“The forthcoming book ‘Breaking convention: essays on psychedelic consciousness’ (currently available for preorder on amazon) contains an essay which is based on Michael Hoffman’s theory of mental construct processing (loosening of associations in the psychedelic altered state), and which includes several citations to the egodeath theory website.
“The title of the essay is ‘Cognitive phenomenology of mind manifestation’, it covers the following topics:
Relation of psychedelic tripping to the mind’s association and pattern forming capacities
Using analogies to describe altered state experiences
Plato’s allegory of the philosopher in the cave, and how it maps onto the psychedelic state
Frank Jackson’s philosophical thought-experiments about radically novel kinds of experience, and how they map onto the psychedelic state
Andrew Marr’s theory of visual perception, and Jerry Fodor’s theory of mental modularity, and how both these theories imply a broadly representationalist metaphysical view (perception mediated by mental symbols, as opposed to direct perception of external reality)
Michael Hoffman’s concepts of explicit representationalism and metaperception in the psychedelic state
Undulating qualia – the specific way in which ordinary perception of physical objects is altered in the psychedelic state, and how this alteration indicates a representationalist theory of perception
Edmund Husserl’s concept of phenomenological epoche (= deliberate ‘bracketing-off’ of natural, habitual assumptions for the purpose of carrying out phenomenological analysis), and how it describes both psychedelic tripping and schizophrenic/psychotic mental fragmentation.
Freud’s analogy of the mind as a crystal vase which shatters during episodes of psychosis, making the underlying crystalline structure become visible
Humphrey Osmond’s concept of tripping as ‘psychotomimesis’
Louis Sass’ concept of schizophrenic cognition as ‘hyperreflexivity’ and how this concept also applies to the psychedelic cognitive modality
The phenomenological inaccuracy of the term ‘hallucinogen’
Benny Shanon’s analysis of the ayahuasca experience, in particular his description of the way in which ayahuasca can reorientate a person’s ontological understanding
How the psychedelic state reveals the mind’s basic function of fusing together mental representations with their external referents
How Michael Hoffman’s analysis of the psychedelic trip effect explains the proper way in which tripping is related to hallucinating
Michael Hoffman’s concept of the mental worldmodel, and how psychedelic tripping can lead to a radical overhaul/restructuring of the mental worldmodel
Using the process of waking up from a dream as an analogy for the psychedelic mental reconfiguration
Paul Thagard’s writing on paradigm conversion and how it maps onto the psychedelic mental reconfiguration
Essay: “Cognitive Phenomenology of Mind Manifestation”, in 2013 book: “Breaking Convention: Essays on Psychedelic Consciousness”
The forthcoming book ‘Breaking convention: essays on psychedelic consciousness’ (currently available for preorder on amazon)
Breaking Convention: Essays on Psychedelic Consciousness July 5, 2013 Essay: Cognitive phenomenology of mind manifestation David Luke (Editor), Dave King (Editor) http://amzn.com/1907222227 – this url pattern no longer supported.
contains an essay which …
/ end of post
Breaking Convention: Essays on Psychedelic Consciousness (Adams 2013)
Conference: Breaking Convention: A Multidisciplinary Conference on Psychedelic Consciousness April 1-3, 2011
CJ: You spoke on “The Cognitive Phenomenology of Mind Manifestation”?
MF: Yes, its the study of what happens inside the mind of a person when they’ve taken mushrooms or LSD.
CJ: I appreciate how you break it down so clearly.
MF: Well, I try not to be too trippy. I want to be dry, rigorous, and logical. You can actually talk about psychedelic experiences in great detail and convey meaningful information. Its quite a lazy stereotype that these types of experiences are ineffable, beyond language.
CJ: Any advice?
MF: Terrence McKenna, a famous psychedelic bard, used to say: “Take five grams of mushrooms alone in silent darkness, and that will completely blow your mind.”
Max mentions the archive preparation, the Egodeath Yahoo Group rips, in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCqCGpOwDYA at 40:30, “how do we package the Egodeath theory”. 41:00 “do you have access to the the Egodeath Yahoo Group?” Ripping the group posts. Then MH added more content, missed a few of the last posts, have them in email. How to make searchable
[after that, around 2020, wrmspirit helped MH get the archive to upload it to WordPress]
DOC13/1770 – Omnes Concordant in Uno, qui est bifidus
FRICK, Karl R. (1972). Michael Maier’s ‘ Symbola Avreae Mensae Dvodecim Nationvm’ (Facs.) Akademische Druck- u Verlaganstalt, Graz, Austria.
The Dragon Hunters: Placing the Control Transformation Potential at the Center of Psychedelic Discovery
[December 28, 2024, Noon]
Asp (Aberdeen Bestiary)
Does the Egodeath theory say that you are guaranteed to run into loss of control, control vortex seizure? No, can’t say that. The point is that:
The most interesting and compelling and threatening POTENTIAL to discover is the gate, shadow dragon monster, control-threat engagement.
Your goal might be to avoid negative experiences.
Or, your goal might be to get the particular prize: the ability to go through the gates to get the tree of life, goal framed per end of Bible, Rev 22:14.
The Egodeath theory is for Loose Cognitive Science to be equipped to go through the gate and endure in the vulnerable state – not to simply “avoid” the threat, but to specialize in and focus on this potential of this threat-gate.
Not to avoid the shadow dragon monster, but to vanquish or pin or control this monster, to focus on mapping this monster.
Reliability of each motif in {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
{mushrooms}
highly reliable but bc branching is more the main ultimate message than mushrooms, later genre images omit mushrooms and have branching instead,
eg mushrooms at base of Splendor Solis image of Philosophers Beside the Tree, one version.
{branching}
Reliable, showing non branching vs branching. main message, expect often.
{handedness}
The least reliable, the least consistently used/present.
It’s just an intermediate connector idea/motif:
There are two mental models.
There happen to be two directions: left, right.
So, we can map left to one mental model, and right to the other – but the mapping is arbitrary, and
the message is not “left vs right”, the message is “branching vs nonbranching”,
so, often, handedness is not used / not present.
{stability}
motifs – these are open-ended.
Eadwine in Great Canterbury Psalter uses:
stable column base [typically right foot touching; sometimes left]
stable building;
scale balance;
being threatened (by
angels,
demons,
army,
blade [spear, arrow, sword, knife, plow, scythe],
fire/flames,
lion).
smooth brow vs. furrowed brow
b/c open ended, less reliability of being present and definite, in the pilzbaum genre.
The Psychedelic Pseudo “Science” Community CONSISTENTLY IGNORES AND SUPPRESSES the Negative Mystical Effects of Psilocybin
todo: add to CEQ page
James 1902 FAILED to include negative mystical effects.
Stace 1960 FAILED to include negative mystical effects.
Pankhe 1962 MEQ/SOCQ/PES FAILED to include negative mystical effects.
Richards 1975 MEQ/SOCQ/PES FAILED to include negative mystical effects.
Griffiths CEQ 2016 FAILED to include negative mystical effects.
MEQ is garbage.
“Mystical experiences are positive. Negative experiences are by definition non-Mystical.” Charles Stang got Griffiths to admit on video that the MEQ is bullsh!t. Griftiths’ excuse: “We catch negative effects in the CEQ.” False. CEQ omits 18 of 21 Dread effects, instead delivering irrelevant worthless feeble giant Grief category. BUNK as F!
PES/SOCQ is garbage. SOCQ = MEQ + distractor items.
CEQ is garbage.
OAV is solid.
HRS has some decent negative effects (review them).
SOCQ doesn’t have any negative effects? Review them.
Idea Development pages title pattern
Old naming pattern:
Idea Development page 21
“New” naming pattern, equivalent to past private text files named like “TK 2010-03.txt”:
Transcendent Knowledge 2024-12-13
that was ok for me privately; i knew the content of such text files is freeform.
or new naming pattern:
Idea Development 2024-12-25
for the audience, “Idea Development” is clearer than “Transcendent Knowledge” to communicate that this is freeform content. like saying:
that’s short for saying the title:
Transcendent Knowledge Idea Development page 2024-12-25
Moving Past Mysticism
todo: add to Moving Past Mysticism page:
todo: add to SOCQ/MEQ page:
article: Psychedelic Mysticism and Christian Spirituality: From Science to Love Ron Cole-Turner, Published: 26 April 2024 Citation: Cole-Turner, Ron. 2024. Psychedelic Mysticism and Christian Spirituality: From Science to Love. religions 15: 537. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15050537
That article cites:
The Psychedelic Experience Scale (PES) (Stocker 2024) – add to SoCQ page
The Revival of the Psychedelic Experience Scale: Revealing Its Extended-Mystical, Visual, and Distressing Experiential Spectrum with LSD and Psilocybin Studies Stocker, Kurt, Matthias Hartmann, Laura Ley, Anna M Becker, Friederike Holze, and Matthias E. Liechti. 2024. Journal of Psychopharmacology 38: 80–100. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Cole’s article says about that work, “a helpful review of the history of the MEQ from its earliest complete form in 1975 until the present version“
Abstract Background:
Research with the Psychedelic Experience Questionnaire/Scale (PES) focuses on questions relating to mystical experience (Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ)).
The psychometric potential of the non-MEQ items of the PES remains largely unexplored.”
Translation: the non-MEQ items of PES aka SoCQ are worthless noise never meant to be anything more than “distractor items” to hide the MEQ.
Compare SOCQ [to PES], about which I asked same question.
I asked: Why did CEQ draw from SOCQ, given that SOCQ is MEQ (all unicorns rainbows) + dummy “distractor items”?]
Confirmed: “The Psychedelic Experience Questionnaire/Scale (PES), also known as the States of Consciousness Questionnaire” – my question remains solid after I saw:
Factor 8: Distressing Experience
Item 13. Emotional and/or physical suffering.
Item 16: Feelings of despair.
Item 28: Sense of being trapped and helpless.
Item 45: Experience of isolation and loneliness.
Item 52: Experience of fear.
My recent reasoning/analysis: guided by my question: What is the justification, when creating the CEQ, for drawing effects question items from these particular 3 q’airs: SOCQ, OAV aka 5D-ASC; HRS?
Especially unjustified seems SOCQ, which is the absurdly positive MEQ items + some random(?) filler fake junk sawdust questions, the “distractor items”.
These non-MEQ items within the SOCQ were not meant to complete the range of psychedelic effects by supplementing the “mystical” MEQ effects; they merely were “distractor items”.
My hunch there was confirmed today Dec 27 2024, upon seeing the poor “Distressing” category.
I CONTINUE TO RECOMMEND THE ONLY NEGATIVE Q’AIR QUESTIONS WORTH A DAMN ARE DITTRICH’S ‘A’ ANGST/ DREAD dimension of OAV aka 5D-ASC.
Yet those 21 items, only 3 are retained in CEQ!
In their money-driven zeal to fabricate a fake Grief subscale, Griftiths simply DELETED 18 of the 21 challenging fx from the Angst/Dread dimension of OAV.
86% of negative psilocybin effects (per OAV’s A/Angst/Dread dimension) were simply deleted, removed, omitted, by Griftiths team, from the CEQ that brags about being comprehensive and broader than other q’airs re: negative, challenging, unpleasant experiences effects items.
Stocker continues:
“Aims:
We investigated whether the PES also yields subscales besides the MEQ30 subscales.
Methods:
Data from 239 PES measurements (140 healthy participants) from six studies with moderate to high doses of lysergic acid diethylamide and/or psilocybin were included.
New subscales (with items other than MEQ30) were created and validated as follows:
(1) theoretical derivation of candidate items;
(2) removal of items with rare experiences;
(3) exploratory factor analysis; and
(4) confirmatory factor analysis.
Correlations of subscales within the PES and between the PES and the 5-Dimensional Altered States of Consciousness Scale (5D-ASC) were performed.
[That’s Dittrich; highest quality, includes OAV’s A = Angst / Dread dimension]
In addition, a cluster analysis using all items (except rare experiences) was performed.
Results:
The reliability of the four original factors of the MEQ30 was confirmed and four additional factors for the non-MEQ items were revealed:
paradoxicality,
connectedness,
visual experience, and
distressing experience.
The first two additional factors were strongly correlated with the MEQ30 mystical subscale.
Adding the new subscales to the MEQ30 subscales increased the explained variance with the 5D-ASC.
[not following; MEQ is absurdly positive; 5D-ASC ie OAV has A = Angst/Dread, which is a good dimension]
The cluster analysis confirmed our main results and provided additional insights for future psychedelic psychometrics.”
[future psychedelic psychometrics: trashcan the CEQ – and MEQ while you’re at it — and replace CEQ by my ECQ, Eternalism and Control Questionnaire]
Conclusion: ITS “VALIDATED” SO U KNOW ITS TRUESCIENCE NO MATTER HOW MALFORMED AND MAGICALLY ASSEMBLED OUT OF THIN AIR while under the guidance of a totally fictional and imagined notion of “mystical experience” that contradicts historical reports of mystics according to Charles Stang when interviewing Griftiths.
Stace 1960 “Mystical Experiencing”:
🦄💨🌈
Stocker continues:
“The study yields a new validated 6-factor structure for extended mystical experience (MEQ40: MEQ30 + Paradoxicality + Connectedness) and covers psychedelic experience as a whole more comprehensively than has hitherto been possible within a single questionnaire (PES48).
[that EXACT claim. “more comprehensive”, was made for CEQ, then CEQ threw all negative effects in trashcan totally arbitrarily, and replaced them by fake fabricated “Grief” category]
The entire PES (PES100) can also be used for further future psychedelic-psychometric research.”
Great Canterbury Psalter image f109 Analysis [Caught in Hell-Mouth Furnace Net, Summoned to City Gate Entrance Past Ossuary Corpse, Stable Building Protected by Cloth Washed Clean]
my comment reply to wrmspirit on my splendor solis page:
wrmspirit comment:
“Your discovery on Irvin’s book is incredible.
“The branch held by left philosopher between both philosophers in picture of ‘philosophers beside the tree’ looks like a divining rod.
“The words Irvin writes to you in his signing of the book is prophetic to the discovery.”
my comment reply:
Yes, agreed, I experienced this discovery as a much appreciated confirmation, recognizing most of the 4 motifs (handedness, branching, stability) in this version of this image.
I’d like to do a detailed writeup on what this was like to get this particular confirmation, stumbling across it, at this point in time, November 2024, after a hiatus since June 2023.
Irvin & Rutajit (2006) rely on red and white clothing to serve as the mushroom motif.
I found two more versions of this image:
one valuable because it has the {cut right branch} which I expected for the basket to hang from,
one valuable because it has the apparent mushrooms on the ground, not just red and white clothing – and also has bathers sculpted and the “gateway” framing foregrounded.
I plan to include the set of 3 pictures in the “branching-message mushroom trees” article for the Journal of Psychedelic Studies, but I’ll need to minimize text analysis in that article.
A picture’s worth a thousand words.
There’s sure no room in that article for covering a history of scholars’ folly regarding mushrooms in Christian art, though Cyberdisciple pointed out that a literature review and history of that scholarship, telling the story of dispute and discovery, would be interesting.
Comment Posting Dec. 23, 2024 at Cyberdisciple site: Breaking Convention Book 20214 Covers the Egodeath Theory
The Holy Mushroom by Jan Irvin 2008 is a must-have for entheogen scholarship. That book is a new purchase for me in March 2023, because I was sick of the foolishness in the non-debate between Wasson and Allegro, after the 2006 article “Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita”. http://egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm
I lack the Failed God. I have both editions of Rush’s book about how Christianity entirely got rid of The Mushroom (🍄), as proved by the tons of mushroom imagery all throughout Christianity, per the Secret Amanita Cult paradigm and the Moderate (aka Minimal) entheogen theory of religion.
Mushroom Branches Prove Mushroom Trees Aren’t Mushrooms
Paul Stamets, crop by Cybermonk Dec. 22, 2024
Plant 2
Crop by Cybermonk
Plants 1 and 2
Crop by Cybermonk
Magic Mushrooms Around the World: A Scientific Journey Across Cultures and Time: The Case for Challenging Research and Value Systems (Gartz, 1997)
Book referenced by Ruck’s Apples of Apollo re: Mushrooms Trees.
Apples of Apollo has “Goertz 1996”, Error?
in book Apples of Apollo, page 256 Biblio entry & p. 176 referenced re pilzbaum, incorrectly says Goertz along with English title & says 1996.
“Gartz”, according to book cover 1997 English printing.
Blurb:
“The first new book on psychoactive mushrooms in 10 years. [which mid-1980s book does he mean?] [0-1 years: Stamets 1996 Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World: An Identification Guide]
“Introducing a rich variety of psychoactive mushrooms from around the globe -including some rare and little-known species – the author describes dozens of species and covers a broad range of mushroom- related topics, from distribution maps to comparisons of cultural attitudes to laboratory analyses of active ingredients.
“One of the book’s most remarkable features is its multi-disciplinary approach: chemistry, botany, biology, history, anthropology, religion, pharmacology, medicine – all of these are among the fields contributing a diversity of data, questions and information that are assembled into one of the most comprehensive and intriguing portraits of psychoactive mushrooms ever created.
“Lavishly illustrated, well-organized and enriched by numerous accounts of mushroom experiences, this book explores the psychoactive mycoflora on five continents and reconstructs a continuity of psychoactive mushroom use throughout history, from as early as 10,000 years ago to the present day.
“You will also find detailed chapters on mushroom cultivation techniques, psychotherapy applications, the bluing phenomenon, the dangers of accidental poisonings caused by misidentification of species, and more.
“A treasure trove of information, illustrations and magnificent color photography, the book contains much novel information as well, such as the first report on the psychoactivity of baeocystin and up-to-date findings on the use of plant growth hormones to accelerate growth.
“Jochen Gartz has made an outstanding contribution to the field of mycology by embracing the Magic Mushrooms of Germany and from around the world and by pursuing their scientific study and investigation.” – Christian Ratsch, from his Introduction
130 pages, 8″x11″, sturdy softcover
30 color plates
36 black & white illustrations
3 maps of geographic distribution patterns
10 tables
18 reproductions of historic source materials and citations from the early mycological literature Bibliography of 250+ citations and sources FROM THE TABLE OF CONTENT:
Contents:
“Who Was the First Magician?” – Foreword by Christian Ratsch
1. Introduction
2. Fancy of Fools or Flesh of the Gods: Reflections on the History Study of Magic Mushrooms
3. The Current State of Knowledge About European Species
What About Cubensis in Europe? Blind Spot per ToC; Probably No One Has Ever Thought to Look for Cubensis in Europe/England
3.1 Psilocybe semilanceata – The Classic Psychotropic Species of Europe
3.2 Psilocybe cyanescens – Potent Mushrooms Growing on Wood Debris
3.3 Panaeolus subbalteatus – Mycology & Myths about the Panaeolus Species
3.4 Inocybe aeruginascens – Fast-Spreading New Arrivals
3.5 Gymnopilus purpuratus – Magnificent Mushrooms from South America
3.6 Conocybe cyanopus – Tiny Mushrooms of Remarkable Potency
3.7 Pluteus salicinus – A Little-Known Wood-Inhabiting Species
4. Mushroom Identification: The Potential for Deadly Mistakes
5. The Bluing Phenomenon and Metol Testing – Reality vs. Wishful Thinking
6. Mushroom Cultivation – Classic Findings and New Techniques
7. Psychotropic Mushroom Species All Around The World
7.1 Spotlight on North America and Hawaii
7.2 Mycophilia in Central and South America
7.3 Australia’s Mycoflora Attracts Attention
7.4 European Customs and Conventions
7.5 Japanese Experiments
7.6 Intoxications and the Oldest Known Mushroom Cult in Africa
7.7 Usage in Asia and Oceania
8. Remarks About Effects of Mushrooms from the Category Phantastika
9. Psychotherapy
10. Outlook
11. Bibliography (Reference Section with over 250 entries)
Fool’s Sponges: Psychoactive Mushrooms Around the World (Gartz, 2004)
“Gordon Wasson, Albert Hofmann and Roger Heim researched the psychoactive Psilocybe species of Mexico in interdisciplinary collaboration in the 1950s.
In addition to ethnobotanical and mycological research, the psychedelics psilocybin and psilocin were isolated and characterized as effective principles of mushrooms.
Over the next few decades, these alkaloids were increasingly detected in fungal species from other genera around the world.
Jochen Gartz researched all aspects of mushrooms on a scientific basis for more than 15 years.
He discovered several “new” species, which he named together with other researchers, such as the highly psychoactive mushrooms Psilocybe azurescens (USA) and Psilocybe natalensis (South Africa).
Favored by his previous work in drug research and his many years of involvement with all areas touched upon by such psychoactive substances, he is re-presenting this interdisciplinary standard work on psychoactive mushrooms here, completely revised and updated.
Based on historical aspects, this describes competently and yet generally understandably all areas of knowledge in which the species are networked in a mycelial manner.
The mycology and chemistry are described in just as much detail, including many color and b/w photos, as the individual culture processes.
Purely toxicological and medical-psychotherapeutic aspects have been linked to a large number of detailed descriptions of the effects of individual mushroom species at different dosages around the world.
The danger of confusion with deadly poisonous mushrooms is pointed out, as is the possible use of color reactions to differentiate individual species.
The interdisciplinary work is finally rounded off by an extensive bibliography with several hundred citations from a wide variety of areas.”
Psilocybin Mushrooms: New Species, Their Discovery and Applications (Gartz, 2018)
“Psilocybin and psilocin are highly potent natural tryptamine psychedelics and close relatives of DMT, 5-MeO-DMT and other molecules.
The active ingredients can be found worldwide in mushroom species of various genera and have accompanied people in their search for meaning and spirituality for a very long time.
Through the work of the Mexican curandera (healer) Maria Sabina and the founder of ethnomycology, R. Gordon Wasson, psilocybin-producing mushrooms became known as psychedelic catalysts.
Today they are becoming increasingly important in psychonautical and medical applications.
This book portrays the psilocybin mushrooms newly discovered and described by the German mycologist Jochen Gartz and colleagues since 1983 in monographs and describes their history, occurrence, possible applications, chemical nature and more.”
Equate Letcher, Hatsis, Huggins; Identify their Differences
Mostly overlap of Letcher, Hatsis, and Huggins are the same guy, same voice.
todo: Identify the slight differences if any between the three poor reasoners on this particular topic, else biggest brains in universe on all other topics.
Letcher, Hatsis, and Huggins just the same: The 3 Masters of Fallacies grotesquely malformed Logical Fallacies, Yaldabaoth: Lion Head Snake Body monster.
threatened control by {lion head} {snake body} monster {demanding sacrifice of the ruler}
be brought through the seizure-transformation gates
{pass through the {seizure-transformation gates} into the holy city of the clean who have the right} {wash your robes} {blessed} {have the right to {go through the gates} into the city} and {eat from the trees of life} become non-dying, non-ephemeral, non-temporary; lasting, mature, final form; perishable, imperishability, imperishable, become like us: imperishable
imperishable life: we who have been transformed from possibilism to eternalism with 2-level dependent control by the god mystery higher controller unknowable mysterious source of control-thoughts dependent upon.
transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
each Tree of Live has 12 different religious fruits crops every month, and leaves heal nations.
Trees of Life are on both sides of the River of Life with the Water of Life.
Your reward for eating the scroll in the hand of the angel who told you to eat [fact check that todo] – does he demand:
GIMME YOUR AMANITAS NOW 🍄 angel dude i prophecy you will hand them over to make my stomache hurt, then delirious deliriant delirium style of writing, like scopolamine
Look into “whether Hatsis shares those limitations and can be grouped with Letcher or should be considered an independent position.
poorly theorized;
limited explanatory power
limited relevance
not very helpful or useful
review the descripotions by Michael Hoffman at Egodeath.com –
i included this book in recent cross-literature study of the Amanita Primacy Fallacy
The book Shroom is a must-read mixed bag:
“Bernward door art is not hidden, therefore, can’t be mushrooms (there’s no other possible explanation anyone could possibly come up with to counter my overwhelming storytelling power mixed with every fallacy all at once)”
“the Blame panel, not the Eating panel shows the literal liberty cap specimens – so, DOESN’T COUNT”
Goal posts now are here, cloer in, as i RUN from Baily assertion to worthless retreat to worthless Motte assertion thats not even contested, you win the fail medal of dross, Fools Medal for giving US the win by your defaulting on the relevant smartly defined position that we must be focusing on: THE MOST INTELLIGENTLY DEFINED POSITION OF ASSERTION EG the Explicit Cubensis paradigm
not the kiddie, lesser, deliriant theory
the delirious theorizing & delirious argumentation from Hatsis the witch, high equally well on Datura scopolamine or, interchangeably, the deliriant Amanita muscimol ibutenic acid.
the Amanita Primacy Fallacy
the Secret Amanita paradigm
the Explicit Cubensis paradigm
Psilocybin put in service of the glory of king Secret Amanita the frikkin GOD of entheogens 🙌 🤫🍄
👶 🤫🍄 😯
Cyberdisciple page about Transcendent Knowledge podcast Episode 10, my 2018 Comment Failed to Note Amanita Leopard Fountain
My Comment Dec 20 2024 posted on page:
Episode 10, Transcendent Knowledge Podcast: Plato – my comment dec 20 2024: OMG I can’t believe that Psilocybin fanatic with his single-plant fallacy was blind to the spotted leopard’s balancing Amanita kylix fountain, both in the 2006 article and 2018 comment above.
What is this world coming to! Never trust an entheogen scholar. Ariadne would shake the removed branch held in left hand, at such folly.
But first I need to read the text that this mosaic is illustrating and accompanying, to check what species of branch Ariadne is held to hold, according to the backstory that we are required to know, to drive and constrain our interpretation of this imagery.
Look what success Brown & Brown had with such a research approach, in their strenuous, big-brained textual research on the backstory of Walburga – turns out she’s known to hold a vial – who would’ve known! Therefore, not mushroom.
Huggins 2024: These pilzbaum have branches, which make these not look like mushrooms at all
Just look at these branches that disqualify these pilzbaum from looking anything like mushrooms
Crop by Cybermonk; branching morphology analysis: 🔱🔱 YI IY Great Canterbury Psalter, “Creation of Plants”/”third day”, f11 row 1 right discovered by Paul Lindgren 2000 https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f11.item.zoomCrop by Cybermonk Look at these branches, which prove that these mushroom-looking plants that the art historians describe as pilzbaum do not look like mushrooms. Great Canterbury Psalter, “Creation of Plants”/”third day”, f11 row 1 right https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f11.item.zoom
Crop by Cybermonk Great Canterbury Psalter, “Creation of Plants”/”third day”, f11 row 1 right, plant 4, right branch “f11-row1-right-msh4-right-branch.jpg” 16 KB, 10:48 am, Dec. 21, 2024 https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f11.item.zoom
Huggins’ article “Foraging Wrong”
fact check treasure hunt: of my earlier writing. [8:39 pm dec 19 2024 ] development phase seeing how close the author comes to writing exactly this argument. I hope there is one paragraph containing these contradictory points.
find ‘branch’ in Huggins’ article “Foraging Wrong”. found the quote! twisted!
Crop by Cybermonk – Great Canterbury Psalter f221 row 2 left, Spain painters, not Eadwine
My 3 fav Great Canterbury Psalter images are the only 3 that have Cubensis lockbox bins.
My high-res poster of f134 145 & 177 is almost ready. The lockbox images.
Huggins’ “Foraging Wrong” Article
Huggins in “Foraging Wrong” has some counts of pilzbaum in Great Canterbury Psalter i want to contest/ inventory/ count.
Huggins’ article’s subtitle scope proposes to bet the farm on “The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Test Case”
— like Browns did with their non field research during their field research, to NOT see firsthand the Walburga tapestry – & hugely lost their bet-the-farm proxy bet (to advocate the mild middle moderate position/ assessment of pilzbaum)
I dont do proxy bets; “test case” ok Hugs, but what is this, Plainc 2.0? I am MOST HAPPY to accept your offer, Hugs.
yes let us art historians publish written articles that scholars can ACTUALLY “CONSULT”; put down your telephone and stopwatch mis-“consulting” art historians, LetHatHug. You say text matters?
I HEARTILY AGREE that scholars in the debate (pilzbaum; mushrooms in Christian art ) need to “consult” “texts”:
IF ART HISTORIANS WANT TO DESERVE BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY, THEY MUST PUBLISH, IN WRITING; IN LIBRARIES; IN BOOKS, IN ARTICLES — NOT POSTURE AND DENOUNCE “WITH IMPRESSIVE CELERITY” like trained seals owned by the lying establishment
eg Wasson the Censor of Brinckmann and Panofsky (awkwardly condoned by Huggins).
👎🖼️🚫🍄 ⏱️
You’re a bit slow to disavow pilzbaum – are you sure you are a “competent” art historian? 🤨
Hatsis decrees: “every claim of mushrooms in Christian art stands or falls with the Plainc fresco” – the Proxy fallacy.
wrmspirit wants myth coverage, which is fun & rewarding, but doesn’t see how Big-Game-Hunting the psalters & pilzbaum are.
mushroom trees are the main mushroom imagery in mushrooms in Christian art
my white boxes on images f134 145 177 show how many various mushroom shapes are there.
Victory, successful decoding, requires full vigorous engagement; tepid treatment of pilzbaum won’t cut it 🗡️🔥
wont cut these possibility branches, to get through the eternalism gate, to get the treasure of altered-state compatibility
I continue to find basic points of connections / interp in Great Canterbury Psalter.
Huggins the notable thing is his weird sneaky handling of the censored Panofsky letters & Brinc cit as if NOTHING REMARKABLE HERE, pan told wass about Brinck WAY BACK IN 1952″ – sure huggs
BUT WASSON CENSORED THAT CIT; HOW THE HELL DO YOU ACT AS IF WE HAD THAT CIT SINCE 1952 or 1968??!!
Why do you fail to cite Brown 2019 where we got Pan’s letters?
WHERE WHEN DID U FIND PANS TWO LETTERS YOU ARE CASUALLY USING AND WHERE DID U HEAR OF BRINC CIT?
“Sect”, “Cult”, “Community”
Walled-off Communities: Barrier Construction narrative tale-telling
Arbitrary moral narrative of suppression driving the storytelling, done by entheogen scholars, to Prevent Diffusing Entheogens throughout Christianity.
To prop up their fabricated moralistic tale, entheogen scholars have to keep The Mushroom [picture kiddie amanita 🍄] from mixing within the entire mass body of all Christendom.
the boundary of presence|absence of The Sacred Mushroom [🍄 🚫🤔] secured by entheogen scholarship
as a wall to keep The Mushroom from being within Christianity as an entire whole “community”
with The Mushroom used now and then by whatever Christians in that inclusive mass body of everyone.
Not “sect”, that’s a forbidden word ; not “cult”. Everyone; anyone.
Stop fabricating tale-spinning, storytelling narrative focused on boundary construction, the “groups” to which YOU, Ruck, confine the poor Amanita
Pope Ruck decrees, ex cathedra — HE is the only one who is calling ancient Amanita users “heretical GROUPS or SECTS”;
Ruck never frames ancient Amanita users as freely mixing individuals, now and again, here & there, within the set of EVERYONE.
I report evidence of mushrooms in Christian history as an entirety, not just by “certain Christian groups“, as Samorini in 1997 wrote.
I proclaim a 10-year hiatus on even THINKING about the wrong, blinding, stupefying, Prohibition-constructing question “where is the boundary wall between presence vs absence of The Mushroom [👶🍄]?
Ruck always emphasizes enclosing users within his walled “heretical sects” construction.
“CERTAIN Christian GROUPS” – Samorini 1997, “The mushroom-tree of Plaincourault”
“The mushroom-tree of Plaincourault” 1997 Samo:
p 31: “… initiating a series of new investigations on the relationship certain Christian groups in the middle ages may have had with entheogens.”
why not just say “some people”?
Why “groups” or “sects” or “cults” or “communities” , or whatever boundary-constructing terms you use interchangeably, like you’re making it up
BOUNDARY-CONSTRUCTING, NARRATIVE WALL-BUILDING, TO ISOLATE “THE MUSHROOM”
the Ruck cult of SECRET (amanita)
To what extent mushrooms in Christendom?
‘mushroom’ meaning mainly Cubensis; Amanita as symbol of Cubensis
Cubensis, along with its supporting-role Panaeolus & Liberty Cap types, with Amanita serving its standard function as signage indicating Psil mushroom ingesting, per Pharmako Gnosis by dale pendell :
“Amanita muscaria is the most famous entheogen in the world that nobody uses. It is the supreme symbol of all entheogenic religion.”
AMEN, nailed
Amanita is a deliriant thats used as a symbol for psychedelics.
Amanita is a symbol that means Cubensis.
Datura is a good substitute for Amanita, according to Ruck.
Amanita’s suitable replacement by Datura scopolamine, a comparable deliriant – per Ruck “Daturas for the Virgin” 2001 Entheos 2 p. 56
it is not one sentence, but split across two+, because he writes an an indirect poetic way
he might in my mind sound like he’s making an argument for the usual story of replacing Aman by Psil but no, here he is setting up to change from Aman — the real deal — to the mere adequate substitute Datura – (not to Psil, which is the usual tale of substn , eg in Heinr SF )
unfortunately, our glorious sacred Amanita got replaced by different plants, that we do not care about, that play a mere minor, supporting role here:
they settled for psilocybin, as a makeshift lesser substitute. 🙁
they settled for Datura, as a powerful substitute for Their Msh [🍄]. 👍
Psil was used in a minor supporting role, to prop up our grand/ master narrative, Secret Amanita storytelling.
entheogen scholarship is all about mythmaking storytelling, folk fiction factoids.
First-gen entheogen scholarship was not about Psilocybin advanced use throughout society at large.
In society, Psil was used at an advanced level.
Proved by pilzbaum‘s combin of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
In certain closed-off separate sects, or groups, or cults, or closed communities, Psil was used at an advanced level.
in the society — not “certain Christian groups … may have had … entheogens” Samo p31 1997, “The mushroom-tree of Plainc”
the Ruck (& here Samo) moderate-to-minimal entheogen theory of religion at work
After Samo’s field trip and then the famous 1998 broad pilzbaum article, delivering tons of mushrooms, would Samo still write weakly, “CERTAIN Christian GROUPS”?
presence means absence;
groups had; but therefore the whole mass lacked The Mushroom
only CERTAIN GROUPS had The Msh, no one else; society lacked, Christianity lacked The Mushroom
No individual person ever used or knew The Mushroom — only “sect” members, or call em whatever; doesn’t matter:
“cults, heretical community groups, exclusive collectives”
it’s STORYTELLING TIME, myth-based historiography.
see W Hanegraaff on why not to do this.
entheogen scholarship is Myth-based historiography, warned against by Hanegraaff.
LetHatHug is right on this, they smell storytelling mythmaking misguided by all
Psilocybin Abused in Service of Giving All (Stolen) Glory to Amanita
the bad, abusive, disrespectful attitude that the Secret Amanita paradigm has against Psil, as if Aman is better than Psil rather than the reverse
Aman steals credit from Psil
Hatsis : “nevertheless, we shall employ those lesser ones, “lesser looking”
Tom “Secret Amanita Cult” Hatsis writes, “these lesser-looking mushrooms|trees”, he says of non-amanita pilzbaum.
check quote , search here
Amanita serves as a symbol, the signage of Cubensis, per std lang hdshop art
put to use the poor-to-ingest, pretty, deviant type, 🍄 USED as signage of Psil 🍄🟫
no more 🍄🟫 in service of 🍄
that’s backwards, as normal in this field of entheogen scholarship. rightly,
🍄 in service of 🍄🟫
{spots on mushroom} means trip; psil | blot
{spots on msh} in art gives no thought of Amanita ingesting — pass , i’d rather be straight
I have a mushroom art calendar, maybe rendered, that has almost no spots in the caps, surprisingly, avoids that dominant stylization standard visual language
the calendar artist is an activist against the Amanita Primacy Fallacy
4x Error Penalty for Brown & Brown 2016 & 2019
re: “Creation of Plants” image, poor identifications by Brown: x2 penalty bc both Browns, & x2 penalty when they duplicate the same mistake in book and article.
Both Brown AND Brown both made a certain mistake twice, double penalty — or quadruple penalty, in the case where both authors in both publications (book and article) made the same mistake.
eg serrated base folly Walburga tapestry is both botched in 2016 book SECRET Hallucinogens in “Certain Christian Communities”, by both Brown & Brown.
Samorini wrote the awful phrase “certain Christian groups” in 1997, a red flag: note the boundary-construction wall-building labor by Samorini: “cult, closed group, walled off community, sect walled off”.
Wound in Right Side
5:42 pm dec 19 2024
the pieces fit this time thru:
eve born from rib in adams side: wound in right side = ctrl seizure/ tc transcendence birth passageway gate = become Female Semele, helpless overpowered thought receiver
Poster, made higher res than ever, 3 crops stacked: f134🙃 f145👑 f177🐴
Huggins’ sleazy use of Panofsky’s Brinckmann 1906 cit (missing in Hugs Biblio) & pan’s 2nd letter from Via Brown 2019 NOT CITED IN BIBLIO but footnote strangely. no mention of two attached pics. Hugs is Acting strange around Panofsky cover up wasson deception, why not credit Brown? Why not cite Brown 2019?, who published both panofsky letters (tho not the two pics)
hugg says brinc cite way back in 1952
how did you find it? bc wasson hid 5 things for 1952 to 1968 to 2019 Brown exposed the hidden leads
citation
two pictures
Panofsky’s 2nd letter
2nd strong urging to see Brinckmann citation, consult cit.
wasson, deceit tactic
The two legs of the Egodeath theory: The core theory & the mytheme theory
At my site map, added “Cyberdisciple Articles” section, listing all my Cyberdisciple pages (lacks the sections about Cyberdisciple that are within my Idea Development pages).
Updated my site map page of Cyberdisciple site.
todo: In my site map page of Cyberdisciple’s site, indicate my favs/ freq used.
todo: post Comment at a Cyberdisciple site page about Letcher and Hatsis wondering if Letcher is same as Hatsis – now, add Huggins.
Set of three images from Eadwine. Analyzing these images covers most branching-message mushroom trees in the pilzbaum genre, of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
When looking for logical fallacies, the best field is pilzbaum (mushroom trees).
Please use the German term, pilzbaum, to keep this on the down-low; we don’t want to mislead the ignorant by openly writing “mushroom” trees.
Mr. Natural! What does it all mean? It don’t mean 🐂💩🍄🟫🔵
pilzbaum (mushroom trees) mean trees. The distinct mushroid impression is due to clumsy accidental inept artists slipping up without purpose or intention, helpless slaves of the templates that developed for no conscious reason.
This art impression of mushroom is not purposeful; artists broke the prototypes carelessly copying and botching the prototypes that developed toward mushroom for no reason, no purpose, random accident really.
Artists lack control and responsibility here.
Kill the artists into machines, to save our denial.
on this topic, only, remove all will and intentionality from our subjects under study, the under-developed Dark Ages artists.
They don’t mean mushrooms, because they have branches so it doesn’t look like a mushroom.
It can only be one or the other: mushroom or tree.
pilzbaum have branches, therefore not a mushroom but a tree. Interpretation complete.
A mushroom contains branching, effects.
Golden Teacher Cubensis teaches psychedelic eternalism: how to not lose control.
Psil = Eucharist = teaches submitting to higher controller, you a horse ridden from higher lvl ctrllr / serpent.
The Eucharist recognized as mushrooms
plant teacher = 11:48pm nov 23 2024 teacher in f134 = the teaching aspect of the mushroom, the Golden Teacher of Righteousness.
psychedelic eternalism teaches the two models: branching vs non-branching. psychedelic eternalism, from possibilism-thinking, which is retained and relied on though disproved, virtual-only control agency.
You are the horse being ridden by creator God the higher controller, puppet of the frozen snake.
Brown’s Feb 2022 article defeating Hatsis at Hancock site:
Hatsis the failed witch, the medieval historian who interprets esoteric art literally and reductionistically, and thinks what’s under debate is “whether there was a secret Amanita cult” – stuck in 1970 forever, trapped back in the Dark Ages of entheogen scholarship.
[8:35 pm Nov 23, 2024] CONFIRMED a speculation from about a week ago: when I was inventorying the tree’s mushroom & frond branches: we are to read the item held by Dancing Man as {removed branch held in Left hand}, holding the stem of the mushroom-branch exactly like shown attached to the Left side of the tree – see Huggins’ Red Shift pair of images p 22 in Dizzy article.
[9:07 pm Nov 23 2024] Why cross two branches, under the cap/ crown? To visually “cut” the right branch, to form the standard {cut right branch} motif — like I discussed in tree morphology eg Great Canterbury Psalter f177 🐴 horses trees & f134 🙃 leg-hanging mushroom tree ~2022. f177:
So add to my branching-message mushroom trees article: {cut right branch} as well as huge {cut right trunk}!
[9:31 pm Nov 23 2024] viable interp: I now am repeating my ~2022 analysis of his fingers: R fingers are splayed (branching) like {clueless Peter} in Golden Psalter, L fingers held together in contrast (because occupied grasping the stem of the removed mushroom-branch).
Peter in Golden with splayed Right fingers, like Dancing Man:
By “confirmed” re: {holding removed branch}, I mean I weighed now all I know about the standard common trope motif of {hand + removed branch} and realized that it adds up here.
The artist decided to employ the trope of “removed branch in L hand”, here with the {removed branch} represented as a mushroom branch matching the mushrooms attached on the tree.
We can’t see the mushroom stem in his hand, but the stem/ branch is implied, wrapped in his left hand.
Against Ruck and everyone, he is not holding the mushroom to indicate that he ate it, but more, to instantiate and hearken to the important common standard trope of {Left hand holds removed branch}.
Sometimes the {removed branch} is shown in R hand, as a flexible artistic option, but it’s still the same system of meaning either way: conjoining {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
[9:41 pm nov 23 2024] it occurred to me for the first time to di something I should have always been diing before: check for visually cut right branch in Plaincourault: CONFIRMED: there are two instances of {cut right branch}, visually cut by the serpent:
The highest art is Great Canterbury Psalter Eadwine images
The highest artist is Eadwine.
The highest art interpreter is Cybermonk. the Egodeath theory is compatible with the pilzbaum genre of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs , mapped to psychedelic eternalism with dependent control
snake shaped worldline frozen in rock
A Josie Kins video covers eternalism.
But, Kins mis-equates eternalism with domino-chain determinism – which is merely the egoic, possibilism-premised notion of transcendent thinking; an idea of eternalism that’s framed within possibilism.
Future control thoughts already exist waiting timelessly and are forced into the female mind thought receptor driven steered by the uncontrollable higher level mystery marriage controller.
pilzbaum Affirmers Are Partly Wrong
Ruck in “Datura” 2001: “Pilzbaum look like and are mushrooms AND NOTHING ELSE.”
Elasticman Ruck the vague poet is wrong in two ways:
1) pilzbaum have branches, so deniers are right, they don’t look just like mushrooms.
2) pilzbaum look like mushrooms, but also look like branching, which is more their main message than “mushroom“.
Conclusion of Bible Promises 13 Species of Amanita
this list mixes affirmers of Plainc, Dancing Man, etc:
too hard to list deniers, gen1 affirmers, & gen2 affirmers.
Bennett switched to denier; i guess pilzbaum mean cannabis, like the 12 different fruit crops of trees of life (+ healing leaves) in Rev 22:2 mean 12uses, of Hemp, per his bk Drugs & Bible.
By this logic, Heinrich essentially is writing in SF 1995 that Rev 22’s “trees of life” means 12 ASPECTS of THE HOLY MUSHROOM, Amanita.
And “healing leaves” must mean our Amanita too, given the leaf shape associated with our sacred Amanita worshipped by our SCHOLARLY CULT.
Unpleasant Experiences
This is a high-level dimension in 11-Factors psychedelic psychometric questionnaire, contains the factors.
You have to fact check what I say in this recording,
BUT the only place to fact-check me is this very website of mine, because this dirty “science” of psychedelic psychometrics questionnaires based on Walter Stace 1960 based on William James 1902 labelled as “science” is entirely undocumented!
Based on the pollyanna wrong, false model of “mystical experiencing” mis-defined by James 1902 & Stace 1960.
Michael Pollan in How to Change Your Mind had to write “NA” when filling in the MEQ, Mystical Experience Questionnaire made by Timothy Leary’s student Walter Pankhe in 1962 because it was framed the opposite of his toad venom experience.
Pollan experienced timeless ETERNITY extremely, but it was AWFUL, so, when happy-framed MEQ (= Stace’s bad model) asked him “Did you experience eternity?”, Pollan felt the question was meant too positively, so he felt he had to answer NA! not applicable!
CEQ = Challenging Experience Questionnaire
MEQ and CEQ alike – as Charles Stang effectively said to Griefiths – are “not applicable” to actual mystical experiencing!
FAIL = MEQ.
Bunk science, undoc’d. Make up what science is.
This is made-up science; MEQ has been DISCONFIRMED!
Stang got Griffiths to ADMIT ON FILM THE MEQ IS BUNK! and Griefiths pointed to the CEQ to catch negative experiences — but CEQ is EVEN MORE BUNK than MEQ!!
Roland Griefiths
voice recording 6250, not uploaded? 6:00 of 2:18:00, good; Dec. 6, 2024: psychedelic science
This made-up “science” of Panke/ Leary’s Mystical Experience psychometrics questionnaires, including misbegotten CEQ, is dragon-infested with the shadow dragon monster.
A high-level dimension in 11-Factors psychedelic psychometric questionnaire, contains the factors:
ANX: Anxiety
This factor in 11-Factors q’air contains a number of items; questions about psychedelic effects.
ICC: Impaired Control and Cognition
Why lump together? No one knows 🤷♂️
S: Shadow factor 13 🐍
Consists of unpleasant effects that are MORE IMPORRANT than items in factors ANX or ICC.
Adolf Dittrich’s Item 54 “I was afraid to lose my self-control” from the Angst/Dread dimension of his OAV q-air 1994 was TOO BROADLY FITTING IN BOTH ANX AND ICC, SO WAS “dropped” from the ANX factor by Studerus from such narrow “factors”.
Instead, in the final version of 11-Factors, item 54 “I was afraid to lose my self control” was placed DIRECTLY in the high-level dimension “Unpleasant Experiences” – where Griefiths then IGNORED these 8 effects too broad to fit into a factor they fabricated.
Griefiths ONLY considered, for inclusion in CEQ q-air, the ANX and ICC effects (effects which are so narrow, they fit well within a distinct “factor”).
The very effects that were so broad that they couldn’t fit into any one, narrow Factor, were IGNORED when making the CEQ. “gather init pool” (why from those 3 q’airs: hrs socq which is meq plus distractor items NOT challenging items
Why draw from SOCQ? that’s the MEQ (all positive effects; “mystic=positive”, Stace-based Science) plus distractor items. States of Consciousness Questionnaire
HRS – old man Brown’s “hallucinogen” rating scale
i need to see & analyze the distractors again.
The most powerful unpleasant effects, are those 8 like item 54, that are too broad to fit in just the ANX factor or ICC factor.
So my Shadow factor 13 (abbr.: S 🐍) is MORE important than ANX and ICC factors.
CEQ IS A DISASTER OF THE FIRST ORDER. MEQ not much better; same bias, Mystic Unicorns and Rainbows.
🧾☑️👨🔬🦄🌈😊 🐉 🍽️
My binary split of camps here doesn’t work well. More important is 3 groups:
1) pilzbaum affirmers first gen, the Secret Amanita paradigm scholars
2) pilzbaum deniers – defeat the Secret Amanita paradigm
3) pilzbaum affirmers second gen – defeat deniers, defeat the Secret Amanita paradigm
First Gen Affirmers (of Purposeful Pilzbaum)
Second Gen Affirmers (of Purposeful Pilzbaum)
deniers (of Purposeful Pilzbaum)
gen1 affirmers
deniers
gen1 affirmers
3 teams:
amanita asserters
amanita deniers, taking aim at 🍄🌳
cubensis asserters
Samorini 1996/1997/1998; evil Hoffman/ Ruck/ Staples 2001; good Hoffman 2002/ 2006/ 2020/ 2023; Brown 2016;
Does Huggins Fixate on “Secret”, Absolutely Conflating It with Mushrooms in Christian Art?
does Huggins perceive a change / pivot at Samo in 1998, from the Secret Amanita paradigm to the Explicit Cubensis paradigm?
Can Huggins comprehend gen2, the Explicit Cubensis paradigm?
As pilzbaum deniers, i dont mean Marcia Kupfer not a pilzbaum denier but is subject to critique eg by brown.
Kupfer re: Saint Martin frescos. tho can critique Kupfer. Thanks for the branches, man(!!) clamors up tree
Kupfer’s out of her state
Marcia Kupfer calls a youth a man in St Martin church: A youth cuts left hand-held branch w knife in right hand above gate of Jerusalem.
[12:45 am dec 13 2024] cutting/ renouncing branching autonomy = gate key
to be brought through the gates, you are made to lose branching autonomy, redeemed to pseudo autonomy; non-branching dependence.
I list pilzbaum Deniers, who specifically explicitly deny purposeful mushroom imagery in Christian art.
The lowest art interpreters are the art historians Erich Brinckmann, Erwin Panofsky, Letcher’s Henrietta Leyser, and their followers (pilzbaum deniers) Gordon Wasson, Andy Letcher, Thomas Hatsis, and Ronald Huggins.
Panofsky is the greatest, most competent art historian.
Mycologists must reach out and consult Panofsky, on matters of art.
Not consult Panofsky’s writings; Panofsky wrote nothing on pilzbaum, except two suppressed letters to Wasson in 1952.
Give him a call, stopwatch in hand, to “consult” how quickly he disavows pilzbaum. ⏱️
Then you can add, like Letcher in Shroom, a WORTHLESS citation to pad out your book, while lecturing pilzbaum affirmers about your superior, tried and true historiographical methodology for “explaining away” (Hatsis, written proudly & smugly) each isolated pilzbaum, using whatever ad hoc rule you need at the moment, such as:
It’s totally a standard, commonplace parasol of victory. Don’t you know anything?
😑 🏆🏅💰 🚫🍄🌳
Resuming Using Idea Development Pages, shorter? (page 20)
Most of the time, I need to do spot-development of ideas, and need to capture timestamps of realizations, logged. I
If anyone wants to track me daily, we would need to either:
Approach: Post a daily log post. I have not used WordPress blog posts this way; daily. Might be a good idea to try.
The page title could show date + theme.
Ultra long pages have cons.
Mobile app is especially poor there.
Approach I used: very long Idea Development page; you’d have to check it periodically, to follow my idea development. Poor for authoring in mobile app.
Items Equated by Looking-Lines in Image f177
🍄🟫🌳🗡️🐴⚖️⛅️🔍🔎🍁🌳
[5:20 pm Dec 12 2024] I wondered again about image f177 of Great Canterbury Psalter: row 1 middle, the Pointless Loiterers. I forgot their purpose, the other day I remembered their purpose again: their looking-lines tie together equating left tree and right tree.
Just now I recognized – for the 1st time? – that the horses looking both ways is LIKE the Pointless Loiterers looking both ways.
i think 1 yr 10 mo ago, Feb 2023, I figured out connection A & connection B, but not meta-connection C.
Evidence: I FAILED to crop just f177 row 1, amazingly – mistake!!
I failed to see the meta, C connection, bc my crops lacked the correct scope context: show entire row 1 only.
pun: C connection.
C is a meta-connection, connecting two connections.
Here now I articulate what the looking-lines crops show, sweepingly, in this subsequent phase of interpretation.
Connection A: The horses’ looking-lines equate non-branching (blue cap) with God holding up the guy standing on right foot; 2-level, dependent control, rather than autonomous control.
“[2:15 p.m. April 8, 2023] I just realized that this means that in f177, the Shroud ego-dead person = the guy balancing on right foot in that image, directly above Shroud”
ie, ego death = being made by the Creator to {stand on right foot}; be given the “eternalism” mental model of control and possibility-branching.
Connection B: Pointless Loiterers’ looking-lines equate row 1 left tree (that horses look at) with the dud pilzbaum on row 1 Right.
meta Connection C: now recognized: the connecting done by the horses is LIKE the connecting done by the Pointless Loiterers.
add image: f177 row 1
add f177 showing looking lines: need new crop w ONLY such 2-way looking lines.
says “Row 2 Entire – Not Made” – corroborates that my insight right now is new! Or set of insights, by [6:39 pm Dec. 12, 2024].
6:24 pm Dec. 12, 2024 per John Lash the White Light sun of peak Psilocybin experiencing touches the rightmost (non-branching) part of the pilzbaum.
The below image will suffice fine, but need re-analysis, re: equating of pairs of boxes (ie, what thing each pair (or group!) of lookers is connecting):
Crop and annotations by Cybermonk
The horses in row 1 L connect boxed items x &y: nonbranching & dependent control.
Pointless Loiterers row 1 Mid connect boxed items x &y: Left pilzbaum, Right dud pilzbaum.
You say the Left pilzbaum isn’t Cubensis, because lacks blue-stained stems. FALSE!
The Right tree has blue stems and is equated with the Left tree.
So the Left pilzbaum does have blue assigned to its stems, and is therefore Cubensis. Q.E.D.
Conversely, you say the tree on R is a dud pilzbaum. FALSE!
The mushroom caps from the L pilzbaum are equated with the leaf crowns of the R tree, so the R tree is a pilzbaum.
Adding the features of the L & R trees together, gives the desired, f134-like, blue-stemmed (thus Cubensis) branching-message mushroom trees.
The cream-colored stems on the Left mushroom tree, along with the blue-stained stems on Right leaf-tree, are Cubensis stem attributes, conjoined by the looking-lines of the Pointless Loiterers, who are manufacturing Cubensis pilzbaum by connecting the attributes.
The Egodeath Community group in row 1 Right connects boxed items x & y & z & w; most boxed items in the image.
Eadwine takes a theme (a mechanism of motif connection) and develops it – we see Eadwine doing that in image f134 similarly, elaborating a theme.
If a group of two figures looking at two features equates those two features, then — developing that mechanism — a group of six lookers looking at six features of the image equates those six features. [6:08 pm Dec. 12, 2024]
The corpse carriers in row 2 Mid connect boxed items x &y.
The balancing guys in row 2 Mid connect boxed items x &y.
Sequence of Dance Steps: Bennett 1995, Samo 1998, Hatsis 2013, Huggins Jan 2022, Brown Feb 2022
Huggins Dizzy Jan 2022 article wasn’t able to cite Brown’s February 2022 rebuttal to Hatsis.
Dedicated to Dancing Man 🕺
Have a sack of Cubensis, Dancing Man
Crop by Cybermonk
Foolish youth Eadwine’s weight is on the wrong, left foot, causing loss of control.
f134 is a teaching image.
The most true and authentic artist Eadwine develops this idea (motif mechanism) as puzzle levels of increased elaboration, in other figures in this image, culminating in hanging by one leg.
Eadwine specializes in developing permutations of the pilzbaum genre’s integrated combinations of the {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Weight on L foot is mapped to possibilism-thinking, which produces loss of control.
Weight on R foot is mapped to eternalism-thinking, which restores stable control.
Michael A. Williams uses exactly this language about “restoration of stability”.
Motivation for this page: Gotta keep up on Dancing Man research, since Bennett 1990s.
Scholarship on Mushrooms
Overlap of Dizzy 2022 & Forage 2024 articles and bibliographies on mushrooms in Christian art.
This is a long-ongoing thread of research development,
pilzbaum Affirmers vs. pilzbaum Deniers, affirmers of Dancing Man since Bennett’s book Green Gold in the 1990s.
affirmers of Plainc since Abott Rignoux around 1890.
Since Samorini 1996, publishing in this direction, breaking away from the Amanita Primacy Fallacy.
Since 2002, I defined this approach, posting in the the Egodeath Yahoo Group:
Gen 2 pilzbaum Affirmers the Explicit Cubensis paradigm the Maximal entheogen theory of religion the Cubensis Primacy truth Amanita utilized to support the Cubensis-driven paradigm Amanita utilized to give all glory to Cubensis the greater mysteries 🌳🐍
🌳🐍
vs.
Gen 1 pilzbaum Affirmers the Secret Amanita paradigm the Moderate entheogen theory of religion the Amanita Primacy fallacy Cubensis utilized to support the Amanita-driven paradigm Cubensis utilized to give all glory to Amanita the lesser mysteries 👶🍄
👶🍄
Should Rest from Typing
todo: copy emails to posts
try to type gently, still, must rest – overuse.
need to rest from typing. Reading printed articles instead.
Highlighter technique is remarkably fast and effective, for faster reading comprehension than pencil or line-pens.
1915: Everyone knows there’s no Psilocybin in Mexico. 2024: Everyone knows there’s no Cubensis in Europe. Art from Eadwine, 1200 AD; Canterbury, England. Crops by Cybermonk (🙃 f134, 👑 f145, 🐴 f177).
Title: An Aztec Narcotic (lophophora Williamsti) Subtitle: So-called “sacred Mushroom,” or Teonanacatl, Still in Use by the Indians of Mexico and the United States, Producing Hallucinations of a Remarkable Nature, Is Identified With the Peyotl Zacatecensis, or Devil‘s Root of Ancient Mexico, and the “mescal Button” of Texas
In 1915, everyone “knew” there was no Psilocybin mushrooms in Mexico; there is no mushroom cult in Mexico.
Just like today (1957-2024), everyone knows there’s no Cubensis in Europe eg 1200 AD – against Great Canterbury Psalter f134, f145, f177 etc.
I am going to make entheogen scholars retract their negative PREJUDICED, BASELESS, ILLOGICAL, IRRATIONAL PRESUPPOSITION.
Why wouldn’t Cubensis grow on cattle dung in Europe? Explain.
No one has tried to look, because the Secret Amanita paradigm gives everyone a negative attitude and expectation.
Folklore: The Americas Own Psilocybin; European Religion Has No Psilocybin Tradition and Must Ask Permission and Borrow Expertise
False, folk baloney shoved at every opportunity:
Europeans have no Psilocybin tradition and so they must beg shamans in the Americas for permission to use their sacrament.
No one owns Psilocybin mushroom spores; they sail everywhere and have been used everywhere.
Wasson’s Criticism of Experts and Deniers of Mushrooms in Mexico
Wasson, Russia, 1957; find “Safford”, in Vol. 2, p. 236 (“32”):
Wassons wrote:
“Then suddenly one day [after a 265-year hiatus in the literature since 1650] the sacred mushrooms sprang to life again [in the literature].
On May 4, 1915, an ethno-botanist of established and deserved reputation, W. E. Safford, read a paper before the Botanical Society in Washington [state?] in which he flatly and sweepingly denied that there had ever been an inebriating mushroom in the indigenous cultures of Mexico.
His paper was published later in that year in the journal of Heredity, and it was a full-dress presentation, richly illustrated and documented.
Dr. Safford said that the Spanish ‘padres’ (as he somewhat condescendingly called them) had been confused: they had taken for mushrooms what had really been dried buttons of a cactus, the Lophophora Williamsii, the peyotl of Aztec times, the mescal button of Texas.
He declared that three centuries had failed to reveal a fungal intoxicant in Mexico.
He quoted Sahagun as saying that the Chichimecas had been the first Indians to discover the alleged intoxicating property of the ‘mushroom’;
he went on to say that the Chichimecas had occupied northern Mexico, that that was therefore the region where to seek the mushroom, that he had pushed his own researches exhaustively in those areas [northern Mexico] and in the Southwestern states of the United States, and that he had found nothing.”
____ para break____
“Dr. Safford’s paper drew wide attention and was widely accepted.
Many learned from it for the first time that there had been a belief in an inebriating mushroom, at the same time that they learned the mushroom had never existed.
How ironic it will be if Dr. Safford himself, in the long run, should be remembered chiefly because of this resounding blunder that he made, a classic example of the fallibility of the specialist!
For of course the Spanish ‘padres’ were right and Dr. Safford was wrong.
Dr. Safford’s paper was extraordinary for the vehemence (may we say ‘telltale’ vehemence? [ie the Graves/Wasson taboo theory]) that this Anglo-Saxon showed in rejecting the teo-nandcatl.
It never occurred to him that he had to demolish not only the Spanish ‘padres’ but also all the native informants on whom they relied, and even the Nahuatl vocabulary that they used!”
/ Wasson quote
Now apply that same critique to:
Everyone knows, well established by entheogen scholarship, no Cubensis in Europe.
At my church subgroup on Amanita training, the expert leader there told us, delivered with great authority:
AMANITA IS YOUR HISTORICAL TRADITIONAL ENTHEOGEN.
I almost told him:
GO TO HELL, NO IT’S NOT, YOU ARE WRONG, YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR MY TRADITION;
MY TRADITION IS NOT AMANITA, IT IS CUBENSIS, PER EADWINE.
I am tired of people falsely saying Mexico owns Psilocybin, and Europe is stuck with only Amanita.
That is FALSE and baseless – “completely unfounded” (Irvin p. 104 THM re: “heretical sects” only).
The myth that “Amanita = Europe; Psilocybin = Americas” needs to DIE, be PUT TO REST just exactly the same as the ironic mis-fame that Wasson predicted for Safford:
How ironic it will be if Dr. Safford himself, in the long run, should be remembered chiefly because of this resounding blunder that he made, a classic example of the fallibility of the specialist!
Ethnomycology Specialist Wasson, “Mushrooms, Russia and History“, 1957; Vol. 2, p. 236 (“32”)
Credit
Eadwine
Credit to Eadwine, who developed and refined the pilzbaum art genre’s combination of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
God
Thank God for connecting me with Eadwine – a godsend.
In November 2020, Got not only delivered to me
the needed & sought-out corroboration/ confirmation of my interpretation hypothesis from Hatsis’ copy of Dancing Man (Salamander Bestiary re: the man’s two legs, ie: the two legs map to the two mental worldmodels) on Christmas 2015, but also,
provided the full, eloquent, unbelievably far better than I or anyone could possibly have imagined, supernally perfect corroboration of the Egodeath theory.
The Egodeath theory = psychedelic eternalism; analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control.
John Lash
The article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest” (Huggins 2024), bibliography lists Lash’s webpage article “The Discovery of a Lifetime”: Lash, J., “Psychedelic Bible: The Discovery of a Lifetime” https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_84.htm
The nature of that site: https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net – Spanish & English language site. Library Pleiades; el Sitio de Biblioteca Pleyades.
In 2006 or 2007, just after finishing writing the book Not In His Image, John Lash went to the Paris library, then uploaded 3+5 articles including “Psychedelic Bible: The Discovery of a Lifetime” around May 2008.
My site has a different link to the 5+3 articles (on Wasson & pilzbaum/ Great Canterbury Psalter). Find “Lash” in Site Map.
See my John Lash articles page at this website.
Only one Lash-provided (i believe) picture from Eadwine made it into my Plainc article’s support gallery that Brown 2016 book cites.
Alas the leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter didn’t make it fully into my mushroom imagery galleries until Nov. 2020.
Paul Lindgren
Paul Lindgren’s 2000 picture of Creation of Plants, and 2001 couple other pics in “Conjuring Eden” Ruck et al (Mark Hoffman, Carl Ruck, & Daniel Staples) in Entheos 1).
Transmission successfully received and decoded: branching-message mushroom trees; {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs:
{stand on right leg} motif means non-branching (eternalism) with dependent control, not branching (possibilism-thinking) with autonomous control, to restore stable control while in the mushroom state.
Cyberdisciple
Thank you to Cyberdisciple for the book Russia by Wasson 1957, which has this lead.
In 1957 in the book Russia, Wasson criticizes scholars and competent experts for being so wrong and so negative.
In 1968 in the book SOMA, Wasson criticizes Eliade for rejecting shamans using entheogens legitimately.
In 1968 and beyond, Wasson censors deceitfully Panofsky’s citation of Brinckmann 1906, and goes around publicly insulting and defaming mycologists (ie, pilzbaum Affirmers) berating them for not “consulting” the “experts”.
Wasson aggressively, repeatedly, actively censors and denies pilzbaum purposefully mean mushrooms (censoring some 5 things re: the pair of Panofsky letters).
Ruck’s highly offensive phrase “Wasson’s conclusion” in Entheos issue 2 article “Daturas for the Virgin” 2001 p. 56: Irvin calls that out on p. 104 of The Holy Mushroom 2008;
Irvin and I both independently found that passage and were both outraged at this lying misrepresentation that is the opposite of reality.
Irvin is wrong to go on to try to falsely attribute affirming pilzbaums to Allegro.
The proof that Allegro didn’t write anything about pilzbaum is that THM provides no citation where Irvin falsely says that Allegro, not Wasson, is the one who affirmed pilzbaum.
Credit actually goes to Samorini 1996/1997/1998 for being the first to take Panofsky’s lead (via Wasson 1968) – hundreds of pilzbaum – seriously and affirm pilzbaum.
Certainly the Allegro expert Irvin, with his connections to Allegro’s estate, would have provided a citation, if one existed, where Allegro says he affirms pilzbaum purposefully mean mushrooms.
We have nothing but a worthless, obviously false ASSERTION from Irvin, contradicted by the blaring lack of citation.
That’s the same situation that Wasson in SOMA left me in in 2006 when Wasson quotes Panofsky saying “we art historians have thoroughly treated this matter” – I exclaimed in my 2006 Plaincourault article, please give me citations!
I want to read art historians’ PUBLISHED WRITINGS about pilzbaum.
I concluded then, either there are no citations, or they are so weak and few, it’s practically nothing, and art historians are BLUFFING.
I was right in 2006: per Brown 2019 in the Journal of Psychedelic Studies, letter 1, Panofsky gave Wasson 1 citation only, and Wass censored it 6 lines above berating and insulting mycologists (pilzbaum affirmers):
The fact that Wasson censored the Brinckmann citation (while simultaneously commanding affirmers to “consult” the “competent” authorities) is PROOF that Wasson correctly recognized that Brinkcmann’s 1906 book favors pilzbaum Affirmers, and disproves pilzbaum Deniers such as Panofsky.
Brinckmann’s “little”, old 1906, 86-page book is the ONLY thing art historians have ever written and published about pilzbaum.
So much for Pan’s claim that art historians are thoroughly familiar and have treated pilzbaum.
By 2006, if art historians had written anything about pilzbaum, I would have known about it.
Ronald Huggins 2024 Foraging & 2021 Dizzy argues that … Affirmers (PMTs) show no respeect for the authorities. AN UNDERSTATEMENT!
Pilzbaum Affirmers Recognize Art Experts as Fools and Imbeciles Deserving Total Disrespect and Ignoring Them Regarding Pilzbaum
We pilzbaum Affirmers are disgusted and fully disrespectful to Art Historians, who are bought and owned by the lying anti-entheogen faction of the Establishment.
The “Competent” Art Historians Are Know-Nothing, Ignorant, Prejudiced Fools and Clowns Deserving 10x the Ridicule and Insults that Pilzbaum Deniers have Always Since 1952 Given to Mycologists and pilzbaum Affirmers.
I think Huggins gives the Abbot Rignoux 1890-ish and the 1910 presenter guy in French Myc Society, published in bulletin in 1911.
Huggins is good for more than just fallacious argumentation, he serves a lower support role serving capable researchers, ie pilzbaum Affirmers: from his “Foraging” article’s Bibliography:
Marchand, M. / Boudier, M., La fresque de Plaincourault (Indre), Bulletin trimestriel de la Société mycologique de France 27/1 (Jan. 1, 1911), 31– 32 todo: url?
Huggins’ Foraging Article Fails to Cite Brown 2019 or Michael Hoffman 2006: Ignores the Best Scholarship
Why the hell doesn’t Foraging cite my excellent article about Plaincourault 2006? FAILURE OF FORAGING TO ENGAGE THE LEADING SCHOLARSHIP IE EGODEATH.COM, Michael Hoffman.
Huggins only cites the outdated, first-gen entheogen scholar Mark Hoffman, a Secret Amanita paradigm scholar.
Huggins article has the usual standard garbage-quality of obviously fallacious argumentation that the pilzbaum Deniers always have (Pan, Wass, Letcher, Hatsis, Huggins).
But all of these gibberish scribblers posing as fair scholars do contribute many leads and points, such as bibliographies.
I hugely appreciate Hatsis’ Dancing Man article for finally showing me a legible version of the image so that in Christmas 2015 (see the Egodeath Yahoo Group – Max Freakout archive) I figured out as a hypothesis waiting for confirmation:
There are two legs. Standing on one leg, lifting the other leg: Could that mean, by artists: one leg is possibilism-thinking and one leg is eternalism-thinking? if so, which leg is mapped to possibilism-thinking, in this image? – Cybermonk Dec. 25, 2015. At that time, I checked Hephaestos, the lame smith.
fast fwd to Nov 2020, finishing my article for Prof. Jerry Brown about compelling evidence & criteria of proof and for identifying mushroom imagery in Christian art, I do another image search on the web for like Christian mushroom, and I find two sites that have John Lash’s crop showing 2/5 of Row 1 of 3 of f134: class and leg-hanging mushroom tree.
Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter.
Mid-Nov 2020, I start decoding that pilzbaum, and immediately get firm confirmation that I needed since Christmas 2015, almost five years earlier, of both:
One leg means eternalism-thinking, and the other leg means possibilism-thinking.
In the pilzbaum genre, Right foot (right limb more generally) is conventionally mapped to non-branching eternalism-thinking; and Left foot (left limb more generally) is conventionally mapped to branching possibilism-thinking.
Given that we have two legs; and that we depend on legs; and that there are two contrasted mental worldmodels, it is natural to map as analogy, two feet to two mental worldmodels.
The pilzbaum genre = {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
{lame}: f177: Weight on Left Foot on Tower Foundation Requires Crutch, to Be Stable and Balanced
Names of the First Asserters of Plaincourault as Mushroom
Abbot Rignoux – around 1890-1910, described the Plaincourault fresco as mushroom with multiple mushroom heads.
M. Marchand and M. Boudier – presumably the 1910 presenters in French Myc. Society, published in bulletin in 1911.
Is that bulletin online?
Marchand, M. / Boudier, M., La fresque de Plaincourault (Indre), Bulletin trimestriel de la Société mycologique de France 27/1 (Jan. 1, 1911), 31– 32
I SWEAR A RECENT ARTICLE’s BODY GIVES NAME OF WHO ASSERTED – some other Huggins article?? It’s not in “Dizzy” article.
Frustrating but here’s a clue: no “Rignoux” found in “Foraging” article – I am SURE an article surprised me (not Samo’s 1997/98 articles) yesterday by mentioning in the body, “Rignoux”. A Houot article? Winkelman?
Art Historians Are Imbeciles, Fools, Frauds, and Clowns Deserving Ridicule, Not Respect and Deference
– Signed, Us Pilzbaum Affirmers.
I confidently speak on behalf of both the 1st-Gen (Secret Amanita paradigm) and us 2nd-Gen (Explicit Cubensis paradigm) pilzbaum Affirmers:
ART HISTORIANS ARE IDIOTIC CLOWNS DESERVING TO BE JEERED AT for their cowardly, ignorant, “those on the outside” pilzbaum Denial, a denial while art historians insult mycologists and pilzbaum Affirmers.
In “Daturas”, Ruck misrepresents Wasson as having affirmed pilzbaum as supporting Wasson’s assertion about the textual story in Genesis 2-3 that the Tree of Knowledge was Amanita.
In “Daturas”, Ruck argues that when The Holy Mushroom, that is, Amanita, was not available, the cult group that was the users of Amanita switched to substitutes, by which here Ruck does NOT mean Cubensis, but rather, Datura.
Against Ruck, ironically, I agree, in such a way as to show Ruck looking bad: Ruck speaks truth, in a bad way for Ruck, when Ruck says that Datura (Scopolamine) is a viable substitute for Amanita (Muscimol and Ibotenic Acid).
That is true, that Amanita is a deliriant, not a psychedelic; Amanita is indeed, as Ruck implies, similar to merely Datura / scopolamine – Amanita is NOT similar to Psilocybin, as Wasson regretfully concluded in print.
Citations: books in which Wasson states failure and disappointment when ingesting Amanita. Check Persephone’s Quest, maybe SOMA; Shroom by Letcher.
Amanita isn’t as ergonomic to use as Datura, and is not as available as Datura and other scopolamine plants.
Letcher’s History of Having to Retract His Denial and Move the Goalposts
Get Ready to Move them Again.
Against Letcher’s claim that he made with self-assured certainty against me specifically, I proved all of his unprovable points, and more, even higher than his points:
In England 1200 AD, in context of the pilzbaum genre:
The image means mushroom, – PROVED.
psychoactive mushroom, – PROVED.
deliberately ingested, – PROVED.
for religious experiencing, – PROVED.
(arg. extended by me:) peak religious experiencing. – PROVED.
The peak religious effect of Psilocybin (cognitive loosening agents) is mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Read Letcher’s book Shroom regarding the backpedalling that the Deniers had to do around 2005.
The naysayers claimed no Liberty Cap or other Psil mushroom in England before the 1970s – they HAD TO EAT CROW AND ADMIT THEIR ERROR AND FOOLISHNESS around 2005.
Then they moved their goalposts and said “Ok, Liberty Cap IS natural to England historically, but, no one thought of Liberty Cap as religious recreational until 1970s”.
Letcher argues against my critical book review of his book; he says against Hoffman, I cannot prove any of these 4 things.
Letcher’s 4-step argument, I expanded to 5 steps and then I DUNKED it, proving all 5, not just 4, points that Letcher’s webpage’s comment said I could not prove.
I proved, by art centered around Great Canterbury Psalter f134: Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter, all 4 points, and beyond.
Pilz Verzweigung Händigkeit Stabilität Baum, Not Just Pilzbaum
The pilzbaum genre is not just mushroom and tree (branches) motif.
Translate to German not just “mushroom tree”, but:
mushroom tree branching handedness stability = Pilzbaum Verzweigung Händigkeit Stabilität
The pilzbaum genre is the integrated combination of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Often along with {mushroom hem} and John Rush’s {celestial erection}.
John Rush is a better interpreter of pilzbaum & mushroom imagery, mushrooms in Christian art, than the reductionist, literalist pilzbaum Deniers, aka “Those on the outside”: Panofsky, Wasson, Letcher, Hatsis, and Huggins.
Don’t Directly Cover Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion Yet; Stay Focused on Entheogen Scholarship, just to supplement Branching art article
See Also
Strategy
Strategy: Empty the Cubensis-driven article webpage, then copy the Goal: sentences back to there as the outline of headings.
This approach works well for me b/c entire question is what do i want to accomplish; What do I want the article to accomplish? Lots of things; Find “Goal:” below.
Goal: Equip Cognitive Scientists to endure psychedelic eternalism.
Entry into Jerusalem (Lorenzetti)
Entry of Christ into Jerusalem (1320) by Pietro Lorenzetti.
Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.
Revelation 22:14
Intro
This Cubensis-driven article is broad and focused on entheogen scholarship, not focused on [Psychedelic] Cognitive Science [of Religion], because of its origin: this article was conceived to supplement specifically the Branching-message article.
Don’t Directly Cover Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion Yet; Stay Focused on Entheogen Scholarship, just to supplement Branching art article
Conclusion: Minimal focus directly on Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion. Keep the concept scope: Broad delivery of Branching-message narrow art article, into field of entheogen scholarship. But do keep in mind,
Journal of Psychedelic Studies covers Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion
My feeling is: that’s later. First blow open field of entheogen scholarship.
After that, later phase is blow away Cog Sci w/ Loose Cognitive Science.
Where the action is at NOW is entheogen scholarship, not yet Loose Cognitive Science, or Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion.
My 1988-1997 Phase 1 Core Theory of psychedelic eternalism = Loose Cognitive Science; Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion.
My 1999-2024 focus is Analogy; entheogen scholarship/history.
Feels like my Core theory (psychedelic eternalism) (= Loose Cognitive Science) is lame without myth analogies to bring it to life (Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism).
That suggests keeping the original concept focus, of entheogen scholarship, more than changing the article’s scope to Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion.
This Cubensis-driven article is specifically to give broad wordcount in support of the Branching-message art decoding article.
I place the Branching-message art decoding article firstly in the field of entheogen scholarship, not firstly in the field of Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion.
First, explosion happens – msg received from Eadwine – within field of entheogen scholarship. Then, the effect branches out to ramifications in Cog Sci.
The Branching-message article is in the field of entheogen scholarship, more than in the field of [Psychedelic] Cognitive Science [of Religion].
The pilzbaum dispute is within the field of entheogen scholarship – does my breakthrough change that, broadening that field (at this time) to overlap with the field of [Psychedelic] Cognitive Science [of Religion]?
Gut feeling: No.
The ramifications from my Branching-message breakthrough are more directly for the field of entheogen scholarship than for the field of [Psychedelic] Cognitive Science [of Religion].
That’s kind of saying, kind of a sign that the field of entheogen scholarship is further along than the field of Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion, or Cog Sci, or Cognitive Science of Religion.
My work focus has been hammering hard at the field of entheogen scholarship, more than at the field of “Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion“.
I use a Cog Sci approach to entheogen scholarship – so the two fields interpenetrate:
entheogen scholarship (done via a Cog Sci approach as conceptualized by me, purpose-built)
Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion (per my custom, application-specific manner of thinking)
This Cubensis-driven article serves to offload the bloated section “Conclusion and future directions” from the Branching-message article, and to deliver the Branching-message article, connecting context to the broad field.
This way, the Conclusion section of Branching article will only have half and half: half about that narrow article’s topic, and half about the ramifications of the decoding of non-branching for the broad field of entheogen scholarship.
That Conclusion section got very bloated focusing too much on the broad field of entheogen scholarship instead of just only focusing on the narrow art interp article.
I needed entire 2nd aux article, Cube-driven, specifically for purpose of offloading “therefore, future directions” content from the Branching article – thus this Cube-driven article was never born & conceived for purpose of defining Psychedelic Cognitive Science [of Religion].
Non-goal[??] for Cubensis-driven article: define Psychedelic Cognitive Science [of Religion]. A goal IS: Open the gates for Loose Cognitive Scientists.
Goal: Equip Cognitive Scientists to endure psychedelic eternalism. thus becoming Psychedelic Cognitive Scientists; Loose Cognitive Scientists; Psychedelic Cognitive Scientists of Religion. Goal: Equip Psychedelic Cognitive Scientists to endure eternalism. Goal: Equip Psychedelic Cognitive Scientists to endure psychedelic eternalism. non-goal: define Psychedelic Cognitive Science [of Religion], as several Goal sections. my own native language within my field: Goal: Equip Loose Cognitive Scientists to endure eternalism.
The Branching article is a gallery to show art pieces and their main motifs of: {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Motivation of this page: Enable emptying the page for the draft article. That page also contains random breakthrough notes mixed in. Moved all that content to this new page.
Then I will copy just the “Goal:” sentences from here to the article’s page, as the outline.
The goal of the Branching article is narrow: show pictures; below each picture, identify the main instances below each picture, of (2 each): {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs. Requires a little theory-explanation, just enough.
Not sure if summary of astral ascent mysticism [ie, heimarmene transformation at the fixed-stars level] belongs in Branching-message article or Cubensis-driven article.
Two systems to define/summarize:
1) astral ascent mysticism per the Egodeath theory;
2) the Egodeath theory (core theory: mental worldmodel transformation transformation from possibilism to eternalism ; mental worldmodel transformation from Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism to Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism;
An explanatory model of mental worldmodel transformation, in the loose cognitive state, from (literalist) ordinary-state possibilism [BRANCHING] with autonomous control, to (analogical) psychedelic eternalism [NON-BRANCHING] with dependent control aka 2-level control.
The present article is not: Cubensis-driven Cognitive Science: xyz Cubensis-driven Cognitive Science of Religion: xyz Cubensis-driven Cognitive Science: The most productive, relevant, and rewarding approach Cubensis-driven Cognitive Science of Religion: The most productive, relevant, and rewarding approach
The title of the article is: Cubensis-driven entheogen scholarship: The most productive, relevant, and rewarding approach
Proof that the article is conceived as focused on entheogen scholarship, NOT focused on Psychedelic Cognitive Science [of Religion]: the two parts work together: Explicit Cubensis-driven instead of Secret Amanita-driven… entheogen scholarship: the best approach
The idea of the article is, instead of Amanita-driven entheogen scholarship, we instead need Cubensis-driven entheogen scholarship, which has many advantages for the field of entheogen scholarship, including folding the Egodeath theory [ie, psychedelic eternalism; analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control] into the field of entheogen scholarship (though the Egodeath theory / psychedelic eternalism theory remains distinct from entheogen scholarship).
Also, the article here is not general/ broad as possible; rather, the origin of this article is: the narrow Art/ Branching article’s Conclusion tried to do WAY too much, and needs add’l greedy wordcount from entire separate aux article (the present article).
This is an aux article FOR what are the takeaways and change of direction for the field of entheogen scholarship that are forced and implied specifically by my Branching pilzbaum article.
This is not an article arising from need to define Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion. That’s why I didn’t list like: Goal: Define Psychedelic Cognitive Science Goal: Define Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion
gut feeling: stay close to entheogen scholarship, not so much bend toward covering also Psychedelic Cognitive Science [of Religion]
I do list this: Goal: Open the gate for Loose Cognitive Science. I guess that’s as far as I want to go, in this article, into the topic of exploring Loose Cog within the field of CogSci. Cog Sci is an aborted field anyway, ruined and reduced to reductionistic “Cognitive Neuroscience”
I HATE COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE!
“Cognitive Neuroscience” Is Anti-Cognitive, Pseudo-Cognitive; Eliminates Mental Constructs, Replacing Them by Reductionist Neuroscience
“COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE” IS ELIMINATIVE OF COGNITION/ MENTAL CONSTRUCTS.
The “Cognitive Neuroscience” approach destroys the very essence of the thing that the Marketing dept claims it will cover.
“Cognitive Neuroscience” abuses “cognitive” to enslave to glorifying Neuroscience, like Psil is abused to merely service glorification of Amanita
My Loose Cognitive Science is nothing like “Cognitive Neuroscience”.
Loose Cognitive Science is the opposite of “Cognitive Neuroscience”.
I despite “neuroplasticity”, mis-centered at the irrelevant level; reductionist, it is ELIMINATIVE. loose mental functioning binding, not “cognitive neuroplasticity”.
I reject their entire lexicon, like “ego dissolution” pseudo-explanation, a substitute to stop thinking.
The Egodeath theory lacks the concept of “ego dissolution”.
I have the concept of mental worldmodel transformation; mental model transformation in the loose cognitive state, of loose mental construct binding.
The self (control agency) loosens, suspends, and transforms, in conjunction with changing the model of world possibilities branching.
At this point, the planned article amounts to a list of Goals that I have for the article; or actually:
goals for the article
goals for how the field of entheogen scholarship needs to change
goals for how the field of Psychedelic Cognitive Science needs to change
goals for how the field of Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion needs to change
(goals for how the field of [Loose] Cognitive Science needs to change)
The field of “Cog Sci of religion” SUCKS, needs a new president like Charles Stang
goals for how the field of Psychedelic Cognitive Science needs to change – but the journal is Journal of Psychedelic Studies (relates to entheogen scholarship), that journal does not relate to Psychedelic Cognitive Science.
Should Journal of Psychedelic Studies Cover Psychedelic Cognitive Science?
When listing my Goals for the Cubensis-driven article, not sure if i covered Psychedelic Cognitive Science. Try it:
Goal: [of type: Goal for revolutionary change of direction for field of Psychedelic Cognitive Science]
Goal: Make the field of Psychedelic Cognitive Science not suck. My vision of the field has NOTHING in common with “Cognitive Science of Religion” (bleh).
My field is: Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion
Goal: Define Psychedelic Cognitive Science & Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion That’s a new (particular) framing for me. I’m used to Loose Cognitive Science, & the maximal entheogen theory of religion.
I HATE the “Cognitive Science of Religion” series of books, they all suck bad, not worth reading, b/c lack ASC; the series editors, squaresville, HATE psychedelics. I bought and looked at some books like this, like eating sawdust.
They pursue the most boring approach possible, to the most boring conception of religion they could find. Utter dullsville. How to ruin a field and prevent it from forming.
Top wishes for this article to accomplish, top points to make
A Cubensis-First Paradigm
Top wishes for this article to accomplish, top points to make
Key Questions as Page Numbers in Brinckmann’s Book
Goal: Get German reader to give page numbers of Brinckmann’s book.
What page # discusses development of trees/ pilzbaum from pine to mushroom imagery?
What page # says that that development was universal & widespread?
What page # discusses corruption of prototypes?
What page # says that that gradualness of development from pine to mushroom shape proves that the artist had no purpose in making viewers think of a mushroom?
What page # mentions branches as conflicting with the mushroom imagery?
With Panofsky’s two letters to Wasson in hand, from the Journal of Psychedelic Studies 2019 Brown article: Panofsky didn’t provide page numbers to Wasson, despite strong recommendation that mycologists need to consult this book.
Not to “consult” competent art historians via personal correspondence; but rather, per standard academic practice as the first task, follow Panofsky’s citations of the book; that is, “consult” the library publications of what art historians have written about pilzbaum.
Heading
Goal: Restore the role of Great Canterbury Psalter folio webpage image f134 (leg-hanging mushroom tree) as a teaching instrument.
Goal: Correct Brown’s error in this journal re: botching St Walburga tapestry Amanita imagery identification.
Against anyone who says I’m anti-Amanita; here I prove against Brown in the Journal of Psychedelic Studies 2019, Walburga is shown holding a vial that’s designed to look like Amanita. Serrated base proves that it IS Amanita.
Ardent Advocate in training, Prof. Jerry Brown.
Brown argued that the serrated base depicted in the tapestry proves it is NOT Amanita – an elementary error of identification traits.
This error also happens to trainwreck his whole train of arg’n about his field trip that decided to cancel his field trip, a decision that they based on the very clear pic [photo credit: not Julie Brown] in Irvin’s “unclear art gallery” where the unclarity is the cause of false positives/ misinterpretation.
Browns treated the image as so very clear, they made a decision based on Irvin’s gallery: a decision NOT to do field research and look at the tapestry first-hand – directly contradicting their claim for superiority of their ability to correctly interp by doing field research.
I have the Browns forever thinking they should have made that field trip, so I could write: “Photo credit: Julie M. Brown: The serrated base proves that the healing vial she holds is shaped to look like an Amanita. The Ardent Advocates are essentially right, yet again.”
Maybe Brown is right: if they had dismissed the blurry image from Irvin and had actually done the field research trip that they falsely market themselves as having done, Brown would have taken the time to check whether Amanita has serrated base, as A Golden Guide: Hallucinogenic Plants plainly shows right on the cover.
Richard Evans Shultes – 1st Ed of the Hofmann book, Ratsch = 3rd Ed.
Brown & Brown get lost in Dan Brown’s labyrinth, with bull in the middle.
what’s the point? 1) it’s this Journal. 2) field is so primitive, makes BASIC errors of id’n, eg Creation of Plants – Brown botched, 2nd isn’t Pana, it’s obv Lib Cap of course: Pan, Lib, Cub, Ama. per me, Dec 13 2020. Matching my specimen observation categs; a practical classifn from Eadwine that MAKES PERFECT SENSE USEFULLY. 3) field trip” arg is more posturing, we all go to lib (irvin,f me), we all look at forests.
True, we were all sore disapoint by John Rush 2011 gallery of blur, but, Rush is Right in important ways – I’ll take Rush over Deniers literalists any day.
{Celestial Erection} for the win. & {mushroom hem} – two major, clear motifs directly about mushroom, brought to us theorized & spotted by J Rush. Whereas Hatsis contributed… what?, a better color pic of Dancing Man.
🕺 🍌🛼
Goal: Teach historical psychedelic Christianity. per the Explicit Cubensis paradigm, according to pilzbaum artists & alchemy inheriting the same themes, & hellenistic roots of those themes/ motifs eg mosaic Dionysus Victory Marriage Parade.
Goal: Put pilzbaum Deniers on notice that their args will be routinely subjected to logical-fallacies critique & analysis to figure out which logical fallacies they are committing this time. Deniers must anticipate the obvious objections and address them up front, else continue to lose credibility. But really the matter is settled like shift from Geo to Sun centric cosmology; that dispute is in the past.
Now we move forward with productive “Normal Science” (Kuhn) conducted within the new paradigm; Browns’ proposed database of evidence, but more sure-footed and integrating {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Goal: In CEQ, delete the sheister “Grief” fake factor; restore the “Dread regarding Control” factor. eg OAV > Angst dimension > Item 54: “I was afraid to lose my self-control.”
Control-challenges are the Hallmark CENTERPIECE of challenging psilocybin experiences; CEQ must reflect that, not SUPPRESS THE SHADOW DRAGON MONSTER.
Debunk and expose CEQ’s deletion of all challenging experiences and replacing them by mere Grief fake effects/ items/ factor. Debunk the Grief factor; restore the Dread regarding Control factor.
Goal: Bust Wasson; explain full expose. Thanks to the Journal of Psychedelic Studies 2019 Brown. Panofsky the top art historian urged mycologists (Affirmers) to see Brinckmann book 1906 86 pages in German.
Chickenshit Wasson hid the citation and the two mushroom trees from Panofsky, and the 2nd letter also urging to see Brinckmann’s “little” book; Wasson then lectures mycologists as ignoramuses for not “consulting” the “competent” art historians — AT THE SAME TIME AS CENSORING the Brinckmann 1906 citation, which is all they got, these “competent” experts.
It was a dirty bluff by Wasson, exposed by this journal in 2019, when interpreted and explained by my repeated close read-throughs in Egodeath Mystery Show.
The Deniers of pilzbaum have forfeited any credibility, stooping to lying, bluffing, academic fraud, censorship, deceit, and dissimulation.
See the ellipses and the word “consult”, in SOMA, re: “the” [sic] Panofsky letter.
You, consult — while I censor, to prevent you from the standard academic practice for “consulting”.
Goal: Kill off the fallacious move, “Mycologists need to ‘consult’ ‘competent’ art historians.” Rule: ACADEMICS ARE REQUIRED TO PUBLISH their views on pilzbaum, else doesn’t count – ie, counts as a ruse, a bluff; dishonest, insincere, unbelievable, a put-on; bad-faith argumentation. A coerced faith-statement/ confession,
“I disavow pilzbaum!” <– no academic weight/credibility
To have any chance of being credible, historians and art historians must follow standard academic practice: publish (with citations not withheld & censored, this time), SO WE CAN CITE AND CHECK THE PILZBAUM DENIERS’ BOGUS CLAIMS AND CONFUSED ARGUMENTS.
No more of this bullshit move, “reach out to consult the competent art historian.”
If you have personally reached out to an art historian, like Brown did with Marcia Kupfer [todo: confirm], you are WRONG; this is a bunk, invalid move – A TRAVESTY OF ACADEMIC SCHOLARSHIP.
This totally bunk move is a bluff by deceiver Wasson, in SOMA and beyond, repeated multiple times, repeatedly actively lying by omission and suppressing and censoring the Brinckmann book citation, TO HIDE THE SCHOLARSHIP FROM US, and suppressing and censoring Pan’s two attached pilzbaum TO HIDE THE EVIDENCE FROM US at the same time as he chastises and berates & DEEPLY INSULTS MYCOLOGISTS (pilzbaum Affirmers) as dull, ignorant, etc.
Demonic deception by Wasson!
It is left to me, after Brown 2019, to firmly kick Wasson’s ass the f out of here, PHONY, FRAUD, RED-HANDED LIAR AND DECEIVER.
WASSON IS HEREBY STRIPPED OF THE TITLE “FATHER OF ETHNOMYCOLOGY”, DUE TO ACADEMIC FRAUD, AS REVEALED BY BROWN 2019 REVEALING PANOFSKY’S PAIR OF LETTERS, EXPLAINED AND INTERP’D AND REBUTTED HERE BY Cybermonk 2024/2025.
I’ve been discussing this pair of Panofsky letters, and related matters, on the Egodeath Mystery Show for years, since 2019 (2020; I didn’t fully vigorously engage Brown 2019 until like 1.5 years a bit late). eg I read aloud my LONG 2006 Plainc article on the show.
Under the conditions of Prohibition, published writings and personal statements of Faith Commitment like this are not valid scientific academic practice, and must be discounted accordingly.
Wasson/ Brown/ Huggins/ bunk pseudo-academic fallacy move, “Mycologists need to consult competent authority w/ stopwatch to measure how quickly they bark I DISAVOW PILZBAUM.”
An obvious fallacy, eg Argument from Authority.
Letcher 2006 endnotes “pers. corr.” in the finale of his mis-treatment of Bern Door, “Therefore, Bernward Door’s Blame scene’s Liberty Cap is a tree, not a mushroom. Proof: I reached out to consult a competent historian on this matter related to art and history.” End note reads: “pers. corr.”
I have a lot of BS, confused gibberish from Hatsis that’s “pers. corr.”, should I bank on that, likewise?
“The shape of the liberty cap is anachronistic. – Hatsis, pers. corr.
“You and Brown are contradicting your Allegro-based Secret Amanita view, by changing your position to Psil, which is a self-contradiction.” – Hatsis, pers. corr.
Goal: Reply to McCarthy & Priest (pair of articles about Psychedelic Christianity in 2024 Journal of Psychedelic Studies).
Inapprop arg’n, “Don’t make current-day psychedelic Christianity dependent on fanciful speculation about alleged past use, for which we have no evidence.”
If they knew the current state of the evidence — NOT MURARESKU’S TIK — it’s not speculation, and it’s not minor: we have MAJOR PROOF (max quantity, max quality) of an EXTREMELY DEVELOPED tradition of Psilocybin Christianity.
It’s irrational & inappropriate to frame this state of the field of study as “dependent on speculation”.
Doing so just reveals that the authors — like editor Winkelman wrote and as Prof. Brown wrote — McCarthy & Priest have NO IDEA WHAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT and are inexcusably ignorant of entheogen scholarship.
McCarthy & Priest failed to address this problem, about which Wink & Brown complained at length – ignored.
Logical fallacy: Lecturing people to not do what you yourself are doing (i.e. presupposition & projection)
Goal: Deliver Eadwine’s 1200 AD transmission of branching-message mushroom trees; give voice to the Medieval pilzbaum artists of 900-1300+ AD.
Hatsis lectured Irvin or Ruck on “colonial ignoring of the voices of historical agents”, while he ignored and suppressed the voices of the pilzbaum artists.
“SHUT UP, PILZBAUM ARTISTS, I’M TRYING TO PREVENT SCHOLARS FROM ATTRIBUTING A MUSHROOM MESSAGE TO YOU.”
– Hatsis, as cited in his overpriced book Psychedelic Mystery Traditions: “For my proof on this matter which is central to this book, demonstrating my correct, tried-and-true, superior historiographical methodology, see my articles somewhere on the web.”
Goal: Establish a Forbidden Word List. Secret, hidden, suppressed, Amanita, Ergot, kykeon, Eleusis, Plaincourault, Allegro, The Mushroom, The Holy Mushroom, sacred mushrooms (lumping /conflating Psil / Ama in order to rip off Psil to glorify Aman) cult, cults, sects, underground, counterculture, so-called heretics/ heretical sects. In all 3 Entheos, Ruck writes the phrase “so-called heretics/heretical sects”. Criticize Ruck for titling every book as “Secret”; criticize/quote Brown 2016 subtitle “Secret History”, criticize/quote the end of Brown 2019 article speculating about “secret initiation” – kill off that bad idea that CAUSES BLINDNESS through prejudice-based presuppositions taken as fact. Cite/quote Cyberdisciple pages about “secrecy”/suppression-premised bad theorizing.
I credit my discoveries of Psil Christian trad’n and world myth incl Hellenistic myth as Psil, connecting core theory to relig myth, b/c of my decades of theorizing that never employed would-be explanatory constructs such as “suppressed cult, secret & hidden counterculture”.
My motivation: Use myth to prove my core theory of psychedelic eternalism.
The Wasson/ Allegro/ Ruck “Secret Amanita” paradigm was counterproductive toward that goal/ mission/ objective/ project, and so I had to do away with the Secret Amanita paradigm, in my 2002/2003 announcement of the maximal entheogen theory of religion.
I was successful as a discoverer of pilzbaum evidence because I in 2002/2003 firmly condemned and rejected (overthrew) the Wasson/ Allegro/ Ruck, Moderate (aka Minimal) entheogen theory of religion, and their False King Amanita.
My method and project was instead on the Psilocybin Eucharist Mainstream paradigm, which gave me truckloads more evidence than the negative scholars entheogen scholarship with their “PRESENCE CONFIRMS SUPPRESSION THUS ABSENCE”; in which presence is absence; more evidence = more proof of heretical-only use of The Mushroom [🍄]. Evidence is neutralized by Ruck to keep the Bad Guys (like Lash does) from having The Mushroom, Our Holy Mushroom. and Our Fresco of The Mushroom.
I’m with Panofsky/ Letcher/ Hatsis/ Huggins on this point: burn down Our Fresco, trashcan Our Mushroom. Pop drivel, shallow, dead end, puerile pop theory and equally puerile pop debunking of that.
Quality Ranking of the Pilzbaum Deniers
Regarding specifically the quality of their arguments against pilzbaum / purposeful mushroom imagery in Christian art: unclear. Hard to assess such badness; layers of logical fallacies. Letcher, Hatsis, Huggins, Panofsky?? I consider Dancing Man included.
Goal: End the rehashed parroted narratives of Pop Secret Amanita Suppressed by the Big Bad Church that’s Perma Prohibitionist.
Goal: Correctly assign credit for pilzbaum to Samorini 1996-1998, not to Allegro (Irvin 2008), not to Wasson (Ruck 2001, Lash maybe).
Goal: Make the field (entheogen scholarship; Psychedelic Cognitive Science) understand that we don’t know anything, cannot make premature conclusions.
Everything we “know” is total bullshit (“no psil in Europe”) (“no Cubensis in Europe”) (“Christianity lacks a psychedelic tradition”) (“the Church omitted entheogens”).
The field and its alleged knowledge/ conclusions needs a reset, needs to be scrapped and start over fresh, without Allegro and Secret Amanita at all.
Wasson blocked progress 1952-1998; the field is brand new. The first paradigm, the old science theory, was Secret Amanita.
Now I in 2002/2007/ 2020/ 2022/ 2024 bring the 2nd paradigm in the field, the new science / new theory, the Explicit Cubensis paradigm, including psychedelic eternalism.
Goal: Move Past Mysticism. Trashcan “MEQ” as bunk psych science per Stang confronting / admitted by Griftiths, MEQ is BS fairytale based on “Science” from James 1902 + Stace 1960, “long in the tooth” quote from Erik Davis.
Important debate now in psychedelic “science”. I give the correct 3rd alternative:
Mention the Freewill Questionnaire, what’s wrong w it (domino chain det’m; egoic version of transcendent thinking; ought to be eternalism; block-universe eternalism).
Goal: Move the field (entheogen scholarship & Psychedelic Cognitive Science) forward, fully incorporating/digesting Brown 2019’s two Panofsky-to-Wasson letters.
Goal: Establish that Christianity has a fully developed psilocybin tradition.
Goal: Trashcan the CEQ-POS questionnaire; replace by my ECQ. Also redo the MEQ-Uni-Rai 🦄🌈 “mysticism” 1902/1960, described as “long in the tooth”, per Erik Davis quote. Go back to the A of OAV: Dread of Ego Dissolution [DED] [= AED], all 21 negative effects items/questions. Replace CEQ by my ECQ – “Eternalism and Control Questionnaire” https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/12/23/eternalism-and-control-transformation-effects-in-the-psychedelics-effects-questionnaires/ Require writing clear articles justifying creation of q’airs. In plain English, why did you delete Item 54: “I was afraid to lose control.”Require Open Science: questionnaires MUST be publicly viewable.
Goal: Move FORWARD productively in psychedelic eternalism , Loose Cog Sci, entheogen scholarship. Not get hung on badly argued uninformed writings of the Pop Deniers: Panofsky, Wasson the LYING-BY-ACTIVE-OMISSION DECEIVER, Letcher, Hatsis, Huggins. Consider their points, handle them as we’ve done, but move forward. Deniers’ credibility is in the toilet, re: the big point.
2019 Journal of Psychedelic Studies marks the start of a new phase of entheogen scholarship – now that Brown 2019 published Panofsky’s censored letters, and we can rebut his “branches” arg.
Panofsky, Letcher, Hatsis, & Huggins – these are the best pilzbaum Deniers, yet all of their argumnets are GARBAGE-tier, obvious logical fallacies. Scraping the bottom of the garbage can.
Unprofitable. Not Productive. Not Relevant. Ruck paradigm Not relevant. Letcher debunking ruck is Not Relevant. Hatsis debunking Irvin 2008 is Not Relevant. Not
Not Productive: Secret Amanita, Debunking Pop Secret Amanita
The Secret Suppression paradigm CAUSES BLINDNESS eg Blue-to-Red shift (& reversing!) cover of 2002 Entheos Issue 3 tauroctony.
Blindness to mushrooms in art eg psil mushroom in Mithras’ leg; my blindness to the dispensary bins in f134 Great Canterbury Psalter, due to my inherited negative prejudiced expectations and defeatism.
Blindness to non-branching motif.
Blindness to intermediate motif of {handedness}.
Blindness to {stability} motif, found in conjunction with these other 3 motifs.
Everyone was blind to {Cut Right Trunk} of Dancing Man/ salamander bestiary, until me just the other day AFTER decoding f134 Great Canterbury Psalter.
Not Relevant: Secret Amanita, Debunking Pop Secret Amanita
no one cares about Amanita ingesting, just pop drama storytime titillation. Irrelevant for Reform ie Full Repeal of Prohibition.
Not Rewarding: Secret Amanita, Debunking Pop Secret Amanita
So everyone gets to ingest Amanita, which is already legal anyway. 3rd rate, urine recycling, sweat, delirium, false reality. No one wants Amanita ingesting. So why is everyone fanatical about Amanita-based entheogen scholarship?
Productive: the Explicit Cubensis paradigm
My theory and interp gets rid of the secrecy-induced blindness to evidence, and makes perceptible not merely mushrooms in art, but psychedelic eternalism comprehension & recognition.
Relevant: the Explicit Cubensis paradigm
My paradigm of doing theory & entheogen scholarship sets its objective as Repeal Prohibition of Psilocybin.
Cubensis is 100% relevant to the extreme. Amanita is 0% relevant.
Psil is being legalized; need to leverage Medieval knowledge of stqability, combined with my non-analogy based Core Theory of psychedelic eternalism; analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control.
Rewarding: the Explicit Cubensis paradigm
When you get the Explicit Cubensis paradigm, you get the Egodeath theory along with it for free.
The Egodeath theory is the smallest, simplest, most explanatory power, and most relevant useful theory/model of mental model transformation in Loose Cognitive State, enabling Loose Cognitive Science.
My paradigm delivers: Totally legalized Psilocybin (like in 1900; full repealing of 1971 Prohibition), and tons of art history evidence.
Brown at Hancock already destroyed Hatsis into a smoking ruin. My 2006 Plainc article already warned to stop the fake non-debate and be productive instead.
(I am considering going deep re: Panofsky’s two letters – but NOT refuting in detail other idiotic topics like the Bernward Door bogus argument from Letcher, which mis-cites Stamets as asserting “secret”, then builds his arg on disproving “secret” – you won the wrong debate, and get a worthless trophy: victory over straw man.)
Meanwhile the real, serious, scholarly, evidence-based, evidence-engaging research continues, ignoring the time-wasting bunk logical fallacies put forth by prejudiced, shallow, reductionist, literalist scholars – those on the outside.
AGREE with Deniers, that POP SECRET AMANITA has to go. Hatsis is right, on that point (but let’s keep Santa Amanita, against Grinch Hatsis).
3rd option: Explicit Cubensis paradigm.
Huggins mentions branching 2024, but, I can ignore that ; Huggins 2024 just copypastes Panofsky.
I can cut off this bad branch at the root; demolish Panofsky directly, not merely demolish Huggins’ copypaste of Panofsky.)
Criticize Huggins 2024 for failing to point out that HE has Pan #2 but WE did not until Brwon 2019 – thx to jerk Wasson who berates pilzbaum Affirmers that they ought to “consult” art historians – at the very same time that Wasson censors those very art historians b/c their writings/ publications are near-nonexistent and do not support the Deniers of pilzbaum and do not support the Was/Pan CLAIM that art historians “are familiar” and “competent”.
Wasson, Father of Obstructing European Ethnomycology
Don’t waste time on endless pseudo-debate mixed with willful logical fallacies. Keep the field moving forward productively. Keep warnings of the Deniers (of Pop Secret Amanita storytime? of purposeful pilzbaum in Christian art?) in mind to the right extent.
We still lack the Brown database, though Brown said my site is effectively that. I’m out of space, due to too many mushrooms.
We are WAY too early in research to draw premature conclusions – we do not have a comprehensive Brown databse to FORCE and SHOVE the face of Letcher into it to FORCE them to know and engage with the evidence gathered so far. To prevent their dirty move of 1-off isolating a few isolated “test case” examples.
Evidence = literacy at the visual genre of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs. Data + Interpretation = Theory.
CITATION FKKING NEEDED, JERK! STFU ABOUT “CONSULT” MY AZZ! Frauds published NOTHING except Brinc, which you censored, DEMON WASSON!
Wasson, Father of Obstructing European Ethnomycology
Wasson, Father of Fraudulent Obstruction of European Ethnomycology – “consult” means DO NOT CONSULT BRINCKMANN’S PATHETIC “LITTLE” BOOK THAT PROVES NOTHING – and DO NOT CONSULT Panofsky’s two attached pilzbaum pictures.
Wasson’s deceptive, lying word “consult” here means DO NOT CONSULT Panofsky’s 2nd letter full of bad logical fallacy argumentation & another strong recommendation of Brinckmann’s “little” book in support of Panofsky’s just-so storytime-telling of “development” from pine to mushrooms, which proves (somehow??) that artists have no intentionality, no purpose of mushroom elements, but are just sloppy.
Instead, use Argument from Authority: “consult” doesn’t mean Brinckmann & photostats; “consult” means instead, go WAY out of normal academic practice and personally contact the non-writers on this topic, and interrogate them whether they, “with impressive celerity”, bark out the correct, “competent” answer, “I disavow the pilzbaum!” like trained seals.
Never mind the obvious issues of compromised, tabooed, pressure of coerced position statements, and prejudice, and lack of knowledge of art or mycology or eternalism cybernetics on the part of these “competent” art historians “on a matter relating to art”. Utter bullshit, Wasson!
Looking Directly into the Face of Bullshit 🐮💩🍄😱 – Dissimulation, Deception, and Lying Double-Talk
There is not a single Affirmer theory.
There is Wasson; Allegro; Ruck; asserting each their own manner of Affirming some position or other: Secret Amanita [Wasson version]; Secret Amanita [Allegro version]; Secret Amanita [Ruck version]; Explicit Cubensis [M Hoffman version].
There are multiple scholars giving each a unique critique of each distinct version of Affirming aka “THE” mushroom in Christian art theory, but it is theorIES plural.
Each writer should state their position and the specific and/or general position(s) that they argue against. Else time wasting slip-and-slide.
Do not waste time on churning, bad argumentation and 1-way non-debates. Keep focused on the research mission:
To what extent mushrooms in Christian art? How to interpret in context of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs?
per end of my 2006 Plainc article’s call to Get Serious and stop the fruitless charade.
I already refuted args, already called out Was/Pan arg from authority and CITATION FKKING NEEDED from your alleged “competent in this matter” authorities who PUBLISHED NOTHING but a flimsy, 86-page, ancient, German-language book that proves nothing about the contended purposefulness of mushroom imagery in pilzbaum.
Development (from pine to mushroom) proves purposelessness? Does Not Follow. More likely, Brinckmann’s (alleged) demonstration of development from pine to mushroom suggests purposefulness, not purposelessness.
Letcher presents good contributions to critiquing various Affirmers of pilzbaum, but has serious drawbacks that waste time, like falsely mis-citing Stamets for saying Bernward door is “secret” — creating a strawman used as Letcher’s soggy foundation for concluding “no secret mushroom” (the Motte, easy to defend, but worthless) in order to then narratively conclude “no mushroom” (the Bailey, hard to defend, what he wishes he could defend).
Huggins Text-First Fallacy
“However, as historian Bernhard Gallistl points out: “The hidden symbolism in a picture can only be proven from the available textual sources.”” – p 15, “Foraging” – Huggins
same page/para, Huggins employs Stang:
“Charles Stang, director of Harvard’s Center for the Study of World Religions, states the problem well: “if the original Eucharist were psychedelic, or even if there were significant numbers of early Christians using psychedelics like sacrament, I would expect [?? presentism??] the representatives of orthodox, institutional Christianity to rail against it. I would expect we’d have ample evidence.”
WTF does Stang know about “ample evidence”, when Letcher only considers 1 out of 5 pilzbaum in Bernward door/column?
Thanks to Wasson’s obstructionist censorship of Panofsky’s double citation of Brinckmann, and censoring the two pilzbaum photostats, the field is WAY too early to gauge “ample”, other than on the false basis of blindness through presuppositions & prejudice.
Top wishes for this article to accomplish, top points to make
Goal: Everyone recognize and comprehend psychedelic eternalism. Represented via {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Goal: entheogen scholarship must be directed toward Repeal of Psil Prohibition – not folk morality tales of identity formation by laboring to construct a barrier between us heretic psychedelic vs them mainstream prohibitionists for eternity (suckers tricked into self-defeating support for perma Prohibition) – the dysfunctional Secret Amanita paradigm ruining entheogen scholarship during awk adoles immature phase 1952-1996, ended by Samo 1996-97-98 into 2001 contrib to Conj Eden article. Brown 2019 frames new era starting 1998 and lists Cybermonk first.
The new era of entheogen scholarship started with Michael Hoffman Egodeath.com – Brown 2019 – todo
“Overenthusiasm by ardent advocates – Since the publication of Wasson’s Soma (1968) and Allegro’s The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (1970), new evidence has emerged on websites (Michael Hoffman, 1985–2007a) and in articles (Samorini, 1997, 1998) and books documenting the presence of sacred mushrooms in Christian art.” –Brown, p. 157, Journal of Psychedelic Studies 3(2), 2019. biblio entries for MH.
Brown cites my exhausting article on Plaincourault re: Moving Fwd Retaining the Real Point
Michael Hoffman, 1985–2007a
Brown 2019 wrote: “it is important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. … The baby refers to Allegro’s thesis that visionary plants had been widely used in Western culture and religion throughout the ages including the mystical experiences of early Christianity. According to Hoffman (1985–2007a), this view is supported in one form or another by a variety of entheogen scholars including Chris Bennett, Peter Furst, Clark Heinrich, Jonathan Ott, Carl Ruck, Huston Smith, and R. Gordon Wasson, to name a few.”
Goal: Make entheogen scholarship retract “No Cubensis in Europe.” MAKE ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP EAT CROW AND RETRACT “NO CUBE IN EUROPE” — JUST AS THEY ALREADY HAD TO EAT CROW AND RETRACT “NO LIB CAP / PSIL IN ENGLAND” per Shroom by Letcher.
Goal: Kill the myth “Europe = Amanita, Americas = Psilocybin”. Kick out on its ass the lie, folk tale: “Europe = Amanita, Americas = Psilocybin”. Total false bullshit. Totally false. Christianity has an important, extremely important, mainstream traditional (if those words mean anything) history of psychedelic eternalism.
Goal: Debunkers of Pop Secret Amanita, stop conflating that with entheogenic Christianity history the Explicit Cubensis paradigm or general theory of entheogenic Christianity history.
Goal: End the Amanita Primacy Fallacy in entheogen scholarship. Stop insulting Psilocybin by forcing it into a minor supporting role for False King Amanita. Instead, force Amanita into a minor supporting role for True King Cubensis just like headshop art: {spotted mushroom} means ingesting Cubensis, not ingesting Amanita.
There always were Cubensis, Panaeolus, and Liberty Cap in Europe and England. Entheogen scholarship is full of shiite on this point, parotting folk myths as is established scientific fact, but it’s nothing but myth & prejudice. Paul Stamets says nothing to the contrary, but he has a HUGE blind spot, and was so weak in spreading his message, re: Europe, that Hancock had to set record straight: i watched this livestream that day
Joe of Psychedelics Today podcast/outlet: transcription excerpts by Cybermonk —
In Visionary was this comment about psilocybin-containing mushrooms never existing in Europe, and one famous mycologist you chatted with said there’s no evidence, like before Columbus discovered the Americas, and then you passed this by Stamets, and Stamets said that’s that’s totally absurd.
Graham Hancock:
Yeah of course, and I had another mycologist do the DNA on Psilocybe semilanceata from North America and Psilocybe semilanceata from Europe, and these psilocybes have been evolving separately for tens of thousands of years, probably hundreds of thousands of years, so it’s got absolutely nothing to do with contact between the new world and the old, but there always were psilocybe mushrooms in Europe, just as there always were in the Americas, and you know they’re– the Psilocybe semilanceata of course is just one amongst many, you know, there’s many more; this is a universally available technique.
A Cubensis-First Paradigm
“Cubensis” here means Cubensis first, subsuming everything else. Instead of Amanita first, subsuming everything else. As just one example:
In the book Strange Fruit, Clark Heinrich discards and shuts out all other entheogens, including Cubensis, when he takes Rev 22:2 and reduces it to: the tree of life is Amanita.
Each tree of life produces 12 different kinds of fruit crops every month, plus the leaves that heal nations. Using Heinrich’s & Bennett’s general reasoning, the tree of life means Cubensis, as well as Amanita and Cannabis, and ten other entheogens, such as (per Eadwine: Creation of Plants’s 4 mushroom types) Panaeolus & Liberty Cap.
The book Strange Fruit by Heinrich makes Cubensis serve the needs of advocating Amanita. Do the reverse:
The first and main plant is Cubensis, with Amanita reduced to a visual supporting role as a symbol representing all entheogens (per Dale Pendell).
Quote Pendell, Pharmako Gnosis: “Amanita M is the most famous entheogen in the world that nobody uses. It is the supreme symbol of all entheogenic religion.”
The “Explicit Cubensis” paradigm shift: Mushroom Eternalism was NOT only understood by a few artists, but by mainstream Christians, & counts as “traditional psychedelics”
I have proved that Christianity has a psychedelic tradition.
Proof: Not only elite psalters have the 4 key motifs combined; Saint Martin church & the “St Eustace crossing the river” window are publicly, EXPLICITLY displayed for ALL CHRISTIANS.
Not Secret Amanita; Explicit Cubensis.
In Saint Martin church, Jesus’ elect follower shows understanding & agreement by holding out non-branching sticks + branching feather to inches within Jesus’s finger shapes: splayed left-hand fingers & non-splayed right-hand fingers:
The egoic autonomous king, as control agent, is sacrificed, negated, fastened to the tree = {Entry Into Jerusalem}.
The PUBLIC combination of the 4 key motifs signals that all Christians understood psychedelic eternalism – {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
In the “Dark Ages”, the Christian public knew Transcendent Knowledge; psychedelic eternalism, as revealed by the Explicit Cubensis paradigm, against the presuppositions of the Secret Amanita paradigm.
Thus I have proved that Christianity has a psychedelic tradition.
f134 Great Canterbury Psalter corrections/ addl decoding
Figured out Nov ~19, 2024. My voice recordings have a record; figured out while recording.
todo: move section to f134 webpage, but keep separate, with date, to show the record of discovery phases Nov 2022 – Nov 2024. a correction & expansion to fill in gaps where i was in error for not figuring out / decoding /recognizing these connections before.
Error: Eadwine tricked me into thinking that the L arm belonged to student 2; that is suggested, but overridden by hem line of teacher’s garment that says “no, if you study the puzzle closely, that arm MUST be assigned to the teacher, ie student 2 is shown as nothing but a face, only!
And yet you are being asked ie by floating sage’s furrowed brow, to answer: which foot must be down for student 2, based on the rules that are expressed in cluster of students.
Teacher displays not only R hand, as i previously wrote, but L hand too! and has furrowed brow — SAME as floating sage on R2R (& both have a Limbless Youth attached).
Student 2 is a Limbless Youth (limbless only means we must use other attributes – brow state – to deduce which mental model they are using & thus whether they are cubensis-compatible or will lose control in the altered state.
mobile app issue: cant add image
the “meaning” of row 2 right , floating guy’s floating feet: connects him to Row 1 left, student 2 & 4, feet not shown. part of Answer: we are being asked to assess which mental model each figure is using.
Answer: floating guy is displaying hand like students
Answer: floating guy has a guy w no limbs, attached to him
Answer: the examiner Row 1 L has extra face attached
Answer: ERROR trick correction: The L arm belongs to the teacher/ examiner, NOT to student 2. That is proved by the teacher’s vertical garment fold line.
Thus actually, the ONLY part of student 2 shown is his face! Yet we (as advanced sages/ students/ initiates) are nevertheless expected to assess feet of student 2 & 4, though – like the floating sage, whose feet we cannot use to assess which model he relies on – their feet are not shown.
Student 3 establishes that which foot is down overrides which hand is displayed; non-furrowed brow….
The brown, dead leaf proves his left hand is wrong answer, or converts his Left hand to expressing the correct assertion. In this genre, {R foot down} is directly the theme/ analogy, affirming non-branching. so, student 3 is stable. Crutch + L foot touching stable tower base in equivalent, in f177. Comparable is woman with CLOSED scroll w L foot touching {stable column base}.
In effect, two negative attributes cancel/ converts, to be Correct, affirming eternalism-thinking, which is stable (not loss of control during the Cubensis peak state).
Against Reading Student 3 as a C Student
Student 3 can be read not as giving wrong answer by displaying L hand, but as showing the correct answer by dead leaf touching L arm.
Student 1 is an A student, he expresses the basic rules of this game, via celestial erection (per John Rush) + correct R foot down + correct R hand displayed.
Student 1 functions to first confirm Row 2’s basic pair of figures (start here, following Student 1):
Tte foolish youth receiving Cubensis w wrong, L foot down (= possibilism-thinking; he will lose control in the Psilocybin state).
They are paired via touching heels:
The smart youth w sack of Cubensis w R foot down; he wont lose control in the Psilocybin state, because he is using eternalism -thinking; non-branching possibilities assumption.
Then after the basic rules are established, we must assess the floatung sage, which mental model he is using — but we are prevented from relying on simply looking at his feet to see whether his L or R foot is down.
Thus Eadwine sets up a series of progressively harder puzzles building out the genre’s standard motif of stand on R foot like Eve in Plaincouault fresco Amanita mushroom-branching tree.
The floating sage wrinkles his brow (like the examiner on row 1 left)) while looking up at the guy hanging from tree.
The floating sage is shown with neither foot down, so how do we read whether he is using possibilism thinking and has loss of control, or eternalism-thinking and stable control? –> same with guy hanging in tree.
Similar but less difficult, is the guy sitting in the tree.
todo/exercise: List such figures in order of difficulty of analyzing whether they use possibilism-thinking or eternalism-thinking.
Answer: thus student 4 must have L foot down else would have smooth brow. bc student 3 & 4 both show L hand, overlapped, yet result in different brow state.
Answer: similarly, student 2 (we only see face) has implicitly L foot down.
Answer: teacher + student 1 face = Row 2 R floating guy + limbless youth.
Answer: student 2 (only his face is shown, attached to back of teacher’s head) is unstable; bc furrowed brow.
in contrast, Row 2 R limbless youth is Stable (has eternalism thinking ) bc unfurrowed brow & his feet are replaced by stable column base.
Answer: row 2 R floating guy furrowed brow does not indicate he is unstable/ using possibilism-thinking – his furrow means: you are to explain the rules overriding rules that signal/ indicate which mental model each figure is using; loss of control if cubensis / loose cognition.
Ans: Row 2 L army: for each figure, assess which mental model / whether stable, — do this by listing all the positive & negative indicators, & which ones override:
floating guy R2R has:
Pros: jewish hat ; beard; R hand lower than left; msh hem / that is touching Stable Column Base.
Cons: furrowed brow, displaying L hand
Ans based on his pros/cons: he is Stable in the cubensis state, ie using eternalism-thinking.
army is left as an exercise for the reader.
i assessed woman previously, holding Scale Balance & Closed Scroll: i yesterday inventoried her +/- attributes: her figure expresses: you are stable when using the left foot egoic possibilism-thinking only IF you are in ordinary state; tight cognitive binding
Outline of Broad Article
todo: on laptop, enter topic list for journal supplemental article.
I will move Conclusion content from branching-message mushroom trees article to “Cubensis-driven entheogen scholarship”.
old 2nd / companion article found today: “Roasting entheogen scholarship” – I forgot about that, but such a type of article is indeed key, to unload from the overburdened Concl secn of branching-message mushroom trees article: (free up word count)
as bad argn as Panof & Hatsis. Huggins Concl is reductionism + false dilemma fallacy. ultra obviously. 1-way “debate” , like Hatsis destroyed by Brown. they send out semi-articulated argn that is not designed for pushback.
They dont care at all about good argn . result is puzzling mux mux mix of unclear arg statement + obvious logical fallacies
todo: re: Brinkmann book
Brown: German lang reader: which p does Brink 1906 write re Development of pilzbaum from pine to mushroom imagery (fails to see nonbranching integrated w that motif)?
Which p of Brink says GRADUAL & WIDESPREAD devmt?
Which p says devmt proves unintentional? i say it proves intentional.
DOES NOT FOLLOW; ie the non sequitur fallacy
the real debate is: is there PURPOSE of the mushroom imagery?
yes: make viewers interp the image/ entire image as NOT mushroom but psychedelic eternalism , via CONJOINED motifs of tree AND mushroom ;
{mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs are found together, proving artists did not try to message either “tree” OR “mushroom”.
the MAIN msg & purpose of this genre is to communicate psychedelic eternalism.
Panofsky 2 sentence 7&8: “religious artists had little reason to think of mushroom – bc not in Bible “afaik” or stories of saints” – but see awesome perfect “St Eustace Crossing River”, that disproves all of Panofsky’s false statements.
Psychedelic Christianity article
McCarty & Priest article: Brown & Winkelman. Comment on their replies re ignorance of history.
retort to “dont make psyched Christianity DEPEND on history of Christian entheogens ” – that arg collapses, isnt viable, is absurd & inapprop, when there is overwhelming and relevant evidence.
“Ignore this massive, relevant evidence”. Wink, Brown, & I all push back hard, here.
McC/P totally ignore editor Wink & Brown in the meta replies section. “IGNORANT!” we all chant.
cite cyberdisciple “Against the assumption of suppression of psychedelics in Christianity”
cite Max Transcendent Knowledge podcast: “Ruck: entheogens were everywhere, but no one really knew about it ” “so which is it?”
Motivation: re: Conclusion section of draft article “branching-message mushroom trees”, I was blocked trying to cram an entire article’s worth of broad re-direction of the field of entheogen scholarship.
minor, wasnt blocked by this: in branching-message mushroom trees article, below each pic, list the 4-6 motifs, give 2 instances each. to condense. add Splendor Solis: Philosophers Beside the Tree: add Tauroctony.
This is a companion article forming a pair of articles for the Journal of Psychedelic Studies.
the Secret Amanita paradigm vs the Explicit Cubensis paradigm
Panofsky letters critique
Huggins article critique especially branching
Secret Amanita theorists pay no attention to texts and ignore art historians. Conversely, Deniers (Panofsky, Hatsis, Huggins) don’t care at all about good argumentation.
In voice recording, I listed 3 difficulties in assessing their argumentation: what assumptions are they not stating?
have to glean & deduce & speculate.
They only state 2 of 5 points of the argument that they put forth; based on assuming that which is to be proved; obvious logical fallacies. Puzzling & difficult to read them, bc so much is hidden: iceberg arg’n — “Plainc cant be mushroom, bc there are HUNDREDS(!) of pilzbaum, QED.” Challenge: complete thecarg the arg steps. Panof dense abbrevd letters require extremely careful and critical reading
Huggins crazily cites Pan 2nd letter wo emphasizing Wasson censored for 67 yrs; Wasson villain; Browns heroes.
As if we had both letters since 1968; Huggins FAILS to give Brown massive credit & condemn Wasson.
What must Panof or Huggins be silently assuming, to put forth 2 points as if a 5-point argument?
todo: start Idea dev page 20
Breakthroughs Log
todo: move this section to my Log webpage
splendor solice nov 7 2024 thu: from cover of Irvin/ Rutajit 1st Ed 2006 A&S book:
“Philosophers beside the tree” famous image, has the 4 motifs: {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
the tree of life on both sides of the river, promised to the elect by the Bible, provides “twelve manner of fruits”
great news, huge news re: strategic entheogenic Bible interp: Rev 10 & Ezekiel = Aman only, BUT:! … Rev 22:2 – tree of life grows on BOTH sides of river of life, therefore it is MULTIPLE trees, and they produce TWELVE different crops/ plants (13 entheogens including “the leaves of the tree are for healing the nations”) – not one, eg not just cannabis w 12 or 13 “USES” like Bennett’s book Sex Drugs & Bible (the single-plant fallacy) – he left 11 or 12 entheogens on the table! 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ 🍄🟫🪴🪷🪻🌾🍄🌳🌱🌵🌺
Rev 22:2 King James bible
Mithraism
[6:55 am Nov 24, 2024] SOL FIGURED OUT! or deepened connections to a threshold amount.
Sol is the local lower egoic control agent system after full enlightenment transformation,
Sol is no longer threatened, reached a peace agreement with the higher controller.
The sun inside the fated cosmos ruling consciously in conjunction with Mithras the creator uncontrollable higher controller outside your effective control area.
Mithras hands Sol the reigns to steer as a consciously virtual control agent steering in a virtual tree.
I went to sleep looking at Sol upper left watching Mithras knife (loss of control threat, overpowering) the bull, wondering.
The correct successful perspective came now in the morning.
[10:35 pm Nov 23, 2024] stars in Mithras’ billowing cloth (cape) = heimarmene/ eternalism experienced in the psilocybin liberty cap state, like the star gate in Lorenzetti’s Entry into Jerusalem.
knife = mental demonstration of potential loss of control = Paul’s thorn in the side = pierced in the side = {blades} in Great Canterbury Psalter f134 leg-hanging image.
Nov 19, 2024: tauroctony folded legs – look at that foot; no weight on that foot; resolves & firmly contrasts / links other: bull foot down vs mithras foot down. not definite weight on down foot, but instead, depict weight not on other foot
pantocrator left ft lifted usu? 748am nov 20 2024
cautes srch Fri nov 8 2024 — leg/ torch dir correlation. 2/3 of time, Cautes’ weight on R foot & holds torch Up.
The data which doesn’t fit the theory is incorrect and inferior, and doesn’t count. The superior art conforms to my theory.
My expectation/ prediction is Confirmed: in my hi-res high-quality, thus higher credibility tauroctony, refined art:
Cautes with weight on Right foot holds torch Up; Cautopates with weight on Left foot holds torch Down.
Mark Hoffman flipped tauroctony Entheos isssue 3 cover violent palette skew forced from Blue mushroom to Red; the Amanita Primacy Fallacy deletes Blue. same w Irvin jamming Dancing Man from blue cap to red, desperately.
per David Ulansey: the Ruck school fell down into heimarmene block; they WERE above, outside the heimarmene prison rock, looking down at Taurus constellation affirming initiated R leg;
NOW Ruck school is looking up at Taurus from below; the non-initiates’ perspective, affirming weight on L foot, wrongly, producing loss of control. evil, not good.
M Hoffman made both a Red shift from Blue AND flipped the handedness-critical Tauroctony. on the cover – AND therefore the pop Amanita IDOLATERS fanatics failed to see the Psil blue mushroom in Tauroctony. a great example of this bad field.
the corrective compensation: we must weild the diamond hammer of interpretation and force the art database back from Red to Blue skew
Blue Rules, Red Drools
brains 🍄🟫 vs looks 🍄
copy recent Sent email to here
copy recent txt msgs to here
why does nobody give a sht about my ultra excellent cubensis mushroom trees in Great Canterbury Psalter? bc its not “THE Holy Mushroom, Amanita muscaria”
low-grade – per my theory of low vulgar pop esotericism 🍄 vs authentic actually transformative high esotericism 🍄🟫
disrespecting “THE” holy mushroom
Red/Blue Balance
multiply psil in art 10x to compensate for Amanita being 10x too visually appealing; the headshop principle. Psil was the brains & engine, Pendell: Amanita mere symbol.
exoteric esotericism 🍄
esoteric esotericism 🍄🟫, explicit cubensis left fingers beanching, right two fingers pressed together , like St Eustace image explicit nonbranching in Chartres Cathedral
heading
chat Rick post
in headshop art language, spotted mushroom does NOT mean using Amanita; it means tripping / psychedelic experience
tree of knowledge does not ultimately mean Amanita, it means the branching-related tripping experience
Huggins has a new good/ bad article that uses the arg from Panofsky 2nd, censored-by-Wasson letter, to deny that Christian art mushroom trees are mushrooms
his neg args are EASY to refute; all are obvious trivial logical fallacies
he’s right: mushroom trees do not mean mushrooms; they mean mushrooms’ psychedelic experience re: branching — especially non-branching eg cut branch/ cut right trunk
no one in the mushroom tree debate noticed the main art motif: cut branch, cut right trunk, that is integrated with the mushroom / tree motif
i was the only one to see the huge cut right trunk in the contentious Dancing Man/ Roasting Salamander alchemic bestiary image
earlier Rick chat
prior to discovering tree of life = 12 different fruit crops / entheogens partic Cubensis
early (unusually early starting morning scholarship).
the acacia/rue theory of Old Testament says Holy Shiite w u
bc i am concluding w Dale Pendell, Amanita in Gen2/ Rev2/ Rev22 tree of knowledge of good & evil, tree of life:
Amanita is NOT psychedelic, but is just a SYMBOL of psilo or dmt
guarantee Amanita does NOT produce psychedelic enlightenment
we are not to take Aman fruit of the tree literally as ingesting Amanita
the word “tree” equated w psychedelic Knowledge is key
branching vs the timeless eternity non-branching peak experience is more important than Amanita
the fruit is not Amanita; the fruit is the transformative psychedelic non-branching experience memorizing Pendell opening sentence of Aman chapter:
“Amanita muscaria is the most famous entheogen in the world that nobody USES. It is the supreme SYMBOL of ALL entheogenic religion.”
u & Prndell inspire me to not compromise & hide my negative read on Amanita as merely a SYMBOL of cubensis or acacia/rue experience of tree nonbranching knowledge; eternity/ eternalism experiencing is the fruit
Amanita is merely a symbol that represents that fruit
European art is based on Fall of Man / the Original Sin tree of Gen2 – Amanita as a symbol is heavily present in Europe religious art but
glory to Amanita as a SYMBOL of cubensis or acacia/ rue transformative experience of timeless non-branching frozen eternity
our reward in Rev22 is not Amanita, but rather, eat of tree of life our reward is ability to use cubensis / dmt without loss of control
rick chat before the above
my broad Article’s concept has key word ‘repeal’. (“policy reform” means “fine-tune the persecution”)
Amanita/ Ergot-driven entheogen scholarship is defeatist and inherently advocates perpetual prohibition and prevents a redemption arc; prevents victory.
Its perverse self-defeating goal/ strategy is to prevent the mainstream/ Church from ever having entheogens/ cubensis.
Amanita-driven entheogen scholarship is not strategic or objective-driven; it is directionless; it is not intentionally connected to achieving Repeal or driven by that objective in any coherent, strategic way.
Huggins two articles – Rick chat
i have draft of 1st artic online (Branching Mushrooms in art)
About to create a draft webpage of 2nd article online (Cube-Driven). have tons of gripes-and-fixes (incl citations/ quotes) ready to write up.
will cross-cite the pair of articles too bad i missed pub’g in that issue, but i am unblocked
reading Huggins’ new article criticizing mushrooms in Christian art, & another by him re the “dancing man/ roasting salamander” bestiary art. i half agree
previous Rick chat
it is a pair of articles for Journal of Psychedelic Studies, editor Michael Winkelman wished to have my Branching Mushrooms art article for the Sept issue on “Psychedelics and Christianity”, but i was blocked trying to cram a critique of the field of entheogen scholarship into Conclusion section.
now i relieved that pressure on that article, got unblocked, by new plan: break out sep. broad “critique/repair” article (Cube-Driven entheogen scholarship)
new Dec issue just came out.
chat before the above
holy 💩🍄🟫!! thought of the most kick-azz title for my revolution-defining companion article for Branching Mush art article:
Cubensis-Driven Entheogen Scholarship The most rewarding, relevant, and productive approach
Paul Lindgren published Great Canterbury Psalter mushrooms in 2000
this Rick chat has photos of my books research highlighted pages
i discovered today that i overlooked the super milestone “cover image” note in the front matter of colleagues/ friend’s James Arthur’s 2000 book Mushrooms and Mankind , which was the first discovery of the awesome Great Canterbury Psalter mushroom imagery: the first entheogen scholar to discover that was Paul Lindgren 🏅🏆 credited by Ruck 2001 Conj Eden article , not discovered yet by Samorini 1997/1998
Ruck 2000 Conjuring Eden article p 14, Entheos issue 1
Ruck 2000 Daturas for the Virgin article p56, Entheos 2, critiqued by:
Irvin 2008 The Holy Mushroom p 104: Ruck tries to LIMIT entheogens — but see Irvin: Astrotheology and Shamanism 2006
irvin in 2009 2nd Ed A&S deleted his OWN “limiting” claim, was sentence 1 in Conclusion of 1st Ed, “elites kings priests kept entheogens secret from the masses”
irvin wrote to me in 2006 1st Ed A&E. his 2009 2nd Ed cites even more of my work. recent pics of that inscription. & Concl page
I assessed Ruck’s Secret Amanita obsession project of constructing CIRCUMSCRIBING every entheogens image to prevent broad Christianity from having entheogens – why i rebelled against Ruck in 2002, formed the maximal entheogen theory of religion and disparaged his moderate, limit-obsessed project
my Phase 2, 21st C project was different from Ruck: interp all world myth as psychedelic eternalism per the Egodeath theory core theory; create the mytheme theory – TO PROVE MY CORE THEORY by proving myth is garbled reflection expression of psychedelic eternalism (= non-branching).
Sunil chat post
w image photos
2/3 of Brown’s commentary against McCarthy & Priest is History, ie pushing them to pay attention to history of psy’cs in Christian history. Brown mentions: the “bona fide traditional ceremony purposes” requirement of the RFRA
much of McC&Priest’s reply to the commentaries is re: the debate about the notion of “traditional”
previous Sunil post
news flash re strategic Bible interp the tree of life on both sides of the river of life, promised to the elect by the Bible, provides “twelve manner of fruits”, kinds of fruit, crops of fruit each month
not just one entheogen, eg Aman per Heinrich, or cann per Bennett
single-plant fallacy btfo’d
Notes file on Rev 22:2
Rev 22:2
trees of life bear twelve kinds of fruit each month
the tree of life / Trees of Life
twelve:
manner of fruits/ kinds of fruit/ crops of fruit
each month
KJV:
And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month:
NIV:
Eden Restored
Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month.
Ampd bible:
The Perfect Life
Then the angel showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb (Christ), in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month;
Living bible:
And he pointed out to me a river of pure Water of Life, clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and the Lamb, coursing down the center of the main street. On each side of the river grew Trees of Life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, with a fresh crop each month; the leaves were used for medicine to heal the nations.
Tree of Life tr.
Then the angel showed me a river of the water of life—bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the city’s street. On either side of the river was a tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month;
the devil spread this false idol 🍄 to keep people from knowledge, decoy, dummy, substitute; exoteric esotericism – low, vulgar, junk version of Transcendent Knowledge
Apply the headshop principle: spotted mushroom imagery means Cubensis
push Blue TWICE as hard as Ruck pushes Red
My motive for taking over entheogen scholarship (myth as cubensis descr) from above in 2000-2003
1998: Mr. Jesus & Mr. Paul & their Bible will confirm my 1997 core theory outline.
The Jesus Mysteries book by 1999 F&G: oops, relig founder figures are myth.
“instead, use world relig myth (as a garbled reflection like 1986 poor books about enlightenment) to prove / match/ describe my core theory theory. but Ruck is not aggressively leveraging Samorini’s great findings; Ruck is lost & not my project”
“I need world relig myth to be expression of psychedelic eternalism, thus confirming my theory of mental model transformation” – i said in 2000-2003. Succeeded in 2003, 2020, etc
I assumed Psil is source of all relig myth. the maximal entheogen theory of religion
vs stingy Ruck; Dr. Secret Amanita – a dead end project, Prohibition-compliant enabler.
my Explicit Cubensis paradigm delivers 12x the tree of life fruit kinds especially Cubensis, than stingy, self-defeating Bennett & Heinrich single-plant fallacy
More posts, emails, many hours of rapid voice rec’g progress past 3 weeks …
Rev 22:2 delivers 12 different plants
bob email
news flash re strategic Bible interp
the tree of life on both sides of the river of life (so, multiple trees), promised to the elect by the Bible, provides “twelve manner of fruits”
not just one entheogen, eg Aman per Heinrich, or cann per Bennett
single-plant fallacy disproved today
Bennett & Heinrich leave 11 entheogenic plants on the table
Stamets Silent re Cubensis in Europe cow cattle dung re: why not
John R email
I inspected Stamets’ 1996 bk again: conclusion: the book only has 4 words re: cubensis presence in Europe/ England: “not known in Spain”. So:
Stamets’ book is silent about whether cubensis in Europe. Stamets cannot be assumed as stating psil’s absence. His silence reveals a prejudiced blind spot; evidence:
If Stamets had considered whether cubensis (was naturally) in Europe, he would have written about whether or not it occurs there. He wrote only 4 words, which is evidence that he never considers that topic/ question in this book.
No one has ever seriously looked to see whether cubensis is naturally in Europe.
Great Canterbury Psalter literalistically depicts cubensis (along w effects motifs), and stylistically depicts lib cap and panaeolus.
Its art director Eadwine depicts king David ordering imports (camel) & storage of cubensis. What countries did Eadwine obtain his cubensis from?
I inspected Stamets’ 1996 bk again: conclusion: the book only has 4 words re: cubensis presence in Europe/ England: “not known in Spain”. So:
Stamets’ book is silent about whether cubensis in Europe. Stamets cannot be assumed as stating psil’s absence. His silence reveals a prejudiced blind spot; evidence:
If Stamets had considered whether cubensis (was naturally) in Europe, he would have written about whether or not it occurs there. He wrote only 4 words, which is evidence that he never considers that topic/ question in this book.
No one has ever seriously looked to see whether cubensis is naturally in Europe.
Great Canterbury Psalter literalistically depicts cubensis (along w effects motifs), and stylistically depicts lib cap and panaeolus.
Its art director Eadwine depicts king David ordering imports (camel) & storage of cubensis.
What countries did Eadwine obtain his cubensis from?
“Amanita muscaria is the most famous entheogen in the world that nobody uses. It is the supreme symbol of all entheogenic religion”
Avoiding the Single-Plant Fallacy:
Carl Ruck, in the article “Daturas for the Virgin”, Entheos journal issue 2, 2001, argues that mushrooms 🍄 were often unavailable, therefore the Eucharist was considered to be ANY visionary plant. Ruck means Datura, but should mean Psil cube/ lib cap/ panaeolus.
Amanita imagery in religious art (& Ezekiel & Revelation text) does NOT mean Amanita specifically, but means ALL visionary plants — preferably Cubensis, because Cubensis delivers the most psychedelic effects with the least other effects, & is reliably identifiable. The Great Canterbury Psalter supports these assertions.
Ruck book on myth txtbk is massively pushing the (Secret) Amanita Primacy Fallacy – every index entry page is on Secret Amanita, never on Psil.
“the” 🍄 mushroom, EXCLUSIVELY Secret Amanita.
openly display my left fingers splayed & right 2 fingers together: = the “Explicit” Cubensis paradigm, as St Martin church picture fingers & sticks/feathers; as exposed in Chartres Cathedral in “St Eustace crossing the river” window “brazenly displayed in the heretics places of worship”- Ruck.
irvin: THM 104: “Ruck attempts to limit entheogens to “Christian mysticism and so-called heretics”– That is completely unfounded. Mainstream Christianity itself is based on entheogens.” “See my bk A&S 2006 [concl: “entheogens were limited to elites”]
Irvin 2nd Ed 2009 deleted that limiting Concl secn sentence.
Rev 22:2 – twelve different fruits ever month produced by tree of life; this means hemp, 12 uses.
Rev 22:2 KJB: leaves + 12 fruits. = cubensis + 12 other entheogens. 13 enths at the conclusion of the Bible, is brought to you by me/ by the maximal entheogen theory of religion, against the mere Moderate paradigm that’s held by Bennett & Heinrich & everyone except Samorini, Brown & Brown, & me.
Heinrich quote re: Rev 22: tree of life = 1 entheogen = Amanita only.
Jerry Brown quotes
St. Walburga tapestry — 2016 & 2019 – “oh wait, tapestry shows serrated base, cancel our field research trip, b/c Amanita base dosn’t have serrations” – “this is our best, outstanding example & proof of why you should not read mushroom imagery as mushroom.” “We are superior b/c field trip… on our field trip [they didn’t go to the abbey] we relied on a hi-res pic from Irvin’s book. Irvin is wrong and misid’d it as aman b/c he has low-res pics.” Irvin: she holds an Amanita msh. Browns: She is known, via texts and art elsewhere, to hold a vial, therefore can’t be Amanita msh. Cybermonk: the tapestry shows her holding a vial that’s shaped like Amanita.
Great Canterbury Psalter > “Creation of Plants” — 2016/2019: “Amanita, psil, pan, psil” – starts from right, calls parasols “pan”! Arthur has excuse for “opium, rue, psil, Amanita”: he’s trying to read “Creation of Plants” as Soma recipe. Dec 13 2020 i id’d as pan, lib, cub, ama, matching my many photos and specimens viewed growing.
Cyberdisciple quotes
The best writing on the topic – Huggins and Hatsis should be replying to Cyberdisciple’s writings.
… the field has an obsession with “secrecy”, an obsession the field should discard. … the “secret psychedelic use” model has always had a problem with evidence. If … the use of psychedelics in a religion was kept secret, known only to a few, the researcher can only bring so much evidence of psychedelics to bear. If we have a ton of evidence for psychedelics, the “secret psychedelic use” model starts to look untenable.
Erik Davis quotes
Stace 1960, James 1902? Psychedelic Science’s basis of ‘mysticism’ is “long in the tooth” “Stace = 64 years outdated, this “scientific foundation” of psychedelic mysticism research.
Max Freakout quotes
“Per Ruck, everyone was using entheogens, but no one really knew about it – so which is it?” Transcendent Knowledge podcast.
compare Cyberdisciple paragraph “untenable”.
Wouter Hanegraaff quotes
“I coined the term Entheogenic Esotericism” – actually, I posted against Hanegraaff, a post titled exactly that, 8 years before his awful article/ keynote/ chapter in Christopher Partridge’s book Contemporary Esotericism.
There are only three approaches to studying history of Western Esotericism:
Social-science reductionism
Religionism/ mystical practice with Eranos’ urgency to save the world from modern meaninglessness. Implies essentialism about Transcendent Knowledge, which is the worst thing ever.
Radical empiricism, ie what did the ancient author mean? Don’t judge; instead, understand & explain. Radical empiricism is WH’s approach, which in practice means:
Deleting all the stars from the sky/ the ogdoad bc they are tainted with heimarmene and we can’t allow that; we Radical Empiricist scientific academic historians can’t have the Saturn gate dumping you into a fatedness prison.
Redefining ‘entheogen’ to mean literally anything at all — just like Favre’s checklist of esotericism traits is so easy to fulfill, every practice in the world fits the definition of Western Esotericism.
These are the options, for historical research.
But where does the Egodeath theory fit in? a Cog Sci/ Engr/ STEM simple summarized clearly succintly communicated useful practical helpful explanatory model.
Yet he himself does a sloppy job of my approach, “what did the author mean?”
I explain better than Hane, re: fixed stars in Ogdoad cosmos level 8 = the harrowing experience of eternalism in the ASC that WH tries to write about but
“Whether to put the fixed stars in Saturn moving planetary sphere 7 or in Ogdoad level 8 is an open question to me.”
“Passing through Saturn gate means moving from heimarmene to freewill.”
“Ogdoad level 8 is the same thing as Ennead level 9: it means being above the heimarmene-ruled cosmos.”
Thomas Hatsis quotes
book: Plainc fresco shows “fall of man theology, therefore can’t be mushroom”
Lack of Prohibition decree proves lack of The Mushroom (Amanita).
Text [read literally & reduc’ly in OSC] constrains artists’ message. [Huggins 2024 uses same arg from text, Brown does version of that re: researching St. Walburga’s item that she trad’ly holds.] omg its a tree/vial!!! who knew?! so, it can’t mean mushroom.
Clark Heinrich quotes
Heinrich in _Strange Fruit_ wrongly says Allegro says that Jesus was the leader of a mushroom cult.
Strange Fruit: When couldn’t get their mushroom (Amanita), they fell back on a substitute, psilocybin mushrooms.
Ronald Huggins quotes
branching
false decision in his Conclusion section of Forest article: “how to tell if image is a tree or is a mushroom.” Also literalism, reductionism, moving goalpost, motte and bailey, bait & switch.
I accept your conditions of proxy debate: To prove all pilzbaum are mushrooms, we shall use branching in Great Canterbury Psalter as the proxy battle.
See folio webpages f134, f145, & f177.
Panofsky is able to tell an arbitrary cover-story fairytale (non-purposeful; sloppy, accidental, directionless corruption of prototypes; artists lack intentionality), and then Panofsky acts like that storytelling ability constitutes winning the debate.
But Pan’s arg is a non-sequitur (ie does not follow).
Development from pine to mushroom does not imply purposelessness; development from pine to mushroom proves purposefulness. My assertion is less of a non sequitur; is more compelling.
My storytelling/ interp, artists in this genre purposefully meaning mushrooms and non-branching experience from msh, is detailed and non-arbitrary, and thus compelling: not arb storytelling like Panof’s “development from pine to mushroom”, but effective explanation of these entire images.
Jan Irvin quotes
Irvin uses Hopkins’ synthesis psilocybin caps research findings to prove how great Amanita’s effects are. By silently shell-game redefining the vague, ambiguous term ‘the mushroom’. Just before the image gallery in THM.
Irvin in THM: “Hofmann here writes about psil mushroom, which is irrelevant to THM.”
Irvin: always lists Amanita first, psilocybin as an afterthought in a mere supporting, usually silent, role.
The front & back covers of books ALWAYS splatter Amanita photos + art, NEVER psilocybin photos or art.
“Ruck tries to limit The Mushroom (Amanita) to “Christian mysticism and so-called heretical sects”); that is completely unfounded; see my book AstroSham 2006, which shows there is sufficient evidence that [normal common] Christianity itself is based on entheogens.”
But the Conclusion section of AstroSham 2006 begins: “The secret [Amanita] was guarded and held only by kings, priests, and elites” – so, Irvin deleted that “restricting” sentence from AstroSham 2009.
Irvin 2006 himself tries to limit/ restrict the presence of “entheogens” (by which Irvin means and is thinking of exclusively Amanita only), even though per Irvin 2008, such an assumption of restricting entheogens in Christianity is “completely unfounded”, as Irvin realized after our conversations about Wasson/ Allegro and my conclusion of my Plainc article.
John Lash quotes
“discovery of a lifetime” – trip to Paris 2006/2007?, uploaded May 2008. re: Great Canterbury Psalter.
“I hate Wasson’s stupid theory about spread of Amanita. Cubensis is better.”
“Wasson’s theory, including considerable departures from it” – irrational non-academic framing, to give ALL credit for ALL entheogen ideas as if owned by Wasson and thought of by Wasson – yet Lash rejects Wasson’s Amanita theory.
Thank god no one else uses the locution “Wasson’s theory”.
But see the atrocious quote by Ruck, p 14 ConjEden, “Wasson’s conclusion” [quote] – otoh, see Irvin’s almost as bad attribution of pilzbaum to Allego [quote], as if Allegro wrote anything on the topic, which he didn’t – Irvin’s dirty move to try to falsely give credit to Allegro, to counter Ruck’s dirty move of falsely giving credit to Wasson.
Credit goes to Panofsky / Brinckmann and especially to Samorini; and to Paul Lindgren Great Canterbury Psalter 2000 (cover of Arthur 2000, credited in Conjuring Eden 2001 in Entheos issue 1).
Then credit goes to Lash 2006-2008, then me 2020-2022 decoding leg-hanging mushroom tree f134 (continuing decoding that image into 2024).
Why was entheogen scholarship so slow to inventory Great Canterbury Psalter? b/c entheogen scholars don’t give a sht about psil; they only care about Amanita, and Eadwine has minimal Amanita imagery b/c he strongly prefers Cubensis.
And b/c Great Canterbury Psalter didn’t come online until 2020, color-corrected in 2021, 5 years after I formed hypoth Dancing Man 2 legs mapped to 2 mental worldmodels (possibilism & eternalism) [Xmas 2015 at Egodeath Yahoo Group].
I cannot allow Moses and Jesus to have had Psilocybin mushrooms, bc Christianity and Moses and Jesus are bad.
Allegro and Wasson do not own entheogen scholarship. Stop identifying entheogen scholarship with “Allegro’s theory” or “Wasson’s theory”. It’s not 1970 anymore. Get up to date. Phase 2 began 1997 when Samo announced “next i will cover Panof’s hundreds pilzbaum.”
Andy Letcher quotes
Backtracking: ok we admit we were wrong in negativity; we now admit there IS liberty cap naturally in England. Next he will admit cubensis by same token.
“Bernward door is not secret, therefore not evidence for a secret mushroom cult, therefore not mushroom.”h pp 35-36, Shroom, 2006/2007.
Letcher wrote, in Shroom:
“if the ancient cultures did centralize the use of magic mushrooms they would have depicted this fact in their artwork.
“The trouble is that it is not always easy to tell whether something that looks to us like a mushroom really was intended to be one, and a magic one at that.
“The context in which the art appears is often the only thing that can help us decide, as the following example, taken not from prehistory but from the Middle Ages, demonstrates.
“In Hildesheim in Germany there is a magnificent Gothic cathedral, which is renowned for its pair of cast bronze doors.
“Each contains eight panels depicting biblical images, but one in particular has caught the attention of mushroom theorists, for there, on the right-hand door, is a panel that seems to show human figures dwarfed by what looks extremely like a giant Liberty Cap.”
[sic; not one; several of door/column are discussed in Conjuring Eden – the ISOLATION fallacy]
“Various writers have suggested that this is evidence for a medieval magic mushroom cult persisting secretly in spiite of Christian oppression.
“Some mushroom-loving craftsman must have slipped the mushroom into the image as a hidden but demonstrative gesture of defiance for the benefit of the members of his secret cult.31 [para break, page break to p. 36:]
dk about Gartz, but Stamets’ book p. 15 shows the panel, but does not contain any commentary framing like “secret, hidden” – against Letcher’s claim.
Letcher falsely claims that writers assert Bernward door shows “secret hidden Liberty Cap”. False.
Letcher’s endnote 31, p. 305: “Gartz 1996; Stamets 1996” [no page #s]. dk about Gartz, but Stamets’ book p. 15 shows the panel, but does not contain any commentary framing like “secret, hidden” – against Letcher’s claim.
Stamets only writes this, about the panel picture:
“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 facsimilie of Psilocybe semilanceata, the Liberty Cap or Witches’ Hat Mushroom.”
— p. 15, Stamets, Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World: An Identification Guide, 1996.
No “secret” or “hidden”. The concept of “secret” re: Bernward door 1020 AD is no closer than p. 14 describes “Eleusinian mysteries. … no revelation of the ceremony’s secrets could be mentioned.”
Stamets’ body text and caption don’t associate “secret” with this door.
End Note 33, Henrietta Leyser (Competent Historian on this matter)
End note 33 on p. 305 in Shroom: “Henrietta Leyser, pers. comm.”
Letcher: Ignorant Mycologists should have reached out to consult the art historians, who are competent on this matter
Oh Ho, we have here an instance of “The blithely ignorant mycologists should have consulted art historians, who are competent on this matter [while censored by Wasson at the same time: Panofsky’s strong, double citation of Brinckmann 1906].”
Why “consult”? What does “consult” mean? It means, per end note 33 on p. 305 in Shroom, “pers. comm.” – because the “competent on this matter” art historians wrote NOTHING; PUBLISHED 0 SENTENCES, on this topic/ matter on which they are “competent”.
FALSE CLAIM BY LETCHER RE: CLAIMS OF SECRECY BY MUSHROOM THEORISTS; STRAWMAN FALLACY
misrepresentation of Stamets’ book; & cites (Argument from Authority) “pers. comm.” from Leyser, who provides literalistic reductionistic reading as “tree”
{king hung from tree}
[8:30 am Dec. 4, 2024] {king hung from tree} serves as a way to depict {death}, {king}, and {tree} together. king fastened to wood or hung from tree, like Absalom hung while riding donkey/horse. King Pentheus in a tree, not hung / dead in tree.
Thanks Letcher for the checkable citation 31 that DISPROVES your body text assertion.
Do I have to photograph Stamets’ page to prove it? I transcribed the caption above.
Stamets only says a description of the scene; Stamets presents no “Secret, Hidden” framing regarding the mushroom imagery.
My 2007 book review of Shroom criticized how very little evidence/ images Letcher considered.
I noticed him selecting a few images in isolation, to shoot down each isolated one that he picks, using logical ad hoc fallacies.
“Letcher’s book poses as having shown that the entheogen or mushroom theory of religious origins is nothing but an unjustifiable recent modern fabrication, a popular urban myth. But the book actually discusses only a few pieces of evidence, and very briefly, as the foundation for such a view. The large amount of valuable new commentary he presents on various aspects of modern mushroom history and scholarship obscures his paucity of basic evidence and arguments against the entheogen theory of religion.” – https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-90/#message4578
“One aspect to look for when refuting this book is the “divide, isolate, and diminish” strategy: see whether the author separates into isolation each instance of possible historical or literary evidence for psychoactive use, then state that for each isolated instance, there’s not compelling evidence to support this instance being evidence of religious psychoactive use.”
https://www.academia.edu/9185967/Dr_Andy_Letcher_Making_sense_of_magic_mushrooms – “consideration of how it [the mushroom experience] has been interpreted throughout history. For, contrary to received wisdom, very few cultures have decoded the mushroom as we do. Along the way he will ask whether magic mushrooms bring genuine transcendence, or if the experiences they occasion forever bound by culture.”
How do “we” decode the magic mushroom experience?
1) Writers who lack the Egodeath theory present the following as “science”: “Dread is of ego dissolution. Resisting ego dissolution is the cause of bad trips. The solution is to surrender.”
2) How do pilzbaum artists — via branching-message mushroom trees, {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs — decode the magic mushroom experience? “Relying on branching thinking causes loss of control. Rely on non-branching thinking, to pass through the gate into Eternalism compatibility, the promised land.”
Relying on branching thinking causes loss of control. Rely on non-branching thinking, to pass through the gate into Eternalism compatibility, the promised land.
pilzbaum artists
3) The Egodeath theory decodes the magic mushroom experience as psychedelic eternalism = same decoding as pilzbaum artists, expressed in non-analogy, using analogy to explain.
Psilocybin mushrooms bring genuine transcendence, which is psychedelic eternalism; the experiences that mushrooms cause are not forever bound by culture.
That is proved by the match between:
My 1988 block universe eternalism model of mental model transformation.
Folio webpages f134, f145, & f177 in Great Canterbury Psalter, by Eadwine in 1200 AD.
pp 29-30 of “Conjuring Eden” lists 4 tassel trees (Liberty caps) on the Bernward Column:
Bernward Column Liberty Cap Tree 1
Commissioning of the apostles [16] online pic. https://entheomedia.net/eden2.htmhttps://entheomedia.net/Edenpics2/16commish.jpg. p29 Ruck writes: “First is the Commissioning of the Twelve Apostles, which in itself is significant, seventh [panel] in the series, but the double-branched Tree, missing a limb, also serves for the adjacent previous sixth scene, the Healing of the Leper, with Christ in his role as drug-man. [16][online gallery pic 16] For the Commissioning episode, the missing third branch is supplied by the haloed head of Christ, as if He himself were its Fruit! (Fig. 21)” [see my photo of p. 30 below]
[16] Instance 1 of Bernward Column tassel trees: https://entheomedia.net/Edenpics2/16commish.jpg from https://entheomedia.net/eden2.htm suppl images for Conj Eden article.Photo by Michael Hoffman 5:44 am Dec. 4, 2024 – cut branch points at Jesus’ halo. From Entheos Issue 1, 2001, “Conjuring Eden”, by Mark Hoffman, Carl Ruck, & Blaise Staples. Article not cited in book Shroom (2006 UK) by Andy Letcher. Letcher only considers the 1, isolated Bernward image, from page 15 of Paul Stamets’ book Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World 1996.
thanks for not showing the branching point to check for cut right branch – illiterate modern artists have no idea what they’re looking for.
Bernward Column Liberty Cap Tree 2
Ruck writes: “Next and fourteenth in the series [of panels] is the Transfiguration, a triple Tree, as the eyes of the Disciples are opened to his Divinity. [17]” [online gallery pic 17]
Bernward Column Liberty Cap Tree 3
Ruck continues: “Next and seventeenth is the curious episode of Zacchaeus, the tax collector.121[18] [online gallery pic 18] Wanting to see Jesus but being too short, he climbed a sycamore-fig, a double-tassel tree, and was invited to entertain the Lord in his house. 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. …” [online gallery pic 19]
Ruck continues (p. 30, right column, top): “Finally, immediately next and nineteenth in the series [of panels], the Tree is again the umbrella shade, single-tasseled, for the Healing of the Sick at Gennesaret on the Sea of Galilee.123 … manna …” No pic in issue or online gallery?
[5:44 am Dec 4 2024] discovered cpl things:
1) Letcher Shroom isolates the Blame panel of Bernward, and doesn’t cite Conj Eden. But ConjEden ALSO shows a second mushroom art in Bern: p. 30, “21. Christ Commisssionting the Apostles. Jesus’ haloed head replaces mushroom cap. Bernward Column” –
2) Jesus halo is aimed at by CUT BRANCH. Jesus is made = cut branch. todo: do i have that pic at this site? [added it now, below: photo of Entheos page 30]. An image is mentioned but not shown at https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/05/27/bernward-doors-and-column-hildesheim/ – see “Letcher” at that page, and click the Image Search links there.
That’s a May 27, 2023 page (I’m listening to Egodeath Mystery Show new Ep263b = recorded on May 23, 2023, listening on Dec 4 2024).
[19] [19] Cursing of the Fig Tree, transcript, Bernward Column, Dom, Hildesheim. from https://entheomedia.net/eden2.htm which supplements [bold numbers] Conj Eden article.
See various Bernward pics at https://entheomedia.net/eden2.htm – a couple shown below. Read pp. 29-31 of Conjuring Eden – important notes about meaning of branching.
In “Conjuring Eden” pp. 29-31, Hoffman/Ruck/Staples thinks {cut branch} of pilzbaum means “indication that the person ate the mushroom”.
Actually, mainly, {cut branch} means non-branching, means psychedelic eternalism.
Explain away each instance by ad hoc dismissal of each instance in isolation. Act like a given art work only contains 1 instance – in all Bernward art, only discuss and acknolwedge 1 instance of mushroom imagery.
But “A single instance is an anomaly; two instances is a Pattern. – Cybermonk” Does Shroom cite ConjEden, which covers 2 or 3 instances in Bernward? The Column contains multiple liberty cap trees – add these to the Door Blame scene’s liberty cap tree, that’s at least THREE liberty cap trees =- all with cut branch – by Bernward, not one, per Letcher 2006.
p14 Eden article: “Wasson’s hypothesis … hundreds of pilzbaum … Wasson’s conclusion” – infuriating to me & Irvin, at “conclusion”. Liar!
“Pilzbaum look like mushrooms and that’s what they are, mushrooms and nothing else.”
“This will shut up the deniers: dancing man has a red cap.” [actually, Blue] [file under: Red Shift; Blue/Red balance.]
Samorini quotes
In 1997 article, Samo announced “next i will cover Panof’s hundreds pilzbaum.” I highlighted the passages. Try copypaste from PDF.
Charles Stang quotes
Roland Griffiths admitting MEQ is Unicorns and Rainbows, Directed Stang to Bunk CEQ — oops dropped 18 of 21 Angst effects questions – Dragon 1, Hopkins 0.
Gordon Wasson quotes
“My wife and I were the first to discover The Mushroom [kiddie Amanita] in our own cultural history, ie in India.”
“Panofsky wrote me a letter in 1952, here it is” [while Wasson censors Panofsky’s two strong citations recommending Brinckmann’s “little” 1906 86-page book not in English; 2 photostats showing pilzbaum; half of letter 1; & the existence of letter 2].
“I reached out and consulted the top 18 competent art historians [b/c they wrote 0 sentences about pilzbaum] and was impressed by the celerity with which they all disavowed mushrooms, like trained seals barking.”
todo: make sure add quote from my Plainc article saying “where the f is the citations, Wasson? Panofsky, hello, DO U HAVE CITATIONS while u lecture us aggressively calling mycologists “ignorant” for failing to “consult” the “competent” art historians on “this matter of art”.
CITATION NEEDED, WASSON (holding hand over mouth of academic Panofsky trying to urge REAL consulting: an actual citation!! no way! called it, in 2006 (or very nearly nailed it: i was right in both partrs of “or”: either:
A. There are no writings about pilzbaum to cite.
B. The pilzbaum writings are so pathetic, practically nothing, it’s nothing to help pilzbaum Deniers. (better suppress -Wasson)
C. Wasson failed to pass on the highly expected citations to back up Panofsky’s huge, aggressive claim, “yes we know, it’s nothing new, we already call them pilzbaum, so we’re all over it. We’ve figured it out. It’s trees.” Any scholar would instantly say: CITATION NEEDED. Panofsky wouldn’t even think of making such a definite claim without backing it up – I reasoned in 2006,
I bet there is ALMOST NO publications by “competent on this matter of art” art historian Authorities who bark forth the trained correct answer:
I DISAVOW PILZBAUM! QUICKLY!
⏱
Panofsky would HAVE to provide citations – but I doubt there are any texts to cite.
The trick-word stunt, the word “consult” suddenly means typing out a letter, or phoning your local “competent art historian” in person —
“Library research citations, what? Brink-who, never heard of him. 🤷♂️ and, you ignorant mycologist, you failed to consult a competent art historian! (and stop looking for citations to consult).” -Wasson 🤥🤞 Bluffer
🤷♂️ 🤥🤞
🥱 🥱
OH YEAH PILZBAUM WE KNOW ,TOTALLY BORINGLY FAMILIAR 🥱🥱 , “CONSULT” YOUR LOCAL ART EXPERT WHO WILL BARK AS TRAINED, “NOT MUSHROOM! DISAVOW! DISAVOW!”
Pad out those poor-quality, vague endnote citations with worthless Experts names! all barking in unison, “I DISAVOW PILZBAUM, QUICKLY!”
end note 43: “pers. corr.”
b/c the impressive author “reached out to consult” the Authority, since nothing was published by the Authority to properly CONSULT their ACADEMIC FINDINGS PUBLISHED IN WRITING, available through the library.
“Reach out and consult” means: We got nothin’, just sheer, committed, pilzbaum Denial.
We’ll readily dehumanize painters as broken-down copying machinery with no intentionality or ownership or artist freedom, and passively the art world came to accept this development — in this one case, to prop up our special-case commitment to: Never pilzbaum!
Bust out your stopwatch – can u pls bark forth FASTER the literalist Correct Response: its totally a tree, and that’s that. – those on the outside, impressed by the celerity with which they barked the “competent” reply ie reductionist OSC-based literalist, emphatically 1-dimensional – when it comes to the unique specific case of pilzbaum.
Any absurdity and empty posturing is preferable to pilzbaum!
No special case exception for pilzbaum requiring special handling in this one case.
Otherwise, we take a rich flexible approach, except for special case of pilzbaum – MUST HAVE 1-D FLATTENED MODEL OF ART, TO SHUT OUT The Mushroom [🍄😱] [picture kiddie amanita].
In other topics, Einstein-level sophistication and flexibility of multi-dimensional art interpretation – as long as it’s OSC-based and down to earth like Huggins advocates flatland OSC-exclusive emphatic literalism.
In the special case of pilzbaum, all the rules for art research change, as needed.
“Consult” citations? No, in this special case only, consult via typewriter & telephone.
Requires special handling, this pilzbaum topic.
The rules for art interpretation have changed accordingly, momentarily, for the special case of pilzbaum.
Re: non-pilzbaum topics, look how sophisticated the scholar!
Look at the feigned idiocy when it comes to the special case of pilzbaum – then only, we must have a 1D, dumbed-down, artist-insulting failure to grasp the basics of art interpretation (when pilzbaum is the topic).
Why don’t pilzbaum Deniers care at all about making sound args that can stand up to pushback and critique.
It’s all obvious logical fallacies, when it comes to pilzbaum.
The pilzbaum Deniers try to dwell on text, to constrain the artist in this special case, and the Deniers make the poorest args, based on super-obvious logical fallacies:
The topic of pilzbaum is the mother lode of spawning logical fallacies, an endless stream of logical fallacies burped forth as if “argument” into the ether, not suited for 2-way pushback, just propagated-out, broadcast 1-way, logical fallacies.
Pilzbaum Deniers transmit their ill-formed quasi-argument, presented as if argumentation, but is half silent presuppositions, a solid foundation of logical fallacies; a GALLERY OF FOLLY when it comes to pilzbaum, only.
eg Robert Bigbrain Price, Grand Lead Editor of Journal of Critical Theoretical Thinking, became an incompetent idiot when Acharya S affirmed Allegro’s SMC.
Robert M. Price then became a scrawling first-grader, failing basic scholarship, when The Mushroom rears its head.
🍄😱 📚💥🖋
Even though Price agreed w/ Allegro re: ahistoricity of Jesus.
Who went against that or me… Brown, who disrespects Allegro – more than one person disresects Ahistoricity?
Who puts down Ahistoricity? Brown, who else?
IS ANYONE OTHER THAN BROWN DISRESPECTING AHISTORICITY OF JESUS AND TREATING IT AS A LIABILITY?
Is Brown alone in treating the ahistoricity of Jesus theory as if it’s a liability? ew, yuck, that’s an ALLEGRO idea, I disavow! Disavow!”
… from above re: Panofsky:
Brinckmann you recommend twice? (better suppress this lead – Wasson Fake Academic Play-Actor, BOGUS Feigning manipulator Wasson “FATHER OF BUNKNESS IN ACADEMICS“
I updated my annotations in SOMA by Wasson, pics below, now that I know (and no longer have to speculate like in 2006) exactly how this passage about Panofsky is lying propaganda for deception.
There is much-deserved, written cussing in my SOMA book copy below, & here 🤬 – the purpose of not cussing is to cuss better, as needed.
I refuse to re-adjudicate points I already proved way back in 2006. Pilzbaum Deniers, read my 69-page article/book on the Plaincourault fresco.
My article ends with a call to ignore this entire unproductive, debate-avoiding FARCE and move forward productively, with the “secret Amanita cult” theory left in the dust as an irrelevant obstruction and dancing around the topic.
Deniers of Pilzbaum have forfeited ALL CREDIBILITY: they are stooping to lying and fraud.
Pilzbaum Affirmers are marching forward productively, leaving the pilzbaum Deniers to tilt at the Pop “secret Amanita cult” theory; both of those parties are irrelevant throwbacks stuck in 1970, irrelevant for the future of entheogen scholarship.
Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article failed to condemn Wasson for censoring Panofsky’s two letters, & failed to credit Brown.
Huggins’ excuse: Wasson’s denial didn’t stop pop Amanita books later.
Huggins thus condones & participates in lying and censorship, and has NO credibility.
Huggins 2024 shamelessly presents a “false dilemma” Conclusion section: “Literal mushroom, or literal tree? Which is it?”
Huggins: “Why don’t pilzbaum Affirmers care at all about citation accuracy?”
Hoffman: “Why don’t pilzbaum Deniers care at all about good argumentation?”
Because pilzbaum Deniers think they are merely arguing against the junk pop Secret Amanita paradigm.
Huggins failed to cite my 2006 article or Browns’ 2019 article that delivered-over Panofsky’s censored articles.
Huggins cites the Wasson archive drawer folder, to avoid crediting Browns & to excuse the huge problem, that his fellow Deniers are academic frauds and phonies, who have NO written publications about pilzbaum, for all their empty posturing and chastising (while censoring their lone, pathetic, thin publication – in the singular).
The pilzbaum Deniers are unequipped to debate the concept of the Explicit Cubensis paradigm, or any neutral set of Christians simply using entheogens, without dragging in the unhelpful concept of “secret cult”.
Deniers say “Why no texts?”
Good question: Why have “competent” art historians written NO PUBLICATIONS about pilzbaum?
Why did Wasson censor the one, single, outdated, “little”, flimsy publication?
WHERE ARE THE TEXTS ABOUT PILZBAUM BY COMPETENT ART HISTORIANS?
The Deceivers, I mean the Deniers, forfeit the debate; they are bad faith arguers who condone Wasson’s academic fraud & deception.
Wasson was caught red-handed DECEIVING people and insulting mycologists while deceptively, repeatedly stabbing them in the back by withholding the Brinckmann citation that was TWICE urged by Panofsky.
Where does Wasson mention TWO letters and the 1st had two pilzbaum pics attached?
This is a great example of LYING by omission.
5 Things Censored in Panofsky by Deceiver Wasson, Lying by Omission
Brinckmann citation 1.
A 990 miniature showing the start of development from pine to mushroom
A 1200s glass painting showing an emphatic mushroom crown/ cap
Letter 2.
Brinckmann citation 2.
Every word Wasson writes about “consult” is an evil manipulative lie & deception, otherwise Wasson would have provided LIBRARY PUBLICATION CITATIONS.
Wasson’s lying, deceptive bluff & talk of “consult” is deep chicanery and dissimulation.
Totally improper anti-academic practice.
Totally non-standard academic practice, specially for pilzbaum only.
For no other topic are we directed, stopwatch in hand, to measure the impressive celerity with which they QUICKLY bark the trained correct response, “I DISAVOW pilzbaum!”
What bad direction (misdirection) from Wasson, to “consult” personally the top authorites. Wildly inappropriate and nonstandard.
Where is the damn citation, Wasson, liar, deceiver?!
Shut up about “consult” and HAND OVER THE FLIMSY CITATION – busted Wasson, FRAUD.
Art historians are allegedly “competent”, yet they have written NOTHING on the topic?
Then they are incompetent!
Cough up the damn citation & two pilzbaum, JERK!
Instead of lecturing “you failed to consult”.
Why in the hell would I bother & phone & write & harass & interrogate art historians, when they are so manifestly ignorant & incompetent, they write NOTHING on this topic?
Or we discover how PATHETIC the writings of the competent art historians: a single “little” book, way outdated 1906, not even in English.
THIS is the foundation for “consulting” the “competent” authorities?
Brinckmann shows development from pine to mushroom, which PROVES the purposelessness of the mushroom imagery.
Development proves pilzbaum can’t mean mushroom.
n o n
s e q u i t u r
Also, branching proves that our ‘pilzbaum’ (art historians’ descriptor) don’t look at all like mushrooms.
– unless art purposes psychedelic eternalism as non-branching, per branching-message mushroom trees; {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs together integrated.
What bull shit! 🐮💩🍄🟫 GTFO fraud Wasson,
the Father of Deception About European Ethnomycology
As I wrote in 2006, in my Plaincourault article; Find “citation” there.
Wasson’s reputation has been cast into the Lake of Fire 🔥
CITATION FKKING NEEDED, JERK WASSON FRAUD
SOMA 1968, by Liar Deceiver Wasson, Anti-Academic
Cybermonk Dec 2, 2024
mind those ellipses … <–
Compare:
Line 3 of the Panofsky excerpt, “unknown of course to mycologists. . . .“
Line 3 of the next paragraph, “refrained from consulting the art world”:
“It comes about by the gradual schematization of the impressionistically rendered Italian pine tree in Roman and Early Christian painting, and there are hundreds of instances exemplifying this development – unknown, of course, to mycologists. [replaced by …:] If you are interested, I recommend a little book by A. E. Brinckmann, Die Baumdarstellung im Mittelalter (or something like it), where the process is described in detail. 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. What the mycologists have overlooked is that the medieval artists hardly ever worked from nature but from classical prototypes which in the course of repeated copying became quite unrecognizable.”
Wasson replaced the highlighted content by ellipses while at the very same time berating mycologists as ignorant and needing to “consult” art historians, as a pretense; a bluff; a put-on; an affectation, to deceive and obstruct investigation.
Dating My Handwriting
mixed-case handwriting = 1991-2007; shown is 2006.
Download for only 3 days starting Dec. 1, 2024: https://we.tl/t-yTb0RVzdYT I might refresh the download link on Dec. 4, because it changed from 7 days to only 3 days, and it’s a good 4-hour episode. Files: Four 1-hour voice mp3’s (parts a, b, c, d), & 1 guitar .mp3 (part G, 5 minutes):
Part A: “Ep263a Lions Paw Eustace 🌳🐾🦁👼🤚.mp3”, len 53:38
Part B: “Ep263b Lions Paw Eustace 🌳🐾🦁👼🤚.mp3”, len 57:17
Part C: “Ep263c Lions Paw Eustace 🌳🐾🦁👼🤚.mp3”, len 54:40
Part D: “Ep263d Lions Paw Eustace 🌳🐾🦁👼🤚.mp3”, len 1:00:42
Part G: “Ep263G Lions Paw Eustace 🌳🐾🦁👼🤚.mp3”, len 5:06 (two parts; first half says Egodeath Mystery Show)
Good stereo room miking.
4 hours of voice recording with Great Content, Delivery, and Miking
This recording is valuable: I’m at a peak of reviewing scholarship about the Secret Amanita paradigm reviewing books including:
McKenna – Food of the Gods – what is his view about Wasson’s theory of the “secret Amanita cult” spread? What is his view about Allegro? He doesn’t cite Ruck.
Letcher – Good/bad book Shroom, conflating the versions of the “secret Amanita cult” theory held by different scholars, with the general idea of Christian mushroom use. 4 specific critiques, conflated with broad dismissal.
Wasson’s views
Ruck’s views, maybe less than the above.
Perfect, photo of scholarship May 27, 2023: In publishing order: exceptions:
it’s a stack of 3 issues of Entheos,
AstroSham is 2006 on top, 2009 2nd ed. underneath.
John Rush is 2nd Ed ~2022, placed as if 2011.
Not shown is Freke & Gandy The Jesus Mysteries 1999 I think – highly influential for me in 1999 upon entering entheogen scholarship. Has only a half page on entheogens, b/c publisher censored (per my in-person, underground meeting with them) – DO NOT CROSS THE ALLEGRO STREAMS OF AHISTORICITY AND ENTHEOGENS! Freke also wrote about no-free-will in one of his books, and more about entheogens / psychedelics in another book.
Recorded as 4.5 continuous hours of voice recording with Great Content, Delivery, and Miking
The original recording is a single 4.5-hour tracking session, that ran over the 3:22:00 length to create 2nd .wav file, contiguous.
So there is not much reason to say which of the two .wav files made it into part a/b/c/d.
It’s a single recording session later manually broken up into 4 pieces.
Content, Files, Timestamps
Content of parts a-d is initially unknown, other than notes below and in Corruption of Art webpage.
Part B: 30:00 – the the “secret Amanita cult” theory is actually Sociology theory / Anthropology theory disguised as entheogen scholarship.
These writers’ driving main purpose is to recite the Oppressor/Oppressed narrative, the evil Prohibitionist Mainstream Church vs. the good Psychedelic Counterculture Heretics.
The topic of psychedelics and repeal is merely a means to that end.
Repeal of Prohibition is ignored b/c it doesn’t help emphasize the main point & motivation of the Secret Amanita writers, which is the permanent narrative of Oppressor/Oppressed.
We can even allow the oppressor elites to have Secret Amanita:
Quote the Conclusion section’s sentence 1 in Irvin 2006 AstroSham: “Mystery entheogens were always held secret for kings, priests, and the elite.”
Irvin deleted that sentence from 2nd Ed of AstroSham after Irvin’s lecturing [THM p. 105, 2008] against Ruck’s “attempt to restrict entheogens” which is “completely unfounded; Christianity [mainstream] itself is based on entheogens.”
Quote later Ruck Effluents of Deity where Ruck switches from allowing his Heretical Sects from having Secret Amanita, to now assigning Secret Amanita to elites withholding their secret from the oppressed masses of normal lay Christians.
Part A: “Ep263a Lions Paw Eustace 🌳🐾🦁👼🤚.mp3”, len 53:38
0:00 – Intro. “76 intro VOX_TK_5476”. Guitar for 19 s, then add voice: “Egodeath Mystery Show. with Cybermonk. leading edge. May 23, 2023. sites”
1:03 – What am I up to? Wishing for details about Saint Eustace Crossing the River. ~
5:00 –
10:00 –
12:00 – Why do they ALWAYS say “cults”, “cult”???? WTF! What is the functional purpose of all entheogen scholars ALWAYS writing “cults”, “sects”, “communities”, “societies”, “initiates group”.
Are we doing ANTHROPOLOGY, or ENTHEOGENS – or the PSYCHEDELICS topic?
An exercise in identify formation for the scholar, as W Hanegraaff criticizes? Scholars who fail to be scientific pretend to do history about “them”, but are actually doing an exercise in self-definition. Esotericism and the Academy book by WH.
It never crossed my mind to use the word ‘cult’. My success was because of not using such overhead complications. “Cult” means to them, religiuos use that is not institutionalized, …
Why is my thinking not contaminated by all this confusion, though everyone in the field is thoroughly infected by this mental handicap?
Inferior entheogen scholars always use odd “singular” telltale: “the cult”, “the mushroom”, “the theory”.
15:00 –
McKenna exposes Wasson admitting that Amanita never worked for him. Was a disappointment, and does not support his theories at all. Just as I’ve said.
Theorists get hypnotized by their own ritual retelling of their tales every day. Repeat the narrative until you brainwashed yourself.
Letcher says he had to plaster Amanita pics on his book cover, bc that art sells books.
19:00 – what narrative is Letcher, Allegro, Wasson, McKenna, Ruck narrative?
The Bernward Debacle for Letcher and the Field
This field is not about psychedelics.
The degnerate field of entheogen scholarship is all about Secrecy; entheogens = Secrecy.
Let’s just discard entheogens, and like Letcher, debate & reason & argue only in terms of Secrecy.
Was Secrecy, or was secrecy not? That’s the debate, to them – it’s not a debate about entheogens.
Bad entheogen scholars reason based on Secrecy, not based on Mushrooms.
28:00 – Irvin in THM 2008 had to go out of his way to tell ppl to drop the Secrecy component.
Conflation of Secrecy Has Been Conflated with Entheogens
Entheogens and secrecy have been disastrously conflated.
The worst Letcher arg’n ever.
Critical Analysis, argumentation about Bernward doors, a broad-ranging correction of the field of entheogen scholarship , is found here in Letcher’s mistreatment of Bernward door:
The world is divided; Letcher imagines that both debaters agree the way the world is structured/ divided: a perpetual battle between psychedelic underground vs. mainstream institutional Prohibitionists.
This is taken as the permanent state of reality; how reality divides.
Letcher, Hatsis, Huggins, and I criticize the field of entheogen scholarship — there’s too much junk clogging the field, at odds purposes – what are we trying to accomplish? Effective Repeal?
The field of entheogen scholarship is overrun by a shared presupposition that the main way the world is structured is divided as an opposition between TWO GROUPS OF People: mainstream institutional prohibitionists; the counterculture underground cult.
Was there transcendent experiences
Everyone is weaving sky castles and then getting lost in them.
“Amanita = Europe; Psilocybin = Americas”.
History = drama tale of battle/ opposition/ division between mainstream institutional prohibitionists vs. the counterculture underground cult.
Do not use concept of “counterculture”, or “mainstream”, or combination.
underground counterculture cult heretical sects
These narratives are fake, not real.
Throw Your Drama Social Narratives in the Trash Can, you don’t care about the chemical effects. Two opposed social groups, is your presupposition.
What narratives are entheogen scholars pushing?
The Master Shared Paradigm: Dividing the World, as “Secret Amanita vs. Mainstream Prohibition”
25:00 – Ruck is interested in Secret, not Amanita; Amanita is merely a means to the end, of Secret.
therefore Bernward Door can’t have them inserted secretly, therefore, not mushrooms
John Rush 2nd Ed, back of book: contradictory two narratives.
Make 3 assertions, but then give a general narrative that contradicts those 3 detailed assertions.
the narrative completely contradicts the specifics. “Church got rid of entheogens. AND, evidence A, B, & C of mushrooms in the Church.”
20:00 –
21:00 – Letcher book Shroom is pretty good if keep track of who he is critiquing: Letcher criticizes Wasson re: point X. Letcher criticizes Allegro re: point X. Letcher criticizes Ruck re: point X. Letcher criticizes McKenna re: point X. Letcher criticizes general theory of Christianity history entheogens use.
McKenna criticizes Wasson re: point X. McKenna criticizes Allegro re: point X. McKenna criticizes Ruck[?] re: point X. check index of Food of the Gods for “Ruck”: nothing! A good Biblio, lots of entries, well-read – yet no Ruck!
In mid-2023, it was great to re-read the books & articles while keeping track of the above distinctions.
25:00 – Why does everyone but me TALK WEIRD? I have a domain-appropriate conceptual vocabulary.
30:00 –
35:00 –
40:00 –
45:00 – Letcher’s book Shroom rebuts 5 theories:
Wasson’s scenario – on p. __, Letcher specifically rebuts Allegro’s version of the “secret Amanita cult” theory. A single Amanita cult spread from Ural mountains from a single cult. John Lash dislikes this theory, despite being an extreme fanboi of Wasson; Lash accepts some nauseatingly broad conception of “the Wasson theory” (any ideas of entheogens ever, by anyone — and its opposite — comes from Wasson and belongs to Wasson – including “theories that are a considerable departure from Wasson’s theory”), yet Lash totally dismisses this as “Wasson’s specific theory”.
Allegro’s scenario – on p. __, Letcher specifically rebuts Allegro’s version of the “secret Amanita cult” theory.
Ruck’s scenario – on p. __, Letcher specifically rebuts Ruck’s version of the “secret Amanita cult” theory.
McKenna’s scenario – on p. __, Letcher specifically rebuts McKenna’s version of the “secret Amanita cult” theory.
The General Theory abstracted from those four authors: on p. __, Letcher generally rebuts a generalized version of the “secret Amanita cult” theory.
What is the narrative from SMC Allegro, about … Even Allegro covers psilocybin. Schoarlship shifted: 1952 Panof, 1957 Russia Wasson book, 1968 SOMA, 1970 Allegro. By 1970, in Europe context, theorizing was still exclusively in terms of Amanita in Europe, never Psilocybin mushrooms. EUROPE MUSHROOM = AMANITA.
— until Samorini 1996-1997-1998, put equial emph on Psil & Aman.
48:00 – What is Wasson’s narrative about the relation of the spread of “the secret Amanita cult”, to get to his America tradition of Psilocybin?
Read McKenna 1992 FotG critqiue of Wasson
Read Lash’s critique of “Wasson’s specific theory” (ie Amanita cult spread), which Lash rejects and dislikes/resents.
50:00 – Wasson had relations with a woman in U.S., who reported that the Secret Amanita Cult spread from the Ural mountains to the U.S. Letcher, and maybe everyone, ridicules this theory – and act like they’ve disproved as the same thing, mushrooms in Europe Christianity history, conflating that most-general scenario with Wasson’s narrowest scenario.
That forms a Motte-and-Bailey fallacy:
The worthless Motte, easy to defend, is rejection of the “secret Amanita cult” spread theory. Any scholar can easily reject the theory of spread of a secret Amanita cult.
The wished-to-defend Bailey is rejection of the entire idea of Europe Christianity history use of mushrooms. No one is able to make a credible rejection of all mushroom use in Europe Christianity history; Deniers are forced to use logical fallacies.
53:38 – end
The Right foot of lion in “Saint Eustace Crossing the River”, the lion’s Right paw/foot was touching the branching tree of the YI Cubensis tree pair — isn’t that bad? The non-branching Cube tree on the right is good, and the branching Cube tree on the left is bad?
Errata for Part A
No silence at end; abrupt end in mid-sentence.
Part B: “Ep263b Lions Paw Eustace 🌳🐾🦁👼🤚.mp3”, len 57:17
0:00 –
2:00 – everyone agrees cow is holy bc psilocybin. Those entheogen scholars however, never assert the absurd “there are no cubensis on cow dung in England” – who is willing to think and assert that? No one has thought to look into it.
In Great Canterbury Psalter f134 Row 2 Right, I didn’t think to look at the mushroom dispensary bin; I assumed it was wheat, and never looked at it, for years while studying the picture.
5:00 Ep263b – Deceptive folk tale factoid “no Cubensis in Europe/England”. Everyone just knows this, no one dare say such nonsense directly.
McKenna wrote in Food of the Gods, nobody can figure out why there’s no Psilocybin mushroom in Europe, but there’s tons and tons of Secret Amanita Cult there.
That’s because it’s bullshitical nonsense!
Folk tales of the entheogen scholars – as Letcher Hatsis Huggins himself exclaims and battles against.
SCIENCE IS WAY OVERESTIMATED; WE DON’T KNOW SHIITE; WE DON’T HAVE ANY CONCLUSIONS ABOUT ANYTHING; the field of entheogen scholarship is way overconfident about “what everyone knows”.
Everyone is wrong about everything.
Didn’t you get the memo? Our Tradition Is 3rd-Rate, Secret Amanita 🤫🍄
10:00 Ep263b – a spread of an ancient underground Secret Amanita cult
Faddish Thinking, Unthinking Meme Hosts
12:00 Ep263b – entheogen scholars, confabulators of history, what the hell does your word “cult” supposed to mean? What am I expected to picture?
wtf are you talking about so confidently?
What are you employing obsessed by this word “cult”, or “counterculture”, or “underground” in the same manner as you employ “cult”.
All of these hypothetical confabulated constructions, and Letcher employs same terms, “cult”, socially shared abstractions that everybody other than me seems to be in on this shared, common lexicon.
My expl: You are all watching tv and hypnozing each other, and left out of your guyses confusion. “cult”??
You are all spreading memes to each other, free-floating baseless conceptual constructs.
You’re all hypnotizing each other drifting off in a circle lost,
The “Social Conflict” Paradigm of Entheogen Scholarship
18:00 Ep263b –
Telling your stock, fabricated construct stories, folk tale narratives of the entheogen scholars: “secret cult tradition mainstream counterculture underground” – ALL IRRELEVANT. The less used, the better the vision.
Presentism, literalist OSC-based reading.
Read Letcher’s critique of “cultural evolution” in Shroom
Letcher’s critique of : Allegro & especially Wasson employed an already outdated academic construct called “cultural evolution” – read Shroom re: that term.
18:00 Ep263b – writing thousands of books by all exoteric thinkers, all sharing a massive category error, the Genre Question: historical reportage? or description of psychedelic eternalism in terms of …. entheogen scholarship is driven by a paradigm of “social conflict”
20:00 Ep263b –
30:00 –
40:00 –
50:00 –
54:00 Ep263b – Is Ruck asserting that Amanita is the engine of mixed wine mystery religion initiation? Mixed messages between his splattering Amanitas all over their book covers.
All authors are confused about what they are asserting: often they sell the narrative VERY forcefully, many examples Rutajit “Amanita is the most powerful thing EVAR” (no credibility).
Ruck: “They used Amanita. Or any junk they could get ahold of.”
What is your story? Conflicting narratives.
Book covers have extreme narrative pushing Amanita The Secret Magic Holy Sacred Mushroom:
King of the Entheogens for Exoteric Esotericists 🙌 👑🍄🤫
1:00:00 Ep263b –
A social drama narrative is the only thing the Secret Amanita entheogen scholars care about – not Psychedelics or Repeal of Prohibition.
Social fantasy words (“secret”, “heretical sects”) prevent comprehending sheer presence of Psilocybin in W Culture; Christian history, Christendom.
Letcher Hatsis Huggins is correct that Pop theory of Secret Amanita needs to be disproved. That is NOT the same thing as disproving or addressing the distinct position/theory, Explicit Cubensis, per Samorini 1997, Michael Hoffman 2002, Browns 2016. which is a different, better version of the “mushrooms in Christian art” theory.
The “mushrooms in Christian art” theory.
Secret Amanita theory – cult, spread, Wasson, rejected by John Lash as “Wasson’s specific theory”.
Explicit Cubensis theory
Debunking of the mere Secret Amanita theory pretends to be debunking of the “mushrooms in Christian art” theory. They are not the same – narrow vs general. A different narrow/specific version of the mushroom in Christian art theory is Explicit Cubensis, which has NOT been addressed by the pop-trash-level “debunkers” – cheap Letcher, cheap Hatsis, cheap Huggins.
Trash-Huggins arg’n covers up Wasson’s ACADEMIC FRAUD CENSORSHIP. TAKE Takeaway: Deniers have to stoop to deception, censorship, and deviant academic method “The ignorant mycologists ought to have reached out to consult competent art historians” — instead of the proper, COUGH UP THE DAMN CITATIONS/PILZBAUM ELECTROSTATS FROM PANOFSKY, WASSON! the Father of Obstructing European Ethnomycology.
Which narrative are you guys (Secret Amanita tale-tellers) pushing:
The Mainstream Prohibitionists oppressed the Psychedelic Heretics
The Elite oppressed the Lay and withheld the secret Amanita from the oppressed lay masses (AstroSham 2006, Ruck: Effluents of Deity 2012)
Lash is a Psilo guy. He’s against Wasson’s Secret Amanita story-tale fairytale narrative fantasy. Lash is a debunker of Secret Amanita – and an advocate of Explicit Cubensis (article “Discovery of a Lifetime”; series of 5+3 articles).
Does Lash employ the “secret” or “suppression” concepts/ would-be explanatory constructs? How well does Lash fit my Explicit Cubensis paradigm?
the Secret Amanita paradigm [SAP]
the Explicit Cubensis paradigm [ECP]
“ForagedWild wrote review: 1 of 5 stars – Where is the DVD? Reviewed July 12, 2023 – I really like the book but it was shipped without the DVD. It’s an integral piece of this work. I wish I would have read the book when I bought it, but never got around to it until over a year later, only to notice that it’s missing the DVD, like other reviewers have mentioned. Really sucks to spend this much on a book and DVD, only to get half your order.”
Brown 2019 article wrote “Ruck book has no gallery of images”. I wrote recently: Isn’t this an other Brown mistake? Book’s blurb says “DVD”, isn’t that gallery? Answer: There’s no DVD, despite the blurb. d/k if I own this book.
27:00 – End the field of “entheogen scholarship” which is actually secret entheogen scholarship. –as Irvin and I discussed 2006 and Irvin wrote 2008 in THM: we must separate, not conflate, the question of secret usage vs sheer usage.
Stop welding together the “secrecy” idea & the entheogens idea. Stop studying history of “secret use of entheogens”; just study the history of “use of entheogens”.
Don’t leverage the word “secret”, “cult”, “heretical sects”, “mainstream” or “counterculture”. per the Secret Amanita paradigm (two versions:
The mainstream Prohibitionists elites suppressed heretical psychedelics underground “groups”.
Voiced by Ruck 2001a & b: article Conjuring Eden in Entheos Issue 1, “Daturas for the Virgin” in Entheos Issue 2 2001.
secret elites withheld psychedelics, suppressing the non-psychedelic lay masses.
Voiced by Irvin AstroSham 2006, Ruck Effluents of Deity 2012.
40:00 Ep263b – critique of Dittrich’s dimension name, “Dread of Ego Dissolution” [DED], “Angst of Ego Dissolution” [AED]. “ego dissolution” too vague. not helpful. not false, but not helpful. Engineering communication can do better. Highly inadequate. “Psilocybin dissolves the ego boundary.” vague crude folk theory. inadequate, not helpful.
“Pscilobyin dissolves the ego boundary; resisting causes bad trip; Surrender”
That’s Not Wrong, But it’s not helpful/ useful.
Your Theory Sucks, Because Your Theory is not useful; it’s Not Helpful; Not Relevant
Ep263b
You have only merely begun explaining the dynamics.
The Reference effects are ergot & Psilocybin. What I say about Liquid or Psilocybin is same.
PSILOCYBIN SUGAR CUBE
43:30 Ep263b – What is the cognitive effect of Psilocybin? Evidence reports from 1000 AD to 2023 now, here is the cognitive effect of psil: causes STAND ON RIGHT FOOT.
Loose Cog makes you explore the threat of control loss that drives mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism
from: analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control to: literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control
Christopher Partridge’s Gap-Filled False History of Contemporary Psychedelics, Criticized by Hanegraaff & Cybermonk
45:00 Ep263b – awful eliminative periodization – Wouter Hanegraaff criticizes C Partridge’s bad periodization regurgitating propaganda.
Hane’s list of things CP omitted; my list of same.
per CP, there was ONLY sugar cubes in 1967, then no psychedelics. Then blotter in 1975, then no psychedelics. Then 1990s, MDMA. then nothing. Then the next pop peak trend according to such story telling. and then no one uses psychedelics.
That’s Modern Psychedelics History according to the Moderate/Minimal Entheogen Theory of Religion.
Skip, skip, skip psychedelic newage, skip 1970s/1980s Psychedelic Shamanism; skip the blotter Rock Lyrics 1964-1994, 30 years of blotter-powered and sugar-cube powered lyrics describing the loose cog eternalism state. non-branching eternalism state with 2-level, dependent control.
The completed perfected initiate is made non-dying, athanatos, able to enter through the loose cog gate and retain viable personal control as virtual-only agent, locus of intention and effort and will and steering.
Able to move yourself through virtual branching eternalism steering of control, while known virtual-only;
Dependent control, uncontrollable thought-injector, fountain of control-thoughts in the frozen rock cave
You get used to it, learn Balance, learn to HAVE egoic thinking and USE that, but in an adult mature way, a transcendent thinking way.
Per early Ken Wilber, “you” differentiate “yourself” from lower thinking, the egoic control system.
You continue to effectively USE child thinking but not “rely” ultimately on that; rely on the true actual upstream Source of control.
The ‘Source’ is a Hanegraaff word in his 2022 psychedelic hermetism book.
The uncontrollable Source of control thoughts perceived in the loose-cog Heimarmene experiential state.
Michael Hoffman – Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity
Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity
Wouter Hanegraaff
washed in the uncontrollable Fountain of thoughts flowing from the non-branching tree.
Philosophers Beside the Tree – Splendor Solis
3 versions of S. S. – I COULD DO BETTER. MOAR MUSHROOM, MOAR CUT RIGHT BRANCH, MOAR WEIGHT-ON-RIGHT-FOOT
[Dec 3 2024 8:30 pm seems deeper water river grokking] Washed in the fountain at river from king tree trunk crowned.
Solve branching puzzle, get dragon, penetrate shell of eternalism heimarmene snake-bounded cosmic rock egg Amanita egg form stage
Ruck’s Mithras article in Entheos 3, 2002.
Mithras born from Ulansey’s cosmic rock bounded by zodiac star groups penetrated by Mithras,
Mithras is born from Amanita in egg stage form = cosmic heimarmene Rock = heimarmene snake frozen in rock / bounding the cosmic rock bounded by zodiac/ celestial sphere; penetrate that, SALVATION, CLEANSING, HEALING, WASHED CLEAN.
AstroSham 2006
Ep263b
Bottom has washing pool bath
Mushrooms at Feet
Hanging on Cut Right Branch, Statuary Pool Gate
Ep263b
the whole thing is a gateway [9:07 pm Dec 3 2024] – in this version, gate is close to viewer, before bath; other versions, the gate is the back wall, for less effect.
Observed the gate imagery in that version after thinking about:
statue women rulers washed to marble statuary
moving statue authorized rulers in conformity with eternalism loose cog psychedelic eternalism control restabilization.
authorized rulers in conformity with eternalism loose cog psychedelic eternalism control restabilization
eternalism loose cog psychedelic eternalism control restabilization
loose cog eternalism
psychedelic eternalism
control restabilization based on eternalism
control restabilization based on loose-cognitive psychedelic eternalism
The Uncontrollable Fountain of Control-Thoughts
Ep263b
Thoughts Washing Personal Control Clean and Healed in Right Controllership
the Psilocybin Teacher of Cybernetic Righteousness
Golden Teacher of Righteousness
eternalism loose cog psychedelic eternalism control restabilization
restabilizing control so as to become compatible with the Test State of Consciousness:
to test your cleanness of control thinking, restabilize personal control on the basis of non-branching, rather than branching. Affirm non-branching; rely on non-branching eternalism block universe frozen time heimarmene time timeless superdeterminism block Rock; marble snake sculpted on a marble zodiac rock with Mithras born forth and turning the zodiac aside, breaking heimarmene fatedness; and lifting Sol up in a psychedelic mad loosecog banquet. Trans-rational to control based on the fountain of thoughts
Quote
Ep263b
Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.
Rev 22:14
Crown = YOU ARE AN AUTHORIZED WASHED-CLEAN BY TREE RULER STEERSMAN CYBERNETICIST
PSYCHEDELIC CYBERNETICIST
ENLIGHTENED ABOUT CYBERNETICS IN THE LOOSE COG STATE – literally stand on right foot; stand on eternalism non-branching.
Stand Right Foot on Ground of Non-branching, to Keep Control; Left Foot on Ground of Branching Possibilities Causes Loss of Control
Ep263b
ETERNALISM CYBERNETICS
Rev 22:14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.”
You end up with full ability to assert yourself – as authorized cleansed virtual ego agent, laboring every day under egoic control steering power, even if consciously virtual-only.
90% of psychedelics history is skipped by Chris Partridge.
A terrible job of doc’ing Pop Cult, in his book Contemp Esotericism.
More gaps than presences.
Only lists the alleged climaxes of pop sike usage.
As if when not a pop cult climax year, “psychedelics use doesn’t exist”. CP only gives a pop-level history of isolated peaks, not of ongoing trajectory. And he misses many of the peaks, that aren’t in the official Narrative of absence. Fails Hanegraaff criteria for science-based historiography; it’s narrative-based instead.
/timestamps notes Ep263b
Part C: “Ep263c Lions Paw Eustace 🌳🐾🦁👼🤚.mp3”, len 54:40
What exactly is Wasson asserting? The Wassons covered enths in our own cultural history” – in ancient India, WTF?? See my Plainc article at Egodeath.com.
No, Wasson, you actively covered UP European Psilocybin and Amanita use.
the Egodeath theory has no narrative component, just “there was a heyday of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs 900-1300 AD.”
The Explicit Cubensis paradigm asserts the simple presence of entheogens use by Christians, not a narrative of constructing various Bad Guys vs. Good Guys cartoon crayon-drawn incoherent narrative of oppression, drawing/ constructing group boundary wall barriers. The storytelling done by historians, against Hanegraaff’s methodology he advocates, strict empiricism: WHAT DID THE AUTHOR MEAN FOR HIS AUDIENCE? Not telling our own tales projected onto history.
9:00 – p 211 , Reidlinger, The Sacred Mushroom Seeker (about Wasson) – R is against the word ‘entheogens’.
Dirty greedy broad vague terms used to confuse ppl: “sacred fungi” = ergot, psilocybin, & Amanita.
Confusing, used to mislead and deceive and glue together a broken model and hide the gaps/failures.
McKenna rejects the word ‘entheogens’ as freighted with theological baggage.
McKenna Food of the Gods puts down the word ‘entheogen’ b/c RELIGION IS BAD, per the oppressor/oppressed narrative.
14:50 ~ per mobile – funny caricature of their complicated social narrative sky castles, vs. my simple claim.
17:00 the bigger problem is “secret oppressed cult group” – not Amanita. Amanita appears to be the problem, but root problem is actually Secret, not Amanita.
Letcher’s 2006 book, Shroom, I immediately noticed in 2007, Letcher’s Bernward door argument – see my book review at Amazon U.S.
Letcher’s book Shroom was published in UK 2006 by Faber and Faber. I have the first printing in US, hardcover: 2007, HarperCollins.
25:00 Irvin THM falsely claims that Panofsky’s (1952) “hundreds of mushroom trees” were affirmed by Allegro.
In 1996-1998, Samorini finally followed that lead – not Allegro. I entered entheogen scholarship in 1999.
Samorini later mailed me his 1997 & 1998 articles, but illegible Brown-certified unreadable pictures.
Identify Explicitly the Position Stance Bias of Each Author
Lash is anti-Christianity, anti-Amanita, against Wasson’s “specific Amanita cult spread” theory, pro-Psilocybin. When he critiques pop theory the “secret Amanita cult” theory.
Wasson is protecting Christianity from mushrooms (Aman, also Psil);
Ruck is anti-Christianity, starts off w/ narrative of prohibitionist elites vs entheogenic heretic “sects”; later switches to narrative of entheogen-using elites withholding Secret Amanita from the lay masses (like Irvin AstroSham 2006).
Brown & I & Cyberdisciple are protecting Christianity with Psil (also Aman) mushrooms
35:00 Daturas Entheos 2 2001, Ruck & Gonzalez p. 56 – I read aloud, per Irvin’s critique on THM p. 104, the “Wasson’s Conclusion” passage.
49:00 – Wasson is quoted by Joan Hallifax, where in 1979, Wasson calls for repeal of Prohibition. Full uncensored quote. Probably from Reidlinger’s book The Sacred Mushroom Seeker.
50:00 – I accussed Ruck & the “secret Amanita cult” theory & the Amanita Primacy Fallacy, as they have never done ANYTHING to support repeal of Psilocybin Prohibition; too busy pushing their narrative of perpetual suppression / crybaby defeatism, self-inflicted.
54:00 – McKenna book Food of the Gods. Positions he argues for and against.
The Secret Amanita paradigm entheogen scholarship is all about re-telling their narrative of permanent inherent Prohibition by the mainstream, against the underground secret cult tradition counterculture sect community groups in eternal opposition against the mainstream Prohibitionists.
So don’t ever think of Repeal of our Prohibition narrative that we have married, constructed, & reified as our invested, our conflict of interest; our identity narrative – we would evaporate.
Part D: “Ep263d Lions Paw Eustace 🌳🐾🦁👼🤚.mp3”, len 1:00:42
This Part/segment ends by returning to the initial topic of recording the contiguous pair of tracks (a single 4-hour live voice recording session).
0:00 – Intro – “77 int-outro VOX_TK_5477”
0:21 – Content – “VOX_TK_5477”
10:00 “Cubensis grows on cowpies in subtropical regions” – FALSE, the latter qualifier.
Stamets’ Psilocybin mushroom of the world book fails to make his claim EXPLICITLY that allegedly Cubensis doesn’t grow on cowpies in Europe/England.
Entheogen scholarship is non-scientific.
This is how shoddy, worthless, wrong, prejudiced, biased, & confused entheogen scholarship is.
20:00 – Letcher’s book Shroom. Its contributions and limitations.
Social-driven narrative vs caring about Psychedelics effects.
The Pop audience focuses far more on social driven narrative, not Psychedelic effects.
My approach, in contrast – Letcher is incapable of imagining; my view is on a different planet:
Myth depicts Psil effects; Myth depicts the cognitive transformation effect from psilocybin; we have copious evidence proving how the mind works when exposed to Psil, and evidence for Psil effect in myth & religion.
I reject any use of “cult”, “secret”, “mainstream”, “suppressed”.
We have ample evidence for Psilocybin Eternalism in myth and in cultural history.
we have to reject the vocab (Feyerabend book?) a video about Feyer & phil o sci? Avoid vocab – by Eastern Europ guy about programming langs, and has examples from coding langs. sllides show why we cannot employ words from a previous paradigm/theory. We cannot use the lexicon from the old theory, bc that lex is laden w/ connotation network. We must use lexicon from new theory, to escape from old connot network/ meaning-network. Letcher Hatsis Huggins put forth a rejection that’s from within the lexicon of the Old Theory so I cannot Agree nor Disagree, with their way of thinking, for or against the Old Pop Theory (the Secret Amanita paradigm).
we are in incommensurable paradigm ie
Letcher’s position is Debunk Secret Amanita paradigm. = Letcher 2006; Hatsis 2013; Huggins 2024.
The Pop position is Secret Amanita paradigm eg .Wasson 1957, Allegro 1970, Ruck 1976, McKenna 1992, Irvin 2006, young Hatsis, John Rush 2011.
The v1 paradigm of entheogen scholarship is grotesquely mis-centered on a battle between prohibitionist mainstream vs. secret amanita counterculture.
My position is Explicit Cubensis paradigm. Samorini 1996; Hoffman 2002, Brown 2016.
Point not in recording: [Dec. 2, 2024 5:09 pm]: The 2001 “Conjuring Eden” article in Entheos Issue 1 conjoins the Secret Amanita paradigm & the Explicit Cubensis paradigm.
The article brings in Samorini 1998 article and his psilocybin evidence, and brings in Paul Lindgren’s 2000 Great Canterbury Psalter findings (f11).
By Issue 2 2001, Daturas article shrinks back down toward the the Secret Amanita paradigm.
Issue 1 broadens Amanita “the mushroom” to slightly include Psilocybin, in a merely minor, secondary, supporting role.
Issue 1 broadens Amanita “the mushroom” to slightly include Datura — instead of Psilocybin — in a merely minor, secondary, supporting role.
30:00 –
I said Psilocybin mushrooms are present in Christian history. I never asserted that “secret” mushrooms are present in Christian history.
40:00 –
Did Irvin have color pic of dancing man? in THM: yes, but Blue-to-Red shift; corrupted; Ruck said “has a red cap” to shut up the naysayers. HUGE Ruck mistake, discredited the Secret Amanita paradigm.
I agree with the Debunkers of the Secret Amanita paradigm re: denying that paradigm. I disagree w/ the Debunkers paradigm…. [the Secret Amanita paradigm [DSAP]
the Secret Amanita paradigm [SAP] – Huggins’ acro: PMTs = psychedelic mushrooms in Christian art theorists. Notice the lack of “secret” in his acronym — that’s the Motte and Bailey fallacy. Huggins actually argues against the Secret Amanita paradigm
Huggins doesn’t argue against PMTs; he argues against Secret Amanita in Christian art theorists [SATs].
48:00 – Hatsis is stuck within Allegro paradigm. Letcher is broader.
Secret Amanita debunkers are unprepared to debate the Explicit Cubensis paradigm ie Samorini, Brown, Hoffman, Cyberdisciple.
“Hoffman” in this topic = Michael Hoffman unless specify Mark Hoffman.
Usually, I can say “Ruck” instead of “Mark Hoffman”.
Mark Hoffman is to blame for the tauroctony art corruption on the cover of Entheos Issue 3 (Blue to Red shift & image flipped to the non-initiate’s below-fixed-stars POV).
50:00 – Letcher: Incommensurable paradigm re: my the Explicit Cubensis paradigm/ the maximal entheogen theory of religion. See notes above.
52:13 – I am happy to:
Find evidence for psychedelic eternalism. Not for finding/ constructing/ confabulating a social boundary between:
Oppressor vs. Oppressed.
Mainstream Prohibitionists vs. Counterculture psychedelic heretics. Ruck p. 14 “Conjuring Eden” 2001; p 56 Daturas Virgin” 2001.
Elite secret holders vs. clueless poor oppressed masses of ordinary Christians. Ruck: Effluents of Deity 2012; Irvin AstroSham 2006.
eg I am happy to find that St Eustace, Right paw touches the good, Right-hand branch of the branching mushroom tree on the left.
When Scope = the branching Cubensis tree + the non-branching Cubensis tree, the entire L tree is “bad”.
When Scope = the Left, branching tree, the Right part of that tree is Good/ Non-branching/ Stable; the left part of the Left tree is Bad/ Branching/ Unstable.
59:00 – Oppressor vs. oppressed; therefore pilzbaum are not mushrooms.
Letcher is an incommensurable paradigm that’s alien to the Egodeath theory./end of Content
59:56 – Outro – “77 outro VOX_TK_5477”
May 23, 2023. Voice, not guitar.
1:00:18 – 0:24 seconds of guitar. “77G outro VOX_TK_5477”
1:00:42 – end
Part G: “Ep263G Lions Paw Eustace 🌳🐾🦁👼🤚.mp3”, len 5:06
Two parts; first half says “Egodeath Mystery Show”, while guitar.
Source Recordings
5476.wav
VOX_TK_5476.wav – 3:22:00+.
guitar at start. Intro. May 23, 2023.
What am I up to: details wanted: St Eustace
In a posting, I noted about this rec’g. todo: produce 5476.wav per post/page “Corruption of Art”.
5477.wav
VOX_TK_5477.wav – 1:15:00 (con’t seamlessly from 5476):
Looking for comparison of my paradigm vs. others’.
Lacking the usual assumed resistance.
Amanita primacy fallacy will collapse if no Prohibition.
Wasson paradigm calling for full Repeal, p 132 in The Sacred Msh Seeker 1990/1997.
