Their forearms angles are isomorphic w/ L & R beams, and only slightly lower.
Adam’s forearms are offset same as the beams; his R arm (on the Left) is higher than his L arm (on the Right).
Elbows Are Out in Order to Match Tree
Tree has 4 branch limbs, Eve has 4 limbs.
Compare the black-box dual-rectangle human form, it is similar to the mushroom-tree’s form, because their elbows are out.
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, “Plaincourault_web-eternalism-annotations.jpg”, 59 KB, 2:14 Feb. 18, 2026, fullscreen
Each of the 4 Amanita branches points to a pair of limbs (arms, hands, fingers; legs, feet, toes), because that’s a concern within the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}: the concept of “pair of limbs, L & R”. So it makes sense to read:
Question: What does the branch point at?
Answer: A pair of limbs; left and right.
That answer fits with the concerns of the mushroom-tree artists: {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
The Egodeath Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism & Mytheme Analogy
Per caption on top of crop of Plaincourault fresco.
the Egodeath Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism & Mytheme Analogy epm
Compare the leaning-to-point mushrooms in f11 Day 4:
Crop and Annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025
The Central, Middle Beam Is Assigned to “Left Branch”, via YI Form, Sweeping from Bottom Up
todo maybe: crop with box around Y on L incl. center beam; box around I beam on Right.
How the Artist Evolved and Developed the Standard Y-Under-Cap Form to Develop this Clever Offset-Beam YI Form
Figured out this POV / visualization of transformation on Feb. 19, 2026 (yesterday), wrote up now a.m. Feb. 19, 2026
Diagram by Michael Hoffman, July 4, 2022
Start with standard extant form, two beams hold up cap crown.
Insert YI form by: Split the Left beam into 2 beams on the Left.
Pull the resulting right-hand beam from Left to Middle.
Offset the L beam upward, to form a YI shape, as assessed by standard sweep from bottom to top.
On a tree, sweep from trunk to leaves (toward greater branching).
On a person’s arm, sweep from forearm to fingertips (toward greater branching).
Reference Dates
Mar. 21, 2022 – Announced {branching-message mushroom trees}.
Jul. 4, 2022 – YI morph’y of tree type: two branches hold up cap/crown.
Feb. 9, 2023 – Decoded Jesus’ finger shapes, sticks, & feathers in Martin: Entry into Jerusalem.
Annotations: YI, {stand on right foot}, Cultural Politics
Annotation: Cultural Politics
Motivation for this Page
Celebrate bringing together recent develop discoveries:
Series of Key Discoveries about the Fresco Image
2022/04/28 – Eve {stand on right foot}
April 28, 2022 – Eve stands on right foot. This involved me standing on my feet to confirm weight distribution.
2026/02/15 – YI Form of Offset Trident Beams
Feb. 15, 2026: recognized and figured out the trident offset problem: YI branching form under the main crown-cap – that solves the Huggins problem of 3 why 3 beams in that config? todo: find when i posted here, 2 days ago like Feb. 16, 2026, my discovery of the YI form of the —
I HAD BEEN PUZZLING, SINCE READING Huggins’ ARTICLE, OVER THE TRIDENT FORM, DIDN’T FIT the Egodeath theory / the Mytheme theory — IT IS NOT A TRIDENT – IT IS A YI FORM! <sarcasm>: I’m sure Huggins discusses the offset, which forms a YI form.
2026/02/18 – The Four Branches Point at the Four Pairs of Limbs of Adam & Eve
today: p.m. Feb. 18, 2026: The 4 branches point to the 4 sets of limbs, of Adam & Eve: the branching of his legs, his arms, her arms, her legs.
My previous speculations since 4/2022 of “why 4 branches?” for this image, did NOT map that way: I wrongly thought “a person has 2 arms and 2 legs” or more recently: “4 fingers”. No. Four PAIRS OF ARMS OR LEGS; a branch even touches Adam’s pair of legs.
The lower R branch is identified with the {stand on right foot} motif.
2026/02/18 – Wasson Presents a Fake Copy of the Fresco, Censoring the YI Form and {stand on right foot} Detail that Indicate Psychedelic Eternalism
p.m. Feb. 18, 2026: Realized that Wasson’s fake copy of fresco omits YI form and {stand on right foot}, the elements that prove this image depicts psychedelic eternalism and therefore certainly means Amanita.
I am grasping why Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson hired Bory to paint a copy of Plaincourault fresco: to omit indicators (at least that’s the resulting effect, THE RAMIFICATIONS OF BORY OMITTING THE OFFSET OF THE RAMIFICATIONS).
The censorship is built into her painting.
Wasson presents a FAKE painting of Plaincourault fresco in SOMA p. 181, with a DELIBERATELY CONFUSING CAPTION.
todo: transcribe the caption, check my 2006 article; see the 2-page photo in the present webpage.
Michelle Bory screws up, paints trident instead, & omits {stand on right foot} – she is an outsider, illiterate & blind to eternalism motifs in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}.
1:00 p.m. Feb. 18, 2026: across from p 180, Wasson does not show Plaincourault fresco; shows degraded copy-painting that lacks YI & {stand on right foot}.
If Wasson shows the degraded, inferior Bory copy, her corrupted version of the painting lacks the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees} motifs THAT PROVE IT IS IN GENRE OF {branching-message mushroom trees} and therefore is mushroom (psychedelic eternalism).
Feb. 18, 2026 – Bory Moved Adam Away, so Mushroom Branch Doesn’t Touch Left Leg
Also at this time, articulated that the LEFT branch touches Adam’s LEFT leg, like the RIGHT branch touches Eve’s RIGHT leg.
AND ALSO WHILE UR AT IT MOVE ADAM AWAY [6:38 p.m. Feb. 18, 2026] SO the LOWER Left MUSHROOM — UH, I MEAN, PINE TREE BRANCH OR RATHER , A.N.E. SPECIES OF TREE (yeah, that’s the ticket!) — DOESN’T TOUCH HIS LEFT LEG
Wasson Con Theory
Pope taught Wasson the secret forbidden art-only knowledge of the Egodeath theory of psychedelic eternalism.
1998-2026, I am merely re-figuring out what Pope & Wasson knew: the Egodeath theory of psychedelic eternalism including the Mytheme theory.
Why the Church Allowed Mushrooms in Art But Not in Writings
[VOX_TK_6613,wav] – I made a voice recording with Zep 4 (levee breaks) background
I vocally mocked Deniers “it’s TOO HARD”
My Chris Bennett joke: he argues:
“Finding Cannabis is relatively easy; finding mushrooms is TOO HARD! 😭
“So, no mushroom imagery in Christian art.“
“You can’t explain why there would be mushrooms in art but not in text.” saarcasm: SO NEAR-IMPOSSIBLE TO FORM HYPOTH!
The church to an extent forbade writing theology assertions of no-free-will; the allowed art depictions of no-free-will (possibilism vs. eternalism) but not text published on this topic in writing explicitly.
wow that was so hard to answer the Deniers’ objection that:
“If there’s hundreds mushrooms in Christian art, but no mushrooms [debatable] in Christian text, then art doesn’t count, and you can’t explain why in art but not in text.”
[here comes their come-to-org’m payout:]
“So, not a mushroom. 😑”
Professional Propagandist Wasson Substitutes a Degraded, Copied Painting that Deletes the YI Branching Form and the {stand on right foot} Motif, Withholding the Actual Fresco Image
Photo and annotations by Michael Hoffman. Corrupt degraded painting copy that OMITS THE YI BRANCHING AND {STAND ON RIGHT FOOT} that proves this is a mushroom-tree meaning psychedelic eternalism. 1:03 p.m. Feb. 18, 2026
Photo and annotations by Michael Hoffman.
Corrupt degraded painting copy that OMITS THE YI BRANCHING AND {STAND ON RIGHT FOOT} that proves this is a mushroom-tree meaning psychedelic eternalism.
1:03 p.m. Feb. 18, 2026
I Realized Plaincourault Fresco Has YI Form at 6:45 p.m. Sunday, February 15, 2026
Michael Hoffman, discovered at [6:45 p.m. Feb. 15, 2026]. That was near closing time at my in-house coffeehouse, last Sunday, 3 days ago. Now[when wrote that note] 8:55 p.m. Feb. 15, 2026.
Now = Feb. 18, 2026
There is a possibility I wrote about the YI form previously – but I don’t recall that, and I am now experiencing this as a new realization I didn’t perceive before.
The Serpent Goes First Through the Y, and then Through the I, Matching Mind’s Sequence
“One of the key enigmas of cultural history has been the identity of a sacred plant called Soma in the ancient Rig Veda of India.
“Mr. Wasson has aroused considerable attention in learned circles and beyond by advancing and documenting the thesis that Soma was a hallucinogenic mushroom – none other than the Amanita muscaria, the fly-agaric that until recent times was the center of shamanic rites among the Siberian and Uralic tribesmen.
“In his presentation he throws fascinating light on the role of mushrooms in religious ritual.
“A section on the post-Vedic history of Soma is contributed by the Sanskrit scholar Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty.”
Plaincourault Fresco Breakthrough
The Plaincourault fresco has the {branching-message mushroom trees} motifs I identified in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}, proving that the Plaincourault fresco means mushrooms.
… Panofsky, JUST LIKE ALL OF YOUR HUNDREDS OF pilzbaum “instances of this development of images of the Italian pine, due to sh*tty inept idiot artists [on this special taboo topic, only] f’ing up & deteriorating the interp of the “developed for no reason” prototypes that they copy from as inept craftsmen.”
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/#Sentence-1-7 – “Just to show what I mean, I enclose two specimens: a miniature of ca. 990 which shows the inception of the process, viz., the gradual hardening of the pine into a mushroom-like shape, and a glass painting of the thirteenth century, that is to say about a century later than your fresco, which shows an even more emphatic schematization of the mushroom-like crown.”
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/#Sentence-2-5 – “The only possibility I should be prepared to admit is that, once the transformation had taken place and was generally accepted in art, some especially ignorant craftsman may have misu[n]derstood the finished product [Panofsky’s confabulated “prototype”] , viz., the “Pilzbaum,” as a real mushroom.”
Professional Propagandist Wasson Substitutes a Degraded, Copied Painting that Deletes the YI Branching Form and the {stand on right foot} Motif, Withholding the Actual Fresco Image
Photo and annotations by Michael Hoffman. Corrupt degraded painting copy that OMITS THE YI BRANCHING AND {STAND ON RIGHT FOOT} that proves this is a mushroom-tree meaning psychedelic eternalism. 1:03 p.m. Feb. 18, 2026
Photo and annotations by Michael Hoffman.
Corrupt degraded painting copy that OMITS THE YI BRANCHING AND {STAND ON RIGHT FOOT} that proves this is a mushroom-tree meaning psychedelic eternalism.
1:03 p.m. Feb. 18, 2026
Fallacy: False Dilemma: “A mushroom-tree either means a tree or a mushroom”
Mushroom-trees do not mean “a mushroom”.
Ruck’s Incorrect Identification of Mushroom-Trees as “mushrooms and nothing else, not stylized trees”
False dilemma. mushroom-trees mean adding non-branching eternalism thinking to possibilism-thinking.
*Unrecognizable AS PINE, but fully recognizable AS MUSHROOM FEATURES.
Panofsky’s extremely biased argument about the alleged data in the “little” 1906 Brinc book:
The consistent shift by artists from pine to mushroom proves that the mushroom end-result is accidental and meaningless.
The consistent shift by artists from pine to mushroom proves that the mushroom end-result is accidental and meaningless.
Panofsky, 1952
My retort, speaking Truth to ABD-Academia Power:
The consistent shift from pine to mushroom proves that the mushroom end-result is deliberate and meaningful.
ABD: anything-but-drugs
Huggins eagerly weds this sh!tty arg’n.
Huggins accuses entheogen scholars of being careless about the surrounding text that artists are subservient to.
In retaliation, I accuse Deniers of shameless carelessness about their crap argumentation that they should be ashamed of.
Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art are SHAMELESS WED’ERS OF THE WORST ARGUMENTATION.
Deniers like Huggins characteristically have NO SHAME in their CRAP ARGS.
What’s the character of Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art?
The Deniers’ Main Hallmark Character Is Their Utter Lack of Shame in Associating Themselves with Utterly Atrocious, Awful Argumentation Fallacies
No Argument Is Too Sh!tty & Obviously Fallacious for Deniers to Put Forth, as Corrupt, Committed Skeptics
Panofsky: “Plaincourault fresco can’t mean mushroom, because there are hundreds of mushroom-trees like it.”
To distract from that shiite arg, he mixes it together with this other fallacy or dirty, invalid strategy:
“Your ignorance of this fact is the only reason you foolishly said Plaincourault fresco is mushroom.
“If you had known that there are hundreds of other mushroom-trees, you would not and could not have put forth your ignorant, blundering, foolish, embarrassing notion that Plaincourault fresco means mushrooms.”
The Motherload of Fallacies: the “Special”, Taboo, Exceptional Topic of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art
Therefore Regular, Standard Scholarly Methods (Writing, Publishing, & Citation) & Argumentation Are Not Applicable, for This One, Special-Case Topic
Correct method for this special topic: “consult” the art authorities in submission, to be educated about the Correct view, since on this special topic, the “competent art authorities” are trained like dogs to blurt within 1 second, the correct disavowal of your Allegro Violation (asserting mushrooms in Christian history & ahistoricity of Jesus).
What are the top 3 main fallacies in operation here?
Fallacy name: Argument from distracting insults.
Fallacy name: Argument from silent presupposition that’s imagined to be shared by the audience.
Big-Brain Chief Editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism, Dr. Robert M. Price 😯 Went INSANE on the “Special”, Taboo Topic of Allegro, Reduced to a Fumbling, Inept, 4th-Grade Writing Level
As I saw in 2006 in big-brain Chief Editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism, Dr. Robert M. Price 😯 reacting in anti-scholarly clumsy manner against Acharya S’ favorable mention of Allegro.
CHIEF EDITOR Robert M. Price went INSANE (because this is a “special”, taboo topic) and clumsily botched every aspect of what he wrote against Allegro.
I emailed big-brain Chief Editor Robert M. Price correcting his many clumsy, gradeschooler errors, so he invited me to write the article Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita (Hoffman, 2006), http://egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm
Then Acharya thanked me for reconciling her with Price.
We see the generation of new fallacy types right in front of our eyes in realtime coming from the motherload of fallacies: the special, taboo topic of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
The Deniers’ main hallmark and character is their utter shamelessness in putting forth atrocious, awful argumentation fallacies.
NO argumentation FALLACY IS TOO ATROCIOUS FOR DENIERS TO ASSOCIATE THEMSELVES WITH.
That shameless putting forth of atrocious argumentation fallacies is TYPICAL and CHARACTERISTIC of Deniers.
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, a.m. Feb. 18, 2026, fullscreen todo: boxes connecting 4 branches = his legs, his arms, her arms, her legs.
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, a.m. Feb. 18, 2026
Fraudulent, Corrupt, Deceptive, Lying by Omission, Academic Obstructionism by Popebanker “Conflict of Interest” Wasson re: mushroom imagery in Christian art
My 2006 Article’s Accurate Accusation that Wasson Must Have Censored and Withheld (Thin, Weak) Citations that Panofsky MUST Have Provided, Confirmed by Brown 2019, which Huggins Repeatedly Omits to Cite
SOMA p. 180 (More Cussing, Fewer Annotations, Dec. 2, 2024)
Hey Wasson, you phony; SELLOUT!: Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings (Brinckmann, 1906) as Panofsky extremely strongly urged mycologists to read – no thanks to your duplicitous censorship and going OUT OF YOUR WAY to fraudulently attack affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art, while you fakely chide them for failing to consult the IGNORAMUS art “authorities”.
The below sound like pompous, insincere, con-artist horse sh!t, because that’s exactly what it is:
SOMA, p. 180 (Less Cussing, More Annotations, Jan. 8, 2025)
How Prohibition, Cultural Politics, and the Anything-But-Drugs Academic Agenda Corrupts and Distorts Entheogen Scholarship
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, “Plaincourault-cultural-politics-annot.jpg” 62 KB, 8:18 a.m. Feb. 18, 2026, fullscreen ALSO Adam & Eve’s YI hand shapes (8:40 am)
todo: crop w/o “cultural politics”, add YI hand shapes. signif of 4 branches like
4 limbs
4 fingers vs. 1 thumb
lower pair of mushroom branches = legs/feet, upper pair = hand shapes
4 branches is common in the mushroom-tree genre.
4 branches: a branch means, branching, of the hands, and of their feet/legs.
branching of his feet/legs
branching of his arms/hands
branching of her feet/legs
branching of her arms/hands
Proper Definition of “Psychedelic Wisdom”, Against Winslow’s Throwing Around that Term to Invalidate and Delegitimize Entheogen Scholarship, Following Mosurinjohn & Ascough
Indigenous Shams do NOT have “psychedelic wisdom”, which is comprehension of psychedelic eternalism, per Classic Western entheogen culture
Indigenous Shams do NOT have “psychedelic wisdom”, which is comprehension of psychedelic eternalism, per Classic Western entheogen culture.
I criticize the individual Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art but they did not invent; they PARTICIPATE in Prohibition & anything-but-drugs academia corrupting influence.
Weaponization of Indigenous Shams by Anything-But-Drugs Academics
Sharday Mosurinjohn has literally declared she’s an anything-but-drugs academic in a sense; she has published calls for everyone else other than her own book on psychedelics in Western Esotericism, she’s here to tell everyone in entheogen scholarship that they need to double down on non-drug psychedelics.
REPEAT THE INCANTATION:
PSYCHEDELICS ARE NOT THE ONLY WAY LIKE EXTREMIST Michael Hoffman OF EGODEATH SITE SAYS; THERE ARE MANY OTHER WAYS THAT CAN/ COULD/ MIGHT/ MAY/ PRODUCE “AN ALTERED STATE” SAME AS 10 GRAMS OF CUBENSIS. FOR EXAMPLE SPINNING IN A CIRCLE, BREATHWORK, CAVE MEDITATION, HIT HEAD W/ HAMMER, SUPER ERGONOMIC AND EFFECTIVE.
This repetition is propaganda and dogma. Sharday Mosurinjohn joins in, telling us one thing we entheogen scholars must do is pay more attention to non-drug psychedelics than psychedelics.
The Performative Magic Utterance “There Are Many Other Ways than Psychedelics” Dogma Ritual Repetition
It’s not an argument; it’s a ritual performance under the “special, taboo topic” conditions of Prohibition, politics, & repression in the post-Allegro era.
The “many other ways can same as psychedelics” dogma ritual repetition, religiously ritually repeated by all academics, is a way of falsely elevating poor methods (meditation) to the high level of respect of the one good method (psychedelics) that produces control transformation.
How to Properly Use Indigenous Shams to Attack Your Opponents
The purpose of Indigenous Shams is to serve as a blunt club to beat Western entheogen scholars, to discredit.
Like the fake “journalists” blocked from conf bc they are parasites trying to destroy the entire field.
How Injecting Politics Killed Atheism Culture and Attacks Entheogen Scholarship Likewise
Comparable:
Richard Carrier’s New Atheism, the ahistoricity writer overnight killed Atheism conferences by CO-OPTING ATHEISM, INJECTING CULTURAL POLITICS and killing Atheism culture/community.
Why did Atheism die? How did Carrier’s imported politics kill it?
Atheism stock went up and down after 2001.
I examined a 4 New Atheists book: the book had zilch sense of mysticism in religion; no concept of esotericism in author’s mind.
Where Atheism (a brand, a worldview, a paradigm): Start w/ run of the mill modern Christian then negate. A poor-quality Christian in drag as a poor-quality Atheist, nothing changed.
Low-grade Christianity converts to low-grade Atheism: does God exist, yes or no? Worthless.
The Atheists shuffled the Outsider exoteric deck chairs, nothing changed.
Mosurinjohn Pusher of Non-Drug Psychedelics
I have no thoughts about Indigenous Shams
though – so persuasive –
Mosurinjohn & Ascough put on a show for anything-but-drugs academia
Mosurinjohn & Ascough wheel out the artifice, beating on entheogen scholars with Indigenous Shams, for the purp – Mosurinjohn & Ascough are not actually valuing Indigenous Shams execpt as a momentary affectation, — CIPHER / BLUNT CLUB, the purpose is not to elevate Indigenous Shams; or help them; the purpose is to harm W entheogen scholarship.
adbaa /
The Mission of Anything-But-Drugs academics: Discredit, Disrespect, Invalidate, Suppress, to Self Elevate; Abuse Indigenous Shams Strategically, Weoponized to Inflict Harm on Entheogen scholarship in order to Self-Promote: the Parasite Strategy
Some of my best friends are Indigenous Shams.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough don’t care about the topic of Indigenous Shams. Sharday Mosurinjohn is not writing a book …
Sharday Mosurinjohn Needs to STOP Writing a Book Fantasizing in Vain about Psychedelics in Western Esotericism, and Needs to Write a Book on Indigenous Shams Instead
She’ll tell YOU what YOU have to study, or submit to rather.
But SHE has free reighn to write an entire book
She is not serious about Indigenous Shams, it’s striking a pose, momentarily taking up this useful cipher. Let’s see you write a series of
If Indigenous Shams Are So Damn Awesome, Why Is Sharday “Don’t Mis-Hear Me” Mosurinjohn Ignoring Indigenous Shams, and Writing a Book About Psychedelics in Western Esotericism Instead?
I do not intend to make any point about Indigenous Shams at all. I don’t think about them, I don’t care about them, they are not part of my mental world, Indigenous Shams have nothing to do with this page.
I am purely counter-attacking the Newbie anything-but-drugs academics.
I do not care about Indigenous Shams.
I have actually voiced respect for Indigenous Shams, it’s hard work requiring creativity.
I have huge respect for Indigenous Shams.
I’m sad for Indigenous Shams because Sharday Mosurinjohn abuses them as nothing but a momentary weapon blunt club to harm entheogen scholarship, then she casts away and writes her own book on psychedelics in Western Esotericism, NOT on Indigenous Shams – she
Sharday Mosurinjohn never actually loved the Indigenous Shams at all. 😢
Sharday Mosurinjohn was just USING the Indigenous Shams for her own momentary strategic gain, the strategy of the moment – DON’T MIS-HEAR ME,
I’m saying the opposite of what I said, and the explanation for that is, you are mis-hearing me, you are in error.
fake — fake — fake and Why, again, were Mosurinjohn & Ascough kicked out of every journal such that they were forced to produce their own special issue of Religions journal because no one would publish their fake articles.
Ascough didn’t read my article but he’ll tell you what’s in it: his view. He’s just using my article just as he used the poor Indigenous Shams but doesn’t GAF about them.
Hey Ass Cough, why aren’t YOU doing entheogen scholarship on Indigenous Shams, big talker, eager to lecture the whole field of entheogen scholarship that it needs to shut down and re-center on Indigenous Shams
Ascough cares nothing and knows nothing about Indigenous Shams.
Fake and empty arg’n from Mosurinjohn & Ascough, it’s all put-downs and posturing
Gauge How Poor the Scholarship from Ascough on this “Special, Taboo” Topic: He Poorly Represents My 2006 Plaincourault Fresco Article
Academic Corruption and Fradulent Censorship
Conflicts of Interest
This “Special, Taboo” Topic of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art Justifies Abandoning Standard Scholarly Practices
This “Special, Taboo” Topic of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art Justifies Wasson, Letcher, & Huggins Abandoning Standard Scholarly Practices (Publishing and Citing Articles) and Instead, Abnormal: Personally “Consult” the Art Authorities in Submission
“One of the key enigmas of cultural history has been the identity of a sacred plant called Soma in the ancient Rig Veda of India.
“Mr. Wasson has aroused considerable attention in learned circles and beyond by advancing and documenting the thesis that Soma was a hallucinogenic mushroom – none other than the Amanita muscaria, the fly-agaric that until recent times was the center of shamanic rites among the Siberian and Uralic tribesmen.
“In his presentation he throws fascinating light on the role of mushrooms in religious ritual.
“A section on the post-Vedic history of Soma is contributed by the Sanskrit scholar Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty.”
Cultural Politics of Religion vs. Psychedelics
Reading how Ascough misuses my 2006 Plaincourault fresco article, you learn about Ascough’s view & arg, but nothing about my article’s view & arg.
I can tell how poor quality the articles: Ascough just makes up sh*t about my article and ignores what I say, and it is.
I wish Ascough had written “I agree with Michael Hoffman’s conclusion: sideline and retire Allegro.”
That was certainly not Irvin’s message in 2006.
Had Irvin written my 2006 Plaincourault fresco article, had he driven and designed the article, the article would have been like The Holy Mushroom, pro-Allegro propaganda for the purpose (explicitly, on the book cover) of elevating Allegro.
Jan Irvin falsely credits Allegro with Affirming the CLASS of mushroom-trees means mushrooms, not just the Plaincourault fresco
Allegro’s Abuse of Nascent Entheogen Scholarship to Smear and Defame Christianity with a Disgusting Sex-Cult Fungus
Allegro’s purpose was not entheogen scholarship, it was to WEAPONIZE DISGUSTING Amanita SEX CULT & ACADEMIC ANTHROPOLOGY THEORY TO DEFAME AND RIDICULE Christianity.
In The Holy Mushroom, Jan Irvin falsely tries to credit Allegro with the CLASS of mushroom-trees.
Here’s PROOF that Allegro NEVER WROTE ONE WORD ABOUT MUSHROOM-TREES as a class:
The Holy Mushroom doesn’t cite Allegro making statements about mushroom-trees as a class.
Why then take the “mushroom-trees entire class” medal from Wasson and give the medal falsely to Allegro?
The “mushroom-trees entire class” medal, Ruck falsely granted to Wasson in “Daturas for the Virgin” at quote: “Wasson’s conclusion”(!) as if Wasson asserted mushroom-trees mean mushrooms.
Ruck wrote “mushroom-trees look like mushrooms and that’s exactly what they are” – “Daturas for the Virgin”.
Poor, poor Wasson, per Ruck’s lie and history revision, Wasson kept telling all the world, ALL MUSHROOM-TREES MEAN MUSHROOMS”.
Jan Irvin’S false rebuttal: “Wasson did the exact oppositite of that. It is ALLEGRO who went around telling all the world “ALL MUSHROOM-TREES MEAN MUSHROOMS” – and I have no quotes of Allegro to back up my claim.
A Mushroom-Tree Is NOT a Mushroom, Ruck, It’s the Transformative Experience of Eternalism, giving Y’ on One Hand and & YI or Y’I on the Other Hand
[Y’, YI] = One Hand: Modified Possibilism-Thinking; Other Hand: Integrated Possibilism/ Eternalism Thinking
10:59 p.m. Feb. 17, 2026 I’m in ordinary-state, = closed scroll, and I have possibilism-thinking , branching possibilism-thinking, though I know there’s the eternalism state and the Eternalism mental model. Y’ means all that. qualified possibilism-thinking, in ordinary-state.
the two states correspond with two mental models: possibilism & eternalism BUT the mental model that’s in ordinary-state changes.
ordinary-state , basic possibilism-thinking
alt-state, basic possibilism-thinking and eternalism feeling
alt-sta
simpl’d:
O P = ordinary-state, possibilism-thinking
O P
A P
A E
O E + P’
The mental model that’s in ordinary-state is inistially possibilism ; basic possibilism-thinking
later in ordinary-state the model is: qualified possibilism-thinking + eternalism-thinking
by virt of fingers attached to thumb, these fingers are NOT same as fingers on other hand; these fingers are integreated in relation with thumb, they work toegeher to hold and control.
I am saying the opposite of what I was saying but that’s because you are mis-hearing me. fake. no integrity.
NO INTEGRITY, NO CONSISTENCY,
WILL TRY ANY (ever-changing) TACTIC TO SELF-ELEVATE, ESPECIALLY DESTROYING THE FIELD OF ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP TO BE ITS CORRECTOR-TO-DEATH
Why All Journals Rejected Mosurinjohn & Ascough: Self-Appointed Correctors-to-Death of the Field:
We Are Here to Smugly Condescend, Accuse, Namecall, Invalidate, Discredit, Critique Parasitically, and Posture to Win Favor with the Academic Cabal, Anything-But-Drugs Academia
I SEE AN OPPORTUNITY IN THIS WEAK TRENDY FIELD TO SELF-PROMOTE AS THE ACCUSER, THE CORRECTOR, THE SELF-APPOINTED JUDGE AND DIRECTOR OF EVERYONE ELSE’S RESEARCH
What You Are Studying Is Wholly Invalid, Illegit, Pathetic, in Vain, a Myth
You (but not I) Need to Make Indigenous Shams the Center of Your Adulation, while i write my book on NOT Indigenous Shams, but on psychedelics in Western Esotericism
it’s my strategy of the moment, my feigned random interest so i don’t have OVERLOAD BOREDOM
That’s why I invaded the field of entheogen scholarship, to be its corrector and director.
DON’T MIS-HEAR ME BEING FAKE, PHONY, Rude, Wrong, Self-Contradictory, Inconsistent
Why Won’t Anyone Publish Our Toxic Parasitic Smear Article to Sweepingly Discredit, Invalidate and Dismiss the Entire Field of Entheogen Scholarship for Personal Gain?
If you want to know Sharday Mosurinjohn’s view, among her backtracking, tactic-shifts, read Winslow who interviewed her.
Winslow leaks the real voice of Sharday Mosurinjohn. Which matches some of what she wrote in article abstract and lecture abstract. Her theory is that New Religious Movements (NRMs) are looking for a legacy and legitimation, but they are not legitimate.
She’s here to discredit, to delegitimate the entire field, but she – in her hundredth strategy pivot (DON’T MIS-HEAR ME), now gets to write a book on psychedelics in Western Esotericism.
Even though she said that sort of thing is COLONIALIST VIOLENCE and RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM. but DON’T MIS-HEAR ME.
I hear a broken robot, an empty, shifting persona. One moment, ingratiate with anything-but-drugs academics, the next, ingratiate with entheogen scholarship?
I can’t imagine her ingratiating w/ entheogen scholarship, she is SO scorched-earth – has she ever given entheogen scholarship any credit, or always totally illegit and it’s her job and profit to point that out to shut down the field.
I’M HERE TO SHUT DOWN THE FIELD BECAUSE IT IS NOTHING BUT RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM & COLONIST VIOLENCE / I’M HERE TO WRITE MY BOOK ON PSYCHEDELICS IN Western Esotericism, DON’T MIS-HEAR ME
I care about toxic parasite invaders of the field of entheogen scholarship, who are here to steer the field into a ditch, for personal gain, by abusing a cipher, “Indigenous Shams” purely to beat on and destroy entheogen scholarship.
bc she’s inconsistent, an empty tactic applyer, she has no actual views, so she can dance her position now over here, now over there, contradiction? “Don’t mis-hear me.”
Who the F says that?! No one is ever “mishearing”
Sharday Mosurinjohn, she communicated her tear-down-the-other bile perfectly well.
An empty cipher, “I NAMECALL THEREFORE I AM” — When YOU write entheogen scholarship about psychedelics in Western religious history, you are pathetic and in vain, and ought to be all-focused on Indigenous Shams instead.
When Sharday Mosurinjohn writes entheogen scholarship about psychedelics in Western religious history, she is magically exempt from religious fundmaentalism and colonialist oppression SHE COMES ACROSS AS FAKE, POSING, POSTURING, EMPTY MARKETING, all just an affectation, trying incohernnetly one self-promotional stratetgy one moment, the next on video walks back, “DON’T MIS-HEAR ME, it’s GOOD that you try pathetically in vain”
What is her position? It depends what self-presentation she’s experimenting with at the moment.
Whoa that tack didn’t work, better PIVOT strategies!
REJECTED AGAIN BY 18TH TYPE OF JOURNAL.
All Those Journal Editors Can’t Be Wrong, Rejecting Mosurinjohn & Ascough for YEARS
Conference Entry Table: No-Entry list: Parasite Fake Journalists and Mosurinjohn & Ascough not Allowed In
psychedelics in Western Esotericism pwe
The Deniers of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art Have a Serious Academic Corruption Problem that They Must Answer For
Exemplified by Huggins covering for Wasson’s censorship of Panofsky and Brinckmann, which Huggins describes Brinckmann as “noted exception”, when in fact Wasson went far out of his way to actively lie by omission.
It was definitely, CERTAINLY Wasson’s academic and moral DUTY to pass-on to use the Brinckmann 1906 citation from Panofsky, as I exclaimed and explained in my 2006 article.
I could tell that Panofsky had provided weak citations to Wasson, and Wasson withheld them.
My 2006 proof of that:
I very much desire to read everything the art historians wrote on mushroom-trees.
Panofsky aggressively claims and emphasizes that art historians are 100% EMPHATICALLY THOROUGHLY FAMILIAR with mushroom-trees.
Normal standard academic practice (for non-taboo topics): publish writings about the topics that are familiar, in this case mushroom-trees.
IF art historians are SO familiar with mushroom-trees, then CERTAINLY they would’ve published SOMETHING I can read.
Panofsky MUST HAVE provided citations, as standard practice for a topic “we’re totally thoroughly familiar with”, a topic in the art field.
But Wasson doesn’t show any citations with Panofsky’s letter, p. 180 SOMA 1968.
2006: I am mad at Wasson because he withholds the (probably thin & weak) citations that Panofsky MUST HAVE provided – while at the same time, Wasson chides, insults, name-calls, berates, lectures, prances, fulminates, blusters…. THIS IS PROPAGANDA.
THIS IS ACADEMIC CORRUPTION.
Huggins, who sleeps with Wasson and hangs out and is buddies with Wasson, is responsible for the sins of Wasson.
You can’t use Wasson for your (Deniers) side of the argument, without being held accountable for Popebanker Wasson’s fraudulent cover-up and MASSIVE, MAXIMAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
Wasson’s conflict of interest utterly ruins Wasson’s credibility (believability) re: his (rude-toned, snide, pushy, insulting, high-pressure) total denial of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
To this day, 2026, we STILL do not have the 2 mushroom-tree art works that were attached to the first Panofsky letter: WHY NOT, HUGGINS?
WHY DID WASSON WITHHOLD THE MUSHROOM-TREE ART FROM ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARS?
The Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art have academic CORRUPTION, FRAUD, and CONFLICT OF INTEREST, to answer for.
Huggins and the other Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art are in a poor position to morally lecture and chastise entheogen scholars on their errors.
If we’re going to lecture and morally chastise, then let’s discuss Popebanker Wasson’s dishonest, manipulative, deceptive censorship of:
Letter 1
Letter 2
Art work 1
Art work 2
Brinc cit 1
Brinc cit 2
… for DECADES, energetically and actively, as a professional propagandist (exposed by Jan Irvin).
This is the worst-case, lack of any credibility of Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Let us see the degree of Huggins’ credibility:
Huggins argues that these Day 3 trees cannot mean mushrooms, because they have branches.
Huggins in strawman, not steelman fashion, avoids the crushingly OBVIOUS point and no-brainer objection: these branches look EXACTLY, LITERALLY like mushrooms, and don’t themselves have branches:
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman
Huggins calls the below, Day 4 plants “trees”, in passing, without giving any justification, and without drawing any attention to them.
Huggins pulls a stage-magician trick on the audience: indirection:
LOOK AT the smaller plants among the trees: These smaller plants also appear on the Mushroom Mount folio image (in that scene, interspersed with mushroom-trees).
Huggins avoids the screamingly OBVIOUS point and objection:
These plants have no branches, and are not mushroom-trees, nor trees, but only match mushrooms:
Crop and Annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025 Day 1 panel above; Day 4 panel below
Crop by Michael Hoffman Plants in Day 4 panel
That shows you the degree to which Huggins can be trusted: ZERO.
Huggins provides a slanted, biased, skewed, agenda-driven cover-up, thinly disguised as neutral, investigative scholarship that’s seeking the accurate interpretation and description.
Huggins cannot describe these plain-as-can-be mushrooms except in an extremely biased, prejudiced way, as “trees”, for NO REASON.
Huggins is not a sincere scholar, but is being manipulative and DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTING and MIS-DESCRIBING the Great Canterbury Psalter.
Huggins is compromised, by being in bed with corrupt, anything-but-drugs academia, trying to appease their censorious demands and make them happy, even if that requires Huggins to deliberately mis-describe and misrepresent plain-as-can-be mushrooms, misleadingly, as just “branches” (in Day 3 panel: branches “rather than” mushrooms), and as “trees” (in Day 4 panel: trees that somehow have no tree features; no branches).
todo: mark up hardcopy and analyze same-page proximity of discussing Day 3 “branch” and Day 4 “tree”.
what page does Hug show Day 3? 1, 8, 11 (entire f11), 12, 22, 24
what page does Hug show Day 4? 11 (entire f11), 22, 26
what page does Hug discuss Day 4?
Hypothesis (need to check page layout of the article): Huggins cannot allow the Day 3 & Day 4 pictures to be on the same page as his false and misleading, mis-description that misrepresents the pictures.
Huggins is in bed with corrupt, anything-but-drugs academia.
Like Popebanker Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson, Huggins has a conflict of interest, and is a propagandist for hire by corrupt, anything-but-drugs academia.
Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita — March 2006 article for the Journal of Higher Criticism – external link to Egodeath.com. Accuses Wasson of withholding (thin & weak) citations that Panofsky MUST have provided – confirmed by Brown & Brown 2019, expose of the two Panofsky letters, which Huggins REPEATEDLY OMITS TO CITE.
Every Type of Journal Rejected Mosurinjohn & Ascough’s Toxic Parasitical, Self-Serving, Smear-Piece Article for YEARS, so Now Mosurinjohn, Greer, Ascough, and Huggins Created their Own, Special Issue of Religions Journal
Why did the anything-but-drugs academic journal Religions permit Mosurinjohn & Ascough to publish articles, and run a special issue, when every type of journal for YEARS rejected the 2025 Mosurinjohn & Ascough article?
Indigenous Shams Do NOT Have “Psychedelic Wisdom”, against Winslow, Houot, Mosurinjohn & Ascough, etc.
The term ‘wisdom’ means specifically, integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.
Indigenous Shams do NOT have integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.
Europeans have vastly more developed technology than Indigenous Shams — against the anti-Western propaganda.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough: “You Entheogen Scholars Are Pathetic and Illegitimate, Wishing in Vain for Psychedelics in Mystery Religions; We Know for a Fact There’s No Psychedelics in Mystery Religions, since We Denier-Academics Made Sure to Wash Away the Only Evidence That Counts”
Winslow’s Bottom-of-Barrel, Poppest of Posts
Winslow reveals what Mosurinjohn & Ascough are going around telling uncritical thinkers:
There’s no evidence, of an ultra-particular kind, after we washed away the dirt, in vessels, at Eleusis.
That’s the only evidence that counts, because – post-dishwasher – this particular type of evidence is lacking, and thus suits our cause.
Thus we proved that there were definitely no psychedelics in mystery religions.
We uttered the sounds, “Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence”, therefore, it’s ok that we argue on that premise, that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. [Julie Brown: “I swear I will only state what I see. I see the mushroom caps have been painted over or somehow made not visible.”] The voicing of the name of a fallacy, is abused as a COVER to legitimize committing that fallacy.
Look critically at Ruck, who shifts his writing-tense from “Maybe there were psychedelics in mystery religions” to writing as if “There were psychedelics in mystery religions.” This grammar shift is a major problem, not merely a practical way of communication. Pay attention to this big problem, that’s documented in our formal article.
(Don’t pay attention to US doing the exact same shift: fudge & shift from “Maybe there were not psychedelics” to aggressively writing as if, “There were not psychedelics; ROGAN’S BEEN DEBUNKED!!“)
Mosurinjohn & Ascough’s legs are worn out from sprinting repeatedly between:
Projection of their Own Fallacious Argumentation onto Ruck
Mosurinjohn & Ascough covertly shift from writing “possible”: Dr. Jekyll mode: Their defensible (but worthless) Motte position: Maybe there weren’t psychedelics; d/k; need measured, reasonable, research, look how credible and careful we are, model scholars, unlike the sloppy Affirmers.
… to writing as-if fact: Mr. Hyde mode: Their aggressive, indefensible Bailey position: THERE CERTAINLY WERE NO PSYCHEDELICS, YOU PATHETIC, ILLEGITIMATE MORONS, PUSHING A MYTH!! YOU MUST ONLY STUDY INDIGENOUS SHAMS, WHO ARE SUPERIOR TO YOU!🤜💥
Please publish our smear-article; we’ve been rejected by all types of journals for YEARS!
We are on your crooked side, Anything-But-Drugs propagandists!
Academic corruption, on this “special”, taboo topic, causes garbled, nonsensical, self-contradictory argumentation, bluffing, and rhetoric.
The purpose of academic research on entheogen scholarship, as per the ABD Newbies gang, is to PREVENT scholarly investigation, while PRETENDING to pursue investigation – it’s a cover-up operation.
Winslow’s Pop Post Voices, Reveals, and Exposes Mosurinjohn’s Incoherent Narrative
“What do Joe Rogan, a freshly minted neoshaman, and half the speakers at psychedelic conferences have in common? They all love telling people that the ancient Greeks’ rites of passage were psychedelic ceremonies. According to this popular theory, the secret sauce behind the legendary Eleusinian Mysteries was ergot-laced barley that sent initiates on revelatory, near-death-like psychedelic journeys. But is it even true?
“Researchers from Queen’s University think not. So they just dropped a thorough takedown of the whole theory in the journal Psychedelic Medicine. Drs. Sharday Mosurinjohn (whom I interviewed in April) and Richard Ascoughsystematically dismantle what they call “the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis,” pointing out there’s zero archaeological evidence for psychedelics at Eleusis. They say proponents are presenting speculation as fact, and the entire narrative is built on shaky foundations and circular reasoning.
“So why does the myth persist? The authors argue it’s about legitimacy. People want to believe there’s a ‘respectable’ Western pedigree for psychedelics with our European ancestors. Never mind that there are plenty of Indigenous lineages around the world that have preserved psychedelic wisdomfor millennia. If we need history’s stamp of approval to justify research and policy reform today (we don’t), surely that’s enough.”
/ end of Winslow’s Pop Slop post
/ end of copypast from Corrob page
My commentary on that is below.
Winslow’s Pop Slop, with Commentary
section copied from Idea Development page 33:
Who wrote the stupid wrong vague anti-Western phrase, “psychedelic wisdom”? Henry Winslow’s awful post:
The Pop writer, anti-scholarly, poor thinker Winslow wrote:
“Researchers from Queen’s University think not.
[not “no evidence”; they think DEFINITELY NOT psychedelics in mystery religions – why? they slip from “possibly not” to “= definitely not”, exactly as they make a stink about Ruck doing, in the positive direction. -mh]
“So they just dropped a thorough takedown of the whole theory
“Drs. Sharday Mosurinjohn (whom I interviewed in April) and Richard Ascough systematically dismantle
[ultra vague, non-scholarly, untestable, undefined assertion -mh] what they call “the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis[sic, PARADIGM],”
pointing out there’s zero archaeological [RESTRICTIVE QUALIFIER] evidence for psychedelics at Eleusis [RESTRICTIVE QUALIFIER].
[dirty rhet arg’n strategy: only accept 1 type of evidence: whatever type of evidence your side (Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art) has destroyed (washed out these particular cups), and is minimal.]
“They say proponents are presenting speculation as fact, and the entire narrative is built on shaky foundations and circular reasoning.”
[Hypocrites Mosurinjohn & Ascough present their speculation …
Maybe there were no psychedelics in mystery religions. The only type of evidence that that counts is the dirt that we Deniers washed away, and by that arb. definition, “THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. “
… as if fact (We showed that there’s definitely no psychedelics in mystery religions; DEBUNKED ROGAN. & Muraresku. & ruck) -mh]
Winslow con’t:
“So why does the myth persist?”
[the above presenting of negative speculation as negative fact by Mosurinjohn & Ascough has now MAGICALLY become factual, so that we can say confidently with a con-artist’s tone of finality, “the myth of psychedelics in mystery religions”.]
“The authors [Mosurinjohn & Ascough] argue it’s about legitimacy.
[ie, YOU ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARS ARE ILLEGIT & PATHETIC & discredited and invalidated – like Wasson p. 180 SOMA smearing blundering “mycologists” ie Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art eg John Ramsbottom.
Ramsb. more than effectively retaliated, by re-printing his new book just to add:
“We are committed skeptics, not interested in truth re: mushroom imagery in Christian art.”
– signed, Popebanker Wasson, privately to the top mycologist (Affirmer), John Ramsbottom
As Jan Irvin figured out during research with me in 2006, it took Wasson decades to figure out that he’d been, for years, DESTROYED & EXPOSED as a committed liar, by the top myc’ist, Ramsbottom.]
Winslow con’t:
“People want to believe there’s a ‘respectable’ Western pedigree for psychedelics with our European ancestors.
[ie YOU ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARS LACK A RESPECTABLE PEDIGREE]
[now wheel-out the weaponized Indigenous Shams:]
“Never mind that there are plenty of Indigenous lineages around the world that have preserved psychedelic wisdom[sic] for millennia.
“If we need history’s stamp of approval to justify research and policy reform today (we don’t), surely that’s enough.”
/ end of Winslow’s Pop Junk post
Motivation for this Page
A reactionary page reacting against fools attacking the field by abusing Indigenous Shams as a blunt club for the purpose of delegitimizing and discrediting and insulting entheogen scholars, to fakely try to elevate themselves and make a name for themselves.
These RUDE & WRONG, hostile newbies have read only a single book: The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku, 2020, and Pollan 2018, and fantasize that they are equipped to appoint themselves as a new, Easy-Mode career role, as Entheogen Scholarship Critic.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough bring Rogan-level Pop shallow substitute for scholarly research that moves the field forward constructively to reach its potential. Proof that Mosurinjohn & Ascough are nothing but mere Pop Junk writers POSING as serious academics, like Huggins POSES and play-acts at writing a scholarly article and yet:
Huggins says Day 3 is “ruled out” from meaning mushrooms, because the plants “have branches”.
What the hell is WRONG with Huggins that he FAILS to point out that these “branches” are identical to mushrooms?
Answer: Huggins is PROPAGANDA to appease, ingratiate himself with, and cater to ANYTHING-BUT-DRUGS ACADEMIA.
The “scholarship” presented by the anything-but-drugs academics are not sincere investigative scholarship trying to find the truth regardless of academia’s corrupt demands.
Huggins is required to reach the desired, negative conclusions. Revealed in his garbled, bizarre, arbitrary “Conclusion” section so he can next utter: “Every instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art FAILED THE TEST.”
What test? The utterly, to the core, nonsensical test:
Art historians defined a class, mushroom-trees.
Criteria for a tree to be included in the class, “mushroom-trees”: The tree must have some tree features and must also have some mushroom features.
Huggins’ ploy: Consider any particular isolated instance of a mushroom-tree, by that class-definition.
Ask “whether” that isolated tree instance has any tree features. This is a ploy and deception. It’s already plainly known, that by definition, every instance has tree features; otherwise, that instance would not be included in the class.
“IF” the instance has tree features (by definition, that’s guaranteed), then in that particular case, you should just ignore the mushroom elements and exclusively pay attention and honor and respect the tree elements. (Arbitrary bias.)
Voila, now you can utter the phony “conclusion” of this SENSELESS CHARADE, this phony put-on: “So, no mushroom imagery in Christian art. We discovered, surprise: every single mushroom-tree instance was discovered to have branching. HELL WE EVEN INCLUDED DAY 4’S 4 PLANTS, WHICH HAVE NO BRANCHING AT ALL and are not eligible for inclusion in the class “mushroom-trees”.
In your next article, shift from possibility to fact. Huggins 2025 tries to soften his basically aggressive “rules” (ie, the arbitrary decree: Always ignore any mushroom features) by treating them simultaneously as mere “suggestions” and yet also, at the same time, as objective, binding “rules”.
This “Conclusion” section strategem is an affectation, a phony put-on, dissimulation, a way of pretending to “conclude” “Always ignore all mushroom features“, without admitting you are doing that sweeping, blanket, arbitrary dismissal.
Why such garbled arg’n? Because of academic corruption and denial; committed skeptics.
If anything-but-drugs academics were authentic, Huggins would STEELMAN INSTEAD OF STRAWMAN:
An HONEST HUGS (an alternate reality) would:
Discuss that the Day 3 panel’s “branches” match mushrooms.
Discuss that the Day 4 panel has not mushroom-trees or trees, but purely, mushrooms, with no branching.
In the “Conclusion” section, not concoct the pointless, redundant, fake “testing” of members of a class to “discover” whether they have tree features – a nonsensical charade, since you already know ahead of time this is guaranteed to always be the case in every instance.
The fake & nonsensical charade of “testing” each tree within the class mushroom-trees, in the “Conclusion” section of Huggins 2024, is a BLUFF by an insincere, pseudo-scholar trying to ingratiate himself with CORRUPT, ANYTHING-BUT-DRUGS ACADEMICS; COMMITTED SKEPTICS who are trying to OBSCURE and COVER-UP the truth, not find the truth.
What is WRONG with Huggins, that he declined his duty to STOP and discuss these mushroom images that have no branches?
Ans: Huggins — like Mosurinjohn & Ascough — is playacting, putting on a show to impress the anything-but-drugs agenda/ commitment/ academics/ propaganda/ academia.
Articles by the Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art are propaganda disguised as scholarship.
Huggins’ Conclusion Ruse: Sweep ALL Mushroom-Trees Away, while Pretending to Individually Analyze Each Instance
Huggins concocts a nonsensical test that’s totally redundant with any given tree’s inclusion in the class of mushroom-trees, in his Foraging Wrong article’s “Conclusion” (rather, his Irrational Decree section).
Then in his Next, 2025 Article: “Each Mushroom Image FAILS THE TEST” and Is “Ruled Out”, by His Fraudulent & Nonsensical “Test”.
Huggins Conclusion section pretends to examine individual members of class ‘mushroom-trees’ to ask “whether” that instance, that member of the class, has any tree features at all.
What insanity! a put-on! a ruse!
It is a GIVEN that by definition, all members of mushroom-tree class have tree elements; otherwise that tree instance wouldn’t be in the class.
FOR EXAMPLE: Day 4’s four simple, literal mushrooms are NOT in the class “mushroom-trees”, because they don’t have ANY branches AT ALL.
Huggins pulls a CHEAP cheap, sleazy STAGE-MAGICIAN sleight-of-hand, misdirection of attention:
“OH HEY LOOK OVER THERE AT THOSE SMALLER PLANTS AMONG THE FOUR TREES, THEY APPEAR IN OTHER FOLIO IMAGE!!”
Biased propagandist Huggins abusively manipulates the reader and sneakily avoids discussing these no-branch mushrooms – they are not “trees”, by anyone’s assessment, yet he bluffs the reader (hope no one notices) by calling these plain, no-branch mushrooms, “trees”.
Corruption in Academia Around Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art: the Anything-But-Drugs Agenda, Instead of Investigative Scholarship
Ronald Huggins is dishonest propaganda, to impress and cowtow to the anything-but-drugs academic cabal; not sincere, authentic scholarship.
Yet, Mosurinjohn & Ascough cite Huggins AS IF he’s a credit to their position, their side.
Huggins reasons in a sweeping, blanket way, while PRETENDING to be nuanced per each mushroom-tree instance. It’s a ruse; a put-on, an affectation to deceive.
Huggins’ actual argumentation or assertion is:
Branch features ALWAYS should be ignored for ALL mushroom-trees.
Huggins’ PRETENDED argument is, “if a specific, isolated, individual mushroom-tree has any tree elements of any kind, ignore its mushroom elements”.
OBVIOUSLY this is the case, by definition, for EVERY member of the class.
THIS IS ANYTHING-BUT-DRUGS ACADEMIA PROPAGANDA, not sincere scholarship.
The Panofsky/ Wasson/ Huggins Sleazy and Dishonest Cover-up Operation
Why doesn’t Huggins cite the article that published the two censored Panofsky letters on the World-Wide Web for ALL scholars to access? Entheogens in Christian art: Wasson, Allegro, and the Psychedelic Gospels (Jerry Brown & Julie Brown, 2019) https://doi.org/10.1556/2054.2019.019
Why does Huggins make-believe entheogen scholars have been aware of both of the Panofsky letters, and their Brinckmann citation, since 1952 or 1968?
What’s Huggins’ motive for pulling the two Panofsky letters and the Brinckmann citation out of nowhere, out of thin air?
It’s a dirty, scholar-warfare tactic to block other scholars from accessing and leveraging the Panofsky letters.
Huggins tries to cozy up to Popebanker Wasson, pretending like Wasson is on the up-and-up.
Huggins helps the liar, Popebanker Wasson in a cover-up operation, by refusing to cite and credit and help other scholars (Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art) utilize the Panofsky letters that Popebanker Wasson egregiously and fraudulently and maliciously censored.
Instead of standard scholarship, for this “special”, taboo, charged topic, Huggins directs us to the goddamned DRAWER at Harvard, which the Affirmer of mushroom imagery in Christian art Jan Irvin is forbidden from accessing.
Wasson p. 180 SOMA 1968, similarly deletes actual scholarly practice (citations of published writings), and sneakily tries to get us, on this special magic taboo topic, only, to use wildly abnormal, non-scholarly methods, of “consult” art authorities.
The expert art authorities must be obeyed by Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art why?
These art historian frauds, cover-up operators for hire in the wake of the Allegro violation (combining Jesus’ ahistoricity + entheogen origins of Christianity) have never written ANYTHING about the existence of hundred of mushroom-trees, with the “NOTABLE” (Huggins’ cover-up for censored-by-Wasson) single, weak, lone exception:
Indigenous Shams Do NOT Have “Psychedelic Wisdom”, against Winslow, Houot, Mosurinjohn & Ascough, etc.
This page is to RETURN IN KIND a big F U to rude, anti-scholar, self-promoters, toxic parasites invading the field only to fall on their faces, Mosurinjohn & Ascough.
Expecting to score cheap & easy points in the anything-but-drugs academic cabal, Mosurinjohn & Ascough are hell-bent on discrediting their betters who CREATED the field – INCLUDING those selfsame entheogen scholars who created the field of Indigenous Sham Studies, that Mosurinjohn & Ascough (with Greer & Huggins) — the ABD Newbie Fools — think they can weaponize against Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Greco/ Roman/ Jewish/ Christian art.
The Anything-but-Drugs Newbies
Looking to Make a Cheap and Easy Name for Themselves in the Trendy Entheogen Scholarship Field by Appeasing & Selling Themselves to CORRUPT Anything-but-Drugs Academia, Instead of Authentic Scholarly Investigation
Mosurinjohn
Ascough
Greer
Huggins
The ABD Newbies think they can invade this field that entheogen scholars created, invading the field in lazy, SLOPPY, Easy-Mode.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough cite Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest (Huggins, 2024) AS IF the article is sound, beyond Huggins’ correcting of trivia.
I agree with ABD Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art on some points:
Entheogen scholars are correct about what matters: The best, most authentic, Classic, authoritative religion and myth comes from none other than psychedelics.
Creating a page is sometimes a guess and a speculative investment.
Not always sure how much potential, or how much such a page/title is needed.
Todo
todo: copypaste today’s txt msgs Feb. 18, 2026
See Also
todo: link to new page: Soma: Divine Mushroom of Immortality, Gordon Wasson, 1968
I articulated branching vs. non-branching in Physics, in 1997 & 2001.
I then started applying “branching vs. non-branching” to myth and mythic art:
1988 – bring together Block-Universe Mysticism.
1997 – core theory spec. a 2-level, not 3-phase, model. Discusses branching vs. non-branching as in Physics (not Myth).
2000 – Coraxo corrects expression of core the Egodeath theory; use David Ulansey to add equiv, 3-phase model.
2001 – got David Ulansey book.
2002 – non-branching shape of snake is why snake is the #1 mytheme? branching shape of tree is what’s relevant?
2010 – Greeks knew Loose Cognitive Science? Knew many worlds vs. single block universe? While walking the branching forest paths, observing mushrooms.
2013 – Discovered that in Greek & Christian art, branching is a master theme. Cranach: Eve Tempted by the Serpent (in The Power of Myth, Joseph Campbell) + Douris’ kylix of Jason, Ladon dragon, Athena, golden sacrificed ram fleece, tree in garden of the Hesperides.
2015 – hi-res Dancing Man from Thomas Hatsis article for UK zine. HYPOTHESIS: {stand on right foot} = eternalism-thinking; {stand on left foot} = possibilism-thinking.
2020 – Mid-Nov.: re-found f134 row 1 left 2/5: Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter, low-res, John Lash’s 2007/2008 research produced article The Discovery of a Lifetime. ~1999, Paul Lindgren discovered mushroom imagery in Christian art in Great Canterbury Psalter; credited by Jame Arthur Mushrooms and Mankind, and twice in Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise (Hoffman, Ruck & Staples, Entheos 1, 2001), https://entheomedia.net/Issue%20one.htm, https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/12/24/entheos-issues-1-4-mark-hoffman/#Entheos-Issue-1.
2022 – applied above to art pieces I been working with for years. Mar. 21, 2022: email Brown phrase {branching-message mushroom trees}.
2023 – – applied above to art pieces I been working with for years. Feb. 9, 2023: emailed Brown decoding of finger shapes of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem in Martin church, and sticks and feathers held out to Jesus’ finger shapes, guy in tree.
2025 – April-Aug: stopped thinking “change from the Possibilism mental model to the Eternalism mental model; get rid of possibilism-thinking.” Instead, add eternalism-thinking to modified possibilism-thinking.
2026 – medieval YI hand-shape theory; Jan/Feb 2026 major breakthrough.
ego inflation = Quantum Mysticism: every thought or act of will, you are Creator of infinite universes. Maximum possible ego inflation.
ego cancellation = Block-Universe Mysticism: your future already exists, you have no power to alter it. You have no power of that type – a shattering realization experience.
All the hype in Transpersonal Psychology about ego transcendence was NOT delivered on via their house religion core, Popular Neo-Advaita — but 1988 Jan, that WAS delivered instead by Block-Universe Mysticism.
During Sunday Service, Church Members Have Been Supportive: “Share Your Theory with Us”
Heads and Above, the Best Church
Bigger Brains – The Leaders of Psilocybin Decriminalization in Oakland (the First City in the Country); in Pacific Northwest, Broadening Decrim. from City to County
The Best Church for Big-Brain Scholarly Activist Networking
Church Founder Gave Sermon on Alan Moore’s Block-Universe Eternalism
Supposedly shows Nike, not Ariadne, yet, interpreting the image as Ariadne paid off immensely.
It’s been highly productive discussing with the #1 best psychedelic church, members. They were brought along into my latest breakthrough, YI hand-shape analysis; YI hand-shape theory.
I was invited by a church elder to present the Egodeath theory or some part of it eg how to recognize mushrooms in art via {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
That was INTENSE pressure forcing me to fix a huge problem in the Egodeath theory Core theory 1988/1997: partly fixed by Coraxo’s correction of me in 2000 where I got in 2001 David Ulansey book and added a 3-phase not just 2-phase model of mental model transformation “from possibilism to eternalism” (misleading simplified wording).
todo: Make Slide Deck, Give Presentation, Record Talk, Upload Video
Article for Church Reader, Issue 1
Submitted. Not out yet.
todo: add the word “block” in the article.
Recognizing Mushroom Imagery in Medieval Art – 2025 5-page church summary article; 2 pages of text; 1 page for f11 (top & bottom), 1 page for f109 & f134; 1 page for f145 & f177.
The Book Club where Book Authors Always Join the Meeting
The Alembic Building in Berkeley Is Associated with Erik Davis
Connected with U.C. Berkeley, Harvard, Charles Stang, Jeffrey Breau, etc.
Rick Strassman Was at Our Book Club, but No-Show as Presenter at Sunday Service
We had to settle for the other Rick ⚗️🍄👨🔬 instead. : ( : )
“In this wickedly entertaining and thoroughly informed homage to one of rock music’s towering pinnacles, Erik Davis investigates the magic-black or otherwise-that surrounds this album.
Carefully peeling the layers from each song, Davis reveals their dark and often mystical roots-and leaves the reader to decide whether [FOUR SYMBOLS] is some form of occult induction or just an inspired, brilliantly played rock album.”
Excerpt:
“Stripping Led Zeppelin’s famous name off the fourth record was an almost petulant attempt to let their Great Work symbolically stand on its own two feet.
But the wordless jacket also lent the album charisma. Fans hunted for hidden meanings, or, in failing to find them, sensed a strange reflection of their own mute refusal to communicate with the outside world.
This helped to create one of the supreme paradoxes of rock history: an esoteric megahit, a blockbuster arcanum.
Stripped of words and numbers, the album no longer referred to anything but itself: a concrete talisman that drew you into its world, into the frame.
All the stopgap titles we throw at the thing are lame:
Led Zeppelin IV,
[Untitled],
Runes,
Zoso,
Four Symbols.
In an almost Lovecraftian sense, the album was nameless, a thing from beyond, charged with manna.
And yet this uncanny fetish was easy to buy.”
Page 118: Astral Ascent Mysticism
Photo & annotations by Michael Hoffman. p. 118, Erik Davis, Led Zeppelin IV, 2005
Page 118 Transcribed
todo. search this site for key phrases from photo
I probably already transcribed the paragraph(s).
Page 122: The Egodeath Theory
Photo & annotations by Michael Hoffman. p. 122, Erik Davis, Led Zeppelin IV, 2005
“Thank you for choosing this title. Your pre-order title will be available upon release. Thank you for choosing Led Zeppelin’s Led Zeppelin IV: 33 1/3. Your audio book will be available for download on April 29, 2025.“
As Erik Davis says [Led Zeppelin IV, 2005, p. 118], there are variants of astral ascent mysticism.
The best variant of astral ascent mysticism is that which starts by assigning fixed stars = heimarmene.
If Late Antiquity switches that mapping all up (as in Hermeticism per the book Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity, by Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022), I resent and reject that perversion and destruction of astral ascent mysticism.
A parasitic, destructive revision of astral ascent mysticism in 150 AD to change it to “fate fate fate fate fate fate fate fate then transcend fate”, divorces astral ascent mysticism from its proper helpful useful role as analogy helping to clarify and explain how the mind transforms from Psilocybin.
History of the earth-centered cosmos model: 310 BC Greek guy, then another guy, then latecomer Ptolemy who is given too much credit for inventing scientific (not mystical) astral ascent mysticism model.
310–230 BC Aristarchus – spheres cosmos model – no precession of equinoxes.
162-127 BC Hipparchus – adds precession.
150 AD Ptolemy — adds precision.
Early systems enable astral ascent mysticism – they had the simple concept “beyond the stars”,
In 2005, Erik Davis and I Were Both Fumbling Between 2-Level vs. 3-Level Model: Enlightenment = Determinism vs. Transcending Determinism
Photo & annotations by Michael Hoffman. p. 118, Erik Davis, Led Zeppelin IV, 2005
Error in Davis p. 118: “Beyond these seven heavens lay the empyrean [sic], the eighth “rung” of the fixed stars.”
NO! If any system says empyrean = eighth (fixed stars), it’s a bad system & a failed use of analogy.
‘Empyrean’ needs to be reserved for the 9th level, higher than 8th/ fixed stars.
Empyrean is per Ulansey hypercosmic which should mean beyond fixed stars boundary of fate-ruled cosmos. ‘pyre’ means hypercosmic fires above fixed stars zodiac constellations.
“This model was interpreted in different ways [yeah some shtty failed bad harmful ways], but for many gnostics, the planetary [1-7] rulers were essentially demonic: they imprisoned the soul through the machinery of fate, an oppressive system of astral control …”
That is bad to equate level 1-7 = fate.
Yes, fate underlies all Psilocybin-driven developmental levels, but we need to be discussing mental models and their transformation, from possibilism-thinking to finally, after great effort, retaining grasp of eternalism-thinking, then transcending the revealed fact of eternalism.
Not simply saying “every level less than 9 = 100% fate” – that is not helpful & is a WASTE, a failure to helpfully explain mental model transformation starting from, in fact, possibilism-thinking – never mind that naive possibilism-thinking has hidden, not-yet-revealed fate underlying it under the hood.
What are we trying to accomplish via analogy?
Just complaining about fate?
Or helping map the move from thinking in terms of childish possibilism-thinking, to reveal fate, and then t’d fate in some way?
Photo and crop by Michael Hoffman, from a book: Power of Myth?
YI hand-shape pair analysis [YHSPA]
YI hand-shape analysis [YHSA]
king L hand: IY
king R hand: IY’
king hands pair: [IY’, IY]
L woman: L hand: IY
L woman: R hand: Y’
L woman hands pair: [Y’, IY]
R woman: L hand: Y’I’
R woman: R hand: Y’I
R woman hands pair: [Y’I’, Y’I]
This is significant: Seeing again this pic today, but THIS TIME, THE HANDS LEAPED OUT COHERENTLY, UNLIKE BEFORE. Feb. 17, 2026
To me, this proves how TOTALLY STANDARD AND UNIVERSAL the hand-shape language was.
the medieval YI hand-pair language [MYHPL]
Con of making headings for keyboard shortcut/ acronym/ concept-label/ concept/ lexicon term: lowercase vs uppercase.
Egoic Assumptions & Attitudes Toward Personal Control Freedom and Presumed Branching Possibilities: The Assumed Selling Point that Transcendent Knowledge Gives You Control Power and Freedom in an Open Future
Eve is not a weak-willed woman … she is a courageous spiritual guide who leads humanity to exercise free will and achieve higher consciousness.Brown & Brown. Page 7 of 2019 article. Entheogens in Christian art: Wasson, Allegro, and the Psychedelic Gospels. Journal of Psychedelic Studies, Special Issue on Psychedelics in History and World Religions, re: Plaincourault
[in Late Antiquity, the spirituality industry’s “I Hate Fate” theme of hermetic spirituality & of Late Antiquity – find ‘free’, “liberty”, “liberate”, “the Ogdoad, above the heimarmene”[sic!]]Wouter Hanegraaff, page n, Hermetic Spirituality, 2022
[Davis’ framing and narrative, assuming a selling point, that the purpose and end-goal project and objective of the Egodeath theory is to provide transcendental freedom and “a way out of the matrix” of block-universe determinism ]Erik Davis, page 122, Led Zeppelin IV, 2005
From Page: People Want a Substitute Instead of Transcendent Knowledge as the Revelation of Eternalism, Which Threatens and Neutralizes Egoic Power
Erik Davis’ book Led Zeppelin IV p. 118 & 122 emphasizes the two-level model: the mind switches from possibilism to eternalism, as an experiential mode and mental worldmodel in the loose cognitive association state that comes only from psilocybin and exactly equivalent plants.
Added Feb. 17, 2026:
Caution in wording:
The mind changes from possibilism to eternalism – as a state.
BUT by the end of the initiation series, the mental model changes from possibilism to modified possibilism + eternalism.
The mind does not change “from possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking” permanently.
As any Erik Davis type of explorer in the late 20th century knows, the true actual mental developmental trajectory is from Free Will possibilism to frozen-in-rock eternalism, as he accurately and clearly writes in page 118 and 122 in the book Led Zeppelin IV, 2005.
From Page: Late Antiquity Confusingly Transposed Valuation onto the Move from Eternalism to Post-Eternalism
Revealed in the altered state is that we are imprisoned in no-free-will prison iron block rock king turned to stone helplessly per Erik Davis page 118 122 in book Led Zeppelin IV book re Stairway song.
From Page: Late Antiquity Transition from Worshipping Heimarmene to Worshipping Transcending Heimarmene
Astral ascent 2-level possibilism to eternalism per the Egodeath theory – pp. 118-119 & 122 are regarding the song Stairway to Heaven.
David Ulansey – The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology & Salvation in the Ancient World
This is a science book more than a spirituality book – provides a trustworthy foundation unlike the “scientific historian” Wouter Hanegraaff who struggles to prevent the fixed stars from being in the Ogdoad (8th sphere).
As Luther H. Martin’s 2018 book (Studies in Hellenistic Religions) writes, scholars have disrespected Hellenistic-era religion and have been blind to astral ascent mysticism; spiritual ascent cosmology.
From Page: Hanegraaff’s Gnostic Anti-cosmic Negative Repression Attitude against Fate/Heimarmene Going so Far as to Remove the Very Stars from the Heavens
Egodeath Mystery Show Ep211 start, I give a really great analysis of how we need to embrace, include, and THEN transcend no free will, fatedness, heimarmene, that which Erik Davis’ book Led Zeppelin IV reports on page 118-119 & 122.
Enlightenment is of no free will personal noncontrol or helpless dependence on the uncontrollable source of our control thinking.
From Page: Ideas of Spiritual Ascent and Theurgy (Kirsty Pattison 2020)
That particular passage, in isolation, partly appears to support Erik Davis’ Led Zeppelin IV book page 118 about spiritual ascent cosmology levels.
Davis’ 2005 book lowers the Empyrean down from level 10 to level 8 (fixed stars/ eternalism) and halts, with (like my 1997 Core theory) no level transcending no-free-will. His concept of the Emperian is a block universe no-free-will model, not transcending that to reach (we can say) qualified possibilism-thinking; “transcending eternalism”. The spirit transcends Heimarmene, where the soul remains.
From page: Hanegraff Book Review Notes, “Fixed Stars Climax of Spiritual Cosmology”
Davis Led Zep IV Book Is Eternalism-Only Cosmology
Erik Davis cites my “no-free-will transformation then full transcendence” theory and misstates: “level the 8 fixed stars is called the Empyrium , where the Elect reside”- writers crash and burn at the transcendent levels, need to go back to school.
no-free-will is not highest cosmological spiritual level.
From my Hanegraaff Book Page
At the climax of Erik Davis’ book Led Zeppelin IV, he discusses astral ascent mysticism (p. 118), relevant to Hanegraaff’s chapter The Source, complementing Hanegraaff’s coverage, though you really have to read Ulansey’s hypercosmic cosmology too.
On page 122, Davis discusses the Stairway to Heaven (cosmology levels 1-8), heroic doses’ experience of absolute determinism, illusion of autonomous personal control agency, the divine will controlling the block universe, the peak intense altered-state experiencing of block-universe Eternalism, and pre-existing control thoughts.
Hanegraaff agrees with Davis’ call for something between crude materialist or social scientism reductionism, and vague abstact idealist mystical haze.
The section (p. 140) with the nested egg diagram of levels of spiritual importance of the various Hermetic texts is titled “Weirdness at the Center”, referencing Davis’ idea. When discussing the climactic song Stairway to Heaven, Erik Davis’ book Led Zeppelin IV [https://www.amazon.com/Led-Zeppelins-Zeppelin-IV-33/dp/0826416586] (pp. 118-199 & 122) presents the geocentric mystic cosmology together with the heimarmene-focused Egodeath theory.
Except for the phrase “transcendental freedom” tacked-on from out of the blue, Davis’ model lacks levels that represent transcending block-universe Eternalism (heimarmene, no-free-will; fatedness).
From the perspective of a heimarmene-centered 3-level model of mental development pictured as cosmology:
o Erik Davis’ model covers levels 1 & 2 (culminating in the heimarmene revelation, which is the central level 8 in the standard model).
o Hanegraaff’s model covers levels 1 & 3 (skipping level 2, the heimarmene-reconciling level). Hanegraaff removes the distinct heimarmene level of the fixed stars (level 8 in the standard cosmology) and leaps up to present only the transcendent levels above heimarmene.
o David Ulansey’s model covers all three levels: 1, 2, and 3 (numbered as 0, 8, and 9 in the standard model).
copypaste:
At the climax of Erik Davis’ book Led Zeppelin IV, he discusses astral ascent mysticism (page 118) and then page 122, Davis discusses the Stairway to Heaven, heroic doses’ experience of absolute determinism, illusion of autonomous personal control agency, the divine will controlling the block universe, spends a page discussing the peak intense altered-state experiencing of block-universe Eternalism, pre-existing control thoughts,
This book approves and cites Erik Davis. Davis’ Led Zeppelin IV book’s climax, about Stairway to Heaven, discusses the Egodeath theory: eternalism no-free-will peak experience like Heimarmene gate.
Hanegraaff expresses uncertainty of Saturn gate vs fixed stars as the gate – mental model transformation gate re no-free-will & learning how to be Reverent fear respect for the Source of All Control Thoughts.
Davis’ Led Zeppelin IV book mis-calls the sphere of the fixed stars the Empyrean. But the sphere of the fixed stars is the realm of fate/Heimarmene (the non-control gate where Saturnus or Time sacrifices the youthful thinking). The level above no-free-will and eternalism and Heimarmene is where God and the elect reside, the empyrean.
/ end of copypaste
From page: Dionysus & Ariadne Victory Parade Mosaic: the Marriage & Wedding of Possibilism & Eternalism
The woman is supposedly Nike w/ wings, but my interpretation of her as Ariadne is better and paid off.
Photo & annotations by Michael Hoffman. p. 118, Erik Davis, Led Zeppelin IV, 2005
Davis’ treatment, Not Reaching Resolution; Failing to Reach Late Antiquity’s “Transcend Heimarmene” Level of Comprehension.
When Davis read Egodeath.com in 2004, I had only started to theorize in terms of 2- vs 3-level model.
It took me until Apr.-Aug. 2025, to really grasp the mind’s actual, final, mature relation between harmonizing in some way, possibilism alongside eternalism as two complementary opposites.
Intense mystic altered state visionary inspiration around that time: voice recording:
I tried to advice ppl how to think, but my speech is polluted:
How can I tell you “you should think about it this way”, when how you think about it is frozen in rock for eternity?
That’s when I realized, WE ALWAYS DO AND ALWAYS WILL employ possibilism-thinking.
It’s nonsense and unreal to think that possibilism-thinking goes away when add eternalism-thinking.
(Which similar Acid Metal album Diary of a Madman lyrics about changing thinking?)
p. 122, Zep 4 (Davis), About the Egodeath Theory as Pure, Exclusive Eternalism, as if Get Rid of Possibilism
Photo & annotations by Michael Hoffman. p. 122, Erik Davis, Led Zeppelin IV, 2005
The Dominant Christian Interpretation Is by Psilocybin-Initiated, Transformed Artists Spotlighted in the Greatest, Most-Mainstream Cathedrals and Illuminated Manuscripts
Davis does NOT reflect my latest nascent idea of 2004, from Coraxo 2000 Gnosticism Yahoo Group:
In some sense, transcend block-universe determinism (eternalism; heimarmene, fatedness).
The mind learns eternalism-thinking and then in a sense transcends eternalism-thinking, in that the mind retains possibilism-thinking (modified) alongside eternalism-thinking.
Happily for my struggle to articulate this around April 2025, the medieval artists are working hard to communicate the same, specific, sophisticated, mature point:
The mind’s mature end-state after psilocybin transformation (eternalism-driven control-transformation), can be described in multiple ways:
I-shaped. End up with eternalism-thinking “instead of” possibilism-thinking. If define eternalism to include modded possibilism.
I-shaped & Y-shaped. End up with both possibilism-thinking & eternalism-thinking. A simplified explanation that we end up with (for the most part) the original world model, with the eternalism model added to it.
I-shaped & Y’-shaped. End up with modified possibilism-thinking, + eternalism-thinking. That’s accurate: the new I model + the modded Y model.
Depending how you think about it and define terms:
Shall we say I-thinking (non-branching thinking), INCLUDES branching thinking?!
Motivation for this Page
I was updating Biblio of article for the Journal of Psychedelic Studies
the entry for this book has Amazon url but no local page existed to link to
An interesting IDEA for the title: add “and mytheme analogy”:
Branching-message mushroom trees: The theory of psychedelic eternalism and mytheme analogy represented in medieval art
Branching-message mushroom trees: The Egodeath theory of psychedelic eternalism and mytheme analogy represented in medieval art
The phrase “and mytheme analogy” is not needed in the title, because it’s redundant with the words:
trees
represented in
medieval art
No net gain by adding more words.
Rules of the Hand-Shape Game
Branching: A Powerful Concept, Analogy, tech term, everyday term, and notation, to represent and relate ordinary-state possibilism & altered-state eternalism
{mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
Mushroom motifs
copy from church article
Branching motifs
copy from church article
Handedness motifs
copy from church article
Stability motifs
copy from church article
Gallery
All images are from Great Canterbury Psalter; EASIER, justified. My life is dedic to maximizing my experties on expertise on Great Canterbury Psalter suppl’d w/ other images.
best thing inane Huggins did was not his garbage throwawy arg’n not worth taking seiously – Day 4 = trees WTF this is B S! Day 3 not mushroom because branches which look exact mushroom? INANE ARG! or, an inane SILENCE A SUSPCIOUS BIASED SILENCE. How can Hug say day 3 has branches yet fail to point out OBVIOUS objection that each of 2 branch exact match arg? I DON’T WAST TIME ON BAD FAITH OBVIOUS STUPID ARGS OBV FALLACIOUS.
I WILL INDIRECTLY rebut Huggins by simply writin, ‘each branch mateches mushroom”; “day 4 plants lack branches and are exact mushroom” — no Denier has mentioned this! so, ignore deniers, and imp simply mention this, shutting Deniers down.
Lame Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art
Lame Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art
Waste of time. Teach, instead.
copy from church article
some of my annotated images, like day 1+4; day 3 markup; {hand mushroom-tree} 107 & 109
body of article has crops with markup annot
Gallery at end has full pics: like church article, top half page + bottom half page.
Brown, Jerry; Brown, Julie (2019). Entheogens in Christian art: Wasson, Allegro, and the Psychedelic Gospels. Journal of Psychedelic Studies, Volume 3: Issue 2, pp. 142–163. https://doi.org/10.1556/2054.2019.019
Brown, Jerry (2022). Christianity’s Psychedelic History: Reply to Thomas Hatsis’ Review of The Psychedelic Gospels. https://grahamhancock.com/brownj1/
9: Fuller, A. (1986). James Clerk Maxwell’s Glasgow manuscripts: extracts relating to control and stability. International Journal of Control, 43:5, 1593-1612. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207178608933561
9: Hoffman, Michael. (2006). Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita. Journal of Higher Criticism. http://egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm
Johnson, Matthew; Richards, William; Griffiths, Roland. (2008). Human Hallucinogen Research: Guidelines for Safety. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 22, 603-620. 22(6):603-20. doi: 10.1177/0269881108093587. Epub 2008 Jul 1. PMID: 18593734; PMCID: PMC3056407. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056407/
9: Johnstad, Petter. (2021). Day Trip to Hell: A Mixed Methods Study of Challenging Psychedelic Experiences, Journal of Psychedelic Studies, 5(2), 114-127. https://doi.org/10.1556/2054.2021.00155
9: Kang, Chul-Goo. (2016). Origin of Stability Analysis: “On Governors” by J.C. Maxwell [Historical Perspectives]. IEEE Control Systems. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7569049
9: Nigel Morgan (Honorary Professor of the History of Art, Cambridge University), Rosa Alcoy (University of Barcelona) and Klaus Reinhardt (Trier University). Molieri commentary, 296 pages, about Great Canterbury Psalter: https://www.moleiro.com/en/biblical-books/the-great-canterbury-psalter The Great Canterbury Psalter (Anglo-Catalan Psalter) Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris, Shelf mark: Lat. 8846. Date: 13th/14th C. Size: ± 480 x 332 mm. The GCP repro’n is 356 pages and more than 140 miniatures embellished with gold. 190 ornamental letters upon gold ground with plants motifs. Bound in brown leather. Leather case. Full-color commentary volume (296 p.) by Nigel Morgan (Honorary Professor of the History of Art, Cambridge University), Rosa Alcoy (University of Barcelona) and Klaus Reinhardt (Trier University). Unique and unrepeatable first edition, strictly limited to 987 numbered and authenticated copies. ISBN: 978-84-96400-09-2 (gcp or commentary?)
9: Panofsky, Erwin (1952a & b). Letters to R. Gordon Wasson, May 2, 1952 & May 12, 1952. Wasson Archives, Harvard University Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass. Tina and R. Gordon Wasson Ethnomycological Collection Archives, ecb00001, series IV, drawer W3.2, folder 20. Botany Libraries, Economic Botany Library of Oakes Ames, Harvard University. Published in Brown & Brown 2019.
Sanders, James; Zijlmans, Josjan. (2021). Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science. American Chemical Society (ACS) Pharmacology & Translational Science. 2021, 4, 3, 1253–1255. Publication Date: May 4, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsptsci.1c00097
The present page is two emails from Cyberdisciple to Cybermonk
Edited by Cybermonk for format & clarity.
Email title: Fw: Cubensis-driven overflow Dec. 5, 2024 The email title is from my page title: Cubensis-driven overflow
Cyberdisciple wrote:
“You are in a tough position to fit everything needed into one article (even two articles).
You are doing all of the following:
Showing more mushroom trees than most readers have considered.
Arguing that the deliberate portrayal of mushrooms with branches is the way to solve the pilzbaum dilemma.
Why do the trees look like mushrooms with branches and debranched stubs?
Pointing out motifs of branching, handedness, and stability in images that aren’t mushroom-trees
Arguing for cubensis over amanita.
That Christian mushrooms were not “secret” and “suppressed”
That the true highest most important meaning of cubensis experiencing is about branching
How bad the deniers are
25 other topics.
It seems to me that what is specifically tricky for you is that your method of solving the pilzbaum dilemma also requires accepting your theory about branching, handedness, stability –
in short, the theory of psychedelic eternalism – and its representation in art.
You could easily write a long article about what the problems are with enth scholarship and the deniers without even advancing analogy for psychedelic eternalism as a better approach.
But we need to get psychedelic eternalism into the discussion.
It’s not the habit in enth scholarship to talk about psychedelic eternalism in conjunction with entheogens.
Because it’s not the habit, you have a rhetorical problem with just starting to use branching, handness, stability motifs without first justifying why you are using those motifs.
People are going to say, “What’s with this branching stuff? I thought I was reading an article about mushrooms in Christian art.
What’s branching got to do with it?”
They have to be walked through the arguments to get there.
Possible approach (use what you find useful):
Starting point of article is mushrooms in Christian art.
First, lay out the current state of the discussion. [NO, waste of wordcount. use wordcount to preseent and summarize the new paradigm, not waste on old paradigm headed for garbage]
Even doing this is groundbreaking because I don’t think anyone has ever brought together all the scholars.
Huggins sounds like he is closest to having done so, though I haven’t look at the article yet.
/ end passage by Cyberdisciple
Slagging on Huggins; worth listing 3 LUDICROUS arg vectors, ONLY
Michael Hoffman 2:20 a.m. Feb. 17, 2026
Huggins?!
Hugs fixes tiny insignificant errors, and then decrees that for all mushroom-trees, follow Panofsky & just ignore the mushroom imagery, it doesn’t count, bc mushroom-trees have branches, cancelling the possibility of the image meaning “a mushroom”.
So crude, Huggins is beneath me.
I don’t reply to inane args like:
the mushroom-tree artists are either trying to paint a tree, or a mushroom. [NO; completely disagree by any measure. IF they wanted to draw a straight tree, they would have painted that. mushroom, same. What they drew and wanted to, was a tree w/ mushroom features – WHY? Huggins tries to drive the car into ditch IMMEDIATELY: “did artist try to draw tree, but accidentally mushroom instead?” Absurd, TOTAL WASTE OF TIME IMBECILIC. call it “the false dilemma fallacy”, kick out Huggins, and move on. Ain’t no one got wordcount for that.
Day 4 = trees.
Day 3 has branches, so not a mushroom.
We can articulate using Panofsky, a test, of an individual mushroom-tree to test whether it has any tree elements; if so, no mushroom imagery in Christian art.
The class definition has already taken care of that “test”!
Huggins’ whole charade is ridiculous and pointless.
It’s all acting, for show; playacting “academic arg’n”.
Huggins is taking the category or class “mushroom-trees”, examining an indiv instance to see if the instance has tree features — OF COURSE IT DOES, by definition. DUMBASS. THAT’S WHY THIS TREE IS INCLUDED IN THE SET FOR CONSIDERATION! TOTAL ILLOGIC – fundamentally incapable of reasoning meaningfully.
Huggins is not worth any wordcount, for these 3 reasons, which I could list in my article.
WHY THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT BOTHER ENGAGING WITH HUGGINS:
“Day 3 has branches, so, not mushroom.” LUDICROUS ARG! The branches, L one & R one, look exact mushroom. That fact that Huggins doesn’t address that OBVIOUS objection, shows, this article nothing but propaganda, not real arg’n.
“Day 4 is trees.” LUDICROUS ARG! These exact mushrooms have no branches, making hash out of various statements & args in his article. That fact that Huggins doesn’t address that OBVIOUS objection, shows this article is nothing but propaganda, not real arg’n.
“Test each mushroom-tree to see if it has any tree elements; if so, cannot mean mushroom.” LUDICROUS ARG! It’s a sweeping blanket PRETENDING to be case-by-case test. This reasoning is so godawful, I REFUSE to waste wordcount on it.
I might list those 3 reasons:
Why the existing literature by Affirmers & Deneirs is not worth engaging. It is too poor, on BOTH SIDEs.
“TRYING TO DEPICT A MUSHROOM” – “IF ARTIST WERE TRYING TO … OMIT Branches”
Huggins’ FALSE DILEMMA: it is a tree or it is a mushroom.
The artist either was trying to depict a tree, or a mushroom.
Totally false. Artist depicted mushroom AND tree for purpose of communicating the theory of psychedelic eternalism.
The artist is NOT depicting trees. The artist is NOT depicting mushrooms. The artist IS depicting psychedelic eternalism.
The artist is, in an intermediate way only, depicting tree elements and mushroom elements, in order to depict what the artist actually wants to depict utlimately: and depict using tree & mushroom to depict psychedelic eternalism.
The artist is depicting psychedelic eternalism, not tree, not mushroom.
What is depicted ultimately is not tree, not mushroom, but psychedelic eternalism.
-mh]
Cyberdisciple con’t
Then, Review deniers to show that their arguments fail on their own terms, stuffed with bad argumentation, flimsy, their wild assumptions about the topic. Purely negative tear down.
The audience will enjoy how you eviscerate the deniers and will be prepared to receive positive version of argument
Next, show how the affirmers go wrong. [ahshit, i already have a page LAUNDRY LIST OF LIMITATIONS AND ERRORS BY entheogen scholarship in reaction to Huggins doing exactly that TIME-WASTING EXERCISE.
The Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art go wrong in playing infantile shallow concretistic “spot the mushroom”; “mummy there’s a mushroom!”
academics, or preschoolers?
Deniers SAY that Rogan, Muraresku, also Ruck tags along behind them: they are ridiculous pathetic Pop Cult.
Deniers are right i agree. SO HTERE THEREFORE LETS GROW UP AND IGNORANT IGNORE INFANTILE PEURILE ARGN FROM DENIERS, AND FROM AFFIRMERS BOTH!
IGNORE DENIERS
IGNORE AFFIRMERS
Expend All Wordcount on Wonderful ME
1 ecept exception: the censored “branch” arg from Panofsky, I like that, THAT IS ALL I NEED. I DO NOT NEED HUGGINS’ HYPOING OF THIS Panofsky ARG; ALL I NEED IS BROWNS LETTER EXPOSING Panofsky’S ARGN LIKE:
I WOULD be amane amenable to attacking some Panofsky sentences:
Plaincourault fresco can’t mean mushroom, because there are too many other mushroom-trees. (arg from silent presupposition) only because you myc’ists are ignorant, stupid, unread, blundering fools, too ignorant of the hundreds of mushroom-trees. (arg from distracting insults)
Eitehr the artist thought the prototype told him draw a tree, or, the prototype told him, draw a mushroom.
It woudl be Nice to add NICE to address some Panofsky args… It would be VALUABLE to summarize my analysis of Panofsky. NOT Huggins htough though. Huggins threw down his Drawer challenege, to explicitly push the Panofsky branching arg in the “concl” section. This is a reason to ignore Huggins and focus only on Panofsky instead.
MAIN OVERALL REACTION TO Cyberdisciple: “time-wasting exercise”; ie waste of precious wordcount; spill ink on foolishness, or spend/conserve ink on the top-value explanatory words?
Cyberdisciple con’t:
This concedes something to doubters.
Some people doubt mushrooms in christian art because they confuse where the affirms go wrong with the topic of mushrooms in Christian art.
They see something wrong in an affirmer and think that this means that the case for mushrooms in christian art is wrong.
You show that problems with the affirmers are often problems of definitions and aims, especially secrecy and suppression assumption, but also space for smaller corrections of errors like Brown on Walpurga vial etc.
End this section by stating the pilzbaum dilemma that your approach solves (e.g.
affirmers say they are mushrooms, not trees;
deniers say they are trees because they have branches, and artists stupid to make them look like mushrooms;
YOU will say that the perfectly elegant solution is that the mushroom shape and the branches naturally go together to communicate a message about branching, which is the highest message of cubensis experiencing).
This section sets the stage for your key new contributions to correct field.
Lastly, your key additions:
focus on cubensis (and liberty cap and panaeolus), which everyone should care about because of effects
dethrone amanita (which no one should care about because of effects)
Move beyond mere presence of mushroom shape to mushroom effects AND to more sophisticated approach to shape that integrates mushroom effects into depiction of mushrooms
This requires introducing theory of psychedelic eternalism, in order to make motifs of branching, handedness, and stability significant
solve the pilzbaum dilemma (why do those trees look like mushrooms with branches and debranched stubs) via branching motifs representing experience of psychedelic eternalism
incidentally branching, handedness, and stability are chief concerns throughout the psalter and other images (but I don’t think this should be a main focus of an article on Mushrooms in Christian art; it’s more like a topic for people who have already accepted mushrooms in Christianity and your theory of psychedelic eternalism and its representation in art)
Conclusion
Cyberdisciple con’t:
Cubensis and the theory of psychedelic eternalism are the highest and most significant theme.
They are well represented in Christian art.
This is powerful proof of advanced mushroom experiencing in Christianity.
Hoffman Communication: Summary-First
Cyberdisciple con’t:
An argument against my suggested ordering is that the flow of argument runs counter to your distinctive style of putting your summaries at the forefront.
My suggestion follows more conventional style, laying groundwork, demolishing opponents, culminate in your distinctive contribution.
Yet your style is distinctive and important, a challenge to current conventions.
My suggestion also spends a lot of time on the deniers, giving them more space than they deserve.
There’s also an argument that you don’t need to spend much time [wordcount] on the deniers because your article on Wasson and Allegro already covered them, as does Brown in e.g. article demolishing Hatsis at Hancock site.
Another issue:
My suggestion is [too] modest in scope.
This is to deal with problem of overflow of too many [FORMER] goals, but has the disadvantage of not pushing multiple fields forward.
[current feel: just nothing but a straight-up article teaching about how the theory of psychedelic eternalism appears in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}, WITHOUT buncha junk, would accomplish MORE revolution, than smaller article w/ buncha low-value follow-on implications. ONLY HAVE ROOM FOR THE 10/10 POINTS]
Cyberdisciple con’t:
Scholarly journals have this problem: what is prioritized is usually “normal science” small-scale studies, not large-scale paradigm establishing articles.
Your work seems to me to always move towards the large scale paradigm establishment because everything you do works to reinforce your field-spanning theory,
any specific topic you discuss is connected to other parts of your theory and is strengthened by reference to the rest of the theory.
/ end of emails from Cyberdisciple
Motivation for this Page
1:52 a.m. Feb. 17, 2026
I need to reference two emails from Cyberdisciple, and enable reworking & analyzing them.
I was inspired tonight by Cyberdisciple’s discussion of the theory of psychedelic eternalism, as the central focus. Instead of old title that laundry-listed {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Thank you Julie Brown, provided hi-res images to Michael Hoffman a few days ago. Now [5:11 p.m. Feb. 16, 2026].
The Church of Saint-Martin, in Nohant-Vicq, France.
1135-1140 AD
Or Vic-sur-Saint-Chartier, France.
Photo: Zoom Out
Photo Credit: Julie M. Brown, used with permission. “Brown-Julie-Martin-Entry-Jerusalem-IMG_0842-zoom-out-compressed.jpg”, 583 KB, 3:44 p.m. Feb. 16, 2026, fullscreen w/o Width param; fullscreen w/ Width param
Photo 2: Guy in Tree, 1
Photo Credit: Julie M. Brown, used with permission. Brown-Julie-Martin-Entry-Jerusalem-IMG_0846-Christ-and-Tree-Guy-1-compressed.jpg, 640 KB, 3:45 p.m. Feb. 16, 2026, fullscreen w/o Width param; fullscreen w/ Width param
Photo 3: Guy in Tree, 2
Photo Credit: Julie M. Brown, used with permission. Brown-Julie-Martin-Entry-Jerusalem-IMG_0851-Christ-and-Tree-Guy-2-compressed.jpg, 625 KB, 3:46 p.m. Feb. 16, 2026, fullscreen w/o Width param; fullscreen w/ Width param
Photo 4: Guy Behind Christ
Photo Credit: Julie M. Brown, used with permission. Brown-Julie-Martin-Entry-Jerusalem-IMG_0850-Christ-and-Guy-behind-compressed.jpg, 628 KB, 3:46 p.m. Feb. 16, 2026, fullscreen w/o Width param; fullscreen w/ Width param
Photo: YI Hand-Pair Analysis of Guy Behind Christ: [Y, IY]
Photo Credit: Julie M. Brown, used with permission. Crop by Michael Hoffman. “Brown-Julie-Martin-Entry-Jerusalem-IMG_0850-Christ-and-Guy-behind-IY-hand.jpg” 258 KB, 4:48 p.m. Feb. 16, 2026, fullscreen w/o Width param; fullscreen w/ Width param
YI hand-pair analysis yhpa
hand one: R hand: Y.
hand two: IY.
pair sequence of hands: [Y, IY]
Motivation for this Page
I should simply post these 4 pics to my oft-visited, St-Martin page, but want to prominent thank Julie Brown via new page announce.
Artists Obeying Panofsky’s Expectation: Omit the Branches Altogether
But even that is not very probable because even the most mushroom-like specimens show some traces of ramification; if the artists had labored under the delusion that the model before him was meant to be a mushroom rather than a schematized tree he would have omitted the branches altogether.
Panofsky’s letter 2 to Wasson, 1952
Panofsky letter 2 to Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson 1952 was censored by Popebanker Wasson.
Popebanker Wasson is an academic obstructionist & professional cover-up propagandist for hire, re: mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Panofsky’s arg was censored by Popebanker Wasson, with no mention of that censorship by Huggins.
Panofsky’s arg is favorably cited and asserted by the Denier of mushroom imagery in Christian art, Ronald Huggins 2024 & 2025 articles.
Illus: Michael Hoffman omitting the branches from mushroom-trees, to fulfill the expectations of the top Anything-But-Drugs art historian, Erwin Panofsky
Photo Credit Julie M. Brown. Image processing & crop by Michael Hoffman.
This joke partly relies on fact of Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art being blind to the non-branching motif and only fixating on:
“This mushroom-tree can’t mean mushroom, because HAS BRANCHES”.
… making the Deniers blind to the more important motif & message of the mushroom-tree artists:
Our tree “HAS NON-BRANCHING” ie negation of branches/ branching.
How the mind transforms from psilocybin experiencing:
Not simply “branching is not the case”.
The mind ends up w/ qualified possibilism-thinking.
The mind’s experience is of branching, only during ordinary-state.
Confused Huggins Pretends to Be Too Dense to Understand the Concept of a Class Definition
Art historians define the class mushroom-trees: the criteria for inclusion is: tree that has mushroom elements/ features and looks like mushroom strikingly in some way, despite the tree features.
By definition, as a GIVEN, EVERY instance of mushroom-tree has some tree elements and some mushroom elements.
in mushroom-trees, the tree elements/features are especially, {branches}.
But don’t be blind to the {non-branching} motif, like outsider Huggins.
The tree elements might be branches … it seems “tree features” really means specifically, branches.
“IF a Mushroom-Tree has any Tree Features, the mushroom features DON’T COUNT”
Hugs uses covert arg’n.
Huggins’ “Conclusion” section (actually, a Sweeping, Blanket, Arbitrary Decree) is a a tactic to covertly dismiss the entire class of mushroom-trees from meaning mushrooms, while falsely pretending to only evaluate each mushroom-tree indivdidually.
Huggins has the nerve in 2025 article to crudely claim “every mushroom-tree FAILS THE TEST” –
Your Mushroom-Trees Fail My Worthless, Illegitimate, Fake “Test” That I Made-Up Out of Incomprehension, Which Feigns Evaluating Each Instance but Is Actually a Prejudiced, Biased, Unjustified, Sweeping, Blanket Dismissal of the Entire Class as a Whole
This Huggins “test” is more worthless than sh!t; at least sh!t grows mushrooms.
100% of mushroom-trees have branches or other tree features, BY DEFINITION of the Class of trees in question.
It is a GIVEN, not an “IF”, that any mushroom-tree has branches (or some other tree feature). By definition of the class. eg Day 4 four plants do NOT have ANY branches, therefore, they are NOT members of the class, mushroom-trees – yet, for NO REASON other than magician’s indirection & propaganda, Huggins refers to these hastily-skipped-by, exact mushrooms, as “trees”, while urging you to look at the “smaller plants” rather than stopping as Huggins was required and failed to do, to discuss these for non- mushroom-trees; these four exact botanical mushrooms that have NO branches and no tree features.
Day 4 plant 1 & 2 have Liberty Cap grid-cap, indicated as multiple (vs. single); considered equivalent to branching (vs. non-branching).
No branches are shown in the four Day 4 plants, destroying several arguments and claims in his 2024 article.
Huggins writes “IF” the mushroom-tree has any branching, we must ignore the mushroom features.
ARE YOU A DOLT? HOW CAN YOU WRITE “IF”?! Confused arg’n.
It is a simple given; by definition, ALL members of the class have tree features, eg. branches (or cut branches).
There is no room for “if”, unless you mean WHICH tree features or mushroom features a given member of the class has: if you are focused on the “branch” tree feature.
It’s all pretend-arg’n.
Putting aside Huggins’ Conclusion (Decree of Dismissal) section, the section is a celebration of begging-the-question fallacy, and a blanket, sweeping, cheap rhetoric-based dismissal tactic.
Huggins’s 2024 article & “Conclusion” section is, in effect, arguing:
I will believe mushroom-trees mean mushrooms, if someone explain branch motif
I will believe mushroom-trees mean mushrooms, if someone explain branch motif.
Done, Michael Hoffman, Mar 21 2022: emailed brown re Kupfer and St-Martin Entry into Jerusalem or Tower scene: {branching-message mushroom trees}.
The branching is NOT whimsical; it IS the message, about non-branching; altered-state eternalism.
Gallery
f107 tree touch arm, {hand mushroom-tree} shows that branching is the main message, thus explaining mushroom-trees mean mushroom mental model transformation
Huggins fails to cite Entheogens in Christian art: Wasson, Allegro, and the Psychedelic Gospels (Jerry Brown & Julie Brown, 2019) https://doi.org/10.1556/2054.2019.019 Published the two 1952 Panofsky letters that Popebanker Wasson censored in 1968.
Back to Adding YI Hand-Shape Indicators on Medieval Art, Higher Pri than Huggins’ 2025 Rehash Article
Back to adding YI hand shape indicators on medieval art.
And working on the draft article (like for our psychedelic church Reader) for Journal of Psychedelic Studies.
The mushroom-tree artists’ favorite hand-shape pair, in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}:
[Y’, YI]
ie: lower hand: Y’ via: no thumb; fingers folded. Means: I used to naively use branching thinking; now I use qualified branching thinking.
Upper hand: YI (often Y’I, more accurately): via:
display fingers extended held together (= branching)
thumb displayed w no visual cuts (= non-branching block-universe eternalism frozen pre-existing worldline)
YI hand-shape pairs relate mind’s progression from A to B (from A, to A-modified + B): from: the original, branching mental model: Y = branching possibilism-thinking; ordinary-state possibilism (gets modified as Y’, NOT discarded) to: the modified orig model + the added, ‘I’-shaped, non-branching model: non-branching eternalism-thinking; altered-state eternalism.
f109 {hand mushroom-tree}:
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 24, 2026
f134 woman hold {balance scale}:
Crop by Michael HoffmanCrop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 14, 2026
these particular cups), and is minimal.]
“ 
The Egodeath theory 
