Proved (unexpectedly! didn’t think possible!) on 2025/01/13 by Day 4 below it has 4 mushrooms pointing up in a symmetrical way including grid branching caps on left attracted to the branching shaped compass.
f11 row 1 middle: Day 2 of Creation (Bible: Atmosphere/ Firmament)
Finally looked at Day 1 & Day 4 together, to directly fill the pans with mushrooms
At end of day Jan. 12, 2025, I finally brought together my analysis of Day 1 & Day 4 panels, informed by Day 3 panel, producing a huge double-breakthrough – at the same time as figuring out the smooth stepped progression of branching form in Day 3: III, IYI, YI, IY/YI (two breakthroughs interleaved & co-supporting; so, Day 1 + 3 + 4 worked together to co-decode, the co-signalling that Eadwine provided.
Jan. 17, 2025: My error until end of day Sunday, Jan. 12, 2025 was to only look at this panel in isolation, or only compare it to Day 3.
THE REASON THIS DAY HAS PLANTS, WHICH IT SHOULD NOT, IS BC EADWINE WANTS TO DEPICT MORE MUSHROOMS, AND WANTS TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT DAY 1’S BALANCE SCALE CONTAINS MUSHROOMS.
Ronald Huggins’ “Foraging Wrong” article asks / discusses tradition of incongruity about what items are depicted in which day.
Liberty cap, Cubensis, Panaeolus, Amanita
Features:
Here the sun represents the planetary stars (other than the moon) & the fixed stars.
Liberty cap, Cubensis, Panaeolus, Amanita
Jan. 4, 2025: I probably announced this id’n Dec 13, 2020, following on from Third Day of Creation:
Liberty cap, Cubensis, Panaeolus, Amanita Liberty cap; Cubensis; Panaeolus; Amanita Liberty cap/ Cubensis/ Panaeolus/ Amanita
Lib, Cub, Pan, Ama Lib; Cub; Pan; Ama
Liberty cap, Cubensis, Panaeolina, Amanita Liberty cap; Cubensis; Panaeolina; Amanita Liberty cap/ Cubensis/ Panaeolina/ Amanita
Wrap those lines with quotes and search present site – somewhere I listed those re: this picture.
Mushroom tree #8 of Psalter (Plant 4 in Day 4): white on red, non-branching
/ end of copied sections from f11 page
Intro
I am skipping populating this starter-page now, to get on with the interesting 3rd new Huggins page on his Conclusion section which REALLY, PRACTICALLY, comes down to,
“I will accept mushroom-trees mean mushrooms if branches are explained.”
THEREFORE Therefore my top priority is continue explanaing branches whcih right now means YI YI hand shapes indicators and sequences eg [Y’, YI | Y’I] –
New Notation in Development! YI hand-shape pairs notation, general flexible formula notation potential: [Y’, YI | Y’I]; what is artists fav start shape is Y’; artists fav end shape is IY’
Common Reference starting hand shapes:
Start shape: Y
Start shape: Y’
Start shape: YI’
Common Reference starting hand shapes:
End shape: YI (simplified)
End shape: Y’I (accurate)
Genized notation for YI hand-shape pairs:
[list of standard start shapes, list of standard end shapes]
start shape = first hand
end shape = second / other hand
[Y | Y’ | I’Y, ]
try nested sq brk
[[Y, Y’, I’Y], [YI, Y’I, I]]
list all simple 2-part YI shapes, and whether that shape would be first hand or the 2nd hand:
Y ~= I’ (first hand)
Y’ ~= I (first hand)
I ~+ Y’ (second hand)
I’ ~= Y (first hand)
YI = IY (2nd hand)
YI’ = I’Y (first hand)
Y’I = IY’ (2nd hand)
Y’I’ = I’Y’ – eg: hand not displayed, i guess: (2nd hand)
good, next, sort those by 1st vs 2nd hand:
First Hand’s Shapes: Y, Y’, YI’, I’
represents What Happened to the Pre-Initiation Possibilism Mental Model.
Y ~= I’ (first hand)
Y’ ~= I (first hand)
YI’ = I’Y (first hand) – eg: von Trimberg: figure 3’s lower hand: 3 exten fingers, Index finger cut
I’ ~= Y (first hand) – how depict? rare?
Second Hand’s Shapes: I, YI, Y’I, Y’I’
I is always present, never cut/primed
I ~+ Y’ (second hand)
YI = IY (2nd hand)
Y’I = IY’ (2nd hand)
Y’I’ = I’Y’ – 2nd hand
if both hands affirm I, both hands are equiv ways of indic the END state.
what if one hand indir affirms I via Y’?
Motivation for this Page
the other night, days beofore Feb. 15, 2026, I discovered that Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case (Ronald Huggins, 2024) refers to day 4’s four plants (exact mushrooms with NO branching) as “trees”.
I possibly noted that a year ago but seems not.
Creating 3 new topical pages to focus on the top 3 points worth addressing and rebutting: Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case (Ronald Huggins, 2024).
See Day 3 page prior to this, or p.m. Feb. 15, 2026 entry in idea development page 33.
King Mushroom Demon, f145
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 15, 2026, fullscreen
f11: Day 3: Creation of Plants, with Lines and Annotations
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman
f11 row 1 right – “Creation of Plants”/”third day”
Huggins 2024: These pilzbaum have branches, which make these not look like mushrooms at all; Just look at these branches that disqualify these pilzbaum from looking anything like mushrooms
Crop by Michael Hoffman
“Creation of Plants” Branching Form Develops from III, IYI, YI, IY/YI
Crop and analysis by Michael Hoffman
Day 3: Branching Form Develops toward Increasing Comprehension from Left to Right: III, IYI, YI, IY/YI.
Each of the plants in the third-day scene also has branches. The mushrooms the PMTs wish to identify them with, however, do not.Ronald Huggins, “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case”, p. 17
Fatal Error: Day 3 “has branches, so can’t mean mushroom” [L & R branch exact mushroom shape Huggins OMITS THIS fact/objection, therefore Huggins is anything-but-drugs academics PROPAGANDA bad faith arg’n.
Fatal Error: Day 4 “trees” but they are plain mushrooms, diversion tactic = liar with no credy, ; propagandist, not one seeking truth or else he would have STOPPED to ANALYZE the “trees”.
Fatal Error: Conclusion section: “Branches prevent EVERY mushroom-tree from meaning mushrooms.”
I keep habitually re-writing the point. Personally I need to prominent page about this point that destroys Huggins’ argments.
related starter pages:
Day 3
Day 4
Conclusion Section’s Branches Objection
The Conclusion section Branches Objection of Huggins GCP article 2024: It all comes down to the Panofsky / Huggins “Branches” Objection
His decree softened to “suggestion” in 2025 Huggins article.
Huggins Has Only 1 Legit Objection : Explain Branches.
To supplement Day 3 panel, compare eat tree of knowledge panel, cap details apply to all Liberty Cap grid-cap instances
todo: move/copy to Huggins Day 3 page
f11 row 3 right: Eat from Tree of Knowledge
The detail in this master mushroom-tree applies to all Liberty Cap grid-caps throughout Great Canterbury Psalter including two panels above: Day 3, Plant 2.
The arms/fruit on each Liberty Cap mushroom-tree in the grid cap of “eat from tree of knowledge” are indicated as being present in Day 3 Plant 2, and all Liberty Cap grid-caps.
todo: crop of entire f11, showing cross-mapping among the 12 panels. i did a little like that so far:
1 crop shows “don’t eat” panel & “eat” panel.
1 crop shows Day 1 + Day 4.
4 crops show a row, each of 4 rows of f11.
in entire f11:
todo: line from Day 3 to Eat tree of knowledge.
todo: line from Day 4 to Day 1.
todo: line from Day 3 to Day 4.
Crop by Michael Hoffman
f11 row 3 middle and right
Crop by Michael Hoffman
f11 row 3 right: Adam & Eve Looking at L & R Arms of Liberty Cap mushroom-tree in cap of tree of knowledge, while holding fruit in L & R hands
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman
f11 Row 3 R: Top of Tree of Knowledge
Crop by Michael Hoffman
In this panel, all 3 trees’ branches under cap (= gills + veil, to depict block time non-branching) have Right branch cross-behind; visually {cut right branch}. Like Dancing Man (Salamander, Bodleian).
The Reference Hand-Pair Shape Is Given by God’s Hands: Y’ one hand, YI other hand
The problem of Extracting the Puzzle Statement
challenges:
Comprehending and recognizing THAT this is a puzzle.
Reading/understanding what the puzzle statement is.
Solving the puzzle ie explaining deviations from God’s Reference hand-pair shape.
Understand why initiated artists so much like and respect God’s Reference hand-pair shape: Y’ & YI.
The Profound Meaning of God’s Reference Hand-Pair Shape: Y’ & YI
Y’ within the context of this pair of hand shapes, means:
YI within the context of this pair of hand shapes, means:
todo: crop God upper right hands.
Use God’s Hand-Pair as the Reference Shape to Compare All Hand-Pairs To
A puzzle statement:
A huge part of the puzzle challenge is to read and recognize the puzzle challenge.
First hurdle: recognize that the hand-pair that God displays, is given to the viewer as the
The viewer is an honorary artist, and certainly includes as the primary audeince, other trained initiated artists initiated in the … keyboard shortcut???
Pretty sure i def’d a keyboard shortcut but really hard to deduce it.
What do I wish for in a keyboard shortcut for this?
That’s how to proceed in this situation: I wish to recall a keyboard shortcut acro that has the following attributes I desire I’m looking wishing for:…
key words for such a wished-for keyboard shortcut:
guild
initiation
psilocybin
mushroom
lockbox
{balance scale}
mushroom sack
artists
mainstream
training, education in motifs
medieval
{mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
Next, try arrange the key words gramm’ly w/ right emph:
mushroom sack – … “training & education in xyz motifs”
training, education in motifs
{mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
Artists Communicated the Motifs Language to Other Artists and Displayed to All People
Explicit Educational Aids for Purpose of Communicating via This System of Motifs
An Articulate, Purpose-Built Communication Language
Decoded YII Pair of King’s Hands Double Pointing: {Y fingers cut}, {I Index finger shown}, {I thumb shown}
Puzzle: Not Fitting God’s Reference Hands-Pair Shape: Confused Guy Standing on Two Demon Legs
{stand on right foot} vs. {stand on left foot}
The following figures stand on one foot w/ other foot lifted.
{stand on right foot} = have Transcendent Knowledge
{stand on left foot} = lack Transcendent Knowledge, unbalanced
two senses of balance: have stable control; combine and rely on a combining of mature combining of {stand on left foot} & {stand on right foot} like f134 woman hold {balance scale} forming same as God hand pair shape:
Y’ one hand, YI other hand.
Canterbury f145: Blue Fruit Trade, Stored in Lockboxes
trust the black line. white string doesn’t count as on her finger {balance scale} thumb cut by white thread but no black line so DOESN’T COUNT
joke re: doesn’t count:
… just like each isolated instance of mushroom mushroom imagery in Christian art ,
Thomas Hatsis pulls out of his nowhere an on-the-spot made-up, off-the-wall arg,
buncha noise and confusion about Secret Christian Amanita Cult
and he wonders why we are so adamant advocates of
the Secret Amanita paradigm which is the same thing as mushrooms in western religious history
“the topic of mushrooms in western religious history consists of nothing other than the Secret Amanita paradigm” – Thomas Hatsis
amazing nonsense he wrote us: u r not allowed to care about psilocybin, because you are faithful to your orgins [Hatsis projecting] in Deep Allegroism. [total projection]
d/k about Brown, Allegro had no influence on my scholarship entheogen scholarship just on the ahistoricity of religious founder figures. whw… Actually Allegro for me was the education along w/ Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy’s book The Jesus Mysteries, 1999, https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Mysteries-Was-Original-Pagan/dp/0609807986/
ABOUT THE AHISTORICITY OF RELIGIOUS FOUNDER FIGURES not about entheogen scholarship
Hatsis uninterested in ahistoricity !
if you advocate the topic of mushrooms in western religious history that means, you are pushing the the Secret Amanita paradigm, which IS the topic of mushrooms in western religious history ,
Proxy war: Everything stands or falls with the isolated Amanita mushroom-tree in Plaincourault fresco.
Huggins: Everything stands or falls with Day 3 panel Great Canterbury Psalter. They have branches [exact mushroom] so cannot mean mushroom that we have dubbed mushroom-trees because they look so very much like mushroom , per Panofsky 52,
“attached is a mushroom-like tree, & an even more emphatic mushroom shape”
Just to show what I mean, I enclose two specimens: a miniature of ca. 990 which shows the inception of the process, viz., the gradual hardening of the pine into a mushroom-like shape, and a glass painting of the thirteenth century, that is to say about a century later than your fresco, which shows an even more emphatic schematization of the mushroom-like crown.
condensed copy:
I enclose two specimens:
A miniature painting 990 AD which shows the inception of the process, viz., the gradual
[“GRADUAL” therefore, sloppy accident unintentional by inept copyist-craftsmen, the art world came to accept the ever-more-mushroom like sloppy accident degradation TRUST WASSON BRO HES THE BANKER FOR THE POPE , ]
New Fallacies Generated Faster, the More Deniers Lose
If I move from A to B gradually, that proves that I didn’t intend to end up at B; a meaningless accident with no import; degradation; fault of inept too dumb to read a prototype and figure if its a tree of it is or if it is a mushroom
Panofsky is comical in his slop letter to fraud propagandist PROFESSIONAL PROPAGANDIST AND POPEBANKER Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson THE C censor out 1 side mouth
You Blundering, Ignorant Mycologists, John Ramsbottom, Failed to Consult the Art Dictator Authorities – Popebanker Wasson 🤥👖🔥🤞
liemoji 🤥👖🔥🤞
Trust Gordon 🤥👖🔥🤞 Wasson , Professional Cover-Up Propagandist and Criminally Obstructionist
World’s Record Conflict of Interest Reddest of Flags
the Standard Smug, Condenscending Insults, Trademark of Deniers
“Doesn’t count, b/c Wasson didn’t Stop Irvin 2005 or Samorini 1993 from Publishing”
Typical Dumb Take by Huggies
Irvin is a radical exception, he is THE expert on Allegro Wasson, that shows how effetive t….
Elephant in room: Allegro attacked x’y Christianity
1952 Erwin Panofsky writes two letters (including 2 mushroom-tree arts) to Wasson. Incl. branching arg which Huggins carries forward as their ultimate objection to mushroom-trees = mushrooms. The branches, which are an exact mushroom shape, prevent these mushroom-trees from meaning mushroom. Day 4 four mushrooms lack branches, I shall refer to them as ‘tree’, make sure picture is on diff page out of sight, though they — inconsis Huggins here — these look like a simple, whole-form match with mushrooms, not at all any branch or tree features AT ALL; these are easily stylized near-botanical exact mushroom Day 4 plant 3 is exact Panaeolus, by medieval or by any standards — pointing at… bending itself in order to point to L Pan of {balance scale} held by God, vaguely Omega {balance scale}, vs. A compass branching on left. grid-caps o lcgc lgc lc Liberty Cap grid-cap
1968 – Popebanker Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Aasson book SOMA p. 180: you dumbazzes failed to “CONSULT” the art authorities [same paragraph: censors mention of 2 arts + Bin citation strongly urged by Panofsky twice, went out of his way to provide the must-see citation, which evil liar Wasson fakely suppressed IT WAS HIS MANDATORY ACADEMIC DUTY TO PUBLISH THE BRINC CIT.
1970 – John Allegro attacks and smears Christianity by mis-using mushroom, anthropology, & linguistics to fuse defamatory sex cult with the super-psychedelic mythiclevel fly aga Amanita , i mean, magical primivie lurid sex cult drug smear pop attack on Christianity via a tale of Secret Christian Amanita Cult which Ruck loved and it
1976 – Carl Ruck: Allegro’s book’s motive inspired Ruck to create the field of entheogen scholarship.
Liberty Cap grid-cap lcgc Liberty Cap grid-cap. the master model defining all of them is Eat From tree of knowledge etok eftok
eat from tree of knowledge f11 row 3 col 3 2 rows below Day 3’s four mushroom-trees #2 of 4 has Liberty Cap grid-cap defined in detail by panel Liberty Cap grid-cap, of eat from tree of knowledge
… induce ecstasy by eating amanita or drinking some sort of decoction thereof
I have not the slightest idea as to whether the French witches also used … [Amanita].
However, even if so [even if witches use Amanita], I should be somewhat skeptical [that Plaincourault fresco = Amanita] because
the development from pine tree to “Pilzbaum” is so universal
[TOO MANY MUSHROOM-TREES! SO, IMPOSSIBLE TO MEAN MUSHROOM]
and takes place in so many representations other than the Fall of Man.
[Eden eat]
The only possibility I should be prepared to admit is that,
once the transformation [from pine to mushroom shape] had taken place [passive] and was generally accepted [passive] in art,
[switch to insult mode, de-personalization of artists]
some especially ignorant craftsman may have misu[n]derstood the finished product [mushroom shape eg in “the prototypes”], viz., the “Pilzbaum,” as a real mushroom.
But even that is not very probable because even the most mushroom-like specimens show some traces of ramification;
Panofsky Acts Can’t Comprehend the Class “mushroom-trees”
“even the most x instance still has teeny bit of …”
obv’ly, stupid Panofsky, BY DEFINITION, if tree has even a trace of ramif, it’s classed by you art historicans in the class “mushroom-tree”
so YES
duh
by defin,
EVERY AND ONLY ITEMS IN CLASS MUSHROOM-TREE HAVE AT LEAST TRACE OF RAMIF BRANCHING
If tree has trace of branching, or more, it’s classed by art hists as a mushroom-tree. IF IT DIDN’T IT WOULDN’T BE IN THE CLASS and gee we are given by the artist Day 4 plant 3: NO TRACE OF branching
(unless u r genius re grid-cap equiv’c to branching the equivalence to the grid cap motif is used as equivalent of branching )
Broadly: analogy scale:
single ~= non-branching = I multiple ~= branching = Y
pattern is set in Day 3 progression/mapping
cross-map Day 1+4, Day 3, eat from tree of knowledge panel
eat from tree of knowledge panel etk
the repeat the definition fallacy by Panofsky ?
[WAIT – CIRCULAR LOGIC TAUTOLOGY: ART HISTS DESIGNATE THE CLASS “MUSHROOM-TREE”,
“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. “
u mean like four exact mushrooms in Day 4 panel? that Huggins refers to while rushing past diverting attn to the little plants among them,
Don’t notice that “trees” in Day 4 have abs NO branching so are NOT mushroom lokin trees, but
These Day 4 Trees Look Only Like Mushrooms and Not Even Slightly Like Trees: They Are not in mushroom-trees, nor trees, but, pure plain mushroom
which p. _ Huggins says is never the case in Great Canterbury Psalter , but Day 4 PLAIN AS THE SUN AND MOON HUGGINS, THESE ARE MUSHROOMS NOT AT ALL IN THE CLASS MUSHROOM-TREES but what are you suddently so focused
LOOK OVER THERE!! 🎩🐰 🤥👖🔥🤞 –> there are 5 smaller branching plants among the 4 trees, i call them trees because we are discussing mushroom-trees and i’m saying they are trees and heres some more trees oh lookit the smaller plants over there among the trees shown here:
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Day 4
Julie Brown “I solemnly swear will only report what i see. i see the mushroom caps have been painted over and somehow made invisible”
I solemnly swear will only report what I see. I see the mushroom caps have been painted over and somehow made invisible.
Rush John:
Jesus is clearly passing out mushrooms, in Entry into Jerusalem in Martin Church. [no mushrooms]
God in Day 3 holds something maybe a mushroom in his hand. [no mushroom]
see my “errors of entheogen scholars” page
Michael Hoffman I see Ariadne in the chariot with Dionysus
The woman has wings (Nike).
Ariadne is a mortal, until Dionysus puts her immortal in the heimarmene-ruled fixed stars.
the heimarmene-ruled fixed stars hrfs
Trees in Day 4, that have NO tree features but ONLY mushroom features
Day 4 doesn’t create plants, just sun moon stars.
Huggins, give me ONE REASON to refer to these, rushing past diverting attn, as “trees” in Day 4 Great Canterbury Psalter f11 row 2 left. Magic diversion trick BECAUSE IT DOEESN’T HELP Huggins’ CASE TO BE TRUTHFUL and careful – he is not steelmanning!
Conflict of Interest in Day 4 by Huggins: He Must Play Dumb that He “Doesn’t Notice” these Are OBVIOUSLY Mushrooms w No Branching – Not Trees oops FAKE ACCIDIENTALLY DECEPTION HE DOESN’T NOTICE, he lies and pretends to not notice, this is PROPAGANDA
BIG ACADEMIA PROPAGANDA and Dissimulation, Intensely, Actively Biased to “Not Notice” 4 Plants in Day 4 Have No Branches and Are Exact match w/ mushroom
THIS IS A BIG DEAL HUGE WRENCH IN MIDDLE OF 10 OF HIS ARGS
This DESTROYS 10 of Huggins’ statements and args. Day 4’s plain mushrooms contradicts all kinds of args by Huggins.
Suspicious AF. Huggins deliberately OOPS hastens by and is INTENSELY INTERESTED IN THE 5 SMALLER PLANTS among the four “trees” – IS THIS ALL THE ANALYSIS HE CAN MUSTER, OF DAY 4?
Fourth Day of Creation (ie Sun Moon Stars): Detail: 5 + 4 Plants, the 4 have no ramif
No ramif except equiv Liberty Cap grid-cap
multiple vs. single = grid-cap vs. simple cap possibilism vs. eternalism branching vs. non-branching {fingers} vs. {thumb} {fingers} vs. {index finger} {tree} vs. {snake} Y vs. I many worlds vs. single block universe
the acro key words: list of contrasts of possibilism vs. eternalism [LCPE] lcpe
Possibilism vs. Eternalism =
{branching} vs. {non-branching}
{tree} vs. {snake}
{fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}
Y vs. I
many worlds vs. single block-universe
multiple-vs.-single ~= Y vs. I
, a subtle, indirect indicator, not “branching”]
Crop by Michael Hoffman, Day 4
smaller plants among the trees [that have NO ramif’n]
mushroom lookin mushrooms.
since we’re talking about consecutive Day 3 panel and should be looking for contrasts and mappings among all 12 panels.
“In addition, religious mediaeval art at least had little reason to think of mushrooms at all. They do not occur in the Bible, so far as I know, nor in the legends of the saints.”
Heading
while lecture u for having failed to consult
the Art Dictator Authorities, trained dogs who bark “NO!” immediately.
when probed by the committee of academic faith belief statement proclamation of ideological committment to the anything-but-drugs agenda/ commitment/ academics/ propaganda/ academia
hardening of the pine into a mushroom-like shape.
A glass painting of the thirteenth century which shows an even more emphatic schematization of the mushroom-like crown.
a century after Plaincourault fresco
Huggins Still Foraging Wrong
Ronald Huggins’ Still Foraging Wrong article is my lowest pri
f145 a roaring success for hand-shape theory
Photo: Michael Hoffman WordPress: “img_9175.jpg”, February 15, 2026, 507 KB, 1500 x 2000 px fullscreen, fullscreen with width
medieval YI hand shapes is an extremely interesting purpose-built profound basic pattern language to represent psilocybin transformation mental model control transformation
from Y
to Y&I; Y’I
First Hand / One Hand
Y or Y’ or YI’
not: I
y dominates i
Second Hand / Other Hand
YI or Y’I
i dominates y
Y’I’ – holding spear w fingertips to viewer todo: rare? keep eye out while add YIs to the images
YI form of each hand
sequence of two hands
equivalence of describing (simply, in diagrammatic art) the end state:
YI shape, or Y’I shape more specifically
Avoid Saying “from possibilism to eternalism
as if “get rid of” possibilism-thinking
highly Misrep’ve
Say “Add Eternalism to Possibilism”
Embrace and include the initial mental model (possibilism-thinking)
I never thought the Ken Wilber engine in the middle of his grand Integral Theory system was worth anything. Ironically I only thought his all-encompassing system was useful to plunder piecemeal like I DON’T want ppl to do with the Egodeath theory – my system is a swallow-entire, package deal, ACTUALLY integrated. This airplane actually gets off the ground.
Ken Wilber Transcendent Knowledge GOES NOWHERE, it never is able to deliver the promised goods. You’ll get some good useful ideas from Ken Wilber but you will NOT get what matters, eternalism-driven control-transformation.
Ken Wilber’s Popular Neo-Advaita Engine in Integral Theory Delivers a Low-Quality Altered State, Not the Classic, Best, Top-Grade Transcendent Knowledge: Eternalism-Driven Control-Transformation
I always held my nose and rejected his Advaita engine of integral theory 28-stage over-explanation that misses the transformative point.
Astral ascent mysticism has too many srages, at 8 but rly its 3:
planets
stars
beyond the stars*
*Above the planets (Saturn) is NOT “Beyond the Stars” like Hanegraaff’s terrible, INSANE heading in his Altered States book.
The Most Insane Heading in Western Esotericism: Hanegraaff’s “Beyond the Stars” Meaning Above the Planets, so the Fixed Stars are “Beyond the Stars”?! Model-Gibberish
The Fixed Stars Are then “Beyond the Stars”: MAKES ZERO SENSE!
Beyond the stars means precession; outside the cosmos.
The cosmos is not sphere 7 Saturn.
The cosmos is sphere 8 fixed stars. OBVIOUSLY
Hanegraaff f’d this up and caused all Western Esotericism scholars to duplicate his garbled confusion and self-contradiction incoherent.
Ken Wilber Popular Neo-Advaita
the positive unitive model of “mystical experience”
Like Chris Bennett whines about evidence for mushroom imagery in Christian art, compared to evidence for cannabis:
It’s too hard! 😭😭
Too Many Mushrooms (So, No Mushrooms in Christian Art)
The top anything-but-drugs art historian, Erwin Panofsky, argues based on imagined-shared, silent presupposition & prejudice:
The Plaincourault fresco cannot mean mushrooms, because there are too many mushrooms in Christian art.
Not to mention other mushroom motifs:
mushroom roof topper
round mushroom vessel
cap pieces and stem pieces on table
etc.
Mainstream Artists’ Initiation Motif-Education Guild with Psilocybin {mushroom lockbox bins} and {balance scale}
Images of {balance scale} near mushroom lockbox bins & sacks of mushrooms, are the mainstream artists showing their initiation guild’s approach.
We have the receipts; artists communicated the evidence to us.
Perish the thought, “hidden”, I can’t stand that way of thinking, that self-defeating framing.
The goal of artists is to communicate, not to prevent communication.
mainstream artists initiation motif-education guild with psilocybin mushroom lockbox and {balance scale} a i g
Paul Lindgren Discovered the Hundreds of Mushroom Images in Great Canterbury Psalter, Around 1999
This page is dedicated to Paul Lindgren, who discovered and announced tons of mushrooms in Great Canterbury Psalter around 1999; he discussed with my collegauge James Arthur 2000, and then with Carl Ruck & Mark Hoffman 2001.
Dedicated to the pioneering Science explorer-discoverers Paul Lindgren 1999 & John Lash 2007.
The Discovery of a Lifetime
John Lash went out of his way around 2007, and uploaded Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter, which I re-found in Nov. 2020, to decode the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}.
She holds {balance scale}, which maps to psalter-reader’s relative finger-height:
{Left finger lower} = bad = ordinary-state possibilism
{Right finger lower} = good = altered-state eternalism
Per her upper hand, and both of her feet on ground at {stable column base}, the result is NOT I (the Eternalism mental model); the result is compound mental model: YI (specifically, Y’I; modify Y + add I)
Tjhis This discovery and page today is a SIGNIFICANT advance in interpreting her; compare my confusion and puzzling over “her L foot is wrong foot touching {stable column base}!” in Nov. 2020. if were Feb 2021, that’s 5 years ago.
2026/02 -2020/11 =
2025/14 -2020/11 = 5 years 3 months = 5.25 years ago.
5.25
5.25 Years to Solve “Why Does Her Wrong, {Left foot} touch {stable column base}?”
Actually her L AND R feet BOTH touch {stable column base}. Upper hand asserts not only I, but also Y. (read that Y shape as, specifically, modified-Y).
Showing YI is approx showing, accurately, Y’I.
Y = the Possibilism mental model ypmm
I = the Eternalism mental model iemm is taken: the integrated “eternalism” mental model (dubious value phrase) todo: reassign keyboard shortcuts to use here “iemm”
YI = the Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model (speaking simply/roughly) yipemm Y’I = the modified-Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model (speaking accurately/ more precisely) y’impemm
or change strategy: a single keyboard shortcut to define the 3 forms.
An Acronym to Define the Set of Shape-Names: Y, I, & YI (or Y’I): [YIYI]
Alt: [YIYIB] The ‘B’ acro-suffix inserts “branching” or “non-branching”.
Y = the Possibilism mental model. I = the Eternalism mental model. YI = the Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model. Or, more precisely: Y’I = the modified-Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model. yiyi
Y = the branching-Possibilism mental model. I = the non-branching Eternalism mental model. YI = the Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model. Or, more precisely: Y’I = the modified-Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model. yiyib
Those keyboard shortcuts are designed to lend well to formatting as a list, after expansion:
Y = the Possibilism mental model.
I = the Eternalism mental model.
YI = the Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model. Or, more precisely: Y’I = the modified-Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model.
Y = the branching-Possibilism mental model.
I = the non-branching Eternalism mental model.
YI = the Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model. Or, more precisely: Y’I = the modified-Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model.
The Mind End Ups with a Compound Mental Model: Two Complementary, Opposite, “Incompatible” Mental Models, Harmonized
2002 Core Theory Revision to “Transcend Determinism”,
+ 2025 Core Theory Revision to Harmonize possibilism & eternalism possibilism-thinking & eternalism-thinking, by abandoning Epistemology, Metaphysics, & Ontololgy, and Using Instead, Pure Cognitive Phenomenology.
The result is a compound mental model like chariot containing both Dionysus & Ariadne:
todo: image
Thiasus – Wikipedia-Triumph of Dionysus on a fragmentary Roman mosaic (3rd century, Sousse Archaeological Museum)
Figure 1. Triumph of Dionysus on a Roman mosaic (3rd century, Sousse Archaeological Museum).
Ariadne holds branch in
at first, around 2022-2023, i focused on OMG holds branch L hand, non-branching spear R hand
now since April 2025 different takeaway hi-value point: Dio doesn’t kill and repudiate Ariadne (branching thinking); he WEDS her.
Isaac is repudiated and is affirmed and loved, by Abraham.
Abraham returned to his servants (did Isaac also return, or toasted on rock cut-branching fire altar?? bible is silent loudly on that point;
“BECAUSE YOU HAVE DONE THIS THING AND NOT WITHHELD YOUR SON”
The maiden Persephone dies and does not die. like (analogy) every year Persepho
Every year, the maiden Persephone dies.
Every year, the maiden Persephone is again alive.
Does the mind still “have” or “use” possibilism-thinking after psilocybin transformation?
Yes in a way, no in a way.
End up with a modified/ transformed Possibilism mental model.
Y’I ~= YI
Thus the mushroom-tree artists tell us BOTH together, that you end up with Y’I and that you end up with YI.
eg von Trimberg
von Trimberg’s upper hand’s shape is YI. That hand is displayed together with this other hand that points to it, connecting them:
student’s upper hand’s shape is IY’
12:32 p.m. Feb. 14, 2026 why point to Trim’s fingers instead of elsewhere? why avoid pointing to his thumb? because the point being comm’d here is,
negation of fingers on left (student’s IY’ hand-shape) = presence of fingers on right (von’s YI hand-shape)
Intermediate Work on the Acronym
outdated: semicolons are poor for formatting result as list:
Y = the Possibilism mental model; I = the Eternalism mental model; YI = the Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model (more precisely, Y’I = the modified-Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model) yiyi; [YIYI]
Nice. Need alt to shoehorn-in branching vs. non-branching:
Y = the branching-Possibilism mental model; I = the non-branching Eternalism mental model; YI = the Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model (more precisely, Y’I = the modified-Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model) yiyib; [YIYIB]
now use those keyboard shortcuts and then add formatting:
Y = the Possibilism mental model.
I = the Eternalism mental model.
YI = the Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model. More precisely, Y’I = the modified-Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model.
to assist that post-expansion reformatting that’s needed, maybe replace ; by .
Y = the Possibilism mental model. I = the Eternalism mental model. YI = the Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model (more precisely, Y’I = the modified-Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model). yiyi
Y = the branching-Possibilism mental model. I = the non-branching Eternalism mental model. YI = the Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model (more precisely, Y’I = the modified-Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model). yiyib
test: expand then reformat:
Y = the Possibilism mental model.
I = the Eternalism mental model.
YI = the Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model. Or, more precisely: Y’I = the modified-Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model.
exposed problem; further revise needed, of final sent:
convert to concat string:
Y = the Possibilism mental model. I = the Eternalism mental model. YI = the Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model. Or, more precisely: Y’I = the modified-Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model. yiyi
now try again: expand then reformat:
Y = the Possibilism mental model.
I = the Eternalism mental model.
YI = the Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model. Or, more precisely: Y’I = the modified-Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model.
It is good. yiyi finalized. do same w/ yiyib:
Y = the branching-Possibilism mental model. I = the non-branching Eternalism mental model. YI = the Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model. Or, more precisely: Y’I = the modified-Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model. yiyib
final test: expand yiyib then format it:
Y = the branching-Possibilism mental model.
I = the non-branching Eternalism mental model.
YI = the Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model. Or, more precisely: Y’I = the modified-Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model.
It is good.
Review the component keyboard shortcuts: [never def’d above] exist with “branching”?? [no form or variant form were def’d above]
Review w/o “branching vs. non-branching” inserted:
ybpmm – above i never impl’d the 3 term-expanders. ypmm the integrated “eternalism” mental model; iemm didn’t expand to “I = the Eternalism mental model”, but to some other, lower-value phrase. yipemm – didn’t define above. would expand to: YI = the Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model
iemm is taken: the integrated “eternalism” mental model (dubious value phrase) todo: reassign keyboard shortcuts to use here “iemm”
YI = the Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model (speaking simply/roughly) yipemm Y’I = the modified-Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model (speaking accurately/ more precisely) y’impemm
It is perfectly valid (at a basic level) to say the mind ends up with the YI mental model. integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.
It is valid and more accurate/precise, to say the mind ends up with Y’I mental model.
modified Possibilism/ Eternalism thinking mpet
the modified-Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model mpemm
do i need keyboard shortcuts for the YI = equation?
*
Modify the Possibilism mental model and add the Eternalism mental model.
Modify the Possibilism mental model BY/WHEN ADDING the Eternalism mental model.
Michael Hoffman12:04 a.m. Feb. 14, 2026 – the exact time at which I discovered this new reading of her feet and hands and {balance scale} mapped to en-LIGHT-ened Psalter Reader’s relative finger height/which foot down/ whether he’s threatened or not.
YI’ is the worst YI variant, because don’t want to demote I (the Eternalism mental model) to below Y (the Possibilism mental model).
When I noticed that her hand shape pair is the classic master Reference combination:
Upper hand YI
Lower
Her Upper Thumb Is Not Considered {visually cut} by the {balance scale} String, Which Would Form the Worst Form, YI’
Out of the 4 permutation combinations, YI’ is the worst.
YI’ is the most misrepresentative form of representing how the mind is transformed by altered-state eternalism experiencing.
YI – basic simple, but inaccurate, imprecise.
Y’I – accurate. end up with modified possibilism-thinking, + the Eternalism theory added.
YI’ – the worst form, it elevates Y over I; possibilism over eternalism.
Y’I’ – eg hold shovel w/ fingertips at viewer, todo: show example.
the mushroom-tree artists grappled with this problem:
YI – we COULD depict final state as YI. AS IF possibilism-thinking is wholly unchanged by ego death and rebirth! YI is true but only at a rough zoom out level first order of approx model like modelling a transistor or diode in a simplistic way: “A diode lets electric current flow one way but not the other.” (Ignoring the 0.7 V cutoff point; that complicating detail is covered in the 2nd-order model of a diode or transistor.)
Y’I – Or, we could more accurately depict the final state as MODIFIED branching thinking, plus the new, the “eternalism” mental model.
Sometimes the mushroom-tree artists solve this representation problem by depicting the final state as BOTH via YI and via Y’I, eg von Trimberg + the student.
von Trimberg, Upper Part of Figures 3 & 4: the Mind’s Final State after Psilocybin Transformation Is Depicted as Both Y’I and YI
todo: draw white box around both of these upper hands, and around both of these lower hands.
Upper hands: Y’I & YI
Lower hands: YI’ & Y (ignore lower thumb; transitional state; his hands depict 3-stage progresssion:
the ordinary-state possibilism mental model ospmm
the altered-state eternalism mental model asemm
the integrated possibilism/eternalism compound mental model ipecmm the integrated possibilism/eternalism mental model iepmm
Wrongly, Immaturely Expecting that the Final State Is Simply the I-Shaped Mental Model without the Y- or Y’-Shaped Mental Model
Wrongly, Immaturely Expecting that the Final State Is Simply the Non-Branching Eternalism Mental Model without the Branching-Possibilism Mental Model
Wrongly, Immaturely Expecting that the Final State Is Simply the Eternalism Mental Model without the Possibilism Mental Model
the Possibilism mental model
the Eternalism mental model
the Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model
to keep part 3 clean, omit “qualified/modified/revised/transformed” Possibilism. imagine:
the Possibilism’/ Eternalism mental model
the modified-Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model mpemm
The resulting progression is then:
the Possibilism mental model
the Eternalism mental model
the modified-Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model
YI implies the Possibilism experiential model
Y’I implies the modified-Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model
todo next: add white boxes to figure 3+4 of von Trimberg: …
Happiness Is: A Parallel Set of Keyboard Shortcuts (Acronyms): [PMM], [EMM], & [PEMM]
I quickly solved this erroneous thinking in just 2025-1995 = 30 years.
The 2000 correction from Coraxo in Gnosticism Yahoo Group, should’ve been indicator: not change from possibilism to eternalism; change from possibilism to modified-possibilism + eternalism = transcend heimarmene / fatedness/ no-free-will / the frozen 4-D block universe.
Then again April/Aug 2025 I had to do same fix again essentially same:
Stop putting down possibilism-thinking. Stop devaluing possibilism-thinking, we use it ALWAYS, it is going away the day you literally bodily die, only then.
TO BE ALIVE IS TO EMPLOY POSSIBILISM-THINKING
To Be Alive, Before & After Psilocybin Transformation, Is to Use Possibilism-Thinking: Never Devalue It; Redeem It
I had to accomplish this REVISION OF MY CORE THEORY twice, in two major revisions!
in 2000 to handle Late Antiquity instead of merely Classical Antiquity; to handle a 3-level model. 1988-1997 I barely had any concept or hooks, toward a 3-phase model.
possibilism-thinking
eternalism-thinking
integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking
or term’y “mental model”:
the Possibilism mental model
the Eternalism mental model
the integrated possibilism/eternalism mental model ipemm
todo: make capzn consis across that set of 3 keyboard shortcuts:
the integrated Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model ipemm the integrated Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model
try again w/ revised keyboard shortcut:
the Possibilism mental model
the Eternalism mental model
the integrated Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model
consider the word “compound”:
the integrated possibilism/eternalism compound mental model
todo: cap’z that expansion:
the integrated Possibilism/ Eternalism, compound mental model ipecmm
DONE. now try 1-3:
the Possibilism mental model
the Eternalism mental model
the integrated Possibilism/ Eternalism, compound mental model
too verbose 3rd step. shorter keyboard shortcut is:
the integrated Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model
clarity accuracy would be:
the integrated QUALIFIED Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model
qualified, revised, transformed, modified
Challenge: CLARITY & ACCURACY & SHORT; pick any 2 of the 3.
the Possibilism mental model
the Eternalism mental model
expansion conflict: pemm = the possibilism experiential mental model i wanted: pemm = the Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model which really means: pemm = the [MODIFIED-]Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model PROS/CONS of saying you end up with “one” “single” mental model, called possibilism/etm, as if Dionysus and Ariadne are FUSED in marriage , losing their opposite complementary relationship, bad. ok for shorthand elegance tho.
can we redef “pemm” to expand not to “the possibilism experiential mental model”? todo: uppercase possibilism there?
i REALLY want pemm to expand to “the Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model”
emergency redef from: pemm = the possibilism experiential mental model to: tpemm = the possibilism experiential mental model
to free up the keyboard shortcut to be instead: pemm = the Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model
exists:
pem = the Possibilism experiential mode eem = the Eternalism mental model
aghh inconsis. fix later. Address one need at a time! Hard work.
High tech that I invented when father died April 1987.
I am the inventor of what I call the “acronym“.
Y’ means the modified/ revised/ transformed/ reconstructed Possibilism mental model.
As if the Enlightened Mind Exclusively Uses the Eternalism Mental Model, without Anymore Using the Possibilism Mental Model
As if the the Possibilism mental model Has Been Gotten Rid Of and Is No Longer to Be Used
Avoid Scare-Quotes on “eternalism”
Revise the pair of keyboard shortcuts. Presently, bad:
emm = the “eternalism” mental model
pmm = the “possibilism” mental model
Use instead:
emm = the Eternalism mental model
pmm = the Possibilism mental model
DONE.
This related pair of keyboard shortcuts is similar; consistent:
emmtsc = the Eternalism mental model of time, self, and control
pmmtsc = the Possibilism mental model of time, self, and control
Scare quotes are NOT usable, bc implies negation/ doubt/ skepticism.
problem w/ keyboard shortcuts, no eternalism-thinking though have a possibilism-thinking keyboard shortcut
pt = possibilism-thinking
??? = eternalism-thinking e-t = ego transcendence – kinda retire this phrase? demote? reassign keyboard shortcut? et = the Eternalism theory – don’t like this phrase much? what is the Eternalism theory? yet pt is not parallel to that: pt = possibilism-thinking
new assigns:
the Eternalism theory tet = transcendent eternalism-thinking try using: etmt but taken!! FIRST TIME MAJOR CONFLICT OF KEYBOARD SHORTCUTS: etmt = eternalism theory of mental transformation – verdict: low value prhase
for gods sake can’t we have parallel?: ffs!
pt = possibilism-thinking
et = eternalism-thinking
currently the et keyboard shortcut is lame, et = the Eternalism theory , poor phrase, low value. NUKE this keyboard shortcut entirely. overwrite it w et.
DONE.
What Is “the Eternalism theory”?
Do I Own that Theory-Name? I do “the theory of eternalism” Low-Value Phrase, demote its keyboard shortcut
WRONGLY EXPECTING & CLAIMING THAT THE FINAL STATE IS SIMPLY ‘I’ INSTEAD OF (Y + I) OR (QUALIFIED-Y + I)
The problem with YI instead of Y’I or worst, WRONGLY EXPECTING & CLAIMING THAT THE FINAL STATE IS SIMPLY ‘I’ INSTEAD OF (Y + I) OR (QUALIFIED-Y + I).
Overly basic, crude, isolated altered-state eternalism is the crude mis-expectation, “must get rid of, divorce, cast-away, abandon Ariadne/Isaac; eliminate erroneous possibilism-thinking!” – an immature, awkward, typical, half-baked attitude.
The Month-Long “Medieval YI Hand-Shape Theory” Jackpot Week Continues
I was pleased (not surprised) to notice at start of Val Day 2026 today, confirming my Science Hypoth Prediction, thus THE EGODEATH THEORY IS PROVED TO BE CORRECT, that her hands form the CLASSIC MEDIEVAL HAND PAIR SHAPE: {Lower hand Y’, upper hand YI}.
Confirmed the Master Shape for Hand Pairs is {lower hand Y’, upper hand YI}
you might say this is part of:
Decoded {lower hand Y’, upper hand YI} = Initial Mental Model = Possibilism, Final Mental Model = Revised Possibilism + Eternalism
{balance scale} adjacent to CUBENSIS [we must be specific in this panel: oxen hooved dung mushroom specifically is useful for safe ID’n of CUBENSIS to safely ingest.
Safe id’n of Liberty Caps / non-Cubensis, or Panaeolus: Fake Liberty Caps or fake Panaeolus have orange rust.
See Stamets 1996 book.
Dark purple-black spores are good.
Orange rust spores are bodily fatal death poisonous.
Intro
Val Day 2004: All Egodeath Yahoo Group posts from June 2001 start to Val Day 2004, got copied to Egodeath.com, but without dates – big mistake.
Yahoo Groups was terminated 2019 by Yahoo. I posted 2001-2019, I only copied 2001-Feb 2004, to Egodeath.com. Feb 2004-2019 posts at Egodeath Yahoo Group were NOT copied to Egodeath.com. The Max Freakout archive of Egodeath Yahoo Group is at:
This page delivers, from last night or this morning, a fresh reading of f134 row 2 middle woman {balance scale} pair of hands
Where I saw the picture: in new page __, I made a fresh, expanded, cleaner gallery of all {balance scale} motifs in Great Canterbury Psalter BUT TODO: MAKE a page just for the {balance scale} motif, because I have been sluggish in showcasing {balance scale} motif and counting, bumped count last night from 8 to 9 not bc I discovered another instance, but bc my counting was sloppy, halfassing it on this important motif.
what’s in the pans: possibilism vs. eternalism balanced relationship mushroom and the ordinary-state possibilism experiential mode
the “possibilism” mental model branching possibilities
the “eternalism” mental model non-branching possibilities like thumb {cut right trunk}
Interpretation/Decoding Strategy: Finger Shape = Tree Branching Feature = YI Branching-Forms
How is this finger shape like mushroom-tree features?
The Term finger shape Means the YI form of {fingers vs. thumb}, or {3 fingers vs. slightly splayed-apart Index finger}, Across the Sequence of Two Hands
The shorthand term finger shape means the YI form of {fingers vs. thumb} (or {3 fingers vs. slightly splayed-apart Index finger}).
Use Formula: Finger Shape = Tree Branching Feature = YI Branching-Forms
Nike or Ariadne? (They Can’t Even Get Right Who Holds the Branch)
The ultimate, paradigmatic victory is:
Understanding and harmonizing branching vs. non-branching.
Wisdom, Transcendent Knowledge, is the integrated Possibilism/ Eternalism mental model.
I was steered by Michael Archangel and by Dionysus for decades, under a strong, guiding idea, that’s not in the source, reaching Wisdom successfully.
I’m keeping the victory trophy. 🐉🚪💎🏆
Thank you Michael & Dionysus, since 1986.
A Mixed-up Path to the Best, Ideal Conclusion and Mindset
I reached the best conclusion, through a partly confused path.
The motifs are the thing (ignored wings: Ariadne is a mortal then an immortal).
Shut off your academic text mind, and open your eyes and truly look at the art: shapes.
Bring expertise in branching vs. non-branching motifs, not expertise in mind-closing textual constraints that blind.
My reconciling and harmonizing of branching vs. non-branching, guided under an incorrect and superior reading of the mosaic, was life-changing, and theory-fixing.
Approaches I’m Against
I’m against:
text around art
Ronald Huggins & Thomas Hatsis claims that the text drives the art.
over-education about texts and stories
backstories behind art
Cog Neurobaloney
Cognitive Neuroscience
Epistemology, Ontology, Metaphysics
Approaches I Advocate
I advocate:
Phenomenology.
Medieval artists DGAF about the text around the art, or the stories; the art totally dominates over those.
The Artists Mainstream Psilocybin Initiation Guild brings their own internal dominant concern.
Medieval artists do not “illustrate the text” bowing down in subservience; artists have their own “talking points”. Artists use this particular job as an opportunity to deliver their own, extant message.
A pure psychedelic cognitive Phenomenology approach.
A pure cognitive phenomenology approach.
Psychedelics in Western religious history, as the source, origin, Reference point, and ongoing inspiration.
Psychedelics in Asian religious history, as the source, origin, Reference point, and ongoing inspiration. Per the Asian Studies expert AM, who quickly surpassed Mike Crowley’s book.
“Dionysus, the Greek god of wine and revelry, married Ariadne, the abandoned Cretan princess, after finding her weeping on Naxos, where Theseus had left her.
“Smitten by her, Dionysus married her, bringing her to Olympus and making her immortal with a crown created by Hephaestus, which became the Corona Borealis constellation.
[the soul rises to sphere of the fixed stars/ heimarmene; the spirit goes outside of that, per David Ulansey + Wouter Hanegraaff -mh]
Key Aspects of the Myth:
Meeting on Naxos: After helping Theseus defeat the Minotaur, Ariadne was abandoned by him on the island of Naxos. Dionysus found her, comforted her, and they fell in love.
The Marriage: They were married, and the wedding gift, a crown from Aphrodite or Hephaestus, was placed in the stars as the constellation Corona.
Children: They had several children together, often cited as including Oenopion, Thoas, Staphylus, and others.
Immortality: Dionysus (or Zeus at his request) made Ariadne immortal, and she lived with him on Mount Olympus.
Relationship Dynamic: They are often seen as a powerful, devoted couple, with Ariadne representing the intuitive “powerhouse” to Dionysus’s “rebel god” persona.
Ariadne is sometimes referred to as the “Mistress of the Labyrinth,” while Dionysus is the “Great Loosener,” often portraying a dynamic of transformation and devotion in mythology.”
There is 1 mushroom above each tiger’s head/neck (in the Maenad’s garment), and 1 mushroom above the left tiger’s tail (in Dionysus’ cloak). 5 instances in 1 art work is evidence of deliberate repetition — mushrooms hidden & revealed in garment folds.
The upturned Amanita leopard-watering bowl is mushroom #6, not to mention the mushroom-shaped grape-baskets above and to the right (see the below copy of the image).
Thiasus – Wikipedia-Triumph of Dionysus on a fragmentary Roman mosaic (3rd century, Sousse Archaeological Museum)-SCEPTER
The best photos ever taken of Amanita, for multiple reasons, including this proof utility.
Contributions by the Egodeath Community
Image provided to Michael Hoffman by the Egodeath community in 2005 for my 2007 main article.
Thiasus – Wikipedia-Triumph of Dionysus on a fragmentary Roman mosaic (3rd century, Sousse Archaeological Museum)
Figure 1. Triumph of Dionysus on a Roman mosaic (3rd century, Sousse Archaeological Museum).
Todo
todo: copy any other crops to here
THIS IS EXACTLY WHY I NEED DEDICATED GALLERY PAGE:
I CAN’T READILY FIND MY METADATA-ANNOTATED OFFICIAL UPLOADS OF ALL MY CROPS OF THIS IMAGE.
The present, new page fixes that problem of image database management of the Brown database of mushroom imagery in Christian art at this site. = “gallery”, “categlor
database
gallery
catalog
brown db includes analyusis BUT CERTAINLY EMPHATICALLY NOT JUST ISOLATED “MUSHROOM” IMAGERY:
{mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
The Brown Database of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art = EgodeathTheory.WordPress.com
mushroom imagery in Western, Greco/Roman, Jewish/Christian mythic religious art
mushroom imagery in Western art miwa
mushroom imagery in Greco/ Roman/ Jewish/ Christian art migrjca
Medieval Artists Simultaneously Depict the Final, Mature, Wisdom Mental Model (Post- Psilocybin Transformation), as Y’I (Accurate) & YI (Simple)
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, Valentine’s Day 2026, fullscreen
Y’I = IY’
Physics Firmly Asserts Non-Branching Eternalism as Its Foundation, and Offers No Support for Branching Possibilism
Mushroom expert RL assisted me a couple weeks ago in web research to answer this pair of questions:
Is block-universe eternalism accepted in Physics? Answer: YES, to the extreme. 4D block spacetime is SO well accepted, there isn’t even any justifiction; it’s treated as extremely foundational.
Is branching Everett manyworlds accepted in Physics? Answer: NO, it’s merely an idea, with no evidence.
Michael Hoffman since 1988: VINDICATED by that research, that extreme lopsided finding.
Physics firmly asserts Eternalism, and offers no support for Possibilism.
Petkov intro of book says Minkowski had real comprehension of mind-blowing Eternalism, but Ein only had hazy understanding.
It took me from 1998 to around 2010 to start connecting that with branching vs. non-branching in myth & mythic art.
Great new keyboard shortcuts to list the key contrasts, describe the phrase: list of contrasts of possibilism vs possibilism vs. eternalism l c p e [LCPE]:
List of Contrasts of Possibilism vs. Eternalism
Possibilism vs. Eternalism =
{branching} vs. {non-branching}
{tree} vs. {snake}
{fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}
Y vs. I
many worlds vs. single block-universe
[LCPE]
List of Contrasts of Possibilism vs. Eternalism (Verbose)
Ordinary-state Possibilism vs. altered-state Eternalism =
Possibilism vs. Eternalism (technical)
{branching} vs. {non-branching} (everyday analogy)
{tree} vs. {snake} (analogy)
{fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (analogy)
Y vs. I (notation)
many worlds vs. single block-universe (technical analogy)
[LCPEL]
3 types of lexicon language:
technical language: possibilism vs. eternalism; many worlds vs. single block universe
everyday language: branching vs. non-branching
analogy: {tree} vs. {snake} {fingers} vs. {thumb} {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}
Overlaps:
many worlds vs. single block universe — technical language, and analogy
branching vs. non-branching — everyday language, and analogy
Rebis:
Rebis Holding a Y by Using Fingers & (Opposable/ Opposite) Thumb Together
The base of the Y is the non-branching region of that “tree”.
The top part of the Y is a V (branching); compare two mushrooms in Day 4 pointing to the V- or A-shaped compass God holds while also holds {balance scale} filled with Panaeolus & Amanita:
Proof that in Day 1 (Creation of Light), the {balance scale} Pans Contain Panaeolus & Amanita Mushrooms
Crop and Annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025 Day 1: Compass and {balance scale} Day 4: Liberty Cap, Cubensis, Panaeolus, Amanita
Crop and Annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025 Day 1: Compass and {balance scale} Day 4: Liberty Cap, Cubensis, Panaeolus, Amanita
Four mushrooms- which Ronald Huggins WRONGLY calls “trees” as he rushes past this panel to deflect and divert attention magician-like.
Huggins the bad phony stage-magician diverts your attention by saying “Around the trees are smaller plants”.
Do I need to screenshot Huggins’ INSANITY propaganda?
Trees?!
HOW CAN RONALD HUGGINS CALL THESE 4 SIMPLE MUSHROOMS, “TREES”?
THEY HAVE NO BRANCHES, AND THAT IS REALLY THE ENTIRETY OF Huggins’ argument of objection to saying that:
The Hundreds of Mushroom-Trees in Christian Art, That We Deniers Assert Look Like Mushrooms, Are Not Mushrooms
The hundreds of mushroom-trees are not mushrooms.
The art academics themselves dubbed this class of trees “pilzbaum / mushroom-trees”, because the art academics said these mushroom-trees look like mushrooms.
THEY SAID SO THEMSELVES, and now that crowd of anything-but-drugs academics is trying to walk back THEIR OWN ASSERTION THAT THESE TREES LOOK LIKE MUSHROOMS.
What a great invention: the citation-type keyboard shortcut.
In April 2025, the Dionysus and Rebis Images Corrected and Revised the 1997 Egodeath Core Theory’s “Repudiate” View of Branching Possibility Thinking
You repudiate the original mental model in a way: you revise and retain it.
April 2025, fundamental correction of my 1988/1997 core model, or of my undestanding of the final state in relation to the two systems where you “move from A to B” as if to eliminate A, which is not the case.
That correction was driven by two images:
“Rebis holding a Y” image which RL helped me re-find after repeated failure.
Dionysus and Ariadne victory wedding procession mosaic.
Those two artists instructed me how to solve this difficult problem I worked on for months trying to rightly articulate attitude and revision of the orig mental model.
The Pythagorean Y
Crop by Michael Hoffman
Left = possibilism-thinking = process more with altered-state fire
Right = eternalism-thinking = victory
Beware of “get rid of possibilism-thinking”.
Simple vs. accurate models.
Simplified, 1st-order model: Switch from Possibilism to Eternalism.
Accurate, 2nd-order model: Switch from Possibilism, to modified Possibilism along with Eternalism.
The mind retains possibilism-thinking in a modified form, upon adding eternalism-thinking.
The broad, inclusive sense of the word “eternalism-thinking”:
Eternalism-thinking includes modified/ qualified/ transformed/ transfigured/ revised possibilism-thinking.
Whether to put Braces Notation Around {branching} & {non-branching}
The terms branching vs. non-branching are BOTH direct lang (referent domain) AND analogy-domain.
It’s arbitrary whether to put braces around “branching” and “non-branching”, as do for analogies in myth & mythic art.
On the spectrum from direct lang to analogy, branching vs. non-branching sits in the middle.
Motivation for this Page
I am CONSTANTLY needing this mosaic because EXTREMELY profound lesson, not foolish notion 1995-2025 of “get rid of possibilism-thinking and change to eternalism-thinking”.
I had to find the most clear & effective way of framing / defining “eternalism-thinking” – vex Q:
eternalism-thinking = not possibilism-thinking; purely basic eternalism-thinking. vs.
eternalism-thinking = includes transformed possibilism-thinking.
The Problem for Artists, Same as for Me
Non-Branching Thinking Includes Branching Thinking, and Is the Exclusive Opposite (Complement) of Branching Thinking
It’s largely a termy-defn problem, for effective lexicon definition.
My 1988, 1997, 2024 connection implication tones where gave the impression – proof: Erik Davis page on the Egodeath theory in Zep IV book climax.
Tomorrow, April 29, 2025, audiobook is released, of book Led Zeppelin’s Led Zeppelin IV (33 1/3) (Erik Davis, 2005) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0826416586 —
p. 118, Zep 4 (Davis) on Astral Ascent Mysticism
Photo & annotations by Michael Hoffman
Davis’ treatment, Not Reaching Resolution; Failing to Reach Late Antiquity’s “Transcend Heimarmene” Level of Comprehension.
When Davis read Egodeath.com in 2004, I had only started to theorize in terms of 2- vs 3-level model.
It took me until Apr.-Aug. 2025, to really grasp the mind’s actual, final, mature relation between harmonizing in some way, possibilism alongside eternalism as two complementary opposites.
Intense mystic altered state visionary inspiration around that time: voice recording:
I tried to advice ppl how to think, but my speech is polluted:
How can I tell you “you should think about it this way”, when how you think about it is frozen in rock for eternity?
That’s when I realized, WE ALWAYS DO AND ALWAYS WILL employ possibilism-thinking.
It’s nonsense and unreal to think that possibilism-thinking goes away when add eternalism-thinking.
(Which similar Acid Metal album Diary of a Madman lyrics about changing thinking?)
p. 122, Zep 4 (Davis), About the Egodeath Theory as Pure, Exclusive Eternalism, as if Get Rid of Possibilism
Photo & annotations by Michael Hoffman
The Dominant Christian Interpretation Is by Psilocybin-Initiated, Transformed Artists Spotlighted in the Greatest, Most-Mainstream Cathedrals and Illuminated Manuscripts
Davis does NOT reflect my latest nascent idea of 2004, from Coraxo 2000 Gnosticism Yahoo Group:
In some sense, transcend block-universe determinism (eternalism; heimarmene, fatedness).
The mind learns eternalism-thinking and then in a sense transcends eternalism-thinking, in that the mind retains possibilism-thinking (modified) alongside eternalism-thinking.
Happily for my struggle to articulate this around April 2025, the medieval artists are working hard to communicate the same, specific, sophisticated, mature point:
The mind’s mature end-state after psilocybin transformation (eternalism-driven control-transformation), can be described in multiple ways:
I-shaped. End up with eternalism-thinking “instead of” possibilism-thinking. If define eternalism to include modded possibilism.
I-shaped & Y-shaped. End up with both possibilism-thinking & eternalism-thinking. A simplified explanation that we end up with (for the most part) the original world model, with the eternalism model added to it.
I-shaped & Y’-shaped. End up with modified possibilism-thinking, + eternalism-thinking. That’s accurate: the new I model + the modded Y model.
Depending how you think about it and define terms:
Shall we say I-thinking (non-branching thinking), INCLUDES branching thinking?!
“Hey dude, I found this in a rudimentary search (not verified yet) and just wanted to bounce it off to see how it jibes with your notes.”
Hand Gestures in Medieval Art
A search-result summary.
“Hand gestures in medieval art served as a “graphic shorthand” to convey complex theological, emotional, and social meanings, functioning as a silent language for viewers.
“Common symbolic gestures included raised hands for blessing, hand-on-chest for devotion, and specific finger positions to represent the Trinity.
“These postures bridged religious narratives with the viewer and, in secular art, signified authority, legal, or romantic commitments.
Key Religious and Spiritual Gestures
Benediction/Blessing: Christ often raises his right hand with the thumb, index, and middle fingers extended (representing the Trinity) while the ring and little finger touch (representing the dual nature of Christ). [no branching analysis? fail, QUALITY OF INTERP = POOR; THOSE ON THE OUTSIDE the city gates wailing]
Hand of God: A divine hand reaching from a cloud [tons of God-clouds in Great Canterbury Psalter] signifies God’s intervention, authorization, or approval, often appearing in scenes like the baptism of Christ or coronation of rulers.
Prayer/Adoration: Hands raised with palms open (orans) or pressed together (later medieval period) demonstrate supplication or devotion.
Modesty/Submission: A hand placed on the chest or covering the womb was used to denote purity and modesty, commonly seen in depictions of the Virgin Mary.
Secular and Social Gestures
Handfasting/Binding: Clasped hands signified legal contracts, such as marriage or feudal loyalty.
Silence/Contemplation: A finger placed to the lips or a hand resting under the chin (thoughtful pose) indicated silence, often in monastic contexts.
Despair/Grief: Outstretched arms and hands raised high, often with fingers splayed, were used to depict extreme sorrow or emotional anguish, such as in crucifixion scenes.
Directional and Expressive Functions
Pointing: Figures often point to direct the viewer’s attention to crucial narratives or figures within a scene.
Hand-to-Body Contact: Gestures were used to humanize sacred figures, making their divinity accessible to the viewer.
Right vs. Left Hand: Traditionally, the right hand signified active, divine, or male power, while the left hand was associated with the passive or, in some contexts, the deceptivTHE END
/ end of email
Predictions About the Summary
This was written before i read the email summary of hand shapes that doesn’t mention YI, branching vs. non-branching, YI hand shapes:
IM SURE THEY’LL DISCUSS SHAPES BASIC BRANCHING VS. NON-BRANCHING SHAPES VIA FINGER CONTRASTS (OR NO FKKING CHANCE)
Bet: zero relevance below:
no shape YI analysis so trashcan/reject the below poor-quality analysis pie-sky invention
blind to YI contrast shapes message
ordinary-state possibilism vs. psychedelic eternalism ospvase
most basic message:
ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism if omit ‘s’ (-state) in the acro: opae < — new
ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism opvae
Awesome List of Contrasts of Possibilism vs. Eternalism [LCPE] [LCPEL]
possibilism vs. eternalism = branching vs. non-branching; {tree} vs. {snake}; {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger}; Y vs. I; many worlds vs. single block-universe
ordinary-state possibilism vs. altered-state eternalism = possibilism vs. eternalism (technical) = branching vs. non-branching (everyday); {tree} vs. {snake} (analogy); {fingers} vs. {thumb} or {index finger} (analogy); Y vs. I (notation); many worlds vs. single block-universe (technical)
i figured some my first decoding hand shape was Mar. 21, 2022 email to Brow F aggggh no
the other date in the Disco Log:
🕺🏐
Feb. 9, 2023: Emailed Brown: Entry into Jerusalem Martin Church fresco Jesus’ finger shapes using TWO hands NOT interp like as if 1 hand. L hand extremely splayed 5 fingers R hand Index+Middle extended held firmly together, hand-shapes contrasted
AND guy in tree holding out sticks and feathers
IT WOULD BE NICE IF JULIE BROWN GIVE ME ULTRA RES OF FINGERS & STICKS FEATHERS
“ONE INSTANCE IS A FLUKE; TWO’S A PATTERN”
That use of finger shapes (dup’d in the miniature, God in bush finger shapes) is artistically creative.
And Christ’s finger-shapes in Entry into Jerusalem in Martin Church exactly matched in a miniature i was glad to find, big confirmation.
The Mainstream Artists Initiation Guild with Psilocybin Mushroom Lockbox; motif-education, and {balance scale}
Ruck forces me to specify “psilocybin”, to keep out 3rd-rate Amanita that the Allegro/ Ruck/ Irvin crowd, 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm), are pushing.
As a mainstream artists initiation guild member, you paint shapes guided by branching vs. non-branching basic concepts.
Use a shared, taught, developed, hand-shape theory language that the psilocybin initiation lockbox guild of artists developed between 1000 BC and 1687 AD.
mainstream artists initiation motif-education guild with psilocybin mushroom lockbox and {balance scale} aig
Hand Shape Emojis
They overlap the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees} motifs’ use of YI hand shapes.
I didn’t even classify my hand-shape theory breakthrough into which cat. yet?
{mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
which cat is yi hand shapes?
mushroom {mushroom }
{mushroom}
,
{branching},
{handedness} – yes (10% chance as always, FLEXY! FLEXY! no rigid Panofsky photocopy crafstman robot (when it comes to TABOO SPECIAL TOPIC of mushroom-trees, only).
{splayed fingers touching head} = asleep in ordinary-state possibilism
im gonna make sure announced, now:
Decoded {splayed fingers touching head} = asleep in ordinary-state possibilism
12:52 a.m. Feb. 13, 2026
Mobile device has screenshots to maybe upload.
A common theme.
Sleeping baby, mother’s branched fingers against sleep baby head.
Jonah Asleep vs. Awake at the Gourd Plant: How Fingers Touch Head (Golden Psalter)
DIDNT U HEAR ALLEGROS BEEN DEBUNKED
DIDNT U HEAR ALLEGROS BEEN DEBUNKED
SO, NO MUSHROOMS IN WESTERN RELIGIOUS HISTORY.
The weopanized by anything-but-drugs academics , Allegro & Rogan & Muraresku and any pop-facing, even Ruck: make em look silly, beat entheogen scholars over the head w em –
you are a follower of Joe Rogan if you believe Secret Christian Amanita Cult. which is same as Eleusis Kykeon washed-out vessels.
NO EVIDENCE!
… joke part 1 here, todo.
There is no evidence to support “the psychedelic mysteries hypothesis”. Magically, “possibility” becomes “fact” (just like Mosurinjohn & Ascough make a big, overblown (misrep.) stink against Ruck for doing):
We debunked Ruck and proved there definitely were no psychedelics in mystery religions or Christian origins.
We’ve read entire 2 publications in this newbie field of Psychedelic Science Professional Critic & Self Promoter by attacking founders of field blanket sweeping DISRESPECT.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough’s disrespect for entheogen scholars is as bad as my intense disrespect of Popebanker Wasson the cover-up operator lifetime actor active deceiver lying to everyone.
Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson tried to bluff “the mycologists”; that is, Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
But the top mycologist, John Ramsbottom, exposed Wasson who wrote to Ramsbottom:
Rightly or wrongly, committed skeptics WE ARE GOING TO ASSERT AND PROPAGANDIZE THAT Plaincourault fresco IS NOT Amanita MUSHROOMS and give up bcTOO MANY MUSHROOM-TREES IN Christian ART FOR Plaincourault fresco TO BE MUSHROOM.
NO EVIDENCE!
TOO MANY MUSHROOM-TREES!
Oon only the specific type of evidence in this magic specfic eleusis site vessels that us Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art carefullly washed the dirt out of –> 🗑
No evidence! of this specific type we only care about, because.
Only text counts, not art.
Only chemical evidence in our cleaned-out by us vessels counts, so, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough, typical anything-but-drugs academics, Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art, show zero interest in constructing the case; no steelmanning.
They broadcast, in authoritarian fashion, 1-way bad argumentation, broadcast with ears covered.
“Give up and shut up. You are stupid blundering ignorant mycologists.”
The epithet ‘blundering’ is Wasson-speak.
TRUST ME BRO I’M THE POPES BANKER: THERES NO MUSHROOMS IN THE HUNDREDS OF MUSHROOM-TREES WE ART AUTHORITIES DUBBED MUSHROOM-TREES bc they look so goddamn mushroid.
The art authorities who were Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art kinda lost the battle right from the start,
Bluff harder!
“STOP LOOKING, RUSTIC BUFFOONS, WE PROFESSIONAL ACADEMICS ARE SHUTTING YOU DOWN , FANTASIZING YOUR HALLUCINATED PATHETIC justification of your New Religious Movement (NRM).”
“We understand your sad and pathetic attempt to justify your New Religious Movement (NRM)”
My Motivation for Finding Tons of Mushroom Imagery in Greco/ Roman/ Jewish/ Christian Art
In 1997, I summarized my 1988 core theory, the Phase 1, Psychedelic Eternalism theory, within the Egodeath theory of psychedelic eternalism.
In 1998, I wanted Mr. Historical Jesus & Mr. Historical Paul to corroborate the Egodeath theory of Psychedelic Eternalism; the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence.
I met with Freke & Gandy in an underground coffeehouse – authors of a top 10 bestseller book – and immediately realized that I would probably be successful in getting Mythic Analogy to corroborate the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence, including the ahistoricity of religious founder figures.
To Corroborate the Phase 1, Psychedelic Eternalism theory, within the Egodeath theory of psychedelic eternalism.
Mosurinjohn & Ascough make a crude, sweeping, overconfident, broad-brush dismissal of all entheogen scholarship, that the motivation driving entheogen scholarship is to fabricate Pathetic Justification for Our New Religious Movement (NRM).
But Ruck does no Drug Policy Reform activism, and his angle on Amanita Gnosis is designed to condone and conform to permanent Prohibition, reified by his group’s publications.
Ruck reifies and perpetuates perma Prohibition, his whole narrative depends on eternal Prohibition.
Ruck’s efforts to keep Amanita Prohibition & Suppression permanently in place (which doesn’t make any sense; no one GAF about Amanita, and it is not Prohibited), disprove Mosurinjohn & Ascough’s claim that the motive for entheogen scholarship is to repeal psilocybin Prohibition.
I did not find tons of mushroom imagery in Christian art in order to fabricate Pathetic Justification for Our New Religious Movement (NRM), as Sharday Mosurinjohn Accuses Mosurinjohn & Ascough Accuse.
The Egodeath theory = New Religious Movement (NRM) based on 1200 heyday the mushroom-tree religion & Mithraism cosmos , Classical Antiquity 2-level myth, Late Antiquity 3-level myth cosmos model
So, No Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art
There’s no evidence for psychedelics in mystery religions. That is, there’s no chemical evidence in Eleusis vessels that we anything-but-drugs academics carefully washed out.
Only text evidence counts, unless someone finds text evidence supporting psychedelics in mystery religions such as every instance of the word ‘Eucharist’ – in that case, textual evidence does NOT count.
The only evidence type of evidence that counts (bc we arb’ly say so), is the kind that we carefully washed away.
Selection Bias: The Only Kind of Evidence That Counts, Is Whatever Kind Has the Least Evidence for Mushrooms (Because We Anything-But-Drugs Academics Say So)
If text evidence for mushrooms is strong, and art evidence for mushrooms is weak, then the only kind of evidence that counts is art evidence, not text evidence, because we say so.
If text evidence for mushrooms is weak, and art evidence for mushrooms is strong, then the only kind of evidence that counts is text evidence, not art evidence, because we say so.
SO, NO mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Ranked Emojis for medieval YI hand shapes:
todo: nuke dups
how close match / how useful
Close Match / Hi 👈👉☝️✋🤚🤝✌️👈🖐 Semi-Match / Med 🤘🤞🤲👐🤝👆👋 Close Enough / Low 🤟🖖👏✊👇🖖🤙 Useless / None 👍🙌👎🤛🤜
Grouped by Hand Types
Hand ✋🤚🖐👋🖖🤙 🤟🤘🤞✌️✊ 🤜 🤛 Point 👈👉👆👇☝️👍👎 Two Hands 🤲👐🤝🙌👏
900 AD – 1300 AD was the Heyday of the mushroom-tree religion
OFFICIAL Egodeath theory STATEMENT:
I DON’T KNOW if 900 AD – 1300 AD was the heyday of the mushroom-tree religion.
How can the time range be assessed? The motifs are all throughout history.
🎸🦇 I Don’t Know 🦇🎙
Sorted emojis into good/ medium/ bad to match the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}.
1000 BC to 1687 AD {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} Motifs
Oh joy, another article by the newbie Denier of mushroom imagery in Christian art, Ronald Huggins, who is expecting to score easy points without any opposition.
Your terms are acceptable.
Because I already won, several years ago.
Be prepared to be spiritually DEBRANCHED, Huggins.
I get to sentence-by-sentence make fun of Huggins’ fallacious arguments.
Huggins’ gang of newbie anything-but-drugs academics invading Psychedelc Studies, expecting Easy-Mode “victories” against Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Ronald Huggins
Christian Greer
Sharday Mosurinjohn
Richard Ascough
The newbie anything-but-drugs academics are citing my 64-page, 2006 article with Jan Irvin’s research input.
Medieval Artists’ Game: Paint Initial- and Final-State YI Hand Shapes
🖼️👉✋🧙♂️👷♂️📡
Emojis are mostly not the same shapes as in medieval art , but what a workout it would be, a joke analysis of Hand emojis; great exercise.
I teach you the artists’ game.
Start with the lower hand. Make a Y branching shape with fingers, creatively.
End with the upper hand. Make I and Y (or cut Y; Y’) branching shapes with fingers. Can use thumb, or Index finger splayed, to form the I.
For the 2nd hand, do not let Y dominate over I; eg usually avoid YI’ (or I’Y). If I is cut, Y should be cut too: I’Y’
No copycatting.
Artists played this initiation profound, mainstreamest game, during the heyday of the mushroom-tree religion within mainstreamest Christianity.
Heyday of this game: ~900 AD – 1300 AD (estim.)
Emojis: ‘Y’ Fingers, vs. ‘I’ Thumb or Splayed Index Finger
👐🤞✌️🤟🤘
🤏👆👇
☝️✋🤚🖐️
🖖
good: 👋🤙🫲
🦶🦵
txt msg 2 to CF p.m. Feb. 12, 2026
medieval YI hand shapes myhs
The Available Emojis partly overlap with the language of medieval YI hand shapes
The available emojis partly overlap with the language of hand shapes.
Paint branching vs. non-branching shapes via fingers and thumbs.
Don’t be uncreative, or you lose your artistic license.
The Artists Initiation Guild Lockboxes Blue Fruit Ordered Trade by King, Weighing the Blue Dried Fruit with a {balance scale}
The artists initiation lockboxes blue fruit ordered trade by the king, weighing the blue dried fruit with a {balance scale}.
That’s all shown plainly in the medieval art genre of {mush-trees} that forest that Huggins walked into <emoji: leafless tree> 🐍
Huggins’ fallacious arguments are being debranched.
Instances of the {psilocybin mushroom lockbox} Motif in Great Canterbury Psalter
There are other mushroom containers shown, such as:
sphere-jars
blue vase f134 row 3 middle.
9 Instances of the {balance scale} Motif in Great Canterbury Psalter
todo: delete section after make sure no data lost in new page
Rules of the artists’ game, the hand-shape theory game:
The first hand (the starting state): Paint a Y or Y’ shape for one hand.
The second hand (the ending state): Paint the other hand’s shape, as an I shape and also a (qualified/transformed) Y shape (Y or Y’).
The resulting Y model is not the same as the original Y-shaped thinking.
The mind ends up with a Y’ & I pair of married mental models of time, self, and control:
Altered-state eternalism (I)
Ordinary-state possibilism (Y or Y’)
As an artist in the mainstream artists mushroom initiation guild with psilocybin mushroom lockboxes, you are trained to paint pairs of hands that have creative variants of:
The first hand shows Y or Y’ shapes.
The second hand shows I & Y shapes (or possibly variants such as: from best to worst:
IY – simplified, as if after ego death & rebirth, your original Y-shaped mental model is unchanged.
IY’ – accurate; the mind ends up with qualified Y (Y’), not simply the original Y-shaped mental model.
I’Y’ – eg holding a shovel with fingertips facing viewer.
I’Y – worst variant, b/c don’t want to demote I to below Y.
The second hand: I shape and optional Y or Y’ shape
A Y’ shape, eg. fingers folded, hidden.
Often the starting hand (usually a Y hand shape variant) has no thumb shown.
That shape is compared to a {cut right branch} on a tree, in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}.
It represents the mental model progression before & after mushroom initiation, moving from the first hand-shape to the second hand-shape.
Mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism: the mind keeps possibilism, loves it (“embrace and include” per Ken Wilber), but the mind’s “possibilism” mental model is transformed now.
First, a Y shape, then, a Y-qualified + I shape.
The ‘I’ shape means the non-branching, snake shape; that is, the block-universe worldline of one’s whole life frozen in rock forever.
In the artists initiation education guild with psilocybin mushroom lockbox as shown in Great Canterbury Psalter multiple times.
The mushroom-tree religion is common in cathedrals, illuminated manuscripts; prominent, commonplace.
txt msg 3 to CF p.m. Feb. 12, 2026
The Mainstreamest Religion Is the Mushroom-Tree Religion that’s Within the Heart & Spotlight of Christian History
The mainstreamest religion is the mushroom-tree religion that’s within the heart & spotlight of Christian history.
900 AD – 1300 AD: The Heyday of the Mushroom-Tree Religion
Maybe those years.
1000 BC – 1687 AD: The Art Lifetime of {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
If the heyday of the mushroom-tree religion was 900 AD – 1300 AD, when was the BROAD period of these 4 art motifs individually?
{mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
Provably, various elements/ motifs of the mush-tree religion lasted from 800 BC – 1687 AD.
In 1687, Newton + sun-centric modernity trashcanned my astral ascent mysticism cosmos model 🌌–>🗑️😭
At least it took them 177 years(!) to switch from earth- to sun-centric: 1510-1687.
I will just take it ALL, the entire timeline, TYVM.
Some variant motif forms go way back:
the {tree} vs. {snake} motif is a zillion years old
The earliest intense mystic altered state art.
txt msg 4 to CF p.m. Feb. 12, 2026
Conceptual Revolutions (Thagard, 1992): from earth-centric to sun-centric cosmos model: took 177 years
the main example of paradigm shift is earth-centric to sun-centric cosmos model
BUT
that overnight revolution took 177 years! 🤯
1510-1687
💎
Hanging Upside Down by Right Knee/Leg 🙃
Crop by Cybermonk, March 26, 2023
txt msg 1 to RL 10:37 p.m. Feb. 13, 2026
finally complete gallery of all NINE {balance scale} along with
6(?) {mushrm lockbox bin}
{sack} = mushrm blue/brown fruit traded and stored in
THE ARTISTS INITIATION GUILD HOUSE
training in the visual language of {mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs
the mushroom-tree religion main theme:
branching vs. non-branching
(everyday lang)
their theology, 2-level, dependent control
in the intense mystic altered state
possibilism vs. eternalism
(tech term)
{tree} vs. {snake}
(analogy)
many worlds vs. single block-universe
(technical analogy)
we know a lot about
the ultra MAINSTREAM
psilo peak religious experience depiction
religion among artists
the mushroom-tree religion
mushroom-tree art within the heart of Christianity,
the best cathedrals,
the best ill. manu’s,
mushroom-tree art serves the art initiates’ mushroid concerns
more than it bows in submission to the mere text
against academics who say only text counts, who cares about art even Thomas Hatsis writes :
none of his gallery of mush-tree art means mushrm
then he took down his articles crazy
articles were protesteth too much, “too many mushrm!”
none of tbese 100 mushroom-trees that academics designated as looking like mushroo
on central display
2nd-generation entheogen scholarship
(the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm)
txt msg 2 to RL 10:57 p.m. Feb. 13, 2026
Ridiculous Reasoning from the Anything-But-Drugs Academics Panofsky 1952 & Wasson 1968
Anything-but-drugs academics, Deniers of mushrm imagery in Christian art, reason:
Panofsky 1952:
“none of this gallery of 100 trees that we academics designated as “mushrm-trees” because they look like mushrooms, means mushrms”
Wasson 1968 p. 180:
You ignorant, blundering mycologists, Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art,
You must obey the anything-but-drugs academics.
Trust me bro, I’m the banker for the Pope.
Panofsky 1952:
“There’s way too many mushroom-trees for them to mean mushroom, so the notion that Plaincourault fresco is Amanita is just mycologists’ ignorance of the hundreds of other mushroom-trees that are too numerous to mean mushroom
Wasson 1968 p. 180:
I’ll just censor what Panofsky strongly urged to consult, the one book by academics that ever mentioned the hundreds of mushroom-trees:
Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings (Brinckmann, 1906) German only, only says pilzbaum 5x.
Certainly don’t mention the two art pieces Panofsky mailed Wasson, showing “emphatic mushroom features”.
I FINALLY made a page listing the {balance scale} motif, 9x, in Great Canterbury Psalter.
It was a nice last-minute decision to pair {balance scale} with {lockbox} & {sack} motifs in the new page.
todo: I need to add some crops to highlight the {balance scale} in the big images.
txt msg 4 to RL, 5:05 pm Feb. 14, 2026
Huggins’ rehashed, “Still Foraging Wrong” article was published just 3.5 months ago.
So im not very snoozing in my field.
Huggins cites my 2006 article w Jan Irvin.
I gotta read/ demolish/ rebut Huggins’ rehashed article now.
If I were snoozing, my fingers would be splayed touching side of head, like Jonah Gourd plant in Golden psalter, which also contrasts awake’s finger shapes.
round vine trees (90% non-branching)
Jonah and the Gourd Plant (Golden Psalter)
Jonah and the gourd plant, Golden Psalter
Features:
awake Jonah: lower hand Y’, upper hand Y’I.
3-phase analysis of Jonah’s THREE! hands:
right jonah: fingers splayed. Y, no I.
left jonah > lower hand: 4 fingers together: Y, no I [this is not working as planned]
left jonah > upper hand: bottom up: Pinkie & Ring together, folded, Middle (w/ Index) extended, displayed fully.
1. starting state:
spiritually asleep,
only know Y-shaped, branching possibilism-thinking
2. final state:
awake;
know both:
the Y-shaped, branching mode (pinkie & ring fingers, folded to partly negate them)
The article is SO good, TOO good, it suffered an author-line dispute.
Acharya S wrote something favorable about Sacred Mushroom & The Cross.
Robert M. Price mocked her in writing, but he royally f’d up every aspect of his scholarship.
Michael Hoffman emailed Robert Price pointing out the many horrible errors, because anything-but-drugs academics always go insane on this taboo topic.
Robert Price invited Michael Hoffman to write an article on this topic.
Michael Hoffman started writing the article.
Jan Irvin heard about the article.
Jan Irvin asked Michael Hoffman for Jan Irvin to participate in article.
Lesson learned: There was no discussion of the Author line.
Jan Irvin provided tons of substantive research findings in series of emails and phone calls with Michael Hoffman.
Emails between Michael Hoffman & Robert Price about the article design.
Michael Hoffman did 100% of the writing & article design & publication planning.
Article finished.
Michael Hoffman submitted the finished article to Robert M. Price for publishing.
Jan Irvin wanted to be added on the Author line.
Hoffman credited Irvin not by listing him on Author line, but by top-of-page credit, terse but accurate. http://egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm – below the TOC, before the start of the article body: “Acknowledgements – Thank you to Judith Brown and the Allegro Estate for the letters, and to Jan Irvin for helping with much of the research for this article.”
Robert Price terminated the journal of Higher Criticism.
Acharya S emailed Michael Hoffman thanking Michael Hoffman for fully reconciling Acharya S with Robert Price.
Will I Ask Price to Publish the Article, as Planned in 2006?
Michael Hoffman did 100% of the planning of the article, 100% of the arranging the publishing, & 100% of the writing.
There’s a dispute about whether Irvin’s name is on the author line.
The 64-Page Article is EXTREMELY Good, has Tons of Juicy Quotes
I read-aloud the article on Egodeath Mystery Show podcast.
Found two screwups where I didn’t say where the quoted passage is from.
Motivation for this Page
This WordPress site’s copy of the article is a backup at WordPress.com of the excellent 10/10, field-leading article from Egodeath.com.
This article is a rich motherlode gold mine of quotations and citations and arguments/ critical analyses. Centrally relevant and essential for mushroom imagery in Christian art.
A scholar cannot write about mushroom imagery in Christian art w/o citing this article, as Brown does.
Motivation for this page: My article w/ Irvin input 2006 is EXCELLENT, 10/10, needs more attention.
If, like Ronald Huggins, you haven’t read this article, you are not equipped to write about the mushroom imagery in Christian art debate.
I should have bought Irvin’s book The Holy Mushroom immediately; it has various topics. I was on hiatus 2008-Sep. 2011 when the book came out.
I was so sick of this topic by 2008: MOVE FORWARD PPL!
Errata: Note the couple of quotes/passages that fail to have a citation of where Irvin & I got them.
Errata; my only regret about how I wrote the article: In the Takeaways list at top, make the observation and accusation – like my ~5 scattered paragraphs in article body: Wasson has certainly censored and withheld scholarly publication citations that Erwin Panofsky must have provided, and it’s intuitively immediately obvious that art historians have never written anything of any substance, so they must be feeble citations.
Brown 2019 publishing the Erwin Panofsky letters proved my 2006 accusations & assessment.
I WANTED to see and read the citations of art historians publications (pathetic, we can be sure – or entirely non-existent) on the subject of “hundreds of mushroom-trees” in Christian art.
I directly perceived Wasson holding back Pan’s citation(s) from us.
HOW I WISH I HAD PUT 2+2 TOGETHER AND POINTED TO THE . . . . ELLIPSES in the exact spot where Erwin Panofsky must have provided citations/ evidence to back up his BIG-TALKING claims of familiarity w/ mushroom-trees.
I did not see the ellipses until probably after Brown 2019 Panofsky letters, which shows what was censored by ellipses: Brinck cit + 2 art pieces showing mushroom-trees.
Not to mention, Pan’s branches arg.
WHAT IF I HAD SEEN THE BRANCHES ARG IN 2006, wouldn’t that have led me in 2007 to my 2020 breakthrough in Great Canterbury Psalter so that I would have comprehended the pictures in my 2007 main article?
Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter wasn’t uploaded by John Lash til May 2008 per Archive site.
It’s good to see that Brown 2016 cited “Discovery of a Lifetime” by John Lash, that article uploaded that image to the web ~May 2008, which I re-saw in Nov 2020, leading to massive breakthrough by confirming my Xmas 2015 hypothesis about the Dancing Man salamander bestiary’s mushroom-tree hi-res image provided by Thomas Hatsis:
“Stand on right foot = relying on eternalism-thinking instead of possibilism-thinking??” Dec. 25, 2015
Extremely confirmed in Nov. 2020, by Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter.
My Discovery of a Lifetime receiving Eadwine’s Psilocybin cybernetic message of {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs — incredibly perfect, ideal proof of fully developed use of Psilocybin in Christian history 900-1400 AD.
My received transmission of proof of fully developed use of Psilocybin in Medieval Europe & England flies in the face of everyone in the world, who are all wrong and prejudiced, led astray by Wasson, and by Allegro and then Ruck building on Allegro:
1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm) – full of baloney; vs. 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm) where Brown 2019 lists me first in section Ardent Advocates.
Brown Falsely Says Heinrich & Irvin Say Jesus Didn’t Exist
Brown error YET ANOTHER lol –
It is hard to talk about multiple writers at same time accurately, Brown fell into this pit.
Cybermonk Is a Mythicist & Is Flexible
Brown 2016 is correct that I say Jesus didn’t exist.
Heinrich Is not a Mythicist; Is Literalist
Brown 2016 falsely says Heinrich says Jesus didn’t exist.
Strange Fruit 1995 says rather, Allegro says Jesus was leader of a mushroom cult.
Clark Heinrich knows nothing about ahistoricity; Brown is in error.
Unless Heinrich actually wrote, somewhere else, on the topic of ahistoricity.
Irvin Is not a Mythicist; Is Flexible
Same w/ the other guy (Irvin) Brown vaguely names as “other writers”, “some writers”.
Brown falsely says Irvin asserts ahistoricity of Jesus.
Jan Irvin & Andrew Rutajit AstroSham 1 & 2 2006 & 2009 is agnostic, against Brown; says “if Jesus existed” “we are right, either way.”
I don’t think Irvin ever wrote that Jesus didn’t exist.
Irvin only wrote maybe Jesus didn’t exist, apathetic/ agnostic/ doesn’t matter.
Irvin the Ambiguous, In-between Paradigms
Now that Irvin has become a Christian of a type that he only knows, The Ambiguous Irvin is unclear re: his system of religion & myth.
I doubt Irvin has a view, he doesn’t have all the answers.
I do not put any pressure on Irvin. I must identify pros and cons of every scholar.
Irvin lately tries to play the part of holy Psilocybin demonizer while saying silent on his anti-God idol worship of Amanita book sales. Irvin lately tries to be some certain type of Christian while not necessarily believing in Mr. Historical Jesus – the undigested Irvin.
Irvin in half-digested fashion demonizes Psilocybin:
his new book God’s Flesh;
his 2014-era article series SHMM at his site has 0 hits on Amanita, million demonizing Psilocybin
That’s consistent w/ his straddling awkwardly 1st & 2nd Gen entheogen scholarship.
Irvin would have just just been just a 1st-gen entheogen scholar, except that in 2006, I pulled him forward halfway toward 2nd-gen entheogen scholarship.
Irvin was pulled forward by my being essentially rooted in – my defining of — 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm) in 2006.
Irvin rejected, 2008-2009, the 1st-gen characteristic (fundamental basis of their whole paradigm & motivation) attempt to limit The Mushroom to:
only the suppressed counterculture (Ruck 2001); social drama narrative, ritual storytelling, of made-up fantasy fairytale.
or 1-2 elites (Ruck 2002: Eflluents of Deity)
or to all elites (Irvin 2006 in AstroSham 1 > Conclusion section > 1st sentence.
Irvin 2008 remained stuck in 1st-gen-type dishonoring of Psilocybin to force it to serve the false master Amanita the phony, fantasy, fairytale super-psychedelic.
When I went to Mr. Jesus & Paul 1998, instantly it was revealed – huge credit to The Jesus Mysteries, I met literally underground w/ Freke & Gandy — that there’s no strategy there to corroborate the Egodeath theory of 1997, but, that instead, there would be corrob of the Egodeath theory via Christianity as myth + world religious myth.
Post-Ahistoricity
I’m post ahistoricity: I’m past saying that I’m past thinking about ahistoricity.
Remarkable to recall: in 1998 I turned to Mr. Historical Jesus & Mr. Historical Paul to confirm my theory of mystic-state mental transformation.
I immediately saw that due to genre, corroboration of my theory would not be forthcoming via that direction but would come via myth genre, so within half an hour I switched to ahistoricity, got the promised successful corroboration and by 2007 had been working with other scholars on myth interpretation, like Earl Doherty & Robert Price.
I met with Freke & Gandy ~2001 discussing entheogen history.
Now I’m surprised when a colleague spends any time on teaching others about ahistoricity.
I’m a positive mythicist, working productively with myth as analogy.
Earl Doherty’s Concept of “Positive Silence” of Paul About Earthly Jesus
Earl Doherty book 1st & 2nd Ed is quite good, lots of positive myth coverage.
Doherty explains the “positive silence of Paul” & “negative silence of Paul”.
Start with Paul’s cosmic christ, zero awareness of Mr. Jesus life of a human walking around teaching and healing – there’s no trace of that man in Paul writings.
Paul’s Christ is 100% cosmic vision only.
There’s no mention of Mr. Jesus on earth in Paul’s letters; no trace of any awareness of such a man.
Paul evidently never heard of such an idea.
That is I think called “negative silence”. But positive silence is:
If you take visionary cosmic Christ per Paul, and then attempt to add mundane Mr. Jesus, earthly teacher/ healer, that causes insoluble problems and contradictions.
Before adding Mr. Jesus, no problem; consistent – Hellenistic mythic figure. Then add Mr. Jesus, and nothing coheres – it doesn’t work.
Mr. Jesus is incompatible with Paul’s mythic visionary Christ.
Takeaway: Wasson Censored Feeble Citations Panofsky Had to Have Provided to Back Up His Aggressive Claim of Thorough Familiarity of Mushroom-Trees
Michael Hoffman 2025
1) Erwin Panofsky MUST HAVE provided citations to Wasson, given the aggressive ultra-confident claim of familiarity w/ mushroom-trees.
2) I doubt art experts ever wrote anything much about mushroom-trees; they are probably feeble citations/ treatments of mushroom-trees – by art historians who are SO thoroughly familiar w/ mushroom-trees, they wrote 1 or 2 paragraphs – exhaustive!
This is why we must instantly halt any notion of mushroom-trees mean mushroom, b/c [super feeble] citations, proving art historians know NOTHING about mushroom-trees and have no more credibility than any random (ignorant, prejudiced) person.
Eager sucker MICA Deniers like Letcher, Hatsis, and Huggins lap up the manifest bullsh!t served by Wasson about Erwin Panofsky’s “conclusion”. Wasson is obviously pulling a stunt, given that Wasson would fully disrespect & ignore, NOT cowtow & cave w/o any resistance, to any authority making empty arg from authority re: mushroom ethnomycology – on any aspect OTHER than mushrooms specifically in Christianity.
As Samorini 1997 & Brown 2016/2019 pointed out, a huge contradiction in attitude by Wasson, totally SUS a.f.: bold and independent thinker, yet eager to halt & cave to know-nothing Erwin Panofsky & unnamed, faceless art “authorities”.
Who’s paying you to lie, Wasson? Easy question: Wasson the banker for the Pope.
Letcher 2006 in Shroom is dishonorable, play-acting like Wasson has any credibility here.
The quality of arg’n by MICA Deniers is wretched, based on lies, coverup, pretext, dissimulation, duplicity.
MORAL ROT! is the basis for MICA Deniers.
Wasson’s writing style on p 108 SOMA is that of a sneering, pompous con artist. Totally un-believable and not credible.
See how Wasson – below – tears apart the credibility of Eliade – and then one-ups Eliade, pulling the same move – as ONE CON ARTIST CRITIQUING THE TECHNIQUE OF ANOTHER.
Pay attention to Wasson’s tone – that of a sleazebag manipulator & bullsh!tter, at top of p. 180.
Wasson wrote to Allegro — maddening! — in 1970, “I gather the mycologist Ramsbottom was duly impressed [🤬👆pompous @ss, gtfo, fraud!] by Panofsky’s conclusion that anyone saying the Plaincourault fresco is Amanita is a blundering ignoramus.”
And Huggins remarks “Those terrible MICA Affirmers show no concern with the conclusions of the art authorities.”
The art experts deserve a kick in the rear, as the appropriate level of respect you’ve earned.
Allegro’s answer to Wasson 1970 letter [below] would be: Yes, Ramsbottom exposed your lying azz in the body of his page as a full Addendum, NOT as a mere hidden footnote, 17 years ago;
Yes WE’RE “DULY IMPRESSED” BY WHAT A LYING SCUMBAG YOU ARE, using idiot Panofsky’s sheer argument from authority and non-sequitur circular argument from prejudice,
“The Plaincourault fresco cannot possibly mean mushrooms, because there are hundreds of other mushroom-trees like it.”
Huggins 2024 is dishonorable, play-acting like Wasson has any credibility here. Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case”.
Anyone who PRETENDS Wass has credibility in putting forth Erwin Panofsky as definitive, is obviously biased. Citation proving my point: read Wasson’s expose of Eliade, in the present article. Wasson recognizes the baloney fake denial by Eliade that he turns around and brings to perfection, himself. Wasson is perfectly intelligent, and entirely morally compromised.
3) I bet Wasson in 1968 SOMA withheld (censored) the citations that Erwin Panofsky must have provided. Find “withhold” below, twice in 1 sentence.
What else is Wasson withholding from Erwin Panofsky? Answer from Brown 2019 publishing the two Erwin Panofsky letters: the fact of 2 not 1 letters; the 2nd letter; 2 art pieces showing mushroom-trees; double, strong recommendation of Albert Brinckmann‘s 1906 86-page book in German, Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings.
— Michael Hoffman Mar. 18, 2025
Motivation for this Page
Feb. 12, 2026
Clean up the horribly messy local copy of Egodeath.com article page.
Easy, b/c the article is long and totally separate from any addl junk i added.
Some Books and Articles that Cite the Article
The Holy Mushroom: Evidence of Mushrooms in Judeo-Christianity (Jan Irvin, 2008)
John Allegro and the Psychedelic Mysteries Hypothesis (Ascough, 2025)
John Allegro and the Psychedelic Mysteries Hypothesis Richard Ascough 2025/08/08 School of Religion, Queen’s University at Kingston, Kingston, ON, Canada https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/16/8/1029 John_Allegro_and_the_Psychedelic_Mysteries_Hypothe.pdf
On John M. Allegro’s Suggestion That the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the 12th Century Plaincourault Chapel Depicts an Amanita muscaria Mushroom (Huggins, 2025)
visual art analogies, motifs, into their direct referents
Model-Based Science: science uses analogies; a model is like an analogy
in Science/STEM communications, the role of analogies
Bad use of myth and analogies, never resolves to the direct referent
Analogy (used in Science) vs. Metaphor (used in Literature)
Saturn gate, threaten the child
{mushroom}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs = {branching-message mushroom trees}, achieves: recognizing and explaining the theology of the mushroom-tree religion, a mainstream (at least among artists) religion within Christianity Christian. c’y c’n Christianity Christian
The Egodeath Core Concepts catalog & the Key Mythemes catalog
Usefulness of the Key Mythemes catalog
Entheogen, Altered State, {Holy Spirit}, {fire}
Awareness, Perceiving, {seeing}
Control Agency, {king}
Thought Injector, Thought-Receiver; {phallus}, {cup}, {wound}
Instability, Stability, {seizure}
Maturing, {family} Relationships
Mortal/Immortal Relations, {sacrifice}
Possibility Branching, {tree}
Block Universe, {rock}
Worldline, Non-branching, {snake}
Search, {hunt}; Bring Back, {treasure}, {prize}
Ascent
Gate
Transformation
Escape, Release, Rescue
y} Relationships
Mortal/Immortal Relations, {sacrifice}
Possibility Branching, {tree}
Block Universe, {rock}
Worldline, Non-branching, {snake}
Search, {hunt}; Bring Back, {treasure}, {prize}
Ascent
Gate
Transformation
Escape, Release, Rescue
Phenomenology: The Pure Cognitive Phenomenology Approach to Psychedelics
List of Branching vs. Non-Branching Contrasts
A gem. Gotta know this.
possibilism vs. eternalism (the “ordinary-state possibilism” experiential mental model, vs. the “altered-state eternalism” experiential mental model) That’s the referent, figured as these analogies, in mythic art & in myth:
Y vs. I
tree vs. snake
branching vs. non-branching
fingers vs. thumb
index finger vs. 3 fingers
grid cap vs. plain cap (Great Canterbury Psalter convention)
manyworlds vs. block, in Physics
Decoded {blessing} Hand Shape (Index & Middle Extended, Ring & Pinkie Folded)
todo: move to hand-shape theory page
10:38 p.m. Feb. 11, 2026 – “blessing” hand shape:
worked on since Mar. 21, 2022 (if not earlier).
been working on this decoding during past few weeks, during the Great 2026 Hand-Fest breakthrough week(s).
Came down to the question/test:
Try assigning {branching} to Index & Middle, and assigning {non-branching} to Ring & Pinkie.
Try assigning {branching} to Ring & Pinkie, and assigning {non-branching} to Index & Middle.
Which is the more natural, easy assignment? Martin is special-case w/ TWO hands, remember. Can’t use same logic for a SEQUENCE of two hands, or for a PAIR of hands, as for a SINGLE, ISOLATED hand.
If back of hand facing the viewer:
no thumb. only have to account for pair of folded fingers & pair of non-folded fingers.
If palm of hand facing the viewer:
folded fingers = Y’ = non-branching.
straight fingers (index & middle) = Y = branching. In the standard form, held slightly apart.
Exception (eg the 2-hands exception): If the extended Index and Middle finger are pressed tightly together, and no other fingers are shown, or if other hand emphatically splayed (Y), the Index & Middle held extended together can mean non-branching, eg Saint Martin Church > Entry into Jerusalem > Jesus’ finger-shapes.
thumb = I, especially if full thumb is displayed, w/o visual cuts.
if thumb is visual-cut, I’. eg hold shovel w/ fingertips toward viewer. usu comes w/ Y’ in that case, rarely form a YI’.
Watch out for fingers or thumb visually cutting other fingers. That can change Y to Y’.
A Podcast about Transcendent Knowledge
Prepare to discuss in panel of 4 ppl, Transcendent Knowledge: Primarily:
Define the “pure cognitive phenomenology approach”.
Reject ordinary-state based Epistemology.
Reject ordinary-state based Ontology.
Reject ordinary-state based Metaphysics.
… like presented by lame outsiders Chris Letheby and crew, who are so Phil Dept Armchair, that not even blotter can unseat them.
Outline and summarize the Mytheme theory.
Newbies in the field of Psychedelic Studies:
Sharday Mosurinjohn
Richard Ascough
Christian Greer
Ronald Huggins
Beware: The Mis-Loaded Word ‘Mysticism’ Means “Positive Unitive” Experience, Exclusively
Warning about everything written about “mysticism” since 1893:
Read the word ‘mysticism’ as, narrowly and in an eliminative way: the positive unitive model of “mystical experience”.
Hindu Indian Swami Vivekananda – why the F are we paying any attention to this recent, alien, bad… see book How the Swans Came to the Lake, inspired the McRae article exposing the 1893 sausage-making.
Where our model of “mystical experience” came from; when it was fabricated and constructed by creating a new Academia Dept.
The phony, fake, Pop-driven invention of “Buddhism” as an Academic Dept. field.
The CEQ is the Broken Wastebasket for the Failures of the MEQ
Any experience that fails to match “positive unitive” is considered junk to be ignored, rejected, and discarded.
Or, dump the failed experience into the the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), where, if the experience doesn’t match ordinary-state Grief therapy, the experience is considered junk to be ignored, rejected, and discarded.
… as were discarded, by Roland Griffiths’ team at Johns Hopkins Dept. of Psychedelic Pseudo Science, 18 of 21 = 86% of the “Angst/Dread/DED” effects from OAV 1994.
Keyboard Shortcuts for the OAV 1994 Questionnaire by Dittrich, Derived from His 1975 APZ Questionnaire
OAV 1994 (Oceanic/Angst/Visionary, Dittrich 1994 questionnaire) oavs
OAV 1994 (Oceanic Boundlessness, Angst of/ Dread of Ego Dissolution, Visionary Restructuralization) psychedelic psychometrics effects questionnaire by Adolph Dittrich oav
The “Mysticism Wars” refer to an ongoing, high-stakes debate within contemporary psychedelic science regarding the use of mystical concepts to explain, measure, and validate the therapeutic effects of psychedelic experiences.
Key aspects of this debate, often discussed by [the Armchair Phil Dept, despite blotter] philosophers and scientists like Chris Letheby, Jaipreet Mattu, and Eric Hochstein, include:
The Core Conflict: The “war” is fought between researchers who believe “mystical-type” experiences (e.g., feelings of unity, sacredness, noetic quality) are central to the therapeutic benefits of substances like psilocybin, and those who argue that such language is unscientific, outdated, or potentially harmful to the legitimacy of the field.
The Pro-Mystical View: Supporters argue that mystical concepts are useful, valid, and that there is no good reason to abandon them, as they have consistently correlated with positive clinical outcomes.
The Anti-Mystical View: Critics often include neuroscientists or cognitive scientists who find these frameworks underdeveloped, preferring more traditional, mechanistic, or computational, neurological explanations.
Proposed Resolution: Letheby, Mattu, and Hochstein argue that the “war” is often based on misunderstandings and that the two sides can be reconciled by better defining terms and separating the scientific study of these experiences from the personal metaphysical beliefs of the researchers.
Context: This debate takes place within the broader context of the “psychedelic renaissance,” where researchers are trying to define the mechanisms behind treatments for depression, addiction, and end-of-life distress.
This, and related topics, are discussed in works such as How to End the Mysticism Wars in Psychedelic Science (2024/2025).
“Chris Letheby, Jaipreet Mattu, and Eric Hochstein try to put an end to the “mysticism wars,” by which they mean the battle between psychedelic researchers who hold that:
“Mystical concepts ought to be employed in attempts to describe and understand psychedelic experiences
“and those who do not hold this.
“Letheby, Mattu, and Hochstein side with the former, and do so on the grounds that there are no good reasons to abandon mystical concepts in psychedelic science, and plenty of good reasons to keep them.
“Critiques of the pro-mystical-concepts view can be solved via clarifying concepts and recognizing distinctions.
“Mystical concepts may one day be superseded in the science of psychedelics.
“This should not occur on the basis of a misplaced conceptual critique: the present-day critique of the pro-mystical-concepts view.”
Discussion of questions in preparation for my interview on the Psychonautica podcast. August 1, 2007. Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4 Max’s questions:
How did I first begin to formulate the Egodeath theory?
How important are the various domains for the Egodeath theory? Is the Theory a form of Eastern, Western, or Shamanistic religion?
Is the issue of freewill of central importance to ego death?
How did I get the idea that the issue of freewill is of such central importance to ego death?
Explain the ordinary understanding of autonomous control which the ego-death experience proves to be illusory.
What does the ‘transcendence of no freewill’ mean and involve?
Explain the concept of block-universe determinism and time as a spacelike dimension.
How does Egodeath theory relate to the shamanic ability to heal?
Does saying that drug-free meditation is ‘bunk’ mean that there is no value to the practice of meditating?
Explain the idea that ‘drug-policy reform’ is conceptually brainwashed.
What should pro-justice activists focus their efforts on doing, to be most effective?
What are the vulnerabilities of the Wasson-Allegro-McKenna theories of the origin of religion?
What is my take on McKenna’s idea of the ‘stoned ape’?
What is the relevance of the ahistoricity of Jesus to the Egodeath theory?
How do I envision the future for the development of the Egodeath theory?
What is the relationship between the disappearance of the separate-self sense, the experience of nonduality, the intense mystic altered state, meditation, and the problematization of personal control-power in light of the part/whole (self/Ground) relationship in the dissociative cognitive state?
Why bother spreading the truth about the nature of religion and religious origins?
How does the Establishment treatment of topics shut-out coverage of entheogens in religious history?
What is the way forward so that the mainstream culture integrates the maximal entheogen theory of religion?
What evidence and arguments are there that the original Christians used drugs?
Discuss the assertion “There’s no need to assume drugs in primitive Christianity.”
To what extent were drugs used in the history of Christian practice?
Is New Testament Christianity more important than purely mystical Christianity, because of including a political vector on the mystical insights?
Are John Pilch, Jonanda Groenewald, Marcus Borg, John Ashton, and Stevan Davies on the right track? Can they be converted from their standard academic “alien social-psychology” theory of “alternate states of consciousness” to the simpler drug-use theory?
How was Wasson (or Allegro) great? How did he limit or cripple the field?
What will be retained of Wasson (or Allegro)? What will be rejected?
Why bother setting the record straight on the errors of Wasson and the merit of some of Allegro’s ideas?
Outline of Topics for the Pure Cognitive Phenomenology Approach
Psychedelic Cognitive Phenomenology
Loose Cognitive Phenomenology
Psychedelic pseudo science doesn’t use a a pure cognitive phenomenology approach; uses typical Cog Neuroreductionism. bunk lexicon loaded with confused terms and framing.
Rejecting “Cognitive Neuroscience”, as Eliminative Reductionism
The bunk, marketing term “cognitive neuroscience” actually means, Immediately Discard & ignore the cognitive phenomenology dimension
Eliminate that and reduce it to Phrenology, orange-colored areas of the brain, that either corresponds to:
mystical experience (ie, the positive unitive model of “mystical experience”) Or, a failure of that, ie,
“ego dissolution”, “dread of ego dissolution”, & separation, & negative experience of Unitive suspension of the mind’s construction of the experience of the self/other boundary.
Misguided Pop-driven, Popular Neo-Advaita holds:
Suspension of the mind’s construction of the experience of the self/other boundary, is the essence of Transcendent Knowledge.
When you successfully destroy the mind, and get rid of and eliminate the experience of the self/other boundary, you then have received the fullness of Transcendent Knowledge.
Ken Wilber calls for a balanced, fleshed-out understanding of Advaita, against Pop insanity of lopsided extremist takes, on Advaita/ nondual.
Ken Wilber’s system is built around this same poor, low-quality, Pop junk model, the positive unitive model of “mystical experience”.
The “Positive Unitive” Model of “Mystical Experience” vs. the “Control Transformation” Model
The “Positive Unitive” Model of “Mystical Experience” (from Westernized, modern, Swami Vivekananda & Pop Crowds in 1893).
vs.
The “Control Transformation” Model (from the Egodeath Theory).
Eternalism-driven control-transformation.
The result of eternalism-driven control-transformation: The psychedelic-matured mind has two mental models: (qualified) ordinary-state possibilism, & altered-state eternalism, functionally or practically harmonized; integrated.
integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking.
I don’t like the word “thinking”; I picked that word b/c it is daily 8th grade lang/ vocab.
more like:
the integrated possibilism/eternalism mental model ipemm
The integrated possibilism/eternalism mental model is depicted in medieval art by (variants of) the YI hand shape.
Analogy: Analogies in Myth & Mythic Art Describe Mental Model Transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism
Hold Hands at Bell Tower: YI Hand Shapes (Manesse Codex)
Having I’ would be semi problematic, but not too bad if Y’I’. eg hold shovel w/ fingertips at viewer. Principle: Don’t want Y to dominate over I, or negate I (non-branching).
Hand-shape theory: Valid end-states:
YI – most typically displayed; the boring default regular vanilla version.
Y’I – common, to say: qualified possibilism-thinking + eternalism-thinking.
YI’ – rare; countervailing.
Y’I’ – eg. hand holding a shovel, fingertips facing viewer.
5 Fingers Instead of 4
The 5-finger woman’s hand is an error, or a joke, or blurry like the John Lash low-res crop of f134 row 1 Left: the balancing-in-tree guy w/ fist apparently “pointing” in mushroom-tree.
Does she really make a peace sign w/ two fingers?
Is half her pinkie actually shown, on left, or supposed to be painted yellow for hair tuft?
Fill her apparent pinkie segment w/ yellow to get rid of it, to have 4 fingers not 5.
A YI hand shape w/ 5 fingers is a potential dealbreaker.
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, Feb. 9, 2026
Outline of Topics for the Phase 2, Analogy Mytheme Theory
the Phase 1, Cybernetic Core theory p1cct the Phase 2, Analogy Mytheme theory p2amt
the Cybernetic Core theory cct
‘Core’ is a wasted word.
Nothing central would be lost of omitted.
This wordcount — compet against the Analogy Mytheme theory — could be a describptive word instead of describing the
“core” is meaningful only when next to “mythem” + konwledge o…
Connotations of “Core” are unclear. Why important? What other, competing words could go in that semi-wasted slot? Naming is everything.
Core is totally non-descriptive of
WTF IS THE CONTENT OF THE CORE, DUMBAZZ!
syn of “core” theory: the theory of psychedelic cybernetic eternalism; analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level, dependent control
the cybernetic eternalism theory the Cybernetic eternalism theory the Cybernetic Eternalism theory cet
the Cybernetic Eternalism theory
the Egodeath theory is the Cybernetic Eternalism theory – from cybernetic’ & ‘eternalism’ you can if add mushroom , reconstruct entire theory would take 1 more word
literalist ordinary-state possibilism
analogical psychedelic eternalism
literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control
analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control
literalist ordinary-state possibilism with monolithic, autonomous control
analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level, dependent control – no word “cybernetic”
a name of a theory not same as deciding descriptor words (4; analogical psychedelic eternalism… vri virtly 4; 4 terms.
if “eternalism” includes (which it doesn’t in Armchair Phil Dept that invented/ fabricated Popular Neo-Advaita & “Buddhism” in 1893. so beyond redemp, these airchair warriors can’t even receive inspiration through blotter (Chris Letheby: be Phil Student, have Dumb Metaphy ideas,
pataphysical
brand name != descriptive technical name
Saying that the core theory is the “core” theory is useful only when in contrast to the IDEA of the 4-layer onion:
inner core
outer core
inner periphery
outer periphery
outer periphery: eg the Indigenous Shams (a front for the Anything-But-Drugs Academics derby team)
inner core:
there are 2 mental models, 2 states, 2 experiential modes: the ordinary-state experiential mode, altered-state experiential mode.
altered-state eternalism (non-branching, I, snake, thumb, simple)
, ordinary-state possibilism (branching, Y, tree, fingers, compound)
the ordinary-state experiential mode
” NOTHING CENTRAL IS LOST … COULD BE DDESCRIPTIVE INSTEAD. cct
the Analogy Mytheme theory amt
the Analogy Mytheme theory within the Egodeath theory amte
the Phase 1, Cybernetic Core theory, within the Egodeath theory of psychedelic eternalism
the Phase 2, Analogy Mytheme theory, within the Egodeath theory of psychedelic eternalism
Article: Branching-message mushroom trees: Psychedelic eternalism depicted in medieval art as mushrooms, branching, handedness, and stability (Journal of Psychedelic Studies)
Prepare article for {branching-message mushroom trees} for the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology
STEM: The Egodeath Theory Is the Paradigmatic STEM/ Science Explorer/Discoverer Approach to Psychedelics
Alan Houot’s book calls for a Science Explorer Discoverer approach to psychedelics, rather than only a Spirituality or Therapy Healing approach to psychedelics.
Four met to discuss the Egodeath theory: Egodeath Mystery Show, episode: Ep264b No Such Episode 🤷♂️.
I’ve Read & Listened to Alan Houot’s Dissertation, Articles, and Book, 3 Times in Detail
Does Alan Houot know anything about the Egodeath theory? the Egodeath theory is not a NRM.
New Religious Movements (NRMs)
The term New Religious Movements (NRMs)” is an alien lexicon; not allowed in the Egodeath theory lexicon.
The Egodeath theory must pay the price: must map between the Egodeath theory’s lexicon & the common, low-quality, mis-loaded lexicon of those on the outside.
New Religious Movements (NRMs) are, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, a wide range of:
New, often non-mainstream religious or spiritual groups that have emerged globally, particularly since the mid-20th century.
Frequently referred to as “cults” or “sects” in popular discourse, NRMs are typically characterized by
charismatic, often authoritarian leadership, [= Cybermonk]
eclectic doctrines, [= we must use YI hand shapes & hang from Right knee in a mushroom-tree]
and countercultural, innovative responses to modern life. [= theorize, against Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art; against both sides in the Mysticism Wars]
Examples include Scientology, Wicca, the Baha’i Faith, and Falun Gong.
Key Characteristics and Context
Definition & Origin: NRMs are religious groups with modern origins, usually peripheral to a society’s dominant religious culture.
Structure: They are often tightly organized, though they can vary from loose, decentralized movements to structured, communal ones.
Leadership: Often founded by a single, charismatic leader considered to possess extraordinary, divine, or unique insights.
Beliefs: They are often eclectic, blending elements from diverse traditions, and may be syncretic.
Social Context: Many NRMs emerge as reactions to rapid change, globalization, or secularization.
Controversy and Sociology
Labeling: While academics prefer “NRM” to avoid bias, these groups are often viewed with suspicion or labeled as “cults” by mainstream society, note researchers from Brill Reference Works.
Social Impact: Some critics argue that certain NRMs use, for instance, high-pressure techniques for, say, controlling members.
Evolution: Some NRMs are short-lived, while others, like Scientology, may gain enough stability to last, suggest flashcards on Quizlet.
Research into NRMs often focuses on why they form, why they attract members, and their, perhaps, often complex relationship with the, maybe, wider community, according to the University of Pennsylvania.
/end of AI summary
ABD Newbies
anything-but-drugs
the anything-but-drugs agenda/ commitment/ academics/ propaganda/ academia
Newbies in the field of Psychedelic Studies:
Sharday Mosurinjohn
Richard Ascough
Christian Greer
Ronald Huggins
Ronald Huggins
I am able to formulate a rule: 1+1=3.
Ronald Huggins, using Panofsky, is able to formulate a Rule, to “Rule Out” mushroom-trees:
Any mushroom-trees that have mushroom features (which is to covertly say (hope no one notices), ALL mushroom-trees, by definition), we are to IGNORE the mushroom features, because mushrooms don’t have branches.
Either the inept, intention-free artists (broken human copy-machines) were attempting and failing to depict “A TREE” or “A MUSHROOM”, those are the two options we are debating.
Mushroom-trees have branches, such as Great Canterbury Psalter, f11: Day 4’s four trees [which have NO branches], therefore, they can’t mean A MUSHROOM, and must mean A TREE.
These mushroom-trees have branches, and therefore, they cannot mean A MUSHROOM, and must mean A TREE:
Day 4: Four Simple Mushrooms that Have No Branches
Crop by Michael Hoffman. Liberty Cap (with grid cap), Cubensis (with grid cap), Panaeolus, Amanita
Crop by Michael Hoffman.
Liberty Cap (with grid cap of Liberty Caps)
Cubensis (with grid cap of Liberty Caps)
Panaeolus
Amanita
Ignorant Newbie Invaders of Psychedelic Studies Expecting an Easy-Mode Win
Joe Rogan’s already BEEN DEBUNKED, so this should be a piece of cake, to reveal the foolishness of Muraresku, Ruck, Allegro, and entheogen scholarship re: psychedelics in Eleusis and Christian origins.
Newbie hostile toxic parasitical self-serving invaders of the field of Psychedelic Studies, are looking for and expecting and counting on an Easy-Mode, apparent victory against entheogen scholarship chumps, such as Muraresku & Ruck, to pad-out their cv.
Newbie hostile invaders of the field, unread and cheap, post-Pollan 2018; post-Muraresku 2020, Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Letcher-Hatsis wasn’t enough lameness heaping bizarrely off-the-wall, ad-hoc, trash-quality fallacious arg’s on the field.
Letcher: Shroom (2006) falsely attributed 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm) to Stamets 1996 & Gartz 1996, who are essentially 2nd-generation entheogen scholars (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm).
psychedelic cognitive phenomenology pcp
a pure cognitive phenomenology approach pcpa
Summarize the Mytheme theory
It makes sense for me to handle outlining & summarizing the Mytheme theory.
I would love to see how Max Freakout + Cyberdisciple would outline and summarize the Mytheme theory.
Citation Keyboard Shortcuts for Pollan 2018
How to Change Your Mind (Pollan 2018) mp18s
How to Change Your Mind: What the New Science of Psychedelics Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying, Addiction, Depression, and Transcendence (Michael Pollan, 2018) mp18
Awesome Acronyms (Keyboard Shortcuts) for Citations
Half the fun of keyboard shortcuts is accidentally triggering expansion of a random core concept of the Egodeath theory:
covert neo-Advaita cna
the mushroom-tree artists mta
Not “Michael the Archangel”, per 1986-1998? fixed: Michael the Archangel mtaa
Travis Kitchens, Psychedelic Science Journalism
Travis Kitchens’ Journalism on Psychedelic Pseudo Science to Create a New Religion Based on Hindu Indian Swami Vivekananda Westernized Narrow Particular School of Academic Armchair “Philosophy of Religion” Dept. Newly Invented, Artificially Driven by Popular Demand
Prepare for convo w/ Kitchens per emails.
Kit is not a debunker.
Kitchens is an authentic journalist, recording the goings-on in the fields of:
psychedelic (pseudo) science
the positive unitive model of “mystical experience”
pop reception of The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku
pop reception of How to Change Your Mind (Pollan 2018)
Review emails to see what topics.
Busy reading Mosurinjohn, Ascough, Greer, & Huggins; the positive unitive model of “mystical experience”; my articles-reading stack.
Motivation for this Page
I have scattered todo notes in email; in idea development pages, etc.
Having a WordPress page to focus on prepping for podcast shows, works well for me.
The World’s Record Conflict of Interest: The Banker for the Pope Says There’s No Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art
Conveniently (suspiciously) not addressed by propagandist Huggins.
The Different Roles of Wasson, Panofsky, and Huggins in the Anything-But-Drugs Academia Cover-Up
Wasson = evil; Panofsky = stupid.
Huggins facilitates Wasson’s con-artistry:
by not citing Browns 2019;
by pulling Panofsky letters out of thin air in 2024 & 2025 (“drawer”?!, get out of here);
by pulling the Brinckmann citation out of thin air.
by not asking what the 2 “emphatic mushroom shape” mushroom-trees images that Panofsky sent Wasson in 1952.
Huggins tries to ally with the academic criminal Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson, so, Huggins doesn’t want it revealed, Popebanker Wasson’s deceitful chicanery; his academic obstructionism and pressure tactics.
Popebanker Wasson dishonestly and manipulatively censored the Panofsky letters, on p. 180 of Wasson’s 1968 book SOMA.
If Wasson were honest, in 1952 & in 1968, he would’ve helped investigation of mushroom-trees move forward, by showing the two letters, the Brin. citation, and the two mushroom-trees images, sent to Wasson in 1952.
As I deduced in 2006, confirmed by Brown 2019, Panofsky MUST have provided (weak) citations to Wasson in 1952. In 2006 I was cussing,
“Give me the goddamn citations that Panofsky MUST have provided to you!
“I WANT to “consult” the academics, as Wasson chastises (unconstructively) the “mycologists” ie Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art, for having failed (in the past) to do.”
By replacing the Brinckmann citation and two art pieces by ellipses (. . . .), Wasson the liar & con artist ENSURED that Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art are unable to check what Brinckmann wrote, showing that Wasson is insincere and dishonest, a sleazebag, deliberately deceiving and misleading people, while insulting and attacking mycologists, and misrepresenting what Panofsky sent to Wasson.
The Accidental Contributions to Entheogen Scholarship from Deniers, Despite Themselves
Hatsis’ articles WERE useful for me to construct the Hatsis Gallery of mushroom imagery in Christian art, until he deleted his articles, crazily. Hatsis’ providing hi-res Dancing Man was useful to me on Christmas 2015.
Hatsis provided the first hi-res, color image of Dancing Man, provided by an entheogen scholar, in his article for a UK zine.
We beggars can’t be choosers. Too few people work in entheogen scholarship.
Hatsis & Huggins while writing articles debunking mushroom imagery in Christian art, provide for the wrong reasons, benefits for entheogen scholarship.
Their project is futile, like defenders of the geocentric model 1510-1687, 177 years from proposal to widespread, dominant acceptance.
We’re in such a period now, despite some denier-morons claiming that we can draw negative conclusions now.
Proof that Entheogen Scholars Have Not Even Vigorously Begun to Try to Recognize Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art
I proved that we have not even STARTED looking.
Proof that entheogen scholars have not even STARTED looking, and are missing the most major mushroom recognition, even in the Great Canterbury Psalter folio page f11 images that they have been publishing since 2000, discovered by Paul Lindgren:
On Jan 13, 2025, I discovered proof that God in f11 Day 1 of Creation holds mushroom-filled {balance scale} pans, in Great Canterbury Psalter.
No entheogen scholar has even tried to imagine what’s in the pans.
If entheogen scholars are looking at f11, they have been looking with eyes squeezed tightly shut, until my eyes were finally opened Jan. 13, 2025, per Day 4’s {open book with God’s thumb over it} motif.
Day 1: Creation of Light: {balance scale} Pans Are Indicated as Containing Panaeolus & Amanita Mushrooms
Crop and Annotations by Michael Hoffman, Jan. 13, 2025
Before that, I proved that the blue vase in f134 row 3 middle contains psilocybin mushrooms.
Like f11 (Day 1 & 4), I similarly first “jokingly” asserted that the item contains mushrooms, but I was in error (defeatist attitude) in ASSUMING that the artist failed to indicate this.
Months later, I finally opened my eyes and actually looked for indicators, and found that the artist provided clear indicators.
Cubensis Harvest Cycle
Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, March 28, 2023
The Blue Krater Harvest Collector Looks Up at the Mushroom Dispensary Bins
Crop by Michael Hoffman, March 26, 2023
Entheogen scholars have not even started to look for evidence of psychedelics in Western religious history – yet deniers want to declare the field closed and finished, drawing extremely premature negative conclusions.
2012 or 2014: “No one has even TRIED to claim psychedelics in Buddhist religious history” – Patrick Lundborg’s book’s endnotes. 2016: Mike Crowley book comes out, making hash out of Lund premature closing and “conclusions”. 2026: AM, an Asian Studies scholar, finds more evidence than Crowley.
Wasson 1968 draws the same, prejudiced, way-premature negative conclusion, falling into his own pit of mockery that Wasson set up in 1957 for himself to fall into.
Motivation for this Page
A “cover-up” framing is useful for analysis.
Who is behind the cover-up operation? Why?
Getting a clear big-picture view on the anything-but-drugs agenda/ commitment/ academics/ propaganda/ academia, popebanker Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔🤬 Wasson’s cover-up operation & censorship of the two Panofsky letters including the Brin. citation.
Huggins Is Extremely Suspect in Not Citing Brown & Brown 2019, which Reveals the Panofsky Letters & Brinckmann Citation (& Two Mushroom-Trees) That Were Dishonestly Censored by Wasson
Huggins 2024 & 2025 articles fail to cite or address the args in Browns 2019.
SOMA p. 180 (More Cussing, Fewer Annotations, Dec. 2, 2024)
Hey Wasson, you phony; SELLOUT!: Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings (Brinckmann, 1906) as Panofsky extremely strongly urged mycologists to read – no thanks to your duplicitous censorship and going OUT OF YOUR WAY to fraudulently attack affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art, while you fakely chide them for failing to consult the IGNORAMUS art “authorities”.
The below sound like pompous, insincere, con-artist horse sh!t, because that’s exactly what it is:
SOMA, p. 180 (Less Cussing, More Annotations, Jan. 8, 2025)
And accused Wasson of withholding citations (weak ones) that Panofsky MUST have provided to substantiate the claim that art historians are familiar with mushroom-trees and have “considered”(?) them. CITATIONS NEEDED.
My accusations were confirmed by Browns 2019 exposing the two Panofsky letters.
Huggins points you to “drawer” (Jan Irvin is not permitted to enter the room at Harvard) instead of citing Browns 2019.
Why is scholar Huggins ignorant of Browns 2019, which is the ONLY place to publish Panofsky’s letters (sans 2 attached “emphatic” mushroom-trees)?
Huggins doesn’t cite Browns 2019 so that people other than Huggins can read the Panofsky letters, including Brin. citation, that were censored by Popebanker Wasson in SOMA on p. 180 top (1968) in order to prevent and obstruct research in mushroom imagery in Christian art.
Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art are shady, suspect, and have a conflict of interest, in the anything-but-drugs agenda/ commitment/ academics/ propaganda/ academia.
The Egodeath theory 
