The Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism: religious myth, visionary plants, frozen block universe, & transformation of personal control. Copyright © 2023 Michael Hoffman (Cybermonk).
Amanita as a Weed in the Field of Entheogen Scholarship: An Invasive, Undesirable Plant: High Propagation, Low Value, Chokes Out the Good, Highly Desirable, Valuable Plants, and Prevents Comprehension of Religious Mythology Too
see previous post for a couple more paragraphs
it is possible to dis-identify the right hand tree in two versions of the scene in the Monte Cassino Manuscript as Mandrake and only emphasize palm tree instead, with its distinctive non-branching versus branching morphology, in which case this would be a “branching-message palm tree” with added cut branches.
Since Hatsis is removing Psilocybin from the Eucharist, in retaliation, I’m removing Mandrake from the Montecassino Manuscript, both versions of the scene.
Remember the lesson learned from cannabis fanatic Ardent Advocate Chris Bennett(?) falsely said, and other people have falsely misidentified the four mushroom plants that God created in Canterbury Psalter page 1
I agree with Eadwine per my inventory page of the 75 mushroom plants in Canterbury Psalter: Amanita is the least important of the four mushroom types; it is only really interesting visually, and as a curiosity, not as a practical cognitive loosener.
And Eadwine didn’t even use Amanita much even for merely its visual effect; he pretty much nearly omitted Amanita imagery from the Canterbury Psalter.
I applaud him for that; he’s really helping rescue our hapless situation, with the Secret Amanita presupposition spreading like a noxious weed: high propagation, low value, shuts out the superior, desirable plants.
I think Eadwine was really sick of the extreme overuse of Amanita imagery in art by the Carl Ruck school of Secret Mystics.
We’ve had long-shot and way-off guesses, such as the four plants mean opium and cannabis and four different groups of types of psychoactive families, and that’s wrong; I agree with brown and brown that all four sacred plants that God created are –
all your mushrooms are belong to us
and none of the mushrooms belong to the ardent advocates of cannabis and the ardent advocates of random, anything-goes, junk bucket of all visionary plants thrown in a witches brew together in a meaningless, useless way that’s no good for building a theory of specific cognitive effects, such as Cubensis re-dosing to control the frequency, duration, and intensity (rectangular “curve”), as the ancients did routinely in the banqueting mixed wine tradition, and as we see reflected in the mushroom trees tradition of the high, most high period of the middle of Christian history.
All of this completely contradicting Carl Ruck and his super-limited, self-defeating Minimal, mushroom-removing, mushroom-minimizing paradigm that he’s got us trapped in, so trapped in that we have to resort to the likes of Hatsis to bust us out of the mind-stunting preschool prison that Dr. Secret Amanita and the evil M. Hoffman have us trapped in, the Carl Ruck school of removal of mushrooms from history, rendering them- the assumption of suppression, rendering them suppressed.
In my opinion, the tree could very well be Mandrake, intended and indicate use of Mandrake when as a fallback, as an inferior second rate; third-rate, fourth-rate fallback when the ideal, desired powdered Cubensis is not in season, or in between the manufactured, cultivated batches of cow pie mushrooms,
or my main theory, that the ancients sometimes ran out of synthetic Psilocybin gel caps, because Kafei ate them all at once at the same time, not even using the re-dosing technique, per the traditional methods of the mystics.
And as a desperate measure, they purchased from Hatsis Industries Witching Supplies, Scopalamine instead, as a fourth-rate fallback ersatz low-grade substitute for the bona fide real deal gold standard reference, Psilocybin from cows.
Just like Erwin Panofsky, I too have an opinion, and my opinion is actually informed by relevant information & coherent reasoning, unlike his, and that of all the compliant, coerced art historians, the art students and the art professors, who are all forced and coerced to have their public stated official faith declaration profession of faith:
that in their (sincere, of course) opinion, mushroom imagery does not in the slightest connote mushrooms, and the artists would be shocked, shocked! to have “some especially ignorant craftsman” “misunderstood” the mushroom imagery as mushrooms “under the delusion” the accidentally distorted through sheer number of recopying, distorted templates by sloppy, non-sentient artists who have no ability to steer impressions toward or away from mushroom impressions.
And besides, argues Panofsky after putting on the kettle, if medieval artists had intended to depict & give the impression of mushrooms, they would have simply wadded up Panofsky’s precious impressionistically accidentally distorted templates into the garbage can and have gone out and consulted nature, suddenly becoming literalistic modern natural science artists, and would have depicted mushrooms without ramification added.
Art impression is unintentional, accidental, inadvertent, meaningless, and without any significance, and out of the artist’s control, and the artists in England understood themselves to be churning out southern Italian umbrella pine trees [contra Wasson’s subsequent, specifically vague “conventionalized Palestine tree type”; yeah, that’s the ticket!], slavishly following their meaninglessly, accidentally distorted templates, distorted by accidental, inadvertent sloppiness.
Says the most influential historian.
Gordon Wasson (the Father of compliant, self-limiting, pretextually constrained Ethnomycology) is invited by Erwin Panofsky (alas the most influential, most-to-blame art historian) to ask any certified art historian their opinion on “do mushroom trees mean mushrooms?”, their official stated profession of faith statement publicly.
Professionally certified art historians have all been trained to publish publicly the same profession faith statement of their profession, which is required and mandatory for them, or else, must we remind you yet again, that “To reveal the mysteries is punishable by death”; academic death.
And so by Hoffman’s Uncertainty Principle, when we throw a taboo question at the art historian to probe their position publicly observation observing them observing their reaction displacement, we cannot know their actual position, unless they state a position which goes against the coerced dogma position.
But going against the obligatory public profession of faith statement is not possible, if we are only including employed professors and passing students, because no student is allowed to pass if they express a dissenting opinion and assert that obviously, mushroom artists knew perfectly well that their image impresses, gives the viewer the impression of mushroom in their impressionistic impressively mushroid imagery.
Revealing the mysteries is punishable by death
you must have the opinion that we require your obligatory holding of this public profession of faith statement
go ahead Gordon Wasson test our trained professionals: publicly ask any passing student what their opinion is on this matter; publicly ask any employed professor what their opinion is on this matter, and you will discover that all of them assert and profess the same faith public profession of faith, official declaration of position, that no, these distinctively mushroom-looking trees, the artists had no intention whatsoever, despite the fact that the artists knew that their imagery would compel an impressive impression of mushroom impression.
But in our opinion, as passing art students and employed professional art professors, it is our sincere, coerced, mandatory, obligatory opinion that mushroom images do not intend at all whatsoever to connote mushrooms, even though all the artists must have realized that their impressionistic mushroom-styled imagery would force upon the viewer a mushroom impression.
Yet Erwin Panofsky – the most influential art historian – denies that.
Panofsky says artists are idiots, and are misleading people, and that the artists had no intention whatsoever to convey what their images absolutely convey, according to the art historians who actually call them “mushroom trees”: an impressively strong, quite recognizable (so recognizable, that even with ramification added, they still read as mushrooms), impressionistic impression of mushroom trees.
9:15 pm May 6, 2022 – I have a proposal for the two spots under canterbury psalter liberty cap caps in caps – two mushroom arms representing the two mental models, possibilism vs eternalism.
At about 10:40 PM May 6, 2022, I realized the viable case for {left heel up, right heel down} mystical art imagery theme motif, which I started writing about I think yesterday – and then a few minutes later, that led directly to the next discovery (that lion’s paws are same) and realization and observation, which sealed the deal; QED; I just proved via the lion that the man’s left heel is indeed to be read as {left heel up}.
There is now enough instances that I could possibly create a WordPress page inventorying {left heel up right heel down}, but it is a pretty subtle feature.
10:45 pm May 6, 2022 left heels up, right heels down
2:22 AM May 7, 2022 a change of garment: remove the old garment of egoic thinking possibility Branching Thinking, and put on the new garment of Dionysus, the new mental model, eternity thinking.
9:45 pm May 6 2022 – I just noticed something in caps accounting: arguably for the most part, each guy owns two mushrooms.
balancing guy owns a pair of mushroom stem-and-caps;
hanging guy w left foot farthest from ground owns a single cap & two stems. each guy own two mushrooms
cap = non-branching, a cap touches God’s cloud. In mushroom tree morphology analysis, a cap = 1; contains no branching
1,2,4,1 morphology compared to salamander.
tree and post-roast salamander touch each other (indicating likeness; agreement; affirmation; isomorphism) at the 1 & 1 points (trunk & cap) of the left, extant mushroom tree but not at the 2,4 (branching) zones of the tree.
serpent’s right paw = non-branching = cap.
serpent’s tail = non-branching = trunk.
the tree’s branching zone’s hand is repelled by the post-roast (non-branching) serpent.
made a good voice recording saying how pointing out how
Panofsky’s insistence on looking at Pinetrees as the origin scientific image illustration and his refusal to do interpretation of the finished developed end result being so mushroom-looking that the artists deliberately forced us to have the impression of mushrooms with branches added.
Panofsky refuses to do his job of interpreting the resulting what he calls “finished product” of the “development” of the Pine tree into what we art historians call “Mushroom Trees” with branches.
that is the data that is given that you must interpret.
But what Panofsky does instead it amounts to refusing to interpret the impression but delete and negate and ignore the artist impression which the artist impress upon us deliberately and knowingly
they knew that everybody in the world including Panofsky’s art historians would call these mushroom trees and would describe them as mushrooms with branches (and cut branches and no branches, by the way)
and he ends his second letter (brought to us by Brown and Brown)
he ends his second letter by asserting that artist should not follow the templates – after he just lectured us about how the artists of the middle ages follow templates and now he says falsely that if they want to convey the impression of a mushroom they would have to omit branches
and yet his own art historians call the impression that they are forced to receive, the impression of mushrooms with branches (and cut branches and no branches) – that is the data which we art interpreters are given to interpret
it will not do, to refuse to interpret the given impression, which is the given data, and say we have to look at the raw scientific illustration of pine trees instead! Saying that the “mushroom-like trees with branches originate as pine trees” is not an interpretation of “the finished product of the development transformation process” (his words).
Doing art interpretation does not amount to stating the origin species (discarding & ignoring the final form’s styled impression); doing art interpretation means answering the question:
Why did the template development process finish and halt at an impression that the artists must have consciously and thus intentionally known would force on viewers the particular distinctively and characteristically mushroid impression, that art historians actually describe as “mushroom trees”?
clearly what the artist sought to impress us with, they wanted to form an impression of mushroom trees, which is to say, mushrooms with branching (and cut branches and no branches): why?
As long as you refuse to answer that, you are failing to do art interpretation, but are merely doing an exercise of evading your job and evading the impression and refusing to engage with the impression, which is definitely a deliberate impression upon the viewer of the concept of mushroom trees.
You have to explain and interpret the given data & styled impression, which is mushroom trees, NOT pine trees.
Why did the artists develop their pine tree impression templates into a final form that makes pine trees look like mushrooms with branching? (& cut branches & no branches, & left branching vs. right non-branching?)
don’t evade the question by pointing backwards to literal non-template, non-schematized form of pine trees; thats begging the question, that’s not what the artist impress upon us in their chosen impressionistic rendering of pine trees.
The whole entire question that confronts you as an alleged, (you claim to be an) interpreter of art, of artists’ impressions that they create & convey.
then do your job and interpret, and explain to us:
why did the artists deliberately choose to impress upon us, to give us deliberately the impression of mushroom trees, which you admit that, you describe them as mushroom trees with branching.
and that is what impression the artists intended & deliver in their final form of development.
so that is what you need to interpret, and saying that they come from pine trees is not an interpretation of the impression that the artists give us.
if the artists had wanted to give us an impression of pine trees, then the artists – as you argue yourself – would have dropped the mushroom elements.
The whole entire question that confronts you as an alleged – you claim to be an interpreter of art, artists impressions.
then do your job and interpret, and explain to us:
why did the artists deliberately choose to impress upon us, to give us deliberately the impression of mushroom trees, which you admit that, you describe them as “mushroom trees; mushrooms that have branching ramification”.
and that is what the artists intended
so that is what you need to interpret and no, saying that they come from pine trees is not an interpretation of the impression that the artists give us.
if the artist had wanted to give us an impression of pine trees, then the artists – as you argue yourself – would have dropped the distinctive mushroom elements.
if the artists had wanted to impress upon us the impression of pine trees, then the artist would have omitted the mushroom factors elements – to throw your stupid inconsistent self-contradictory argument right back in your face.
then all of a sudden now, after you just finished lecturing us about how artists did not work from nature but from templates, you directly contradict yourself and say if artists wanted to depict mushrooms then they would have omitted branches.
but tell me, if artists had wanted to depict pine trees, why didn’t they throw away their templates as quickly as you tell them to throw away their templates in the case of mushrooms but not in the case of pine trees?
why did the artists fail to depict pine trees, but they succeeded at depicting what you yourself call and describe the impression of that’s forced upon you, the impression of “mushroom trees”?
impressionistically rendered pine trees impression finished at mushrooms with ramification, interpret that, not the literal form that artists deviated from, pine trees.
The impressionistically rendered stylized impression is not of pine trees, but of mushroom trees, as your field’s own term admits & asserts.
Why do artists deviate from your umbrella pine trees in such a way as to produce the impression of mushroom trees?
if we agree to your reasoning, that if artists wanted to depict mushrooms, they would have omitted the branches and (without any hesitation) discarded their templates, by your same reasoning, I argue:
if artists had wanted to depict & give the viewer the impression of pine trees, they would’ve discarded their templates (with no hesitation) and omitted the mushroom elements.
why are you inconsistent
you are evading your job of interpreting the given impression, which is not of pine trees, but rather of mushrooms with branches, that you admit by calling them “mushroom trees”; the artists successfully gave you the quite recognizable impression, despite the branches (& cut branches & omitted branches), of what you admit gives the strong & clear, distinctive & characteristic undeniable impression of mushroom trees.
Explain the impression; do not explain the original form 🎄 but rather, explain the final resulting impression, that is your job.
If the artists fail to depict mushrooms because they have branches, as you claim, then why do you yourself call them “mushroom trees”?
you prove that you’re full of baloney
and cut branches and no branches (despite your false claim that “even the most mushroom-like specimens have traces of ramification”)
Why is the artists’ evident template rule “Don’t show branching within the cap/crown”?
the crown is non-branching, why?
You call yourself an “interpreter”; now interpret!
May 6, 2020 the point is not what type of leaf so much as non-branching.
by presenting you with a grid of leaves of whatever type, we are conveying the idea of lack of branching; omission of branching.
it doesn’t matter what kind of leaf , whether it’s a grape leaf, or a shelf fungus leaf, or an ivy leaf, or a cannabis leaf.
Similarly, we can read Ariadne’s nonexistent species of tree branch a palm branch with branching, unlike a real-world palm branch.
The palm was of interest for its rule-breaking branching.
I’d have to look up technical morphology of branching tree structures.
And in fact our inability to identify the tree species Ariadne holds in her left hand drives home the point that you do not need some particular backstory insider knowledge to read the morphology, the interplanetary universal basic elementary morphology conveyed by the unnatural nonexistent species of branching palm tree, branch held by Ariadne.
There is no such backstory, that’s kind of the point: it is a mythological branching palm branch, useful for its branching morphology, as opposed to some complicated technical particular species.
What type of mushroom has a fountain shape and gills on the outside, for feline with spots, but has a round base? that does not match Amanita – but this is a mythical scene, with mythical attributes of plants morphology expressing balancing, like expressing branching.
What type of tree has a crown consisting of leaves where each leaf has a stem coming from the trunk and no branching except at the top of the trunk we’re all the leaves come at once?
Palm morphology.
so Brinkman is wrong, Panofsky is wrong; the correct species that I have literally scientifically identified is , what the artist – and also, Wasson is wrong: he says it’s a “Palestine tree type” , in contradiction of the other expert, Panofsky, who says it’s an Italian Umbrella Pine
but I tell you the scientific fact of the matter literally: the inept artists were struggling and striving to present the palm tree. 😑
Unfortunately, their templates got accidentally distorted in a way that all the artist agreed to accept for some reason, the reason being, no reason.
there is no purpose in art
there is no meaning in art
there is no significance in art
impressionistic stylization is for no reason
I learned this theory of art interpretation from the most influential art historian of the 20th century, Erwin Panofsky:
The templates got distorted over the course of repeated copying, for no reason whatsoever except inept, sloppy artists’ “purely fortuitous” accident, and all artists came to accept “the final completed resulting product” of this random, entirely accidental “development transformation process”, even though it looks, undeniably forcing the impression on every viewer, including late-modern art historians, the impression of a mushroom tree, combining, they say, they observe, features of mushrooms quite recognizably, despite also having features of branching (and cut branches, and non-branching).
Did the artists realize that their mushrooms trees gave the clear and distinct impression of being mushroom trees?
If not, why not? Are artists stupid and ignorant of the impression that their art gives the viewer?
Why did artists come to accept these highly misleadingly shaped templates, that art historians say look like mushroom trees, even though knowing these impressionistically rendered images give the viewer the distinct impression of mushroom trees?
Were artists trying to mislead viewers?
What’s your position on these questions, Panofsky?
We can be assured by Erwin Panofsky that these artists would be shocked, shocked! if anybody came away with the “delusion, of some especially ignorant craftsman, under the delusion” that these images – which force the impression on us of mushrooms – were intended to give the impression of mushrooms, despite having branches (and cut branches, and no branching).
Pointing to pine trees is not “interpreting”; it is a refusal to interpret the given impression which the artists give us, the given data.
Avoiding that data, that impression of mushroom trees and replacing it by instead a pine tree 🎄, is a refusal to interpret, while pretending to be interpretation; but it is anti-interpretation, pseudo-interpretation, a pretense of interpretation.
The field of entheogen scholarship has been harmed by Carl Ruck – I agree with Hatsis – retarded and stunted and developmentally blocked by Carl Rucks fixational dysfunctional fixation developmentally stunted limited exclusively to Amanita only and cover-up refusal to engage with the Psilocybin art Evidence in Hellenistic and Christian art.
Hatsis is correct on that point, that entheogen scholarship has come to a halt and is being blocked and impeded by this dysfunctional way of defining every classification system forced to revolve around planecorralled Fresco and Amanita and Secrecy and Allegro, and an exclusive focus on isolated Christian Christian art in isolation from Hellenistic art.
I agree with him on that. we have GOT to escape from the jail cell that Dr. Rut has placed us in.
we’ve got to bust out of the prison the Carl Ruck school has locked us into.
we’ve got to grow out of that preschool play yard that they have restricted us to.
I agree with Thomas Hatsis on that point.
I also agree with Thomas Hatsis that an extreme reaction and breakout, a vigorous almost a “violent” sort of sort of speak a “violent” breakout operation as needed that we need to throw off we need to finally sacrifice this childish thinking.
we’ve got to retain the vision, the bigger broader adult level vision of psilocybin instead, and I agree that we have to vigorously forcefully and almost “violently” throw off the shackles which Dr. Rut’s got us in.
The only place where Thomas Hatsis goes wrong is on the exact nature of the violent overthrow of the dominant reign of Dr. Secret Amanita, the Carl Ruck school paradigm, which has Samorini forming his malformed classification system is precisely because he begins with Plaincourault obsession and childish stunted developmentally stunted fixational fixational inappropriately try to rubberstamp the same bad formula that produced the planemcorral fresco bad limited paradigm, which has blocked the field from growing up and into its adult form mature form.
we have stuck the field in an immature form by forcing every classification scheme to begin with and be limited to only the Plaincourault / allegro/ irvin/ secrecy suppression-assumption model, and develop no further than that.
Where Thomas hatis goes wrong is in his particular so to speak “violent” overthrow of the reign of Dr. Secret Amanita and the evil M. Hoffman.
it is only Thomas Hatsis’ particular solution that’s wrong.
he’s correct about the problem, and he’s correct that a extreme overthrow is the only possible solution; but his extreme overthrow proposal is the total denial and total removal of mushrooms from the Eucharist.
that’s wrong; he’s wrong on that one point.
the correct, adult way forward, to shake ourselves out of this child level fixation – and I have in mind Ken Wilber’s early books about a destructive regression & failure to integrate lower devmtl structures into higher structure to graduate to adult higher level form.
Hatsis is an example, Hatsis is like a destructive regression, a failure of transcendence, a failure to move to the next level, adult developmental form.
Thomas hatsis’ particular solution constitutes a regression that’s dysfunctional dissolution of egoic structures, rather than moving on to graduate to the adult mature form.
Thomas Hatsis ‘s particular solution is regression and destruction of the lower developmental level
we need to retain, in Ken Wilber form or sense of his theory, retain the lower developmental structures, the earlier childish transitional development structures of all of our Amanita research and discovery findings.
retain those, but stop being limited to those, and don’t destroy them.
Do not destroy the previous generations work , that generation called Wason Allegro, Jan Irvin, and Dr. Secret Amanita: Carl Ruck and the evil M. Hoffman.
do not destroy the childish structures; retain them, but dis- identify from them
stop identifying with the child limited level. employ them and retain them, but stop being constrained and limited and imprisoned in the stunted child level immature developmental level of this field for all of eternity, which is what the regressive solution from Thomas Hatsis would do.
he would go backwards
not only is his solution a failure to move forward; his solution is actually a regressive dissolution of the structures which we have developed to date
he presents us with what Ken Wilber would call destructive regression, a dissolution of ego structures, of earlier developmental structures: a failure and destruction dissolution of those structures, rather than a proper integrating of those structures into a higher level, more developed, adult developmental level, which the Egodeath theory brings:
analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control, and my analysis of mystical art images, and Mytheme theory.
CORRECT and articulate and sensible useful classification scheme from Cybermonk per Eadwine: starting left to right of course:
Panaeolus (brown-band rounded cap);
Liberty Cap (aka spear-shaped/ triangle cap);
Cubensis (“bald” rounded cap);
Amanita.
Egodeath Mystery Show episode 131c 2/3 through, hilarious roasting of Brown and his stupid malformed classification system which idiotically starts from Amanita, & Samorini starts from Plaincourault 🤦♂️ 😵
like Hatsis classifies all theories of mushrooms in Christianity in terms exclusively of Allegro.
God this field is so stunted and restricted & limited & developmentally retarded and going nowhere; my god, what a rut!
Browns’ poorly articulated classification scheme begins with Amanita – that’s his error right there, that’s the screwup right there, is that he begins with Amanita – by starting from right to left!
why the heck does Brown begin discussing and categorizing the four mushroom types from right to left on page 1 of Canterbury ??
the answer is because, just like all idiots in this field, including Hatsis, he’s obsessed/ crazed/ mad, and obsessed with Amanita, Amanita, Amanita
He goes out of his way to begin analysis from right to left. why?
because amanita is on the right, so he automatically starts his terrible malformed classification scheme by artificially reading right to left.
Dude! Stop beginning with Amanita!!
Stop starting from Plaincourault!!
Stop beginning with Allegro!!
Stop referencing everything in terms of Amanita and Allegro and Plaincourault!! Stop, stop, stop!
“Always start with Amanita,”
“always start every classification system with Plaincourault and Allegro and Amanita.”
and Dr. Brown falls right into that pit and falls on his face.
and then Samorini makes the exact same mistake, of beginning with Plaincourault.
Always make Amanita the number one beginning point, starting point
All time starts from Amanita.
All classification systems are to begin with Plaincourault.
What are the four types of sacred Mushroom plants that God created?
Let’s make a classification scheme:
OK, first of all, of course, start with Amanita, on the right. 🤦♂️
All distance of every mushroom instance is to be referenced in relation to planecorralled as the (0, 0) coordinate point by which all space and time is measured, within this stupid idiotic field, malformed and misguided, disproportionate mal-proportioned.
Be sure to name every class and genus of mushroom in terms of variations of planecorral: Amanita cubensis, Amanita semilanceata, & Amanita panaeolus.
What are the four types of sacred Mushroom plants that God created?
Let’s make a classification scheme:
OK, first of all, of course, start with Amanita, on the right, and then move left starting from there.
We’re going to have to rename all the genus of mushrooms to make them all variants of Amanita.
Just like all all theories of mushrooms are a variation of Allegro Theory, according to the worst theory of all, Thomas Hatsis, (who is somehow exempt)
— never mind John Lash who arbitrarily chooses Wason as the bad guy instead, that all ratings writings about mushrooms in Christianity are always start with Amanita
make amanita the number one beginning point starting point
all time starts from Amanita
all classification systems should begin with Plaincourault.
be sure to name every class and genus of mushroom in terms of variations of planecorral amanita.
we’re going to have to rename all the genus of mushrooms to make them all variance of an Amanita
just like all all theories of mushrooms are a variation of Allegro Theory according to the worst theory of all, Thomas Hatsis , who is somehow exempt, (never mind John Lasch who arbitrarily chooses Wason as the bad guy instead , that all ratings about mushrooms are
variants of Wasson theory (except somehow a John Lash himself is magically excepted))
/ end of quick TOC
the facts of the matter: backstory: https://reflection.eleusinianm.co.uk/medieval-literature/yellow-book-of-calbourne/saint-eustace
Mâle, p. 3, The sky, water and trees. From the Legend of St. Eustace. Window at Chartres.
I should have figured this out before, but I just figured out like yesterday in context of Canterbury image f177 Row 1 to analyze the trees distinctly in lower trunk level vs. upper layer and then after that, built-out my comprehension of FRACTAL SCOPES OF ANALYSIS and then I had a bunch of breakthroughs to resolve long-standing mysteries of pink key tree in f134:
Why dead branch on left, and
The audacity of the “bad, branching” key tree touching his “good” right heel — b/c in local scope, the rightmost branch is “good”, not “bad”!
That was like yesterday, then today I thought about this tree on right which last night EOD I had been noticing that the tree 4 is a YI type, which I … last time i looked at this image a few weeks(?) ago, I had not yet formally articulated or fully grasped the principle of equivalence of a YI pair, and a YI single-tree morphology. — 8:32 a.m. March 19, 2023 Cybermonk
copied from draft of branching-message mushroom trees article
Branching-Message Mushroom Trees: Psychedelic Eternalism Depicted in Medieval Art as Branching Mushrooms, Handedness, and Non-Branching
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/02/16/branching-message-mushroom-trees-psychedelic-eternalism-depicted-in-medieval-art-as-branching-mushrooms-handedness-and-non-branching/
Here’s a link to the specific section of that draft article:
St. Eustace Crossing the River (Chartres Cathedral)
Features:
Now I see limitation of this model (drawing below) and how I could elaborate it in fractal, horizontal & vertical YI build-out:
quiz: which of the two upper branches is good? Ans: right. imagine drwa…. remember how I wrote not long ago re: the “macro” vs “micro” sacle of scale of Eustace River in response to panofsky’s claim “all msh trees have at least a trace of ramification” and I retorted: VAGUE! define “trace”, do the micro details count within my Eustace window?
Now 12:53 am p.m. March 19, 2023] it is looking even more likely that the artist is consciously employing here, the concept of macro vs micro SCALE. Do Zoom Crops of Eustace to internally analyse the clover -pair scale. FRACTAL YI morphology ANALYSIS.
25 years of my infantile, Ruck-level “spot the mushroom” failure to perceive the adult-level message expressed in this amazingly elegant image that heads my 2006 main article.
extremely embarrassing, but it’s awesome that my article, by highlighting mushroom-highlighting art accidentally brought in profound elegant expression of handedness and contrast of branching vs. non-branching, even though i was clueless & failed to incorp consciously in my theory until oct 2010 at earliest, May 2022 for real.
8:02 am May 5 2022 – branching thinking = left hand = clothing veneer appearance outer illusion.
compare (or contrast) Eve’s ribs made visible under outer flesh layer along lines Brown pointed in his bona fide attempted interp direction lead.
when look right, able to see branching thinking vs. non-branching thinking
then they realized they were naked; mushrooms making perceptible the non-branching reality underneath, unveiled. flesh is like clothes. bones vs flesh vs clothing, i’ve been comparing for some time, the layer idea: outer layer hides inner reality until 🍄 loosecog state making mind model functioning perceptible incl transient/state-conditional surface appearance vs underlying perm reality
I can’t believe that I haven’t made a WordPress page to announce the massive profound revealing of the major import of what’s conveyed and how, in this elegant key image, collecting the timestamps of “decoding” (interpretation) breakthroughs.
See recent pages.
left vs right
pairs of branching left and non branching right.
like Panofsky falsely claimed, these pilzbaum have “traces” of ramification but this is not what he meant, on the main zoom level there are not branches; only when you 10x zoom are the branching tiny black lines below caps visible.
2006 through April 2022 i failed to recognize these themes, left vs right = branching vs. non-branching
Important historical update 9:50 a.m. March 19, 2023: Only last night EOD, I comprehended that the Y tree on right is to ALSO be considered IN ISOLATION from the left tree,
and then this morning very first thought was, I remembered that form of how many crowns on Right tree,
and then I struck me that I had failed even in March-April 2022, to consider and analyze the right-hand tree INDEPENDENTLY of the left tree,
and so, right now I finally grasp that he is specifically gesturing at the “good”, I, right branch of the tree considered in isolation from the Left tree, despite using his “bad” Left hand.
ie: these assignments of “bad” & “good” are DEPENDENT ON SCOPE, relative to scope of consideration a la fractal zoom.
/ end of March 19 2023 interjection
= tree vs snake
= beardless youth vs. bearded man
lion mane = beard & hair
This image’s {sacrifice of the child} confirms and corroborates my important reading of {the (so-called) “sacrifice of Isaac” by Abraham};
the child being sacrificed is definitely oneself; it is not a separate person.
In mythology, every figure is yourself in the mystic loose cognitive altered state from psilocybin mushrooms. child is your initial thinking pre 🍄
but also there, we have the themes of the one’s personal future viability, of the future self being prosperous and viable or not viable and having no future if you go all out of control unstable Chaos control chaos is death cybernetic death
= possibilism vs eternalism
= literalist ordinary-state possibilism vs. analogical psychedelic eternalism
= mountain vs. valley
valley has no branching-message clover pairs, phrase 7:36 a.m. May 5, 2022,
the Y I morphology contrast
the Panofsky “template” amounts to the rule don’t show branching within the cap/ crown/canopy
This water is the same as the salamander’s fire: immersion of the mind in the loose cognitive association binding state from Psilocybin mushrooms.
Legs = which mental model (possibility branching vs. pre-existing control-thoughts) is relied on as the basis of control.
The non-branching Cubensis is touching the water, the branching Cubensis is not touching the water.
definitely not worth creating a wordpress page for the whimsical meaningless inconsequential clovers
the Y I pairs are on the Mountain, not Valley
https://akjournals.com/view/journals/2054/3/2/article-p43.xml
special issue includes brown and brown Article https://akjournals.com/view/journals/2054/3/2/2054.3.issue-2.xml
His account is strikingly pro-psilocybin, but unfortunately, as always, when it comes to Europe, Carl Ruck is overly dominant and extreme overemphasis of amanita, at the direct expense of Psilocybin, and all of Winkelman’s efforts can’t overcome that extreme intensive bias against psilocybin in favor of kiddie mushrooms that’s baked into the Dr. Rut Secret Amanita paradigm inextricably.
Winkelman also succumbs to the tale of exaggerated suppression in mid-history, which I extremely disagree with and battle against.
this is a brand new issue
it just came out
it’s less than three years ago
it came out June 1, 2019
so we’re still within the second year
and so it’s brand new still and
Brown and Brown have just released hot off the press shortly before 2022 they just released both of Panofsky’s Letters to Wasson, side-by-side in adjacent pages!
which I have now printed out and enhanced and marked with highlighters so that I can analyze these brand new documents that just became available June 1, 2019.
I read the Browns’ paper when it first came out, but a deep reading can take years.
like 15 years.
Wasson corresponded with Panofsky in 1952. Robert Graves around 1954.
Wassen wrote a book in 1957, and 1968.
John allegro wrote a book 1970.
John King wrote a reply or a reflection book in 1970. A Christian View of the Mushroom Myth
Jan irvin published Astrotheology & Shamanism 2009 second edition black and white
and The Holy Mushroom 2008 and
John allegro’s book with the planecorralled Fresco re-added 2009
and I wrote the article about planecrawled & Wasson and Allegro amanita in 2006 which was three years before the second edition of Astrotheology book came out
and we went from 1952 and 1970 and then 36 years later, I wrote the article about allegro and plaincoral
we went from 1952 and 1970 and then 36 years later I wrote the article about allegro and the stupid Road block obstruction that is plaincoral stunting the whole field and blocking all progress.
and only now 5 ms ago I stopped squeezing my eyes shut and actually took a critical look at the fresco to assess the morphology:
the V shape of Eve’s arms and Adams arms and the arms holding up the cap
And their arms holding up the yellow side of the cap
and Eve standing with left foot on top of the right foot with the right foot on the ground
and her legs squeezed together rather than branching apart
and the four limbs of the mushroom tree: the two arms and two legs of the mushroom tree.
and the non-branching serpent bringing the fruit of the tree
my Breakthrough groundbreaking work on interpreting and recognizing the basic elementary fundamental themes in mushroom art:
left hand
left limb vs right limb
branching vs. nonbranching
youth vs. bearded
turning to look to the right vs. left
balancing on right leg
tree contrasted against snake
branching contrasted against non-branching
left limb contrasted against right limb
“mushrooms plus branching plus cut branches” is precisely the scheme of these “transformed pine tree templates”, “schematized, schematization, impressionistic the rendered”, yada yada that Panofsky goes on and on about, as of desperate to tell a story, do storytelling hard enough to make it avoid leading to the destination which it produces,
but by putting all focus on the starting point of pine trees, he cannot undo magically the conclusion product result that’s the outcome of his process, which is: mushroom trees that look like mushrooms plus branching – recognizably, unmistakably so.
he thinks that just because there are templates development process did i mention -> 🎄FROM 🎄 PINE 🎄TREES <- (look here!!), he thinks he can get rid of the mushrooms that are thereby produced –
as if mushrooms and a templates development process that starts from pine trees are mutually incompatible!
Please explain why a mushroom intentional outcome is somehow incompatible with a pine tree template developmental process.
there is no contradiction there, in fact.
and he has zero explanation for exactly why did everyone come to accept the templates coming to represent pine trees which looks so extremely like mushrooms that despite having branches (and cut branches, by the way, which he fails to mention) that “we art historians” nevertheless “actually refer to them as mushroom trees”, because they look so very unmistakably like mushrooms that even though they have added branches (and cut branches I might add), we art historians call them “mushroom trees”, which destroys Panofsky’s arguments.
and he is constantly contradicting himself.
he lectures us about how “medieval artists hardly ever work directly from nature, but they work from templates” – and then he directly contradicts himself and says that the same artists, if they wanted to depict mushrooms, would throw their templates in the garbage can and suddenly go look up nature and draw a scientific illustration literal mushrooms.
and he never considers why do the templates show mushroom imagery combined with branches and combined with cut branches and sometimes these very same mushroom trees have zero ramifications added 10 out of 75 in Canterbury Mushroom plants have no branching – which directly contradicts the data, directly contradicts Panofsky’s assertions.
and he’s contradicting himself constantly.
and he’s even resorting to name-calling and insults, because he knows his argument is so weak, that he’s desperate and resorts to name-calling and using charged, smear language, loaded language, because he knows that honest argumentation he’s sinking
and he also reveals that he knows the truth that planecrawl is a proxy, and that is exactly how he treats it
he is all in 100% to treat planecrawled as proxy
and he acts guilty
he’s acting guilty and
his argumentation is incoherent, self-contradictory, and specious
and he resorts to name calling: “some especially ignorant craftsman”; “under the delusion”
and he fails to say why
tell me why why why Mr. brilliant most influential art historian, who goes around insulting anyone who reads mushroom trees as mushrooms, tell me why in the hell did the direction of distortion of pine tree templates settle at the final form after the process of transformation produced in its final form precisely Mushrooms plus branches plus Cut branches
why did that happen Y, Y, Y, of all the potential directions for distortion of pine trees, why did the artists agree to settle on that final form, which is precisely mushroom imagery, plus branches (plus cut branches)?
I have a 100% coherent and perfectly fitting explanation: because mushrooms induce the experience of avnon-branching world, in contrast to the ordinary-state experience of branching
and this is what religious experiencing peak ecstasy is all about
so it is nonsense, sheer nonsense to say, to argue, as he does, he falsely says “Medieval artists would have no reason to depict mushrooms” – but he just contradicted himself! he just said, two seconds ago, that French witches may have ingested “toadstools” in order to induce ecstasy. he just answered his own question, two seconds ago!
so why does he say middle-age medieval Christian artist would have no reason to depict mushrooms in the Religious mystical art, given that mystical equals ecstasy?
his argument doesn’t make any sense, and he’s contradicting himself left and right, and he has no explanation except “no reason”.
he says “no reason”; it’s he says “random meaningless impressionistically rendered Pine trees, that it is purely coincidence, and there’s no reason whatsoever why this impression mystically impression ended up “quite unrecognizable” as pine tree impression.
yet the art historians say the theme is, the final end result of “the Panofsky Pine tree development transformation process” at its final conclusion, to use his own words against him, the conclusion of the process, the grand conclusion of “the grand Panofsky Pine tree development transformation process”, which he goes on and on and on about “the process of the Pinetree process Pinetree Pinetree process process”
Keep saying “pine tree process”, maybe that will desperately change the fact that we have a big giant arrow pointing from pine tree to what? to what, and why?
pointing to mushrooms plus branching plus cut branches (plus no branches!) – that’s what your Panofsky Pine Tree 🎄 Transformation Process points to
and the proof is that we art historians describe them as “Mushroom Trees” despite the branching, because despite the branching, they are extremely recognizable – as exactly mushrooms plus branches.
so why tell me why, oh why, Mr. “most influential art historian”, “the most influential art historian of the 20th century”, Erwin Panofsky, tell me, answer me this, Mr. influential:
why why why did the artists agree to halt and stop and terminate your “Panofsky pine tree development process(TM) , transformation process, process, Pine tree process, transformation development process, pine tree 🎄🎄🎄 yada yada (chant harder!) “Yet another instance” and more instances and instances beyond instances “exemplifying” the Panofsky great pine tree transformation process instances exemplification (never call them “Mushroom Trees”; call them “pine tree transformation instances”; “process process” – he wear his himself out in his vigorous repeated strenuous storytelling.
As if chanting the word “process” & “pine tree” 🎄🎄🎄 enough times can change the fact that the outcome of this very process is none other than mushroom images with added branching (and cut branches, and no branches).
I don’t care how “process” your process is, and how very processy your processed process is – that doesn’t change the fact that the outcome of the process is mushrooms with branches! WHY THAT OUTCOME?
Answer the question, and your answer is “no reason no reason at all impressionistically rendered sheer random accidental meaningless insignificant pointless pure empty style”, says “the most influential art historian of the 20th century”.
not impressed by the overwhelming power of this compelling argument of yours, your argument from pointless meaninglessness and insignificance
you say that art is insignificant pointless and meaningless, Mr. influential art historian
I know only one other historian that makes as much sense and is so trustworthy and reliable and solidly-based as this argumentation from senseless pointlessness
no reason at all , he says, just whim; arbitrary meaningless insignificance, “purely fortuitous”.
NO REASON , is Panofsky’s “explanation” of artistic choice, of his Panofsky Pinetree Process(TM) that concludes in & settles on quite recognizable mushrooms with branching, fully recognizable even despite the added branching (& cut branches, & no traces of ramification, i 13% of instances of the Panofsky Pine 🎄 Tree Development Transformation Process).
The reason why we know for a fact that these don’t mean mushrooms is because process process process process pine tree development process therefore the end result cannot possibly mean mushrooms because process
Process; therefore, cannot mean mushroom, because process.
do you follow my argumentation good I knew you would
why did it end up looking so extremely Mushroom-like that we art historians refer to these as “mushroom trees” despite the branching – and might I add, the cut branches
and your answer is “for no reason at all”
that’s your answer
you propose that it was no reason whatsoever that your Pinetree process outcome equals Mushrooms, so very mushroom-like that even adding branches cannot hide the fact that these are obvious blatant Mushrooms , which is why we art historians call them “mushroom trees” despite the Branching
and all you have to say for yourself for your sorry Cover-up operation is that there is no reason
this is the Panofsky explanation, equals no reason; pure coincidence, no reason, purely fortuitous, no reason at all they randomly impressionistically produced, that the production outcome process result final termination final form equals Mushrooms with branches and cut branches
and what is your explanation Mr. most influential art historian?
answer: “no reason “; “purely fortuitous”; “”impressionistically rendered Pine tree”, “Pine tree” , say at 18 times: “Pine tree, “Pine tree” 🎄 🎄
Panofsky, maybe if you say the word “pine tree” and “process” enough times, you can implement a reverse transformation process, to convert your mushroom trees with branches and cut branches back into pine trees, in order to neutralize them.
this is what a Panofsky “pine tree development process” is really all about:
it is to “develop” the mushrooms with branches (& cut branches, & no ramifs) into pine trees – which is the opposite of what your artists are trying to do.
we have a war of the art historians at war against the artists.
the artists make a process that converts pine trees to mushroom trees plus branches plus cut branches (& no branches), and then here comes Panofsky, “the most influential art of story and of the 20th century” (century of stupidity and cluelessness, and whose fault is that? 🤨😠), and his job is to set up a counter-process to counter-develop, to turn the Mushroom Trees with Branching and cut branches – and some of the trees with no branching at all (against his assertion that “even the most mushroom-lookin mushroom trees have at least traces of ramification”, which is a false claim, because 13% of Canterbury have no traces of ramification, and plus I found in the Eustis window of Chartres cathedral, I have discovered what I get to name “Pilzbaum Pairs”(tm Cybermonk), which means stylistically matched pairs that have one mushroom tree that has no branching, combined with and contrasted against another mushroom tree that has branching – which I think that was this morning, about five seconds ago I invented/discovered that recognition reading, or maybe yesterday, May 4, 2022).
and Panofsky thinks that he can put the spotlight on “the development, the Pine tree development process” will somehow change the fact that the outcome of the process is so very mushroom-like, that we art historians call the mushrooms (plus branching plus cut branches plus some mushroom trees with no branching) “pilzbaum”, showing that although you call them “quite unrecognizable” ( as pine trees), we are at historians declare that they are in fact quite recognizable, as mushrooms with branching features.
and I demand to know, Panofsky, what is your explanation for exactly why did the “impressionistically rendered pine tree process” produce the outcome that is unmistakably, highly recognizable as mushrooms – why, tell me why, explain to me why THAT outcome?!
and your explanation is what?
no reason, randomness, and sheer denial that these mushroom shapes don’t mean mushrooms (delivered with girlish insults, in place of arguments) and
you say that that is proved by the fact that “they all have ramifications added” but for one thing, I proved the 10 out of 75 in Canterbury do not have ramifications at all ,
and I proved that there’s a deliberate contrasting of a mushroom tree with no branching, contrasted against a mushroom tree that has branching and so
I proved that mushroom trees serve to contrast branching versus non-branching is the whole message & intent!
and what’s your excuse Panofsky?
sheer denial, sheer name-calling, insults and sure insistence that…
“some especially ignorant craftsman”
“under the delusion”
“misapprehend”
on WHAT BASIS all this girlish & weak resorting to name-calling insults? these are sheer foot stomping declarations & Proclamations
these are not arguments; these are position statements, not argumentation statements.
“I stamp and stomp my foot and I name-call you and I declare it is purely a coincidence with no meaning and no significance” that the “pine tree process” renders the Pine tree’s final state, their final form that artists come to accept, happens to be exactly:
mushroom shaped plus branches plus cut branches plus no branches.
of a mushroom tree with no branching contrast against a Mushroom tree that has branching and so
I proved that mushroom trees serve to contrast Branching Versus nonbranching is the whole message
sheer denial, sheer name-calling & insults, and sure insistence that “I stamp and stomp my foot and I name-call you and I declare it is purely a coincidence with no meaning and no significance” that “the pine tree transformation process” renders the Pine tree’s final state, their final form, happens to be exactly, quite recognizably mushroom shaped, plus branches, plus cut branches, plus no branches
and what’s your excuse for that highly recognizable as mushroid outcome of your Grand Pine Tree Transformation Process, Panofsky?
and you say that they have no intention of looking like mushrooms and that it’s purely a coincidence and that the reason that they end up looking exactly like mushrooms with branches is no reason at all and pure accident pure coincidence for no reason at all . purely FORTUITOUS.
🌳->🍄process outcome = no reason
that’s your “explanation”.
not very compelling.
and you argue “why would a religious person want to depict ecstasy from mushrooms?”
are you stupid?
the “most influential art historian” is a DOLT.
Panofsky says “why would a mystic artist want to depict mushrooms that I just said produce ecstasy?”
what the hell do you think ecstasy is , if not religious experiencing?!
can you be any stupider
and self-contradictory?!
can you put forth an “argument” that makes any less sense?
and why the hell can’t anyone get the name of the tree correct
the name of the tree is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
the name of the tree is not the tree of knowledge
the name of the tree is not the tree of good and evil
everyone gets it wrong all the time
the name of the tree is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
The Egodeath theory 