bad, unstable) {weight on right foot} = eternalism-thinking (good; stable)
Put Weight on Right foot non-branching control to avoid loss of control on Psilocybin
Crop by Cybermonk. f145 row 1 L
Stable balance control requires standing on right foot (ie, repudiating branching possibility control steering, abandon relying on autonomous control as foundation.
You guys are standing with weight on left foot — on Psilocybin, that’s unstable, causes loss of control, control instability, experiencing the threat of loss of effective control of your control-thinking.
experiencing the threat of loss of control
In its destined drive to unfold and transform, the mind is made to trip up its own control system, to perceive the hole, thorn in the side, wound in the side where blade touches.
The control-vulnerability opening in the side, through which to transform and die to the temporary child immature form, and switch to the adult mature final form non-temporary, imperishable.
Use childish thinking 100% of the time, but now, qualified possibilism-thinking not naive possibilism-thinking – includes eternalism-thinking.
On a daily basis, use qualified possibilism-thinking.
Even during the peak state*, employ (transcendently, at arrm’s length observing it) childish egoic control, the egoic control system.
*very, very, very high, enabling the capability of maximum freakout.
The cure to be cleansed: sacrifice the childish temporary thinking as if possibility branching is real and along with autonomous control steering in a branching world.
literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control
The Control Seizure potential through which maturation transformation: the passageway gateway gate of death and sacrifice and birth through the side.
{weight on right foot} = eternalism-thinking (good; stable) {weight on right foot} = non-branching control thinking (good; stable) {weight on right foot} = heimarmene-thinking (good; stable)
{weight on left foot} = naive possibilism-thinking (bad, unstable)
{left limb} of tree or person = branching possibility steering
= temporary child state perishable, transient, provisional, vulnerable to collapse when illuminated made perceptible during loose cognitive association binding,
The peak window of the mystic altered state that’s designed to transform from child immature mental worldmodel to adult, mature,, final form, imperishable, non-transient, eternal life, live forever.
Stable practical steady control, while very very very high loose cognitive association binding , loose mental functioning binding
maximum freakout capability: mellow how?
Solution: Repudiate branching control, to avoid losss of control (control instability); affirm non-branching (and image f177: 2-level dependent control.
Entheogen scholars either show a single day in isolation, or show entire image f11 or even entire page f11 of Great Canterbury Psalter. Big mistake! Each zoom level / crop scope is crucial, in this case, row 1’s Day 1 + row 2’s Day 4; Day 4 proves that Day 1 = mushrooms.
Motivation for Page: Jackpot Assessment is “huge”, “top 3 discoveries in Great Canterbury Psalter” yet “I have no proper page/article dedicated to focusing on the “Six Days of Creation” image”
Inferior entheogen scholarship argues whether Day 1 = amanita. It’s fire, vaguely Amanita imagery; NO ONE TALKS ABOUT the balance scale, except Huggins 2024 does.
Even more, no one talks about what’s IN the pans of the balance scale.
I am the first one to think big enough to even ASK or CONSIDER or point out that there is something in the pans.
I am the first to point out that there is something in the pans of the balance scale.
I am the first to state that the pans contain mushrooms. (6-12 months ago? a routine question to check at this site.)
I am the first to prove pans contain mushrooms.
Date When I First Pointed Out There’s Something in the Balance Scale Pans
tbd. Probably same as next section; the moment I noticed the pans contain brown things, I immediately said “probably mushrooms”.
Date When I First Asserted There’s Mushrooms in the Balance Scale Pans: June 7, 2023
tbd. task: check timestamps at this site. Find first mention the pans contain “cubensis” or “golden teacher”, b/c I think that’s how I first announced the proposal.
Date When I Proved There’s Mushrooms in the Balance Scale Pans: Midnight Start of Monday Jan. 13, 2025 (1 year 7 months later)
Feb 2023: “blue container in f134 row 3 middle contains Cubensis.”
March (?) 2023: (I posted the exact dates, for this huge breakthrough): “OMFG I CANNOT BELIEVE IT THE DISPENSARY BINS HAVE MUSHROOMS AND PROVE BLUE CONTAINER CONTAINS CUBENSIS!”
Sunday, Jan. 12, 2025 a few days ago, during the day I continued believing per past few months that “I KNOW EADWINE MEANS MUSHROOMS IN PAN OF BALANCE SCALE THAT EVERYONE LOOKS AT WITHOUT SEEING, BUT TOO BAD IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE.”
At around 11:57 pm into ~12:03 am, I was again made a fool, by Eadwine delivering DIRECT evidence to prove what I already knew INDIRECTLY from my expertise in Great Canterbury Psalter: Panaeolus specimen below balance scale points at its pan, red Amanita points at other pan.
Recent Very Recent Creation of 12 Crops of f11, Studied Each Isolated Panel
The fact that my outline is now bloated around image f11 in my “Commentary about All Eadwine images” page, shows the need for a page dedicated to f11 – or even, like this page, foc’d on HALF the entire image! Just the top half. The botom 6 panels show: interesting GATE of Eden with RED SWORD, spinning, “do not eat”, “eat tree know”,
An Extremely Popular Folio Page for Entheogen scholarship Since Paul Lindgren 2000 – But, Their Fragmented Treatment Is Blind
Motivation: My jackpot assessment of a huge discovery always takes days to assess how big the payoff jackpot.
Jan 17, after the Jan 13 breakthrough, 4 days later, I am STILL processing how huge this jackpot breakthough.
I am still, after end of day Midnight Breakthrough, the Midnight Revelation Delivery of Proof of Balance Scale containing “Cubensis”…
That was Sunday, Jan 12, 2025 end of day (eg 11:57 pm & 12:03 am Monday), that it occurred to me to conjoin my interpretation work on Day 1 and my interpretation work on Day 4 below it.
Ronald Huggins’ “Foraging Wrong” article says:
“[John] Rush tells us that “in [God’s] left hand there is a variation on the alpha and omega.”85 Those familiar with the art of the period, however, will immediately recognize that what God is holding is not an alpha and omega, but an architect’s compass, a common feature in pictorial depictions of creation.”
Sounds like Browns’ argument: “Our intensive research shows that Saint Walburga is known to hold a vial. So, doesn’t count; not mushroom.”
Rush seems reasonable and correct saying that the compass is meant to look like an Alpha, and the balance scale is meant to look like an Omega.
That assertion by Rush stands up, against Huggins.
Problem to solve: What about the bottom half of the image, that I very recently created hi-res crops for?
The other day, I created 3*4 = all 12 crops, that was a project! And look how it paid off re: 3 of 6 days in top half of image. I also found Row 4 Left valuable (red flaming sword in Gate of Eden) worthwhile, and everyone looks at 2-3 other panels too – in isolation.
I’ve inventoried the balance scale motif, I think 8 instances after you include the 1 from the Spain painter (shipping & receiving & weighing & storing & ingesting Cubensis – f221):
“The Browns’ third non-local “expert” (and I use that term very loosely here) is “Google scholar” Michael Hoffman.
“I’m not aware of anyone in the field who takes Hoffman seriously and, truth be told, his ideas are not worth wasting the word count allotted in this response.
“For now, I will say that all the supposed “mushroom trees” Hoffman advances to support the MICAH fit in with the same categories of mistake that the Browns make (see endnote 23 of this article).”
All the supposed args from Hatsis have been exposed as logical fallacies at my page, see below.
For demolition of Hatsis’ totally confabulated “parasols of victory”, see Brown at Hancock site.
____
“So that’s how the Browns derived their “evidence”: (1) preconceived bias (2) assertions from non-experts like Crantelle and Rignoux (3) exaggerating the depth of analysis by scholars who are certainly intelligent, but not critical historians, like Shultes and Hofmann and (4) reprinting once plausible but currently unsupported notions like those offered by Samorini. “
“2222Michael Hoffman, mentioned earlier, falls for this one quite a lot.”
I HAVE BEEN CRUSHED BY HATSIS’ PARASOL OF VICTORY 😵
“We also have the parasol of victory in writing: the Latin word for a “large umbrella” is “umbraculum.”
“Incidentally, there is no Latin word for “large mushroom.”
“In fact, there is no known word for “large mushroom” in any language of the ancient or medieval worlds—yet they all had a term for “parasol of victory.”
“And the parasol revelation doesn’t just topple the Plaincourault fresco—most every canopy-topped looking tree will suffer this fate.22
“And yet, it is only one category of mistake that the Browns make.
“There are, in total, five categories of mistake that every piece the Browns offer fits into neatly.23“
Five? See my page on the top 25 log falls of deniers of mushrooms in Christian art:
Deniers’ Logical Fallacies in the Pilzbaum (Mushroom-Trees) Debate
All Data Is theory-laden; “Evidence” Consists of Theory + Interpretation + Reasoning + Data + Evidence; Paradigm for Conceptualizing “Evidence + Argumentation”
Bennett, deleter of 12 of 13 plants in Rev 22:2 during his “inspiration”, by rewriting the Bible from “twelve manner of fruits/crops” to “twelve uses of hemp“
There’s Too Little Evidence, It’s Too Scarce, Completely Arbitrary, No Way to Tell, No Way to Substantiate the Case for mushrooms in Christian art
Article: Robert Forte vs. Brian Muraresku (Travis Kitchens, 2025/01/02)
Grab Your Masonry Mortar Bucket and Spade: Dividing Reality into the Enterprise vs. Grassroots; the Establishment vs. the Counter-Culture; Mainstream vs. Underground Heretical “groups”
motive for page: I can’t find readily my link to Bennett 2021 negative article, and even if I find the url at this site, how will I find it again?
I’ve now read Bennett’s 2021 article a couple times, and right now I need to quote from it, where WUSS Bennett can’t handle investigative scholarship that’s any harder and more disadvantaged than easy-mode, well-evidenced Cannabis.
I treat as barely a footnote, Bennett’s article around the era of Hatsis vs Brown at Hancock site.
To make this page, used Cyberdisciple site, who wrote about the 2021 Bennett article when it became available in the /__trashed/ dump at Cannabis Culture site.
How to Convert the Bible’s Bountiful Payload Delivery from 13 Different Plants, to Hemp Only
Bennett FRAMES this as “MY single-plant fallacy is WELL EVIDENCED”, “YOUR single-plant fallacy is VERY POORLY EVIDENCED.”
For one thing, Chris, MAN UP. Act like a REAL investigator … but please do better than recent article recounting how your inspiration to write your 2001 book was:
“OMG I HAD AN INSPIRING VISION OF REV 22:2 – THE 12 DIFFERENT CROPS OF FRUITS EVERY MONTH [not to mention healing leaves] IS 12 USES OF HEMP! 🤯”
For another thing, Bennett is blinded by negative mental attitude and defeatist expectations and presuppositions.
branching-message mushroom trees or mushrooms in Christian art is NOT difficult to find evidence for.
The Hypothesis of mushrooms in Christian art is so weakly founded, all it has is mere pictorial evidence
This is as good as no evidence at all; worthless imagery – I applied Huggins’ rules in his Panofsky-based Conclusion section of his “Foraging Wrong” article, and I firmly concluded: TREE, not mushroom:
Crop by Michael Hoffman Useless, worthless evidence – could be anything, but Panofsky’s watertight argumentation via Huggins PROVES that this MUST be a tree, probably Letcher’s fig tree, as confirmed by “consluting” top Historian, “pers. comm.”
That image is useless, worthless evidence – it could be anything, but Panofsky’s watertight argumentation via Huggins PROVES that this MUST be a tree, probably Letcher’s fig tree, as confirmed by “consulting” top Historian Henrietta Leyser, “pers. comm.”
Also note Pan “at least traces ramif:” 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.”
Oh wait, this image looks like a mushroom, no branches, therefore, DOESN’T COUNT.
If the mushroom tree lacks traces of branching, DOESN’T COUNT; fails to qualify as mushroom-tree. So, not mushroom.
If the mushroom-tree has traces of branching, DOESN’T COUNT, because it looks nothing like mushrooms, due to the branches. (Which look like mushrooms.) So, not mushroom.
Also, Letcher’s logic of reasoning:
If mushroom imagery is hidden, DOESN’T COUNT, because only mainstream, open, explicit images count. And also: they must be proved to be an unbroken, continuous, mainstream tradition. So, not mushroom.
If mushroom imagery is not hidden, DOESN’T COUNT, because entheogen scholars claim there’s secret, suppressed, hidden, cultic mushrooms, here disproved. So, not mushroom.
vs. Defeatist Crybaby Bennett “It’s TOO HARD 😭 to find evidence” 🙈
😭🙈
More than Enough Evidence to Support The Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion
Actually we have TONS of evidence, far more than required, to conclude and reason that of course religion … the origin and inspiration for religion is Golden Teacher.
I treat benn two ways: now 3 ways, come to think of it:
My review of his book, signed, I don’t like the title. Drugs & Bible.
That book has an insane TOC in middle of book for stupid Part 2 that restarts numbering from 1. WTF CHRIS ARE YOU STONED?
I don’t have an official place to point out that his reading of Rev 22:2 is terrible, disastrous, extremely negative and unrewarding, THINK SMALL, forego big victories.
Rev 22:2 gives us tree of life with 12 different crops every month, plus leaves healing nations – after Bennett is done WASTING the 13-plant tree of life, all he gives us is merely Cannabis, nothing else. His ambition is too little: he only speculates when he’s on very well evidenced ground with text quotes…
All Data Is theory-laden; “Evidence” Consists of Theory + Interpretation + Reasoning + Data + Evidence; Paradigm for Conceptualizing “Evidence + Argumentation”
Bennett has no Theory.
The Brown Database concept has some room for Theory, but is too isolating of only mushroom imagery, with no more sense of the central importance of branching trees than ignoramus, dull-witted Art Authorities, who are so expert that they have written NOTHING about trees (per Huggins) or mushroom-trees.
The Art Authorities are expert on “related matters of art” – translation: they know something about other topics, but NOTHING about this topic. You MUST “consult” them in person, because they have written NOTHING on this topic, with a single exception, the censored – oh I meant per Huggins, the “noted” book by Brinckmann –
a recent book, 1906;
a thick book (86 pages),
packed with disproof of psychoactive mushrooms (written before art historians had the concept of psychoactive mushrooms).
We know for certain pilzbaum don’t look like mushrooms, because Artists consistently moved from Pine to Mushroom imagery, proving that there was no purpose for forcing viewers to think of mushrooms.
The prototypes made me do it!
Photo credit: Julie M. Brown. Crop by Cybermonk.
Left: Entheogen scholars finding mushroom-trees imagery by medieval artists.
Middle: Medieval artists per Panofsky.
Right: The Panofsky-confabulated mythical Prototypes.
Center: pilzbaum artist disavowing the mushroom imagery, blaming it on the Prototypes that the artist was unwillingly forced and uncomprehendingly forced to paint, per the #1 top art authority, Panofsky.
The “development process product” prototypes of trees, that artists were forced to adhere to, certainly & definitely proved to be purposeless, because Pine steadily were made to look increasingly like mushrooms.
. . . . 🔍🧐🤔🤨 And I really recommend to consult the [censored] by [censored], and I’ve attached two [censored].
“The prototypes made me do it! I disavow pilzbaum!” — the pilzbaum artists & today’s art authorities.
The Egodeath theory of psychedelic eternalism, including the mytheme theory, is up to the task of identifying the integrated combination of art motifs: {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Article: “The Fungi-Pareidolia of The Psychedelic Gospels” (Bennett, Aug. 2021)
Terrible title! Impossible gibberish. Awful idea – possibly even worse than Kitchens’ random-word-generated article titles.
Bennett, deleter of 12 of 13 plants in Rev 22:2 during his “inspiration”, by rewriting the Bible from “twelve manner of fruits/crops” to “twelve uses of hemp“
Frail, timid, weakling, spoiled & privileged baby scholar Bennett wrote in his __trashed article:
“Now never mind the obvious similarity to a cannabis leaf in these images, despite the clear archeological evidence in the Holy Land for cannabis as a ritual incense in a 8th century BCE Jewish temple, or its 4th century CE use both topically and as an incense for medical purposes from Bet Shemesh Israel, I could never see myself making the sort of claims about these images, that the Brown’s do about mushrooms, solely on interpretations of medieval art, with no evidence that humanity in Europe were even aware of many of the mushroom species suggested, let alone their ingestion.”
Mushroom-trees: the art historians describe as “trees that look like mushrooms; pilzbaum; mushroom-trees” at least since 1906 describe “just for convenience in discusssion [Wasson]”.
The lack of evidence we have, proves that the pile of evidence depicted in art DOESN’T COUNT.
Spoiled, weakling scholar Bennett continues:
“I prefer things, like actual textual references, etymological research and most of all archeological evidence.
“However, there are some clear cases of Cannabi-Pareidolia* out there, notably the QAnon activist couple Alan Gordon and Anne Armstrong, who share a love for cannabis and clear as day messianic complexes, and who point to imagery of cannabis in all sorts of Catholic context, that in many ways makes even the claims of the Browns seem more reasonable.”
*Zero people find the word ‘Pareidolia‘ meaningful – bad choice; ineffective writing
Depictions of mushrooms by pilzbaum artists counts for zero. Only text counts. Only archaeology counts.
There’s Too Little Evidence, It’s Too Scarce, Completely Arbitrary, No Way to Tell, No Way to Substantiate the Case for mushrooms in Christian art
We are helpless, blocked, and without any resources, we cannot do any productive scholarly discovery and conclusions unless we have Chris’ arbitrary forms of evidence.
😭👶😩 🚫🖼🍄🌳 🙈
Article: Bennett vs. Brian Muraresku (Travis Kitchens, 2024/12/23)
Grab Your Masonry Mortar Bucket and Spade: Dividing Reality into the Enterprise vs. Grassroots; the Establishment vs. the Counter-Culture; Mainstream vs. Underground Heretical “groups”
Warmed-over “Oppressor vs. Oppressed” narrative framework.
Surprise natural accidental unexpected bestseller books by Pollan and Mura, engineered by gigantic megacorp who invested zillion $ to MAKE Pollan’s book and Mura’s book “bestseller” – fake, forced, planned, invested, engineeered.
Books by the Enterprise, for the Enterprise. Unlike Ruck Committee, that is “grassroots”.
Be extremely cautious and wary of employing the sword of division, or the brick and mortal wall-construction activity, masonry-construction activity that you do when you employ the concept of “the Enterprise vs. grassroots”, as Robert Forte employs.
Hatsis Sites
Hatsis went from decent wording to insulting Irvin by name in his revised article titles, article titles designed to insult, styled as an insult. Terrible idea, probably in most cases. Small minded.
Hatsis abandons his blog.
Abandons his Ars site.
Abandons his Witch domain.
His new Historian domain is down, and has just a portion of his published article with now a corrupted title: “Roasting the Salamander” published PDF became garbagized as “Roasting Jan Irvin” broken incomplete webpage 404.
This page is to focus my ideas and put the challenge prominently out there: for the first time, people ought to TRY to START to LOOK FOR and GIVE A SH*T about the question of Cubensis in Europe.
Mycologists, Find Cubensis in England and Europe
Prophecy: Entheogen scholarship will retract the claim per Gartz that Cubensis isn’t a European mushroom.
Gartz And Stamets Never Trouble Themselves to Bother Writing “No Cubensis in Europe”
It’s just roundabout, coming down to 4 careless words as an unthinking aside from Stamets, “Not known in Spain”.
Gartz discusses Cubensis cultivation, then says “now let’s talk about European mushrooms” – he gives no direct negative statement.
It’s a SILENT given that Cubensis is “not a European mushroom”.
Gartz and Stamets Couldn’t Care Less, Couldn’t Put any Less Effort, into Thinking About, Writing About, or Trying to Look for, Cubensis in Europe
Stamets and Gartz in their prominent books do not write an explicit sentence saying “No Cubensis in Europe pastures.”
They do not actually treat the question of whether there were Cubensis in Europe.
Everything is indirect, roundabout, implicit, just like:
Everyone knows meditation is drug-free.
Everyone knows that the traditional methods of the mystics are indeterminate but certainly definitely not drugs.
We don’t understand mystics or mystical experiencing at all, because we are too smart and mentally psychologically modern and evolved.
We know with certainty that the traditional methods of the mystics are non-drug.
Everyone knows there’s no Psilocybin use in Mexico; we’ve known this fact since 1915.
And so, given these facts and givens, the question everyone always asks is “Can Psilocybin simulate the traditional methods of the mystics?”
At least Safford — superior to Gartz and Stamets — actually directly explicitly writes about MAKING AN EFFORT TO LOOK (for Psilocybin usage in Mexico in 1915).
Gartz and Stamets make no effort to look or even think about Cubensis in Europe – it’s all just silently taken for granted.
Gartz p. 70: Cubensis vs. European Mushrooms
Page 70 of Gartz’ Magic Mushrooms book: after a discussion of Cubensis cultivation, writes “I have also succeeded at cultivating the European hallucinogenic mushroom species.”
Gartz p. 80: Cubensis Not in Hawaii
Page 80: “Even though one often hears about “Hawaiian strains” of Psilocybe cubensis, the species is not native to The Islands and should grow there only under conditions of artificial cultivation.”
Scholars’ “Ritual“, “Cultic Practices” of Projecting Their Own Bunk Anthropology Theory Overlays onto Simple, Plain Ingestion of Psychedelics
Gartz page 81: Ingesting Cubensis Is Either Recreational, or a Ritual Practice of Natural Mysticism
“Even though the extent of prosecution of drug law violators in Canada and the U.S. varies … Psilocybe cubensis is common across the South,”
“the South” apparently here means the South part of U.S.
If Cubensis is common in the South part of U.S. per Gartz 1996, this is tantamount to Cubensis being native to Europe.
The demand created by this growing market is probably being met through cultivation of Psilocybe cubensis.
“These users ingest psychotropic mushrooms as a form of recreation, or incorporate them inthe ritual practice of [BULLSH*T! STOP ADDING WORDS YOU MADE UP!] natural mysticism.
“Other users prefer mushrooms as an aid to meditation or to attain communication with the realm of the divine.”
Just like Stamets, nowhere does it ever occur to Gartz to state the false statement, “No Cube in Europe.” Like Stamets’ flimsy, careless, little 4-word treatment: “Not known in Spain.”
Gartz p. 84: re: Australia
“In 1958, Aberdeen and Jones described the geographic distribution of Psilocybe cubensis across the southeastern valleys of Queensland and New South Wales. [Australia]
“They speculated that this was the mushroom responsible for the cases of intoxication, not the Panaeolus species.
. . . . 🔍🧐🤔
“In addition, the Psilocybe species had been described as being much more common in the area.
“Under wet climate conditions, the Psilocybe species can be found growing in abundance on cattle dung, especially along the sunshine coast of Queensland, in the open valleys around Brisbane and in areas that used to be rain forests, but have now been transformed into pastures.”
“In the summer of 1969, a 4,000-hectareregion near the coast of Queensland gained notoriety because of its Psilocybe cubensis crop that grew there after the rainy season.
“Interested collectors flocked to the area in droves.
“Media reports at the time gave the impression that the mushrooms were an entirely new discovery, completely disregarding Central American traditions.”
What are you talking about? Every mycologist has known since 1915, there’s no Psilocybin use in Mesoamerica. An Aztec Narcotic (Safford 1915)
“In the wake of an above-average rainy season, the species fruited so abundantly that special transportation companies were founded for delivery of the mushrooms to Australia’s large cities.”
Gartz p. 85: We Discovered What Was in Front of Our Eyes
“those interested in mycological field research continued to study Psilocybe subaeruginosa and even discovered the species in the northern part of the country.”
I’m getting no indications that I should be skeptical about “discovering” Cubensis in England pastures – “discovering” means “stop squeezing your eyes tightly shut.”
Gartz p. 96: Cubensis Is Heavily Present in the 30th Parallel, and Totally Absent from the 31st Parallel
“Given sufficiently wet climate conditions, Psilocybe cubensis can often be found in other parts of the world growing on pastures in areas located up to 30° north as well as south of the equator.”
Paul Stamets says Cubensis grows in Southeastern U.S. That’s above the 30th parallel/ line, immediately contradicting and calling into doubt Gartz’ self-assured “30th parallel” upper limit, for which he says “often”.
Stamets says Cubensis grows ABOVE the 30th parallel, contradicting Gartz. Neither of them writes more than a couple words about this topic:
They do not find Cubensis BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT TO FIND CUBENSIS.
Would it kill you to put a tiny bit of EFFORT and TRY?
Where is Gartz’ writeup, like Samorini re: Lib Cap distribution research in Italy, of Gartz’ systematic intent effort to find Cube in Europe?
He made no such effort, did no such investigation, can’t be bothered to include a section in his book explaining why Cubensis is never found in Europe.
Gartz and Stamets can’t even be bothered to write a sentence explicitly saying “No Cubensis in Europe pastures.”
Cubensis Can Grow in England, as Surely as Meditation, Drumming, Dancing, and Breathing Can Cause the Same Effects as Two Bowls of Psilocybin
I assume Cubensis in 51st parallel (Canterbury England) even if not as “often”.
“Often” often means nothing, like hitting your head “can” cause Psilocybin effects – a worthless empty tin “can”.
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Cubensis Never Grows Above 30th Parallel North (Gartz), Except in the Southeast (Stamets)
Canterbury, south part of England, approx 51st parallel north: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/51st_parallel_north – about the same as Northern U.S. border. Does Cubensis grow South Canada pastures? A GUY RECENTLY TOLD ME OF A TRADITION OF GATHERING CUBENSIS NORTH OF U.S. OR SOUTH OF CANADA.
“Therefore, it is likely that the yellow Stropharia species from the Highlands of Kenya may actually have been Psilocybe cubensis mushrooms or at least a close relative of this species.
“In January 1994, M. Smith and myself were collaborating in South Africa, where we discovered a bluing Psilocybe species in Natal Province.
“It was the first psychotropic Psilocybe species ever found in the area.”
Everyone Knows There’s No Cubensis in Europe
Everyone knows there’s no Psilocybin use in Mexico.
Everyone knows there’s no Liberty Caps in European antiquity.
Everyone knows there’s no mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Carl Jung first commits to his forced overlay interpretation and then presents myth through that filter.
I first commit to psychedelic eternalism, assuming it to be the case, and then commit and force the data to match the theory – give it a good full college try.
Only AFTER a full vigorous attempt fails to pan out, only then, back off. (But not even then.)
You Gotta Want It
Put in Some Fkkin EFFORT
Act Like You give a Sh*t!
You Gotta Believe
Status quo normal state for me: Everyone says “not X”, but I say “X”; you’re all wrong.
I’m a committed anti-skeptic, a committed Believer.
I’m a believer, I ain’t no deceiver, Mountains move before my eyes, Destiny planned out, I don’t need a hand out, Speculation of the wise.
January 11 is Block Universe Determinism Loose Cognition Day
37th anniversary of the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence
Today is Jan. 11, 2025.
Jan. 11, 1988 — Block Universe Loose Cog day – 2025-1988 = 37-year anniversary of breakthrough birth day of the Egodeath theory; the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence.
Visionary/Supernatural Book by Graham Hancock, Asserting Psilocybin in Ancient Europe, Against Committed Skeptic Bahn
I recently (like Dec. 31, 2024) wrote about pages 187-192 in Visionary (a superset of the book Supernatural) by Graham Hancock. Page: Idea Development 22. Sections:
Gartz Book: Magic Mushrooms Around the World: A scientific Journey Across Cultures and Time: The Case for Challenging Research and Value Systems (1996)
“bronze door … bas-relief … depicting God, Adam, Eve, and the forbidden fruit — a taxonomic facsimile ofPsilocybe semilanceata, the Liberty Cap or Witches’ Hat Mushroom“
What Stamets Actually Wrote, in Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World (1996)
“bronze door … bas-relief … depicting God, Adam, Eve, and the forbidden fruit — a taxonomic facsimile ofPsilocybe semilanceata, the Liberty Cap or Witches’ Hat Mushroom“
p. 15, caption of photo of the Blame panel of Bernward Door:
“From the bronze door of a cathedral in Hildesheim, Germany, a bas-relief (circa A.D. 1020) depicting God, Adam, Eve, and the forbidden fruit — a taxonomic facsimile of Psilocybe semilanceata, the Liberty Cap or Witches’ Hat Mushroom.”
Stamets wrote “the forbidden fruit”; the word ‘forbidden’ is normal Christian language.
Stamets has no hint of the image being forbidden or secret. Heinrich says the fruit of the tree gives visions but Bernward depicted the entire tree as mushroom (with branches and cut branches).
Bernward throws off Heinrich’s arg that tree of knowledge is specifically Amanita.
What Gartz Actually Wrote, in Magic Mushrooms around the World (1996)
“Bronze doors with mushroom motif entitled “Trial and Judgment””
Chapter 1: p. 9: photo of Blame panel of Bernward Door. Caption:
“Figure 6 – Bronze doors with mushroom motif entitled “Trial and Judgment” at Hildesheim Cathedral, Germany (ca. 1020).”
That is the ONLY thing Gartz writes about the topic of mushrooms in Christian art in this book.
Gartz only uses the concept of “secret, hidden” to describe LBMs little brown mushrooms hiding in grass – he never applies that concept to “mushrooms were secret & hidden suppressed in art”.
Gartz Says “Amanita = Europe; Psilocybin = Not Europe” Is a Myth Due to Forgotten Knowledge
The next page:
Chapter 2, paragraph 1:
“It is remarkable that cultures native to the American continent knew about a relatively large number of natural mind-altering substances compared to early cultures that evolved in Europe or Asia.
Botanical evidence does not support the notion that Europe is home to fewer hallucinogenic plants than other regions.
Furthermore, the growing number of recently discovered European mushroom species containing psilocybin indicate a flourishing psychotropic mycoflora in Europe similar to those found in other countries.”
Chapter 2, paragraph 2:
“It is unlikely that early European cultures learned less about local plants and mushrooms through usage and experience than cultures elsewhere in the world.
Most likely, early cultural knowledge of European psychoactive plants and mushrooms was lost or destroyed at some time in history, probably as early as several hundred years ago [eg 1687 AD].’
1996-300 = 1696 AD. 1696-1687= only 9 years off from first publication of Principia.
I use Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, first published in 1687, as a reference point for when Hane’s rejected knowledge of esotericism including mushrooms.
Chapter 2, paragraph 3:
“The discovery that the fly agaric mushroom (Amanita muscaria) was known for its psychoactive properties in Siberia invited the conclusion that this mushroom was used as a psychotropic agent in medieval Europe as well.
In fact, there is very little evidence from the Middle Ages to indicate widespread knowledge of the effects of specific mushrooms on human consciousness.
However, I believe that past reports on psychoactive mushrooms were causally linked to Amanita muscaria simply because this was the only known psychotropic mushroom in Europe at that time.”
Chapter 2, paragraph 4:
“While the usage of Amanita muscaria among Siberian tribes has generated reports of spectacular hallucinations, European accounts of fly agaric intoxications do not generally include descriptions of such intensely hallucinatory effects.”
Chapter 2, paragraph 5:
“Accordingly, the potent hallucinogenic effects of specific Psilocybes and related species are likely to have had a much more significant influence on early European cultures than the delirium-like visions induced by Amanita muscaria, a species that is also known to induce unconsciousness and severe somatic side effects.
This hypothesis is corroborated by data from comprehensive field studies conducted in Mexico.
I believe that historic accounts including those described below – indicate a knowledge of and familiarity with psychotropic mushrooms in Europe that is most likely derived from usage of Psilocybes and related species, rather than experience with Amanita muscaria.
However, it is extremely difficult to reject or confirm this hypothesis, due to the lack of conclusive data available for analysis today [1996, the year Samorini gave presentation in the San Francisco conference].”
Which writers actually suggested the “secret” narrative? Allegro, Ruck, & Pop Cult writers?
Robert Graves 1952[?] makes “secret” fundamental to his theory / narrative. Emphasizes “secret, suppressed”.
Wasson 1952[?]-1968 makes “secret” fundamental to his theory / narrative. Emphasizes “secret, suppressed”.
Allegro 1970 makes “secret” fundamental to his theory / narrative. Emphasizes “secret, suppressed”.
Ruck ~1976+ makes “secret” fundamental to his theory / narrative. Emphasizes “secret, suppressed”.
Passages Recounting History of the Hypothesis of “Secret, Suppressed” Mushrooms
Letcher’s book Shroom traces the history of the idea (d/k if coherently) of spread of secret Amanita.
Letcher falsely — when discussing a Psilocybin implementation of Heinrich’s Genesis 2-3 tree of knowledge pictured by Bernwarn — extremely conflates “secret” and “mushrooms”, and acts as if to disprove “secret” is the same thing as disproving mushrooms.
Letcher reasons fallaciously: “I disproved your guyses’ assertion of “secret mushrooms”, therefore I disproved mushrooms.”
The Shared Narrative of “Original Glorious Amanita, Later Forced to Substitute Mere Psilocybin”
Books that I surveyed in 2023 for passages about Wasson’s failed hypothesis (& wet-dream wishful fantasy) that Amanita effects = Psilocybin effects such that a useful, sound analytical category is ‘mushrooms’ (“sacred mushrooms”; “psychoactive mushrooms”, etc.), defined as [Amanita + Psilocybin]:
Heinrich 1995 Strange Fruit – “the” mushroom = Amanita, unfortunately had to substitute mere Psilo instead. Storyline per Heinrich.
McKenna, Food of the Gods
Wasson – Persephone’s Quest might mention the tale, “Original awesome Amanita, alas substituted for inferior Psilocybin later.”
Thomas Reidlinger book The Sacred Mushroom Seeker — a collection of articles about Wasson or by Wasson. Has something about Wasson’s negative conclusion re: his 1950s hypothesis that Amanita = Psilocybin = mushrooms.
Wasson’s book SOMA, 1968. Does it mention the tale, “Amanita was replaced by Psilocybin as a substitute?”
Does Ruck tell story of/ recount the history of the “secret” hypoth?
Ruck’s article “Daturas for the Virgin” 2001 argues that a good substitute for Amanita (the real deal original glorious thing) is Datura (not Psilocybin)!
Ruck is right in a bad way: the merely Deliriant effect of Amanita is indeed similar to Datura scopolamine; NOT similar to Psilocybin.
The Graves/Wasson 1950s Hypothesis “Amanita = Psilocybin = mushrooms”: Wasson’s 1986 Assessment: That hypothesis has been FALSIFIED
Various authors, such as Jochen Gartz, give a negative terminus final assessment of the Graves/Wasson conjecture hypothesis from 1950s that it is effective to lump together Amanita = Psilocybin = mushrooms.
John Lash hates Wasson’s Amanita Primacy Fallacy and Wasson’s story of spread of a single Amanita cult; Lash rejects Amanita, since Psil is vastly superior.
Max Freakout’s Email
Max Freakout wrote:
“Please see Jochen Gartz’ book: ‘MAGIC MUSHROOMS around the world’, which I obtained from [Wassonian mystery ellipses], an excellent source of . . . . books.
“. . . .🔍🧐🤔 it is very easy to search for keywords, and a search for the words ‘secret’ and ‘hidden’ quickly shows that these words do not appear in anything like Letcher’s context.
“Letcher has fabricated the claim of ‘secret and hidden mushrooms’ in both Stamets and Gartz, Letcher has clearly misquoted these two writers — very unscholarly behaviour!”
– Max
Letcher’s Dismissal of Liberty Cap on Bernward Door Rests Entirely on the “Secret, Hidden” Aspect – Which Was Fabricated by Letcher Himself
Letcher’s Dismissal of Liberty Cap on Bernward Door Rests Entirely on the Rebutting the “Secret, Hidden” Aspect — Which Was Entirely Invented by Letcher, Not at All by Stamets or Gartz, as Letcher Falsely Claims.
Letcher’s dismissal rests directly and exclusively on the point of secret Liberty Cap.
Letcher in no way counters Liberty Cap depicted on Bernward Door, only “secret” Liberty Cap.
But Letcher’s “secret” component (tail wagging the dog), is entirely made up by himself, as his strawman that he fabricates and then defeats.
Nowhere does Stamets or Gartz say secret, hidden, cult, oppressed. That’s the only foe that Letcher defeats, not the Liberty Cap identification: He argues:
The Liberty Cap is not secret, therefore, the affirmers of mushrooms in Christian art are disproved. eg Stamets and Gartz.
But they don’t say secret. Letcher here disproves nothing regarding the actual published position in those two books.
Secret and Hidden? That Actually Sounds like Wasson’s Ellipses. . . . 🔍🧐🤔
Wasson’s ellipses keep scholarly citations hidden and keep the lone, single, little, outdated writing by an art historian secret from mycologists:
Max Freakout completed the smoking-gun finding that Letcher’s citations are phony, by confirming in Gartz’ book that Andy Letcher in book Shroom fakely cites.
Along with fakely citing Stamets – who does not say the Liberty Cap in Bernward Door is “secret” or “hidden” or “suppressed” or “prohibited” – none of that Letcher-type narrative that Letcher falsely attributes to these two books: Gartz & Stamets.
Gartz does not have any whiff at all, of framing Bernward Door’s Liberty Cap as “secret” or “hidden”.
Various writers suggest [Letcher’s made-up storyline fabricated by himself].
This is posing as scholarly apparatus, but is sheer put-on, the affectation of scholarly citation.
Stamets and Gartz say NONE of that slathered-on narrative storytelling, it’s purely Letcher is the only one writing anything like that – not Stamets, not Gartz.
This fake citation is purely for show. It’s not a real citation.
As soon as you hit the endnotes (endnotes SUCK, footnotes rock – there’s a special hell for endnote writers) you see something drastically wrong: no page numbers.
Full-text search both books for “secret hidden”: worse than 0 hits: the instances of ‘secret’ or ‘hidden’ in these books have nothing at all to do with this topic.
The entire ‘secret hidden’ narrative is fabricated by Letcher and falsely attributed to Stamets and Gartz through Letcher’s fake & vague citation.
Stamets & Gartz have no mental connection between ‘secret’/’hidden’ and Bernward Door’s Liberty Cap mushroom-tree.
Endnotes make it hard to use and easy to hide fake citations.
No page numbers, wtf kind of “endnotes” are these? the make-sht-up type of endnote misuse.
Shroom Page 35: Bunk Endnote 31 at end: “Various writers have suggested cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in; for example, Stamets & Gartz”
photo caption: “In fact,” Letcher is making sh*t up about what Stamets and Gartz assert, and arguing from authority instead of scholarly citation.
“In fact,” Letcher is making sh*t up about what Stamets and Gartz assert, and arguing from authority instead of scholarly citation.
Shroom Page 36
Straw Man, False Attribution of “this interpretation” (that Letcher himself concocted) to Stamets and Gartz, whose books say absolutely nothing of “secret”; they simply present the door panel.
Of the 3 writers — Stamets, Garts, and Letcher — the ONLY ONE of them who is saying “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in” is Letcher.
Shroom Page 305
Shroom Page 331
Shroom Page 344
Shroom Page 336
Fake & Vague Citations
Letcher is caught making up fake citations to give the appearance of sound scholarship, but entirely vague and bluffing citations: he co-cites both Gartz and Stamets, giving page numbers for neither book, to cover his tracks.
I already found that Stamets’ book fake-cited by Letcher doesn’t say what Letcher claims it says.
Letcher’s citations in this Door passage are phony, bunk, fake, pretend-academic, pretending to be citations.
Letcher gives no page number in Gartz, no page number in Stamets.
Letcher specifically claims that Gartz and Stamets claim that the Liberty Cap in Bernward Door is secret and hidden.
Stamets has not even a faint trace of that framing, same with Gartz.
Email 1: Where Is Letcher Getting “Secret Hidden” Liberty Cap from, at “Various writers suggest cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in31“?
Cyberdisciple site ambig whether you have Letcher book.
Letcher sites cites two works re Bern Door: Stamets 1996, which shows Stamets’ photo of door with no hint at all of “secret” or “hidden”.
Andy Letcher even contacted Stamets to get permission to publish his photo of Bernward Door in Letcher’s book Shoom – yet that book vaguely falsely asserts that Stamets frames it as hidden secret.
Letcher must be getting “secret hidden” door from prominent German mycologist Jochen Gartz.
Gartz is misspelled in Ruck’s book Apples of Apollo as “Goertz”. 1996
Letcher Shroom pp 35-36: Bernward Door awful mis-treatment.
Letcher p 35: endnote 31 p 305 = “Gartz 1996; Stamets 1996 [p. is 15]” =
Biblio p 331 = Jochen Gartz 1996 Magic Mushrooms around the World: A Scientific Journey Across Cultures and Time.
biblio p 344 Stamets Psil Msh World.
No page numbers given, re this massively botched interp! it figures.
I lack Gartz, race u to purchase the $300 copy. Which page does Gartz say Bern Door “hidden, secret”?
Letcher is silent on Bernward Column, though “Conj Eden” 2001 details around 5 Liberty Cap instances there! which amplifies Door.
Letcher p 36: endnote 32 p 305 “Lasco 1972”: bib p 336 =
Peter Lasco, Ars Sacra 800-1200
Letcher p 36 endnote 33 = p 305 “Henrietta Leyser , pers. comm.” = no Biblio listing for historian Leyser! Her work is so feebly relevant, all Letcher says about her work is “pers. comm.”
Max Freakout completed my investigation into whether Letcher’s citation is entirely false, not just half of it known to be false (Stamets) and the other half unverified whether false (Gartz).
It’s now determined that both citations are false; the cited books say nothing of the sort, that Letcher falsely asserts that they are examples of saying anything like “cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in”.
If anyone asserts that position and framing, it’s not the Stamets and Gartz books cited as endnote 31, which gives no page numbers.
The citation is a put-on, a shallow veneer of affectation just for show, not a real citation. It’s a pose, a stance, pretended scholarship.
Book History
I was one of the first in the U.S. to order, read, and review the book Shroom by Letcher.
As I understand the timeline, the book was probably finished 2005, published UK 2006, US early 2007, I may have pre-ordered from Amazon U.K.
The book is good in some ways, bad in some ways – like books generally are.
I never expected him to have all the required library publications for the specialize topic of mushrooms in Christian art.
Letcher does a somewhat careless drive-by sloppy inadequate handling of the topic.
It’s hard to say that about Huggins 2024, an experienced scholar, who also does a careless, inadequate, drive-by dismissal – even though I appreciate the amount of standard-type scholarship done by Letcher Hatsis Huggins – it’s not good enough.
My early review of Shroom was read by people and they challenged Letcher, asking him about the Michael Hoffman review, then Letcher wrote in effect a challenge to me specifically in a comment in his webpage, a 4-part argument, claiming no religious mushroom use can be proved.
I proved PEAK religious experiencing, beating Letcher on 5 of his 4 points, taking his challenge even further, to the max.
The idea of “hidden” and “secret” re: door does not at all come from Gartz and Stamets as Letcher specifically claims.
I provided 6 pages from Letcher with my complete analysis and markup. Checking my remaining space for images:
35% of 6 GB space used, for Images at this Site: Too Many Mushrooms
I now have more space, since Brown said this site is the closest to his continued call (2016, 2019, 2021) for a database of mushrooms in Christian art for scholars to interpret in an orderly way.
The Brown db would be a place for me to register my Dec. 13, 2020 id’n of Day 3 of Great Canterbury Psalter: Pan, Lib, Cub, Ama (Day 4 image swaps the order slightly).
A place to register my correction of Walburga tapestry: Irvin says Amanita, Brown says Vial, I say vial shaped like Amanita.
Citations Are to Check Claims of Scholars
Houot’s Master’s thesis tipped me off: I was aware of Griffiths article saying like 35% of people had bad trip from high-dose synth Psil. Houot wrote “almost 40%”, so I found a different Griffiths paper saying 39%. How did 39% in one paper, magically decrease to like 35% in a subseq. paper??
I checked Houot’s citation and it was genuine and helpful, not only revealed the jarringly high incidence of bad trips from real dosage amounts, but also revealed playing Math games by Griffiths, trying to “game downwards” the observed … which Griffiths fails to explain how one year they report 39%, and another year like 30% I think it was. I wrote this up at this site around 2023, maybe Dec. 2023, when reading Houot thesis.
So, Doesn’t Count 🚫🍄🌳
These are emails with 6 photos of Shroom book and its fake bunk pseudo-citations of Gartz and Stamets, and the irrelevant ignoramous blundering Medieval England historian personally interrrogated by Letcher, “personal communication” endnoted by Letcher, “its a fig tree” –
Said so crisply by the authority, we know it is for sure true, that the Liberty Cap on the door
And we may be equally confident this applies to the 4 Liberty Cap trees on the Column as well, they are all fig trees, so stop saying that the Art Historians describe them with their own term, pilzbaum, mushroom-trees.
Art Historians only use the term ‘pilzbaum’ for convenience in conversation, explains Panofsky, SO, DOESN’T COUNT.
To be a competent pilzbaum denier, just:
[fill in this blank with anything, doesn’t matter], SO DOESN’T COUNT.
See endnote whatever, with no page number, so you know I’m right; and to seal the certainty, the local authority responded CRISPLY and within 0.35 seconds, therefore our conclusion is grounded reliably on the top scholarship by scholars who never read, thought, or wrote anything about trees in Christian art, because everyone knows trees are just peripheral.
So you mycologists are just ignorant for not consulting these tree art experts.
Day 4 of Creation: Liberty Cap, Cubensis, Panaeolus, Amanita
Crop by Crop by Michael Hoffman. Identified by me some time ago as Lib, Cub, Pan, Ama.
Jan. 17, 2025: History of discovery: the above image & following section was written just 2 days before looking at Day 1 & Day 4 at the same time, which proved that the balance scale’s brown items are specifically indicated as Panaeolus, & broadly indicated as Lib, Cub, Pan, & Ama.
That discovering was a shock, entirely unexpected, b/c I had simply assumed it’s impossible to identify; wrongly & pessimistically in self-defeating form, assumed Eadwine gives no evidence.
My shattered defeatism there was exactly same pattern as Feb 2023 I said blue big bowl contains Cubensis, assuming impossible to prove – then received totally unexpected proof.
Analyzing Day 4’s Four Plants
In Day 4, I identified the large four plants some time ago as Lib, Cub, Pan, Ama.
Liberty Cap; Cubensis; Panaeolus; Amanita. Day 4 of Creation, Great Canterbury Psalter. No branches.
Panofsky speaks falsely: All pilzbaum have at least traces of branching. Here’s four that don’t, unless the grid of liberty caps in the Liberty cap (plant 1) & Cubensis cap (plant 2) are treated as relatively branching.
But even that fails to be Erwin Panofsky’s “at least traces of branching”. Given that inches away is these same 4 images, with branches (that look like mushrooms), it’s not feasible to dismiss these as “not pilzbaum”; “not mushroom-trees”.
Crops of the 6 Days of Creation, Great Canterbury Psalter
Day 1 of Creation: God Weighs a Double Dose of Golden Teacher
Crop by Michael Hoffman
I pasted the above picture Jan 11 2025, just two days before the Jan 13 2025 discovery that the Panaeolus on Day 4 panel below Day 1 panel points to the left pan of balance scale, and the other 3 mushrooms point symmetrically to the branching compass ʌ & right pan of balance scale.
Day 1 Creation of Light Scale Balance Bowls Contain Mushrooms
Crop and Annotations by Michael Hoffman [1:15 am Jan. 13, 2025] Y Y I I Lib, Cub, Pan, Ama
ƛ [lambda] ʌ [“latin small letter turned V”]
Ronald Huggins in Foraging Wrong ridicules Day 1 of Creation, above, as Amanita cap.
The Day 1 of Creation (Light) image in Great Canterbury Psalter depicts Cubensis in the scale balance.
This is signalled to us as Cubensis being weighed/dosed, by considering the entire systematic motif vocabulary that Eadwine takes from the genre and develops to a breathtaking extent.
By doing the opposite of Letcher’s predictable “isolate, ignore, dismiss” strategy.
My greater interest right now is inventory of all John Lash-like White Light Psilocybin Peak Sun images.
The Sun Light is in the chamber room of the Psalter Viewer, row 2 middle (the center of the entire image) where – most amazingly – the Psalter Viewer is threatened or not threatened, based on whether his left or right index finger is closer to the ground, meaning which mental model he relies on: branching causes threat; non-branching relieves the threat.
f82: Three Mothers, Passion, Sun, Moon, Table
Crop by Michael Hoffman
f177: On Right, Non-branching Side of Tree, Sun Touching Blue Cap/Crown
Crop by Michael Hoffman Correction Dec. 2024: The horses look up higher at fingers, not palm.
If you think about entheogens, you are using “Wasson’s theory, including considerable departures from it” — per John Lash, high on Hanegraaff’s non-drug entheogens and Ruck’s purely symbolic entheogens (a chymical discovery by Cyberdisciple).
Huggins in his title proposes Great Canterbury Psalter as a test case.
I agree to your terms of battle, because you are bound to lose by those terms.
When we consider the entire genre, all 4-6 integrated motifs, and the set of all Eadwine art, we can safely conclude that Eadwine signals Cubensis in Day 1’s balance scale.
Hellenistic art may have originated these motifs, such as mosaic of Dionysus’ victory wedding procession.
Such scholars THINK they got easy pickins… they wrongly mis-assess the situation.
They spot some sloppiness by affirmers of mushrooms in Christian art, and they assume they can self-promote in this easy topic to casually dismiss – I see John Rush claims God holds something in his hand, but clearly he does not.
Therefore the Pop flimsy view is easy to dismiss & reveal the foolishness of — such opportunist, non-specialist researchers think.
Letcher and Hatsis and Huggins all did a substantial amount of research in the history of pop entheogen scholarship.
Not good enough though. Not complete enough.
Letcher has not changed views after 2025-2006 or 2005 = 20 years.
Letcher has had 20 years to read Entheos, Conjuring Eden, Brown 2016 and 2019, Egodeath.com, and everything, but Letcher continues to act like the 1% of evidence that he treated, regarding mushrooms in Christian art, is adequate.
It continues to feel like Letcher disproved the entire topic of mushrooms in Christian art by treating ONLY the single mushroom-tree in Bernward Door, and he gave the worst possible handling of that. His argumentation is extremely poor.
I studied the passage in 2007 and again in 2024 in detail.
I see no indication that Letcher has treated the 4 Liberty Caps in Bernward Column together with the single Liberty Cap he mis-treats in Shroom.
Email 3 to Max Freakout & Cyberdisciple
I wrote:
Gar Book looks good, better than expected. Wow, not any trace of “secret” re: Bern. door!
Letcher indeed bunk, I expected Gartz must frame the door as secret, since Samo certainly doesn’t.
A bluff by Letcher, or a projection (not originating from him; originating maybe from ancients and from 1st Gen = 20th C entheogen scholars).
Like when Hatsis says “you guys assert Secret Christian Amanita Cult” – where is such assertion actually originating from? 1952 mind of Graves/Wasson?
Jochen Gartz’ book: ‘MAGIC MUSHROOMS around the world’ [mysterious wasson-like ellipses here, what’s being hidden here?
. . . . 🔍🧐🤔🤨📘🖼🖼🍄🌳📘
cough up that citation wasson we know you got it and hand over the two pilzbaum too
Please keep my poor little pictures as long as you wish. And I really recommend to look up that little book by A. E. Brinckmann.
Panofsky to Wasson, handwritten conclusion of letter 2; May 20, 1952
Replaced by Wasson with: obey the art authorities, because of how quick their disavowal, not because of what they wrote about trees. all of them were quick! that’s the argument. Not only authorities, but quick authorities, about that topic Ronald Huggins tells us they have never written anything about – trees!
With the single, “noted” [read: censored] exception of the book which Panofsky told Wasson way “BACK IN 1952” about Brinckmanns book, which is the only thing that art historians have ever written about trees in Christian art, or mushroom-trees.
That’s according to Ronald Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article. See Ronald Huggins’ Dizzy article for more of same quality of scholarship.
Trees, being peripheral to the more central features of medieval iconography, are not often discussed by art historians. A noted exception is Albert Erich Brinckmann’s Baumstilisierungen in der mittelalterlichen Malerei (1906), a work recommended by Panofsky in his letters to Wasson back in 1952.
Ronald Huggins, Foraging Wrong, 2024
Ronald Huggins lectures us as if WE have had Brinck’s citation from Panofsky since then, censored 1952-1968-2019 by Wasson.
When did you first become aware of the Brinc citation, Ronald Huggins?
How did you get the drawer number, when?
Why is Brown 2019 not mentioned, having been made available to me – I don’t know about you – in 2019.
Not ever before then did the world of scholars have Panofsky’s two letters in hand, from Brown 2019, both the existence of them announced by Brown, and the actual delivery to everyone, the publication of the two – not one – letters from Panofsky, in hand now for everyone, because of Brown 2019.
Huggins did not publish the Panofsky letters that he mysteriously cites as drawer of Harvard – as if we can make use of that – how does Ronald Huggins expect readers to follow his citation of the drawer? Closed scholarship.
1986-1952 = 34 years of hiding the citation and two pilzbaum art. while repeatedly chasticizing mycologists for not consulting the authorities.
Ronald Huggins: “Art historians have never written about trees in Christian art, because trees are incidental”
Why should anyone “consult” an “expert” who wrote nothing about this topic of trees, and double nothing about trees that look like mushrooms. This experitiese is blind and worthless, the art historian numbskulls know-nothings.
Let’s consult art historians regarding the topic which Ronald Huggins tells us is ignored by art historians that they give very least – no coverage at all of trrees, he says, mush less of mushroom-trees.
Email 2
Letcher Caught Faking Citations of Stamets and Gartz
I wrote:
Max [Freakout],
Awesome, thanks for filling this gap, to make this finding substantial & complete/confirmed.
“Apples of Apollo by Ruck Committee has “Goertz 1996”, Error?” Yes. References section, p 256.
I might update that section based on what’s in the book by Gartz.
Cyberdisciple in an article differentiates between mere editorial-type errors vs. errors of arg’n/substance. This Letcher error is a serious type of arg’n error.
I found all 4 of the pilzbaum inventoried in Conjuring Eden 2001 Ruck Committeee – Letcher dismisses 1 on door, ignores 4 on Bernward Column. Letcher was probably lacking Entheos 1 & 2.
So we have stats! Science! — Letcher had to ignore 4 of 5 pilzbaum in the Bernward bronze works. The “isolate, divide, diminish” strategy.
Who recently rejected Bern Door saying the pilzbaum is in the wrong panel? “It’s in the Blame panel, not the Eating Tree panel – so DOESN’T COUNT.
Likely Huggins, in Foraging Wrong, but do not overlook his Dizzy article that’s not only about Dancing Man, the roasting salamander image.
Errors make scholarship difficult
Same with:
mistakes
typos
mis-characterization
made-up narratives packed w/ presuppositions
lies
lies by omission
bending language
buckets designed to bend meaning, like ‘sacred mushrooms’
Amanita Causes Psilocybin Effects, in Myth Land
Irvin 2008 THM page 152:
Amanita = sacred mushrooms,
Psil = sacred mushrooms;
Hopkins proves Psil gives mystic exp.,
Therefore, Amanita gives mystic exp (proved by Hopkins!)
That’s the misimpression that the author tries to give – even if author tries to set up plausible deniability, ie “I didn’t write a sentence directly making that claim – so I’m innocent.”
That’s what the author wishes to say.
Since 1950s, the entire field of entheogen scholarship has WISHED Amanita delivers like Rutajit claims: intense classic Psych effects.
To this day, the field continues playing the game as if their wish were true.
Even ancients fell into this wrong turn – they, too, wished and depicted Amanita AS IF causes Psil effects.
In Myth-Land, Amanita causes the best Psyched’c effects. It’s true, in Myth Land; for Myth Land.
When painter presents Amanita, it means: “gives classic Psyched. effects.” B/c that painting is in Myth Land.
It’s not reality-based history; it’s myth-based history. (A distinction I attribute to Wouter Hanegraaff.)
Myth-based art depiction of Amanita: Rutajit’s 20025 book (foreword by Irvin) accurately describes myth-based Amanita, but he claims that reality-based Amanita is the best thing ever.
A myth-based depiction of Amanita means literal Psil.
The head shop woman, says she’s been there many years, agreed: {spotted mushroom} is understood to reside in Myth Land, but doesn’t mean ingesting Amanita in the real world;
{spotted-msh} means classic Psyched’s (or even cann.).
Errors in entheogen scholarship
* Mark Hoffman article in Jour. Toxicology gives 1976 publication date coining ‘entheogen’ instead of 1979.
I read-aloud during podcast, got confused and had to fact check Hoffman’s bibliography entry.
* maybe another Ruck error I thought of. Deniers have a field day with easy errors like John Rush saying “God holds like a mushroom in hand” – plainly empty hand, like everyone points out.
* Brown mis-transcribed Pan. letter changing from:
finished “product” (meaning, Pan’s alleged/confabulated prototype we are to imagine the Plainc. painter slavishly following)
to:
finished “project” (the fresco as seen by painter after painting it).
That typo threw off my interpretation/critique in a podcast and I had to re-analyze Pan’s puzzling prototype-heavy arg’n.
* I misread new article by Huggins, Foraging Wrong — I had to adjust my rebuttal. I tangled two distinct arg’s from Ronald Huggins. Because haven’t read the full article multiple times yet.
Samorini: Veil Looks Like Branches; Huggins: Too Transiently; Hoffman: Gills and Veil Look Like Branches
Georgio Samorini over-specifically says veil of mushrooms looks like branches.
Ronald Huggins says “no, that’s too transiently true, that veil looks like branches.”
My much stronger, easily defensible interpretation:
It’s better to sum together “gills + veil of mshrooms look like branches”.
Photo: Michael Hoffman, Jan. 2025
Not meaning that the medieval artist had just 1 specimen; when you look at 100 different species, the trend is, you can compare veil+gills to branches under tree crown/cap. You don’t have to have in hand the exact species in the exact desired lifecycle stage.
Even the idea of lifecycle stage is misleading; every Amanita has a different shape – speaking from a lot of experience photographing them. One I uploaded looks exactly like tomato in grass, bright shiny red fruit: no veil remnants.
Friend advises to ignore deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art, like Huggins. I only half agree that that’s strategically effective. And depends what type of article I’m writing.
stablediffusionweb.com – seems AI-gen’d images, including many mushroom art images but in my old browser here, getting malware-like popup blocker preventing site on desktop.
Amazon in “Your Books” list tells me that my personal library includes:
* A reprint of 1925 Rolfe & Rolfe Romance of the Fungus world.
“A Curious Myth” section > “It is impossible to say whether…” No, it’s possible, 100 years later.
* Ramsbottom’s 1953 book Mushrooms & Toadstools.
I’d like to see or re-view the “Rightly or wrongly” Wasson quote that exposed him as committed skeptic.
This early year 1953 supports my accusation that Wasson took every opportunity from 1952 to 1986 to actively deceive and steer everyone away from actually consulting art historians, ie their writings, not phoning them up (to see that they got nothin).
In 2006 I literally wanted to see what citations Pan. gave Wasson, so I could read what art historians say — ie write — about the pilzbaum question.
Favoring familiar word-choice: the development from pilzbaum to mushroom-tree
I had to move away from the word pilzbaum b/c someone asked me what it means.
I had to change to common English: mushroom-trees.
Critiquing Entheogen Scholarship / Pop Sike Cult: Transcendent Knowledge podcast on James Kent
Finishing re-listening to Transcendent Knowledge podcast episodes on James Kent.
I kind of like and miss “Egodeath Theory at WordPress.com“, as said so many times in the Egodeath Mystery Show. I think it’s possible to display either domain in the URL.
Distinct from that is, no ads anymore.
I got exasperated with the recent incompetence of Verio, so created the present site — with a totally separate host and domain — in 2020, using my WordPress account started in 2016.
To have a different, independent website server, I tried WordPress because:
Around 2019, Yahoo removed Yahoo Groups discussion forums, and WordPress is designed for weblog posts, which is functionally somewhat comparable to discussion forums.
The Egodeath theory 
