Some segments silent background, most have guitar background.
Content/Timestamps
0:00 – 5057.wav – using the word ‘mushrooms’ used by bad writers.
10:00 –
14:02 – 5058.wav
20:00 –
30:00 –
40:00 –
40:30 – 5059.wav – The extent of mushrooms [better: psilocybin, psychedelic eternalism] in Christianity.
50:00 –
55:32 – 5060.wav – Brown’s question in Hatsis rebuttal at Hancock site is not the central question.
To what extent “mushrooms”? Rather:
To what extent are psilocybin [or, psychedelic eternalism] in Christian history.
56:43 – 5061.wav – spin social story narrative, is that the goal? secret rites.
1:00:00 –
1:10:00 –
1:20:00 –
1:26:06 – 5062.wav – how to tell when entheogen scholarship has been compromised: do Prohibitionists like your assertions/narrative/ presuppositions?
A bad sign: Prohibitionists like the Allegro/Ruck-type narrative, that “mainstream = Prohibition, inherently”.
“Mainstream is necessarily always Prohibitionist” — Prohibition-enabling entheogen scholarship.
“Mainstream incorporates Psilocybin and psychedelic eternalism.”
The “mainstream vs counterculture/underground” opposition is unreal, stop using that awful, defeatist construction.
Supporting the concept of “counterculture” is supporting perpetual Prohibition, and constructs a wall to try to separate entheogens from the mainstream culture.
The construct “mainstream vs. counterculture” is invalid; it’s part of the problem.
Rick Doblin cautioned another speaker for employing the construct “counterculture”.
1:29:49 – End.
Filename
“Ep251 Entheogen Prohibitionist Scholarship.mp3”
Song name
“Ep251 🚫🐮🍄 Entheogen Prohibitionist Scholarship”
Input Recordings
VOX_TK_5057.wav – 18:00 April 19, 2023 using the word ‘mushrooms’ used by bad writers.
VOX_TK_5058.wav – 30:00
VOX_TK_5059.wav – 20:00 extent msh in Christianity
VOX_TK_5060.wav – 1:30 Brown not the central question. to what extent are psilocybin [or, psychedelic eternalism] in Christian history.
VOX_TK_5061.wav – 38:00 spin social story narrative, is that the goal? secret rites.
VOX_TK_5062.wav – 4:00 how tell when compromised: do Prohi’ist like your assertions?
guitar background in the room except the first part
Looking for Gold Clips
I have identified about 100 recordings between April 19, 2023 and June 1, 2023, to potentially listen to, produce, and upload.
I wish to find Gold Clips on a couple of topics:
How exactly loss of control and control re-stabilization works.
The role of the Egodeath theory in the Psychedelic Renaissance; in Psychedelic Therapy Science; and in “Entheogen Scholarship” (ie, past religious/ mythic use of psychedelics particularly psilocybin, particularly re: interpreting myth, not academic historical reconstruction).
Might Do Quick and Dirty Episodes
A tough tradeoff: how much to clean up (produce) recordings. Wish I could mass-produce.
Many recordings during my scholarly discovery of the fakeness of scholars’ bogus concept/ construct “the mushroom” used to cover up and enable bad theorizing
That time period of recordings I wish to extract Gold Clips from (April 19-June 1) has many redundant recordings during my discovering in Irvin’s book The Holy Mushroom that he uses the obfuscating umbrella term, a totally fake and fabricated phony artificial and unreal term that no authentic user ever used, “the holy mushroom” — a PURELY scholarly construct that’s reified as if this fake abstraction is a real thing that exists.
mp3 filename
“Ep250 All Entheogens Means Amanita Only.mp3”
Song Name
“Ep250 All Entheogens Means Amanita Only”
🐮🍄
Content/Timestamps
The bulk/ middle part of this episode is about inconsistency in The Holy Mushroom by Irvin 2008.
0:00 – Start. Intro. (extracted from 5116.wav)
0:19-11:43 – 5115.wav. Motor & vacuum cleaner (during portion in middle) instead of guitar in background.
I can say just “psilocybin” and avoid the obfuscating term “mushroom”.
10:00 –
11:43-23:38 – 5116.wav (moved out Intro). What am i up to? Comparing differentiating the “Secret Amanita sect” paradigm vs. the Psilocybin Eucharist mainstream” paradigm in entheogen scholarship (psychedelic scholarship).
I don’t study psychedelics history. I study mythemes. I don’t approach entheogen scholarship as Anthropology or Sociology or Physicalism (= Matthew “CEQ-POS” Johnson & Chris Letheby’s notion of Psychedelic Science).
Against their Non-Physicalism and against their Physicalism.
I’m against their positions they call “Religion” and “Science” and “Esotericism” b/c these all fail to be the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism.
Attempted approaches other than psychedelic eternalism are not helpful, not useful, & not relevant.
I’m against entheogen scholarship & history of psychedelics.
That’s not my approach. I criticize their entheogen scholarship as an approach.
I bring a cognitive approach to the evidence in art and myth, not their historical approach or their anthropological approach.
I’m AGAINST ETHNOBOTANY & ANTHROPOLOGY & SOCIOLOGY APPROACH to history of psychedelics.
Need a PURE COGNITIVE approach when looking at the historical collection of myths & motifs.
I map myth to the cognitive transformation model.
In June 2023, I’m becoming suspicious of anyone else’s conception of “Cognitive”.
“The Cognitive approach” is bunk unless it’s Cognitive according to my Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism.
Is the Egodeath theory a Cognitive approach? NO, unless you define Cognitive per the Egodeath theory.
I like how Letcher’s book Shroom describes “cultural evolution” as an obsolete & dated approach that Wasson & Allegro used.
Cyberdisciple’s page “Against the Assumption of Suppression of Psychedelics in Pre-Modernity”. His Theories of Myth article. His expose of the Outdated Anthropology foundation used by Ruck & Allegro.
Whether to say: Psychedelic scholarship Psychedelics scholarship (hard to utter)
The Amanita Trap: Stunted Physicalism, vs. Cognitive Modeling
12:43 – Heinrich book Strange Fruit is the Amanita trap: Immature concretistic physical Amanita prevents mature cognitive theorizing.
Mapping the Amanita Process (Physical Domain) to Transcendent Knowledge (Cognitive Domain)
15:00 –
20:00 –
23:26 – vacuum cleaner turns off.
23:38-24:02 – Miking (for 5116.wav/ previous segments) no gtr. I wish to figure out which recording was way too bright and required treble reduction in post.
The Amanita Trap
24:02-28:21 – guitar leadin, then The Amanita Trap.
28:21-43:53 – 5120.wav. Explain the Amanita roasting process. Hatsis wrote the main article anyone wrote about the Salamander Dancing Man image. Roasting the Salamander 2013.
“I’m the leader of Amanita scholarship”, I’ve taken it over. Amanita scholarship makes the the Amanita Primacy Fallacy.
30:00 – the Amanita Primacy Fallacy.
40:00 –
50:00 –
1:00:00 –
1:10:00 –
1:20:00 –
1:30:00 –
1:40:00 –
the esoteric pseudo-history of eso’m — Religionism = using myth as basis for history research, vs. Hanegraaff’s “strict empirical” approach.
1:50:00 –
approach to theory construction: Ken Wilber: Integral Theory.
Social Guru Scandals in Lame Field of Transpersonal Psychology b/c they use merely a Social-driven approach to Transcendent Knowledge, so fails to have Transcendent Knowledge substance.
Any would-be theory of Transcendent Knowledge that isn’t the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism is a failure.
1:52:00 –
The Social realm that results from inert fake, non-drug Meditation substitutes for Transcendent Knowledge.
Gold Clip at End – Fatal Control Instability Teaches New Stable Foundation
I Wrote “thrown off balance” in 1997 (26 Years Ago), Matching Eadwine’s Use of {scale balance} to Depict Control Instability in 1200, 800 years Earlier!! 🎉
Evidently around April 6, 2023, I wrote “scale balance”:
tearing down egoic thinking in loosecog
scale balance king control agent
branching Y’s touch demon control instability
No left arm
I need to write my history of recently turning attention to decoding the woman holding scale balance in Great Canterbury Psalter image f134 row 2 middle:
I made this crop March 17 2023, and probably decoded {scale balance} by that day.
But I really got overwhelming confirmation of that theory the next day, March 18, by the success of that motif-decoding in decoding the long-standing cluster of motifs around the “good judgment”[sic] woman of image f134.
I might have decoded aspects of {scale balance} prior to March 18, 2023, but the discovery really came together in a proper network of recognition on March 18, 2023, so I’ll go with that date; good enough.
That date feels satisfyingly “early”; a long time ago, so seems right.
2.33 years to Decode Motif Cluster {woman holding scale balance, standing with left heel on stable column base, closed scroll in lowered left hand}
To solve the motif is to clearly perceive the motif.
It’s not the case that I first perceive the problem, and then later solve the problem.
The clear perceiving of the problem is the solving of the problem. “What are we looking at here?” “What is the explanandum?”
The moment I perceived the explanandum as “{woman holding scale balance, standing with left heel on stable column base, closed scroll in lowered left hand}”, I solved that explanandum.
Although I perceived the “judgment balance” image in f134 row 2 center in Nov. 2020, I mis-perceived and misread it as “judgment”, rather than recognizing it as {balance} of control.
2.5 months ago, March 18, 2023, I suddenly figured out a whole cluster of how to read {woman holding scale balance, standing w/ left heel on stable column base, closed scroll in lowered left hand}.
I didn’t open my eyes and recognize the problem as “{woman holding scale balance, standing with left heel on stable column base, closed scroll in lowered left hand}” until the moment I solved it.
I did recognize immediately in 2020 the problem, left heel on stable column base. — one aspect only.
I failed to perceive “holding closed scroll in left hand” until March 2023.
I failed to THINK about …. In Nov 2020 to March 2023, I mis-read her as “good judgment”. That’s NOT the primary meaning of {scale balance} in Eadwine’s images f134, f145, & f177.
My Nov 2020 misreading of {scale balance} as”good judgment” is a pseudo-interpretation dead end.
I started decoding the problem of “why left heel on column base?” around Nov. 15, 2020. Solved it March 18, 2023. It took me 2.33 years to solve.
My decoding the cluster of motifs around __ really was a breakthrough in mytheme decoding.
{Holding closed scroll in lowered left hand}, and eventually most recently I determined that she points to the upside down cybercide guy with her right ear.
She represents: when a person in the altered state thinks of how they had stable control when they were in the ordinary state (closed scroll in lowered left hand, standing on stable column base with left(!) heel). Where did I write dates? Check my “snapshot” article.
Only the cubensis, in God Creates Plants, has the cup & dots. Therefore the fact that the top of selected columns have {cut & dots} motif connects these columns with cubensis.
In image f134, the two columns out of 3+4+5=12 that have the {cut & dots} motif are the two columns that are closest to the cubensis dispensary bins.
The column to the left of the cubensis dispensary bins.
The column above the bucket that’s pouring Golden Teacher cubensis into the foolhardy newbie psychonaut’s bag.
Loss of Control Depending on Fingertip Height (f134)
Figure 1. Canterbury Psalter image f134, finger height maps to loss of control. Crop, image processing, and annotations by Michael Hoffman.
Loss of Control as a Function of Fingertip Height (Mapped to Which Mental Model of Control-in-World)
OPEN scroll is knowledge about this & balance = loss of control. “When I didn’t know about this[ie that possibilism-thinking in peak state of loose cognition causes loss of control] (ie when scroll was closed), I had balance/ stable self-control, back when I stood on left heel in OSC.” – 9:31 a.m. March 18, 2023
i’m doomed, condemned to forever type in more realizations: Eadwine won’t let me ever stop [8:42 a.m. March 18, 2023] she’s holding a scroll with balance scale, which is Transcendent Knowledge that possibilism-thinking causes loss of control — and the cross-image jackpot won’t stop; this (specific) decoding means also that in f145 Row 1 Quarter 2 the scroll and god r row 1 R THE SCROLL MESSAGE about doomed POSSIBILISM-THINKING, asserting/RELYING ON LEFT FOOT CAUSES LOSS OF CONTROL; {SCROLL} DECODED.
f145 Row 1 R god too holds in left hand closed scroll, but is open in Row 2. got it (got something): he holds in right hand open scroll. Need todo crop: mirror him & her & scrolls, feet, hands, balance. [8:59 a.m. March 18, 2023]
She’s the balance that u have in OSC and that you wish for in altered state. He’s out of control, he looks at her in OSC she has stable control, contrasted against him, she is stable bc she lacks Transcendent Knowledge (closed scroll, wrong hand & foot down), she is the ctrl-stab’y of the osc [9:05 a.m. March 18, 2023].
what’s in his book is what’s on his & her scrolls.
now i puzzle: closed vs open scroll, is she ignorant of Transcendent Knowledge, standing her left heel on stable column base? “hard to interp” – wiki.
{rams} assert and double down on asserting possibilism-thinking and so they lose balance, building falls down, they go out of control
/ end of excerpt
2:00:00 –
Canterbury Ps image f134 Row 2 middle: psalter reader raising & lowering right-hand fingertip — the mind learns a pair of models, demonstrating that one is unstable, in contrast with the other model.
Why fatal catastrophic loss of control happens together with forming the new, stable control model.
Angels and demons both re-train the mind.
God-mode cognition in the loosecog state demonstrating control stabilikty and instability.
Angelic messengers; “if not for your donkey, I would have killed you already.” Angel on the gateway/path of Balaam.
Perpetual drug prohibition is the wall constructed by entheogen scholars,
Ruck himself is calling mushroom use “so-called heretic sects”.
Ruck falsely says there is a big wall forever separating mushrooms from mainstream.
Irvin 2008 objects to that; the “fringe heretical sects only” false premise.
My “branching-message mushroom trees” article must “follow through on the golf swing” to aim the better way forward.
2:08:24 – Guitar.
2:10:52 – End.
Tech Notes
there’s miking info in the recording. 23:38. applies to some tracks.
On one of the first tracks, I reduced treble in post.
The first 90 minutes has guitar background. silent background after that to end of speaking around 2:10:00
1:33:12-2:11:20 – 45 minutes with no guitar background; voice only; faster paced.
Gold Clips on Re-stabilizing
tbd, eg good at 29:00 – 1:10:00 ?
Content Topics/Timestamps
0:00 – Guitar then Intro.
0:51 – Up to: wish to find voice recordings passages about a couple topics. Explanation of loss of control. 1997 & 2006 articles have solid summaries of that, perfectly good.
Must have fatal Loose Cognitive Science loss of control and death of previous way of thinking. What kind of fatal catastrophic loss of control happens and fully manifests. Surfing in and out of control stability. Touching the boundary blade… TOUCHING THE BLADE is this limit.
{touch blade w/ left limb} = raising and lowering right fingertip; cybercide, surfing, going in and out of control stability. [2:10 am Jun 1 2023]
You are made to have control of going in and out of control stability, a passive vehicle for the power to raise storms and climax and calm storms.
Controlled entry into a state of instability. The god pulls up the lower control.
More than a close call; Semele was made to transgress the control threshold. Approached or touched or crossed the threshold?
Touch blade with left limb, oscillating around the control instability threshold.
Shift weight between left (instability increases), right leg: storm subsides. Control instability storm.
Image f134 Row 2 center: psalter viewer
Psalter Reader raising and lowering right finger causes loss of control or restores stable control
Crop by Cybermonk: raising / lowering right fingertip = happy cybercide.
raising / lowering right fingertip = happy cybercide
10:00 –
20:00 – What happens when right fingertip is lowered vs. raised? Control instability or restoration. Sword comes out or is put away.
The threat of loss of control goes away or comes closer.
Degree of loss of control/ control instability.
What does it mean to have or lose control?
Bicycle jump.
Driving on ice.
30:00 – Detailed explanation of psalter viewer contrasting right fingertip lower vs. higher. Balance woman pointing at cybercide guy.
To move your right fingertip higher vs lower, to demonstrate increasing control instability and then calming the storm, is to do the happy cybercide.
How to raise and calm storms.
40:00 –
50:00 –
1:00:00 – dynamics of transformation – the bad old theory doesn’t understand them. the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism vs. the Therapy industry — “a complete mystical experience” – May 31 2023 posting. entheogen scholarship vs. the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism.
Why the Egodeath theory is needed: enables maturation from possibilism to eternalism quickly, non-traumatically, successfully, instead of very limited/ traumatic/ broken model of transformation in Psilocybin state.
The main “benefit” of the Egodeath theory.
How helps mundane conduct of life in OSC? Bracket that aside; differentiate (vs. integrate).
Social moral ethics – keep that distinct from Transcendent Knowledge.
1:10:00 –
1:20:00 –
1:30:00 – the Egodeath theory agrees with perennialism that’s transformed per my theory —
The Egodeath theory disagrees with YOUR concept of “mysticism”, “neuroscience”, “esotericism”, “Christianity”, etc.
… must transform “neuroscience” and “mysticism” & Christianity per the Egodeath theory.
All other theories are failures, because they aren’t the Egodeath theory.
Only after the other theories/views are transformed by the Egodeath theory, then they are correct.
1:33:12 – Recent Comments by the Egodeath community. wrmspirit. Starts with guitar, but turn off after 1.5 minutes.
1:34:47 – Turn off guitar. Continue reading Comments on my postings.
1:40:00 – Relating and valuing the two domains: ordinary state, altered state. Differentiate as well as integrate. If you don’t elevate Transcendent Knowledge as sacred and separate, you’ll lose tk.
Why Transcendent Knowledge Must Not Be Subsumed into the Ordinary-State Domain. Reductionism loses Transcendent Knowledge. Must glorify Transcendent Knowledge as separate, else lose it.
When we try to make Transcendent Knowledge serve the ordinary state, we lose Transcendent Knowledge. So it is not possible to emphasize OSC and apply Transcendent Knowledge to the OSC – bc you lose Transcendent Knowledge entirely.
1:50:00 – We would lose Transcendent Knowledge in the name of over-zealously integrating Transcendent Knowledge with the ordinary-state daily life realm. Must differentiate Transcendent Knowledge, in Ken Wilber’s sense.
Do not subsume Transcendent Knowledge into ordinary life, or will lose Transcendent Knowledge entirely.
Must keep the Egodeath theory (Transcendent Knowledge) sacred, special, distinct, elevated, separated, distinguished. Or else lose it altogether.
2:00:00 – Explaining a motif means mapping/ specifying how the motif in an art piece describes mental worldmodel transformation.
Myth is analogy describing transformation of the mental worldmodel from: literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control to: analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control
catastrophic fatal loss of control threat & bad trip
2:10:00 – concept of catastrophic fatal loss of control threat & bad trip. Folk “surrender”.
child reaches adult form, how, in terms of cognitive expeirencing? My theory , only, provides that.
2:10:48 – Outro.
2:11:20 – 🎸🌌 Guitar (9 min.) outtakes
2:20:11 – End.
Filename
“Ep249 Psilocybin Eternalism Control Restabilization.mp3”
Relation of the Egodeath theory to Fields; Role & Value of the Theory, the Need for It
relation of the Egodeath theory to big fields (psychedelic therapy science and entheogen scholarship).
What’s missing and malformed and stunted without the Egodeath theory (the theory of analogical psychedelic eternalism cybernetics).
Which state of consciousness benefits from loosecog transformation of control?
keywords/ idea names:
Again summarize the 4 phases of mental worldmodel transformation. Constructing them: easiest:
Which state, in each phase? ord, ord, alt, ord.
Which mental worldmodel, in each phase? possibilism, learning eternalism, eternalism, qualified possibilism.
The Transformation Sequence
How the Mind Works, to Transform the Worldmodel in the Loose Cognitive State
ordinary-state possibilism
ordinary-state learning eternalism
altered-state eternalism
ordinary-state qualified possibilism
Map myth (lyrics, motifs) to the above theory model of how the mind works, how the mind transforms the mental worldmodel of time and control;
Transform the mental model of control-in-world, from possibilism to eternalism.
The foundation of control is changed in the psychedelic cybernetic eternalism state of loose cognitive association binding of mental construct processing.
Reading Comments from the Egodeath Community
Tech Notes
Miking at2020 L CAD M39 cardioid R, CAD E100 middle, compressors, not gate on middle solo, 57s on big cabs
Bernward Column, Entheos journal 2001 – Conjuring Eden mega-article
Zagraeus the tax collector in a tree is supposed to hold branching in left hand, & hold non-branching (cut branch) in right hand.
I initially bet the photo is reversed. Its orientation seems correct though.
Later paintings of “Christ’s entry into Jerusalem” show no awareness of {handedness}; the donkey’s wrong, right-hand leg is lifted (ie relying on left leg) 50% of the time.
The {handedness} motif of Medieval art:
left = bad = unstable control = branching = possibilism-thinking.
right = good = stable control = non-branching (eg cut branch) = eternalism-thinking.
I already around April 2023 learned to not rigidly weld together expectation of {handedness} motif in every {mushroom tree}.
Examples of lack of rigidly consistent {handedness}:
Canterbury Psalter image f145 Row 1 Right: Cubensis Tree
Great Canterbury Psalter image f145 row 1 right: cubensis tree
{right cut trunk} and {right branch touches God’s cloud} adheres to the handedness rules — but why is {left branching} (bad) permitted to touch {stable column} (good)?
Golden Psalter Image 45 top: Water from Mushroom Rock
Golden Psalter: Moses wand brings water from rock: mushroom tree failed to obey my brittle dictates/ rules of handedness, obliviously trampling my expectations:
Per Quine, we don’t test and then keep or discard an isolated little piece of a theory; we test an entire complex system in a complex, flexible way.
A Scientific Theory of Psychedelics and Myth that’s Useful, Helpful, Relevant, and Clear
My theory (the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism) vs. the theory proferred by Irvin 2008, Letcher, or Hatsis, or Chris Letheby (book: Philosophy of Psychedelics — ie, Hyper-Epistemology for the Nascent Industry of Psychedelics Therapy):
Which theory is superior is not centrally a matter which theory is proved correct (an over-focus or a driving focus on Epistemology), but, which theory is more useful, helpful, relevant, and clear (an appropriate focus on Phenomenology).
Only a misguidedly ordinary-state based approach would try to be driven by Epistemology.
An actually, authentically altered-state driven approach is driven by real, urgent needs: stable control.
Such a theory is “true” in the sense of viable and what it needs to be.
major (key) topic, future post.
In 1986-1987, I wanted to first construct a cognitive experiential model, and then apply that explanatory model to non-dysfunctional cross-time control.
An Experiential Cognitive Phenomenology Approach, Not Other Approaches
In April 1987, I created a cognitive phenomenology experiential approach, not these irrelevant approaches:
Sociology
Anthropology
Neuroscience
Epistemology
Metaphysics
Mysticism
Spirituality
Psychotherapy
Therapy
Moralism Ethics
Conduct of Life
Disconfirmation Disconfirmed and Resolved: Lion Right Paw Touching Branching Cubensis Tree
I am not used to failing for long, when testing the Egodeath theory.
Previous failures, I quickly resolved.
In “Eustace crossing the river”, the lion’s right (good) paw touches the branching (bad) cubensis tree.
But actually that works (conforms to the predicted pattern), because it’s touching specifically the right-hand (good) branch of the branching cubensis tree.
St. Eustace Crossing the River (Chartres Cathedral)
Figure 1. Mâle, p. 3, The sky, water and trees. From the Legend of St. Eustace. Window at Chartres.
omg his left hand (bad) gestures so as to affirm the non-branching (good) crown! 😵
Egodeath theory disproved! –> 🗑🔥⚰️
Eustace gestures at the WRONG TREE! He needs to affirm the non-branching tree of that pair of two trees, instead!
Theory Saved, by the Fractal/Local Scope theory of YI/YO morphology, in branching-message mushroom trees. 🎉
This theory-testing is of my {handedness} motif theory, which is part of the Mytheme theory (Phase 2 of the Egodeath theory). = “analogical” component of the theory of analogical psychedelic eternalism cybernetics.
Phase 1 = Core theory = the theory of psychedelic eternalism cybernetics [not yet incorping analogy until 1999-2023]
Thomas Kuhn shows that Popper’s notion of how Science (“the scientific method”) works by disconfirming and failing a test, would claim that every scientific theory is a failure (by some standard, to some degree) and should be rejected.
Scientists retain “disconfirmed” theories, because there is much more involved in actual Science than Popper’s crude account.
A matter of batting average, tendency, not rigid absolute brittle perfection; that’s not how Science — competitive paradigm choice & development & commitment — works.
Chris Bennett & McQueen 2001 Book Sex, Drugs, Violence and the Bible Covers the Tree of Knowledge/ Life in Genesis 2 & 3 vs. Rev 22 a Lot
This is one of my personally autographed books — tho i am excessively too snobby / put on airs of superiority, to value such.
I pass by such opportunities, too much, in my effort, advised by my father, to not over-respect people.
I err on the side of not name-dropping.
The authors provide many pages of analysis/ theorizing on this important topic — in fact, this topic is the inspiration for the entire book!
The end of the book specifically says that Chris was inspired this way.
He speculates about a prophecy of the end of Prohibition. He comprehends the bracketing and reversal and import.
In a new voice recording, I developed a new interpretation of Genesis 3, building on my past interpretation.
When a newbie ingests psilocybin, after stealing a moment of nondual unity boundary-lifting, — the opposite of a “complete” mystical experience — Satan (possibilism-thinking) gets kicked out of the loose cognitive state, in terror of catastrophic fatal loss of control.
After the mind’s {garment} (mental model) is washed clean, purified in the blood of the Lamb (Isaac’s ram caught in a branching thicket by exerting its egoic possibilism-thinking effort of control-in-world model), the elect receive their share of the tree of life; they are able to go in through the guarded gate into the city of God. Rev 22.
Heinrich Strange Fruit 1995 has a couple paragraphs on this.
Bennett 2001 cites Wasson, McKenna, & Heinrich on this topic of the Tree of Knowledge & Life in Gen 2 & 3 and Rev 22 etc.
Articulate, conscious/ deliberate, in-depth treatment; Bennett relates this full-breadth topic to Prohibition & Repeal, worthy of my Biblio for draft article “branching-message mushroom trees” Conclusion section (my forward-looking steering of entheogen scholarship).
An actually complete mystical experience includes formal sacrificing Isaac: transgressing egoic possibilism-thinking premised control.
Repudiate and judge and reject relying on possibilism-thinking.
THAT – passing through the guarded gate, shadow dragon monster, moving weight from left to right foot — is the COMPLETE mystical experience.
Formally transgress the childish things; you are made by Dionysus (god-mode higher thinking) to catastrophically break the possibilism mental worldmodel of control-in-world.
You helplessly receive intentions that are pre-existing.
Harm Not the Child; Just Sacrifice Him
Eustace’s son, carried off by the mean Eternalism lion, was later recovered, unharmed. (Except for having been sacrificed to eternalism-thinking.)
Jesus, after dying on the Cross (incredibly quickly), was alive and well afterwards.
Adam, after “definitely, certainly dying on the day when he ate the fruit” [citation: God, Gen 2], was then kicked out of Eden and lived in toil.
Isaac walked away unharmed (except for being sacrificed). 🔥 🐏 🌪
My previous posts have not infrequent minor errors, eg Stamets book Psil Mushrooms of the World [Europe doesn’t count] is 1996, not 1994.
I’m mad trying to find who wrote that Allegro’s book SMC Sacred Mushroom & Cross was serialized in 1967 — their claim surprised me. Actually that was serialized in April 1970, just before the book was published in 1970.
Irvin 2008 uses bold to mark the MANY errors & falsehoods eg in Jonathan Ott & Carl Ruck when they badmouth John Allegro, there are so many errors & misstatements.
Brown, Brown, & Brown 2016 The Psychedelic Gospels
Brown & Brown 2019: “Entheogens in Christian Art” (Psilocybe, Panaeolus, Psilocybin, Amanita)
John Lash 2008 “Entheogenic Revelation: The Paris Eadwine Psalter”
Cybermonk 2020: “Compelling Evidence & Proof of Explicit Psilocybin Mushrooms in Christian Art to Communicate Non-Branching Stable Control” (Panaeolus, Liberty Cap, Cubensis, Amanita)
The Amanita Primacy Fallacy: Entheogen Scholars from 1952 to 1997 Couldn’t Care Less about Panofsky’s Hundreds of Merely Psilocybin Mushroom Trees
Letcher Specifies Which Edition of Allegro Omits Our Sacred Fly-Agaric Fresco Holy Relic that’s the Foundation & Paradigm of Our Entheogen Scholarship Faith
Cyberdisciple Fails to Keep Up with the Convention Everyone Else Has Adopted: The Mushroom 🍄 Emoji Is Universally Understood to Represent Psilocybin Mushrooms
Canterbury f11 row 2 left – God Creates Day & Night
In the “Conjuring Eden” article 2001 online supplemental images, Hoffman, Ruck, & Staples show panel 4: God Creates Day & Night with 4 pastel mushroom plants (color), also Golden Munich Ps b/w: https://entheomedia.net/eden3.htm
Entheos 1 2001 p 41: Ezekiel window, head of the prophet, from Louis Grodecki, Vitraux de France de XIe au XVIe siecle, 1953. Depot des Monuments Historiques, Paris, originally from Lyon, c. 1225.
identification left to right (not like EVERYONE ALWAYS does, right to left per the Amanita Primacy Fallacy), of plants 1-4:
James Arthur 2000 Mushrooms and Mankind
James Arthur 2000: Mushrooms and Mankind‘s treatment says: p 79 – 81.
1: Opium capsule
2: Syrian Rue pod
3: Psilocybe
4: Amanita
5: green wavy vine under them = cannabis.
Arthur’s syrian rue pod drawing p 81 – ULTRA-WEAK!
Even this drawing of rue pod provided by Arthur looks NOTHING even remotely like the Eadwine image on the facing page.
WTF Arthur, you discredit entheogen scholarship claims.
Jan Irvin 2006 Astrotheology & Shamamism
Irvin & Rutajit repeats & cites James Arthur’s “identifications”.
Irvin 2006 Astrotheology & Shamamism: p 164-165: he credits & matches James Arthur, sans cannabis.
jamesarthur.net; at archive.org.
p 109: Eadwine: Irvin covers the popular forbidden fruit image w snake w legs as well.
Astrotheology p 115 also has my photos w credit Egodeath.com of dried Amanita pieces:
Photo: Cybermonk ~2001Photo: Cybermonk ~2001. Not in Irvin book afaik. Relics like our holy fly-agaric fresco.
p 165 Shows also panel 4 (b/w) God creates Day and Night w 4 mushroom plants.
Jan Irvin 2008 The Holy Mushroom
Irvin 2008 treatment The Holy Mushroom: x, x, x, x. p 117. = Arthur.
Brown, Brown, & Brown 2016 The Psychedelic Gospels
Brown 2016 The Psychedelic Gospels: p 137-138. odd asymmetry, vague “psilocybin”: color plate 12 . similar wording as 2019. See next section.
Later brief summary: Brown 2016 p 143 , but there the order is ambiguous: a psilocybe variety (careful w that genus name! check Stamets book). a psilocybe variety. panaeolus. Amanita.
Exact quote of Browns’ shorter summary:
“(Amanita muscaria, Panaeolus, and two varieties of Psilocybe).”
Mind the capitalization & italics too, for technical accuracy per Stamets.
Brown & Brown 2019: “Entheogens in Christian Art” (Psilocybe, Panaeolus, Psilocybin, Amanita)
Brown 2019: p 154.
Plant 1: another of genus Psilocybe. [careful w genus names] “vs other scholars, little resemblance to opium”.
Plant 2: “eight tiny mushrooms in cap” [inconsistently, not pointed out HERE by Irvin] suggests Panaeolus, [paraphrase: ] “against other scholars, this plant has no resemblance to rue” 🎉!)
I strongly agree, and applaud Brown for saying “NO RESEMBLANCE”. None!
WTF, Arthur?! This botanical “identification” is PREPOSTEROUS & ridiculous, like John Rush claiming “Here we clearly see mushrooms being handed out” — when what we are shown is, in fact, sticks and feathers:
Here we clearly see mushrooms being handed out. Image from Irvin THM 2008, crop by Cybermonk 2023.
Plant 3: “psilocybin mushrooms”
Plant 4: Amanita.
John Lash 2008 “Entheogenic Revelation: The Paris Eadwine Psalter”
Cybermonk 2020: “Compelling Evidence & Proof of Explicit Psilocybin Mushrooms in Christian Art to Communicate Non-Branching Stable Control” (Panaeolus, Liberty Cap, Cubensis, Amanita)
My identification is far superior to those of Arthur, Lash, and Brown; my classification of the 4 sacred plants is:
more specific,
more sensibly expressed,
more balanced,
better ordered left to right,
more fitting with the Canterbury Psalter assortment of mushroom imagery,
Irvin 2022 God’s Flesh p. 111 (entire chapter) critiques Wasson et al for initially fabricating storytelling/ selling a phony confabulated narrative of spiritual use of Panaeolus, later switching the fake, pushed propaganda story to spiritual use of Psilocybe (Liberty Cap), in Mesoamerica.
My categories match sensible, standard, commonly uses types/ lexicon, in an even classification that would make sense to gatherers of the natural forms.
My botanical identification correctly gives three times as much credit to Psilocybin as to Amanita.
Amanita is an extremely dirty, unreliable, toxic vehicle for the non-psychedelic deliriant Muscimol.
If Karl Popper were correct about scientific theories being abandoned upon disconfirmation, the myth/ theory that Amanita is the master paradigmatic entheogen would have been abandoned long ago.
Amanita imagery is always nothing more than the billboard signalling psilocybin.
1: Panaeolus. I provided photographic specimens proof.
The Amanita Primacy Fallacy Makes Scholars Reluctant to Say 3 of the 4 Plants Are Psilocybin Mushrooms, and Only a Third as Many Amanita
Entheogen scholarship distorts the evidence bc is highly biased against psilocybin in Europe, per the Amanita Primacy Fallacy.
eg Stamets 1996: information blackout.
Stamets loudly, explicitly says cubensis grows very copiously on bovine dung in subtropical regions, — and yet he is DEAD SILENT, making no EXPLICIT statement, but strongly makes an IMPLICIT false assertion that CUBENSIS DOES NOT GROW ON BOVINE DUNG IN EUROPE.
Were Stamets & entheogen scholars to EXPLICITLY state their preposterous, biased assertion, — the iceberg effect re unconscious prejudices — it would be clear what an absurd, untenable assertion premise presupposition this is, requiring a full, DIRECT, VERBOSE DISCUSSION.
That’s why we are never given any direct statement, only a strong insinuation/ implication unstated, instead of a proper, UP-FRONT OUTRIGHT ASSERTION, “There were no cubensis ever on bovine dung in Europe, because reasons”.
BULL💩!!
A false, irrational, nonsensical assertion.
This is a prejudiced irrational presupposition that’s necessarily kept implicit-only; you are not permitted to look in that direction, by malformed entheogen scholarship that’s built on the false foundation which is the Amanita Primacy Fallacy.
Why the complete lack of any curiosity and discussion of this topic, ever, by any entheogen scholar? Because of paradigmatically constrained MENTAL BLINDNESS, which is a requisite part of the Amanita Primacy Fallacy.
The Biggest Fallacious Gap, Prejudiced Bias, Blind Spot, and Irrational Insinuation in Entheogen Scholarship: “No Cubensis on Bovine Dung in Europe”
Everyone (Stamets 😠): If you are claiming that no cubensis ever grows on bovine dung in Europe, you need to EXPLICITLY own that and assert it and recount your attempt to find that and explain why the expected cubensis is missing — but NO entheogen scholar or mycologist has ever written anything about this NONSENSICAL, IMPLICIT-ONLY BIASED NOTION/ unconscious presupposition!
Oxen on left, foolish entheogen scholars on right:
This is how people had an on-tap supply of psilocybin in the Medieval heyday of peak cubensis comprehension/ technology/ skill/ knowledge.
AND, ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARS, DON’T EVEN THINK OF TRYING TO ADD “SECRET” OR “HERETICAL SECT”, TO TRY TO FABRICATE & BUILD YOUR PROHIBITIONIST WALL 😠🚫👎 to try to keep mushrooms separate from “THE mainstream”.
FFS, stop conflating “evidence for mushrooms” with “evidence for mainstream ignorance of and prohibition of mushrooms”.
Just trashcan your stupid, self-defeating “anthropology” and “sociology” heavy-handed agenda/ forced interpretation.
Please STOP INTERPRETING, through your lens of Anthropology and Sociology. Stop building your invented wall between mushrooms and culture.
REJECT THE DISTINCTION/ DIVISION, “MAINSTREAM VS. COUNTERCULTURE”. That fabrication is not helpful; it is Prohibition-compliant propaganda, stop it.
Entheogen Scholarship’s Taboo, Forbidden Topic Shut Out by the Amanita Primacy Fallacy: Cubensis on Bovine Dung in Europe
Proof: a leading mycologist around 2007 told Graham Hancock there were no psilocybin mushrooms in Europe.
Stamets, ONLY WHEN DIRECTLY CONFRONTED, said that’s nonsense.
Ok then, now, Stamets you need to EXPLICITLY DISCUSS, for the first time ever, the FORBIDDEN TOPIC, of cubensis on bovine dung in Europe.
Browns treatmemt is better, because Brown stays within mushrooms and is not greedily trying to map the 4 plants — or 5, by including the green wavy lines — to the entire pharmacopeia.
The most interesting point from my recent 4-hour scholarship voice recordings:
Here’s why laboring under the Amanita Primacy Fallacy makes entheogen scholars avoid saying like I do that mushrooms 1-3 are ALL psilocybin mushrooms: they don’t want to allow MORE PSILOCYBIN mushrooms than Amanita.
They want to suppress psilocybin to be subservient to Amanita.
Out of the 75 mushroom trees in Great Canterbury Psalter, only a few are Amanita: Eadwine likes Cubensis, and considers Amanita practically irrelevant.
My Identification: Panaeolus, Liberty Cap, Cubensis, Amanita
My identification (~Nov 2020 afaik):
1: Panaeolus
2: Liberty Cap – astonishingly Irvin stays MUTE about “little mushrooms in the cap” in both books, even though he DOES point that out for the image he puts right below it, Great Canterbury Psalter eating from tree of knowledge!
3: Cubensis
4: Amanita
Irvin’s (Arthur’s) crazy preposterous assertion that syrian rue pod looks like plant #2 (no photo provided!), which I say is panaeolus, with photos proving that.
Irvin 2005 & 2008 simply copied the coverage which was provided by James Arthur in 2000.
in 2016, Brown vaguely said that “previous scholars” misidentified this mushroom as Syrian Rue.
As far as I can tell, these unnamed “previous scholars” really boils down to one scholar: James Arthur, who was then copied by Jan Irvin (& Rutajit), who credited Arthur.
Surely Irvin failed to fact-check Arthur’s nonsense claim?
Even worse, Arthur’s book shows on left page Eadwine’s image, facing a drawing of a rue pod on the right page, that looks NOTHING even remotely like Eadwine’s image.
Why didn’t Jan Irvin say that James Arthur is full of rubbish? 🤷♂️
Rue potentiates psilocybin, but mushroom #2 looks NOTHING like syrian rue pods; Irvin (ie Arthur) falsely asserts such, with no specimen photo because the photos [even Arthur’s drawing, in fact!] prove that Irvin [ie, Arthur] is talking RUBBISH.
Irvin [copying Arthur] claims plant #2 looks identical to rue pods — in fact, not even remotely close!!
My 2006 plaincourault gallery for our fly-agaric fresco was the first (afaik) to put italian pine specimen photos next to mushroom trees.
In our entheogen scholarship religion, our holy fly-agaric fresco is our equivalent of the Cross in Christianity.
Stop starting from the right, Arthur/ Itvin/ Brown! 😖 – damn Amanita Primacy Fallacy! 👎
The Amanita Primacy Fallacy Blinded Entheogen Scholars for 46 Years
The Amanita Primacy Fallacy Continues 71 Years Later in the “No Cubensis on Bovine Dung in Europe” Preposterous Presupposition Prejudice
Islam has the Kaaba.
Christianity has the Cross.
Judaism has the 6-point star.
Our Entheogen Scholarship religion has our holy fly agaric fresco 🍄 🖼 🙌 as our paradigm that guides our faith-driven “research”/ entheogen (🍄) scholarship apologetics.
Proof that Under the Amanita Primacy Fallacy, “All Entheogens” Means EXCLUSIVELY Amanita; and Means Specifically NOT Psilocybin
I couldn’t make this sh*t up if I tried! 😵😵💫
Irvin’s Self-Contradiction Against Psilocybin in The Holy Mushroom
eg Irvin in The Holy Mushroom 2008 p 31; “Im gonna cover ALL ENTHEOGENS citations that Allegro uses. …[He again repeats that promise, using fancy words such as ‘entheobotanical’. Then 2 paragraphs later on the SAME PAGE:]
“Here, unfortunately, it turns out Allegro is only citing Heim/ Wasson & Hofmann re: just merely Psilocybin, not Amanita, so it’s not relevant; skipping. –>🗑🚽”
PSILOCYBIN IS NOT IMPORTANT TO OUR STUDY OF THE SACRED MUSHROOM 🍄
Annotations by Cybermonk. Fair use, for scholarly discussion.Annotations by Cybermonk. Fair use, for scholarly discussion.
THE TYPES OF MUSHROOMS IN OUR DISCUSSION IS OUR SACRED AMANITA, AND ALSO ITS LOWLY UNIMPORTANT SIDEKICK, PSILOCYBIN (INSOFAR AS WE CAN ROB PSILOCYBIN OF ITS EFFECTS AND ATTRIBUTE THEM TO OUR HOLY AMANITA INSTEAD)
Annotations by Cybermonk. Fair use, for scholarly discussion.Annotations by Cybermonk. Fair use, for scholarly discussion.
The Amanita Primacy Fallacy: Entheogen Scholars from 1952 to 1997 Couldn’t Care Less about Panofsky’s Hundreds of Merely Psilocybin Mushroom Trees
Erwin Panofsky’s 1952 report of hundreds of mushroom trees is slightly interesting, because it draws attention to our fly-agaric fresco, which is our paradigm & primary frame of reference for all of our entheogen scholarship.
The bizarreness of entheogen scholarship: it took SLOW entheogen scholars (Samorini) 1998-1952 = 46 YEARS to trouble themselves to follow Panofsky’s lead and give a damn about looking into these “lesser-looking mushroom trees” (Hatsis’ telling characterization).
Who cares about Panofsky’s hundreds of stupid, irrelevant mushroom trees? 🤷♂️ They aren’t our fly-agaric fresco. 🍄🖼 😍 🙌
Letcher Specifies Which Edition of Allegro Omits Our Sacred Fly-Agaric Fresco Holy Relic that’s the Foundation & Paradigm of Our Entheogen Scholarship Faith
Abridged Allegro SMC editions eliminated our holy fly-agaric fresco 😡😭, as critically stated in Letcher’s book Shroom, partly corroborating Hatsis’ claim, but adding the specifier, abridged editions.
Cyberdisciple Fails to Keep Up with the Convention Everyone Else Has Adopted: The Mushroom 🍄 Emoji Is Universally Understood to Represent Psilocybin Mushrooms
“Conjuring Eden” Article 2001 Explicitly Raises the Question of the Meaning of the {cut branches} Motif!
Letcher Employs the Arbitrary “Secret” Presupposition & Emphasis as the Main Foundation of His Entire Argument of Why Mushroom-Looking Imagery in Art Cannot Ever Mean Mushrooms
MUSHROOMS IN OFFICIAL ART INHERENTLY DON’T COUNT AND ARE THEREFORE NOT MUSHROOMS, BECAUSE ONLY THE SECRET MUSHROOM UNDERGROUND SECT USES MUSHROOMS -(THAT’S A GIVEN, NEEDLESS TO SAY)
I would like Andy Letcher 2016 to reply to my 2007 Egodeath theory, paradigm, and evidence, but he was only familiar with my book review, nothing else, and he’s woefully under-informed about mushroom imagery, as is plainly obvious from his brief and shoddy handling of our fly-agaric fresco and a single panel of the Bernward Doors & Column. THAT’S ALL YOU GOT?
I haven’t been this underwhelmed since Brinckmann’s 1906 86-page book that only mentions “pilzbaum” 5 times.
That’s the entire extent to which art historians have allowed themselves to write, and represents how thoroughly familiar they are with explaining away pilzbaum.
Erwin Panofsky, the most influential art historian says, in the special case of mushrooms, only:
artists = sloppy automatons with no agency and no intention. Therefore it’s not mushrooms. [Saved!]
The fresco is a stylized pine, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Amanita.
Andy Letcher’s non-reply to my theory or to my book review, proves that the only thing he knows about my entheogen theory is my book review, and he simply guesses:
Just like Hatsis, Letcher IMAGINES my theory and evidence, and paradigm; genero-strawmanning.
The Hatsis methodology: don’t reply to a person’s position; dictate to them what their position is and why they are wrong.
Power-strawmanning.
Letcher tries to wave me aside by instead vague strawmanning, replying about “them” and “Hoffman et al” and what “they” are asserting. ZERO words about my theory or my evidence.
A totally generic post, it proves he has never read a word of my theory and evidence gallery, for 10 years.
I expect nothing of Letcher, but I’m noting that his claim that “they” use circular argumentation of picking a premise and supporting it selectively, he knows nothing of philosophy of science. A naive charge.
LETCHER IS OMITTING TONS OF EVIDENCE and thus he is cherrypicking. He is plainly ignorant of the evidence, so he’s cherrypicking.
Letcher simply CLAIMS “they have no evidence.” Showing ignorance. He only covers 2 artworks.
There’s no substance to Letcher’s argument, just like Hatsis.
Just blustering abstract lectures on half-baked “methodology” — while falling on his face on basics; he’s totally ignorant of the evidence, and of my theory/ paradigm.
Letcher Employs the Arbitrary “Secret” Presupposition & Emphasis as the Main Foundation of His Entire Argument of Why Mushroom-Looking Imagery in Art Cannot Ever Mean Mushrooms
Andy Letcher employs the conflation of “secrecy” premise as a ploy to try to give the impression that he’s disproved mushrooms.
Goal: Give the impression that you disproved mushrooms in art.
Stratagem/ploy: Strategically conflate “disproving secret mushroom cult” with “disproving mushroom use”, as follows. Argue that any evidence (mushroom imagery) is public, thus not secret. Therefore, there cannot be secret mushrooms in Christian art. Therefore, there are no mushrooms in Christian art. Therefore, there is no evidence of a history of considering psilocybin mushrooms as a producer of religious experiencing. Therefore, there is no history of considering psilocybin mushrooms as a producer of religious experiencing. Q.E.D.
Thus Letcher 2006 has proved that, against Letcher in his 20s, there is no history of considering psilocybin mushrooms as a producer of religious experiencing.
Mission accomplished.
Crop by Cybermonk
Letcher is tilting at strawmen, such as “secret mushroom cult”.
WTF are you even talking about, “secret mushroom cult”?
I couldn’t care less; the “secret cult” component, which you employ as a foundation of your argument, is irrelevant and confused, in a paradigm of confusion.
Letcher boasts emptily, and while stumbling & covering his eyes, claims:
“My methodology is critical and looks for evidence, unlike theirs.”
That’s a bluff and an empty claim revealing sheer ignorance.
Letcher attempts a rhetorical move, asking (claiming) vapidly with no specifics:
“Why is there no corroborating evidence?”
Translation: LETCHER IS IGNORANT OF THE EVIDENCE. (And of my theory / paradigm too.)
Letcher reveals naivety about theory and my theory and of my evidence.
My Methodology Is Bigger than Yours: Argumentum ab Methodo
In his generic, substance-less non-reply to my review, Andy Letcher writes:
“I take my lead from Ronald Hutton, who is the master of the new methodology, and I thoroughly recommend you read his Pagan Britain to see how it’s done.”
“Professor Ronald Hutton of the University of Bristol gives a more in-depth case-study, talking about his book on the emergence of Wicca, The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft (OUP, 1999), and how it was received by the academy and by the pagan community.
“Of particular interest here for the interviewer was the fact that, although sections of the book are often given to undergraduate students, they somehow seem to prefer Gerald Gardner’s own fantastical account of initiation into a pre-Christian Moon-goddess cult over Hutton’s more down-to-earth – yet no less fascinating – account.”
The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft (Hutton 1999)
“Here is a book that brings witchcraft out of the shadows.
“The Triumph of the Moon is the first full-scale study of the only religion England has ever given the world–modern pagan witchcraft, otherwise known as wicca.
“Meticulously researched, it provides a thorough account of an ancient religion that has spread from English shores across four continents.
“For centuries, pagan witchcraft has been linked with chilling images of blood rituals, ghostlike druids, and even human sacrifices.
“But while Robert Hutton explores this dark side of witchery, he stresses the positive, reminding us that devotion to art, the natural world, femininity, and the classical deities are also central to the practice of wicca.
“Indeed, the author shows how leading figures in English literature–W.B. Yeats, D.H. Lawrence, and Robert Graves, just to name a few–celebrated these positive aspects of the religion in their work, thereby softening the public perception of witchcraft in Victorian England.
“From cunning village folk to freemasons and from high magic to the black arts, Hutton chronicles the fascinating process by which actual wiccan practices evolved into what is now a viable modern religion.
“He also presents compelling biographies of wicca’s principal figures, such as Gerald Gardner, who was inducted into a witch coven at the age of 53, and recorded many clandestine rituals and beliefs.
“Ronald Hutton is known for his colorful, provocative, and always thoroughly researched studies on original subjects.
“This work is no exception.
“It will appeal to anyone interested in witchcraft, paganism and alternative religions.”
“Britain’s pagan past, with its mysterious monuments, atmospheric sites, enigmatic artifacts, bloodthirsty legends, and cryptic inscriptions, is both enthralling and perplexing to a resident of the twenty-first century.
“In this ambitious and thoroughly up-to-date book, Ronald Hutton reveals the long development, rapid suppression, and enduring cultural significance of paganism, from the Paleolithic era to the coming of Christianity.
“He draws on an array of recently discovered evidence and shows how new findings have radically transformed understandings of belief and ritual in Britain before the arrival of organized religion.
“Setting forth a chronological narrative, along the way Hutton makes side visits to explore specific locations of ancient pagan activity.
“He includes the well-known sacred sites—Stonehenge, Avebury, Seahenge, Maiden Castle, Anglesey—as well as more obscure locations across the mainland and coastal islands.
“In tireless pursuit of the elusive “why” of pagan behavior, Hutton astonishes with the breadth of his understanding of Britain’s deep past and inspires with the originality of his insights.”
Cubensis Harvest Cycle Scene from Canterbury, England, 1200 A.D.
Crop and annotations by Cybermonk
My Non-New Methodology: Make Sound Arguments, Make Conscious Assumptions, and Treat the Bulk of the Evidence
It’s a no-brainer that whatever Hutton’s “new methodology” is, Letcher botches it, and I adhere to it better than Letcher does — this follows, from my coherent, successful marshalling of theory and data (evidence), in comparison to Letcher’s wretched argumentation and failure to engage the data.
Confident prediction: Compare Hutton’s “new methodology” to my mytheme theory & evidence, and to Letcher’s reasoning and evidence, and my theory will fulfill Hutton’s methodology far better than Letcher.
That follows, from the success of my sound, articulate theory across huge data-sets of evidence, in contrast with Letcher’s atrocious, unconvincing, arbitrary reasoning and failure to engage the evidence.
Letcher’s bigger methodology than “they” have proves to be bad theory, by name-calling as “circular” and engaging with none of the theory and none of the evidence, then makes a HUGE claim that he’s better than “them” who don’t follow the evidence — as if he knows ANYTHING about my evidence base, he just reveals his complete ignorance of mushroom imagery in Christian art:
Letcher waves aside mushroom imagery at Panofsky-level of argument quality, while he brags about his New Methodology, which produces awful argumentation evidently with:
Arbitrary argumentation: “It’s just a tree”.
Atrocious lame argument vector, “there’s no secret inserted art in this official art, so “they” have been disproved: they are wrong about the mushroom theory.”
Manifestly, Letcher’s “bigger, better methodology” produces garbage results, and is asleep within an imagined debate that’s based on an iceberg of unthinking presuppositions and produces bizarre vectors of argumentation.
Letcher Really Badly Wants There to Be “a Secret Mushroom Cult“
like Hatsis Really Wishes There Were a Secret Christian Amanita Cult
Chris Letheby advocates primacy of mind every time he trips, he reports. Then he writes a book (Philosophy of Psychedelics) to prove that he was wrong.
In his 20s, Letcher advocated a secret magic mushroom cult traditional conception history, he reports. Then he writes a book (Shroom) to prove that he was wrong.
My inclination is to drop “secret”, but “secret” is a HUGE part of Letcher’s paradigm. Still, it’s useful to consider just the idea without “secret”:
Thesis to test:
There was a historical tradition of conceptualizing psilocybin (cubensis/ liberty cap) as for religious use; a history of thinking of psilocybin mushrooms as for religious mystical use.
My own thesis is:
Mushroom imagery in Christian art shows that the Medieval era had a peak tradition of shared knowledge of psilocybin for peak advanced religious knowledge and comprehending myth and motifs.
Ignorance of the evidence is mistaken by Letcher as “there is no evidence” – an ignorance-based, and ignorance-revealing, declaration.
No evidence for what? Letcher’s addled, confused looking for “a secret mushroom cult”.
Letcher exudes confusion.
Letcher should only consider rebutting that there was:
A history of thinking of psilocybin mushrooms as for religious mystical use.
Drop the irrelevant “secret” notion that’s confusing you; such as the trainwreck of an argument regarding the Bernward Doors.
What an awful, failed “methodology” Letcher brags about.
Letcher gets the goal (topic of debate) wrong, and he reveals ignorance of theory and evidence.
The louder the bragging about superior methodology, the worse the basic argumentation.
Letcher didn’t invent this confusion-laden “secrecy” construction; he bought into it, unthinkingly and jumped into the paradigm wholesale, unconsciously — producing the worst argumentation ever seen, to explain away the only two pieces of art he pretends to engage with.
Now he recants that view (that there’s a history of seeing mushrooms as for religious mystical use) and it’s all just fantasy.
The Letcher Superior Methodology
Make a huge network of unthinking presuppositions. Take your paradigm for granted.
Assume everyone operates within your own quest for a secret mushroom cult.
Be ignorant of mushroom trees; only cover two of them, incredibly badly. Halt and declare “they have no evidence”.
“They have no evidence” means, there’s no evidence for the view that Letcher badly wanted to be true: a history of secret magic mushroom underground cult.
Very impressive shadow-boxing.
Just like Hatsis.
About Bernward doors — and by extension, about all art — Letcher reasons in a circle, stuck in a loop, begging the question, unthinkingly, targeting the wrong goal, and one which cannot possibly be met (the circular confusion around “secret cult”):
Any evidence — mushroom-looking imagery — is proof of absence. Mushroom imagery in art would be in official art, and would not therefore be secret; therefore, mushroom-looking imagery cannot be mushrooms. Art is public, and therefore, cannot contain mushroom imagery.
Mushroom imagery in official art is a contradiction in terms — in Letcher’s confusion-based, begging-the-question paradigm.
A whirlwind of logic lifting Letcher into heaven — or falling over into a ditch.
Letcher criticizes the theory of “them” as circular (& cherrypicking, ie “they” are ignorant about evidence).
THE LETCHER DISMISSAL:
MUSHROOMS IN OFFICIAL ART INHERENTLY DON’T COUNT AND ARE THEREFORE NOT MUSHROOMS, BECAUSE ONLY THE SECRET MUSHROOM UNDERGROUND SECT USES MUSHROOMS -(THAT’S A GIVEN, NEEDLESS TO SAY)
Letcher wants to disprove the view that he says he held in his 20s: that there was a history of considering using psilocybin mushrooms for peak religious experiencing; a historical precedent for thinking of psilocybin (liberty caps, cubensis) as for religious/ mystical/ spiritual purposes.
Letcher conflates that clean, useful idea with “and it was in the context of a secret cult”, as part of his inconsistency about who and what he is refuting.
There’s good circularity, and then there’s falling-over circularity.
Happy to Find His 4-Point Arg in Text 🎉
I can’t find it in his book, but online he wrote it out, especially for me!
“Not everything that looks like a mushroom in art is a mushroom.
Not everything that is a mushroom is a magic mushroom.
Just because it’s a magic mushroom doesn’t mean that it was used intentionally for its psychedelic effects.
Just because it’s used intentionally, doesn’t mean that it’s used for religious purposes.”
Just because it’s used for religious purposes, doesn’t mean it’s used for peak ultimate religious transformative experience.
Step 5 is my added extension of that mode of argument, the point being, Eadwine not only does all the things Letcher can’t imagine being done, but goes even further.
Eadwine’s images in Great Canterbury Psalter, and my branching-message mushroom trees article, disproves the entire chain.
I proved that the Eadwine images, explained by the mytheme theory, depict cubensis ingested for peak transformative religious experiencing.
Use of Ayahuasca or Psilocybin That’s Not for Religious/ Mystical/ Spiritual Purposes
The book Shroom presages some later Irvin points. Andy Letcher writes, in 2016, like Jan Irvin 2022:
“(here I recommend Steve Beyer’s excellent book, Singing to the Plants.
“In Mestizo shamanism, people do not take ayahuasca to have religious experiences – though that’s what we in the West do – they do so to get well. Very different).”
Book Link Citation
Shroom: A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom February 27, 2007 Andy Letcher
Letcher states in the book that the reason to show Amanita on book covers is to increase sales. The original Amanita wasn’t gaudy and loud enough, so like John Rush, he piled more Amanita imagery, as much as possible, even though Letcher argues that Amanita has the worst possible efficacy.
Letcher uses an openly cynical and sarcastic, mocking and ironic, placement of Amanita imagery on the front and back of his book.
I have this hardcover 1st US printing 2007, not UK 2006.
Michael Hoffman 4 out of 5 stars Reviewed April 2, 2007
Partial critical engagement with entheogen theory of religious origins
Shroom covers topics including refutation of the mushroom theory of the origin of religion, the recent U.K. psilocybin mushroom scene, a critical treatment of Wasson’s research methodology and mushroom theory of Vedic religion, and Tim Leary as backdrop leading up to the later popular use of psilocybin mushrooms.
This is a valuable book that contributes some new perspectives and new coverage of entheogens in Western culture; this book is a must-have for entheogen researchers.
The present review focuses exclusively on his critique of the mushroom theory of religious origins, which he sometimes treats as though it is a critical refutation of the overall entheogen theory of religion.
___
Letcher has not disproved the entheogen theory of religion, or even fully engaged with that hypothesis.
At most, he has made a partial effort to call into question the mushroom theory of the pre-historical origin of religion, in the form of a secret cult spreading from a single origin over time and across regions.
Letcher often comes across triumphally as having disproved the entheogen theory of the origin of religion, but a careful reading of his treatment of that particular topic shows that he has actually only shown something far narrower ; he has only refuted a highly specific point.
___
At most, Letcher’s treatment of the entheogen theory of religious origins shows that we have no compelling archaeological evidence for a prehistorical mushroom cult that was secret and unbroken.
When his rhetorical verbiage and his general discussions of history are put aside, the substance of his argumentation that remains does not amount to a compelling argument against the frequent use of mushrooms (or other visionary plants) throughout religious history.
___
Letcher’s writing style is rhetorical, so that he tells the story of recent mushroom scholarship and culture well, presenting much of interest to the audience, including valuable new material.
He uses a biased rhetorical style; for example, “lunatic fringe”, “conspiracy theories”, “unfounded speculations”, “the myth” of the entheogen origin of religion.
This charged rhetorical style obscures that fact that his argument for his refutation of the entheogen theory of the origin of religion rests on only a few, fleetingly discussed points of argument.
___
Letcher does not engage the bulk of the literary and artistic evidence that provide sufficient grounds to support the general entheogen theory of religious origins.
He merely puts forth brief and rather arbitrary arguments dismissing a couple of the many depictions of mushrooms in Christian art.
___
Letcher’s inadequate selection of cases to refute, and his brief, perfunctory treatment of these cases, is not sufficient in breadth or depth to compel adherents of various variants of the entheogen theory of the origins of religion to change their position, no matter how many times or how confidently he rhetorically dubs the theory as a “myth”.
For example, he would need to engage the range of art that is presented in the first three issues of Entheos magazine, and the range of arguments such as those presented in Giorgio Samorini’s articles about Christian mushroom trees.
___
It’s admirable to see an independent critical thinker comment on selected aspects of Allegro and Wasson, but only a few of those comments actually amount to engaging with the evidence for the general entheogen theory of the origin of religion.
Letcher makes the risky move of overextending his specific focus on psychoactive mushrooms, at the expense of being under-informed on the general entheogen theory and the full range of arguments, interpretive frameworks, systems of assumptions, and evidence of various types in support of that broad-ranging theory.
___
As a thought-experiment with the hypothesis that normalized religious cultic use of mushrooms is only a few decades old, this aspect of the book is a valuable contribution to the field; however, Letcher switches inconsistently between that bold but narrow hypothesis and a broader, firm conclusion that the entheogen theory of religion altogether is merely a recent fabrication of popular scholarship and merely wishful thinking.
___
Letcher leaps from what he narrowly demonstrates, to a stance and a claim to have shown convincingly that the entheogen theory of religious origins (and fairly frequent entheogen use throughout religious history) is nothing but recent wishful thinking, a fabrication by a group that is a historical novelty: late 20th Century psychedelics enthusiasts, including mushroom enthusiasts in the U.K. from 1976-2006.
___
All theories involve a framework of assumptions.
The fact that a scholarly theory uses a set of unproved assumptions does not instantly do away with (or “demolish”) the theory.
Letcher handles the evidence by the common strategy of dividing, isolating, and diminishing each piece of evidence in isolation, operating under the arbitrary silent assumption that entheogen use was rare, secretive (“conspiracy”), and deviant.
But such a methodology is problematic and is controverted by the maximal entheogen theory of religion, which holds that Western history and Western culture have always been inspired to some extent by the ongoing practice of using visionary plants.
The unavoidable question remains, “How are we to judge what is plausible and what was normal for that culture?”
___
Should we assume that the use of visionary plants was normal and significantly present throughout mainstream religion and culture, or that it was rare, a secretive conspiracy, and deviant (exceptional)?
Selecting our assumptions about the backdrop, of what was normal in a culture, affects the validity of completely isolating each piece of potential evidence and then attempting to judge the plausibility of reading that piece of evidence as supporting the entheogen theory of religion.
What seems plausible to a critical scholar depends on the backdrop of what we assume was normal in the culture.
___
For example, Letcher affirms that the cathedral door at Hildesheim, Germany depicts the tree of knowledge in the shape that “looks extremely like a giant Liberty Cap”, but he argues that it cannot have meant a Liberty Cap, because the doors were carefully designed and the depiction cannot have been secret in that case, so the image cannot represent anything other than, or in addition to, a “stylized fig tree”.
___
It doesn’t occur to Letcher to imagine and address the obvious critical arguments and questions against his hasty discussion, such as:
Why assume that a mushroom allusion had to be secret?
Why is an officially designed depiction of a mushroom automatically ruled out as unthinkable?
Why was the fig tree stylized in the specific form of a Liberty Cap mushroom?
What about the hundreds of other specifically psilocybin mushroom-shaped trees in Christian art?
___
Letcher has much homework to do if he wants to try to retain his hypothesis that psychoactive mushrooms were absent from Western religious history until the late 20th Century, and if he intends to convince critical entheogen scholars of that hypothesis — a hypothesis that will be hard to maintain after seriously addressing, with responses to at least the most obvious counter-criticisms, the current full range of artistic evidence (post-Wasson and post-Allegro), which Letcher has barely engaged.
There are seven Liberty Cap mushroom-trees total, in the left Bernward Door (three in two panels) and Bernward Column (four). As well as {mushroom hem}, {floating mushroom hem}, Liberty Cap roofs, and mushroom roof toppers.
Related, non-mushroom motifs in the Bernward Doors and Column include {cut branch} and {stand on right foot}.
Bernward features:
Liberty Cap mushroom-trees
{mushroom hem}
{floating mushroom hem}
Liberty Cap roofs
mushroom roof toppers
{cut branch}
{stand on right foot}
Affirmers or deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art who discuss Bernward door act like there’s only 1 Liberty Cap mushroom-tree, but there are actually seven: 3 in door, 4 in column.
The predictable move of the deniers is the minimalist proxy approach: out of the hundreds of mushroom imagery in Christian art, only pick 1: eg 1 in Bern door, firmly disprove your straw man, proxy, isolated instance, context-free, misrepresentation of the debate positions, do the worst argumentation possible, and pronounce yourself victorious.
Against Ruck / Huggins/ everyone, eve’s fig leaf doesn’t match Lib cap caps. Non-branching points at her but not clear that her fig leaf is from that branch; if it is, then where did Adam get his fig leaf or Lib cap cap?
Winged serpent visually cuts Eve right left. Where did the snake go? In previous panel is it two points in time? First, serpent w/ limbs, then snake on right, both in a tree OR in the tree, shown twice.
Photo credit: Julie M. Brown. Crop by Michael Hoffman. Panel 4, Adam and Eve, Bernward’s Door of Salvation. St. Michael’s Church, Hildesheim, Germany, 1015.
Higher up in this page is top of column, which is the end of the story panel sequence; we start here at the end; the end of the column, at top, is Entry into Jeru; Palm Sunday. The top, final scene in the spiral is buildings of Jeru w/ lib cap roofs.
[15] Palm Sunday episode, transcript, Bernward Column, Dom, Hildesheim. “obviously branches of palm” per Ruck p. 29 Conj Eden.15palm.jpg My own WordPress gallery copy, not linked from https://entheomedia.net/eden2.htm
The point is difference between Bernward’s depiction of palm tree branch vs. liberty cap tree.
To contrast Liberty Cap trees vs. Palm tree, Ruck has picture before the above, showing branches of palm.
From “Conjuring Eden”, Ruck continues:
“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)” [photo of p. 30 above]
Column Panel 19: Healing the Sick: Liberty Cap tree #4
In “Conjuring Eden”, Ruck:
Ruck continues (p. 30, right column, top): “Finally, [4th] 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 …”
Ruck didn’t provide any picture of this 4th mushroom-tree in the Entheos article or in the entheomedia online gallery? They must have been as overextended as I have been because TOO MANY MUSHROOMS.
Liberty Cap mushroom-tree #4: Walk water/ healing sick, 1 cap, cut left branch
Liberty Cap mushroom-tree + fig tree:
{mushroom hem} knees
The fig tree is on the right with two leaves on top.
In “ConjEden”, Ruck:
“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, fig tree is on the right with two leaves on top]
Column Panel 18: Cursing of the Barren Fig Tree (two leaves on top instead of mushroom cap)
Ruck, p. 30, Entheos 1, 2001, Conjuring Eden article:
“But the very next episode, … is the Cursing of the Fig Tree.122[19] – fig tree is on the right, with two leaves at top.
“The tree is now only a leaf [sic; pair of leaves], without fruit, that is to say, its taseled top, for Chris went to the tree and found it fruitless.”
Brown’s dubious claim to authority (because we did field research instead of relying on pictures) collapses: if I do field work, I cannot get so good a view as some online photos eg most of the mushroom-trees in Kornbluth Photo, though one is badly cut off and very disrespected.
From “Conjuring Eden”, Ruck writes: “Next [2nd] 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]
Column Panel 7: Commission/ Leper: Liberty Cap tree #1, 2 caps Column
WordPress gallery > my photo of Entheos > Commissioning/ Leper [mushroom-tree 1]
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.
Ruck writes: “First [#1 of 4 Liberty Cap trees] 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]
Cut branch points at Jesus’ halo. From Entheos Issue 1, 2001, “Conjuring Eden”, by Mark Hoffman, Carl Ruck, & Blaise Staples.
World’s 2nd known instance of bronze of this motif. Not sure if John Rush’s {celestial erection} is as good as my old term {lifted garment} or euph new term {phallic garment} – I don’t think it’s phallic.
The mosaic of Dionysus process, contributed in 2005~ by the Egodeath community, Dionysus behind him has mushroom hem lifted but not phallic. Same w/ Dancing Man. Need better term’y.
Look forward to inspecting Bern door/col on my own, hi res – we are privileged recently — the whole thing, just like i did w Great Canterbury Psalter: not through the filter from other entheogen scholars.”
/ end of Feb 3 email
Time stamp re: nursing: [Feb. 3, 2025]; it’s possible to inspect files to get exact time I wrote about this in idea development 24 page.
Strangely – not that surprising – i’m the first to see this at eye level, first known instance of mushroom hem in bronze
Given how much smoke and noise around Bern door, why no one mention this obvious mushroom hem at eye level? Ans:
Do not get fixated on Amanita and fail to see Psilo. entheogen scholars get fixated on Amanita b/c the Amanita Primacy Fallacy, and halt there, not even trying to see Psil.
Do not get fixated on tree of knowledge and fail to see other scenes. entheogen scholars get fixated on tree of knowledge, FALL OF MAN OMG! THE ORIGINAL SIN OMG! and fail to see other scenes literally in front of face at eye level in this case.
There Are Seven Liberty Cap mushroom-trees in Bernward Door & Column
pp 29-30 of “Conjuring Eden” lists 4 tassel trees (Liberty caps) on the Bernward Column [update 9pm Feb 1 2025]:
I FOUND RUCK VERY VERY CONFUSING ABOUT CURSING FIG TREE, INSERTED BETWEEN HIS INSTANCE 3 & 4 ON P 30 OF ENTHEOS 1.
The fig tree has pair of leaves, why does Ruck say “a leaf”?
Page 29 Entheos 1 “Conjuring Eden”: “Four times column has tassel trees, each in visionary context”
NO MORE OF THIS BALONEY SINGLING OUT ISOLATING ONE OF THE 8 SO YOU CAN WRITE JUNK ARGS IN ORDER TO REACH YOUR PRE-COMMITTED CONCLUSION
“, SO DOESN’T COUNT”
The Liberty Cap mushroom-tree is in the wrong scene: Blame, not Eat from Tree – so, DOESN’T COUNT.
The Liberty Cap mushroom-tree on Bern door isn’t hidden, so, DOESN’T COUNT.
The Liberty Cap mushroom-tree is only a lone isolated instance, so, DOESN’T COUNT.
An infantile game; stupid brain dead ignorance-based argumentation from deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art, bullheaded committed skeptics — they leap on the false arg’n from Backwards Brown.
Bernward Column Has Four Liberty Cap Mushroom-Trees, Left Door Has Three; Seven Total
Although ConjEden fails to give the count of the number of mushroom mushroom-trees in the “eve presented to adam” door panel, the text says [13] and the online gallery image 13 does show the two Liberty Cap mushroom-trees in that panel. https://entheomedia.net/eden2.htm
Cursing fig tree is the tree with leaves instead of a round cap.
There are 4 Liberty Cap mushroom-trees on Bernward column, as Conjuring Eden in 2001 states.
Conjuring Eden Should Specify Two Liberty Cap Mushroom-Trees in Present Eve Panel
Copied all Bernward content from Idea Development page 24 to the present Bernward page.
Conj Eden doesn’t say specifically that there are TWO Lib Cap trees in the Create Eve panel in Bern Door. Quote, p. 29, Entheos 1:
“Moreover, elsewhere on the doors, similar tassel trees [TWO OF THEM] (with five branches) occur in the episode where the Lord introduces Adam to his new wife; [13] while for the Temptation (Fall from Grace) episode, the trees are ornamental fronds* and the fruit spherical “apples.”[14] https://entheomedia.net/eden2.htm – [13] shows the two 5-cap Liberty Cap mushroom-trees.
* Not Liberty caps – as Bennett objects, yet Bennett fails to mention that the afformentioned panel “Create Eve” has two Liberty cap trees.
it has been challenging and sometimes frustrating trying to follow and comprehend.
Ruck’s poetic prose in 2001 ConjEden article is very hard to follow: that article has ENORMOUS scope and they go in depth but that’s NOT ENOUGH to make sense: what is the bottom line?
Ruck group failed to communicate 100%; they only hit 90% or 7/8 clarity, thus the awful treatment -extremely awful treatment of Bernward by Letcher 2006 Shroom book, AS IF there were only a single mushroom-tree in Bernward instead of seven of them.
How many Lib Cap trees did Brown consider? 1? Ruck 2001: 7 (says “Present Eve to Adam” has trees but doesn’t say 2 or 3 (it’s 2). Stamets 1996: 1 Gartz 1996: 1 Samo 1998 1? Bennett 2021: 1.
Bennett’s Criticism of Brown & Others Who Call “the” mushroom-tree “tree of knowledge”
Last night [feb 1? 2025] i found that Bennett makes a valid point against Brown and accuses Brown and unnamed others of intellectual dishonesty and misrepresentation of Bernward.
It’s true Brown misrepresents Fall from Grace panel as if it shows tree of knowledge, when Bennett makes a sound argument that the tree there is not the tree of knowledge but is fig tree.
Bennett’s arg isn’t as strong as he presents.
Bennett makes a largely fair point, but his analysis is incomplete and inadequate, so he’s not in a good position to make the absolutist accusations against various interpreters.
Bennett fails to acknowledge the TWO lib cap trees in the panel ABOVE the non-mushroom tree of knowledge panel; in the Eve Presented to Adam panel.
Malformed Debate Positions Poorly Defined by Affirmers & Deniers
So much of the dispute comes down to MALFORMED DEBATE POSITIONS.
In any debate about mushroom imagery in Christian art, the first step is to carefully craft and define exactly what’s being asserted and what’s not being debated.
We are NOT debating whether the artist would agree that the images cause the viewer to think mushrooms — that is a GIVEN according to art historians themselves, the moment they coined their term, pilzbaum, mushroom-trees.
Debating whether the artist is a thick dull stupid denier, “I can’t imagine how the viewer would be made to think of mushrooms by my painting” is silly game-playing.
What is ACTUALLY under debate is whether the objectively mushroom-looking features of mushroom-trees are purposeful, not whether the artist is an imbecile.
The latter tactic direction is phony avoidance, and the deniers would lose the debate by shirking and changing the subject of contention to “the artist is too stupid to know that mushroom-trees look like mushrooms.” – irrelevant and unproductive.
Shut out that time-wasting game-playing by defining the two debate positions intelligently.
In each writer’s discussion of Bernward, how many Liberty Caps do they treat/acknowledge to exist between the Door & Col? guessing:
Samo: 1
Bennett: 1
Brown 2016: 1
Brown 2019: 1
Ruck Conj Eden: 5-7
Ruck in Conj Eden is vague re: how many are in door panel 2 “Present Eve to Adam”. Ruck says plural but not how many (two). He REALLY should have advertised loudly:
There are seven Liberty Cap mushroom-trees total, in the left Bernward Door (three in two panels) and Bernward Column (four). As well as {mushroom hem}, liberty cap roofs, and mushroom roof toppers.
Cursing of the Fig Tree, transcript, Bernward Column, Dom, Hildesheim..[20]
move to Column > [apoc incarn]?? section:
Apocalypse-Incarnation, Bernward Gospel, Dom treasury, Hildesheim (and details).
Door: Blame scene: Because You Have Eaten the Fruit, the Snake Will Bite Your Heel (Bernward)
Revealed ultimate source of causal agency in a block universe with embedded snake-shaped, pre-existing worldlines frozen in rock (bronze).
todo: restore image here, Plaincourault
May 27 2023 11:46 pm – applying my “cap = non-branching ” analysis of our fly-agaric fresco, Eve covers {obscene, vulnerable leg-branching [branching-claim] exposed}. {cap} is considered non-branching in YI/YO morphology of branching-message mushroom trees.
[Jan. 31, 2025 qualification of the above: a cap containing a grid of Liberty Caps, in Great Canterbury Psalter, is to be read as “branching”.]
My initial observation upon seeing a good impressively big view of that above crop on larger screen, popped out at me, the caps covering their in… my very first thought:
What thing covers their branching legs? [Blame panel]
Is the thing they’re holding simply same as these caps of these psilocybin semi-lance-shaped mushroom trees? In Present Eve scene, rightmost tree, right side, middle: that crown matches Eve’s fig leaf in … this somewhat makes hash of out of Bennett’s objection, his over-rigid separation of trees by scene. He claims in Blame scene the tree is fig tree – but cap held by Eve matches tree in different panel, Present Eve panel.
Conjuring Edge 2001 article is 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.
[5:44 am Dec 4 2024] I discovered a couple things:
1) Letcher in book 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).
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.
There Are Seven Liberty Cap Mushroom-Trees in Bernward Doors and Column
“As cited and cued in the article Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise Entheos: Vol. 1 Issue 1, Summer 2001. By Carl A.P. Ruck, Blaise D. Staples, Mark Hoffman
Door: Panel 2: Eve Given to Adam: 2 Liberty Cap trees <– Bennett IGNORES
Door: Panel 3: Eat Tree: 0 Liberty Cap trees <– Bennett HIGHLIGHTS
Which authors write as if door has 1 Lib Cap tree only? Everyone. Not Conj Eden, it’s almost perfect but fails to say how many are in the marry panel its 2, so … art should
Should say total is 8 – it was very hard to follow Ruck committee writing.
Who treats Bernward as if ONLY the Blame panel has a Liberty Cap – taboo special FALL OF MAN ORIGINAL SIN PSILOCYBIN converts you from enlightened eternalism-thinking Right foot (Canter. f11 eden Row 3 Middle “Do Not Eat” – then when Eat, 3 Right, they stand on a single combined foot and have wrong hand?
The “Isolate Each Instance” Fallacy
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.
Letcher gives totally vague bragging of his big methodology — vapid claims — he presents a circular argument arguably, and claims that “they”[???] / “et al”[???] theorize with a smaller methodology.
He makes naive facile claim that “they” use a circular argument, apparently doesn’t know all theories are circular.
According to my theory, your methodology claim is vapor, blowing smoke.
He screws up at Step 1: assume your premise.
Letcher assumes premise and accuses “them” of assuming the premise:
Letcher unthinkingly assumes the debate is “whether there was a SECRET history tradition cultural valuing of religious use of magic mushrooms[?]”.
Whoever had the bright idea to WELD some confused, wrong network of presuppositions, “secret cult”. Ans: Graves, Wasson, Allegro, Ruck. Not Stamets, not Gartz.
Who ever said we should be debating over whether or not there was a secret cult?
You’re missing the relevant points.
The goal is explain myth and motifs.
Myth and art depict psilocybin transformation from possibilism to eternalism mental worldmodel transformation in loose cog state, per my 1988 theory — not the “analogical” component (1998+), but the remaining/ original 3 components:
The theory of [analogical] psychedelic eternalism cybernetics.
In 1988, I would have said alternative words:
The “loose cognition, block universe, cybernetics” theory of ego transcendence.
Letcher’s book Shroom falsely argues that the mushroom tree in the Forbidden Fruit panel can’t mean mushrooms, because the doors are a coherent structured design by mainstream institutional Christianity, and therefore cannot be secret mushrooms inserted covertly by the underground heretical fringe sect cult of the mushroom.
If Letcher admitted there are multiple panels with psilocybin mushrooms, he’d use instead the prejudiced Panofsky argument: this one mushroom tree can’t mean a mushroom, because there are many.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
Letcher’s book is a reaction against Letcher’s own fanboyism of McKenna in Letcher’s 20s.
Like Hatsis is a simplistic flipping against Hatsis’s own Allegro fanboyism.
Like a low-grade atheist is a flipping against one’s own previous low-grade Christian apologetics.
Only a “disciple Allegro” (Hatsis) can so assume that his social-type opponents are “disciples of Allegro”, just like he himself was.
Hatsis remains forever still trapped in his same little Allegro bubble.
Letcher 2006 is stuck within his own little same paradigm bubble of the pop quest for a tradition history of spiritual/ religious psilocybin/ Amanita use.
Letcher’s rebuttal of that Wasson/ Allegro/ Ruck/ McKenna “secret forgotten underground” paradigm remains stuck within that paradigm. Confusion results.
A malformed pair of assumptions about interpretation options of the Bernward doors and column results.
Letcher mis-reasons that there are only two options: Either there’s “secret mushroom cult imagery hidden covertly in art”, or else, the “historical tradition of secret mushroom cult” theory is false.
Hatsis copy/pastes this exact same confusion about what ideas are thinkable.
The Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism covers these theory-elements, but in a more conscious, adept way. There was some secrecy. But that’s not a foundation emphasized in any way with a role in my theory.
The foundational emphasis of the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism is:
Myth is depiction by analogy of the ultimate effect of psilocybin-induced loose cognition, producing mental worldmodel transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Note the utter lack of Sociology or Anthropology theory thought-constraining paradigms in my stripped-down approach that starts NOT from a social theory of “sect cult secret suppressed counterculture underground” or Irvin’s “suggestogens”, but rather, start from cognitive theory and myth as analogy depicting that cognitive transformation – the two experiential mental models, the later one formed by loosening mental construct processing.
In 1998, I needed Mr. Jesus & Mr. Paul to corroborate my core theory about how the mind transforms in the loose cognitive binding state.
But I immediately found that Jesus & Paul didn’t exist, so I instead looked for myth to corroborate the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence, or psychedelic eternalism.
That was consistently successful.
In 2020-2023, I adjusted the “articulation” (Kuhn) of my core theory, at an interface layer (the mytheme theory), to better map mythemes and art motifs (part of the “data” per Kuhn) to the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence (psychedelic eternalism) (my 2- or 4-phase model of mental worldmodel transformation).
My 1997 mature Core theory is of how the mind transforms (the real nature of ego transcendence), from loosecog from psychedelics.
My 2023 mature Mytheme theory is of how myth describes that mental transformation from loosecog from psilocybin.
We must differentiate the theory elements: use of psilocybin; secret; use of psilocybin for inebriation; use of psilocybin for religious/ mystical/ spiritual use.
Irvin 2022 God’s Flesh rebuts the spiritual use of psilocybin in mesoamerica. Wasson lied and fabricated that type of usage, Irvin concludes based on the old texts.
Separate the sheer use of psilocybin (signalled by Amanita vivid imagery) vs. the “secrecy” premise, which is shorthand for the assumption of sociology/anthroology theory that the SOCIAL world is always structured as mainstream ignorant prohibitionists pitted against underground psilocybin/Amanita users;
secrecy (mainstream vs. counterculture)
mystical spiritual religious use of psilocybin/Amanita
sheer use eg inebriation/ for altered-state use of Psilocybin/Amanita
Cybermonk 11am Sat May 27 2023 after voice recording – I laid out entheogen scholarship books by date, and discussed the theories of Amanita & psilocybin history which Letcher 2006 variously rebuts.
Entheogen Scholarship Books I Surveyed May 27, 2023
Cybermonk entheogen scholarship library sampling arranged by year
Chris Bennett: Affirmers of Blame Panel 4 Fail to Say Eat Tree panel 3 lacks Lib Cap tree: BUT, Bennett Fails to Say “Eve Given to Adam” (panel 2 of 8) has TWO Lib Cap trees!
todo: paste entire passage by Bennett: just CB’s rebuttal:
Bennett wrote:
“this panel on ‘The Door of Salvation’ with similar claims, leave out the proceeding panel, which is clearly depicting the ingestion of the temptation of the forbidden fruit, and instead use the panel that follows that one, which shows the covering themselves in fig leaves, which is what the panel being used for the suggestion of mushroom imagery, actually represents.
“In the depiction Eve is using the same material that is on the tips of the branches which are being interpreted as ‘mushrooms’ to cover herself.
“In the proceeding panel [#3, Eat Tree], we can see Eve being tempted by the serpent who holds the classic apple in his mouth, and her offering it to Adam from a tree that has no indication of mushrooms.”
“Clearly the proceeding panel,[#3, Eat Tree] with the classic forbidden apples is depicting the ingestion of the forbidden fruit.
“The panel [#4, Blame] being used by the Brown’s for the mushroom like imagery of the trees, is in no way connected to the forbidden tree of knowledge, but is instead a tree from which fig leaves were broken off and Adam and Eve covered themselves.
“and they knew that they were naked; so they sewed together fig leaves and made coverings for themselves”.
“As the Browns took the trouble to visit St. Michaels in person, I think it remains without question, that they left out this panel [#3, Eat Tree] which shows the forbidden tree as a the classic apple tree, and the actual ingestion of the forbidden fruit by Adam and Eve.”
LIKE BENNETT LEAVES OUT THE TWO-LIBERTY-CAP TREES PANEL [#2 of 8, Eve Given to Adam] ABOVE THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE PANEL.
“There is no indication the mushroom like trees are connected besides serving as a source of ‘fig leaves’ for their covering.”
Sure, Chris – go that direction, ok, let’s look at THREE panels: including the one above Chris’ crop.
Eden panels:
God creates Eve from Adam’s right side rib. Trees: __
God introduces Eve to Adam. 2 Liberty Cap trees.
Eat tree of knowledge. tree of knowledge not Lib Cap; 2 other plants.
what the F! did Chris NOT NOTICE that above the two panels that he details, there is an ADDITIONAL TWO Lib Cap trees?
Read entire passage in his article re: all points about Bern Doo Bernward door liberty cap mushroom-tree Blame panel, Bernward column four liberty cap mushroom-trees.
Eadwine: Hands and Feet in “Do Not Eat” & “Eat” Panels
[Jan. 31-Feb.1, 2025]
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 29, 2025
Do Not: God: L hand down Do Not: Eve: R hand down, L hand up touching halo Do Not: Adam: R hand down
Do Not: God: R foot down Do Not: Eve: R foot down Do Not: Adam: R foot down touching God’s R foot
Eat: Eve: L hand down Eat: Adam: L hand down
Eat: Eve: Right foot down Eat: Adam: L foot down
Jan 30 2025 where the heck did i put my pics of the 4 Lib Caps per Conj Eden on Bern Door early 2025??
A quick copy from there to here: dup content is bad, but obviously the present spot (Bernward article) is the master copy (not the idea development 24 page).
Glad I Rated the Book Shroom as 4 Stars, not 3 Stars
todo: headings
Entheogen Scholars, WRITE EXPLICITLY ABOUT CUBENSIS ON BOVINE CATTLE DUNG IN ENGLAND, GODDAMIT! Stop Your Silent, Prejudiced Lying & Information Blackout!
Irvin forced the color palette from Blue (Psilocybin) to Red (Amanita). This corrupted art led Ruck to write in Ruck’s appendix “Fungus Redivivus” in Allegro’s book SMC published by Irvin (Gnostic Media).Color palette according to this copy of library’s online copy. Capture/crop by Cybermonk. “Salamander-MS-Bodl-602-fol-027v-zoom-capture.png” 7.4 MB (insanely high-res) [7:33 p.m. February 17, 2023] https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/objects/05f663d9-1fcb-4750-9ce3-03d0eb687648/surfaces/ca3ce84c-c589-4340-afa6-0733ecce5acf/
Huggins’ 2024 article “Dizzy” article has side-by-side of the above two versions of the image.
Why the F doesn’t Huggins cite my superior article http://egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm – BOGUS! My article already addressed Huggins’ games and objections way back in 2006.
Bull facing Right = POV outside the heimarmene level 8 Ogdoad sphere of the fixed stars, per David Ulansey’s hypercosmic article.Bull facing correct way from this POV? Bottom band of woodcut, Left to Right (= Earth POV): Cancer (Crab), Leo (Lion), Virgo (Virgin), Libra (Balance), Scorpius (Scorpion), Sagittarius (Archer). Upper band of woodcut, Right to Left: Capricornus (Goat), Aquarius (Water Bearer), Pisces (Fish), Aries (Ram), Taurus (Bull), Gemini (Twins).
Bottom band of woodcut, Left to Right (= Earth POV): Cancer (Crab), Leo (Lion), Virgo (Virgin), Libra (Balance), Scorpius (Scorpion), Sagittarius (Archer).
Upper band of woodcut, Right to Left: Capricornus (Goat), Aquarius (Water Bearer), Pisces (Fish), Aries (Ram), Taurus (Bull), Gemini (Twins).
Presumably higher fidelity color palette. Blue stem in Mithras’ Right leg.
Photo credit: Michael Hoffman, Dec. 2, 2024, 1:15 pm. Viewed directly in person, the cover is a little more yellow-green/ smog colored than this. Corruptions by Mark Hoffman/Ruck: flipped L/R (huge error), palette shifted from Blue to Red.
page 2 of Entheos Issue 3: First Printing, September 2002. 200 copies. This is copy 140. All graphics, layout and printing performed by Entheomedia. Cover: A fresco of the Taurocthony from the Mithraum at Marino located in the Alban Hills, near Rome. Editor, Graphics & Layout Mark Hoffman We are very happy to welcome Michael Winkelman, … to our Editorial Advisory Board!
Intro
Jerry Brown missed this aspect — deliberate corruption of art — when criticizing reliance on blurry Internet images. The situation is worse than that.
Letcher calls out Kat McKenna for redrawing the mushroom cave shaman with clear mushrooms unlike the cave photo. However, a cave photo of the figure is shown in Samorini’s book — Letcher’s case is weak. The cave photo looks fairly clearly like mushrooms, and Kat did a reasonable job of producing a cleaned up drawing based on this justifiable reading.
The cover art of Entheos journal 2002 is deliberately shifted red and hides the blue-stemmed psilocybin mushroom in Mithras’ leg, I just now realized and figured out to solve a mystery since 2002. Realized/solved 9:30 PM May 24, 2023.
I was able to figure this out and recognize what’s going on here with this poor quality picture which I had been wondering about for the past two years and I have also been wondering for a very long time like since 2005, and I have stated many times I’ve how incredulous I was over the years:
It’s unbelievable that the Ruck committee wrote a major long article about Mithraism, which became a book about Mithraism, for issue number 3 of this journal, but they leapt at the red and white colors (Amanita!) and yet they never mentioned the Psilocybin Mushroom in Mithras’ leg!
Mystery: why is the art quality so bad on the cover of this Entheos issue?
the tauroctony is reversed, which shows the complete cluelessness (not that I understood yet the {handedness} motif, until 2015-2023).
The solution is that the art was deliberately shifted and forced into the red to try to make it have Amanita colors, red and white.
I was able to recognize that explanation tonight when pulling out this issue for the first time since 2006.
I was now able to recognize what’s going on here is a deliberate corruption of art in order to force the Amanita Primacy Fallacy.
I can think of three violations done by entheogen scholars here:
2002: Entheos journal cover tauroctony image forced red, thus obscuring the blue-stemmed psilocybin mushroom in Mithras’ leg.
2008: The Holy Mushroom, Jan Irvin. An instance that I wrote about recently the 2008 book the holy mushroom by Jan Irvin gallery color version of the book does have a color version of the dancing man bestiary image, but the colors are awful.
The colors are awful because they are skewed to the red, which is how I recognized tonight the same corruption applied to Entheos journal issue three.
2009: in the Ruck appendix article Fungus Revivivus in SMC book by Allegro, published by Irvin, Carl Ruck falsely states that the dancing man salamander bestiary image has a mushroom tree with a “red” and white cap.
This is plainly false, as Thomas Hatsis exposes; it is a light blue cap — why didn’t Jan Irvin correct Ruck? Doesn’t Irvin’s 2008 book the holy mushroom have a color version of this dancing man image? Yes, but it is corrupted.
Jan Irvin 2008 & 2009 is participating in a corruption of art (the salamander image) to try to force it to be Amanita.
I recently exposed Jan Irvin’s 2008 book the holy mushroom’s gallery for deliberately trying to force the “dancing man” mushroom tree cap to be red instead of light blue.
I am debating photographing my issue three with the tauroctony Mithraism on the cover, reversed stupidly to show Mithras standing on left leg instead of right.
but I am somewhat running out of server space for images, because too many mushrooms.
Glad I Rated the Book Shroom as 4 Stars, not 3 Stars
Against Letscher 2006 book Shrooms which says that there is no history… you have to understand this book as a counter narrative.
his book is to tell a counter-narrative against the 2005 popular England narrative of psilocybin enthusiasts who want to claim that there is a so-called “cult tradition”, meaning religious tradition of “the magic mushroom” in Europe history.
Andy Letcher tries to deliver a critique of Wasson and of allegro and of Carl Ruck and of McKenna. These are highly valuable critiques, must-read.
Pay Closest Attention to Word Choice by Entheogen Scholars that I Would Never Employ
Andy Letcher uses cringey word choice: prissy, smug, tries to ingratiate himself with an imagined Establishment mainstream, tut-tutting, prohibitionist, puerile attitudes that he strikes an affectation stance and pose; posture; posturing of mocking pop drug users.
it is a very annoying posturing and word choice — especially critique every word: every word is loaded and laden with a moralizing affectation.
Letcher Seeks to Debunk 5 Things
Andy Letcher is inconsistent in what he is disproving.
That’s because he delivers distinct disproof of these four entheogen scholars, and he also gives a general disproof.
Letcher delivers five disproofs, with his general this disproof that there was “a sacred mushroom secret underground sect cult tradition”.
Entheogen Scholars’ Bizarre Cult of the Word ‘Cult’
all you people drive me nuts
you and your stupid word ‘cult’
what the hell is with your stupid word ‘cult’ that all of you keep repeating
“cult, cult, cult” 🙉 😖
“A secret cult tradition didnt exist!” brittlely proclaims Letcher, with nary a thought of a non-secret, non-cultic use.
every other word, it’s always ‘cult’.
what the hell are you even talking about?!
you’re all insane, what the F!
Their mal-word ‘cult’ connotes “religious but not institutional mainstream” tradition history in Europe.
4-hour Voice recording yesterday About Book Shroom
In the recording, I go into some depth of analysis of how I am in a different, incommensurable paradigm, different than the field of entheogen scholarship and different than Lecher’s rebuttal to that field.
Recording 5476 has high-quality, interesting miking of voice, no guitar for the most part, and therefore should be very easy and fast to produce and upload as the Egodeath Mystery Show.
The Mytheme theory tested and corroborated once again! 🎉
I also discuss a recent successful problem-solving of the Eustace window, with the right-hand paw of the lion touching the supposedly bad branching cubensis tree — but actually, specifically, touching the right-hand branch of the branching cubensis tree, which branch is considered to be equal to represent non-branching — thus supporting, rather than refuting, my Egodeath theory of myth! 🎉
The Real Question: To what extent psilocybin eternalism in myth?
After yesterday’s recording session, my idea that I did not have a chance to record was that:
My specialty is myth, not “religion”; psilocybin eternalism in myth.
My Phase 2 work is to cooroborate the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence (the Core egodeath theory; the Theory of Psychedelic Cybernetic Eternalism ) by proving that myth is primarily depiction of psychedelic eternalism.
My Phase 2 work (1998-2023) is to prove that myth is primarily depiction of psychedelic eternalism.
Twice the (messy, overgrowth analogies) footprint, of my simple Core theory, so took twice as long:
1985-1997 Core theory: 12 years.
1998-2023 Mytheme theory: 25 years.
Alien to Letcher Hatsis, I prove that myth is psychedelic eternalism.
That theory-proof happens to entail proving that there’s a history of psil mushroom (& Amanita imagery/tropes) use for Transcendent Knowledge in Europe.
But that’s not my paradigm-driving concern.
Forget my misrepresentative call of 2006, calling for:
To what extent mushrooms in Christianity?
My ACTUAL search from 1998-2023 has been:
To what extent psilocybin eternalism in myth?
eg the Eucharist as described in systematic theology and by the Church fathers.
I never looked for “a secret mushroom cult tradition”.
Letcher Hatsis’ would-be rebuttal doesn’t touch the Egodeath theory’s paradigm of entheogen scholarship.
Entheogen Scholars, WRITE EXPLICITLY ABOUT CUBENSIS ON BOVINE CATTLE DUNG IN ENGLAND, GODDAMIT! Stop Your Silent, Prejudiced Lying & Information Blackout!
I am most loudly yelling at entheogen scholars: goddammit, TALK ABOUT CUBENSIS IN ENGLAND/EUROPE!
Stop giving that topic the silent treatment information blackout cover-up operation, like done by Paul Stamets where everybody always shines the spotlight on making a strong vigorous proof by emphasizing that the cow is sacred because of dung in the subtropical area —
but as loudly as they make THAT point, they are equally silent in their bunk and bogus implicit false assertion that there never grew cubensis on cattle dung in England/ Europe.
If these unthinking, incoherent, anti-psilocybin, prejudiced entheogen scholars were to make an explicit assertion of this key crucial topic, instead of limiting themselves to making only an implicit assertion of the stupid position, it would become clear how ludicrous and ridiculous it is to claim that somehow, there is cattle dung in England yet no cubensis mushrooms —
which doesn’t make any sense at all, and you have some verbose explaining to do, if you are going to try to explicitly foist your bunk claim on us.
Please EXPLICITLY CLAIM that there’s no cubensis on cattle bovine dung in non-subtropical areas.
Entheogen scholars, I dare you to put forth of this ludicrous, false shared presupposition, that all the stupid people in this field all share, and they all are dead silent on this topic; they never ever make a peep about this bunk implicit assertion that they all hold in the submerged 90% part of their iceberg presupposition network.
Against Andy Letcher, I do not have a theory of religion, but I have a theory of myth, which includes religion.
By focusing on psilocybin across history, I greedily encompass 20th C ergot too.
By focusing on myth across history, I greedily encompass religion too.
My center of focus is more myth than religion. I needed in 1998 Mr. Jesus & Mr. Paul to corroborate the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence.
I immediately found they don’t exist, so I switched (per The Jesus Mysteries book) to looking to myth, containing psilocybin eternalism/”determinism”, to corroborate the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence.
Religious mythology is replete with psilocybin eternalism, against Letcher who pleases conventional mainstream publishers in 2006 by claiming there is no tradition of secret cult use of The Mushroom, against the trendy — Letcher cashing in — reaction to England legalizing psil mushrooms at that time.
The book Shroom is a mainstream-publisher, hasty, shallow, rush job, conventional book, that is NOT engaging with or rebutting psilocybin eternalism in myth.
Religious mythology is (above all) depiction of psilocybin eternalism, I recognized and proved since 2000.
That’s not in the paradigm that Letcher Hatsis lives within.
I solved disproving Letcher, via an alien trajectory, an incommensurable paradigm, by making an end-run around his incredibly brittle network of presuppositions.
Which Thomas Hatsis (the leader of the Disciplaeie Allegroiaei) then copy/pasted, except to assert scopolamine ointment, against Letcher.
I am saying that there is psilocybin mushroom effects imagery in myth — and thus side-step the whole confusion about the nature of religion.
Letcher’s book Shroom is a rebuttal of the 2005 popular England claim, that there is a tradition of specifically religious spiritual mystical use of psilocybin mushrooms.
Letcher strives to disprove that there was such a “secret cult spiritual tradition”, and he absolutely conflates, in a way that I can’t even grasp.
I talk about this in the recording.
for Letcher it is a oxymoron: non-secret mushroom use would be an oxymoron; it is literally unthinkable to him.
Andy Letcher is incapable of thinking the thought of “non-secret mushroom use”.
In his mind, he is not able to differentiate “secret” distinct from “mushroom use”, because he thinks that:
GIVEN (100% firmly bc 100% unconsciously):
The world is separated into an oppressor suppressor prohibitionist mainstream, divided against an underground counterculture oppressed suppressed psychedelics users.
When the entire field of entheogen scholarship takes this as a unconscious axiom, even retained by Thomas Hatsis and Andy Letcher in the very midst of them debunking popular theories, they continue to think in these rutted assumptions, that the only possible theory of mushrooms is inherently & necessarily a theory of “secret suppressed counterculture” use, against an ALWAYS prohibitionist mainstream.
Letcher unthinkingly, unconsciously takes it for granted that, a fact given to him by God directly, a fact of the universe is that everybody knows that:
Mainstream institutional culture is inherently prohibitionist, and any use of religious use of mushroom is always, inherently counterculture, underground, suppressed, and secret.
To Letcher, to propose that the Bernward door contains “mushrooms” is exactly identical, the same thing as asserting that the door contains “secret mushrooms”.
As atrocious and maddening as Letcher’s awful treatment of the Bernward doors, nevertheless we can deduce from that a valuable realization about what went wrong in entheogen scholarship’s bad, bunk paradigm:
the “secret Amanita counterculture” paradigm, against my Samorini-like “psilocybin Eucharist mainstream” paradigm.
Ruck’s very PARADIGM is “secret Amanita”.
That is the only theory that Andy Letcher is capable of imagining himself to be disproving.
The idea of “secret” is impossible to distinguish from the concept of “mushroom”, in Letcher’s confused, unthinking, unconscious mind.
Thomas Hatsis is less radical than Letcher, who denies a history of religious scopalamine use. Hatsis positively asserts scopalamine ointment tradition* and so he is an entheogen scholar. Letcher denies any religious tradition history of mushroom use.
*Watch out! loaded word choice! The Entire predominant conventional lexicon in this field is tainted.
Hatsis is a debunker following (copypaste) Letcher’s form and ruts of thinking.
I would feel lonely, and the only person on earth who is able to analyze and separate the two ideas of secret and mushroom, except that there is one person who followed in my wake, and that is a Jan Irvin 2008.
Irvin’s 2008 book The Holy Mushroom consistently, clearly calls to separate the concept of “secret” from the concept of mushroom use.
— despite the false claims of Thomas Hatsis, who mis-labels Jan Irvin as a “‘Secret’ Christian Amanita ‘Cult’ theorist”.
Jan Irvin, like John Rush, almost always means amanita, even re-painting the bestiary salamander image from blue to red by sheer force — just like I recognized tonight was done to the cover 2002 Entheos journal Mithras image.
Jan Irvin 2008 clearly says that we need to stop assuming that mushroom use was secret.
If it weren’t for 2008 Jan Irvin, I would feel like I’m the only person on earth who is able to differentiate the idea of “secret” versus the word “mushrooms”.
Jerry Brown also calls for a re-rethinking the idea of “secret”, though he doesn’t do quite a good and vigorous of a job as is needed there.
Brown 2016 & 2019 at least raises the question of: what sense of the word “secrecy” (he turns around and subtitles the book with the word ‘secret’). Given proof of mushroom imagery in MAINSTREAM cathedrals, illuminated manuscripts, and churches (like Irvin 2008).
Letcher Hatsis is incapable of comprehending the separation of “secret” from “mushrooms”, following the unreflective mental rut set by Allegro & Ruck.
There’s vague cussing, out of the blue, near bottom of previous post. Cleaned up now. Email subscribers might run into it.
That’s from earlier today in the midst of reading Kuhn’s book that’s written to hide and bury his argumentation structure and make it as difficult to read as possible.
This text is my mobile notes file about my next voice recording idea development session, aka Egodeath Mystery Show podcast, to read aloud and comment on.
I have a backlog of tons of show-worthy recordings to listen & potentially produce.
Mic Locker
I got the CAD E100 (MDC supercardioid) microphone back up & running,
& retrieved the Senn e609 gtr cab mic (dynamic supercardioid with treble rolloff compared to the e906).
Personal Library
I retrieved a bunch of entheogen scholarship books. And some Phil o Sci books.
And retrieved some other books that are candidates listed in References section of draft of branching-message mushroom trees article.
My 1994 Metaperception Article
I failed to find my 1994 zine issue with my Bubble of Simulation article & photo of hand/ coffeehouse beer glass.
That’s in Fringe Ware Review issue 5 1994, i believe, not Crash Collusion 1996. There are contradictory citations at Egodeath site.
First 1988 Writeup of the Egodeath theory
I retrieved my 1988 first drafts of the theory of ego transcendence.
Apparently my handwritten Aug 1988 Minnesota draft is not the first draft. I also have a earlier (printout) draft from July 1988.
I have to figure out which draft to pay attention to (upload), because I am looking for my earliest, first summary writeup expression of the theory of ego transcendence.
Hand Writing
My 1987 handwriting (Pentel P205) is exciting – not 1983-84; 1986-1987 especially. What it means to me; what its look feels like & connotes. Inspired.
I hate when I see my later mixed-case writing, that lost my 1987 magical allcaps script character.
It took me years to relearn that hand, but now I really feel like I am no longer faking it and have truly recovered my authentic 1987 very distinctive handwriting.
That hand maximally exudes that whole vibe from April 1987 into 1988.
Also in 1987 I did computer printouts of idea devmt, which are actually legible, unlike my totally hard to read handwriting, with which I developed my distinctive, deliberate building of a model of mental constructs and control, deliberately from April 1987 through January 1988 breakthrough, successfully as planned, on schedule, due to crisis of need.
History of Development
My handwriting, with which I developed my distinctive, deliberate building of a model of mental constructs and control, deliberately from April 1987 through January 1988 breakthrough, successfully as planned, on schedule, due to crisis of need.
Oct 1985-Mar 1987, i was writing idea devmt … not exactly. I was not yet striving to formulate an explanatory model of the mind and cross-time control, incorp’ing Transcendent Knowledge.
That conscious model-defining began in April 1987, & I achieved understanding in Jan 1988 — though no analogy, lyrics, mythemes, or art motifs at first.
The latter completed or reached closure now; May 2023. per my branching-message mushroom trees draft article.
In 1986-1987, I had an extreme, severe requirement; it was absolutely mandatory that I HAD TO figure out transcendent knowledge/ ego transcendence by January 1988, and that is what I did, on schedule.
How did I pull it off? Extreme high pressure brute force: The Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence was born out of necessity — the Egodeath theory; “transcendence theory” per my May 1988 voice recording (Egodeath Mystery Show episode negative 500).
the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence, or the theory of ego transcendence.
I retrieved a formal photograph of me holding that manuscript in 1988.
the theory of ego transcendence.
The plan per 1988 is to upload that photo with my first draft of that article.
Articulating the Theory to Fit Data Observations & Anomalous Data
Explain how the egodeath core theory (the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism) has been in some way “reshaped” to explicitly map to mythemes/motifs. per Kuhn. —
Core Egodeath theory ~= “Theory” per Kuhn.
Control restabilization + the mytheme theory ~= “Data” per Kuhn.
Psychedelic Pseudo Science & also entheogen scholarship is in the earliest, “pre-paradigm” phase (Kuhn).
The “Anomalous data” (Kuhn) that confounds the “pre-paradigm” (Kuhn) -stage field of Psychedelic (pseudo) Science: loss of control (and the end of the world).
if you include the crude psychedelic folk knowledge of “surrender”, we can call loss of control “control restabilization” and frame that as the “anomalous data”.
the psychedelic folk knowledge of “surrender”, & loss of control (summing to “control restabilization”) is Kuhn’s “anomalous data”.
Fatal control-loss panic/ cybernetic death is “anomalous data”: it is discarded by the 2016 CEQ-POS psychedelic psychometrics questionnaire, into Wouter Hanegraaff’s Rejected wastebasket — together with all of the fixed stars from the sky, removed by Hanegraaff’s 2022 book Hermetic Spirituality.
Theory Revision
the Egodeath theory overthrows entheogen scholarship & psychedelic science. ie massive “hierarchy network revision of concepts” per Thagard 1992 & the later Kuhn.
Letcher’s 4-Phase Argument Demolished
Letcher is the one who said “we cannot prove mushroom imagery in art represents intentional ingesting mushrooms for religious experiencing” — which the Great Canterbury Psalter disproves.
Letcher arg “cant prove delib use mushroom for relig experience”, which page # in Shroom? he said the idea in a video.
Sterling Mediocrity of Mainstream Journalistic Coverage of Psychedelics
Letcher’s book Shroom is a slick production, like Michael Pollan tho trash/fleeting coverage of Psil in Christian art.
Letcher barely dabbles in engaging that idea: psilocybin mushroom trees , quite shallow, brief, poor, careless hack dismissal; hasty, sloppy, flippant.
I experienced the writing in Shroom as cringe-inducing, because it is very conventional mainstream narrative — tho ironically, in a video lecture he criticizes the narratives, and in the book, he criticizes the myth: how Amanita attracts (just like Dale Pendell writes in his Amanita chapter): that mushroom (🍄) disproportionately attracts myth and mythmaking narratives.
The book Shroom is your typical average quality main stream polished slick production that tells all the boring over repeated narrative but he does specifically reject the “secret Amanita” theory.
Shroom is “good writing”, of a pop journalism type.
Letcher’s writing is polished, but similarly you have the polished author, top journalist Michael Pollan, invading the field only to regurgitate falsehoods, claiming that Wasson is the first westerner ever to ingest psilocybin, which is opposite of the truth. Lipstick on a pig.
Also Michelle Janikian’s journalism-type book, Your Psil Mushroom Companion (re: Surrender passages; she cites many books).
Tide Turning Against Allegro/ Ruck’s “Secret Amanita Cult” Theory & the Amanita Primacy Fallacy
I am comparing the details of how and what way different researchers are criticizing the “secret Amanita counterculture” theory, which Letcher attributes to Allegro and Ruck.
I continue cringing at phrase “the mushroom” and “a mushroom cult” — STOP WRITING THAT!! 😖
Write about psilocybin or Amanita, not “the mushroom” — FAKE scholars’ construct; a false singular. Like Michael Wms says of ‘gnosticism’. (but see April DeConick’s defense, The Gnostic New Age.)
I found that James Arthur’s book Mushrooms & Mankind is Amanita madness.
I only became attuned to the importance of the huge distinction between the two mushroom types in about 2021. My main articles nicely avoid falling in that pit.
I wish I fully picked up on the Amanita Primacy Fallacy in 2000 (book: Apples of Apollo).
I picked up on pieces of that, pieces of the problem, such as maybe 2005 I was incredulous to realize that Ruck didn’t write about the Psilocybin Mushroom in Mithras’ leg, reversed on the cover of Entheos journal.
I have my first printing of 2007 United States hardcover Andy Letcher book Shroom.
I watched some of Andy Letcher’s YouTube videos.
I confirmed that Andy Letcher has the most low-quality treatment of anybody regarding mushroom trees.
I found confirmation in his book Shroom, now that I know what to carefully look for: as I wondered:
Letcher definitely is explicitly battling against Allegro and Ruck, against their “secret Amanita counterculture” theory.
I agree with Letcher Hatsis there, although you can’t exactly say that we “agree”, because we are coming from different paradigms, or different connotation networks.
To what extent does Gordon Wasson push the “secret Amanita counterculture” paradigm?
Does Andy Letcher criticize Wasson?
Hell freezes over two ways:
o Jan Irvin 2008 writes “against Allegro”, we should omit the “secrecy” component of the theory. Irvin puts italics on ‘against’.
o John Lash criticizes his lover/idol Wasson for the Amanita Primacy Fallacy.
List of people who are trying to take down and demolish the Amanita Primacy Fallacy or the Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory, in one way or another (from within some distinct framework):
Lash,
Hoffman,
Irvin,
Hatsis,
Samorini,
Brown,
Letcher.
“Concept-Network Revision” Is More Nuanced than “Paradigm Shift”
I reread most of Thomas Kuhn 1963 book the structure of scientific revolutions (3rd not 4th Ed) today May 20, 2023.
Wikipedia cautions that Thomas Kuhn later moved away from the crude monolithic concept of changing from one wholesale paradigm to a different, “incommensurable” wholesale paradigm, and did something much more nuanced and sophisticated, like Paul Thagard in Conceptual Revolutions: the later Thomas Kuhn speaks instead in terms of theory revision of conceptual hierarchies.
Secret Christian Amanita Cult
Andy Letcher completely conflates “secret” — exactly as I’ve been saying and writing since 2007 — he completely conflates “secret” with mushroom trees, and totally makes the worst argument of all time, just like I said, that the Bernward doors show non-secret mushrooms and therefore they cannot possibly be mushrooms.
and that’s it , that’s all his extent of treatment of psilocybin in Christian art is limited exclusively to that — he has very limited coverage, and what little he has is spectacularly awful reasoning.
99% of his book Shroom is Amanita, or Psilo only in Americas.
Great Canterbury Psalter Is impossibly unbelievably incredibly perfect and ideal evidence, a godsend.
Great Canterbury Psalter not only disproves Andy Lecher, it goes even further than him (as I claimed in Egodeath Mystery Show 2021-2023):
Great Canterbury Psalter depicts the ultimate peak religious experiencing from specifically cubensis, multiple instances.
{Scale Balance} Motif Depicting Control Restabilization
I like the efficient, condensed phrase “control re-stabilization”, shown as {scale balance} in Great Canterbury Psalter.
Paul Thagard YT videos; he has a book about Balance. Somewhat relevant for loss of control or control instability.
Mythicism
Richard Miller’s new mythicism book on Resurrection: many figures were translated up to heaven like Christ. MythVision YT channel.
My use of “Mytheme” is equivalent to “Motif” (visual art).
Studying and Exposing the Amanita Primacy Fallacy
I have increasingly confirmed and I more vividly recognize in all of these entheogen scholarship books, I hold a different paradigm then Andy Letcher and Thomas Hatsis, but the three of us are all out to take down the “secret Amanita counterculture” paradigm.
I now perceive the Amanita Primacy Fallacy everywhere clearly.
Andy Letcher’s book has three major sections, and the first two sections are about Amanita, and the third section is about Psilocybin
why did Letcher choose to gather together the two completely different kinds of mushrooms?
The fake, forced scholarly construction “the mushroom” SCREAMS of pop Propaganda narrative. to artificially jam together two unrelated types of mushrooms, a put-on that maximizes confusion to sell a fabricated, flimsy, garbled, obfuscating narrative.
Andy Letcher: it’s not his fault, it is the fault of Gordon Wasson who started it and John allegro who started it.
they are the ones who made the 99% illegitimate lumping together and conflation, their fake artificial scholarly construction of lumping together the two kinds of mushrooms, which no scientist would ever do.
Webpage: Every Eadwine Image in Great Canterbury Psalter
I am definitely going to make a webpage which focuses only on showing every Eadwine image from Great Canterbury Psalter. not Illuminated Capitals tho.
I no longer care which images in Great Canterbury Psalter have mushroom trees, because everything in this art is depiction of Psilocybin mushroom experiencing, especially cubensis.
Exposing the Amanita Primacy Fallacy
when did I become conscious fully of the need to tear apart the two kinds of mushrooms? only recently, like Dec 2020; see the date of my postings against Amanita.
this can only be a partial alliance between Letcher Hatsis and M Hoffman, because we are operating from different paradigms.
Jan Irvin could be considered a variant paradigm with partial agreement — but not much, because different framing network.
First 1988 Writeups of the Egodeath theory
apparently the story is more complicated than draft one written in Minnesota it appears that I have a computer printout in July 1988 prior to the August handwritten draft
it turns out the handwritten draft is a second attempt to write the article
1994 Metaperception Article
I misplaced the zine, fringe ware review issue 5 apparently – look at the top and bottom of the bubble of simulation article which has contradictory information about published in crash collusion or Fringe Ware Review.
Pre-Paradigm Phase of Science: Nascent Fields of Psychedelic Science & entheogen scholarship
I am vacillating between saying that “there is no paradigm”/ there is no “old theory” in this field, versus saying that “there exists a very bad paradigm” in this field .
that distinction depends on whether we’re talking about psychedelic pseudoscience or psychedelics religious history.
Articulating the Egodeath Core Theory to Explicitly Apply to Art Motifs of {Branching, Handedness, & Stability}
refining the Egodeath theory’s Core Concepts catalog vis a vis the Key Mythemes catalog – add / revise to add /incorp: branching-message mushroom trees; branching, handedness, stability.
Branching-message mushroom trees article scope: Specify New Theory, Only
Do not rate a book against what the book ought to be, but rather, rate the book against its stated promise of coverage.
state the nature of this article and trajectory of this article: what is the scope of the article, and what is the trajectory of the article inside the article.
There is only space to specify the new theory. Space in this article prevents coverage of related topic.
Topics Out of Scope for branching-message mushroom trees article
the history of discovery of this theory.
relating this theory to the previous theory or theories or non-theories.
justify/ prove/ defend the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism.
recount the history of its development.
Literature Survey.
relate the 1988/2023 Egodeath theory and compare it against another paradigm and “previous” theory.
prove and debate which one is better and what’s wrong with the old theory or theories.
Separate Article Rebutting the Amanita Primacy Fallacy & “Secret Amanita Cult” theory
it would be a separate article to critique the Secret Amanita counterculture paradigm and how it is a product of prohibition which supports and asserts necessary perpetual prohibition of Psil.
— by enforcing a literalist read of God asserting Psil Prohibn and even enthusiastically, gleefully embracing and asserting Genesis 3, while never mentioning Revelation 22
And never having any interest in alternative reading of Genesis 3 that would permit irony about asserting psilocybin use for enlightenment.
The “secret Amanita counterculture perpetual prohibition” paradigm is actively averse to any kind of a constructive anti-prohibition reading of Genesis 3.
what are the points of agreement and disagreement, the way in which, or the sense in which, Andy Letcher and Thomas Hatsis and Michael Hoffman are against the “secret amanita counterculture” paradigm?
how does each entheogen scholar eg these three people think of or imagine that paradigm in different ways and what do they think that the alternative replacement is?
Kuhn’s Anti-STEM Presentation Style
The extremely poor lack of explicit headings and explicit outlines the horrible awful worst case: sea of text.
I hate Kuhn’s “essay” form prose paragraphs!
The format in Structure of Scientific Revolutions sucks as much as possible.
Although this book is about STEM, STEM is not written this way.
the 1962 book by Thomas Kuhn, the structure of scientific revolutions.
this book is the opposite of the presentation communication style of STEM.
Perverse Assertion of Prohibition by Entheogen scholarship: Rev 22 Esoteric Reading vs. Gen 3 Exoteric Misreading
stop enjoying getting high on complaining about Genesis 3; stop enjoying telling people that Genesis 3 dictates perpetual prohibition of Psilo.
while identifying with the counterculture and identifying psychedelics with the counterculture only; exclusively
Fake, Forced Construction “the Mushroom”
re-read now my shelf of books about entheogens scholarship: put a strong emphasis on detecting and interrogating them regarding the artificial category that lumps together amanita and psilocybin.
bolster and further develop my understanding of the existing bad paradigm, and what exactly is wrong with it, and who exactly is embracing it, in what way, or partially embracing it, or embracing it within a different meaning-network.
forcefully and vigorously tear apart violently ripped apart Amanita versus Psilocybin. they have been related in a certain way.
Amanita imagery never means ingesting Amanita; it always means ingesting Psilocybin.
in this aggressive inversion, force Amanita to serve psilocybin, instead of Irvin 2008’s opposite abuse and mistreatment of Psil employed only to serve the elevation and idolizing of Amanita,
reject and sever and suppress Amanita, to counter the Amanita Primacy Fallacy.
the Amanita Primacy Fallacy goes hand-in-hand with the massive error of conflating and artificially constructing a category that has almost no justification for existing.
imagery of the two kinds of mushrooms does occur together, but that is the extent and limit of the relationship.
As if a convention developed to construct the artificial container category “the holy leaf”, and then you proceed to use coca imagery to represent cannabis ingestion.
The data, the art imagery that we are given, does in fact gather together these two unrelated types of fungi in Christian and Hellenistic art.
there is a complex dance when tearing these two unrelated mushrooms apart from each other, in order to construct clear, coherent, viable specific theory.
Reducing Transcendent Knowledge by Mis-Grounding it in Ordinary State Mundane Daily Life
The main benefit of Transcendent Knowledge is to enable further research in the loose cognitive state, not therapy for mundane daily life.
Pre-Paradigm Science
debating whether there is or is not an existing theory,
an old theory,
is a different discussion, a different analysis in the field of psychedelic pseudoscience versus in the field of entheogen scholarship.
That needs to be destroyed and discarded by the new theory.
as more of us to do more critical rereading of this field of mushrooms, we can see a paradigm shift in process/ in the making.
the Amanita Primacy Fallacy or “Secret Christian Amanita Cult” theory is criticized in some ways by Jan Irvin and Andy Letcher and Thomas Hatsis and Michael Hoffman and Jerry Brown and Giorgio Samorini.
Psilo Blows Away Eleusis LSA Theory
Road to Eleusis p 16 reports this in a veiled way, but I am able to read it bc i know the pieces scattered to decode: and watched recent YT Ruck interviews post TIK (Brian Muraresku): The Immortality Key book.
Hofmann-provided LSA failed for Ruck & Wasson, while Staples that day used Psil which is “more dependable” Ruck admits.
Interrogating Books to Reveal the Amanita Primacy Fallacy
Right now I am looking at Road to Eleusis to check for the Amanita Primacy Fallacy vs. any coverage of Psilo.
I am positioned now to read all of the entheogen scholarship books and Entheos four issues to write an entire article critiquing and surveying (diagnosing) and reporting on:
to what extent is the field of entheogen scholarship taken over by the Amanita Primacy Fallacy
Tie in the various criticisms of aspects of that from Lash, Letcher, Samorini, Irvin 2008, me, … even Evil M. Hoffman 2015 Toxicology article says someone oughtta think of looking for psilo in Mystery Religions.
Someone oughtta think of looking for psilo in Mystery Religions.
M. Hoffman, editor for Ruck Committee, 2015 Toxicology article
.jpg)
The Egodeath theory 
