The Immortality Key: The Secret History of the Religion with No Name Author: Jerry B. Brown
Pages: 5–8 Online Publication Date: 11 Mar 2021 Publication Date: 11 May 2021 Article Category: Book Review DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/2054.2021.00170 ERRATUM TO THIS ARTICLE
“In her interview for Richard L. Miller’s new book, Psychedelic Wisdom, Julie M. Brown, M.A. – psychotherapist, psychonaut, and coauthor The Psychedelic Gospels – describes her cosmic consciousness experience, see Julie’s presentation to Aware Project in LA: https://vimeo.com/367537082.”
Sacred Plants and the Gnostic Church (Lupu/Brown 2014)
Christianity’s Psychedelic History (Brown 2022 at Hancock Site)
Christianity’s Psychedelic History: Reply to Thomas Hatsis’ Review of The Psychedelic Gospels Jerry Brown 24th February 2022 https://grahamhancock.com/brownj1/
Citation of the Egodeath theory website
Brown wrote (personal communication, Jan. 22, 2023 and possibly earlier):
“As you know, Cyberdisciple provided material contributions to this article, which are acknowledged in the footnotes.
“And, near the end of the article I cite you as follows:
“Mushroom images in art: The field is also in need of robust categories for classifying depictions of mushrooms in art.
“For example, Samorini proposes a two-fold typology of mushroom trees, using the Plaincourault Amanita muscaria and the Saint Savin psilocybin mushroom as ideal types.21
“I find Hoffman’s categories useful for classifying the two varieties of MICA that we photographed at the following religious sites. The text in parentheses indicates the black and white Figure (Fig.) or color Plate (P) in The Psychedelic Gospels that displays our photographs of these images.”
ASC – images suggesting altered states of consciousness
Chapel of Plaincourault, France (P5)
Chartres Cathedral, France (P18)
/ end of Brown excerpt
Hatsis Email to Brown
Not sure if I’ll keep this here or move some to Idea Development page 15. This might be low-value, needless distraction.
Brown wrote (personal communication, Jan. 22, 2023 and possibly earlier):
“Here (below) is the threatening and slanderous email that Hatsis sent me on August 22, 2019, to which I refer in the first paragraph of my article.
“Due to Tom’s objection that this email was “confidential,” I was not allowed by the Hancock editor to include this email it in my Reply to Hatsis.
“As you see, this email which is reprinted in full below – except for Hatsis’ email address – is not marked “confidential.”
“After receiving this email, I stopped debating Hatsis and broke off communications with him with an email that said “I am a scholar not a mud wrestler.”
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 2:02 PM Psychedelic Witch <…> wrote to Dr. Brown:
“The *moment* I am disrespected, called a liar (in not so many words), or accused of foul-play simply because Jerry is ignorant of medieval history (and medieval art, and medieval Christian history, and ancient Christian history, and ancient Gnostic history, and medieval heresy, and ancient Jewish history, and all the relevant languages needed to actually answer this question), I am going to unload on this entire nonsensical idea in a way that will have those who believe this bullshit crying in a corner.
“I’ve been too generous and nice, and I will NOT be walked over or insulted again.
“You give me respect and I am happy to return in kind. Lie about me once more, accuse me of anything, and the kid gloves come off.
Their enemies didn’t accuse Christians of mushrooms – therefore, what follows?
In his earliest article, for a UK journal, Hatsis a priori assumes that mushrooms were so reviled by everyone in antiquity, that we know that Christians didn’t use mushrooms, because if they did, their adversaries would have accused them of this heinous act.
This argument is untenable, since enemies accused enemies of everything that was considered bad.
The fact that the Christians’ enemies, who accused them of all things that were considered bad, didn’t accuse Christians of mushrooms, indicates that Antiquity didn’t consider mushrooms bad.
Hatsis is the anti-mushroom psychedelic witch, projecting his own intense disparagement of mushrooms onto Antiquity.
No one would make the erroneous argument he makes, except by projecting one’s own thoroughgoing anti-mushroom attitude onto Antiquity.
Incoherent “Culturecide” Charge Is Begging the Question
Beg the question much?
In one of his online articles, Hatsis falsely argues that if you assert Christians used mushrooms, you are [definitely] committing culturecide, by overwriting their culture by your own invented projections.
But how does he know he is not the one forcing his own misinterpretations upon mushroom imagery artists?
He ought to have written that if we say Christians did, or didn’t, use entheogens, we MIGHT risk committing culturecide, but we can’t know how to avoid that, until we figure out whether they did or didn’t.
It is stunning how bad Hatsis’ arguments are. He seems to have low aptitude for reading, writing, and thinking.
I am not passing judgment on all of Hatsis’ contributions or potential, but saying he is as mixed a bag as any scholar… a particularly mixed bag.
Course at Psychedelics Today: Psychedelics: Past, Present, and Future
An in-depth understanding of the history and science of psychedelics
Motivation for creating page: I can’t find my pages and sections about Browns’ work at this WordPress site.
Key Questions from Brown About “Secret” Mushrooms
Exact quote from Brown (personal comm.): Sep 7, 2021 Su: Battles in field; “secrecy” and evidence
“If a psychoactive mushroom rite were widely practiced, but only among the ecclesiastic/pagan elites and their initiates, during the Middle Ages, where do we draw the line between labelling this as “secret” or affirm that the evidence supports the maximal thesis, and what nuance (if any) needs to be added to support either position?”
If a psychoactive mushroom rite were widely practiced, but only among the ecclesiastic/pagan elites and their initiates, during the Middle Ages:
Where do we draw the line between labelling this as “secret”, or affirm that the evidence supports the maximal thesis?
What nuance (if any) needs to be added to support either position?
Video: The Psychedelic Gospels: Evidence of Entheogens in Christian Art (Breaking Convention ch., 2019)
Vid title: Dr Jerry B Brown – The Psychedelic Gospels: Evidence of Entheogens in Christian Art Uploaded Sep 26, 2019
Brown’s Nov 9 2020 email: “And, lastly, here’s the video of my presentation at that 2019 Breaking Convention.
“FYI, there’s also a video of Hatsis’s presentation as well.
“These individual presentations took place separately from the debate.
Vid blurb:
“The Psychedelic Gospels: Evidence of Entheogens in Christian Art
“Based on stunning photographs of psychoactive mushrooms found in churches and cathedrals in Europe and the Middle East, this presentation documents original research on the presence of entheogens in early and medieval Christian art. After making the surprising discovery of a sculpture of an Amanita muscaria mushroom in Rosslyn Chapel, Scotland, my wife/coauthor Julie and I set out to investigate the presence of entheogens in Christian art: in frescoes, illuminated manuscripts, mosaics, sculptures and stained-glass windows. At the churches and cathedrals studied, we utilised an interdisciplinary approach combining in-depth anthropological field work with art history, church history and ethnobotany.
“The key results are threefold. First, we found compelling evidence of sacred mushrooms (both Amanita muscaria and Psilocybe) in Christian art in religious centres as diverse as small parish chapels (France), high holy places (England and Germany), early basilicas (Italy) and remote cave churches (Turkey). Second, based on these findings we proposed the “Theory of the Psychedelic Gospels,” which argues that Christianity has a psychedelic history. Third, these discoveries resolve the epic controversy between ethnobotanist R. Gordon Wasson and linguist John Marco Allegro, which has cast a long shadow over the study of entheogens in Christianity. These results are significant ̶ and controversial.
“If the theory of the psychedelic gospels is validated, the scientific and religious communities will have to rethink the history and perhaps even the origins of Christianity. For this reason, in The Psychedelic Gospels: The Secret History of Hallucinogens in Christianity (2016), we call for the establishment of an Interdisciplinary Committee on the Psychedelic Gospels in order to document and evaluate the presence of psychedelics in Christian art.
“Jerry B. Brown, Ph.D., is an author, anthropologist and activist. From 1972 to 2014 he served as founding professor of anthropology at Florida International University in Miami, where he taught a course on “Psychedelics and Culture.” He is coauthor with Julie M. Brown of The Psychedelic Gospels: The Secret History of Hallucinogens in Christianity (2016). He is also coauthor of “Sacred Plans and the Gnostic Church,” Journal of Ancient History (2014) and of the forthcoming “Entheogens in Christian Art: Wasson, Allegro and the Psychedelic Gospels,” Journal of Psychedelic Studies (2019).
Thomas Hatsis and Jerry B.Brown go head to head to debate this question.
Filmed at The University of Greenwich, London, as a collaborative event between Breaking Convention and The University of Greenwich Psychedelic Society on 14 Aug 2019.
Brown Asked if We Wrote About Compelling Evidence & Criteria of Proof on Nov. 10, 2020
Exact quote:
“Have you, Cyb or anyone outlined what compelling evidence, or criteria of proof would be?”
To Brown Jan. 22, 2023: Critique of Panofsky’s Letters
Thanks, I read your email of Apr. 27, 2022 today.
Did you photograph Panofsky’s letters? I’m not sure how to credit them, other than that you published them, Brown & Brown 2019.
There are many more points to critique in Panofsky’s letters, and Wasson’s abuse of them, than what you covered in your 2019 article. I’ve posted & spoken about these critiques and what’s revealed.
You didn’t note that:
Wasson looked up and hand-wrote the detailed Brinckmann book name and author name, on Letter 1, and Wasson censored the citation in Letter 1, and that Panofsky’s 2nd Letter again strongly recommended the Brinckmann book.
Never does Wasson let leak, actual scholarship: do not mention Brinckmann’s book (against Panofsky’s attempt to provide a semblance of scholarly citation).
Also you didn’t mention:
Such damning evidence of anti-scholarship by Wasson: that Panofsky attached two pilzbaum photostat images, which Wasson makes sure to not show or publish or mention.
Panofsky’s arguments are full of giant holes, revealed by your publishing Letter 1 & 2 together.
The iceberg effect: 90% of Panofsky’s argument rests on unstated presuppositions; he only provides a sketch of the surface of the argument, and counts on the reader to gullibly assume the rest and follow Panofsky’s biased lead.
__________________________
Citation $&*@!! Needed! Where’s the $&*@!! citations, Wasson?!
Highly valuable to me, Panofsky letter 2 confirms my 2005 accusation of Wasson withholding scholarly citations that Panofsky certainly must have provided to back up the extremely strong assertion that art historians have covered pilzbaum. I failed to make this my #1 summary point at top of article, though I bitterly complained all through the article.
“Why should we trust Wasson’s stated judgment (“what I have found is the unanimous view of those competent in Romanesque art”) and his unstated process of his finding of competence, especially when he declares that “those competent … Art historians of course do not read books about mushrooms”? Wasson refrains from giving us even a single shred of evidence, withholding the details (assuming there are any details to withhold) that led the art historians to their conclusion – or dogma or party line – that mushroom trees aren’t mushrooms. He delivers forth only the supposed conclusion, painting a scene as hazy, undefined, and unspecific as Saint Paul on the earthly life of Christ.
“Wasson doesn’t provide any citations of published scholarly studies of ‘mushroom trees’ or ‘Pilzbaum’, where we can weigh the merit of the art historians’ confident consensus and see how or whether they’ve addressed the most-persuasive objections to their consensus view.”
“Wasson doesn’t show us any citations of published scholarly studies of ‘mushroom trees’ or ‘Pilzbaum’: the result is 1-sided apologetics; within this presentation, we are only permitted to hear the opening assertions and position statement of one party in the debate, not to see how that position responds to the other side’s objections.
“Wasson didn’t go to the trouble of providing citations of the eminent art historians’ published studies on Pilzbaum. These would need to be studies that convincingly show why the mushroom-and-tree interpretation is surely wrong …”
“With no citations given of published, thorough studies, the result is an argument from authority. Wasson’s unscholarly attitude and method here, toward his readers, is striking. We’re not even supposed to wonder how exactly the art historians reached their conclusions on this highly relevant and interesting matter; we’re to mentally picture hazy, idealized, intensive scholarly research, producing unimpeachable, compelling results, and imagine the conclusions as having been tested in the fire of robust critical examination. Either this, or we’re supposed to be impressed and compelled solely by the arguments contained in Panofsky’s letter, as though it were impossible to think of any objections to his sparse argumentation.”
That was pretty insightful/resourceful critique from me in 2006 based only on a fragment of Letter 1. I wish I noted Wasson’s ellipses right where I knew & deduced that there must be a citation (Brinckmann’s book).
I image-processed the images of Panofsky’s two letters and re-printed them out, much clearer.
Your 2019 article body has a transcription typo, I read it aloud and the letter photo out loud, a subtle word swap changed the meaning and my critique of Panofsky (in voice recording Egodeath Mystery Show podcast episode), which I had to correct.
“the finished product” [Panofsky’s fabricated “template”] vs. “the finished project” [the Plainc. fresco]. Back to the sources!
All software has bugs, all articles have errors. Including my 2006 Plaincourault article, to my surprise while reading it aloud on the Egodeath Mystery Show podcast.
In that article, I especially wish I had listed summary item 1: Wasson must be withholding citations that Panofsky certainly must have provided. It turns out, your 2019 article reveals that Panofsky attached images as proof that art historians have acknowledged pilzbaum and it’s not entirely bluster, Panofsky’s claim that art historians have treated/ covered/ discussed pilzbaum.
— Cybermonk
Photographs of Panofsky’s Two Letters to Wasson
Per Brown (pers. corr.), cite the letters as shown.
“some especially ignorant craftsman may have misunderstood the finished product, viz., the “Pilzbaum”, as a real mushroom. But even that is not very probable because even the most mushroom-like specimens show at least some trace 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.” – The most influential art historian, Erwin Panofsky
“Erwin Panofsky.- Please keep my poor little pictures as long as you wish. And I really recommend to look up that little book by A. E. Brinckmann.”
In 2005, I wrote:
“Wasson refrains from giving us even a single shred of evidence, withholding the details (assuming there are any details to withhold) that led the art historians to their conclusion – or dogma or party line – that mushroom trees aren’t mushrooms.”
Images and Crops from St. Martin’s Chapel, Julie M. Brown Photographs
~~
todo: add remaining such entire Julie images & crops here.
Email Jan. 22, 2023 to Brown
Hatsis claimed that his misspelled term Discipuli Allegrae isn’t literally asserting that Brown is or I am literally a follower of Allegro; but merely means anyone who asserts that mushrooms areintertwined with Christianity.
This denial is B.S. from Hatsis. In fact, Hatsis really does think that anyone who asserts “mushrooms” (an entirely problematic term) in Christian history is literally a follower of Allegro.
I have PROOF of this in Hatsis’ email to me where he asserts like, “the ONLY reason that you guys have switched to asserting Psilocybin instead of Amanita is because Allegro …”
I (semi-jokingly) have no idea what he wrote after that – it doesn’t matter, because he just completely sank himself and revealed his unconscious presupposition paradigm.
Hatsis is projecting: because HE started off gullibly a follower of Allegro, he ASSUMES that everyone else comes from initially following Allegro, just as Hatsis did.
In fact, the Egodeath theory, including the radical maximal entheogen theory of religion, has exactly ZERO influence from Allegro.
I’ve posted and written up details about that already, in intellectual autobiography thread/posts.
In no sense whatsoever does the Egodeath theory or the maximal entheogen theory of religion come from Allegro.
Nor is the Egodeath theory (the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism) in any sense a “variant of” or “departure from” Wasson’s theory, as John Lash equivalently assumes of everyone who ever thinks any thought about visionary plants in connection with religion.
Through some mysterious process of attribution that Lash hasn’t explained, if you think “mushroom+religion”, then Wasson must have put his idea into your mind, somehow.
Through some mysterious process of attribution that Hatsis hasn’t explained, if you think “mushroom+religion”, then Allegro must have put his idea into your mind, somehow.
(What about Richard Schultes, or Robert Graves though — don’t all your thoughts belong to him, instead of Wasson or Allegro?)
You could make a (weak) case that the Egodeath theory was influenced by things I rejected: mysticism, meditation, and esotericism.
But there is no case for the Egodeath theory being influenced by Allegro (or Wasson) – as a matter of historical development of my Theory.
But Hatsis cannot imagine such a thing as entheogen scholarship that’s not influenced by or coming from Allegro.
Equivalently, John Lash cannot imagine such a thing as entheogen scholarship that’s not influenced by or coming from Wasson.
No Such Thing as Cubensis, Panaeolus, or Liberty Cap in Europe Before 1976
Beware that in this context, whenever Hatsis writes or says “mushroom”, he strictly means Amanita, and considers (if forced to think) Psilocybin to not exist in the West prior to 1976, following Paul Stamets’ preposterous implied assertion than Cubensis didn’t grow on bovine dung in Europe before 1976.
The un-qualified word ‘mushrooms’ is as unusable, now, as the word “entheogen” which Wouter Hanegraaff has ruined by diluting and cheapening to death.
From now on, everyone must specify explicitly “Amanita” and/or “Psilocybin mushrooms”, not just “mushrooms”, which Wasson/ Allegro/ Ruck/ Heinrich/ Irvin/ Rush has mis-led everyone (read: Hatsis) into treating as an exact synonym of Amanita, thus eliminating any ability to consider Psilocybin.
We have to FORCE the spotlight of attention, the primacy and center of the cosmos, to shift from Eleusis/ ergot/ kykeon and from Allegro/ Amanita/ Plaincourault to Canterbury/ Psilocybin/ Samorini/ sacred meals & mixed wine banqueting.
Dominant narratives/discourses work by eliminating the real thing by substituting a fake substitute in its place.
The function of focusing on Kykeon/ Amanita/ Plaincourault/ Allegro is to prevent thinking about Psilocybin mixed wine.
— Cybermonk, Jan 22, 2023
Followup Message
I found the “Your view is because Allegro …” assertion from the anti-mushroom psychedelic witch.
“The thing is, you are all looking for mushrooms* in Christian art because Allegro said there were amanita muscaria (not psilocybe) buried in text (not art).
I’ve talked to Carl Ruck about this and he agrees with me** – Allegro was wrong about the etymological thing.
So you are sort of in this hypocritical position where you don’t even believe the very foundation from which you base your theory.
There is an irony here that is so symphonic in its poetical implications.
So, in short, the Liberty Cap claim does not amount to much.***
You want to move the conversation away from the fly agaric because there is no evidence for it.
Sorry, dude, but I’m not fooled by your sleight of hand at all. “
/end of Hatsis’s excerpt
See link for more tomfoolery context.
There IS evidence for Amanita, but more important & relevant is perceiving the copious evidence for Psilocybin.
*Beware: For Hatsis, the word ‘mushrooms’ means exclusively Amanita.
**Carl Ruck is the one pushing the “Secret Amanita Cult” theory that you [Hatsis] are intent on disproving, against your faithful buddy Ruck who I heard you in the livestream say “I agree with Ruck!”.
I agree with you, on most of that rejection of Ruck’s thesis of “Secret Christian Amanita Cult”, as you have named it.
I read aloud all of Hatsis’ set of online anti-Irvin/ anti-Rush articles, in past episodes of Egodeath Mystery Show.
In Hatsis’ articles, he routinely argues that the neutral, scientific assumption that avoids culturecide projection, is the Naturalistic interpretation.
Such a prejudice is baseless.
Sep 7 2021 email, from Cyb, Su: “Battles in field, “secrecy”, and evidence –
Cyb, In your innocent & vulnerable discussion about sophisticated art interpretation of meaning more than one thing:
You forgot about The Mushroom Exception.
In art and letters, things mean more than one thing – EXCEPT when one of those things is entheogens; in that case, a thing in art/letters can only have one meaning: the naturalistic, meaning ordinary-state mundane item, certainly not visionary plants.
______________________________
What You Really Mean, Based on Etymology
Also re: the Nadeau’s short critique of TIK, pdf at Acad.edu, I was glad that the third fallacy Nathan pointed out was (as Wouter Hanegraaff does re: ‘entheogen’) the “etymology sets the meaning of a word” fallacy.
Eleusinian Eleusinian Mysteries, Eucharistic Myths: Problems for B. Muraresku’s Immortality Key Nathan Nadeau
“The Root Fallacy: presupposes that a word actually has a meaning essentially bound up with its shape or its components (etymology over usage).[9]”
“[9] Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 28. Carson isaccessible, but ideally one will reference James Barr, Semantics of Biblical Language.”
Nadeau bolsters my claim, that in 2012 chapter for Christopher Patridge’s book Contemporary Esotericism, where Wouter Hanegraaff titled his keynote paper “Entheogenic Esotericism”, Hanegraaff puts forth a grade-school level of fallacious argument, that the “real meaning” of ‘entheogen’ is “anything that anyone could possibly claim gives a religious experience” (which is, actually, the Universal Set, as I immediately proved via lamp, dishtowel, and car engine, on the Egodeath Mystery Show podcast).
The effort to lift every claimed mystic technique up to the now (inconsistently) venerated level of ‘entheogen’, fails, and only succeeds at lowering the word ‘entheogen’ to be completely worthless, watered down, cheapened, and denatured.
Like Erik Davis directed Hanegraaff on Twitter: fine, go ahead and wreck the word ‘entheogens’ and make it worthless, but stay well away from our word ‘psychedelic’ and its etymology.
— Cybermonk
Graham Hancock Facebook Forum about Brown’s Rebuttal Article
Graham Hancock posted Brown’s AoM article on his Facebook account.
There, the article received over 1.5K likes and hundreds of Comments, many of which Brown responded to.
Graham’s goal regarding the Hatsis & Brown articles is to provide a neutral platform for civil debate on the question of mushrooms in Christian art.
Hancock has over 400,000k followers on Facebook, who are primed to hear more on the question of mushrooms in Christian art.
“It is our pleasure to welcome Julie and Jerry Brown, authors of The Psychedelic Gospels: The Secret History of Hallucinogens in Christianity, as our featured authors for November. [2021]
“Their book takes the reader on an anthropological journey throughout Europe and the Middle East.
“They provide compelling visual evidence that documents the role visionary plants have played in Christianity,
challenging the reader to rethink what they believe they know about the origins of Judeo-Christianity and the life of Jesus.
Carl Ruck in Dec. 2021 is working on Plaincourault images.
I was a little surprised that in April 2022 I was able to contribute to interpreting/decoding Plaincourault re: mythemes of {handedness} & {non-branching}.
The Egodeath theory = the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism.
My theory’s prediction is that:
The fresco ought to favor right leg/limb.
And ought to find branching and non-branching features added.
As I’ve done countless times while testing the Egodeath theory as an [undefeated] explanatory hypothesis, held breath and analyzed fresco…
As typically, had to do some visual-elements processing … … had to stand and test postures.
Confirmed. Eve’s weight is on right foot, not left.
Right foot is on ground, left isn’t.
Left foot is based on right foot which is on ground.
= rely on eternalism-thinking, instead of familiar (ordinary-state based) possibilism-thinking, to have viable stable control in the altered state.
And I did decoding in the realm of The Psy Gospels bones analysis. Flesh cloaks underlying bones, revealed by Psilocybin represented by Psilocybin’s billboard, which is and was and will be 🍄.
— Cybermonk
Derby Team
Julie M. Brown is coauthor of The Psychedelic Gospels and anything else here attributed to the Browns.
This means that any mistakes in their co-written books or articles are twice as major, which conveniently gives two criticisms/exposes for the price of one.
If Julie can’t handle the criticism, stay out of the roller derby rink; it’s a man’s sport.
Master of Science in Philosophy of Science, Technology and Society
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences of the University of Twente in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science MSc Philosophy of Science, Technology and Society
First supervisor/examiner: Dr. Michael Nagenborg Second reader/examiner: Prof. Dr. Lissa Roberts
Intro
This dissertation is a strategic call to Copy Shamans Who “Never Have a Negative Experience” and “Who Have Full Control Over Psychedelics Experience”.
“The central question guiding this study is: In what ways can modern users conceptualize the psychedelic experience that counters the current fear-laden discourse on drugs?
“Misconceptions and falsehoods conflate current ways of considering drugs in general and psychedelics in particular.
“Fears of psychedelics serve as the framework to apply philosophies of mind and technology to the reexamination and amendment of psychedelic concepts and terms. Governmental and religious institutional actors fear psychedelic users will:
harm one’s self and others because psychedelics are still falsely believed to have analogous properties to mental illness;
the incommunicability of seemingly non-rational states cause disjunction between shared sociocultural knowledge; and
psychedelics are arguably similar to mystical experiences, thus mainstream religion fears individuals’ direct access to divine realms, which could upend their hierarchical and spiritually monopolistic power structures.
“Next, modern researchers commonly advise users to “surrender” to psychedelic experiences, a term likely adopted from mysticism.
“Since surrender implies a master role is at play, a discussion on master-subject relations emerge when confronting the “psychedelic Other,” i.e. the spatial context, experiential content, and originating from within or without users’ minds.
“To better understand users’ fears, an analysis of known and unknown fears provide context to the ultimate psychedelic fear, that of a conscious and intelligent unknown presence.” … you forgot: … which has the power to control your thoughts and intentions.
“Against these fears of psychedelic Others, a new conception of (altered) states of self develops that considers the current debate in cognitive neuroscience and philosophy.
“Narrative and minimal selves are co-present during psychedelic experiences depending on dosage and intoxication levels, and a new qualitative framework is proffered to understand these implications.
“Finally, it is suggested that modern psychedelic users need not abandon the prototypical mystic to conceptualize their experiences, but instead might consider another prototypical figure, the shaman.”
“Rather than dealing in surrender and fear like mystics and modern users, drug-taking shamans control and master their experiences through the joint use of symbolism, techniques, and technologies.
“A change in prototype also has epistemological significance, that is, from perennialist to constructivist approaches when considering psychedelically subjective knowledge.
“In view of built narratives regarding self and knowledge, i.e. narrative self and epistemological constructivism, analysis shows how shamans use symbols with technologies to control their experiences and the idea of symbolico-technological relations is proposed.
“The above philosophical insights have prescriptive consequences that provide new opportunities for modern society and users to conceptualize psychedelic experiences, to control them, and as a result, to reduce fear.”
/ end of Houot Abstract
Introduction Section of Dissertation
From Houot’s Introduction:
“The abovementioned practices intrigue, and, benefit many people in need; yet, the opposite side of the psychedelic coin is hardly discussed in great detail, that of the negative experience or “bad trip,” the fear people experience.
“In a recent psilocybin study at John Hopkins University, nearly 40% [39%] of hallucinogen-naïve participants reported “extreme ratings of fear, fear of insanity, or feeling trapped at some time during the session” with 44% reporting delusional or paranoid thinking (Griffiths et al, 2011, 656). ” – “39%” confirmed [despite the “30%” in CEQ article for same high-dose amount 0.429 mg/kg = 30mg/70kg as written in 2011 article “Psilocybin occasioned mystical-type”!]
“I want to know more about the why and what people are fearful of.“
(Also here’s the time course plot I was looking to find again! Gentle mound shape. I too noticed in another Griffiths article, – and posted about it at this site – the dose-dependent effect. Higher dose -> 40% panic-terror trips.)
Griffiths there writes:
“Psilocybin-induced fear/anxiety or delusions [section heading]
“Although volunteers were carefully screened and psychologically prepared, and close interpersonal support was provided during sessions, on questionnaires completed at the end of the session, 39% of participants (seven of 18) had extreme ratings of fear, fear of insanity, or feeling trapped at some time during the session.
“Such episodes occurred in [whopping] six of seven of these participants after the 30 mg/70 kg [high] dose and in [measly] one of seven after the 20 mg/70 kg dose [medium dose?].
“Monitor ratings of peak anxiety/fear during the session showed dose-rated increases, with each dose producing a significantly higher rating than the lower doses (Table 1).
“After 30 mg/70 kg, monitor ratings of anxiety/fear across the session showed varying time courses of onset and duration, with peak effects of anxiety/fear being rated as early as 60 min in some participants, but as late as 180 or 240 min in others (see Fig. 2 for illustrative data).”
What Houot Gets Wrong
Houot incorrectly states that the ultimate fear is of unknown entities. That completely misses the point.
The ultimate fear is of the threat of catastrophic loss of control of the mind, including because of an uncontrollable higher controller, that’s the creator of your near-future personal control thoughts.
Dates are all wrong in the body of the text – very amateurish and confusing and unhelpful and a pain, you have to keep checking the actual dates in the Bibliography and even then some dates of publication are wrong.
The rough, folk-psychology description, {surrender}, ultimately means transformation from possibilism-thinking; from mental worldmodel transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Start relying on right leg instead of left leg; move off left onto right.
Surrender and jettison reliance on habitual possibilism-thinking as the basis for seemingly powerful agency steering in apparent branching possibilities.
Jettisoning Jonah
Withhold not the child-thinking, yet harm not the lad: surrender is equivalent to sacrifice.
Surrender = formally repudiate reliance on naive possibilism-thinking; affirm and rely on eternalism-thinking instead, in the peak advanced mystic altered state.
Half of the Publication Dates in the Body Are Grossly Incorrect (Freud 1999)
Are you not aware that Freud was long dead by 1999?
The blame must be the advisors: Why did they let this amateurish mistake remain?
The most awkward thing about this dissertation is the incorrect publication years in the body of the text.
It drives me up the wall and is highly unhelpful and confusing, that Houot quotes the book that Huxley wrote in 1999.
You can’t trust any dates in the body of the text, and have to check the Bibliography to get the real dates.
Publication Dates off by 2 Years or 70 Years
There are 9 years – not 6! – between The Perennial Philosophy and The Doors of Perception: Published 1954 vs. 1954.
I’ve seen articles by someone like Griffiths stating Perennial Philosophy was published 1957, and Doors of Perception 1953.
Where are they getting these wrong dates?
That’s only 6 years apart.
Explanation of Doors “1953”: May 1953 is the date of ingesting mescaline.
Houot misstates “Huxley 1947” for Perennial Philosophy, when the official copyright page reads 1944 & 1945.
Where are people copying this wrong date from? What book the other day says “Perennial Philosophy 1947” and “Doors of Perception 1953”?
I must have spoken about this on Egodeath Mystery Show, I swear I posted something mocking this dissertation’s reasoning:
“Just become shamans instead of mystics, b/c shamans never have issues”.
I’m certain I wrote something, but finding my rare word ‘shaman’ didn’t turn up my previous mention of this article.
Houot’s Griffiths References I didn’t need to use
[figuratively speaking; joking b/c almost same year] Griffiths’ reply to my 2007 main article which started the Psychedelic Renaissance: Griffiths, R. R., Richards, W. A., McCann, U., & Jesse, R. (2006). Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance. Psychopharmacology, 187(3), 268-283.
Griffiths, R. R., Richards, W. A., Johnson, M. W., McCann, U. D., & Jesse, R. (2008). Mystical-type experiences occasioned by psilocybin mediate the attribution of personal meaning and spiritual significance 14 months later. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 22(6), 621-632.
Griffiths, R. R. (2018). Personal email communication on October 24-25, 2018. Griffiths confirms that it’s arbitrary, Walter Stace’s assertion/ assessment that “60% fulfillment of these mystical effects constitutes a complete mystical experience”.
“Intellectuals qualified to investigate consciousness – namely, philosophers, especially phenomenologists – generally fall silent when it comes to chemically altered states.”
HEARTILY AGREE!
“This paper familiarizes philosophers how phenomenology is currently being used or might be applied to investigate psychedelic-induced states, and primarily to inform psychedelic researchers of any field what available methods exist that can add greater subjective and phenomenological nuance to their research goals.
“Discussed methods range from first-person phenomenological reduction to various naturalized and applied phenomenology.
“Special attention is devoted to the neurophenomenology method for its ability to reveal new insights between quantitative and qualitative data, particularly regarding neurophysiological mechanisms related to first-person experiences.
“A chief aim for phenomenologists is to get as close as possible to the lived experience to discover its structures of consciousness; for this reason, phenomenology broadly speaking is a favorable attitude or method to advance understanding of visionary experiences.”
They did not have a Stace/ Leary/ Pahnke/ Griffiths “Complete [Newbie] Mystical Experience”.
That ultimate Psilocybin “effect”, gaining transformed control (fulfilling Houot’s 2019 dissertation) by transformation from the possibilism to eternalism mental worldmodel, requires the complete series of ten sessions of re-dosing two bowls of Cubensis at t3 hours.
Download for 1 week starting Jan. 20 2023: https://we.tl/t-GFa6LEWDDB I should make an instructions page: about WeTransfer site; how I transfer .mp3 to mobile device; using Music player EQ presets.
Content: Houot based the entire 65-page Master’s dissertation on the usual unthinking, prejudiced, unconscious assumption: NO MYSTIC EVER USED PSILOCYBIN MYSTICISM DIDN’T COME FROM PSILOCYBIN
Jan 21 (next day) I read more of the dissertation. As always, partly right, partly off-base. Yes we can have “more control” and we can “avoid Surrenderism” – but in some sense, we gain less control, and transforming the mental model of control and world is equivalent to surrendering. You surrender your old mental model and jettison it, to gain stable viable control that is fit for the Psilocybin Eternalism state, experiential mode.
Content
0:00 – Intro guitar (4711.wav of Jan 20 2023)
0:24 – Intro voice
0:52 – Content
How to find the extreme maximal position.
The only authentic meditation is Psilocybin meditation.
The only authentic mysticism is Psilocybin mysticism.
The only authentic esotericism is Psilocybin esotericism.
Shutting out evil future me from taking a more hardline extreme position.
59:13 – Guitar (8:09 total; remainder of episode)
1:04:16 – Guitar: Mirror tail fadeout
1:05:04 – Guitar: Lost ending of track 3, rev
1:07:22 – End
Guitar
Artist: Illumination Valve Song: 🎸🌌 Rebirth into the Sphere of Shattered Stars, track 3 of 4, final 2.5 minutes, including the wished-for sweet sustained extra ending found! ☺️ 🎉 12:45-15:15. Song is named BLENDR1 on the deck.
This expose amounts to showing the uncontrollability of the Spirit of Psilocybin and makes a mockery of the efforts of psychedelic beginner Science to understand and control the loose cognitive state.
If only they had the Egodeath theory — the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism — this would have been prevented. 😑 Or not. 🤷♂️
This page corrects my slightly off memory, I thought the escapee made it upstairs to talk with a priest, but actually he was on his way to a dean.
That changes slightly the backdrop for my joke about rooting for the escapee from the psychedelic experiment, April 20, 1962.
Huston Smith wrote:
“Realizing that he was overpowered – barely, for under the influence his strength was like Samson’s – John, tightly flanked, submitted to being walked back to the chapel where Wally [Walter Pahnke] injected an antidote. [maybe thorazine/CPZ]
“Immediately he was back in his right mind but with total amnesia as to what had occurred.
“It took twenty-four hours for all the pieces of the episode to come back to him and be fitted into place.
“God, it turned out, had chosen him to announce to the world the dawning millennium of peace and good will.
“(As often happens in such cases, the actual wording of the message made little sense to normal ears.)
“In his homily in the chapel, John broke the news to our congregation, but he needed to get it to the world at large, which was what caused him to leave the chapel.
“When, walking down Commonwealth Avenue, he saw the plaque announcing “Dean of the College of Liberal Arts” by the entrance to 745 Commonwealth Avenue, it occurred to him that deans have influence, so if he could get to that dean, that dean would call a press conference that would complete John’s mission.
“The postman’s packet was for the dean, he felt sure, so if he attached himself to it, it would take him to his targeted dean.”
Don’t run away from the psychedelic experiment room confinement
It would be irresponsible to joke about encouraging volunteers for 3 dried grams worth of Golden Teacher (= 30 mg psil.) to escape from their confinement to eyeshades, headphones, and entrapping blanket, where you are only permitted to get up to use the bathroom and even then, the door is kept ajar.
Guidelines for Safety – Johnson/ Griffiths/ Williams
Human Hallucinogen Research: Guidelines for Safety Johnson M, Richards W, Griffiths R. 2008 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/
At certain increasingly sketchy web hosts, even if you don’t touch your files at all, the host company makes sure to degrade and corrupt your bits over time. No wonder I set up WordPress.
WordPress has actually been reliable, after I figured out certain things.
Egodeath.com’s host’s reliability plummeted off a cliff re: reliability, as Max Freakout knows. They messed up my files and URLs behavior. 😠
todo: Fix the defaulting around “index.html” for the link that’s in Brown & Brown 2019 article pointing to a section of the Egodeath.com home page.
to test: amptone.com amptone.com/index.html egodeath.com egodeath.com/index.html
Hoffman, M. (1985–2007b). Gallery: Christian mushroom-trees. Retrieved from http://www.egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm#_Toc135889185 – correctly goes to Gallery: Christian Mushroom Trees, but the two links are fragmented in the Brown article (web view & PDF).
Admin Settings Page Shows Exact UTC Actual Day & Time of Post
update March 19, 2023:
I determined in past couple days, apparently I’m shown a datetime stamp in Editing view that gives the precise UTC day & minute of initial posting of a “post” page.
Also it seems that:
If I post after 5pm, the URL and the date shown on rendered page adds 1 day, so negatively misrepresents when I posted.
If I post before 5pm, the rendered date is accurate/correct.
Purpose
Official posting for scholarly records. — Cybermonk 11:40 pm Jan. 17, 2023
I always [no, apparently only if I post after 5pm] see tomorrow’s date when I post a page.
I don’t know the time zone difference, but if I create and post a page on Monday, the URL and displayed date show Tuesday.
This must be factored into account.
I might write actual date time at top of each page. My manually written dates inside a page are more precise than the URL and displayed date, generally subtract 1 day, is what I’ve been seeing.
The roughly per-day URL is good to have, but off by 1.
If a post says June 3, I posted it June 2 – but don’t know the details.
Guidelines for Danger
Griffiths 2008 Guidelines for Safety. Hopkins trip room.
Article: Human Hallucinogen Research: Guidelines for Safety https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056407/ Matthew “Lose the Buddha statue” Johnson William “O.G.” Richards Roland “Don’t Dread DED; Grief Instead” Griffiths 2008 Journal of Psychopharmacology, 22, 603-620.
Old Hat by 1962, Tail End of 1950s Heyday of Scientific Psychedelic Session Research
Was there scientific study of ergot in the 1950s that was similar to the sessions done by Pahnke 1962, Richards 1975, Dittrich 1975, Griffiths 2006, & Johnson? Pahnke was the first to do what?
What was new with the Pahnke Richards Dittrich Griffiths sessions/ research & psychometrics?
Drugs and Mysticism: An Analysis of the Relationship between Psychedelic Drugs and the Mystical Consciousness Harvard University Press Walter Pahnke, June 1963 Psilosophy.info – Full text of Pahnke’s 1963 dissertation book, created from MAPS scans of the typed dissertation: http://en.psilosophy.info/drugs_and_mysticism.html –
“Within a week all subjects had completed a 147-item questionnaire which had been designed to measure phenomena of the typology of mysticism on a qualitative, numerical scale.”
“Acknowledgments: The author wishes to express his deep gratitude for the support and encouragement of many members of the academic community who made this study possible in a troubled [why write ‘troubled’ in June 1963?] but promising area of research. Particular appreciation is extended to Dr. Hans Hofmann, who was a continuing source of counsel and inspiration, and to Dr. Timothy Leary, who assisted with the execution of the experiment. Through the guidance of the thesis committee [The Committee on Higher Degrees in History and Philosophy of Religion], the author’s perspectives have been clarified and deepened.”
Preface begins with a false dichotomy: “This dissertation was an empirical study designed to investigate the similarities and differences between experiences described by mystics and those induced by psychedelic (or mind-manifesting) drugs such as d-lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), psilocybin, and mescaline.”
Did you go up to the mountaintop where God told you this given fact, that mystics didn’t use psychedelics?
How does everyone know so much, with so much certainty, about “the traditional, non-drug methods of the mystics”?
The dissertation book is a: Thesis presented to The Committee on Higher Degrees in History and Philosophy of Religion in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Religion and Society, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, June, 1963.
“The Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) was developed by Pahnke (1963, 1969) as a tool for the evaluation of single mystical experiences occasioned by hallucinogens. The MEQ is based on Stace’s conceptual framework (1960)…” – MacLean 2012, Factor Analysis of the Mystical Experience Questionnaire: A Study of Experiences Occasioned by the Hallucinogen Psilocybin Book: Walter Stace, 1960: Mysticism and Philosophy. When was SOCQ?
Good Friday Experiment/ March Chapel Experiment Friday, April 20, 1962, Walter Pahnke, Advisors Timothy Leary
A recent article lists the date; I bet they got the date from my wikipedia edit.
I shouldn’t have had to spend 15 minutes trying in vain to find the date mentioned in articles about the experiment; I gave up and used a calendar app page to look up the date myself purely from the calendar, not from any article about Pahnke’s experiment bc NONE of those articles, in 15 minutes of searching, gave the damn date!
Every single article or webpage, in 15 minutes of research, said “Good Friday of 1962”; not one of them gave the day number.
I’m surprised at this pattern, also seen in bad citations like “William James, Varieties, 2005″. or “mid Xth Century” have to translate to normal, standardized, specific date eg year number.
The Psychedelic Experience Scale (PES) (revived by Stocker 2024)
The Revival of the Psychedelic Experience Scale: Revealing Its Extended-Mystical, Visual, and Distressing Experiential Spectrum with LSD and Psilocybin Studies Stocker, Kurt, Matthias Hartmann, Laura Ley, Anna M Becker, Friederike Holze, and Matthias E. Liechti. 2024. Journal of Psychopharmacology 38: 80–100. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Cole’s article says about that work, “a helpful review of the history of the MEQ from its earliest complete form in 1975 until the present version“
Counseling, peak experiences and the human encounter with death: An empirical study of the efficacy of DPT-assisted counseling in enhancing quality of life of persons with terminal cancer and their closest family members William Richards 1975 PhD diss. UCLA
The following is an instance of the MEQ43 questionnaire, lacking the SOCQ’s other, 57 distractor items. PDF includes categories and their items. States of Consciousness Questionnaire [SOCQ] and Pahnke-Richards Mystical Experience Questionnaire [MEQ] https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~jfkihlstrom/ConsciousnessWeb/Psychedelics/States-of-Consciousness-Questionnaire-and-Pahnke.pdf It lists 7 categories (like MEQ30) not 4 (like MEQ43), but it’s easy to understand why they’d do that, if they are going to present any categories; MEQ43 collapses 4 together into 1.
That PDF lists 43 items, per top of PDF:
Internal Unity (6 items)
External Unity (6 items)
Transcendence of Time and Space (8 items)
Ineffability and Paradoxicality (5 items)
Sense of Sacredness (7 items)
Noetic Quality (4 items)
Deeply-Felt Positive Mood (7 items)
That PDF says at bottom: Source: RR Griffiths, WA Richards, U McCann, R Jesse. 2006. “Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance.” Psychopharmacology (Berl). 187(3), 268-83, commentaries 284-292. Available on the Council of Spiritual Practices’ Psilocybin Research page (pdf). http://csp.org/psilocybin/ http://www.csp.org/psilocybin/Hopkins-CSP-Psilocybin2006.pdf http://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Hopkins-CSP-Psilocybin2006.pdf – bottom has the grouped questions – but only the 43 MEQ questions, no trace of the 57 distractor questions, of which CEQ initial pool selected 24, omitting 33 (which I haven’t found yet).
APZ (Dittrich 1975)
Dittrich A (1975) Zusammenstellung eines fragebogens (APZ) zur erfassung abnormer psychischer zustände [Construction of a questionnaire (APZ) for assessing abnormal mental states] Z Klin Psychol Psychiatr Psychother 23: 12–20.
The 3 O/A/V dimensions of APZ were identified / published by Dittrich 1985.
v1 O + A + V = how many items? From memory:
13 22 +14 = 49 items, but often the G-ASC’s etiology-indep. items are added: + 23 = 72 items (or 49 items) in the OAV of 1985/1993 for APZ 1975.
That led to creating/publishing an improved questionnaire called “OAV” in 1994, 66 items (simpler tallies b/c no etiology-dependent items).
Where did the 23 G-ASC items go? Hypoth: They were merged into the O/ A/ V dimensions to bloat them out. taking Ocean from 13 to 27 in ’94, taking Angst/Dread from 22 to 21 in ’94, taking Ocean from 14 to 18 in ’94.
Maybe that is how the 72-item O/A/V 1985/1993 became the 66-item OAV 1994.
Hypothesis: Maybe the 158-72=86 etiology-dependent items of APZ were separated into the BETA questionnaire, which became dimension 4 & 5 later: Auditory, and Reduction of Vigilance.
O/A/V for APZ 1975 (Dittrich 1985)
International study on altered states of consciousness (ISASC): Summary of the results Dittrich A, Vonarx S, Staub S 1985 Ger J Psychol 9: 319–339. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-26371-001
Dittrich in 1985 presents the O, A, V, and probably G-ASC dimensions found in APZ[158]
Dittrich A 1994 Psychological aspects of altered states of consciousness of the LSD type: Measurement of their basic dimensions and prediction of individual differences In: Pletscher A, Ladewig D, eds. 50 Years of LSD: Current Status and Perspectives of Hallucinogens: A Symposium of the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences, Lugano-Agno (Switzerland) October 21 and 22, 1993 New York NY: Parthenon. pp 101–118. Readable at Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=3s5vkfmXKNUC&pg=PA101
I have this printed out (it was worth producing). As valuable as CEQ printout or 11-Factors.
This isn’t OAV 1994 (66 items). As Dittrich presents, this original version of OAV for the 1975 APZ has 72 items, 3-1/2 dimensions (O/A/V & G-ASC).
Dittrich 1994 (Oct. 1993) in book 50 Years of LSD
Swiss Academy of the Medical Sciences. Proceedings of a Symposium of the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences, Lugano-Agno (Switzerland), October 21-22, 1993. Pharmacological and clinical research on LSD, for pharmacologists or psychiatrists. 17 contributors, 5 U.S.
Bodmer I, Dittrich A, Lamparter D. Aussergewöhnliche Bewusstseinszustände – Ihre gemeinsame Struktur und Messung [Altered states of consciousness – Their common structure and assessment]. 1994 In: Hofmann A, Leuner H, editors. Welten des Bewusstseins. Bd. 3, Experimentelle Psychologie, Neurobiologie und Chemie. Berlin, Germany: VWB; 1994. pp. 45–58.
This article is about Dittrich 1994 OAV with inflated O & V, shrunken A, in book Worlds of Consciousness, Volume 3 (German) Ocean 13 -> 27 Angst/Dread 22 -> 21 Visionary 14 -> 18 G-ASC 23 -> no longer exists distinct from the now 66 O/A/V items.
Annual journal book that in 1994 defines OAV: Worlds of Consciousness Bodmer, I., Dittrich, A. & Lamparter, D. in Welten des Bewusstseins. Bd. 3 (eds. Hofmann, A. & Leuner, H.) 45–58 (Experimentelle Psychologie, Neurobiologie und Chemie., 1994).
Annual journal book that in 1994 defines OAV: Worlds of Consciousness Bodmer, I., Dittrich, A. & Lamparter, D. in Welten des Bewusstseins. Bd. 3 (eds. Hofmann, A. & Leuner, H.) 45–58 (Experimentelle Psychologie, Neurobiologie und Chemie., 1994).
Dittrich 1998 article about OAV questionnaire [66 items] with improved (tilted positive) OAV items compared to APZ [158 items]
Dittrich A (1998) The standardized psychometric assessment of altered states of consciousness (ASCs) in humans Pharmacopsychiatry 31: 80–84. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9754838/ – paywall for PDF fulltext
5D-ASC’s Two Extra Dimensions, as a Separate “BETA” Questionnaire, Is Mentioned in 1998 Article
The BETA questionnaire measures the dimensions “Vigilance Reduction (VIR)” and “Auditive Alteration (AVE).
That 1998 mention of dimensions 4 & 5 (though as a separate, “BETA” questionnaire) corroborates Studerus’ 2010 claim that 5D-ASC data was gathered starting in 2000, not in 2006 when the 5D (German) article was published.
These dimensions are expected to be etiology-dependent. When people say APZ has 72 items in 3 main categories, they mean 158 items of APZ have 72 divided into: 13 Ocean 22 Angst 14 Dread 23 G-ASC that are etiology-independent. 72 TOTAL etiology-independent. Source: Dittrich 1993 (1994), which I have printed out.
Hypothesis: the other 158-72=86 items (the etiology-dependent items of the 1975 APZ) became the BETA questionnaire around 1988, which then became the Auditory & Reduction of Vigilance dimensions #4 and #5 of the (private in 1999) (announced in 2006) 5D-ASC.
5D-ASC Intro (Dittrich 2006, German)
Dittrich, A, Lamparter, D, Maurer, M (2006) 5D-ABZ: German garbled from pdf, see Studerus 2010: References. Try copying from the original in-browser version, instead of Adobe Acrobat. Fragebogen zur Erfassung Aussergewo¨hnlicher Bewusstseinszusta¨nde. Eine kurze Einfu¨hrung [5D-ASC: Questionnaire for the assessment of altered states of consciousness. A short introduction]. Zurich, Switzerland: PSIN PLUS.
Dittrich 2006 5D-ASC (German) Adding 2 Positive Dimensions to Reduce Negative from 1/3 to 1/5
Guidelines for Safety (Johnson 2008)
Human Hallucinogen Research: Guidelines for Safety Johnson M, Richards W, Griffiths R. 2008 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/
5D-ASC: Questionnaire for the assessment of altered states of consciousness. A short introduction. Dittrich, A, Lamparter, D, Maurer, M (2010) Zurich, Switzerland: PSIN PLUS.
link (good luck finding) – Unobtanium. Library.
The {evil king} sent the {hero} to obtain the 5D-ASC Intro article by Dittrich, knowing that this impossible task, {impossible for any mortal} unless {assisted by magic tools from the gods} would lead to the hero’s {death} while trying to {get the treasure} that’s {guarded by the dragon}.
Figure S2 is similar. See the important captures where I trace the shuffling shell game of question 54, for the 3 magicians to perform the Vanishing Dragon trick 🎩🪄🎩🪄🎩🪄💨🐉 🤷♂️ which made the five rival Griffiths magicians so envious, they went on to perform: the Vanishing Dread (DED) Dimension trick 🎩🪄🎩🪄🎩🪄🎩🪄🎩🪄💨😱 🤷♂️:
“In its most recent iteration, the MEQ was administered along with 57 distracter items in a 100-item instrument called the States of Consciousness Questionnaire (SOCQ) (Griffiths et al. 2006; Griffiths et al. 2008; Griffiths et al. 2011). Relevant to the present study, although the wording and number of distracter items have changed over the years, the mystical items have remained largely consistent since the inception of the MEQ (see Pahnke 1969).” – MacLean 2012
Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences (Griffiths 2006)
Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance Griffiths, Roland R.; Richards, William A.; McCann, Una; Jesse, Robert. 2006 Psychopharmacology. 2006; 187(3):268–83. [PubMed: 16826400] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16826400/
March 4, 2023 – Most of the present page fails to link to my local pages yet. But the above link is to my local page.
SOCQ/MEQ30 (MacLean 2012)
Note: Later = Smaller, thus lower down on this page. 43 items = ~1963. 30 items = ~2012.
MacLean, K. A., Leoutsakos, J.-M. S., Johnson, M. W. & Griffiths, R. R. Factor Analysis of the Mystical Experience Questionnaire: A Study of Experiences Occasioned by the Hallucinogen Psilocybin. J. Sci. Study Relig.51, 721–737 (2012). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23316089/
Validation of the revised Mystical Experience Questionnaire in experimental sessions with psilocybin Frederick Barrett, Mathew “No Buddha Statues” Johnson, Roland Griffiths 2015 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26442957/ – for PDF, click “FREE Full text PMC” button in upper right
The CEQ Isn’t a Real, Authentic, Legitimate, Safe, Usable, or Insight-Delivering Questionnaire
Caution, the CEQ isn’t a real questionnaire; it’s just a cross-questionnaire mockup exercise.
MEQ fails to incorporate negative mystical experences, and CEQ which is intended to cover negative instead discards most of the psychedelic-specific negative experiences.
The Studerus article about the 11-Factors q’air assumes that per Stace 1960, “negative mystical experiences” is a self-contradiction; “NO SUCH THING AS A NEGATIVE MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE”.
Griffiths’ team cannot be relied on, they are too positive (mystical experiences are always rainbows & unicorns) and too ordinary-state based in the selection of items for the CEQ’s Initial Item Pool and then deleting the 64 down to 24, willy-nilly in anti-scientific arbitrary way, as proved by the lack of any real OAV Angst/Dread items or 11-Factors high-level Unpleasant category items in the final 26 questions.
The extant CEQ needs to be scrapped, it’s an unscientific scheme to eliminate authentically psychedelic negative experiences, simply DELETING 18 of 21 of Dittrich’s 1994 Dread of Ego Dissolution effects questions/items, and creating for themselves a new, Grief category — conveniently sounding like the ordinary-state couch psychotherapy Grief counseling profession of services — and gathering more questions in their new Grief category than any other category (factor).
Strategy: Eliminate all the negative psychedelics-specific distinctive state-specific effects (Volition & Control challenges; the threat of catastrophic loss of control of thinking 😱🐉🚪💎) and put the spotlight on ordinary-state-based, state-generic Grief counseling instead. BUNK!
😱🐉🚪💎🌳🐍🍄🏆😇🍄🚪⚡️🍄
The Isolation factor has 3 versions of the same Isolation effect from 3 questionnaires.
They warn not to use their bunk Paranoia factor, because one of the two questions is about aggression, not paranoia.
There are about 7 dup questions (b/c of picking equivalent items from 3 questionnaires and wanting to pad-out their 6, no make it 7 factors) in the final set of 26 items, making hash out of the defense “We had to get rid of all of Dittrich’s Angst/Dread effects to streamline the questionnaire.”
ECQ: Eternalism and Control Questionnaire (Hoffman 2022)
It is strange how this (out of print) book is treated as THE “scientific” foundation for the so-called “mystical” aspect of all of the entire psychedelic psychometrics science.
All these questionnaires stand or fall with this one book.
And if you ask too many questions, the mystical scientists fall back to James 1902.
And Huxley 1954 Doors of Perception and The Perennial Philosophy (1944).
Philosophy of Mysticism: Raids on the Ineffable (Jones 2017)
A 2017 followup book, for 1960 Stace: Mysticism and Philosophy:
Philosophy of Mysticism: Raids on the Ineffable Richard Jones, 2017
That’s probably the 1st Edition of the book that became The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach, which is associated with the Hood lifetime mystical experience questionnaire. Amazon concurs in title of that webpage: says “1st Edition”.
Interesting: I posted on Dec. 1, 2013 in the Egodeath Yahoo Group (strangely, the posting before my big “tree vs. snake” breakthrough announcement), my Amazon review of Roberts’ book, mentions Hood’s book which says Merkur says mystics used entheogens.
The Psychedelic Future of the Mind: How Entheogens Are Enhancing Cognition, Boosting Intelligence, and Raising Values Thomas Roberts http://amazon.com/o/asin/1594774595 January 2013
About Roberts’ book, my review says:
“This book — its authors — reify habitually the uncritically adopted unspoken Prohibitionist-compliant dogma, a hazy, incoherent dogma, that scholars understand how Christian mystics throughout history accessed the intense mystic altered state, and we know that they accessed it through meditation, and we know they didn’t access it through drugs.
“It is unthinkable and unwriteable by Walsh and Roberts — mis-leaders of reform — to consider the question I pose: to what extent were visionary plants used by Christians throughout history?
“Roberts contradicts the evidence he has collected: he cites the book The Psychology of Religion by Hood et al The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach (http://amazon.com/o/asin/1606233033), which states that Dan Merkur has shown in his book The Psychedelic Sacrament: Manna, Meditation, and Mystical Experience (http://amazon.com/o/asin/089281862X) that Jewish mystics used visionary plants.” – Cybermonk, Amazon book review
Sacred Knowledge: Psychedelics and Religious Experiences (Richards 2016)
Richards started with Pahnke, helped Pahnke refine the late-1960s MEQ Mystical Experience Questionnaire, is part of the Griffiths/Hopkins/Johnson group.
“Recent clinical trials show that psychedelics such as LSD and psilocybin can be given safely in controlled conditions, and can cause lasting psychological benefits with one or two administrations.
“Supervised psychedelic sessions can reduce symptoms of anxiety, depression, and addiction, and improve well-being in healthy volunteers, for months or even years.
“But these benefits seem to be mediated by “mystical” experiences of cosmic consciousness, which prompts a philosophical concern:
“do psychedelics cause psychological benefits by inducing false or implausible beliefs about the metaphysical nature of reality?
“This book is the first scholarly monograph in English devoted to the philosophical analysis of psychedelic drugs.
“Its central focus is the apparent conflict between the growing use of psychedelics in psychiatry and the philosophical worldview of naturalism.
“Within the book, Letheby integrates empirical evidence and philosophical considerations in the service of a simple conclusion:
“this “Comforting Delusion Objection” to psychedelic therapy fails.
“While exotic metaphysical ideas do sometimes come up, they are not, on closer inspection, the central driver of change in psychedelic therapy.
“Psychedelics lead to lasting benefits by altering the sense of self, and changing how people relate to their own minds and lives-not by changing their beliefs about the ultimate nature of reality.
“The upshot is that a traditional conception of psychedelics as agents of insight and spirituality can be reconciled with naturalism (the philosophical position that the natural world is all there is).
“Controlled psychedelic use can lead to genuine forms of knowledge gain and spiritual growth-even if no Cosmic Consciousness or transcendent divine Reality exists.
“Philosophy of Psychedelics is an indispensable guide to the literature for researchers already engaged in the field of psychedelic psychiatry, and for researchers-especially philosophers-who want to become acquainted with this increasingly topical field.”
Philosophy and Psychedelics: Frameworks for Exceptional Experience (Hauskeller 2022)
“In this rapidly growing area of study, this is the first volume to explore the philosophy of psychedelic experience, from a range of interdisciplinary and cross-cultural perspectives.
“In doing so, Philosophy and Psychedelics reveals just why the place of psychedelics in our societies should not be left to medical sciences alone, as psychedelic experience opens up new perspectives on fundamental philosophical questions relating to human experience, ethics, and the metaphysics of mind.
“Mapping a range of philosophical responses to the surge in studies into psychedelic drugs in the cognitive sciences, this go-to volume examines topics including
psychedelics and the role of governance;
psychedelics and mysticism;
what psychedelics can tell us about dyadic thankfulness; and
psychedelics as ways to gain new knowledge.
“Written by leading international scholars, the essays cover Western and non-Western traditions, from analytic philosophy to Zen Buddhism, and discuss a variety of hallucinogens, such as LSD, MDMA, and Ayahuasca, in order to build a much-needed bridge between the rapidly growing scientific research and the philosophy behind psychedelic experience.”
The Psychedelic Renaissance (Sessa 2012/2017)
The Psychedelic Renaissance: Reassessing the Role of Psychedelic Drugs in 21st Century Psychiatry and Society Second Edition 2017 (2012) Ben Sessa
I need a single page I can point to when I discuss questionnaires and articles about them.
Right now, references are scattered across my various pages/posts about psychedelic psychometrics questionnaires.
References from APZ page
heading retired. I copied Ref section from my APZ page to here.
References from My OAV page
heading retired. I copied Ref section from my OAV page to here.
References from My 11-Factors page
heading retired. I copied Ref section from my OAV page to here. 1 item only.
Todo
Link from each questionnaire page (eg References section) to here.
In each entry/section here, link to my corresponding questionnaire page.
Print out Griffiths 2006.
Print out Griffiths 2008.
done? Copy from the References sections at the bottom of my pages about psychedelic psychometrics questionnaires to here. Done, I think. Find any specific stragglers as needed.
done: Make a heading for each article, including the year.
The Illusion of Will, Self, and Time: William James’s Reluctant Guide to Enlightenment Jonathan Bricklin January 2, 2016 http://amzn.com/143845628X SUNY Series in Transpersonal and Humanistic Psychology
This book and author has ties among:
Philosophy of Eternalism
Enlightenment from altered-state revelation
The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology
The Journal of Consciousness Studies
Consciousness Studies
Psychedelics in late 20th C. spirituality
Altered states
Ramesh Balsekar (no-free-will)
Benny Shanon (Cognitive Phenomenology of Ayahuasca)
Table of Contents
Commentary
Jonathan Bricklin equates “Enlightenment” with the altered-state revelation of eternalism.
Bricklin uses terms including “monism, Parmenides, eternalism”, vs. “Pluriverse”.
I purchased this book on Dec. 30, 2015 before it was available on Jan. 2, 2016.
Bricklin’s book is part of Consciousness Studies, the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, & Journal of Consciousness Studies, and was reviewed in draft by Benny Shanon & Ramesh Balsekar.
This book has the key topics, like mystic experiencing of eternalism, but nothing about experience of the threat of control loss.
Anything that this book has about control cancellation that drives transformation of the mental worldmodel from possibilism to eternalism, is faintly expressed, compared to in the Egodeath theory.
Bricklin’s book The Illusion of Will, Self, and Time: William James’s Reluctant Guide to Enlightenment (SUNY series in Transpersonal and Humanistic Psychology), equates “enlightenment” with eternalism.
Balsekar asserted no-free-will as enlightenment, among the Ken Wilber Integral Theory crowd.
Benny Shanon = Ayahuasca from a Psychedelics Cognitive Phenomenology approach like the Egodeath theory.
This book covers various peripheral topics, and doesn’t go into the key topics deeply like the Egodeath theory does.
Such books by Sam Harris, Balsekar, Shanon, Campbell, and Bricklin don’t bring the ideas together tightly and simply, as the Egodeath theory does.
The book is keyed to Indian religious philosophy; Bricklin makes India the origin of Greece’s eternalism.
p 337 cites 1999 Kingsley’s book, for the Eastern roots of Eleatic spirituality.
I note that Dionysus’ victory parade returns “from India”.
Customer Comments
“Most neuroscientists don’t believe in free will.
The Buddha did not believe in self.
Einstein [what of Minkowski?] did not believe in time.
“Separately, these beliefs foster forlornness. But as Bricklin shows here with exceptional clarity, when they are woven together, the opposite occurs: the illusion of will, self, and time is a coherent context for the most profound spiritual experiences from ancient times to our own.”
“assembles from James hints of a reality stranger than most of us have likely ever imagined. very-readable …
“lays out a path through timelessness … a path well worth walking, not just for what it may reveal of reality, but for what it reveals about the deepest questions asked by one of humanity’s best minds, fully contextualized by cross-connections to his contemporaries, and other thinkers and researchers from ancient to present.”
Quote from Bricklin’s Book
Page 333: notes for the Eternalism chapter (15). McTaggart, 1908, 457: “Time is unreal … in all ages the belief in the unreality of time has proved singularly attractive.
“In the philosophy and religion of the East, this doctrine is of cardinal importance.
“And in the West, the same doctrine continually recurs, both among philosophers and among theologians.
“Theology never holds itself apart from mysticism for any long period, and almost all mysticism denies the reality of time.”
I took note (around 1988) that William James added his word ‘iron’. Yet I’ve had surprising trouble getting simple easy confirmation of this famous usage. This Oxford encyclopedia entry doesn’t quite have the whole phrase “iron block universe”.
I finally found a tiny bit of partial confirmation, but I thought (the past few years) it would be trivially easy to confirm James’ disparaging distinctive catch phrase casting shade on the “iron block universe”.
The ‘determinism’ article is poor: zilch conception, at least on p. 1, of eternalism, despite mentioning James’ “iron block universe”.
A fault is that even William James, as quoted in this article, defines the “iron block universe” in not eternalism terms, but merely in domino-chain sequential causality terms.
Article: Faithful excerpts condensed by Cybermonk (removed words only); see book for exact quotes:
(I need to create a page defining how I condense; define several levels of accuracy.)
Oxford wrote:
“earlier events, a prior series of effects, a causal chain, causal connection”
“future events are fixed and unalterable”
Fails to say “already exist”!
Causal-chain determinism is still rooted in egoic possibilism open-future thinking, where you have the power to create your future control-thoughts; you just don’t have the power to create them any other way than you are determined.
The key question and distinction is: How is the future caused and created?
By horizontal causality; the earlier state causes the subsequent state.
By vertical causality (term that I coined); all times are created at once, including all of your near-future control-thoughts.
This article like typical near-100% of philosophy, is not eternalism, but is a distinct in-between hybrid: the “possibilism” mental worldmodel, but add a “single-path” constraint.
Position 1) possibilism, an open, variable future that’s controlled/ created by you, the steersman agent.
Position 1.5) possibilism + causal-chain determinism, you are the creator of your future control thoughts but you are forced to create them in one inevitable way that’s caused by the past moving to the future. God created the world at the beginning of time, wound up the clockwork mechanism at t[0].
Position 2) eternalism; your future control-thoughts already timelessly are pre-existing and pre-created. God created all times at once, in an interlocked order, per Bricklin’s book. No linear temporal causal sequence. An earlier state doesn’t “cause” the subsequent state.
Oxford continues:
“what William James called ‘the iron block universe‘:
That confirms my expected-easy finding that confirms my certain recollection that James said “iron block universe” rather than “block universe”.
Quote of Portions of Phrase “Iron Block Universe”
William James wrote (exact quote from Oxford but paragraph breaks added):
“those parts of the universealready laid down appoint and decree what other parts shall be.
“The future has no ambiguous possibilities hidden in its womb: the part we call the present is compatible with only one totality.
“Any other future complement than the one fixed from eternity is impossible.
“The whole is in each and every parts, and welds it with the rest into an absolute unity, an iron block in which there can be no equivocation or shadow of turning.”
/ end of James quote
Oxford continues:
“only what actually happens could possibly have happened. There are no genuine alternatives to be realized.”
The Psilocybin Revelation of No Possibility-Branching
right leg: rely on non-branching mental worldmodel
worldline snake frozen in block-universe rock
Photo credit: Julie M. Brown
Photo credit: Julie M. Brown. Used by permission.
From Jerry Brown in March 2022 when he quoted from their 2019 article, fresco scholar woman’s book writing “youths in trees cutting away at the branches” with the 2019 article’s clearer highlighting than the Browns’ 2016 book.
Donkey’s left leg lifted, right leg relied on (a standard trope in this era/genre that I discovered and published/ announced in 2022).
The arrived/ epiphany of the higher-level controller/creator arrives in perception from Psilocybin, the revelation of non-branching; block-universe eternalism.
Oxford perpetuates the egoic, possibilism-thinking, in-time assumption.
“fates … having power over the future.”
“Many great philosophers have been determinists.”
Yeah but how many great philosophers were block-universe eternalists?
“whether we ourselves, persons, are subject tocausalnecessity.”
“Philosophers have cared less about whether or not the rest of the universe is determined — what they have cared more about is whether or not our lives are determined.”
“all our choices, decisions, intensions, other mental events, and our actions are effects of other [prior in time] equally necessitated events.”
“identical with the problem of freedom, or the free will problem.”
“our concept of moral responsibility. … attitudes such as resentment and gratitude.”
“Determinism puts in doubt all life-hopes, personal feelings, knowledge, moral responsibility, the rightness of actions, and the moral standing of persons.”
“Deliberation makes sense only if genuine alternatives are available to us. If determinism is true, only one course is genuinely open to me, so, my deliberation is irrational.”
Search Links
James wrote “iron block”; apparently not “iron block universe”.
This book, which I preordered in late 2015, is better than I assessed; I just have to keep expectations in check.
I posted a couple scattered subsections in pages, which required unmanageable many-to-many linking, which indicated I need to have a single dedicated page that all minor sections in other pages can link to.
Oxford Philosophy Book Hypnotized by “Determinism” Fails to Grasp Concept of Timeless Block Universe, Though Even a News Site Gets It
The dull-minded Philosophers fail to grasp block-universe eternalism because they are ossified stuck in the “determinism” concept; causal-chain determinism even when they say “block universe”.
The field of Philosophy – in this book – is stupefied by the egoic, possibilism-thinking based, domino-chain misconception of the block universe.
Oxford gets the “block universe” concept all backwards & reversed, conflating “block universe” (frozen-time block-universe eternalism) with mere domino-chain, in-time, causal-chain “determinism“.
Event Snodfart’s Junior Academy gets it, though their challenge is on the art front: they are incapable of drawing a tree, as I was drawing in high school.
“Common Core Mystical Experience” Is Defined Exclusively as Positive Boundaryless Unity (vs. Negative Ego Dissolution, or Fear of Loss of Control)
copied from idea development page 29 from book club email
May 14, 2025
The Egodeath community might meet again with Alan Houot (author of Rise of the Psychonaut), developing/ defining a high-quality, upward-convergent Science approach that can include Transcendent Knowledge aka Mysticism, in some framing.
The past few days, I re-read the article debate “Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science”.
Now in psychedelic science (psych. assisted therapy) there are many influential & compelling calls to broaden and open up, from that narrow model of what “mysticism” allegedly is, re: the alleged “common core” of mysticism, by which the writers meant, specifically, positive-experienced boundaryless unity.
My review of the article series strongly confirmed:
The Walter Stace 1960 model of so-called “mysticism” is specifically, narrowly, emphatically the experience of positive-experienced boundaryless unity.
The Stace model of “common core mysticism” is rooted in Advaita Vedanta ever since Swami Vivekananda in 1893, who met with William James.
That’s the historical origin of the dubious model of “a complete mystical experience” per Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ), Hood Mysticism Scale, & Hopkins group.
Writers following the Stace model of “mysticism” narrowly claim that mystical experience excludes any negative experience, such as what they call “ego dissolution“, by which they narrowly mean negatively experienced boundaryless unity — like reported in Michael Pollan’s book, re: Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ)), pp. 276-284, How to Change Your Mind; 5-MeO chapter: Pollan says the MEQ failed to match his terrifying experience, because too positive a framing to be applicable.
Charles Stang in Harvard video interview of R Griffiths also challenged the alleged model of “a complete mystical experience”;
Griffiths admits “we use a positive-balanced model”, and told Stang the Hopkins group has negative experiences covered by their (also positive-balanced) Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ).
{shadow dragon monster}/ transformation gate = experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control.
“We must not make the assumption that each subject wrote down his complete experience.
He might not have mentioned some particular phenomena because he did not think of it when he was writing his report, although we can assume that he reported what he thought was most important or what impressed him the most.
Stace has pointed out that even the mystics did not write as much as we would have liked about the actual phenomenology of their experiences.
The questionnaires and interviews provided a check on this type of omission, and such evidence should not be ignored.
…
Nine out of ten of the experimentals considered that their experience was significant and worthwhile and would be very willing, in fact eager, to try the experience again.
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Judged from the interviewer’s perspective, eight out of ten of these experiences were predominantly positive, and had a pronounced significant and worthwhile effect in the lives of the persons involved, according to their own testimonies.
One experimental had what he considered a worthwhile and significant experience from which he learned a great deal, but in regard to mystical phenomena his experience was not on the same level with the other eight.
In his account and interview it was obvious that he had spent much of his time trying to remain in control and to interpret and intellectualize his experience.
At one point he attempted to memorize Greek vocabulary-cards.
After one such experience he was eager to have another chance to let himself go into the experience more completely without trying to resist the effects of the drug.
The tenth experimental subject had what he termed
an interesting “psychological” and “aesthetic” experience for the first three-fourth of his experience,
but then became frightened by loss of control and spent the remaining time in a terrifying fight to overcome the drug effects.
He would not be interested in repeating the experience because his most predominant memory of the experience was that of fear.
Six months later, in Part I of the followup questionnaire, he considered this fear-experience slightly harmful because “in a mob panic situation, I feel I would be less likely to maintain a calm objective position than I might have formerly.”
During the interview he admitted that he had gone into the experience “as a psychological experiment” and had done no serious devotional preparation.
His “inspirational” reading while the drug was taking effect consisted of studying some Psalms for a course in the Old Testament.
His interpretation of his experience was a “psychotic episode.”
Titles of this Page
The Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism Provides a Scientific Basis for Mystic-State Experiencing, Superseding the “Mysticism, Meditation, & Psychotherapy” Framework
The Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism Provides a Scientific Explanatory Basis for Mystic-State Experiencing, Superseding the Mysticism, Meditation, & Psychoanalysis Frameworks
The Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism Fulfills Sanders and Zijlmans’ Call for a Scientific, not Mysticism, Explanatory Basis for Psychedelic Effects
Article: A Channel for Magic: Ralph Hood’s Mysticism Scale and the Occult Roots of the Johns Hopkins Psychedelic Research Program (Kitchens, Sep. 2022)
Article: Mystical and Other Alterations in Sense of Self: An Expanded Framework for Studying Nonordinary Experiences (Taves, May 2020)
Debunks the “Positive Unity Experience” Model of Mysticism.
Mystical and Other Alterations in Sense of Self: An Expanded Framework for Studying Nonordinary Experiences Ann Taves, 2020 Perspect Psychol Sci 2020 May;15(3):669-690 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32053465/ doi: 10.1177/1745691619895047. Epub 2020 Feb 13. PMID: 32053465 DOI: 10.1177/1745691619895047 Free article at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/86r3f75j
Erratum in: Corrigendum: Mystical and Other Alterations in Sense of Self: An Expanded Framework for Studying Nonordinary Experiences. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2022 Mar;17(2):614. doi: 10.1177/17456916221076158. Epub 2022 Jan 24. PMID: 35073216
Strassman’s short article is praised by Davis 2020 article.
May 13, 2025: I read this 4-page article again: it is good. His Jewish complaints are reasonable. His critique of Wm Richards book Sacred Knowledge today solved a problem: I preorderd that 2015 book, and have been disappointed, now I know why: that book pushes the fake, made-up, wrong model of “mysticism”: positive Unity.
The book Sacred Knowledge is as bogus as
Stace,
Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ),
Mysticism Scale questionnaire, and
the ultimate bogosity, the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) — 100% junk psychedelic pseudo science.
I have now switched from critic of psychedelic pseudo science, to an outright debunker, following Travis Kitchens, Ann Taves, and all critics of Stace.
I suddenly find myself siding with obnoxious “naturalism materialism Science cheerleader Matt “Lose the Buddha Statue” Johnson: the statue means, the sheer invention of mysticism as positive – per the great creiticism of Stang on video at Harvard directly confronting Grifty, “your model of mysticism fails to match mystics”.
Roland Griffiths team at Johns Hopkins Dept. of Psychedelic Pseudo Science replied: “That’s ok, we use a positive-balanced model; see our positive-balanced negative effects the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ).”
I used to throw a bone to the “unity mysticism” model, saying that it is ok for beginner level mystical experience. I think that is bad strategy and a missed opportunity to hammer-smash fraudulent lies about mystical experience.
Positive Unity Mysticism Is Merely One Experience, Picked for Wrong Reasons, and Is Noxious Avoidance Strategy to Shut Out the Real Master Experience
Real …
I am re-settling, I am resetting as of 6:03 pm May 13, 2025, to attack bunk fake mysticism, just like I attacked and fully exposed Fraud Wasson.
Authentic mysticism — the kind that MATTERS and is worthy of respect — is about transformed control in transformed world, per the Egodeath theory/ myth/ lyrics/ mushroom-trees/ Mystery Religions.
The Fake Model (tepid about psychedelics; positive-balanced; Unity focused) Serves to Eliminate True Model, So the Fake Model Must Be Destroyed and Vigorously Rected
Article: Gnostic Psychedelia (Erik Davis, April 2020)
Stace Takes Another Hit – Davis 2020 Gnosis journal (editor April DeConick) article “Gnostic Psychedelia”
Good article, I resonate with many points. Even notes the over-influence of James and Stace.
Defines, sort of/ as if, two opposed versions of mysticism:
“Within the official clinical discourse, at least in America, the key to individual healing is largely tied to the capacity of psychedelics to trigger transcendental unitive and ecstatic experiences whose “mystical” character is vouchsafed, it must be said, byscholarship that is over half a century old.“
/ end of Davis quote near end of article
And ridiculously narrow, particular, and specific! Stace 1960 (out of print), James 1902.
All the clinical talk of “mystical experience” is not actual mystical experience, but is, instead Stacean so-called “mystical experience”, specifically, narrowly, particularly.
‘Hermetic’ = Stacean “mystical experience” vs. ‘Gnostic‘ = w/ DeConick, a critical, Gnostic equivalent opposed conception of the realm of so-called “mystical experience”.
Post: Gnostic Psychedelia and the Archetype of the Archons (Davis, Apr. 2020)
“I wrote this paper for Gnosis: Journal of Gnostic Studies, a newish journal edited by April DeConick, with whom I had the great fortune of being able to study Gnosticism during my time at Rice.
—
“This article first draws out one particularly important feature of gnostic myth—the idea of the archons, or fallen “rulers” against whom the gnostic wages spiritual warfare.”
“In contemporary conspiracy culture, the archons now hold a prominent place at the table, but they are also described in both orthodox and heterodox texts of antiquity.
“Since I am describing a type rather than analyzing a particular sect or text, some scholars will probably find my use of the term too loose to be of value, but my goal is not to dig deeper into the ancient world.
—
“Instead, I use the concept of the archons to illuminate an important feature of modern western psychedelic culture that tends to get short shrift: an agonistic and critical spirituality directed against social reality, rather than the dominant perennialist emphasis on unity, interdependence, and Oneness.”
“In studying modern psychedelic texts from Alan Watts, Timothy Leary, Jim DeKorne, Robert Anton Wilson, and Jonathan Talat Phillips—some of whom explicitly invoke the archons of old—I find a gnostic psychology that has much to say to our time of crisis, and that features a more explicitly political dimension to entheogenic vision.”
link to article pdf
/ end of Davis post
Evil Rulers of the 21st Century Shoving Their Denatured Psychedelic RenaissanceTM Down Our Throats While Keeping Psilocybin Prohibition Firmly in Place, Foisting Their Bunk Non-Mystic Mysticism to Replace Psychedelic Experiencing
Grassroots psychedelicists vs. Hopkins Prohibition-compliant therapy & the top-down fake imposed alien invaders “Michael Pollan surprise bestseller” and “Brian Muraresku surprise bestseller” books that were MADE to be bestsellers by MegaCorp Publishers.
Entheogen scholarship went off the rails and lost the plot, by caring far more about their “secret suppressed hereetical sects” narrative which became the opporessive narrative that NEUTERED every finding in mushroom imagery in Christian art, converting them to de-powered evidence instead, of mushrooms in HERETICAL Christianity.
Against Ruck the Neutralizer, every instance of mushroom imagery in Christian art amounts to evidence of mushroom imagery within Christianity — NOT in Ruck’s fabricated “in heretical Christianity” heavy-handed narrative that’s far more important to Ruck than real psychedelics or repeal of Psilocybin prohibition. Ruck school is not driven by interest in finding evidence for psychedelics in religious history.
What motivates the Ruck school is storytime tale-telling of the Big Bad Church vs. suppressed The Mushroom (🍄) — not an interest in psychedelics or repeal of Psilocybin prohibition.
In the Amanita Primacy Fallacy, in entheogen scholarship driven by AND CONSTRAINED BY the Amanita Primacy Fallacy, scholars don’t get high on psychedelics; they get high on crybaby infantile narrative ritual retelling of the great tabu suppression of Our Holy Sacred Mushroom, Amanita.
The present Davis section was copied from there to here wholesale, then rearranged.
Article: Consciousness, Religion, and Gurus: Pitfalls of Psychedelic Medicine (Johnson, April 2021)
Consciousness, Religion, and Gurus: Pitfalls of Psychedelic Medicine Matthew Johnson https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acsptsci.0c00198 ACS Pharmacology & Translational Science 20214 (2), 578-581 DOI: 10.1021/acsptsci.0c00198
Matthew Johnson, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore
Article: Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science (Sanders & Zijlmans, May 2021)
“The mysticism framework is used to describe psychedelic experiences and explain the effects of psychedelic therapies.
“We discuss risks and difficulties stemming from the scientific use of a framework associated with supernatural or nonempirical belief systems and encourage researchers to mitigate these risks with a demystified model of the psychedelic state.”
Sanders aren’t against mystical experience, they are against the Walter Stace-based mysticism model and lexicon.
Condensed excerpts
Condensed excerpts rewritten by Cybermonk for scholarly commentary & analysis – deliberately making very minor deviations; see the article for exact quotes:
“Concepts like “pure awareness” and “ineffable” experiences of “ultimate reality” … these statements are too seldom accompanied by a deeper discussion on what a term like mystical means within the context of psychedelic science, and what consequences might come with the scientific use of the mysticism framework.
“The root [“scientific basis”] of mysticism in psychedelic science lies in the work of philosopher W. T. Stace, who in 1960 theorized a distinct type of “mystical consciousness” achieved through a variety of cultural practices.
“Stace’s theory was informed by theological, historical, and anecdotal accounts, and the defining criteria for the state include
a sense of unity – agree
a sense of timelessness – agree
a sense of spacelessness – agree
a sense of objectivity and reality – agree
a sense of sacredness – disagree, not useful expl’y construct
a sense of blessedness – disagree, not useful expl’y construct
a sense of peace – disagree, not useful expl’y construct
a sense of paradoxicality – disagree, not useful expl’y construct
a sense of ineffability – disagree, not useful expl’y construct
“Early psychedelic researchers adopted the concept and took these criteria as relevant operational categories for the study of psychedelic experiences.” – Sanders p. 1 col. 1
The field is foolishly and unhelpfully attempting to do scientific research in psychedelic mystic-state experiencing, by applying Stace’s conception of mysticism as the scientific basis for all of psychometrics science of mystic-type experiencing.
“the encroachment of supernatural and nonempirical beliefs on psychedelic science, we identify shortcomings of this link between mysticism and psychedelic research
“The mysticism framework, along with its associated theories and terminology, should be actively superseded.
“the risks stemming from the relation between mysticism and supernatural or otherwise nonempirical belief systems [& would-be psychedelic science]
“why current researchers should be optimistic at their prospects of creating valid frameworks that are supported by, and accessible to, empirical methods.
“the ways in which new frameworks may bring greater benefit for science and society alike.” – Sanders, p. 1 col 2.
“Within psychedelic science, we are concerned that use of the mysticism framework creates a “black box” mentality in which researchers are content to treat certain aspects of the psychedelic state as beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.”
love it! 🎉
Condensed excerpts by Cybermonk for scholarly commentary & analysis:
““psychedelic exceptionalism”: when psychedelic experiences are taken to be “so sacred or important that the normal rules do not apply” [cites Matthew “Lose the Buddha statue” Johnson]
Griffiths/Studerus-type articles refer to Stace’s book as the “scientific” basis, and they also, as a fallback, claim James 1902.
The James/ Stace/ Pahnke/ Richards/ Griffiths line of mysticism framework and lexicon.
Pahnke/ Richards/ Griffiths call Walter Stace’s 1960 book Mysticism and Philosophy their “scientific” basis.
Griffiths’ system of articles & the MEQ43 & MEQ30 stands or falls with Stace’ 1960 book — that single book is used and cited as the science basis for their “mysticism” model.
Sanders & Zijlmans and I condemn the Stace “ineffability” premise (they articulate this well).
We demand (& The Theory of Pychedelic Eternalism provides) useful, scientifically proper articulate explanation and lexicon, instead of “Mysticism” per Stace 1960.
Beginning in 1985-1988, the Egodeath theory (the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism) rejects and replaces these failed, unhelpful explanatory frameworks that substitute from STEM-type clear, useful explanation:
Mysticism (per Stace 1960 eg ineffability,
Meditation (ie conventinoal assumptions and paradigm, non-drug meditation as the original authority)
Psychoanalysis (eg Grof’s application of psychedelics to prop up the bunk “science” of psychoanalysis)
/end my commentary
Page 2 Excerpts
Condensed, marked up, and annotated for scholarly purposes.
The “reply” articles have zero quotes of Sanders’ actual position statements and phrasing. The field has two caricature positions available: mystics studying mystical experiencing, vs. naturalistic scientists studying psychedelic states & psychedelic experiences.
psychedelic states & psychedelic experiences includes mystical experiencing but we won’t make Stace’s Mysticism the framework that we employ; we need scientific frameworks, not mysticism-based frameworks (Stace 1960)
“As scientists, we should not be satisfied to label psychedelic experiences as “ineffable”, “paradoxical”, or “void”
“The termmysticaldoes little in terms of explaining psychobiological phenomena.
“Although the subjective aspect of psychedelic experiences may be difficult for the individual to fathom and describe, the terminology and conceptualization scientists use in their research should not imply that a psychedelic experience holds a special status of inaccessibility beyond other kinds of experience.
“To assume this special status a priori is unscientifically pessimistic.“
BRAVO!!
As the Egodeath theory does; as the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism does, we must take perfection/ completion of initiation/ enlightenment/ satori down off its pedestal of inaccessibility and alienated mis-reverence that everyone strives to glorify it upon, pushing it out of reach and distorting Transcendent Knowledge.
“By using the mystical experience construct, we are providing participants with a particular terminology and framework with which to understand their psychedelic experiences.
“When we administer a mystical experience questionnaire, we invite participants to interpret their experience through the framework of mysticism.
“We risk creating biased data and may fail to learn from participants’ own articulation and interpretation.” – Sanders p. 2 left col
“mystical experience phenomena are conflated with mystical beliefs about what psychedelic experiences mean.”
That’s a key distinction, between experiencing vs. interpretation.
Is Psychedelic Science to be driven by the STEM-type effort to figure stuff out and explain it usefully? Or, driven by Pop Sike Cult?
“We observe a broader and stronger use of mystical language and concepts than is warranted by the science.
“The integration of mysticism [as framework/lexicon, not experiencing -cm] into research and clinical practice risks creating unrealistic and potentially problematic expectations and associations.”
“As scientists, we must consider more carefully our choice of frameworks and more actively distance psychedelic research and clinical practice from the supernatural, fantastical, and divine; mysticism.”
Section heading: “Demystifying Our Concepts” – tons of great quotable assertions and calls for change. See the article. eg:
“A superficial change in terminology will not address the depth of mysticism’s influence in psychedelic science — rather, new theories rooted in the modern empirical study of conscious states are needed.”
DONE: see the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism; the Egodeath theory.
I read the word ’empirical’ per the essay Eye to Eye by Ken Wilber, except “eye of spirit” actually means Reason that’s used in the advanced Psilocybin altered state.
‘Reason’ here means rational, clear, useful model construction, informed by probing & testing & demonstration & state-specific observation.
More brilliant wording from Sanders & Zijlmans, condensed for scholarly commentary – a huge breath of fresh air for me.
I’m so glad others notice the crazy, unscientific degree to which Stace’s 1960 book Mysticism and Consciousness is treated by Griffiths et al as Gospel Science handed down from God, the rock-solid authoritative basis on which to construct Psychedelic Science:
“Alternative [to the mysticism lexicon,] terms such as “ peak experience” and “ oceanic boundlessness” exist in the literature, but in each case, the theory and measurement of constructs remain closely linked to Stace’ s mystical consciousness.”
Glad to see Stace specifically named as the soggy sand foundation of this mess.
“Stace’s choices in research methods and sources reflect an assumption that the states he studied are infrequent, transient, and difficult to observe.”
Sanders and Zijlmans point out like I’ve done: it is so ironic that Wouter Hanegraaff acts like the mystic state is an alien, inaccessible thing, when there are psychedelic truffles right across the street in the smartshop, an incredible wealth of the cognitive loosener readily on tap:
“Contemporary researchers should not feel as limited:
“psychedelics can be administered in experimental settings, and participant experiences can be probed with methods that do not assume a mystical framework of explanation from the outset.”
“states that are currently labeled as ‘mystical’.”
“Psychedelic science has not made a concerted effort to supersede Stace’ s mystical consciousness concept with an alternative rooted in empirical data and an unambiguously secular framework.”
DONE: See the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism; the Egodeath theory.
How to read their word ‘secular’ as opposed to ‘mystical’: here, the word ‘secular‘ is firmly based in the advanced intense Psilocybin state.
The word ‘secular’, in sharp contrast against ‘mystical’, means commitment to clear, explicit, directly expressed, STEM-type explanatory models.
“It is concerning whenever mysticism is taken for granted in psychedelic science circles: our choice of frameworks and measures serves to reify concepts such as mystical consciousness without sufficient justification, which opens the door for unscientific assumptions and associations.
“By demystifying scientific understanding of the psychedelic state, scientists can increase the scientific credibility of the frameworks used in their research and fill gaps in our understanding of latent psychological phenomena that could previously only be [pseudo-] filled in mystical ways.”
Bravo!
The Mysticism framework substitutes for (and shuts out) useful comprehensibility, which had been delivered by the STEM-driven Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism.
Note that “increasing the credibility” sounds like Letcher Hatsis calling to “Save the reputation of entheogen scholarship by deleting mushrooms (picture exclusively 🍄) and the Secret Amanita Cult 🤫🍄 theory.”
quotes from p. 3 are in a section below
Advaita Vedanta the Weak Engine of Integral Theory
I was a little shocked to eventually realize Ken Wilber is pushing glorified Advaita Vendanta non-drug meditation.
Non-drug meditation is the best way to avoid ever posing any threat to egoic delusion.
Non-drug meditation guarantees the mind is never loosened and turned, to transform the mind from possibilism to eternalism.
Meditation keeps the mind from transforming from child form to adult form.
Meditation is a product of drug prohibition and freewill fog, to substitute for and avoid Psilocybin, which would cause meditation to work correctly.
Authentic meditation is Psilocybin meditation. Meditation came from Psilocybin.
David Nichols is a top chemist, collaborator with Shulgin.
Nichols debated a meditation huckster. Nichols asserted:
Psilocybin produced Meditation.
Non-drug meditation makes no sense.
It makes no sense the invention of meditation, without coming from psychedelics.
Page 3 Excerpts
Condensed excerpts rewritten by Cybermonk for scholarly commentary & analysis – deliberately making very minor deviations; see the article for exact quotes:
“In fact, there are new understandings in development that have the potential to perform this function, informed by diverse modern methodologies.”
“Psychological phenomena previously [pseudo-] explained as mystical might come to be understood in terms that are not encumbered by theological, supernatural, or fantastical baggage.”
“This leads us to an optimistic note:
“With a clear and accessible model of why psychedelic therapies are showing such promising results, we can use psychedelic research to its greatest benefit.
“Theories must describe in clear terms the relationship between the data we collect and the psychobiological concepts we employ.”
“These states of consciousness need no longer be treated as an elusive black box.
“We must utilize the tools and opportunities available to reconceptualize this aspect of the psychedelic state, so that science and society alike can benefit from new ways to understand and experience what was once considered unfathomable.”
/ end of Conclusion of article Moving Past Mysticism
Strawmanning the Sanders Article: Sanders Says We Should Eliminate Subjective Experiencing. <– CITATION NEEDED!
Reconciling Mystical Experiences with Naturalistic Psychedelic Science: Reply to Sanders and Zijlmans https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsptsci.1c00137 Jussi Jylkkä (2021) June 8, 2021 Published by American Chemical Society
Some authors aren’t replying to Sanders’ article, but rather, to a certain general philosophical vision or school or mentality. They conflate the Sanders article with the general mentality.
Articles ought to distinctly reply to the particular statements asserted by Sanders’ article, and, the general mentality of materialistic science, reductionism, dismissive of altered state.
Jylkka’s first sentence is a false statement, no quote is provided, it’s a misrepresentation, false attribution of position:
“Sanders and Zijlmans ignore the subjective aspect of psychedelic experiences. Mystical experiences are felt as real and can yield personally meaningful insights.”
Sanders never denied that. Strawman much?
Quote/citation needed!
Strawman, WATCH THE TRICKY WORDING HERE:
“In a recent Viewpoint article, Sanders and Zijlmans call for the demystification of the psychedelic experience.”
YOU wrote: “demystification of the psychedelic experience” – that’s YOUR words, that’s a misrepresentation through trying to sneak words past the reader.
Jylkkä should honor Sanders’ ACTUAL wording.
Let’s see some quotes! Jylkkä can’t, because then their fake & phony “argument” collapses.
Why should I even read this article, that’s all driven by misrepresentation?
Please reply to the article, not your fantasy projection onto it.
Jylkkä wrote “demystification of the psychedelic experience”. Show me that combination of words in Sanders – Jylkkä can’t; it’s not there.
But what did Sanders IN FACT write that seems similar but is very different?
Let’s see some quotes, Jylkkä can’t back up their B.S. false claims and misrepresentation through cheap wording trickery.
Writers are strawmanning Sanders, freely misrepresenting this article — they appear to have not have not read the article – as if they imagined what the article says but haven’t read it, and are not actually responding to Sanders’ article, but to some other article.
Did they even read this article? no indication of that.
The particular article(s) reflect a broader difference and tension about doing psychedelic within “the secular” vs. “the mystical” paradigm. In a response statement in LucidNews Don Lattin’s article Sanders writes:
Again I see high-quality, quotable writing from Sanders & Zijlmans, and poor-quality writing and tons of strawmanning from other writers.
Lattin wrote:
“Zijlmans, a post-doc researcher who runs a course on the neuroscience, history and therapeutic potential of psychedelics, said in an interview [w/ Lattin?] that critics have misinterpreted their paper.”
[topic: the framework/ theories/ lexicon that Psychedelic Scientists use:]
“We are not only trying to explain things biologically,” he said.
[topic: the experiences people have:]
“These are extraordinary, weird experiences that are very meaningful and powerful to people.”
[topic: the framework/ theories/ lexicon that Psychedelic Scientists use:]
I just want to explain them accurately and scientifically, rather than vaguely. ‘Weird’ and ‘mystical’ don’t capture it.”
I noticed in the pseudo-response articles: VAGUENESS and strawmanning, so was glad to see this final note where Zijlmans says the need is to move past vagueness of explanatory framework.
“For example, he [Zijlmans] prefers to attribute the experience of a high-dose trip to “ego dissolution” rather than some “mystical” connection to Ultimate Reality or the collective unconscious.”
[diss’ing Jungianism, the popular heavy-handed overlay]
The other articles just project a poor, weak position onto this article, but the authors of Sanders article write well and articulate their points well.
The other writers never quote this article but just make claims that this article is against mystical experience.
Response articles never address this article’s position in terms that this article puts forth:
Sanders is against scientists applying (and being limited to) Stace’s mysticism framework and lexicon.
Sanders makes this point very prominently and clearly and emphatically.
Bad writers ignore Sanders’ clearly stated point and position (did they even read the article? I see no indication), and they just strawman some other point and position that this author doesn’t assert.
The other articles ought to quote this article, but then they’d be forced to do the hard work of writing a real reply to this article’s actual position.
LucidNews.org provided a little more balanced, lucid news about this article. Don Lattin:
“In his recent paper, Matt Johnson has no problems with patients bringing their own religious icons or ideas into psychedelic sessions.
“But he advises against guides and therapists bringing theirspiritual preconceptions and religious paraphernalia into session rooms.”
Johnson’s advice matches
Sanders’ advice in May issue matches Johnson’s advice in April. One issue had Matthew “Lose the Buddha statue” Johnson’s article, next issue had Sanders’ article saying the same kinds of points. People all came to the defensense of mystical experience, — total straw man! Sandkers emphasizes pointedly up front, the message is don’t use the Stace “mysticism” framework and lexicon, to do science.
This clash of views about “mysticism” framework/ approach in psychedelic psychometrics science / psychedelic assisted therapy is similar to disparaging the religionism approach/ methodology style, in the field of academic history of esotericism.
Since I finally got a clear view of the two opposed, radical empiricism” vs. “religionism” perspectives, I can better understand Sanders’ critique and distinctions between approach vs. the experiences studied by the approach.
Bad writers conflate Sanders’ critique of a science approach that uses the mysticism framework and lexicon as if Sanders had instead critiqued the mystical experiencing which science is studying.
Pros and Cons of Sanders’ Article
Pros: Many Right-on Quotable Statements
The article contains many excellent passages I agree with — well worded, and that I’d like to quote here – so many, it’s hard to know where to start. A breath of fresh air!
“The purported “sacredness”, “ineffability”, and “noetic quality” of these states may take on characteristics congruent with scientific understanding if an accessible scientific explanation exists, and if questionnaires reflecting this explanation are administered.” – Sanders p. 1254 at end.
An accessible scientific explanation was exactly what I demanded, explaining the nature and summary-explanation of “ego transcendence” in October 1985 through December 1987.
My father in 1985 gave me Ken Wilber & Alan Watts books as the least-inept books on ego transcendence available.
It was then perfectly clear that the mysticism bozos, busy reveling in “words can’t“, were never in a million years going to deliver a sensible, coherent, useful explanatory framework and lexicon like is standard in STEM.
It was all too clear in 1986 that it fell on me — the Engineering student — to articulate comprehensibly and usefully the summary of the real nature of ego transcendence:
loosen cognition, experience block-universe and worldlines, transform from egoic possibilism-thinking mental worldmodel to the eternalism-thinking mental worldmodel.
And then write an article explaining the actual nature of ego transcendence to the field and Journal of Transpersonal Psychology.
Sanders & Zijlmans use the term “the psychedelic state” in place of the term “the mystical state” or “the mystic state”
hit count:
“mystical experience” – 14 hits
“psychedelic experience” – 11 hits
“psychedelic state” – 6 hits
“mystical state” – 0 hits
“mystic state” – 0 hits
“mystic-type state” – 0 hits
“mystic experience” – 0 hits
Cons: Cognitive Neuro-Reductionism
All of the strawman pseudo-replies to Sanders criticize and condemn neuro-reductionism, and I agree with that. I need to develop this idea to the extreme completion:
I AM A DEDICATED DEFENDER OF A PURELY COGNITIVE PHENOMENOLOGY APPROACH WITH NO COMPROMISE WITH NEURO-REDUCTIONISM aka “materialist naturalism”.
What is “naturalistic Science”?
Is the Egodeath theory a “naturalistic” theory? define “naturalism” in Science. Her’s a definition, this is so not my vocabulary, this notion of “causes”:
naturalism – “the philosophical belief that: Everything arises from natural properties and causes. Supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. – Oxford Languages
Naturalism Defined
Everything arises from natural properties and causes.
Supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
It’s a given that those concepts will be mapped by habit, to ordinary state & altered state.
In this biased context of Late Modernity,
“Everything arises from natural properties and causes” will be misread as:
Science as a mode of explanation should be restricted to the ordinary state.
“Supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted” will be misread as:
The altered state should not be drawn from as a source of explanation.
So you end up with awful theories like the entire horrible field of CSR, “the Cognitive Science of Religion”, which is ordinary state Cog Sci explaining away ordinary state “religion” or what passes for “religion”.
Reductionistic Cog Sci then delivers what passes for a “Science” explanation of what passes for “Religion”. In such a mileaux, we’re given:
Bunk reductionist Science
Bunk reductionist supernaturalist Religion is supernaturalist and yet reductionist at the same time.
Generalized ‘Reductionism’: any time you mis-analyze or mis-model any domain (regardless of ‘level’) as if it were a different domain than it really is; = category error
We need a concept that’s a hybrid of “reductionism” and “category error” that gets rid of restricting the concexpt of ‘reductionism’ to only mean “modelling a higher level domain as if it were instead a different, lower-level domain”.
The concept of “any two domains have a religion of higher vs lower” is wrong and limiting.
Get rid of the concept of “higher vs lower” in the word “reduce”; make “reduce” mean generally “omit because category error”.
Actually, to be reductionistic is to omit & misrepresent the real nature of a domain, because of making a category error.
‘Reductionism’ is best defined as generalized category error.
The real, actual essence of reductionism, the problem that the concept ‘reductionism’ actually addresses, is not really about “wrong level” or “too low level”.
The error & fallacy of ‘reductionism’ is actually, any time you mis-analyze or mis-model on domain as if it were a different domain than it really is.
Supernaturalism (& parapsychology) is a category error that’s proffered as an alternative to reductionist (pseudo-) Science.
Junk Science is no better than Junk Religion, which are no better than Junk Esotericism (the phony “3rd option”).
The problem with the word ‘naturalism’ is that like all our concepts, it is already compromised and participating in a false network/matrix of biased, stunted, reductionist, bad values; ‘naturalism’ connotes restricting science to the ordinary state of consciousness.
All of our language, terminology, and assumption-set, and paradigm, all favors restricting ourselves to the ordinary state of consciousness. Therefore (Tart is trying to change this):
‘rational’ means ordinary state
‘naturalism’ means ordinary state (and materialism)
‘scientific’ means ordinary state (and materialism)
Every word in the dictionary in the Modern period connotes and assumes ordinary state (and materialism).
Any phrase or term other than intens intense mystic altered state is ASSUMED to be based in valuing and advocating for ordinary state —
‘science’, ‘reason’, ‘logos’, ‘rationality’, ‘naturalism’, ‘sanity’, “good judgment”, are all in biased fashion grounded in and limited to the ordinary state.
“We should be scientific” is taken to mean “We should be limited to the ordinary state.”
“We should use Reason” is taken to mean “We should be limited to the ordinary state.”
“We should use naturalism” is taken to mean “We should be limited to the ordinary state.” Including our explanatory framework should be grounded in, which is taken to mean restricted to, the ordinary state.
I disagreed with all of Charles Tart’s wording.
Tart’s call for “multi-state science” is all mis-articulated, misspoken. Scrap Tart’s writings and use streamlined expression instead:
Fake Science is restricted to the ordinary state. Authentic Science is fully engaged with the altered state.
Proper Science (Loose Cog Sci) is fully engaged with switching between the ordinary state & altered state.
Todo: Good Quotes from the Reply Articles
Cognitive Neuro-Reductionism in Sanders’ Article, Which Everyone Rightly Rejects
We should not psychologize(?) MEs.
We should reject Sanders’ element of neuro-reductionism, also people push back against the general Sanders-type view and they warn “We should not psychologize clients’ M.E.’s” (mystical experiences).
5 hits on “neuro”. I’m against “neurofoo” and loathe and resent Cognitive Neuro-Reductionism.
All 5 hits on ‘neuro’ in the article body:
“Neuroimaging can help elucidate biopsychological mechanisms and contextualize qualitative results.” – Sanders & Zijlmans 2021, p. 2
“Demystified psychedelic research has the potential to enlighten subjective experiences of the psychedelic state.
“Cognitive neuroscience concepts have been adopted by laypeople to explain, interpret, and predict experiences and behaviors in new ways.
“Using the example of addiction, researchers have highlighted the potential benefits of neuroscience influencing common understanding:
“knowing the role of neurophysiology in their experience of substance abuse disorder, addicts can gain informative and lucid new ways to characterize and contextualize their feelings and behaviors, gaining a more realistic concept of personal agency regarding their treatment.
“We assert that cognitive neuroscience can do the same for the psychedelic state” – Sanders & Zijlmans 2021, p. 2
Cons: Eager to Strike a Psychedelics-Diminishing Pose
“Then, the benefits of psychedelic science might extend from providing therapies for those already afflicted to developing preventative measures that need not even require the use of psychedelic drugs.” – Sanders, Moving Past Mysticism p. 1255, just above the Conclusion.
Sanders, why are you, a Psychedelic Scientist, advocating for not requiring psychedelics?
What Prohibitionist-compliant system of values and attitudes are you selling?
Like the Meditation hucksters argue, “Soon, you’ll be able to get rid of Psychedelics — fake, simulated, pseudo-meditation — and graduate to the real thing: authentic, bona fide, traditional non-drug meditation.” Which is all lies and falsehoods, since actually, AUTHENTIC MEDITATION IS NONE OTHER THAN PSILOCYBIN MEDTIATION.
It’s ok to meditate without psychedelics, but it is unacceptable (per the Egodeath theory / the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism, especially the entheogen Mytheme theory, the “eternalism” theory of mental transformation ) to tell & parrot the compromised, compromising, false narrative that “meditation didn’t come from Psilocybin” and “the authentic reference standard for Meditation is non-drug meditation.”
I’m supposed to overlook and wink at this affectation of disrespect for psychedelics – but it is a major red flag, actually; you can’t just slip-in, “psychedelics suck and are fake and inferior”, “With success, Psychedelic Science will soon be able to get rid of psychedelics!” – WE SAW THAT, we very much noticed.
Sanders, here’s your “developing preventative measures that need not even require the use of psychedelic drugs” – Nixon’s drug schedules; the Prohibition of Psilocybin, putting people in cages for using Psilocybin.
Sanders tries to appease and sell and market and appeal to anti-psychedelics mentality, by promising as if a good thing, “hopefully we can get rid of Psychedelics!”
Who are you trying to appeal to, Prohibitionists?
Whose vote are you trying to win, like a politician trying to make self-contradictory promises to two opposed camps?
Cons: Eager to Get Rid of Psychedelics; Insincerely Strategically Striking a Pose and Fake Affectation of a Stance of Diminishing Psychedelics
On Affectation, On Striking a Pose of Compromise and Moderateness by Diminishing and Lowering Psilocybin and elevating to the skies “he traditional non-drug methods of the mystics”
Striking a stance of diminishing psychedelics isn’t a repeated, constant theme that runs throughout the Sanders article.
But this strategic anti-psychedelics attitude that they let slip or that they PUT ON SHOW, the fact that Sanders tried to use the strategy like Hanegraaff of “Try to look like you are anti-psychedelics”, like Griffiths trying to cop a stance, an affectation, like Brown, trying to bargain with haters – I’m working out how to explain it, I have to make voice recordings to talk it through.
You try to compromise, you try to appease, you try to market & position yourself & strike a POSE, an affected STANCE, it is insincere. “Look at me, I’m not a psychedelics enthusiast, I’m not an Ardent Advocate, I’m not an extremist, watch me disparage and disrespect and put down psychedelics, look at what a middling, neutral, middle of the road, look how compromised and compromising I am, look at my elevate and glorify non-drug ways that “can” “could” “might” and “may” produce the exact same effects as a 10-strip (repeated ten weeks), same as two bowls of Cubensis 3 hours apart, repeated 10 weeks.”
“Then, the benefits of psychedelic science might extend from providing therapies for those already afflicted to developing preventative measures that need not even require the use of psychedelic drugs.” – p. 1255, just above the Conclusion.
Also, authentic non-drug meditation could produce the exact same effect as ten sessions of two bowls of Cubensis redosed, producing a complete mystic-state transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Also, the traditional non-drug methods of the mystics can produce the exact same effect as ten sessions of two bowls of Cubensis redosed, producing a complete mystic-state transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Also, Groffian birth-memory abreactive psychotherapy may produce the exact same effect as ten sessions of two bowls of Cubensis redosed, producing a complete mystic-state transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Article: Reconciling Mystical Experiences with Naturalistic Psychedelic Science: Reply to Sanders and Zijlmans (Jylkkä, June 2021)
Reconciling Mystical Experiences with Naturalistic Psychedelic Science: Reply to Sanders and Zijlmans https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsptsci.1c00137 Jussi Jylkkä (2021) June 8, 2021 Published by American Chemical Society
Article: Working with Weirdness: A Response to “Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science” (Breeksema & van Elk, July 2021)
Clearly this is another misrepresentation of Sanders, relying on conflating “mysticism” as an explanatory framework with the experiencing that’s called “mystical experiencing”.
Sanders is not saying anything against Science studying the experiencing that’s called “mystical experiencing”.
Sanders is saying to use Science, not Stace’s “mysticism” framework and lexicon, as the basis to explain and study the experiencing that’s called “mystical experiencing”.
p. 3, Breeksema & van Elk writes:
first of all, realize that Breeksema & van Elk is one of those repliers who TAKES IT AS GRANTED that what we Psychedelic Scientists are attempting to study, and are striving to study, is mystical experiences.
Sanders disagrees on that fundamental assumption; we are striving to study psychedelic effects, not mystical experiences.
Per Sanders, our specified project is the study of psychedelic effects, the psychedelic state, not the study of mystical experiences; not the mystic state.
If the psychedelic state includes mystical experiences / the mystic state, fine, BUT DON’T JUST ASSUME THAT RIGHT OUT THE GATE.
Elk wrote (tilting at windmills, acting like Sanders is against this):
“However, rather than “actively superseding” the concept of MEs, a category of extraordinary human experience, we argue that this should spur psychedelic researchers to investigate all other possible relevant angles and pathways of studying MEs, using the full methodological toolkit available to science, of which neuroscience techniques are but one possible approach.
“Getting rid of MEs [strawman!] because they are difficult to research, lack plausible neurocognitive [Cognitive Neuroreductionism] explanations or because of problematic colloquial associations would be throwing away the baby with the bathwater.
“And although science may not currently have all the tools to explain or study these weird experiences, they are still “real” and meaningful to many.”
The battle between Science vs. Mysticism/Vagueness
Regarding ‘weird’ and ‘mystical’, Sanders retorted in an interview with Don Lattin of Lucid.news Sep. 9, 2021, “‘weird’ is too vague”.
Exact quote: Zijlmans told Lattin:
“We are not only trying to explain things biologically.” [emphasis in the original]
“These are extraordinary, weird experiences that are very meaningful and powerful to people.” [emphasis in the original]
“I just want to explain them accurately and scientifically, rather than vaguely.”
“‘Weird’ and ‘mystical’ don’t capture it.”
Naturally, everyone whose strategy is to strawman (misrepresent) Sanders, uses the phrase “straw man” against Sanders or against the mentality which Sanders is supposed to represent.
They even presume to lecture Sanders about the distinction between explanation vs. explanandum.
I am very glad to see that word ‘vague’ used by Sanders, because I have been making “vague” my #1 emphasis during marking up my hardcopies.
In 1986, I rejected the “mysticism” framework because it is vague and unhelpful and inarticulate, and it positively revels in vagueness.
Griffiths LOVES his “ineffable” category so much, that you’ll flunk his Complete [Newbie] Mystical Experience test if you fail to give him (Team Vagueness) the correct doctrinal answer, “my experience was ineffable”.
If you fail to give vague mystical wording to Griffiths, he fails you – you weren’t vague, therefore you weren’t mystical.
YOU WEREN’T SUFFICIENTLY VAGUE, THEREFORE, YOU FAILED TO HAVE A COMPLETE MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE.
Are we to erect our Science of Psychedelics on a “basis” which is chosen and selected and preferred because of its vagueness?
In the boxing ring: In one corner, is James/ Stace/ Pahnke/ Richards/ Griffiths, and the replies to Sanders: Team Vagueness.
In the other corner, is Cybermonk, Sanders: Team Science, Team Clarity.
Selected for: that’s the “selection bias” that Griffiths has been accused of by Charles Stang etc.
STEM vs. Mysticism, as Modes of Explanatory Models
Egodeath theory (Science specificity & articulateness) vs. Vagueness
I watched a spirituality interview of Sarah Elkhaldy today: it was vague. It wasn’t wrong; it was vague.
I let my expectations get a little too high for the book The Illusion of Will, Self, and Time: William James’ Reluctant Guide to Enlightenment (Bricklin 2016). Nothing in Bricklin’s book is wrong; the book’s just not as clear on the key points as it needs to be.
The mysticism interview didn’t fail a test of truth; it failed a test of comprehensibility, specificity, usefulness, efficiency, clarity, coherence of principles.
Video title: Sarah Elkhaldy | Alchemy, Freewill, Timelines, Dimensions | Ep. 177 Details below the video. “Danica Patrick” channel, 192K subscribers. Series: Pretty Intense Podcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pivu5LVFJnk
Sanders IN FACT says we should supersede the following:
the mysticism framework
theories that are associated with the mysticism framework
terminology that’s associated with the mysticism framework
Exact quotes from Sanders are below, to back up my assertion, against Elk’s fabricating of phrasings to falsely attribute to Sanders.
Why does no one ever quote Sanders, in these “reply” articles?
Elk gives an incomplete quote of Sanders, pretending to quote Sanders: “actively superseding” (followed by strawman false attribution of a position to Sanders).
Why didn’t Breeksema & van Elk quote a full phrasing from Sanders?
Because Breeksema & van Elk’s article is a project of misrepresenting Sanders’ stated position.
What did Sanders actually write, when using the term ‘supersede’? There are 2 hits on ‘supersede’ in Sanders’ article:
“However, in light of the encroachment of supernatural and nonempirical beliefs on psychedelic science, we identify shortcomings of this link between mysticism and psychedelic research, and we contend that the mysticism framework, along with its associated theories and terminology, should be actively superseded.” – Sanders, Moving Past Mysticism, p. 1 of PDF.
Sanders wrote 5 hits on ‘terminology’, including:
“the terminology and conceptualization scientists use in their research should not imply that a psychedelic experience holds a special status of inaccessibility beyond other kinds of experience.”
Sanders’ hit 2 of 2 on “supersed”:
“Perhaps we state the obvious by listing these avenues of research, but we contend that psychedelic science has not made a concerted effort to supersede Stace’s mystical consciousness concept with an alternative rooted in empirical data and an unambiguously secular framework.”
The strawmanners claim that Sanders says we should get rid of: mystical experiences.
In fact, Sanders says here to get rid of, specifically: “Stace’s mystical consciousness concept“.
Sanders’ ACTUAL request is to:
Move from a mysticism framework to a secular framework, as the basis and as a set of concepts and terminology, in order to scientifically study psychedelic experiencing, which includes what’s been called ‘mystical experiences‘.
Move from assuming (thinking of ourselves as striving to) that we’re studying mystical experiences using a mysticism framework to assuming that we’re studying psychedelic experiencing (which may to some extent include experiences that some have called ‘mystical’).
Move from thinking of ourselves as striving to study mystical experiences using a mysticism framework, to assuming that we’re studying psychedelic experiencing (which may to some extent include experiences that some have called ‘mystical’) by using a secular framework.
hits on ‘secular’ in Sanders’ article: 2 hits. one is in a ‘supersede’ quote, the other is in the Conclusion section.
Which sections contain ‘supersede’? p1 & 2, not Conclusion.
Sanders wrote in the Conclusion:
“Prospective frameworks should be unambiguously secular, and alternative questionnaires need to be explored or developed so as to not only predict outcomes, but indeed measure the experience of interest.
“Accordingly, theories must describe in clear terms the relationship between the data we collect and the psychobiological [should read ‘cognitive phenomenological’] concepts we employ.”
Instead of writing “the psychobiological concepts we employ”, Sanders should have written “the cognitive phenomenology concepts we employ”.
I do not mean Cognitive Neuroscience, because of the way Cognitive Neuroscience is used wrongly and falsely to shut out a bona fide Cognitive Phenomenology approach.
Science must have Cognitive Neuroscience, BUT, not (any longer) at the expense of Cognitive Phenomenology.
Entheogen scholarship should include some coverage of Amanita and the ergot Kykeon hypothesis, but not (any longer) at the expense of:
Psilocybin sacred meals in non-eleusis mystery religions’ initiation.
Cognitive Neuroscience is ALWAYS used (has always been used) to eliminate a Cognitive Phenomenology approach, just like non-drug Meditation (as a doctrine, cultural values worldview, & practice) is ALWAYS misused (has always been misused and lied about) to eliminate and minimize Psilocybin.
Dominant Discourses
See Sanders vs. Replies as a battle between two discourses. WAYS of talking talking about meditation, mystic-state experiences, “therapy”, “healing”. Go to a shamanic culture and ask “Do you have mystical experiencing”, they say “No”.
The phrases ‘common core’ theory and ‘perennialism’
The James/ Stace/ Pahnke/ Williams/ Griffiths school claims Core Concept mysticism per perennial philosophy – find ‘perennial’ in:
Reply 1: Jylkka (American Chemical Society) – 0 hits on ‘perennial’
Reply 2: Breeksema & van Elk (American Chemical Society) – 1 hit on ‘perennial’
Reply 3: Lattin (Lucid.news) – _ hits on ‘perennial’
Reply 4: Kilham (Lucid.news) – _ hits on ‘perennial’
noetic (imparting important knowledge or insight), are
transient (they are experienced directly and subjectively), and are
characterized by ineffability (James compared it to describing the experience of love or music to someone who has experienced neither).” [given psychedelics on tap, that constraint fails to match our actual scenario, per Wilber’s Eye to Eye essay]
“In the 1950s and 1960s, researchers discussed whether MEs [mystical experiences] shared a common core or whether they are ultimately shaped by one’s cultural and religious background (for a review of this debate, see ref 5).
“Proponents of the common core theory, or perennialism, built on James’s key elements of MEs and identified additional characteristics:
transcendence of space and time;
feelings of unity and connectedness;
a sense of awe; and
positive emotions of love and peace.
In turn, this view has had a strong impact on theory and scale [psychedelic psychometrics questionnaire] development in the scientific study of mysticism.”
Sanders might write: We are not setting out with our scope of intent being doing scientific study of mysticism; we are striving to do scientific study of psychedelic states and psychedelic effects, which MIGHT include experiences which have been called “mystical”.
Reference 5: 5) Ralph Hood & R. W. J. (2019) The empirical study of mysticism in the book The Psychology of Religion (Spilka, B.[Bernard], and McIntosh, D. [Daniel] N., Eds.), Routledge. This garbled citation combines the editors of the 1st Edition with the date of the 2nd edition if you add 1 to that date. I have found the exact section heading in the 5th edition, so that is the one that this garbled citation is supposed to be pointing to. Amazon says “September 17, 2018”, which is 3.5 months earlier than 2019.
How a High Dose of Psilocybin Producing 39% Freakouts (in Griffiths 2011) Becomes 30% (in Griffiths 2016) for No Reason
Houot’s dissertation pointed out the 39% figure, I had taken great note of the 30% figure from some of the same questionnaire data by same institution, for the same dosage level, same questionnaires.
What did Griffiths have to do with math trickery to make 39% become 30% freakouts?
Is it the same math they used when picking ALL 13 [out of DED/Unpleasant’s 21 effects, ignoring and omitting 8 of 21 = 38% of negative effects] to add to CEQ’s Initial Item Pool:
“The 13 items of the 5DASC that constitute the ICC and ANX sub-scales were retained for the initial item pool for the CEQ” – Griffiths CEQ 2016
The 5D-ASC includes the 21-item 1994 DED Dread category, aka the Unpleasant high-level category of Studerus’ 11 Factors questionnaire – 8 items of which didn’t make the final cut for Studerus’ ANX or ICC low-level categories.
By strategically picking only the 7 ICC & 6 ANX low-level categories’ items, but not picking the entire 21 Unpleasant high-level category’s items, Griffiths magically got rid of 8 of 21 = 38% of negative psychedelic effects when constructing the CEQ’s Initial Item Pool.
Why did Griffiths, who could well have used 5D-ASC’s ‘A’ (Angst/Dread) dimension of 21 items, conflate 11-Factors with 5D-ASC?
Answer: In order to accidentally focus on Studerus’ patchwork new subset factors at a low level (13 negative effects items), instead of focusing on Dittrichs’ 5D-ASC’s innate DED category that’s at a high level (21 negative effects items).
By the time of the final CEQ set of items, Griffiths completely got rid of 10 of those 13 items, keeping only 3 out of 21 negative psychedelic effects.
Magic!
But we professional couch psychotherapist are all relieved that somehow, at the same time, their shiny new Grief category positively thrived, and grew and grew at every opportunity, becoming the biggest category of CEQ, while the Dread of Ego Dissolution (DED) items shrank and shrank at every turn, from 21, down to 13, then down to just 3 negative effects questions to gather data about.
Quote 1: Griffiths 2011: High Dose Produces 39% Freakouts
“Although volunteers were carefully screened and psychologically prepared, and close interpersonal support was provided during sessions, on questionnaires completed at the end of the session, 39% of participants (seven of 18) had extreme ratings of fear, fear of insanity, or feeling trapped at some time during the session.
Quote 2: Griffiths 2016: High Dose Produces 30% Freakouts
“Approximately 30% of participants in each of three highly controlled experimental studies (total sample: 69 participants and 204 sessions – Griffiths et al., 2006, 2011; Johnson et al., 2014) involving a high dose of psilocybin (0.429 mg/kg psilocybin) experienced marked periods of anxiety or fear, while between 17–39% experienced paranoia (Griffiths et al., 2006, 2011).” That passage is from article: The Challenging Experience Questionnaire: Characterization of challenging experiences with psilocybin mushrooms Frederick S Barrett, Matthew P Bradstreet, Jeannie-Marie S Leoutsakos, Matthew W Johnson, Roland R Griffiths 2016 https://www.academia.edu/33760114/The_Challenging_Experience_Questionnaire_Characterization_of_challenging_experiences_with_psilocybin_mushrooms
Break that down: 3 studies 69 participants 204 sessions
Griffiths et al., 2006,
Griffiths et al., 2011;
Johnson et al., 2014
The dosage is same: high dose of psilocybin: 0.429 mg/kg = 30mg/70kg
The institute is same: Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research, at Johns Hopkins University.
To keep Matthew “Lose the Buddha statue” Johnson from spotting and removing the Buddha statue, they hid the Buddha statue in the monitor’s hair.
17–39% experienced paranoia (Griffiths et al., 2006, 2011).
What Math Trickery Did Griffiths Use to Reduce 39% (2011) Down to 30% (2016)?
Tricks with AND and OR give lots of opportunities to put lower or higher percentages in front of the reader.
My sarcastic math: An average of 17-39% on 3 studies experienced either dread and paranoia and panic, or mystic positive effects as well. WTF? useless pseudo-stats. Be specific.
Masters’ Thesis: Toward a Philosophy of Psychedelic Technology: An Exploration of Fear, Otherness, and Control (Houot 2019)
This dissertation points out that (unlike one Griffiths article that reports 30% of their high dose sessions are extreme panic/fear), “nearly 40%” are, per another Griffiths article.
Book: The Psychology Of Religion: Theoretical Approaches/An Empirical Approach
This section is where I figured out a garbled reference in a Breeksema article.
… one of several partial matches: The Psychology Of Religion: Theoretical Approaches 1st edition, By Bernard Spilka, Daniel Mcintosh [names match citation 5] https://www.routledge.com/The-Psychology-Of-Religion/Spilka-Mcintosh/p/book/9780813329475 Copyright year 1997 (not “2019), published November 22, 1996 “Theory in the psychology of religion is in a state of rapid development,” as Cybermonk puts together an early barebones website containing the Egodeath theory; the cybernetic theory of ego transcendence.
From same webpage: “Bernard Spilka is professor of psychology at the University of Denver and the co-editor or co-author of several books including Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach, second edition. Daniel N. McIntosh is assistant professor of psychology at the University of Denver.”
The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach Fifth Edition, Guilford Press [wrong edition if Routledge is right per the citation] by Ralph W. Hood Jr. (Author), Peter C. Hill (Author), Bernard Spilka (Author) Copyright page says 2018, Amazon page says September 17, 2018 (could fit w/ calling the section “2019”) https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Religion-Fifth-Empirical-Approach/dp/1462535984 – This book DOES have a section exactly headed: “The Empirical Study of Mysticism“, in chapter “Mysticism”: p. 360. Also section: Entheogens and Religious Experience Also section: The Need for Theory in the Psychology of Religion The citation differs from this book in 3 ways: publisher, date, editors names.
blurb:
“Keeping up with the rapidly growing research base, the leading graduate-level psychology of religion text is now in a fully updated fifth edition.
“It takes a balanced, empirically driven approach to understanding the role of religion in individual functioning and social behavior.
“Integrating research on:
numerous different faith traditions
the quest for meaning
links between religion and biology
religious thought, belief, and behavior across the lifespan
experiential dimensions of religion and spirituality
the social psychology of religious organizations [= the Meditation Hucksters and their battle to dishonor Psilocybin?]
connections to coping, adjustment, and mental disorder.
“Chapter-opening quotations and topical research boxes enhance the readability of this highly instructive text.
New to This Edition *New topics: cognitive science of religion; religion and violence; and groups that advocate terrrist tactics. *The latest empirical findings, including hundreds of new references. *Expanded discussion of atheism and varieties of nonbelief. *More research on religions outside the Judeo-Christian tradition, particularly Islam. *State-of-the-art research methods, including techniques for assessing neurological states.”
/ end 5th edition blurb. See Also publisher quotes/blurbs/reviews.
Heading
p. 360, start of section “The Empirical Study of Mysticism”: “In 1899, no word had been used more loosely than ‘mysticism’.“
In 1893, the word ‘mystical’ meant “woo” in the broadest sense, like the expression “mystical sh!t” in 2000.
Compare the breadth of the two volumes titled “Contemporary Esotericism”.
In 1839, ‘mystical’ meant like “newage” or “woo” – as broad as possible.
But, their fix, per Vivekananda & Wm James, was bad: narrow the word ‘mystical’ to mean “positive unity experience” per Advaita Vedanta, first, foremost, and exclusively.
Heading
Good section opening. Interesting.
I think it quotes the book I was looking for!
I think maybe it was 1991 book, Bernard McGinn, page 1 footnote “of course, no college student has any way of accessing the mystic state.” Living under a rock, wildly out of touch.
Typical mystic. Trying to confirm the quote, I’m looking at Intro chapter in book The Foundations of Mysticism https://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Mysticism-Origins-Presence-Christian/dp/0824514041/ (2002 printing, cover looks right) – warm, but can’t confirm this is the right book where I believe around 2002 page 1 had a footnote about students having no way to have mystical experience.
p. xiv: “there can be no direct access to experience for the historian.”
What a meaningless point, when the historian has a frosting jar of ergot on tap. I couldn’t confirm this is the right book I remember, by McGinn.
“Its core tenet is that theindividual experiencing self is ultimately pure awareness mistakenly identified with body and the senses, and non-different from Ātman/Brahman, the highest Self or Reality.
“Advaita means “non-secondness“, rendered as “nonduality“.
“This refers to the Oneness of Brahman, the only real Existent, and is often equated with monism.
“Moksha (liberation from ‘suffering’ and rebirth) is attained through
knowledge of Brahman,
recognizing the illusoriness of the phenomenal world and disidentification from body-mind and the notion of ‘doership‘, and
by acquiring knowledge of one’s true identityas Atman/Brahman, self-luminous awareness or Witness-consciousness.”
todo: Move heading “Dominant Discourses” to Idea Development 15 page. Useful concept. Move to the section: Top 10 Self-Defeating, Dead-End Narratives that Must Be Overthrown https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/09/03/idea-development-page-15/#Top-10-Self-Defeating-Narratives Add bunk narratives: “Cognitive Neuro-Reductionism”. “CSR Cognitive Science of Religion”, taken as ordinary state Cog Sci explaining ordinary state Religion.
How to get rid of Cognitive Phenomenology? Push Cognitive Neuroscience.
How to get rid of Psilocybin? Push Meditation.
Definition of ‘Meditation’ in My Writings
By ‘meditation’, unless otherwise specified, I mean a huge wrong arbitrary bunk raft of assumptions.
My Connotations and Definition of the Unadorned Word ‘Meditation’
When I write ‘meditation’ alone, I always mean the prejudiced, biased cultural values-doctrine that non-drug meditation is the source of authority for mystic revelation.
“When I say’ meditation’, usually I mean bunk lying non-drug meditation that tries to steal credit from plants and then disparage the plants and deny that plants are the origin of religion and the inspiration driving religion.”
All Experience Is Ineffable, to those who don’t have the experience that’s being described – Sanders
I never thought I’d see the day someone articulates my point against the “ineffable’ argument/ excuse/ characterization about the intense mystic state:
Sanders & Zijlmans in Moving Past Mysticism wrote that all experience is ineffable, to those who don’t have the experience that’s being described. Fits with essay Eye to Eye by Ken Wilber.
Newbies describing their complete [newbie] mystical experience to other newbies: they all agree “it’s ineffable”. This is all pre- Egodeath-theory ways of talking & thinking.
The Egodeath theory (the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism) replaces all this talk and construct, “mystical experiencing is ineffable”.
As long as all you have is possibilism-thinking (the “possibilism” mental worldmodel), you might say (unscientifically) that the eternalism experiential mode is “ineffable”.
That’s why naive possibilism-thinking calls eternalism-thinking, or the eternalism experiential mode, “ineffable”.
The eternalism experiential mode, truly, cannot be described effectively by the conceptual network that is the “possibilism” mental worldmodel.
The limitation isn’t language, though; the limitation is that your language is limited to naive possibilism-thinking and you lack the mystic-state suited conceptual vocabulary of eternalism-thinking.
Systemic meaning-shifting from the first concept network to the second concept network is described, hazily/roughly, by Alan Watts in Way of Zen.
Article: Researchers Debate the Role of Mysticism in Psychedelic Science (Lattin, Sep. 2021)
“If science states that psychedelics induce mystical experiences that are key to their therapeutic action, this is too easily misinterpreted as research advocating a role for the supernatural or divine,” write James W. Sanders of the University of Amsterdam and Josjan Zijlmans of the Amsterdam University Medical Centers.”
Meanwhile, in the U.S., one of the nation’s leading psychedelic researchers has issued a similar warning about the vague and “sloppy” use of terms like “consciousness.”
“This danger is scientists and clinicians imposing their personal religious and spiritual beliefs on the practice of psychedelic medicine,” Johnson wrote, citing a pervasive “loosely held eclectic collection of various beliefs drawn piecemeal from mystical traditions, Eastern religions, and indigenous cultures, perhaps best described by the term ‘new age.’ ”
“Richards has worked with Matt Johnson at Johns Hopkins, and he was not surprised by his younger colleague’s paper.
“God bless, Matt,” Richards said. “He is a professor in the Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research, and he hates the word ‘consciousness.’ ”
“We’ve always had a statue of Buddha in our treatment room at Johns Hopkins.
“When we run a session, Matt always takes the statue out.
“But that doesn’t stop the spiritual experiences from happening.”
That’s no contradiction of Johnson. Johnson clearly (not confusingly) wrote that the patients – not the guides – need to bring the symbols, if symbols are brought into the treatment room.
Johnson wrote that he’s not against religious symbols in the treatment room – but they must be brought by the client, not by the researcher/guide.
Principled, consistent, explicit eternalism is the scientific basis, not a mythology basis or a Walter Stace-type mysticism basis.
“Mystical experiences frequently precede decreases in human suffering or increased functioning.
“Therapies that include the ingestion of psychoactive substances in supportive environments often lead to improvements that correlate with the magnitude of the mystical experiences generated.
“A close look at these phenomena from a philosophy of science perspective might put empiricists in a quandary.
“Arguments with critics of the import of these mystical experiences, prohibitionists, or others who are apprehensive about psychedelic-assisted treatments, might prove awkward or difficult given the tacit assertion that the mystical genuinely exists.
“The assumption might even dampen theorizing in ways that remain outside of theorists’ awareness.
“The predicament might lack the epistemic humility ideal for good science as well.
“Nevertheless, abandoning the construct of mystical experiences would require ignoring compelling, replicated empirical work.
“We argue that a version of philosophical fictionalism that draws on research in logic and linguistics can help investigators engage in this discourse without implying a belief in the mystical.
“Comparable approaches have proven helpful in mathematics and empiricism more broadly.
“Mystical fictionalism could help theorists view reports of mystical experiences as true even if the mystical fails to be veridical.
“The approach creates an expressive advantage that could assist researchers and theorists eager to refine our understanding of mystical experiences and improve psychedelic-assisted treatments.
“Mystical fictionalism might also inspire novel looks at correlates of mystical experiences that might serve as mediators of their effects, potentially generating models with comparable explanatory power that sidestep the need for a fictionalist approach.”
Article: How to End the Mysticism Wars in Psychedelic Science (Letheby 2024)
Article: The Most Controversial Paper in the History of Psychedelic Research May Never See the Light of Day: Was the Psychedelic Renaissance Led by Science or Faith? (Kitchens, Mar. 2025) [subscribers]
Leading Chemist David Nichols Says Meditation Came from Psychedelics, Argues Against Meditation Huckster
A typical meditation salesman, Carlos, claimed to Nichols that Meditation was discovered first, and later Psilocybin was used as a simulation attempt. That’s exactly backwards, argues Nichols.
We meditation hucksters are conditionally ok with psychedelics only if psychedelics-adding meditators glorify and worship non-drug meditation – not Psilocybin – as “the real thing”, the “original form” — worshipping non-drug meditation as your ultimate authority and point of reference and time commitment and god and savior.
The Meditation Hucksters are ok with psychedelics — as long as you frame Meditation as “the real thing” and Psilocybin the mere tacked-on adjunct incidental nothing, while you BOW DOWN to non-drug meditation.
You know that you’re being B.S.’d when Mr. Meditation Huckster claims that (glorious!) non-drug meditation does the exact same thing as Psilocybin.
The B.S.’ing becomes clear when the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism reveals the full effects of Psilocybin, which Meditation can’t match.
Meditation can (could|might|may) produce the exact same effect as two bowls of cubensis three hours apart, ten times,resulting in BECOMING PERFECTED AND IMMORTAL: undergoing mental worldmodel transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Non-drug meditation could|can|might|may give the exact same effects as two bowls of Cubensis re-dosed, ten sessions.
The Ultimate “Effect” of Psilocybin: achieving mental worldmodel transformation from possibilism to eternalism.
Non-drug Meditation totally does that. 😑 Gives the exact same effect, but actually, Meditation is much better than Psilocybin, because [play back the standard psychedelics-diminishing stock dominant narrative/discourse]
You’re allowed to unnaturally and artificially import alien, inauthentic psychedelics into meditation (which is the authentic way).
Psychedelics can simulate the same effects as the real thing, which is non-drug meditation.
When adding psychedelics to real meditation, psychedelics are a mere abnormal supplement to venerable, glorious non-drug meditation.
Non-drug meditation is the source of all authority.
Psilocybin must be measured against the gold standard authoritative definitive reference of what meditation authentically is: non-drug meditation.
Article: Psychedelic Induced Transpersonal Experiences, Therapies, and Their Implications for Transpersonal Psychology (Roberts, 2013)
This Handbook of Transpersonal Psychology (2013) entry on Psychedelics by Thomas Roberts & Michael Winkelman is a GREAT summary and explanation of how psychedelics historically fit, levels of psychotherapy, Maslow’s tacking-on “Self-Transcendence” in his 1968 2nd Edition Preface of his book totally diss’ing mere Self-Actualization, diminishing it:
“In the Preface to the second edition of Toward a Psychology of Being (1968, pages iii–iv) Maslow reported this new top to his needs hierarchy” – p. 4, adding “Self-Transcendence” above “Self-Actualization”.
Against Psychoanalysis: Groffian Psychedelic Literalistic Memory Processing
“Kent is critical of superstitious aspect of New Age and psychedelia. I agree that taking them as literal truth about reality is wrongheaded.
“Frames Grof, Leary, Huxley, Hofmann as science. For them psychedelic action happens in head, but later New Age superstitious psychedelicists ascribe agency to external objects being things.”
Stan Grof is “Science”? Grof’s paradigm is psychedelics-amplified couch psychoanalysis abreaction memory-accessing & processing of your physical birth trauma.
If remembering your childhood memories to “process” them through “psychoanalysis” is valid and good, then the ultimate and best version is to amplify that approach by using psychedelics to access one’s earliest possible memories: your traumatic memory of your literal physical birth, which is what’s ultimately causing your ordinary-state maladies & altered-state bad trip.
All very scientific. 😑 🧠 🔬 📊 🔶
The Roberts & Winkelman article Psychedelic Induced Transpersonal Experiences, Therapies, and Their Implications for Transpersonal Psychology is extremely clear in specifying the Psychedelic Transpersonal Psychology paradigm, so that I can better contrast the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism as a superior explanatory framework.
The Egodeath theory vs. Meditation, and Against Psychotherapy, and Against Stan Grof “Physical Birth Memory Retrieval for Processing = totally explains what challenging trips are about“
This Roberts & Winkelman article is so great, it summarizes clearly so that I can critique and identify exactly why I reject Grof’s literalistic BPM misused analogy:
“Your bad trip is because you are remembering your physical birth trauma, for us professional couch psychoanalyst Psychologists to “process” your trauma memories”.
If ordinary-state psychotherapy accesses childhood memories to process them, let’s take that to the extreme: add psychedelics, opening up your literal physical birth trauma memories.
Paradigm: Abreaction memory access/processing – that is the paradigm of “Transpersonal Psychology” – not the Benny Shanon type of Cognitive Phenomenology per the Egodeath theory/ the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism.
Ken Wilber is against limiting to Psychology (even the transpersonal brand); Wilber works within Integral Theory, not Transpersonal Psychology.
The Roberts & Winkelman article is about the psychedelic history of About the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology & psychedelics.
“This chapter presents a neurophenomenological model of psychedelic-induced transpersonal experiences, therapeutic processes that they induce, and their implications for transpersonal theory.
“The pharmacological effects of psychedelics also enable them to address a range of psychological and emotional maladies [negative psychology, not positive psychology].
“In addition to indigenous and shamanic approaches, there are four main types of psychedelic sessions:
psycholytic and
psychedelic—which developed from Grof’s work—
entactogenic, and
pharmacological.
“transpersonal psychology could exist without psychedelics, it may be just as safe to say that transpersonal psychology would not exist without psychedelics.
“The chapter concludes with a brief overview of the multidisciplinary implications of psychedelics for the sciences and society.”
/ end winkelman abstract
Caution: Groffian “Science” & “Psychology” here means the Freudian couch psychoanalysis paradigm, amplified by psychedelics — not a pure psychedelics phenomenology basis/origin, like the real Science that’s the Egodeath theory / the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism.
[At “transpersonal … psychology”, don’t read “Cog Sci”; read as: “professional psychotherapy expanding the Freud paradigm supplemented by psychedelics to recover and ‘process’ the earliest memories thereby accessed”]
[abreactive/ abreaction: the expression and consequent release of a previously repressed emotion, achieved through reliving the experience that caused it (typically through hypnosis or suggestion).]
Fadiman abstract condensed by Cybermonk:
“This chapter considers how psychedelic substances affect consciousness, using the lens of a transpersonal approach to psychology.
“Transpersonal psychology‘s point of view is suitable to grapple with this question due to its continuing interest in altered states of consciousness & its long-standing relationship with psychedelic research.
“founders of both the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology and Association of Transpersonal Psychology were involved in psychedelic research prior to the founding of the discipline, and discovered that the emerging field resonated with their own worldviews.
“mainstream psychology distanced itself from this area of study, perhaps in part because so many reports of psychedelic-induced effects include data historically shunned, denied, or pathologized by science [“Science” = couch psychotherapy ‘Psychology’]: out-of-body experiences, spiritual or transcendent states of consciousness, disidentification with one’s personality, and healing.
“recent thaw in mainstream psychology‘s stance toward psychedelic research
“skittishness about taking the data and its implications seriously.”
/ end Fadiman abstract
Against Mysticism as a Basis for Explanation of Mystical Experiencing
OVERCONFIDENT VENERATION AND OVERSELLING OF STACE’S “MYSTICISM” LEXICON AND EXPLANATORY FRAMEWORK
Science as the basis from which to explain non-science
Sanders is NOT against the experiencing which is called mystic; they’re specifically against the “mysticism” framework & lexicon per Walter Stace 1960 as used by Roland Griffiths.
Kilham in Mystical Experience Defines Psychedelics is misrepresenting Sanders’ article Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science.
Sanders isn’t against mystical experiencing, or science explaining mystical experiencing.
Sanders is against making the interpretive framework and lexicon called “mysticism” the basis on which to explain mystical experiencing.
Kilham is a meditation huckster, not trustworthy; claims that meditation gives the exact same effect as Psilocybin, and then states that Psilocybin is more potent and reliable than meditation.
Jordan Peterson (in his YouTube channel interview) called out Griffiths for that exact self-contradiction.
Wouter Hanegraaff isn’t against religionism (the religious practice of Esotericism).
Hanegraaff is against misusing religionism as if it can serve as a basis for academic historiography.
The two distinct legs model of the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism
To scientifically explain religious mythology, don’t make myth my basis; make the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism my basis.
The two distinct legs model of the Egodeath theory:
In February 1997, I published the Core theory outline spec, which is the scientific foundation that explains myth.
In October 2002, I announced the Radical Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion.
In 2006, I published my main article, about mytheme decoding in terms of the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence — including loose cognitive binding, mental model transformation, mental world models, and (new) how myth is metaphor describing those referents by analogy.
In 2013, 2015, 2020, 2022, I extended decoding of myth using my science basis.
When I say “Science”, I largely mean “STEM” as a mentality and approach to figuring stuff out and explaining it (communicating about it, expressing as an explanatory model).
The Egodeath theory Provides the Useful, Relevant STEM-type explanatory model of ego transcendence that I needed in 1985-1987
I personally needed and required a STEM-type explanatory model of ego transcendence, and the mystics failed to deliver that.
the mystics = the “mysticism” framework & lexicon per Walter Stace 1960, which psychedelic psychometrics claims as its “scientific” foundation
So, I myself stepped up, and started from the least-poor presentation available, Alan Watts’ book The Way of Zen, augmented by Ken Wilber’s books to date (1985-1988) and a tiny handful of 5-25 books, including Modern Physics textbook re: block universe, and created the successful STEM-type explanatory model of ego transcendence in January 1988.
The Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism =
the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence
the Egodeath theory
the maximal entheogen theory of religion
the Core Cybernetic theory & the Entheogen Mytheme theory
Your interpretation of your experience is incorrect
Experience vs. interpretation. My interpretation of your experience is correct. Your interpretation of your experience is incorrect. You experienced the eternalism experiential mode, but you interpreted that experience throufgh the lens of framework of possibilism-thinking and ineffabilism mysticism supernaturalism or vague hazy freewill fog or causal-chain determinism.
Immediately before reading this article, I made voice-recording comments (Jan 14 2023).
My contrast between the Egodeath theory vs. the popular predominant view matches the critique in this article.
“two Dutch researchers warn against the emergence of a “risky blend of mysticism and science.””
Eye to Eye (Ken Wilber)
The Eye to Eye essay in the book Eye to Eye is important.
Wilber’s essay, which he affirmed and praised in this Revised book edition, advocates 3 levels of shared empirical observation and I say, in all 3 levels, apply STEM-type rationality, in the loose cognitive state.
Wilber says use all 3:
eye of body
eye of mind (ie reason in ordinary state)
eye of spirit (ie altered state)
Assumes “eye of mind” = ordinary state, and “eye of spirit” = altered state.
Junk Science vs. Junk Mysticism — and Then There’s the Egodeath Theory
Science & Spirituality Battle Between Xer Johnson and Boomer Griffith & Richards
Johnson Declared He’s Not Onboard with Worship of Meditation Religion
A clustr of about 5 articles perfect for me to cover in voice recordings and print them and markup and post about them and link to them.
I just need to copy entire articles then delete and highlight parts and comment. For now here are tiny selected portions.
I Agree with What the Anti-Mystical Psychedelic Scientists (Sanders & Zijlmans) Are Actually Saying!
They and I condemn the Stace “ineffability” premise, and we demand (& The Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism provides) useful, scientifically proper articulate explanation and lexicon.
Egodeath Theory Doubling Down on Psychedelic Eternalism – Commitment to Asserting the Particular Position
The psychedelic loose cognitive association binding experiential mode is the eternalism experiential mode.
Other people double down on psychedelic possibilism, or poorly formed psychedelic eternalism.
The Egodeath theory is well-formed, explicit, pointed, principled psychedelic eternalism.
Dogmatic anti-dogmatists are a walking massive self-contradiction: incoherence is their god, is what they are narrowly pushing.
Psychedelic Eternalism as Specific Psychedelic Science vs. Vague Psychedelic Possibilism Mysticism
Popular psychedelic spirituality is vague and self-contradictory and unhelpful. They sell this as “open, nonjudgmental, and saying everyone is right”.
Judging that nonjudgmental is better than judgmental is the worlds most judgmental and self-contradictory and irresponsible position, a non-position position.
The biggest favor the Egodeath theory can do everyone is to be particular and specific and crystal clear.
The worst crime per the Egodeath theory is to be unclear, to waffle, to be vague.
Prevarication and doubletalk (like Wasson and everyone) is the worst.
If you say “everyone is right”, you’re incoherent, self-contradictory, and unhelpful. It’s you against you.
Everyone asserts hazy possibilism mysticism, or hazy eternalism mysticism. the Egodeath theory isn’t hazy possibilism mysticism.
The Egodeath theory isn’t hazy eternalism mysticism.
The Egodeath theory is specific Psychedelic Eternalism.
The Egodeath theory firmly, specifically, pointedly, and exclusively asserts psychedelic eternalism.
My Previous Discussions About Stepping Up to Scientifically Explain, Not Omit, Mystical Experiencing (“Psychedelic Scientists Mystic Wusses”)
tbd, around Sep 2022, includes Egodeath Mystery Show voice recordings, might not be much text posted here.
I mocked and insulted weakling wimpy so-called psychedelic scientists (they can’t handle mysticism, so they omit it), but I should have read the actual article by Sanders, which actually resonates with many of my points.
wusses – try a Find on that word here at this site.
Might find a description of an episode of podcast Egodeath Mystery Show, either as a page/post dedicated to the episode, or possibly in Idea Development page 14 or 15.
Book: The Illusion of Will, Self, and Time: William James’ Reluctant Guide to Enlightenment (Bricklin 2016)
Bricklin’s book is part of Consciousness Studies, the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, & Journal of Consciousness Studies, and was reviewed in draft by Benny Shanon & Ramesh Balsekar.
Balsekar asserted no-free-will as enlightenment, among the Ken Wilber Integral Theory crowd.
Benny Shanon = Ayahuasca from a Psychedelics Cognitive Phenomenology approach like the Egodeath theory.
Such books by Sam Harris, Balsekar, Shanon, Campbell, and Bricklin don’t bring the ideas together tightly and simply, as the Egodeath theory does.
Keyboard Shortcuts/Acronyms
Naming the Core theory vs. Mytheme theory
After the 1997 Core theory, doc’d at website fully in 1998, mine is not a history-based approach; it’s a mytheme decoding approach (1999+, and the 1988-1998 Rock Lyrics decoding).
1985-1998: Core theory – not History, not Mythemes (except in Rock lyrics, but that’s not formally part of the Core theory).
Best I can figure, 1998 was website buildout and STARTING to investigate religious history to corroborate the Egodeath theory (later differentiated as “Core”).
The “corroboration” would become designated as the Mytheme theory, and the thing corroborated would become the Core theory.
what keyboard shortcuts expand as “the Core theory” and “the Mytheme theory”? aka the Entheogen Mytheme theory. For my personal purposes, it’s effective to say “the Core theory” & “the Mytheme theory”; with:
‘Mytheme’ defined as entheogen scholarship, history, myth, also now incor’g the Rock lyrics decoding back to 1988 including the later part of the Phase 1 Core period.
Phase 1 = 1985-1998.
Rock lyrics decoding period = 1988-1998. Yet assign that not to Core theory, but to Mytheme theory.
Similarly also, 1995 = reading all Richard Smoley’s Gnosis magazine issues (obtained all around 1999).
In 1988 I deliberately started reading “all knowledge”, for the purposes of communicating my completed/closed Core theory, but I didn’t write about “all knowledge” (history of ideas, myth, metaphor) that until 1999+, because I wanted to only express the Theory in terms of current, direct referents. Not History of Ideas, not myth & metaphor.
I didn’t learn about entheogen scholarship until 1999, though I researched “What psychedelic is the scrolls in Revelation?” starting potentially in June 1986.
Myth decoding = 1999+.
‘Core’ defined as “block universe/ loose cognitive association binding/ mental worldmodel transformation, etc).
1999-
the entheogen Mytheme theory temt
[temt] the Entheogen Mytheme theory test: the Entheogen Mytheme theory, the Entheogen Mytheme theory. The core theory as of Jan. 1988 conjoins:
block-universe eternalism & frozen worldlines,
loosecog,
mental model transformation,
the two worldmodels.
See the Principles (section headings ) of my handwritten 1988 Minnesota draft.
My handwritten 1988 Minnesota draft: The Theory of Ego Transcendence.
My handwritten August 1988 Minnesota draft: The Theory of Ego Transcendence, = my 1997 Core theory summary specification, same/ equivalent set of Principles; theory-components & Core Concepts like my Core Concepts page of 2020, vs. my Key Mythemes page of 2020. https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/nav/#flagship-The-Egodeath-Theory
Upper left: laser printer late 1988 revision of same.
Upper right: early 1989 art blank book (for Transcendent Knowledge idea development) with ink pen instead of Pentel P-205 engineers’ mechanical pencil.
the Core theory of Psychedelic Eternalism; defined by my 1997 Principia Cybernetica website outline summary, which lacks entheogen history scholarship and lacks religious mythology decoding to map to the core reference experience.
“Core” as specified by referring to the 1997 outline, means “not entheogen history” and “not myth decoding”.
My 1997 core theory is all based in and limited to being expressed as current 20th C, and it’s all directly articulated.
The Core theory of [within] the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism: “Core” means no history, no analogies (no mythemes-decoding, no Rock lyrics).
The Mytheme theory of [within] the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism, includes (naturally) History; entheogen scholarship; entheogen history scholarship.
The field of entheogen scholarship is inherently by definition, a theory whose explanandum is religious myth.
The purpose of the field of entheogen scholarship is to explain the actual referent of religious mythology.
Incorrectly, entheogen scholarship claims or mis-identifies the referent of myth as “entheogens”.
The song Red Barchetta by Rush — it is CRUDE to say that “the real referent of the song Red Barchetta is ergot”.
That is inadequately precise. It’s a wrong answer, it is vague and crude and insufficient.
More precisely, only this identification of the referent is adequate & sufficient; only this referent-identification meets the requirements for clarity and pointing to the real actual thing:
The song does NOT point to ergot; the song in fact points to ergot EXPERIENCING.
That is a major, significant difference.
You fail to comprehend the song if you identify its referent as “ergot”.
You comprehend the song only if you identifiy and recognize its referent as ergot experiencing.
The real referent of the song Red Barchetta is ergot experiencing.
The actual referent of myth [same as inspired Rock lyrics] is entheogenic experiencing – especially, ultimately, the gradual process of transformation of the mental worldmodel – transformation from possibilism to eternalism. What’s the
The main “effect” of Psilocybin is transformation of the mental worldmodel from possibilism to eternalism.
The Mytheme theory of Psychedelic Eternalism (no need there to say ‘entheogen theory’ b/c already ‘psychedelic’).
I get automatic all-caps variant for free – unless the expansion is mixed case.
Blurb by Ralph W. Hood, Jr., coauthor of The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach:
“A comprehensive exploration of the philosophical issues raised by mysticism.
“This work is a comprehensive study of the philosophical issues raised by mysticism.
“Mystics claim to experience reality in a way not available in normal life, a claim which makes this phenomenon interesting from a philosophical perspective.
“Richard H. Jones’s inquiry focuses on the skeleton of beliefs and values of mysticism: knowledge claims made about the nature of reality and of human beings; value claims about what is significant and what is ethical; and mystical goals and ways of life.
“Jones engages language, epistemology, metaphysics, science, and the philosophy of mind.
“Methodological issues in the study of mysticism are also addressed.
“Examples of mystical experience are drawn chiefly from Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, but also from Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Daoism.
“This is a significant extension of the seminal work by Walter Stace, Mysticism and Philosophy.
“That work has stimulated much literature, all of which Jones manages to review here.
“He criticallyextends Stace’s universal core and embeds it [the ‘common core’ hyp.] in a sophisticated discussion of the extent, range, and metaphysical implications of mysticism.”
unclear / ungramm:
Jones extends Stace’s mysticism common core.
Jones embeds Stace’s mysticism common core in a sophisticated discussion of:
The extent of mysticism.
The range of mysticism.
The metaphysical implications of mysticism.
Article: This Is Your Priest on Drugs (Michael Pollan, May 2025)
This Is Your Priest on Drugs Michael Pollan, May 19, 2025 https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/05/26/this-is-your-priest-on-drugs [subscribers] – If you are able to view entire article, you might want to Save As, Print (try 75% size), or Save As PDF – if you go in again, d/k if you have access to it.
I was able to access the full article and Save and Print it.
Hunt Priest, Ligare psychedelic Christian org.
Hopkins/NYU: Religious Professionals Study of 2015, might be published soon in 2025.
Charles Stang emphasized: Psychedelics give a religious experience, but beware: can be much more challenging than than WHITEWASHED Hopkins marketing.
Psychedelic Science conference in Denver in 2023.
Reverend Joe Welker, a Presbyterian pastor in Vermont complained that the study was part of a strategy to integrate psychedelics into mainstream religion. I say Christianity should re-integrate its psychedelic source of Holy Spirit; do not disparage the Holy Spirit – Michael Hoffman.
The Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board (I.R.B.) is charged with protecting participants in human trials.
Many participants signed an open letter disagreeing with Joe Welker.
I disagree with Welker’s framing – I have different cautions for the Church.
Matthew Johnson objected that Roland Griffiths wanted psychedelic research to influence religious groups, and contacted the I.R.B.
I am not too keen on Welker’s angle – he criticizes people for RE-INTRODUCING Psilocybin into Christianity.
It might SOUND like we’ve been trying to find mushroom evidence in Christianity since 1952.
But, so very late as Jan. 2025, I discovered in Day 1 & 4 of Creation, in Great Canterbury Psalter, perfect-shaped mushrooms, indicated as Liberty Cap, Panaeolus, Cubensis, and Amanita, point at the pans of the {balance scale} that God the Creator holds in Day 1 Let there be Light, with God holding an open book.
Crop and Annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025
I proved that we have not even started to look for mushrooms in Christianity.
Similarly, in ANOTHER image source that entheogen scholars have been covering since 1998, Bernward Doors & Column, in 2025 I found mushroom imagery that Brown was practically touching in his 2016 book photo, that no one else found, because they were too busy ritually re-telling their constructed narrative tale of “big bad Church suppressed into heretical groups”, to preoccupied to open their eyes and see and report the mushroom imagery evidence – hold the narrative overlay, please!
Evidence for what? Suppressed alien infiltration of the kiddie Amanita into the heart of the church? No. Simply, evidence for Psilocybin mushrooms in Christian history.
Hold the heavy-handed obscuring overlap, stop constructing your fabricated barrier wall of “mainstream tradition vs. closed heretical groups”.
FORBIDDEN WORDS for 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm):
tradition
mainstream
underground
sects
cults
communities
groups
suppressed
oppression
secret
hidden
These constructions have NOT helped to find evidence; they have been abused to prevent finding evidence, putting a lower priority on finding evidence and putting top priority on ritual retelling of the narrative overlay,
“The big bad church suppressed kiddie Amanita, isn’t that terrible?!” No, I really DGAF about fkking Amanita, which is not even a psychedelic, and isn’t illegal.
What Allegro-Ruck OUGHT to care about is full repeal of Psilocybin Prohibition, rolling back to the non-existence of laws.
Letcher p. 35-36: Various writers have suggested cult, secretly, oppression, hidden, secret cult, surreptitiously slipped in.
There are add’l examples eg color tauroctony on the cover of Entheos 3 – no mention of the lib cap in Mithras’ right leg.
The 1952-2024 efforts were so negative, so loaded with the Allegro-Ruck anti-Christian demonization, that any effort to find evidence was cancelled out by Ruck’s extreme effort to construct a barrier wall and fakely reframe as “evidence for heretical use of The Mushroom — kiddie Amanita — alien infiltration”.
Ruck contradicts himself because “tail wag dog”:
It is much more important to Ruck to ritually re-tell his narrative of suppression, than to quietly hand over the raw evidence, hold the narrative PLEASE!
Stop re-framing as evidence for alien infiltration of the [infantile] Amanita via heretical sects, given center stage by Ruck.
Andy Letcher in 2006 book Shroom disproved the Allegro-Ruck 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm), by using a single image from 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).
Motivation of this Page
Scope/topics; the field being critiqued:
Critiques of Psychedelic Science with psychometrics questionnaires modelling mystical experience.
Not critiques of entheogen scholarship / history of psychedelics in religion – that’s a separate debate.
It’s surprising how much my criticisms and recommendations / advocacies match or align with those of Sanders & Zijlmans in the article Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science.
What they mean by ‘mysticism’ pejoratively is what I mean by ‘mysticism’ pejoratively.
January 21, 2026 – Popular Neo-Advaita; the positive unitive model of “mystical experience”, is totally dominant, and wrong.
The Unitive model is avoidance of real deal: mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism, that’s what real mystical experience is about; Classic, timeless, Reference point.
The Unitive philosophy is a stunted dead end, emptied of the main content.
Myth doesn’t depict Unitive, it depicts Classic: eternalism-driven control-transformation, to add eternalism-thinking to possibilism-thinking.
/ end of January 21, 2026 note
I have the Egodeath theory; the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism – they don’t.
The Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism answers in a completed, mature way, Sanders’ call for an alternative to making mysticism the foundation,
Wouter Hanegraaff: “don’t make mysticism or religious myth the foundation for scientifically conducted historiography”.
also, minor note, I renamed the Egodeath theory to the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism
Motivation of My Two “Moving Past Mysticism” Pages: To Correct Psychedelic Pseudo Science
Why this topic is relevant, for what field of concern:
I found illegitimate the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), then found illegitimate Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ).
I then said: psychedelic pseudo science.
I traced the fiasco of errors to help whitewash and cover-up the risk, in how the 11-Factors questionnaire was created and documented, and then how the the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) was created and doc’d.
The result was, most notably and significantly, Item 54 “I was afraid to lose my self-control” from OAV 1994 went missing, and wasn’t even included by Dittrich in the APZ from 1975, until 1994.
Crop by Michael Hoffman. From lower left to upper right.
To Switch from “Pleasant, Boundaryless Unity” to “Challenging, Cybernetic Eternalism”
Motivation for this page: To switch from the Weak, Fool’s Gold “Pleasant, Boundaryless Unity” Model to the Classic, Ultimate “Challenging, Cybernetic Eternalism” Model of Climactic Mystical Experience Transformative Apocalyptic Revelation
Two Conflicting Models of Mystical Experience: “Positive Unity” vs. “Challenging Dependent Control”
Historically, there are two competing conceptions of Transcendent Knowledge or mystic knowledge revelation; two conflicting models of mystical experience:
Beginner, positive unity. Suspension of constructing the self/other boundary sensation. Origin: Swami Vivekananda, 1893, for the reductionist/distorting purpose of international political unity. A one-sided, lopsided, “positive-balanced” (as Griff told Stang in Harvard video) model eagerly taken up by Wm James, Walter Stace, Walter Pahnke/ Tim Leary, Wm Richards, Ralph Hood, & Roland Griffiths group.
Advanced, challenging dependent control. Omitted from Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ), by omitting challenging experiences as “unpleasant therefore unmystical”. Omitted from the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) by omitting 18 of 21 negative effects from OAV 1994, to (motivation:) deliver a generic, forced-familiarized “Grief challenges” factor instead of a psychedelic-specific, unfamiliar & mysterious “Control challenges” factor.
Pleasant, Boundaryless Unity; the “Positive Unity” Model of Mystical Experience
False, incomplete model of mystical experience, as basis for “Psychedelic Science”:
Feeble version of “mystical experience”: The quintessential common core of mystical experience is pleasant, boundaryless unity. aka: positive unity.
Weak, beginner, shallow, popular, substitute, dabblers, for avoidance. Focused on by:
Swami Vivekananda’s Advaita Vedanta 1893.
William James 1902.
Walter Stace 1960.
Timothy Leary/ Walter Pahnke 1962 Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ).
William Richards 1975/2015.
Ralph Hood’s Mysticism Scale (M Scale) 1975.
Roland Griffiths 2006.
Challenging, Cybernetic Eternalism; the “Challenging Dependent Control” Model of Mystical Experience
Full-strength version: The quintessential common core of mystical experience is challenging, cybernetic eternalism.
Acid Metal Lyrics: The most revelatory or exclamatory Rock Lyrics. Help; Heaven Can Wait; S.A.T.O., Right the Lightning, No One at the Bridge. Album art treats non-boundary unity like mere perceptual distortion; commonplace, entry-level beginner effect: Thee Hypnotics: Come Down Heavy.
Myth: doesn’t depict non-boundary unity; emphasis is snake not rock, in {snake frozen in rock}. {shadow dragon monster} guarded transformation gate.
The medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}, including {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs.
Astral ascent mysticism re: heimarmene & transcending it. End up above heimarmene and at One/Source/Pege, but central focus is reaching heimarmene and transcending heimarmene, in awesome fear & trembling.
The Egodeath theory.
The Way of Zen by Alan Watts w/ focus on switching to a 2nd model of self-control cybernetics. Summarized in “Zen and the Problem of Control” in This Is It.
Quote from Pankhe: 9 guys had pleasant, boundaryless unity; 1 guy had challenging cybernetic eternalism; threat of catastrophic loss of control.
The Original, Verbose Page with Commentary
I created the present, condensed page, because I need a page that’s:
Clearly titled.
A clear link, to help people follow this debate in psychedelic science.
No lyrics for this song, on the web! I have to transcribe (quick/rough start):
When you’re down on your bended knees And evil hoodoo gonna make you aggrieved Well there ain’t no need to feel uptight, no Just let it come down heavy tonight
When you can’t seem to get it on Every minute gonna last too long If your blues gonna gone aground That’s when you just got to let em calm down
Bias Against ‘Religion’, for ‘Spirituality’ Revealed by Bob Jesse Talk
todo: move this section out eg to idea development page 30
Bob Jesse seems worth watching.
He showed the bias:
pleasant, good words/ideas/ associations = spirituality = stuff i like
unpleasant, bad words/ideas/ associations = religion = stuff i don’t like
Analyzing Scope of this Page
p.m. January 17, 2026
Why is entheogen scholarship out of scope for this page?
Why the heck is entheogen scholarship (history of drugs in religion) deliberatly kept separate as much as possible; denies by presupporitionally denied and ignored, by psychedelic science & hsitory of the positive unitive model of mystical experience?
Never Bring Together Two Topics: History of Drugs in Religion; Drugs vs. History of Mysticism
p.m. January 17, 2026
People who advocate “drugs give mystical experience”, pointedly ignore the topic of history of drugs in religion – WHY?!
People who advocate “psychedelics give mystical experience”, pointedly ignore the topic of history of psychedelics in religion – WHY?!
Every writer on the topic of whether psychedelics give mystical experience, firmly takes it as granted, that drugs did not play a signif role in relig history – WHY?!
Are isn’t the group of ppl who say “psychedelics give same experience mystics had“, the same as the group of ppl who say “psychedelics played a signif role in relig history“.
Why are these advocacies mutually exclusive?!
Which Advocacy Group Are You In? “Psychedelics give same experience as mystics”, or “Psychedelics played a major role in religious history”?
p.m. January 17, 2026
The asymmetrical, unrequited relationship between two seemingly adjacent advocacy topics:
Worded as questions:
“Do psychedelics produce mystical experience?”
“Did psychedelics have a significant role in religious history?”
Worded as assertions:
“Psychedelics produce mystical experience”
“Psychedelics have a significant role in religious history”
(or: “Psychedelics are central in religious history”)
If you want to say “Psychedelics produce mystical experience”, you must say “No psychedelics in religious history”, to avoid being accused of the Allegro combination.
If your mission is to advocate A, you must deny B, or else you’d be accused of the Allegro position.
If your mission is to advocate “Psychedelics produce mystical experience”, you must deny “Psychedelics are central in religious history”, because if you were to also advocate “Psychedelics are central in religious history”, you would be accused of the Allegro position.
It IS PERMISSIBLE in establishment academia, to advocate A. It IS NOT PERMISSIBLE in establishment academia, to advocate B.
Ruck asserts both B and A. Huxley, Pahnke, Richards, Griffiths assert A, but do not assert B.
“Controverted” by academics: A. “Rejected” by academics: B.
“Controverted” by academics: A. “Rejected” by academics: B.
Academics have medium objection to advocacy of A. Academics have strong objection to advocacy of B.
Advocacy Topic A: Psychedelics Produce Mystical Experience
p.m. January 17, 2026
Advocacy Topic B: Psychedelics Had a Major Role in History Academia Allows Advocating A, not B
p.m. January 17, 2026
if you are willing to go against academia, so as to assert B, then you have no problem also asserting A.
If you are unwilling to go against academia, you are allowed to assert A, but not allowed to assert B (even though A & B seem a package deal).
Are you a moerate radical? Assert A. Are you a radical radical? Assert B (and also A). A is moderately controverted by academics. B is extremely controverted (taboo/ignored) by academics.
In this way, Allegro 1970 is extremely influential: Allegro’s “discrediting” means, as a result, academics feel free to assert “Psychedelics give mystical experience”, but are afraid to assert “Psychedelics were major in history.”
A and B SEEM like they would be locked together, package deal – but, academia disallows B more than disallowing A, producing inconsistent asymmetriy of advocacy of positions.
Advocacy Topic B: “Psychedelics had a major role in religious history” “Did psychedelics have a major/significant role in religious history?” [Graves, Wasson, Allegro, Ruck, Heinrich; 2nd Gen: [McKenna], Samorini/ Irvin/ Hoffman/ Brown]
Anyone who asserts B, asserts A.
Anyone who asserts A, asserts ‘B.
Anyone who asserts “Psychedelics played a major role in religious history”, asserts “Psychedelics give same experience as mystics”.
yet:
Anyone who asserts “Psychedelics give same experience as mystics”, asserts “Psychedelics did not play a major role in religious history”.
Anyone who focuses on asserting B, also asserts A.
Yet, anyone who focuses on asserting A, denies & ignores B.
Anyone who focuses on asserting “Psychedelics played a major role in religious history”, also asserts “Psychedelics give same experience as mystics”.
Yet, anyone who focuses on asserting “Psychedelics give same experience as mystics” [Badiner’s Zig Zag Zen], denies & ignores “Psychedelics played a major role in religious history”.
The ppl who primarily advocate “Psychedelics played a major role in religious history”, also advocate “Psychedelics give same experience as mystics”.
Yet, the ppl who primarily advocate “Psychedelics give same experience as mystics”, deny and ignore “Psychedelics played a major role in religious history”. They must deny it – why? For ppl who advocate “Psychedelics give same experience as mystics”, why is it counterproductive for them to also advocate “Psychedelics played a major role in religious history”? Ans: Prohibition: TO DISTANCE ALLEGRO “THERE WERE DRUGS” FROM ALLEGRROS ASSERTION “FERTILITY SEX CULT & DRUGS & NO JESUS”.
To distance themselfs from Allegro’s sex+mushrooms/no jesus theory, advocates of psychedelic science deny drugs in religious history.
This is how Allegro harmed the field: he discredited combining advocacy for:
“Psychedelics give same experience as mystics” [that position subtlely demands that you adopt the presupposition, “the non-drug methods of the mystics”]
“Psychedelics played a major role in religious history”
b/c anyone who says “psychedelics give same experience mystics had“, operates on the firm, silcent, silent presupposition that mystics did not use drugs psychedelics to produce their mystical experience.
Because this is a SILENT presupposition, the reusult is an unack’d boundary line:
you must not mention the entheogen scholarship history proposal, when you assert that psychedelics give same experience as mystics [taken to be non-drug; traditional methods of the mystics].
It is REQUIRED that advocates of “Psychedelics give same experience as mystics”) must SILENTLY ASSUME mystics didn’t use drugs, in order to ask the question, “Do psychedelics produce mystical experience?”
The ppl who ask “Do psychedelics produce mystical experience?” NEVER consider the hypothesis, “Maybe psychedelics played a significant role in religious history”.
Research on entheogen scholarship (“Did psychedelics have a significant role in religious history?”) has no interaction with research on whether psychedelics give mystical experience (“Do psychedelics produce mystical experience?”)
Rather, it’s a 1-way, asymmetrical relationship:
Research on B incorps research on A, yet research on A feels that it is hampered, impeded, by incorp’ing research on B.
Research on A distances itself from research on B. Yet research on B embraces research on A.
Research on “Do psychedelics produce mystical experience?” distances itself from research on “Did psychedelics have a significant role in religious history?”. Yet research on “Did psychedelics have a significant role in religious history?” embraces research on “Do psychedelics produce mystical experience?”
Research on B wants to marry research on A. Yet research on A shuns research on B.
Research on “Did psychedelics have a significant role in religious history?” wants to marry research on “Do psychedelics produce mystical experience?”.
Yet research on “Do psychedelics produce mystical experience?” shuns research on “Did psychedelics have a significant role in religious history?”.
Research on “Did psychedelics have a significant role in religious history?” has no interaction with research on “Do psychedelics produce mystical experience?”
Research on “Did psychedelics have a significant role in religious history?” has no interaction with research on “Do psychedelics produce mystical experience?”
Why not?
Timeline Sketch
p.m. January 17, 2026
from my notes written on aritlce High Mysticism by Baier 2021:
150 – Plotinus Neoplatonism: Academic Philosophy of Mystical Union with the One, sans intense mystic altered state mixed wine mystery religion initiation described by myth. Neopl merely uses myth as metaphor for armchair Phil Dept’izing.
1687 – Newton Princip Math: forgot astral ascent mysticism along with entheogenic esotericism; finally switch from geo to helio centric model of cosmos.
1893 – positive unitive model of mystical experience; Swami Indian Hinduism Venanta Vivekananda & raft of accretions & particular philosophies tacked-on; Westernized; Protestant expectatiosn; popular demand for sanitized positive unitive mysticism, avoiding eternalism-driven control-transformation (ends up having repressed {shadow dragon monster}).
1902: James, The Varieties of Religious Experiencing – Psychedelics & Mysticism
1910 French myc society talk & publication: Plaincourault tree of knowledge is Amanita mushrooms.
1915 – Safford article: There’s definitely no psilocybin mushroom use in Mexico; it’s peyote.
1952 – Panofsky letterS to Wasson: News flash: There are hundreds of mushroom-trees in Christian art, therefore they cannot mean mushrooms. They developed from pine, which proves that it was accidental that the end-state was, quote: “the gradual hardening of the pine into a mushroom-like shape … emphatic schematization of the mushroom-like crown.”
1954 – Huxley: psychedelics give mystical experience – common-core mysticism and perennialism (it’s hidden [as a protective ploy/strategy] that the core is taken to be, specifically, the positive unitive model). Perennialists strategically covertly conflate “that there is something common among mystical experience” with “the thing in common is positive unitive experience”.
1957 – Wassons book Russia History Mushrooms
1957 – Graves’ Food for Centaurs / What Food the Centaurs Ate, New Yorker: Ancient Greeks used mushrooms. The first article besides Blavatsky or Manly Hall, to say psychedelics in mystery religion.
1960 – Stace (brief mention of psychedelics as outside his expertise & too early to cover)
1962 – Pahnke / Leary / Richards is 1965
1968 – SOMA wasson “You blundering mycologists failed to consult the art authorities” – but in the same paragraph p. 180, dishonestly censored the citation of Brinckmann 1906. Wasson the Academic Fraud; compromised, max conflict of interest, on this point.
1968 – SOMA, Wasson: “I am first to ever propose that the tree of knowledge connects w/ Amanita; and, 1910 myc’ists were fools to say that the tree of knowledge in Plaincourault is Amanita.” [kettle logic self-contradiction: if french were stupid in saying Plaincourault shows tree of knowledge as Amanita, then is it impossible for Wasson to be the first to connection tree of knowledge w/ Amanita. incoherent self-promotion, disinfo by pope’s banker]
1992 – McKenna, Food of the Gods: “Do not look for mushrooms in Christianity, b/c big bad church eliminated psychedelics.”
1992 McKenna Food of the Gods
1995 – Strange Fruit, Heinrich: chapters trace history of Amanita in esotericism.
1997 – Samorini: The mushroom-tree of Plaincourault
1998 – Samorini: ‘Mushroom-trees’ in Christian art
2001 – Ruck committee: “Conjuring Eden” & “Daturas for the Virgin”
2002 – Apples of Apollo – A disappointment & a narrowing (flip-flops from the Moderate to merely the Minimal Entheogen Theory of Religion), after the strong article “Conjuring Eden”, caused me to define, as breakaway from Waffle Ruck School driven and constrained by / restricted by social drama narrative, announcing maximal entheogen theory of religion in rebuttle to the Secret Amanita paradigm, favoring what I’d later in 2023 call the Samorini/ Hoffman/ Brown Explicit Cubensis paradigm. ie 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).
2006 – Hopkins psychedelic pseudo science: psilocybin gives mystical experience, where “mystical experience” is defined per Stace as exclusively nothing other than the positive unitive model from Swami Vivekananda 1893.
2006 – Michael Hoffman, Wasson and Allegro on the tree of knowledge as Amanita – 64-page article for Robt Price journal of Higher Criticism.
2007 – Michael Hoffman reformat main article, nails analogies except for branching, handedness, snake vs tree, solved in years: 2013-2025
2013 – Michael Hoffman: Branching confirmed a major theme in mythic art (branching in paintings by Cranach & Douris)
2015/2025 Hopkins’ Religious Leaders Study – crash and burn, faceplant disaster, conflict of interest: “Do not cite this “Science conclusions for purchase” article.”
2015 – Michael Hoffman: Dancing man (Hatsis provided hi-res): right foot = eternalism-thinking?? Looking for confirmation of hypoth.
2023 – Michael Hoffman: Identify branching / handedness in many art pieces.
2025 – Michael Hoffman: Prove Canterbury Day 1 {balance scale} pans contain mushrooms; and progressive branching morph’y in Day 3. Jan 13.
2025 – Michael Hoffman: 2POV; add eternalism-thinking to possibilism-thinking; “embrace and include” per Ken Wilber. Developed 2POV in April (after 6 months of devmt), wrote page in August.
todo: above, indicate topics 1-4 in each entry, to keep them differentiated unlike John Lash’s timeline of psychedelics events and all cultural events, mixed together indiscrim.
Numbered Key Topics
p.m. January 17, 2026
The positive unitive model of mystical experience (Vivek 1893, Stace 1960)
Article title: Effects of Psilocybin on Religious and Spiritual Attitudes and Behaviors in Clergy from Various Major World Religions
Author Disclosure Statement (p. 17-18)
“The Johns Hopkins Medicine Institutional Review Board (JHM IRB) conducted an audit of the JHU site (IRB00036973—“Effects of Psilocybin-facilitated Experience on the Psychology and Effectiveness of Professional Leaders in Religion”) and concluded that the following must be reported to all journals and disclosed in all publications where data related to this study may be published:
(1) There were two unapproved study team members, one who was also a study funding sponsor, directly engaged in the research.
(2) There was an additional approved study team member whose role as a funding sponsor of the study was not disclosed to the IRB and who directly led the qualitative analysis.
(3) Conflicts of interest related to the two individuals who were engaged in the research and also served as funding sponsors were not appropriately disclosed nor managed.
(4) The funding sponsorship for this study was not disclosed to the JHM IRB.”
So Offensive, Mosurinjohn’s Argument: “Stop Psychedelics Research in European History, which is Committing Colonialist Violence; Entheogen Scholars Must Put Indigenous Shams as their Central Focus & Boundary Limit”
p.m. January 17, 2026
Mosur: her written summary of her talk argues:
“Do not look for psychedelics in Europe history, or else you are guilty of Colonial Violence; you must put Mexican history / Indigenous Amazon ayahuasca history (whihc is as much as 100 years old!!) in the center of your focus, making that the boundary limit of your investigation.”
I bet her coauthor Ascough destroyed her over that; he called her out on that summary, because in her actual talk, she has been put on the defensive; put on her back heels, and she is forced to retract and backtrack.
“I’m not saying that if you put Europe history instead of Indigenous history in your focus and boundary, you’re not allowed to do that Eurocentric scholarly investigation, b/c you’d be committing Colonial Violence.”
But that is EXACTLY what her written summary argues, and, I NOTICE she does not CORRECT her written summary, even though in her talk, she pointedly contradicts her written summary.
SO OFFENSIVE!
She tries to pivot and strike a tone of “my message is:
“We must avoid the one extreme of Pop Allegro Ruck Secret Christian Amanita Cult history…
“And we must also avoid the extreme of academic butthead denial of any drug role in relig history.”
We must be good scholars, LIKE ME (who entered the field two minutes ago): Mosur claims that her message is:
“When we look for history of drugs in Europe, we must be midway on the spectrum from Gullible Affirmation, to Obstinate Committed Skeptic.”
But her written summary has a different message: “Given that we know there is no evidence for psychedelics in Euro history”
Samorini 1997 – The mushroom-tree of Plaincourault
Samorini 1998 – ‘Mushroom-trees’ in Christian art
Ruck 2001 – “Conjuring Eden”
Mosur’s cocky, rude, insulting, ignorantly total confidence denial of evidence reveals that she failed to read the 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)
She enters the field as a newbie and immediately starts throwing insults at scholars in the field, without having done the basic reading of the top articles in the field.
She cites Huggins’ Foraging Wrong article as if it has been peer reviewed and its atrocious fallacious args tested and passed merit.
Mosur cites Huggins not because that article has any basic merit, but only because Huggins’ prejudiced article is in accord with her own prejudice. She simply takes the Hug article as if proven fact.
I bet she has NO PROBLEM with scholars like Benny Shanon looking for Acacia Rue in Jewish history.
Sharday Mosurinjohn ONLY has a problem with, specifically, white, European history scholarship looking for psychedelics in Euro history (broadly “euro” ie W history; mediterranean/ ANE / Europe/ Britain).
Anti-whiteism invades entheogen scholarship to deny a psychedelics history lineage to Europeans, while encouraging a psychedelics history lineage for every other nation/ race/ group:
Scholarship on a a psychedelics history lineage for Indigenous: Good.
Scholarship on a psychedelics history lineage for Jews: Good.
Scholarship on a psychedelics history lineage for Europeans: Bad; = committing Colonial Violence.
Parody of How Much Ruck Contradicts Himself b/c He Only Cares about the Social Drama Narrative, not About Coherent Theorizing
p.m. January 17, 2026
In a voice recording around Jan 15-16 2025, I listed ways in which Ruck is self-contradictory/ inconsistent.
Psychedelics (= Secret Gnosis about Secret Amanita) had a major role in religious history, but no one knew about Secret Amanita, except 26 different categories of groups and individual elites, showing the extent to which Christianity didn’t have any mushrooms, but mushrooms heretical groups infiltrated fully Christianity.
That’s how there’s no mushrooms in Xn history, and mushrooms thoroughly heretical infiltration of the mushroom throughout Christianity.
No wonder McPriest mischar’s Ruck, claiming Muraresku says Ruck says “the institutional Church elim’d psychedelics”.
Here is my accurate char’n of Ruck’s characteristically self-contradictory position:
“the institutional Church elim’d psychedelics” and “psychedelics were infused throughout Christianity by heretical groups, monastics, and elites”.
“The big bad church elim’d psychedelics, and here’s 250 images of psychedelics in the art of the church, to prove it”
“Thank you for yet more evidence of psychedelics in HERETICAL Christianity, showing how terrible the church was for eliminating psychedelics” – Ruck. Incoherent!
Pope Ruck literally writes, to hide his declaration that Amanita is heretical:
“Thank you for yet more evidence of psychedelics in so-called heretical Christianity.”
“so-called”? The ONLY person calling psychedelics “heretical” is Ruck himself, driven by his crybaby social drama narrative.
The tail (the “terrible Church” social drama narrative) wags the dog (entheogen scholarship), and thus corrupts and restricts findings of entheogens in religious history.
… producing self-contradiction; kettle logic.
The Egodeath theory is better than Ruck b/c not burdened with that social drama narrative; same for Stamets/Gartz (2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm): they are better, b/c not burdened w/ trying to tell some social drama narrative. They say Bern door shows Liberty Cap” – no more; no attempt to t4ell any social drama narrative of “suppression” or “mainstream”.
Agaisnt Letcher’s botched endnote 31 in Shroom, Stametz & Gartz do not say either:
“The Liberty Cap mushroom-trees on Bernward Doors & Column prove entheogens were suppressed, hidden, & secret.”
“The Liberty Cap mushroom-trees on Bernward Doors & Column prove entheogens were mainstream, normal, & commonplace.”
The Egodeath theory is not doing social drama narrative; it’s forming a model of mental model transformation described by myth as analogies, expressed as STEM.
social drama narrative sdn
Timeline of 20th C Writings on: Unitive Mysticism; Psychedelic Mysticism; Psychedelic Science; Psychedelics in History
p.m. January 17, 2026
It is really strange, how:
Writers on Unitive Mystcism implicitly assert “No psychedelics in history”.
Writers on Psychedelic Mysticism implicitly assert “No psychedelics in history”.
Writesrs on Psychedelic Science implicitly assert “No psychedelics in history”.
asym: in contrast,
Writers on Psychedelics in History assert Unitive Mysticism. Writers on Psychedelics in History assert Psychedelics Give Mystical experience. Writers on Psychedelics in History support Psychedelic Science.
The Battle Between [Unitive Mysticism & Psychedelic Mysticism & Psychedelic Science] Against [Psychedelics in History]
p.m. January 17, 2026
Why Do Writers on “Unitive Mysticism”, “Psychedelic Mysticism”, & “Psychedelic Science” Resist the Topic of “Psychedelics in History”?
p.m. January 17, 2026
You can fold into Psychedelic science: “Univity Mysticism” (the assertion that the nature of mystical experience is the (exclusive) Positive Unitive model), and “Psychedelic Mysticism” (the assertion psychedelics give mystical experience).
Then we can form two opposed focuses of scholarship & writing:
The Strange Standoff Between Psychedelic Science & Psychedelics in History
p.m. January 17, 2026
Why do writers on PSYCHEDELIC SCIENCE
Why do advocates of psychedelic science shun and suppress and ignore psychedelics in history? To market themselves as “new”?
Timeline of Unitive Mysticism (Vivekananda 1893); Psychedelic Mysticism (Huxley 1954); Psychedelic Science (Pahnke 1962); Psychedelics in Religious History (Graves 1957)
Interleaved Timeline of: 1) The positive unitive model of “mystical experience” (Stace [Vivekananda, James]); – Armchair academic outsider Philosophy [dept.; construction] of Mystical Experience; academic theorizing, like Neoplatonism in ancient academy, vs. mixed wine intense mystic altered state in initiation mystery religion described by intense myth. Algis Uzdavinys straddles the “academic armchair Phillosoph of Mysticism” & “intense mystic altered state” poles. 2) Whether psychedelics give mystical experience; “the psychedelic movement” (Huxley [James]); 3) Psychedelic science (Pahnke [Richards, Griffiths); 4) Psychedelics’ role in religious history; “entheogen scholarship” (Ruck [Graves Wasson Allegro in pop mind])
Above pattern for names of writers: (representative writer [other writers]).
He never listed timelines and writers for Gen 2 & Gen 3, so hard to characterize his eras. Bad too b/c in 1st Gen, he jumbles every Current Event with no limit on what topics to include – random mess.
John Lash ruins his timeline of psychonautics, by defining everything as relevant to psychonautics, diluting the timeline to death.
He simply writes/ summarizes the general history of 1935-1965, and inserts into that (instead of omitting), psychedelics-specific dates — without distinguishing which events were directly about psychedelics.
Moon landing is central to psychedelics?
JFK was essentially about psychedelics?
Computers were invented, which is centrally about psychedelics?
That’s why I’m puzzling over (analyzing) scope of the present page:
This page is NOT about the pre-modern history of psychedelics; it’s about history of positive unitive model of mystical experience & then psychedelic mysticism, then psychedelic science.
Psychedelic science is strategically reluctant to give any attention to psychedelics in pre-modern history, b/c Allegro has tainted that topic.
WE advocates of psychedelic science MUST DISOWN ALLEGRO’S TOPIC (PSYCHEDELICS IN HISTORY) TO BETTER ADVOCATE FOR PSYCHEDELIC SCIENCE, INCLUDING “PSYCHEDELICS CAUSE MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE SAME AS THE HISTORICAL NON-DRUG METHODS OF THE MYSTICS”.
Given our primary goal of advocating for psychedelic science, we must assert that mystics did NOT use psychedelics, or else we are guilty of the Allegro transgression of the rules. Academics only semi-resist this psychedelic science.
Academics strongly resist topic of “drugs had major role in relig history”. Ruck is willing to advocate that, and therefore, also, the less controversial (per academics) proposal that “psychedelics mimic the non-drug methods of the mystics.”
Lash suffers from too broad a focus, he makes his timeline useless because HAS NO BOUNDARY OF ANYTHING BEING OFF-TOPIC
EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED IN 20TH CENTURY IS EQUALLY ON-TOPIC IN John Lash’s “TIMELINE OF Psychonautics/ PSYCHEDELIC RESEARCH”.
Mostly out of scope for this page: entheogen scholarship (history of drugs in religion).
positive unitive model of mystical experience, along with the Psychedelic Movement (Hux 1957) – that project or self-presentation REQUIRED or was firmly premised on, “no history of drugs in religious history”; it HAD to suppress interest in (& belittle) entheogen scholarship (Graves, Wasson, Allegro, Ruck, Samorini).
Entheogen scholarship (premise that drugs … maximal entheogen theory of religion) MUST be ignored and rejected by [positive unitive model –> psychedelic science].
history of positive unitive model of mystical experience (rep: Stace)
history of how positive unitive model was baked into psychedelic science (rep: Pahnke)
history of entheogen scholarship (Graves Wass Alleg Ruck; rep: Ruck)
history of the psychedelic movement (term from Partridge 2vol Re-enchantment book set, on Modern Esotericism.
psychedelic science ps
The Strong Entrenched Dogma and Intensely Strong, Dominant, Silent Presupposition “The traditional, non-drug methods of the mystics”
The way scholars write, shows a very silent, very strong presupposition, a dogma so firm, so entrenched, it is not stated.
None of these writers (Allen Badiner ZZZ) is even able to ask what’s the history of psychedelic mysticism in pre-modernity.
It is impossible to think that thought, from their paradigm – because they must avoid the Allegro crime, “suppose psychedelics in religious history”.
It’s not belong to Allegro but everyone absolutely treats fearfully as if it is.
Scope of these Critiques: Psychedelic Science, Ignoring Entheogen Scholarship
p.m. January 17, 2026
The focus of this page is on critiques of psychedelic science re: “Hypothesis we tested and ‘validated’: A mystical [ie positive unitive] experience is required, for successful psychedelic-assisted therapy.”
The focus of this debate is not critiques of entheogen scholarship about psychedelics in pre-modern history.
I came to realize today p.m. January 17, 2026 that psychedelic science is actively disowns and ignores and denies entheogen scholarship premise or question of psychedelics in pre-modern history, in order to posture as:
We are not with Allegro!”; we put on a show of distancing psychedelic science from that fool Allegro who we want nothing to do with.
We serious psychedelic scientists and committed academics, emphasize:
We pointedly disavow the maximal entheogen theory of religion, and instead strongly assert non-drug entheogens
January 17, 2026
We pointedly disavow the maximal entheogen theory of religion, and instead strongly assert non-drug entheogens: Anything activity you can imagine (such as hanging from skin hooks; shaking a rattle; hyperventilating; or whatever), can produce the same effect as 10g of Cubensis. Wouter Hanegraaff https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/12/04/scholarly-fail-quotes-hall-of-shame/#Non-Drug-Entheogens is all too typical, pulling this clich, tired, posturing, move or selling-point, in 2012 Entheogenic Esotericism keynote talk/article/chapter. Carl Ruck: Some important entheogens are purely symbolic: https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/12/04/scholarly-fail-quotes-hall-of-shame/#Purely-Symbolic-Entheogen. We are NOT saying that psychedelics are more effective than the traditional, non-drug methods of the mystics.
Do not accuse us of saying psychedelics are the only reliable way of producing mystical experience.
We pointedly disavow the Allegro assertion that entheogens had a major role in pre-modern history
p.m. January 17, 2026
Compromised, posturing academics, to show they are on the correct team, buttheaded ABD Apologists: Anything But Drugs is to be considered a “reasonable” and “evidenced” cause of the intense mystic altered state.
We pointedly disavow the Allegro assertion that entheogens had a major role in pre-modern history:
We are NOT asserting the narrow, particular, Allegro Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory;
and we are not even asserting the broad, general theory that drugs had a major role in religious history.
The Egodeath theory 