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

Perspective on Time: Panofsky’s TWO Letters to Wasson Have Just Now Become Available for Assessment & Critique, for the First Time!

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”.

🤷‍♂️ art style = 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, purely fortuitous, and every last one of those artists who are not “delusional” and “exceptionally ignorant” would be shocked, shocked! that anyone would interpret their mushroom trees (despite branches) as if they intended mushrooms, which wouldn’t make any sense, for a mystic religious artist to depict that plant which Panofsky just said induces ecstasy

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?

The Name of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

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

https://entheomedia.net/Entheos_Issue_3.htm

wheres the missing tree

whats he holding

irvin says 🍄

This is why I had to declare a revolution in October 2002 – the Maximal entheogen theory of religion – aka 20 years of tremendous maximal breakthrough sussess; i’ve been running absolute circles around this tiny clown car filled with clowns, called the Moderate entheogen theory of religion, a.k.a. the Deny & Remove Mushrooms Theory of Religion.

October 16 2002, 6 pages. Subject: Entheogen use constant in religion
https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-23/#message1162

🚫🍄 👎🍄 ⛔️🍄 🛑🍄 ❌🍄 ✋🍄 – per Ruck, McKenna, Brown & Hatsis, et al: the Main Message of the Moderate Entheogen Theory of Religion

You’ve got this assembly line, mass production, popular, ever present temptation for the people who pretend to be contributing to the field, who are actually striving to work against entheogen scholarship.

🚫🍄 – Carl Rut

You have Carl Rut trapping us in orbit forever around the assumption of suppression of mushrooms, ever since day one, he says, mushrooms were never main stream, they were never in real religion, never ever did normal, main stream, regular, ordinary, Religion contain mushrooms and understanding of them

but mushrooms in our religion was always secret, hidden, underground, forgotten, suppressed, SECRET SECRET SECRET TRIPLE SECRET; PUNISHABLE BY DEATH to reveal; missing, absent, gone, null, nil, nada. 🚫👎⛔️🛑❌✋

🚫🍄 – Terence McKenna

McKenna says that our Christian religion was never tainted by the touch of mushrooms ever, and so then the supreme court says OK have It Your Way, Christianity according to McKenna has nothing to do ever with mushrooms, says the expert

🚫🍄 – Timothy Leary

then we have Tim Leary going to Congress asking for ergot to be made illegal and then pretending, a phony fake actor pretending to be trying to get it to be made legal, when in fact he’s actually striving and working hard to ask Congress to make it illegal – what a fraud!!

citation: Jan Irvin – The Secret History of Magic Mushrooms

🚫🍄 – Andy Letcher

then we have Letcher and his copy/paste secretary Hatsis with the book Shroom asserting that there were no mushrooms Psilocybin in England before 1975 , or whatever the fcking hell his garbled, scrambled brain, biased, DOGMATIST, incoherent, waffling, ever in flux, non-position position is, depending on exactly what time of day it is.

🚫🍄 – Brown & Brown

then you’ve got Brown & Brown, who strive to set up three positions and counter-signal against those Ardent Advocates:

never see any mushrooms;

see only a fraction of the mushrooms; or

see the mushroom imagery that are everywhere.

God forbid you should be an Ardent Advocate, like Egodeath.com, which he mentions first in the section of the 2019 article section titled Ardent Advocates, with his message being:

We must be serious critical scholars; we must not be Ardent Advocates of mushrooms.

With friends like these, the field doesn’t even need enemies; it has the guys who are in the field.

It’s all controlled opposition.

The guys in the field are working as hard as they can to try to not see mushrooms.

Brown said be sure to not see too many mushrooms, because you don’t wanna have too many mushrooms, Professor Brown cautions.

And then if I am an artist and I want to depict a vial in the medium of tapestry that looks as much like amanita as I can represent while I’m trying to depict the traditional vial, and I want to depict the traditional vial in the form of an amanita, what will it look like?

it will look precisely what this tapestry looks like.

but then brown cautions:

be sure to not see too many mushrooms!

God forbid that this field should have too many mushrooms!

we need to take a moderate, mild, Self defeating, mushroom-removing, anti-mushroom position,

because you don’t wanna have too many mushrooms Professor Brown cautions

or else you’ll be at an Ardent Advocate of mushrooms in religion – wouldn’t want that!

🚫🍄 – Mirceau Eliade

then you have Mirceau Eliad, who Wasson even mocks and pokes fun at his ridiculous position in wassons book Soma, before five seconds later Wasson turns around and does the exact same ridiculous dance moves, the mushroom minimizing dance moves.

Wasson makes fun of Eliade for an obvious fabrication.

and Carl Rut in the book the road to Eleusis complains about how he’s being coerced into telling a bunch of lies in his published books, the way the Eliade was coerced into a certain asserting sht that he didn’t fcking believe.

everyone knows Mirceau Eliade doesn’t believe his own transparently obvious prejudice-compliant bullsht about “The shamans of the day are morally week and no longer have the traditional methods of the shaman mystics” – manifest made-up, fabricated, prejudiced baloney!

🚫🍄 – Dan Merkur

and remember Dan Merkur arguing – so convincing! – that of course gnostics wouldn’t eat mushrooms, because: the reason they wouldn’t eat mushrooms is because mushrooms are physical.

this is on the last page of his book Gnosis

Mushrooms are physical, and therefore of course gnostics would not eat mushrooms, because gnostics never eat anything physical.

This is Dan Merkur’s argument of why there were no mushrooms in Gnosticism.

🚫🍄 – Gordon Wasson

Even Wasson accuses Eliade of not believing his own Prohibition-compliant bullsht.

Gordon Wasson – two times, Erwin Panofsky commends Brinckmann’s book to him, Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings

and Wasson writes-out and follows up on this lead, to discover the discussion and treatment of the subject of mushrooms in Christian art.

Wasson hand-writes Brinckmann’s full name Albert Erich Brinckmann, and the full German title of his 1906 book, the so-called “little” book, twice called “little” by Panofsky.

and then Wasson deliberately withholds this lead from us and fails to provide any citation to back up Panofsky’s enormous claim that art historians have thoroughly, very thoroughly written lots and lots of papers, and lots of articles, and had many discussions, many intensive, thorough, adequate, appropriate discussions, in many articles, and many books –

for example, one book: 1906

and Wasson deliberately omits mention of this book, which Panofsky twice recommended to him for more information.

but Wasson is against “for more information”; Wasson wanted us to have less information about mushrooms in Christian art, pilzbaum.

Wasson did not want us to have more information, or else he definitely would have recommended, passed on the citation of Brinkman’s book to us, to “the public”, for “public consumption”, citation fckng needed!!, jerk!, Wasson: evil, anti-mushroom Wasson, bankster for the pope; maximum conflict of financial interest for the Salvation Salesmen; phony, censor, pretender, fraud!

Wasson, lying, fraud, censor; anti-mushroom “father of ethnomycology”

“father of ethnomycology”, my azz!

anti-mushroom, prejudiced, biased, doing the exact same thing he accused Eliade of : caving to pressure, convention, prejudice, bias, and censorship

So much for the “father of ethnomycology” – what a fraud!!

This is deliberate, multiply repeated obstructionism.

it is scholarly obstructionism.

Gordon Wasson is an obstructionist trying to block progress in the field of mycology and art and cultural mycology – Gordon Wasson, the father of anti-ethnomycology.

with friends like these driving the field (into a ditch), who needs enemies of the field, with the very guys who are driving ilthe field are the enemies trying to hold back the field and remove the mushrooms from history and from scholarly research and investigation

Wasson is striving to prevent and impede and obstruct investigation – in his own handwriting – guilty, guilty, guilty! 🏛️

🚫🍄 – Thomas Hatsis

The shape of the Liberty Cap is anachronistic.

Thomas Hatsis, https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2021/02/19/idea-development-page-12/#Tom-Hatsis-Reply-to-Me

Liberty Caps and Panaeolus Caps in the Canterbury Psalter

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=liberty+cap+mushroom

from Egodeath theory 2006 main article

Discuss:

branching

handedness

contrasting

beard

direction of looking

degree of tolerance (judging when something “counts” or “doesn’t count”)

leaves

assumptions of significance or insignificance

Panofsky’s 2nd letter to Wasson (the father of ethnomycology):

even the most mushroom-like specimens show some traces of ramification; if 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.

Erwin Panofsky, the most influential art historian

which one is it? is it a mushroom, or, a schematized tree, instead? which one of these two meanings did the mushroom tree artists intend? the one that “some especially ignorant craftsman” “misapprehended”, under “delusion” (mushroom)? or the correct, right answer (anything but mushrooms)?

Assignment: Draw an image that expresses the effects of psilocybin mushrooms inducing an altered-state experience of the world as non-branching, as contrasted against the experience of a branching-possibility world in the ordinary state of consciousness. Would you depict a tree; or, instead, a mushroom? Would it be helpful to have templates showing options?

10 of 75 mushroom plants of Canterbury Psalter (13.3%) have no traces of ramification, and the middle 2 of 4 mushroom trees in this cathedral stained glass window have a trace of ramification:

hold branch left hand, cut branch w right hand

🚫 👎 wrong way:

right way 👍:

next week: vine-tree maintenance

left-hand tree branching, matching right-hand tree non- branching. Cybermonk May 2, 2022

1 minute later…

left side of window: left tree branching, matching right tree non-branching. Cybermonk May 2, 2022

even the most mushroom-like specimens show some traces of ramification; if 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.

Erwin Panofsky, 2nd letter to Gordon Wasson, May 12, 1952

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/the-75-mushroom-trees-of-the-canterbury-psalter/ – find “non-branching”

Decoded / successfully interpreted by Cybermonk: Holding branch with left hand (asserting possibilism-thinking) & cutting branch with right hand (asserting eternalism-thinking) 10:04 a.m. May 2, 2022

left hand at non-cut branch, holding nothing; right hand holding cut branch = retaining balance without falling on God’s sword of control death instability May 2 2022. Further note 5 hours later: left foot is … forget it , gotta have a crop:

left foot is floating in front of branch without purchase & stable balance, just like left hand is floating in front of branch without purchase.

So I have solved the mystery of the floating left hand floating in front of the branch, by comparing to left foot, right hand, right foot, expressing that there’s nothing there are to hold onto; that branching is illusory.

A phantom branch won’t give you balance.

The left hand is in a “holding” position, but this is futile, because the hand is not around an actual branch.

same for the left foot:

that branch which appears behind the left hand offers no purchase, and the branch which appears behind the foot offers no purchase.

only a cut branch is real and offers stability, for the right hand and for the right foot.

most entheogen scholarship is conducted under the miss apprehension of defeatist suppression of entheogens that takes it as a granted takes for granted the absence, the abnormality of using visionary plants

you end up with reasoning based on false assumptions, like “pagans would have leapt at the opportunity to smear and defame Christians as users of the vile abnormal despicable Mushroom”

and we learn a lot about your thinking, and we don’t really learn anything about the ancients that you presume to be a historian of

The Moderate entheogen theory of religion is essentially a way of suppression

suppressing visionary plants now

for the purpose of suppressing visionary plants today

the more that you do such theory, the more you help suppress visionary Plants

good job, dumbasses

assume everybody always hated mushrooms

what a great start you’ve got us off to

Terence McKenna: Number one promoter of mushrooms, by declaring that everybody throughout history must hate and despised mushrooms.

“hate mushrooms”

hate mushrooms – the message from Terence McKenna

“religion is the enemy of mushrooms” declares Terence McKenna

good job, losers

Amanita a Low Value, High-Propagation Weed Among Entheogens

Amanita is a weed in the theory of entheogen history.

Parasite Phony Entheogen Scholars

There were no Psilocybin mushrooms in England before 1975. The shape of the Liberty Cap is anachronistic in Christian history.

Letcher Hatsis

Letcher Hatsis is a parasite trying to leverage Prohibition for his own self-promotion.

“Give me a reward pellet please, I have helped bolster Prohibition; see, I am a friend of Psilocybe Prohibition.”

What the hell has Hatsis done to help get rid of, to help repeal Psilocybin Prohibition??

What is Letcher Hatsis doing to help out here ?

Letcher Hatsis is a parasite invader of the field of entheogen scholarship, he is harming the cause, an enemy of drug policy reform.

Hatsis is striving and struggling to work as hard as he can to harm the cause of repealing Psilocybin Prohibition.

Hatsis lyingly claims that he wishes there were mushrooms in Christianity – but observe his actions, observe that he is trying as hard as he can, he is struggling and striving to support the prohibition of psilocybin.

Letcher Hatsis is harming the cause and he doesn’t care, as long as he can appear to self promote his anti-mushroom, Prohibition-compliant brand of idiot “psychedelic historian”, fabricating an anti-mushroom history story, right hand-in-hand with the Prohibitionists, working for the enemy, a Useful Idiot, he is an enemy of psychoactive mushrooms.

he has declared his enmity to mushrooms in Christianity.

he is fighting against the field of entheogen history and scholarship.

Show me where Letcher Hatsis has ever written a single positive word in support of repealing Psilocybin Prohibition. He has not.

The only thing Letcher Hatsis has written is that there is no mushrooms in Christianity, that Christianity is mushroom-free.

Hatsis falsely says – which no authentic witch would ever say – that pagans would be eager to smear Christians as vile users of the despicable mushroom – thus revealing his own, anti-witch values.

Hatsis is actually an enemy of real, authentic witches.

Hatsis is a POSER WITCH and a parasite invader of the field of entheogen scholarship, working for the Prohibitionists, a servile stooge dressed in witches’ costume.

Hatsis’ assumption that pagans are anti-mushroom reveals that he’s a false, fraudulent poser, a phony witch.

This is Hatsis’ twisted concept of what it means to be a “psychedelic witch”.

SINCE WHEN are witches against psychoactive mushrooms?

Hatsis is trying to spread a perverted imitation & inversion of authentic witches’ values.

Hatsis thinks that to be a witch means to help support Prohibition of Psilocybin.

Letcher Hatsis is actually a terrible failure of a witch, a sorry excuse of a witch, a disgrace!

👶🧙‍♂️

A real, genuine, authentic witch, instead of a fake, fraud, beginner and pretender and poser, would be strategically doing everything possible to help repeal Psilocybin Prohibition, and would work to study Transcendent Knowledge and western esotericism.

the Egodeath theory is a binary system/ model /explanatory framework

expect the esotericism message to be two contrasted sets of views. with the psilocybin loose cognitive state driving moving to the later view. this is higher knowledge, that’s the given thing that the artist has to try to represent in art. 🍄 is useful to represent that, just add branching & serpent, right foot on ground, holding onto branch with left hand.

how does image X convey :

snake vs tree – serpent winding up tree

left vs right – cap-supporting ramification arms. the cap is held up by both arms: by the left arm and right arm together

branching vs nonbranching

message to dull-witted idiots (ie CYBERMONK): which hand

i know you’ll need a little time to answer.

like 15 $&%#@*! YEARS!! 🤨 😵 ⚰️ 💀

The above is an example of the tolerance problem: you can read Dionysus’ left hand is being affirmed; so here we are affirming “left hand = correct”

Above, we have a message that: The {left hand} is so powerful, it’s in charge of {steering} the mushroom tigers, and his left hand is affirming {branching}, because it’s placed over Ariana’s branch that she holds. 😑

but then all of the mystics say “no no no you can’t interpret it that way, that’s the incorrect view/reading!!” 😠 👎 😖 ✋ 🛑

however, the chariot does express the theme of harmonious wedding, of the higher mode of thinking loving and desiring and appreciating the lower, branching way of thinking

the two modes in life, like the super-enlightened Alan Watts guy in Canterbury Psalter with both feet off the ground, relying on neither naive branching thinking nor on non-branching thinking; he uses qualified branching thinking.

or to the left of him, Hatsis’ left foot touching Cyberdisciple’s right foot: foolish & wise together.

the marketplace needs both states of consciousness, and life is based on the left foot and the right foot working together.

In practice, life is lived in the possibility-branching model, not in the non-branching, esoteric model.

The non-branching, eternalism model is of no worldly use, but floats above the world, disconnected from the world, and has no relevance, no use for practical daily life, of actual life as it is given, as we experience it all of the time, given that ~0% of our time is in the loose cognitive state.

original branching possibilism vs later enlightened non-branching eternalism

original sin vs later regeneration

ordinary state vs altered state – mushrooms, branching tree made of mushrooms

tight cog vs loose cognitive assoc’n – ribs visible, not joined

illusion vs reality

exotericism vs esotericism

Psychics vs Pneumatics

Unstable vs Stable

youth vs bearded

female vs male

bound hair vs loosened hair

tightcog vs loosecog

massive body of knowledge -> artist encodes in a small simple art image -> interpreter decodes the small simple art image -> massive body of knowledge

The body of knowledge is specialized; it is standardized as well, but it is mode- specific or state-specific, such that no amount of interpretation in the ordinary state would ever reconstruct it because it’s a realm of experiencing outside of the ordinary state domain and then even if you do assume it’s based in a altered state even if you specifically assume that it’s based in the Psilocybin Loose cognitive state it is still tricky to get to understand the whole convention language of analogy.

Compare my 2013 formula:

tree vs snake = possibility thinking vs eternity thinking

Now consider the different, equivalent formula:

left vs right = branching vs nonbranching

thats my 2020 or fully grasped 2022 formula

how can I create art Image that expresses the ego death Theory the two ways of thinking the two modes of consciousness then we need to assume that that’s what is being described and then the question for us as interpreters but also now the question for us as artists because we are now artists who are now able to do the encoding and we are no longer struggling to decode but now we become encoders so interpreting this plain grilled image

now read this plane crawl fresco image as an artist, as a creator, given that you know that your job is to express through analogies the ego death Theory, Witches a Binary Theory:

how are you going to represent, in your art piece, analogies to map this binary Egodeath Theory system?

given that it’s a binary system, you can take advantage of things like left versus right, the fact we have two limbs called left and right, and it is easy to depict Branching and to depict nonbranching

we can use, we can depict cut branches then we can depict Mushrooms

and then if we depicting Mushroom as a tree , then we can add branching and non-Branching, and make statements about left versus right , and we can assign left to be one mental model and one state of consciousness, and assign right – right hand, right arm, right leg – to map to the other mental model / experiential mode, because what we need to convey is a contrast between two different systems, two different states, two different ways of thinking, and we have two different arms, we have two different legs , and it is easy and viable to depict Branching

and so what we can do is create Branching tree Mushroom tree, and then stick a snake in the tree

oh that’s what I was going to mention again:

in the Plaincourault Fresco, we have a snake versus tree contrast, and we also have left versus right, both in the ramifications holding up the main cap and Eve standing with her left foot on top of her right foot

so I am in one “dimension” , we have the non-Branching Snake contrast against the branching tree

and then we have the left ramification and the right ramification

and the left arm and the right arm the left foot and the right foot of Eve

and so we have these various contrasts.

then we can map the contrast to each other.

we can see that binary contrast number one , is like binary contrast number two, is equivalent to binary contrast number three.

so we get the three-part formula:

tree versus Snake =

Branching Versus nonbranching =

left versus right.

And this is the combination that we see in many art pieces in antiquity and Middle Ages

people , the artists took advantage of this to transmit the ego death Theory; Transcendent Knowledge; possibilism Versus eternalism.

in so far as Transcendent and Knowledge is a binary system, we can depict contrasts:

Branching Versus nonbranching

left versus right

snake versus tree

to represent what we are really concerned about, which is more abstract than strictly Branching

and that is possiblism versus eternalism – those two words taken in their broad sense, to include the control aspect, of moving from autonomous control to dependent control – all done through the Mushrooms.

so that if we not only depict Branching in nonbranching , but if we choose to do that through a mushroom, that gives us kind of a fourth element: the transformation causal element

or you could associate the mushroom with the altered state in contrast to the ordinary state for example imagine if a vine leaf tree paired with a Mushroom tree or we have contrast like non-Branching Spear versus and Branching Branch then hold those with the left and right hand and then show mushrooms in the hem.

The nature of esoteric art is that the artist has the entire, completed Egodeath theory of analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control, & literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control, and Psilocybin mushroom loose cognition.

The task of the artist’s drawing (roasting salamander dancing man) or masterpiece (Dionysus mosaic, Canterbury F134 comic panel with mushroom tree with two men and sword) alike, is to elegantly communicate and represent the entire whole body of Transcendent Knowledge in an image.

Underestimate this art at your peril! but there is a subtle misrepresentation there in saying that on the one hand you can describe this is very advanced knowledge or on the other hand you can describe it instead as very specialized knowledge this is sort of like basic knowledge of the loose cognitive state the reason that modern people are so stupid that they take all the way from 1985 until 1922 to figure it out 2022 to figure it out is that in order Innoway yes it is advanced and complicated and difficult is that in order Innoway yes it is advanced and complicated and difficult

but on the other hand the reason that it’s hard to figure out is that it’s because it state specific it is specialized specifically in the sense of that it is state specific and then we have lots of metal bands metal artists almost routinely are saying the same thing because it is mud specific mode specific specific to the cognitive mode we have been saying things like there’s no one there to stay

steering in a tree

there’s no one there to steer

we have another band saying “the path for you is decided”

and another band saying “help”

and another band saying and another band sing saying “the little doll is you, nowhere to run”

so it is I guess you could say it’s a mixture of mode-specific knowledge and “advanced” description of mode-specific knowledge, so that’s a double barrier

because even the people who do access the correct mode such as Metal artists do not automatically understand the ultra efficient conventions developed since antiquity and middle ages of “left Limb equals initial Branching-Thinking; Right Limb Equals eventual nonbranching Thinking”

that is a very advanced, efficient standardized convention that is also hard to access because it is state-specific, mode-specific

its thus

A description of a realm of experiencing, a mode of experiencing, that is specialized – or at least, not what people in the ordinary state experience.

On the Ineffable

people in the modern age then say that the loose cog state is “ineffable” , and they write lots of books with lists of the top 12 standard experiences – at the same time as they say it’s “ineffable”, which is pretty much completely meaningless.

I stumbled today and it was ineffable.

I couldn’t describe the experience in words,

words are no good; words are no use to describe any experience. Especially if you write in Alan Watts zen poet mode, and revel in not mastering language and specificity.

so everything is ineffable

sex for example is ineffable

it’s sort of an untestable descriptor, “x is ineffable”

I had a good omelette today that I made and it was ineffable, it was so good, words cannot describe experiencing – buy my book to read all about it

and then I had kind of just a weird mood today, and it was ineffable

and I wondered what Miss Reyes him was like , mithras , initiation into the cult of Mithras , and I decided that it was ineffable.

then I had to take an exam on advanced physics, and I saw the questions and they were ineffable.

then I saw an explanation of why mushroom trees were not mushrooms, by Erwin Panofsky, and I found his argumentation to be ineffable.

then I received an email from Thomas Hatsis saying something incomprehensible and sloppily expressed about “the shape of liberty cap is anachronistic” and I found his email communication to be ineffable.

Next topic : “X is an illusion.”

Art Interpretation

The successful esoteric art interpreter MUST bring this most-lofty expectation & understanding of the artists’s communication context:

1. given/assume: the artist has the entire Egodeath theory, including the fully mature May 1, 2022 full comprehension that left limb = possibilism, right = eternalism.

2. given /assume: the artist knows the standard ways & the established efficient conventions to convey Transcendent Knowledge.

Those are the KEY expectations for reading / interpreting esotericism art images.

🤔 😟 🙂

Forcing Your Interpretation as an Artist, to Maximally Transmit Transcendent Knowledge

We are used to my forced vigorous commitment to decoding mythemes – but consider the complementary persoective of the encoder, the message sender: suppose you have studied the Egodeath theory findings produced by 1985-2022, and you know left vs right = tree vs snake = possibilism vs eternalism

that is precisely specifically what I was missing what I failed to grasp and perceive Thanksgiving 2013 because soon after that I made the brilliant formulation extremely ergonomic very effective of tree versus Snake Equals eternalism Versus possibilism Versus a eternalism but if only I had said this little bit to add another = as I am always grouping things together like

Such as you can continue the equation as

egoic Versus Transcendent

literalist versus analogy

ordinary state versus Altered State

autonomous control versus dependent control

those on the outside those on the inside

mortals versus immortals

non-initiates versus initiates

LEFT VS RIGHT

those who he ahead of time during creation he puts on his left versus on his right

The psychics versus the pneumatics

exoteric versus Esoteric

But I feel that the more important part of the equation I did identify :

tree versus snake equals Possibility versus eternity thinking

Branching Versus nonbranching

left versus right

delusion versus enlightenment equals

illusion versus reality Equals

clothing versus naked Equals

flesh versus skeleton