Some of the images below are lower-resolution than in my other pages at this site. Ideally, I’d add links from sections below to my dedicated articles/ webpages. Find or Search in Site Nav page: https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/nav/#gallery
I wish this page to have “all known” images, but that’s impossible by orders of magnitude.
That would be a massive ongoing project, including photographing countless books and articles; cropping; uploading; & tagging.
I’m going to run out of space on this server soon. I uploaded all 25 images from Samorini’s article today, and I sure don’t have time to compress the image files, as well as correctly tag them.
Dec. 7, 2024 status: John Rush’s gallery and https://clinicalanthropology.com website is down (an update of the DVD of blurry images that came with the 2011 first edition of Rush’s book).
hybrid Italian Pine/ Parasol of Victory on the right. The one “cap” on the right clearly represents a Parasol of Victory, while the other cap clearly represents an Italian Pine. It doesn’t matter anyway, since per Wasson, Samorini, and Panofsky, artists are idiots who don’t know what they’re drawing; they just stupidly follow templates that got messed up in the course of their inept recopying, so that they ended up by accident looking like mushrooms, in all cases. This is why 100% of mushrooms in Christian art are to be dismissed. I have so many quotes explaining that artists who draw mushroom trees are uncomprehending dolts, I’m going to start a WordPress page.
Copy of the above caption text:
http://www.clinicalanthropology.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/10.jpg http://www.clinicalanthropology.com/mushroom-in-christian-art/mushroom-in-christian-art-chapter-one/ “Plate 1:5 –Vienna, Austria – Moses Before the Burning Bush, Domenico Fetti, Oil on Canvas, 1613 CE We see God as the burning bush and he holds one of the symbols for the “bush” in his left hand. In the bottom frame, the hand of God comes through the cloud (cap), while the red material around his wrist is the annulus, and the white hand and wrist are the stalk of the mushroom. Notice the plants to the right of Moses, the mushroom shapes in his alb and stole, including the celestial erection.” – John Rush
Mystic Y’s, identified by Michael Hoffman.
hybrid Italian Pine/ Parasol of Victory on the right. The one “cap” on the right clearly represents a Parasol of Victory, while the other cap clearly represents an Italian Pine.
It doesn’t matter anyway, since per Wasson, Samorini, and Panofsky, artists are idiots who don’t know what they’re drawing; they just stupidly follow templates that got messed up in the course of their inept recopying, so that they ended up by accident looking like mushrooms, in all cases.
This is why 100% of mushrooms in Christian art are to be dismissed.
Esoteric Y branching. 1. Caduceus = branching vs. non-branching experiential mental worldmodels 2. Caduceus = male ruler snake & female ruler snake, frozen in rock
Y = caduceus = non-branching lower, basic “branching” Y shape, “branching possibility or non-branching monopossibility” concept, 2 heimarmene snakes, the local female ruler snake and the male veiled thought-source revealed as frozen in rock all future kingly control-thoughts preexisting, {king frozen into a rock statue, king tied by serpents to a rock bench for eternity, king frozen into the rock world}. Y = the branching vs. non-branching models/ experiential states. Y = caduceus w/ male ruler snake & female ruler snake. rock-frozen pair of ruler snakes. the local female control-thought receiver/receptacle the normally hidden male control-thought inserter/injector, along a snake rail frozen in rock, projected from every point in time.
This layout is EXCELLENT work by Samorini, bravo; literally side-by-side coverage of two distinct families — the opposite of the single-plant fallacy. The only thing better, would be 3-column: Cubensis; Liberty Cap; Amanita. We have to put AMANITA LAST, to correct the severe imbalance of coverage in the first phase of entheogen scholarship from say 1952-2009 (from Panofsky’s letter against the mycologists in 1952; to Irvin’s 3 books in 2009). The 3rd on left (Salamander) fits shape of Liberty Cap lower right — b/c hybrid combination of Amanita/ Cubensis/ Liberty Cap. 2009-1952= 57 years of Amanita Madness imbalance among entheogen scholars. — Michael Hoffman
I proved that the above mushroom shapes represent Psilocybe deliberately used for religious experiencing:
The “Hanging-over-God’s-sword” mushroom-tree image by the same team is either meaningless, or represents trained, expert, peak-state use of Psilocybe as I proved.
The same team painted all these mushroom images in this work, the Canterbury Psalter.
Therefore all 65-70 mushroom plants illustrated by this team in this Canterbury Psalter, including the three mushroom trees in the above image, represent the use of Psilocybe to induce religious experiencing.
The vine-leaf trees which are coupled with these mushroom trees, by this team of illustrators, also indicate the routine, trained, efficient use of Psilocybe, to reveal non-branching of possibilities, destroying egoic possibilism-thinking.
The Canterbury Psalter “mushroom tree/ hanging/ sword” image with the trained, self-threatening Psalter reader, depicts not puzzlement over “the shadow” like today’s braggart hubristic Psilocybin therapists (Muraresku), but the opposite: the image provably depicts a Psilocybe expert-level direct engagement with the {serpentine dragon monster}, and reconciling with eternalism; learning how to deal with the pre-existence of control-thoughts, which kills, disproves, and effectively disempowers egoic control agency.
Folio 20 Italian Pine – Hi-Res Zoom of Umbrella Pines in Tree Canopy of One of the Italian Pines a.k.a. “Umbrella Pines” (Just to Clarify) a.k.a. “Parasols of Victory” for Those Really Astute Scholars
Folio 22: Detail of Italian Pine #2 of 10. Or Parasol of Victory #2 of 10. Let the experts battle this dispute out. But DEFINITELY NOT mushrooms, Cubensis, Liberty Caps.
Exercise for the Reader: Identify this Object: Some experts say it’s an Italian Pine. Other experts have definitively identified it as a Parasol of Victory. Which of these top experts is correct?
From the Canterbury Psaltery, early 12th C. It appears in the book: Celestial Treasury: From the Music of the Spheres to the Conquest of Space Marc Lachieze-Rey & Jean-Pierre Luminet (2001), p. 178. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521800404
Dec 13 2020 9:17 a.m. — check John Rush book re: garment lifting.
I propose that this theme of Christian art with garment lifted to the right, and looking back and up to the right, is equivalent to Greek art with billowing cloth.
Experiment to run; hypothesis: in Greek & Christian art, the billowing cloth indicating the the Holy Spirit altered state is usually to the left; to the figure’s right side.
Folio 51 – Left Branching, Right Non-Branching Italian Pines – or Is It Parasols of Victory?? Only the Experts Know for Sure, But Definitely Not Mushrooms
Book: Treasures in Heaven: Armenian Illuminated Manuscripts http://amzn.com/0691037515 Thomas Mathews, Roger Wieck, June 1994 “For over a thousand years the pre-eminent expression of Armenian culture was the illuminated manuscript―above all, the illustrated Gospel Book. Brilliantly painted and often bound in silver and decorated with jewels, these volumes constitute the principal source of information on the history, religion, language, and art of Armenia. … Contributors to this volume include….”
Information from the book: “Fig. 23 – Eusebian Letter with Portrait of Eusebius, by the First Painter, 1300-07. Los Angeles, University of California, University Research Library, Special Collections, Armenian MS 1, p. 4 (cat. 36).”
Scan of a photocopy of the black and white rendering in the book:
Below, page 45 shows a mushroom tree in the lower right:
Information from the book: “Fig. 24 – Eusebian Letter with Portrait of Carpianos, by the First Painter, 1300-07. Los Angeles, University of California, University Research Library, Special Collections, Armenian MS 1, p. 5 (cat. 36).”
Scan of a photocopy of the black and white rendering in the book:
Matenadaran Erevan – Baptism
Christian Art: Erevan, Matenadaran: ‘Baptism’, mid-11th century. – Several Mushroom Trees
Book: Treasures in Heaven: Armenian Illuminated Manuscripts Thomas Mathews, Roger Wieck June 1994
Page 47 has two illustrations — one has 3 mushroom trees:
Information from the book: “Fig. 27 Baptism, mid-11th century. Erevan, Matenadaran 7736, fol. 14v.”
On Page 47, an image shows 2 mushroom trees:
Information from the book: “Fig. 28 Baptism, mid-11th century. Erevan, Matenadaran 7736, fol. 17.”
Page 93 has the illustration just in black and white, of the illustration used for the cover of Bible Review, October 2001, the giant Amanita-cap Last Supper table shown at my page: http://www.egodeath.com/entheogenpicfinds.htm — “Last Supper around an Amanita-cap table”. The mushroom is hardly perceivable in this merely black-and-white rendering — color is essential in cases such as these.
I also have a color photocopy of an Eden cycle showing the tree as generally the same type as a mushroom tree: once the ‘mushroom tree’ idea was standardized, it was sometimes expressed very subtly: not recognizable by a cap shape, but rather, by the grouping of all the leaves in some shape at the top, and with two cut-off arms — branch-stubs, leaving a bare or near-bare trunk that, as a result, indicates a mushroom stem. One color picture in this book shows birds nesting in such a loosely portrayed single-top mushroom-tree that doesn’t have cap-shaped top, but more of just a circle-top.
Water-from-Rock Ossuary (Cubensis) – Peter’s Water Miracle, from a Sarcophagus
Ossuary showing the vertical “stream of water” (stem) flowing from the “rock” (cap), with guys grabbing and chewing at the stem. A strange way to portray a rock with water flowing from it.
This scan is from the book, p. 87 —
The Clash of Gods: A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art http://amzn.com/B01JXOZ7DS Thomas F. Mathews (same as other book)
Mushroom-shaped and mandrake-shaped Eden trees, with mushroom-shaped grape clusters on the ground in between. Found at http://pharmacratic-inquisition.com/nontesters/pharmacratic/ – “Adam and Eve with serpent-entwined Psilocybe mushroom (caduceus). Italy [Abbey of Montecassino]; circa 1072 – British Library”. Mandrake is chemically similar to Henbane and Belladonna. Mandrake drawings traditionally show a human body instead of the tree trunk shown here.
Saint Eustace Window at Chartres with Many Cubensis Mushroom Trees
Emile Mâle (Dora Nussey, tr.), The Gothic Image: Religious Art in France of the Thirteenth Century (Icon Editions Series). 1913 title of the initial English translation of the 3rd French edition: Religious Art in France of the Thirteenth Century: A Study in Medieval Iconography and Its Sources of Inspiration, http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0064300323 (Amazon shows the full text but not the images).
Page 3 shows a Chartres stained-glass window with several mushroom trees — including a plain and starkly clear literal representation of a psilocybin-shaped mushroom, shown below. This is a small portion of a very large window with many clear mushroom depictions. The book shows a sharp, black and white close-up of this portion of the window, which is representative of the other parts of the window.
The book presents black-and-white renderings of stained-glass windows.
Information from the book: “Fig. 1.– The Sky, Water, and Trees. From the Legend of St. Eustace. Window at Chartres.”
From Economist magazine, Dec 20 2003-Jan 2 2004, p. 29. This icon painting shows the mother of God (Queen of Heaven) holding the Christ child. Her headdress is an Amanita cap cap.
This is the cover of the issue:
On page 29 this icon appears:
From digital camera:
From scanner:
A close-up of Mary’s cap reveals it to be a literal Amanita cap:
From digital camera:
From scanner:
For comparison, below is a portion of a photo of a dried orange-gold (rather than red) species of Amanita, similar shape though from a different angle. In the icon, a fresh Amanita is represented, so the dots (veil remnants) are raised more.
For comparison, here is a similar icon with a mushroom-cap shaped table, but one without any clear entheogenic allusions, though it does look like the common orange-brown color of Amanita cap with off-white spots:
Bible Review current issue, October 2001. Focus: Last Supper.
When looking at the magazine cover at the newsstand, though Clark Heinrich has taught me to actively look for Amanita in iconography (http://www.promind.com/bk_stf.htm, http://www.entheomedia.org), I thought that this Eucharist scene on the cover was noteworthy because each disciple had a loaf/ plain tan cap at his place setting. Fortunately I bought the issue, and was embarrassed to plainly and immediately see that the tan loaves are off-white veil-remnant spots on the wrapped-around red edge of the table.
The table surface is golden honeycomb, a simile for honey-smelling, golden Amanita — to the taste and smell, this honeycomb is a literal representation; to the eyes, you must mentally replace the honeycomb lines by straight lines to form the usual Amanita-underside sun-halo.
I was able to recognize this pattern because I’ve been looking for not only Amanita-underside rays in Christian halos, but also for a rim, often red, with dots, representing the underturned top of the cap.
Other mushroom shape elements: the blue awning forms a thick stipe. Since the iconographically stylized table top has “poor” perspective, it is a semicircle which, combined with the blue awning, forms a perfect mushroom shape. The “poorly” drawn red container in the middle of the table forms the Holy Grail shape of the mature upturned Amanita (Heinrich, _Strange Fruit_ page 85 plate 35; Heinrich plate 5 page 54, Issue 1, Entheos journal).
In the Passover Seder meal, the significance of the food served during the Seder must be explained during the meal.
[see correction of this paragraph below] After Dan Merkur’s book _Mystery of Manna_, this would mean explaining the story of Moses poisoning the leavening in Egypt with a toxic strain of ergot (the “yeast of malice”), and forbidding the Jews to use the leavening, to walk away with booty and redemption from slavery while the Egyptians were incapacitated with ergot poisoning.
Correction: The ergot Exodus hypothesis was described in detail and published by Clark Heinrich. Dan Merkur’s book _The Mystery of Manna: The Psychedelic Sacrament of the Bible_, 2000, is packed with excellent ideas about entheogens (specifically, ergot) and the Bible, but I don’t see the ergot Exodus hypothesis there.
_Strange Fruit_, Clark Heinrich, 1994/1995, pp. 78-79 — “Could Moses have poisoned the Egyptians’ bread supply with ergot?” This book has some coverage of ergot as well as Amanita, and considers how to integrate the two possibilities.
After Clark Heinrich’s book _Strange Fruit: Alchemy, Religion and Magical Foods: The Hidden Truth_, this would mean explaining that Christ is consubstantial with Amanita, which causes a dramatic ego-death and rebirth experience when ingested after fasting. This rebirth experience amounts to transcendence of, and emancipation from, enslavement in the spacetime cosmos.
Jonathan Klawans, the author of the article “Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Seder” (Bible Review, October 2001, page 24), puzzles that the requirement to explain the meaning of the Seder was not introduced until 70 CE — “But the requirement may not have even been in place in the time of Jesus. … Gamaliel … lived … after the temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. … then Jesus’ symbolic explanation of the bread and wine cannot be connected with [the Seder meal explanation requirements].”
This objection is easily solved by assuming that the details of the life story of the Jesus figure were not invented until 70 C.E., or later, and back-projected to around 35 C.E., per Earl Doherty’s book _The Jesus Puzzle_ and Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy’s book _The Jesus Mysteries_. The details of the Jesus story were worked out over hundreds of years and mythically, we have every reason to read the Last Supper’s Eucharist explanation as a Seder type of explanation, simply because the story of the exodus and the story of the passion are largely isomorphic mythic and mystic allegories for psychoactives leading to ego-death and the emancipation of the spirit.
Check out the very distinct white dots against red background on this Amanita halo edge in this iconographic painting on the cover of this book. I think the Lion is Mark’s symbol. This is the first time I’ve seen a lion with an Amanita halo.
To isolate the Amanita cap, it would be good to use a circular crop tool on this picture. I don’t know the origin of the red color in this image.
In Alan Watts’ book Myth and Ritual in Christianity, page 198, he portrays such figures — “Monstrance for benediction and exposition of the sacrament” — as representing the spine and world-tree, with the heart of the sun, or the sun door, at the top. I’m continuing to build the case, or interpretive framework, that entheogens were much more prominent and widely used in Christendom.
Painted Roof in St. Michael’s Church, Hildesheim (Amanita Cap)
also called Michaeliskirche, Hildesheim, Lower Saxony, Germany
Lot’s Wife Turned to Pillar of Salt (Cubensis Plant)
IMG_6520_CanterburyCath1180.PNG. Lot’s wife turned to pillar of salt. iirc, I found this in a book, photographed it, and uploaded this image, around 2003. While in a university art library looking for such images.
Pyschedelic[sic] Christianity : A Scholarly Debate on the Holy Mushroom Theory YouTube channel: Psychedelic Historian January 5, 2018. Hatsis vs. Brown 1:08:14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PXZGiX4Qnk&t=4094s He says the mushroom trees aren’t mushrooms, it’s just a style.
He doesn’t say why the artists prefer using that particular style, of mushroom-styled trees.
Why does their style incline in the direction of mushroom trees, instead of some other stylized direction?
Why does the mushroom shape dominate in the art of Christendom?
Cyberdisciple wrote: From the description of book 2, it seems that book 1 focuses on Amanita, while book 2 focuses on liberty caps:
“Se nel primo volume l’Amanita muscaria ha avuto una attenzione particolare, in questo gli autori individuano anche la presenza, in alcune rappresentazioni proposte, della Psilocybe semilanceata.”
If in the first volume, Amanita muscaria had special attention, in this volume the authors identify also the presence, in some proposed representations, of Psilocybe semilanceata.
psilo-cybe semi-lanceata smooth-head semi-spear Liberty Caps
“In this second volume of “Hallucinogens and Christianity” Gilberto Camilla and Fulvio Gosso, they continue their research on the fungal presence in Christian sacred art and propose some of their further “discoveries”.
“If in the first volume the Amanita muscaria has received particular attention, in this the authors also identify the presence, in some proposed representations, of the semi-spear Psilocybe.
“In both works the evidence of the presence of hallucinogenic mushrooms in Christian iconography becomes numerous and it seems obvious that they are only a small part of those existing or existed.
“It can therefore be assumed that such a phenomenon, geographically and historically vast and widespread, cannot only be limited to religious representations.
“Apart from the American “school”, some German authors and a few Italian friends who have expressed interest in the topics covered in these volumes, in the academic field silence reigns supreme.”
1150s.Psalter BL Cott.Nero C.IV. folio 7 Codex made in the Abbey of St.Swithin in Winchester 1150s.Psalter.Manuscript (Cott. Nero C. IV) British Library, London.This codex, made in the Abbey of St.Swithin in Winchester, contains psalms in Latin and French. The miniature on folio 7 depicts a scene with the shepherd David (above), and Samuel anointing David as a king (below). MINIATURIST, English (active 1150s in Winchester) Saved by Vika Bershadskaya https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1f/79/97/1f79979a9a8726c6e6eb99ae0ca484e9.png
Article in Issue 1 (Summer 2001): Conjuring Eden: Art and the Entheogenic Vision of Paradise Hoffman, Ruck & Staples Online gallery of ancillary illustrations 38 pages, 33 illustrations, 47 ancillary online illustrations cued to text.
todo: Add to the present page, more images from the above online gallery’s other 4 pages:
Italy [Abbey of Montecassino]; circa 1072 – British Library
[7] St. Matthew enthroned, Canterbury Codex Aureus, c. 750 (Stockholm).[8] Compare St. John enthroned, Canterbury Codex Aureus.[9] Codex Aureus and mushroom details, below[10] Gospel Book of Otto III: The Sermon on the Mount, Reichenau, 1010. Folio 34, Verso, CLM. 4453, Staatsbibliothek, Munich.
Todo
Provide my improved images of some low-res images above, from other pages (my crop for this site, and/or a direct link to image at other site).
On each mushroom, indicate the correct non-mushroom identification (either Italian pine, or Assyrian Parasol of Victory (or both, just to make sure we’re safely covered).
Someone purchase the books, photograph each good picture, crop, upload, & tag each picture. The pair of Italian books: Hallucinogens and Christianity: Evidence in Sacred Art (Camilla & Gosso)
You can paste-in an image or a URL of an image, in a Web search engine such as Bing, to find other copies or croppings of the image if it’s online and crawled, to find info about it.
Contents, above, lists 1 item for each folio from Eadwine team; lists all of the Eadwine plates in Great Canterbury Psalter. On each, list how many:
msh caps,
msh trees, or
other msh shapes/forms,
raised garment
other items of note for Transcendent Knowledge
take notes/inventory each image/folio. account for all eadwine folios.
2020 Library Images Are Dark/Dull, 2022 Are Colorful/Bright
To see what year a picture was captured by me and uploaded to the WordPress gallery, right-click picture, Copy Image Address, paste into address bar, see year in URL.
joke: Italian Umbrella Pines in Tree Canopy of One of the Italian Pines a.k.a. “Umbrella Pines” (Just to Clarify) a.k.a. “Parasols of Victory” for Those Really Astute Scholars
Joke: Detail of Italian Pine #2 of 10. Or of Parasol of Victory #2 of 10. Let the experts battle out this dispute amongst themselves. But DEFINITELY NOT mushrooms, Cubensis, Liberty Caps.
Dec 13 2020 9:17 a.m. — check John Rush book re: garment erection.
I propose that this theme of Christian art with garment lifted to the right, and looking back and up to the right, is equivalent to Greek art with billowing cloth.
Experiment to run; hypothesis: in Greek & Christian art, the billowing cloth indicating the the Holy Spirit altered state is usually to the left; to the figure’s right side.
Note important lesson learned: I found this overall image by a scattered isolated crop of upper left vine leaf tree that looks like key tree in f177. PREVIOUS Previously I only extracted crops of msh tree – bad idea. Show entire panel especially if contains any msh trees.
Left hand and Left foot (the egoic, possibility-branching worldmodel) giving no foundation/stability. Depending on God’s hand from the cloud holding Right hand, and Right foot holding one up (the transcendent, pre-existence worldmodel). https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f177.item.zoom
Consciously Identifying with Mithras (Female/ Passive/ Control-Thought Receiver), Seeing Lack of Control Over Sol (Male/ Fate-Ruled Control-Thought Inserter)
Subject: Must adopt Heimarmene b/c coherence & power
Mithraism some tauroctonys show: one torch flame held up above cave ceiling, lighting-up (making us perceive) Sol, the uncontrollable injector of command-thoughts into the mind, as a control-thought-stream ray; and the other torch held down below the bull, lighting-up (making us perceive) the hiemarmene-snake underneath us — the hidden, vine-shaped rail that we are steered and forced along like in a haunted house carnival ride, or the branch-path a squirrel follows from the trunk to the branch the squirrel ends up at, or like a snake winding up a tree.
Thus: The higher, Pri1 referent that metaphors represent and mushrooms make us perceive, is personal noncontrol (commands are forced into the mind by Sol through rays of control), and The lesser, Pri2 referent that metaphors represent and mushrooms make us perceive, is frozen worldvine-heimarmene (the control-commands we receive, and all our thoughts, are pre-programmed in the sense of pre laid out along our path through life. Mushrooms are incidental, preliminary, once they have put us in the loosecog state and are lighting-up portions of the mind’s cave we couldn’t perceive in the OSC.
Apologetics for heimarmene
THE CRYSTALLINE [ie coherent] MODEL OF CTET
THE CRYSTALLINE PERFECT COHERENCE OF THE CRYSTALLINE BLOCK-UNIVERSE MODEL
The Theory and the initiate adopts heim b/c heim is perfect coherence, simplicity, comprehensibility, perfectly organized, 100% organized and specific. Perfect 100% explanatory coherence and power with no disadvantages (that it kills fw is to be counted as a tremendous advantage, not a disadv)
If your goal is complete conceptual coherence and a specific mmodel (100% tangibly comprehensibly specifiable, visualizable), then, heim co-entails nonctrl.
main central idea: cyb, receiver-and-executor of thoughts, vs. source of thoughts secondary idea: heim, worldline, worldvine-path, snake-shaped worldvine, circuit board trace, insulated electrically conductive wire
Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.
Consciously Identifying with Mithras (Female/ Passive/ Control-Thought Receiver), Seeing Lack of Control Over Sol (Male/ Fate-Ruled Control-Thought Inserter)
We tend to see Mithras as someone other than ourselves, but actually, that’s a half-truth.
The altered-state mind identifies with not the usual self-concept, but identifies as god-mode thinking instead; god-mode thinking possesses the mind and the identity. The mind in altered state identifies as Mithras — the higher, trans-personal, awareness of true ruler behind the scenes (sol) rather than as the usual lower, egoic, pseudo-autonomous, local locus of control.
Here I’m thinking the opposite of what I’d expect: I’m thinking that the mind, as personal control system, identifies with Mithras-thinking, and has no control over Sol. So I have 3 control-locsuses:
Luna; the usual lower, egoic, pseudo-autonomous, local locus of control.
Sol, the control-thought inserter, which is always uncontrollable
The mind of Mithras; my local control system but now identified as *higher* local, personal thinking; aware of uncontrollability of Sol the male control-thought inserter.
To my surprise, the above breakout seems realistic. I expected something more like:
An alien separate entity, Mithras, takes over the local mind, and local mind is alienated from Mithras, and takes a stance against Mithras. (that’s not what happens)
As the local mind, I’m identified with Sol (control-thought inserter), against far-away Mithras who I’m not id’d w/. (But, that’s not what happens.)
Mithras on the bull is not the usual personal egoic control agent idenity; Mithras is you, but not the usual the ordinary state of consciousness identity of you; Mithras is one’s other, higher self-identity.
Mithras is the higher, awakened self-identity, in contrast to the accustomed, lower identity.
This does not mean that the mind now gains control over its control-thought inserter.
It just means that the mind-of-Mithras, which is now my mind/identity, is aware, of *not* having control over the control-thought inserter.
The mind of Mithras is a helpless female mind, that is made by Sol to see the workings of the mind, and thus to sacrifice.
Sol, the worldline of control-thought inserter of thoughts, is forced to makes Mithra (the mind’s identity in its awake mode) sacrifice and disprove false power.
In the pact of Sol and Mithras, it is debatable whether Mithras is dominant, or Sol is dominant.
Mithras (the mind’s way of thinking in altered state), turns to look back behind virtual egoic control system, to look at Sol, the control-thought inserter, and away from the usual Luna (the passive control-thought receptacle).
Another control-locus identity is the Lion/fire figure outside the Zodiac, outside the fate-ruled cosmos.
Mithras is not all-dominant as I thought/expected; Mithras is female, passive, and helplessly looking back at Sol, the control-thought inserter.
Mithras is made to see Sol, thus made to sacrifice the bull, the power-claim of the virtual egoic control agent.
General key:
Mithras is you.
Luna is you.
Sol is you.
Lion-headed snake-wrapped figure is you.
The torch-holders are you.
Hope this helps.
Mithras is which aspect of you? __ The higher, god-mode thinking, trans-personal identification.
Luna is which aspect of you? __ The lower, egoic, pseudo-autonomous, local locus of control.
Sol is which aspect of you? __
Lion-headed snake-wrapped figure is which aspect of you? __
The torch-holders are which aspect of you? __
Jorjani Asserts Mithraism’s Wine Was Amanita
Yet more incontrovertible proof that the mixed wine of all Hellenistic Mystery Religions is native Christmas shamans’ secret Amanita cult!
🎄🍄🦌🦌🦌🦌🛷🎅🎁
Right here, this proves there are no mushrooms in Christian art. I can apply the same quality of Reasoning that the Minimal Mushroom theorists use:
According to the mushroom theory of Christianity, there’s a “secret Amanita Christian cult”.
But here we have a non-Christian Mystery Religion using Amanita.
Therefore, the “secret Amanita Christian cult” theory is debunked.
Therefore, there are no mushrooms in Christian art.
Q.E.D.
Jason Jorjani asserts: “They also drank wine at these Mithraeum communion banquets, and the wine was laced with Amanita muscaria mushrooms, which were intended to produce a kind of out-of-body experience.” 2:20 Video: Mithraism with Jason Reza Jorjani YT ch: New Thinking Allowed with Jeffrey Mishlove https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIQ0i_1eoJ8&t=135s Some say AM is a poor pick and Psilocybe is more ergonomic. Those people are heretics contradicting the prophet, John Allegro.
It’s a tautology to say “I agree with half and disagree with half of Jorjani.”
The important thing is, I AGREE WITH THE GOOD IMPORTANT HALF OF WHAT JORJANI GETS RIGHT: Mushrooms + David Ulansey’s theory of transcending fate & time.
42:40 “the god of time & fate, Mithra in combat with the lord of time and fate”
44:00 “overcoming fatalism, exteriorizing the dark side of the human psyche… fighting evil as if it’s an independent force outside of yourself is the worst form of fatalism.
“So, overcoming fatalism and reclaiming your free will and human self-determination is the same thing as being able to integrate the shadow side of the human psyche. That was the esoteric project of Mithraism.”
46:20 “amenable to taking elements of ancient israelite … monotheism that integrates the shadow side of the human psyche into a kind of programme for the cultivation of higher consciousness.”
“Shamanic Mithraic magic…” Calling Mystery Religion “shamanic” is like calling Christian contemplation “Meditation”.
32:20 “Mithraism is aiming for an integrated state of consciousness beyond dualistic; attempts to integrate the shadow side of the human psyche rather than suppress it.”
21:30 – “the god of time & fate, Chronos, is a lion-headed gorgon-headed deity whose body is entwined by a serpent. Perseus gives Mithras Perseus …. his harpe sword for Medusa’s head, or the dagger for Mithras slays bull as he looks away …”
Don’t say “Mithras looks away”; say “Mithras turns to look to the right, looking back behind him, and up, at Sol, who Mithras has made a pact with.”
If anything, Mithras looks away from Luna, not “looks away from the bull”.
Mithras {born from rock holding torch light in one hand, dagger knife in other hand} = to perceive is to sacrifice [3:28 p.m. December 12, 2020]
Video: Cult of Mithras Explained ch: ReligionForBreakfast, Apr 18 2017 Images of Mithras {born from rock holding torch light in left hand, dagger/knife in right hand} at 11:20 = 680s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlF0gVedODE&t=680s
Mithras’ Right Foot on Ground, Left Foot on Powerless Bull
The control-thought inserter = Sol, the male locus of control, uncontrollable by Luna.
The control-thought receptacle = Luna, the female locus of control; the egoic virtual locus of autonomous control-power.
Brittle-minded Idiots with an 8th-Grade Level, 1-Dimensional Conception of “Evidence” & “Claims”
THE EGODEATH THEORY WOULDN’T EXIST AND I WOULDN’T BE WRITING THESE PAGES, UNLESS I BELIEVED THAT EVERY BOOK AND COMMENTARY AND ARTICLE — AND DISCUSSION-AREA “MOD” — IS CLUELESS CRAP THAT’S HALF FULL OF SH!T.
Torch downward [9:08 am December 12, 2020] makes visible the worldline of the control-thought injector, in the covered basket underneath the {egoic bull personal control system; personal virtual egoic control agent}.
One image, below, shows a cista mystica snake basket.
PantherX rightly comments “Couldn’t the torchbearers just as well symbolize spiritual enlightenment? [instead of literal astrological events]”
A fkkin DUMBASS “MOD”🔫 says a dimwit half-truth in response:
“Mithras studies are bedevilled by speculation. We cannot make such claims unless we have some actual evidence, and we do not.”
F*ck you, idiot — Mithraism studies would be NOWHERE without various types of what you maliciously and 1-dimensionally smear as “claims“, together with various types of “actual evidence”.
You’re full of sh!t, and the gist of PantherX’ comment is correct, spot-on, and supported by evidence of appropriate type.
Who the f made you gatekeeper, dumbass retard, trying to retard Mithraism studies: “We do not.” What fkking 1-DIMENSIONAL THINKING!
Either we “have evidence” or “do not have evidence”, according to this puerile 8th-grade-level argumentation/wording.
Jesus, hasn’t anyone read Ken Wilber’s great article, at start of his book Eye to Eye?
F*cking DUMBASS THOUGHT-BLOCKING MODs like this is why I broke-off and created the Egodeath Yahoo Group, from the GnosticsMillenium & JesusMysteries discussion groups.
Go to hell, idiot mods! Fkking retards. What a thought-blocking jerk.
The article itself reports speculations including:
The torch-bearers represent the light of the sun rising & the light of the sun setting.
Cautopates represents death; Cautes represents new life.
PantherX’s basic decoding-hypothesis, {torch} = spiritual enlightenment is much closer to correct and pertinent, than the proposals reported in the article/page.
{torch upward} = mushrooms make the mind able to see fatedness
{torch downward} = mushrooms make the mind able to see the normally hidden, uncontrollable source of control-thoughts
Ken Wilber’s first two essays in the book Eye to Eye (1983) disprove the false dichotomy, the incorrect notion that “observation” only applies to material science. I read this book around 1988. In the 2001 3rd Edition Preface, Wilber writes (condensed), in two fully quotable paragraphs:
“The essay “Eye to Eye” uses the simple three (the eye of flesh, the eye of mind, and the eye of contemplation) and suggests how even that simple scheme can shed considerable light on many recalcitrant philosophical and psychological dilemmas. “Eye to Eye” is still one of my favorite essays; the points it makes are more crucial than ever, since the orthodox mind, still embedded in scientific materialism, is deft tohigher or deeper truths.”
[‘deft to’ — Wilber must mean ‘deaf to’ or possibly ‘daft regarding’ (silly; foolish). ‘deft’ means skillful, quick, adept”]
“The essay “The Problem of Proof” presents a full-spectrum empiricism: sensory, mental, and spiritual experience, all of which are equally experiential and can be validated, with evidence that is open to confirmation or rejection by the community.”
Eye to Eye: The Quest for the New Paradigm Ken Wilber 3rd Ed. (with new Preface) https://amzn.com/157062741X
/ end of section about eye to eye copied from my other WordPress page
Mithraism — Think with the Female-Male Mind of Mithras, Look at Sol not Just Luna, Blade Ego-Bull and Its World, in Its Vulnerable Control-thought Receptacle
Shine torch light on the snake in the covered basket underneath the projected-image, “virtual egoic control agent” mask layer.
Remember the worldline of the control-thought injector, don’t forget that experiential perspective and revert to reincarnation into soul-thinking; freewill-premised, branching-possibilities-steering control-thinking.
The mind perceiving its puppethood to Heimarmene-Fatedness-Eternalism, is to “transcend” eternalism, to transcend its puppethood.
The shine-light-on-hidden-sh!t-going-on-in-your-control-power-center that snake underneath the empty mask as if the puppet/reflection local locus of control were autonomous when contrrol-thoughts are coming in unstoppably and uncontrollably, light makes visible through elevated –
Female-&-male Mithras turns to look back behind the mask of personal egoic control agent at Sol the real source of control , local control is at its mercy, at the mercy of whatever pre-existing control thoughts are in the near-future in the worldline of the control-thought inserter, at that time.
The mind is eternally laid out with those control-thoughts inserted at each time along the worldline of the control-thought-inserter — the snake we’re at the mercy of.
Mithras turns to remember and hang onto eternalism-thinking , and not turn to look left toward Luna and forget, and fall back into soul freewill possibilism-thinking and forget
DON’T FORGET ETERNALISM-THINKING
The mind seeks clear thinking regarding the personal control system, leads to purify/ purge/ disprove-away/ un-pollute.
If the goal is to get rid of or break free from possibilism-thinking, because it’s powerless and unstable and leads to cybernetic death/cancellation/complete overcoming of control/ loss of ballast of control.
This is actually can be similar to why McFakea stopped using the flesh of christ, he described meaningless of life but in some ways that’s similar to becoming able to, made able to think anything, to will anything, having no values, transcending usual thinking, values, ballast; shipwreck storm while possibilism-thinking remains.
possibilism-thinking + altered state = giving birth to a lion-faced serpent monster.
Female-&-male god Mithras instead of looking at Luna, he now looks at the hidden behind his projected mask of Luna, who was virgin, turns to the right in the eternalism-thinking direction, turning to look back to the right at Cybernetic theory.
Thinking with the mind of Mithras, torch light raising awareness and looking down at the double worldline of the distinct control-thought receptacle and control-thought injector.
The mushroomed mind now is brought to perceive the true locus of control, the hand hidden inside the puppet, now illuminated, made visible by the mushroom sacred self-sacrificing meal, the poison meal poisoning any remaining impurity, pollution, traces of egoic possibilism-thinking.
The mental conversion from possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking.
From the possibilism mental worldmodel of time, self, possibility, and control, to the eternalism mental worldmodel of time, self, possibility, and control.
TRANSFORMED FROM BRANCHING-POSSIBILITIES-THINKING TO PRE-EXISTENCE-THINKING.
“Branching-possibilities” = possibilism-thinking.
“Pre-existence” = eternalism-thinking.
That is verbose common words common parlance to say with pro jargon, efficiency, conciseness, of uncommon words used by the mind jammers. uncommon yet there are other meanings of these tech terms.
transformed from possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking
transformation of the mental worldmodel from possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking
Established clearly: “Look down underneath” definitely means “look at the cista mystica; the normally hidden snake-carved-in-rock”; “look at hidden worldline underneath/behind the mind’s personal control-thinking, frozen snake-shaped source of personal control-thoughts.
{look underneath] = perceive the frozen pre-existing worldline of personal control-thoughts
{look back behind you] = perceive the uncontrollable control-thought injector
WAY TOO EASY TO OVERLOOK: THE MEDIUM. THIS SNAKE IS CARVED FROZEN IN ROCK.
WE ARE LITERALLY SEEING, PERCEIVING, & LOOKING AT — LIT BY TORCH LIGHT IN THE UNDERGROUND DARK ROCK MITHRAUM CAVE,
A SNAKE EMBEDDED FROZEN IN ROCK, MADE VISIBLE BY TORCH LIGHT POINTED DOWN UNDERNEATH
A LITERAL CARVING OF A SNAKE EMBEDDED FROZEN IN ACTUAL LITERAL ROCK, MADE VISIBLE BY ACTUAL LITERAL TORCH LIGHT
caduceus = message, about two worldlines intertwined, male and female serpent king & queen co-rulers, rebis one body has Mithras but a female nature sacrificed the luna crescent bull.
The personal control system is revealed to consist of two distinct centers of power or apparent control locuses:
the control-thought injector
the control-thought receptacle
Look away from luna as locus of control, look toward the true ruler – the control-thought inserter along its worldline, Sol. virtual egoic control agent (consciously structured/modellled around the ctrc control-thought receptacle mis-taken as-if autonoumous, looks away; does not see the snake basket, the control-thought injector.
The control-thought injector is made visible to Sol.
Sol = the mind when aware of the control-thought injector.
Sol, unlike Luna, is able to see the workings of control in the mind, because the torch-bearer, giver of perceptibility, hands Sol a drinking horn of mushroom-wine. Mushroom = make perceptible rock snake in basket carved in rock.
The bull’s shoulder is its egoic locus of control power.
The egoic locus of control power is vulnerable to the control-thought inserter spear, become visible now in the snake in a basket.
blade = control-thought inserter,
serpent = the worldline of personal control-thoughts, of the blade, of the control-thought inserter, of the female+ now consciously is arrived the male part, the true ruler, the real locus of control & power. Not the projected and powerless female, control-thought receiver.
All Mithraism Material from My 2006 Main Article
Fatedness and Control in Astral Ascent Mysticism
Heimarmene or universal fatedness was centrally important in ancient astrological cosmology (Barton 1994), and was a major theme in Hellenistic-Roman astral ascent mysticism and religion (Cumont 1960).
Transcending astral fatedness involved ingesting holy food, ambrosial water, and astrological medicine (Fowden 1986).
Astral ascent mysticism centers around the dangerous gateway or “fatal” boundary crossing – the sphere of the fixed stars – representing the apprehension of Heimarmene and its control of one’s thoughts.
The stars wind around the world in a spiral pattern over time; this pattern is depicted by the Heimarmene-snake wrapped around the cosmos, cosmic egg, or Mithraic lion-headed gatekeeper figure.
The Potential for Control Breakdown and Transformation
Julius Caesar was authorized for power by his seizures, and the bull in his military’s Mithraic mystery-cult was wounded in the side, so the figure of Jesus was shown as similarly authorized by the spear-wound in his side, and the figure of the apostle Paul was portrayed as suffering from seizures.
The ability to make self-control seize or cancel itself dramatically is an afflicting thorn (2 Cor. 12:7-10), hole, or wound in our side, the innate cybernetic governance-failurethrough which the new, transformed life is born.
The new transcendence-aware self is given birth through the pride-killing disproof-wound in the side.
Jupiter Optimus Maximus means ‘all-good’ and ‘all-powerful’, as is hoped for from a protective deity when one is vulnerable to awareness of Heimarmene in the intense mystic altered state.
Mithras demonstrates that his arm wields control over the power of the bull’s shoulder. Sol is reconciled with Mithras in a pact, and given transcendent power. [ERROR – RECOGNIZING THAT SOL NOT LUNA WAS IN CONTROL THE ENTIRE TIME]
Sol becomes [IS NOW RECOGNIZED AS THE] an authorized charioteer, steering the quadriga with Mithras, guided by Mercury (or Hermes), who is holding a Fatedness-snake on a time-pole.
[ouch another “time-pole” half-on-target decoding — my December 2, 2013 lecture decoded {caduceus} message as:
the pre-existing injecting of control-thoughts by the control-thought source + the pre-existing reception of control-thoughts by control-thought receiver … along the time-pole axis; “time-pole” = “pre-existence of future worldline of ctri & control-thought inserter + control-thought receiver, thus demonstrably no control… the mind of Mithras is the seeing of the fated unstoppability of control-thought injection.
if I (the local virtual egoic locus of control) have no ability to stop my future pre-existing control-thoughts that my control-thought inserter is pre-existing injecting, ….
i not only see powerlessness of control-thought receiver, i see relative powerlessness of control-thought inserter, ruled by Fate.
I see a hierarchy of power/powerlessness.
Breaking-Up the Quadriga Carving into 3 Scenes, to Describe the Elements of Each Isolated Scene
top: Sol in altered state (billowing cape) steers the quadriga. Sol is the steersman. his steering is cast in rock. Able to perceive that Sol is the steersman carved into rock. Hermes in altered state makes Sol fly high to the perception of the real control-source, the sun. The mentality of Mithras turns to look back behind him to see this situation.
middle: female-male Mithras shakes hands with Sol the steersman cast in rock, able to see the workings of fate-ruled control levels (both the control-thought inserter + control-thought receiver)
bottom female-male Mithras with right hand controls, behind his mentality, control of the bull’s shoulder, control over personal control system’s power, Mithras stands (stability, groundedness), Sol kneels (perceives and remembers looking right, and sees the situation that Sol is the steersman controller frozen in rock with Mithras’ mentality in control over the will of the control-thought inserter (Sol).
A New, Clarifying Approach: Arrange the Tauroctony Elements into a Hierarchy of Control-Power: What Is the Revealed Chain of Control?
God the ultimate creator/controller of the block-universe world
the block-universe world
the control-thought inserter/injector
the control-thought receiver/receptacle
WHAT IS THE PERCEIVED/REVEALED CHAIN OF CONTROL?
The perceived/revealed levels of control; chain of control
(debatable/unclear – FIGURE IT OUT! — DONE.)
In terms of Core theory / the Cybernetic theory:
creator of the fate-controlled, pre-existing world
fate-controlled, pre-existing block-universe {rock} world
control-thought inserter/injector
control-thought receiver/receptacle
It turns out that the bull (the seemingly autonomous personal control system) is actually, under the hood/cover, a control-thought receiver/receptacle that is controlled by the control-thought inserter/injector {sol} which is controlled by the pre-existing worldline of personal control-thoughts which is controled by god/ Zeus/God/ the Creator/ the Lion outside the fate-controlled cosmos
_____
The mind changes:
From: this simple-single locus-of-control: the bull (the seemingly autonomous personal control system)
To: this control-hierarchy: God/ Zeus/ the Creator/ the Lion the pre-existing worldline of personal control-thoughts the control-thought inserter/injector {sol} a control-thought receiver/receptacle
____
In terms of Mystery Religion mythemes:
The trans-cosmic lion born outside of the rock
The block universe/ snake (or m/f snake-pair)-in-rock/ pre-existence/ Fatedness
Mithras
Sol/charioteer
Luna/ bull/ local virtual egoic locus of control, in the ordinary state of consciousness
[11:37 a.m. December 14, 2020] – chariot drawn by 2 Drakones = the mind’s personal control system is controlled by 2 snakes = controlled by 2 worldlines = controlled by 1 Male worldline + 1 Female worldline = the control-thought inserter/injector + the control-thought receiver/receptacle This perception of control-reality occurs in the fate-ruled sphere-and-gateway of the fixed stars (Heimarmene);
Tauroctony elements for Creator-> block universe-> control-thought inserter> control-thought receiver:
snake in rock = the fate-controlled worldline frozen into the pre-existing block universe [fwfb] the worldline frozen into the block universe [wfbu] the worldline of control-thoughts frozen into the block universe [wctfbu]
Lion outside fixed stars/heimarmene
snake in rock – the fate-controlled worldline frozen into the pre-existing block universe
Sol – the control-thought inserter/injector
Luna – the control-thought receiver/receptacle
self-sacrificing, self-threatening, ending the dominance/claim of lower thinking, sacrificing the centrality/origin-claim of the egoic locus-of-control power claim/assumption. by demonstrating the threatening of it, acknowledges the actual control-chain:
God the ultimate creator/controller of the block-universe world
‘Sacrifice’ is a mental attitude of cooperative dependence on that which gives thoughts, your will having been overcome and made to will its own demise as an empty delusion, turned against itself by now-revealed transcendent power.
Sacrifice offers up and hands over your claim to effective independent power, as opposed to battling against your near-future self and the inherently overpowering source of all thoughts and movements of will. [a fate-ruled source of personal control-thoughts — at once, the control-thought inserter is all-powerful over the mind, and yet at the same time, that control-thought inserter is itself powerlessly subject to the Creator/ block universe/ even higher hidden source of control. in altered state becomes perceptible the whole chain of 3 levels of control:
the Creator
the pre-existing block universe
the control-thought inserter/injector
the control-thought receiver/receptacle
The mind in altered state switches from “simple autonomy of control” thinking (the bull, Luna, the Maiden), to “multiple (like 4) levels-of-control” thinking:
simple “virtual egoic autonomous locus of control” thinking:
the ordinary state of consciousness: simple virtual egoic autonomous locus of control
the altered state: multi-level control, with local non-control: The mind of Mithras (the Mithras-mode, Mithras-shaped mind; God-mode thinking) perceives and enables demonstration of this chain-of-control situation.
Creator/god outside Fatedness; creator of the fate-controlled, pre-existing world
the fate-controlled, pre-existing block-universe {rock} world
creator of the fate-controlled, pre-existing world
fate-controlled, pre-existing block-universe {rock} world
control-thought inserter/injector
control-thought receiver/receptacle
“Sacrificing your autonomy-claim, acknowledging your dependency on that which ultimately gives you your thoughts, brings mental peace and harmony and calms turmoil.
You are relieved from increasing your attempt to grasp and secure power over your own power.
You are relieved from testing the power of your autonomy and the limits of your self-control thoughts.
Roman sacrificial altars are typically shown with a libation of concentrated, psychoactive unmixed wine being poured on the altar, which opens up a channel to the gods, along with the sacrificial animal such as the unresisting, cooperative bull.
The sacrificer pouring the libation has a cloth behind the head, representing the spiritual ecstatic state, where awareness is positioned outside of the usual mind, perceiving its functioning.
Mithras overpowering and sacrificing the bull represents the delusion of self-originated control-power being given over to the transcendent level, with Mithras’ arm wielding the bull’s shoulder and his knife piercing and fatally wounding it.
The wound in the bull’s side indicates Mithras demonstrating his power over the bull’s control-power.
Mithras wrestles and overpowers the initiate’s control of their will, reconfiguring their understanding of control-power to account for the transcendent givenness of one’s thoughts.
Sol represents the mind’s awareness, which in the dissociative state is positioned ecstatically outside the mind’s functioning.
The mind is possessed and overtaken by Mithras.
Pure awareness passively watches the sacrificial disproof of the mind’s claim to wield independent personal control-power.
A tauroctony fresco in a Mithraeum shows the self-command bull being sacrificed near the shoulder.
A Heimarmene-snake is inevitably drawn toward ingesting the entheogenic blood; often the snake approaches a wine-mixing bowl below the bull instead.
A blue-stemmed Psilocybe mushroom appears in Mithras’ leg and garment, with the stem proceeding through 7 steps, up to the stars.
The billowing cape behind Mithras indicates the ecstatic state.
The sphere of the fixed stars is shown on Mithra’s cape, inside the underworld cave.
The god forcefully pins the bull, who is paralyzed and unable to stand.
Mithras’ feminine features indicate the soul abducted and married by divine power.
Mithras turns to knowingly look back behind the conventional self-concept to see the source of thoughts and movements of the will.
Bibliography
Hoffman, M. A., C. A. P. Ruck, and B. Staples. “The Entheogenic Eucharist of Mithras”. Entheos 2.1:13-46 (2002).
Ulansey, D. “The Eighth Gate: The Mithraic Lion-Headed Figure and the Platonic World-Soul”. Forthcoming; online.
/ end of Mithraism material from my 2006 Main Article
[Below is a copy of this Ulansey article for markup. My comments in square brackets. Emphasis added. Condensed for clarity. -mh]
In the Barberini mithraeum in Rome, a serpent-entwined figure standing on a globe is depicted floating in the center of a zodiac which arches above the bull-slaying scene. Or, to be more precise, the globe on which the figure is standing is located in the zodiac, while the figure’s body extends above the zodiac into the region just beyond it. ____
Mithraic leontocephaline or lion-headed figure always has a snake winding around him.
[within the snake-wrapped cosmos, in the altered state, we perceive that we are rock, wrapped in a rock snake, imprisoned in our {rock worldline prison/jail}; a person’s life is embedded imprisoned captive in rock, along a snake-shaped path -mh]
His position at the level of the zodiac [sphere of the fixed stars; Heimarmene] and just beyond suggests that there is a special connection between the leontocephaline and the region of the zodiac [fatedness; being ruled and controlled helplessly by fate, by eternalism].
The body of the leontocephaline is decorated with the zodiac, or stands on a globe representing the sphere of the fixed stars, on which the zodiac is located.
____
This connection between the leontocephaline and the zodiac can be clarified by noticing that in Origen’s Contra Celsum, Celsus describes a Mithraic symbol consisting of a ladder with seven gates, each associated with one of the seven planets [first the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, then Saturn], while at the top there is an eighth gate associated with the sphere of the fixed stars and leading to the region beyond that sphere.
The leontocephaline holds the key to the celestial gates
[the key = transformation of the mental worldmodel from possibilism to eternalism. This key gets the initiated mind into the domain of eternalism and of transcending eternalism. The key to the gateway to enter “the Eighth and Ninth” spheres/regions -mh]
The leontocephaline is never linked in Mithraic iconography with any of the planets [spheres-and-gateways #1-7], but is clearly associated with the zodiac [sphere-and-gaetway #8], he has a special connection with Celsus’ eighth gate— that of the sphere of the fixed stars*AND* the realm beyond it— since it is on that sphere that the zodiac lies.
[It is a fallacy, to separate:
The 7th, final planetary sphere-and-gateway, Saturn, scyther-away of childhood-thinking, from
The 8th sphere, the sphere-and-gateway of the fixed-stars, which rules over the cosmos with fatedness/ eternalism/ heimarmene.
The spheres-and-gateways of Saturn and fixed stars are one and the same.
Saturn = sphere of fixed stars = the mind is made to sacrifice possibilism-thinking while the mind is made to enter the domain of eternalism-thinking (no-free-will/ heimarmene/ dependent puppethood/ eternalism).
Of course this proposal is tantamount to collapsing the entire model of “sequence of initiations” into a single moment-of-complete- all-at-once initiation.
The function of separating the Saturn gateway from the fixed-stars Zodiac gateway, is to express “initiation / purification by stages, in a series of 9 initiations”.
–mh]
____
In addition, the painting at Barberini depicts the region outside of the zodiac— into which the leontocephaline’s body extends– in a specific way: above the zodiac is an arch containing a row of six altars with fires burning on them.
Scholars have often assumed that these fires represent the planets. However, there are two decisive arguments against this explanation.
First, the fires are depicted as lying beyond the zodiac, which is of course contrary to all Greco-Roman astronomy, in which the planets are understood as being closer to the earth than is the sphere of the fixed stars on which the zodiac is located.
And second, of course, there are only six fires, while the planets are always seven in number.
In response to the problem of there being only six fires, it has been suggested that the leontocephaline either hides or substitutes for a seventh fire.
However, this suggestion is untenable, since a Roman relief from the Esquiline remarkably resembling the Barberini painting, there are clearly only six fire-altars above Mithras.
In fact, there also exist tauroctonies in which there are nine fire-altars or four fire-altars above Mithras, indicating that the specific number of altars was not fixed.
____
the Mithraists understood the cave in which Mithras kills the bull as symbolizing the cosmos, since in the Esquiline relief the arch separating Mithras from the six fires above is the roof of the cave, while in the Barberini painting exactly the same position and role are filled by the arch of the zodiac.
____
Second, the Esquiline relief also includes a second set of fire-altars, this time indeed numbering seven, at the very bottom of the image. Most scholars are now agreed that the animal figures in the bull-slaying icon represent a series of constellations located on the sphere of the fixed stars.
the seven fires placed in the Esquiline relief below the bull-slaying — that is, below the sphere of the fixed stars– are in the proper astronomical location for the planets.
Thus the lower set of fires agrees both in number and position with the planets, and thus most likely does represent the planets, while the upper set of fires does not fit with the planets either in number or in position.
____
But if the six upper fires in the Esquiline relief and the Barberini painting do not represent the planets, what do they represent?
An obvious answer to this question is immediately apparent if we merely take seriously the fact that the fires in the Barberini painting are clearly located outside of the zodiac, and hence beyond the sphere of the fixed stars. For throughout antiquity there existed a widespread belief that the outermost region of the cosmos was occupied by a realm of fire.
[{fire} = the Psilocybe altered state burns away any possibilism-thinking pollution remaining
cow-dung blue-stem mushrooms = Psilocybe cubensis liberty cap mushroom = Psilocybe semilanceata -mh]
____
Deriving from the experience of the light-giving quality of the stars and planets, the light- and heat-producing quality of the sun, and the upward-moving tendency of fire, the earliest Greek philosophers already identified the sky as a realm of fire.
As Charles Kahn says, “Both Parmenides and Anaxagoras seem to have identified the aither or sky with elemental fire….” and Anaximander’s cosmology placed a sphere of flame at the outer boundary of the universe.
The Pythagorean Philolaus appears to have held a similar opinion, since according to Aetius he said that in addition to the existence of a fiery “hearth” at the center of the universe there is “…again another fire at the uppermost place, surrounding the whole.”
____
Plato as well seems to have adopted the idea of fire as existing in the furthest region of the cosmos in Timaeus 62D-63E, since, as F.M Cornford notes in his commentary on this passage, for Plato the elements are here understood as arranged “in a definite order: fire around the circumference (where it is the chief constituent of the stars’ bodies), next the spheres of air and water, and earth at the center.”
____
The idea of a fire at the outermost boundary of the universe later became a commonplace in Stoic thought.
Cleanthes, for example, according to Cicero taught that “the most unquestionable deity is that remote all-surrounding fiery atmosphere called the aether, which encircles and embraces the universe on its outer side at an exceedingly lofty altitude.”
Chrysippus, notes David E. Hahm, speaks of “the aether, which is the name he gives to the fire at the periphery of the cosmos.”
____
Among the Middle and Neo-Platonists there was also a widespread belief that the outermost region of reality was a fiery domain.
Based on Plato’s famous allegory of the cave and of the sun-filled realm outside of it, the doctrine arose that beyond the universe– in the “place beyond the heavens” (hyperouranios topos) of Phaedrus 247B-C– there existed a hypercosmic sun or light (I have discussed this in detail in my article “Mithras and the Hypercosmic Sun“). Article: Mithras and the Hypercosmic Sun David Ulansey todo: also could excerpt and comment on. {born from rock} = {born from rock-snake-wrapped rock egg} = “outside the sphere-and-gateway of the fixed stars (Heimarmene)”; transcending eternalism; ransomed/redeemed and set free from imprisonment in the frozen-rock eternalism-prison. Journal print page layout: https://c225284de2bfd8ddba3a-1f65ea6b54cffc44ac06d29d1bbf1a1c.ssl.cf5.rackcdn.com/ws_02_ulansey.pdf Ulansey’s webpage of the article: http://www.mysterium.com/hypercosmic.html
An early example is found in Philo’s De Opificio Mundi VIII.31, where he speaks of
a star above the heavens, the source of those stars which are perceptible by the external sense, and if any one were to call it universal light he would not be very wrong; since it is from that the sun and moon, and all the other planets and fixed stars derive their due light….[10]
And a bit further on, in XXIII 69-71, Philo pictures a mind journeying through the world and then up through the heavenly spheres until it [the mind] passes the outermost boundary of the universe [ie the sphere-and-gateway of the fixed stars; the Zodiac -mh], at which point “rays of divine light are poured forth upon it [the mind] like a torrent, so as to bewilder the eyes of its [the mind’s] intelligence by their splendour.”
____
Finally, an exact parallel to the picture in the Barberini mithraeum of a fiery realm outside the cosmos is found in the Chaldaean Oracles.
In the Chaldaean cosmology, the highest world is beyond the cosmic sphere (hyperkosmios or hyperouranios)[12] and is called the fiery cosmos or the “Empyrean” realm (kosmos pyrios or empyrios).
[good, the expected confirmation of my Theory/prediction/understanding — “the Empyrean” = outside the cosmos = outside the sphere-and-gateway of the fixed stars (Heimarmene); Empyrean = transcending eternalism or eternalism-thinking. -mh]
____
Given all of this evidence for the ancient belief in the presence of a fiery realm at the outermost place in the universe, the depiction in the Barberini painting of fires just outside the boundary of the cosmos makes perfect sense.
Indeed, additional support for a connection between the leontocephaline and the aetherial cosmic fire can be found in the fact that the Mithraic leontocephaline, as is well known, is frequently associated with fire-symbolism in a variety of ways, extending even to the existence of statues of the leontocephaline apparently designed so that fire could be sent shooting out of its mouth.
____
However, an additional factor in the Barberini painting may help us gain further clarity about the significance of the Mithraic leontocephaline.
It is notable that the placement of the leontocephaline at Barberini seems designed to emphasize the concepts of boundary and boundary-crossing.
The globe on which the figure stands is located exactly on the arching zodiacal boundary of the universe, while the figure itself extends beyond that boundary as a kind of incarnation of the process of boundary-crossing.
The leontocephaline has a connection with the idea of a cosmic boundary, then crucial pieces of his cryptic symbolism take on a new importance.
[Ulansey identifies the mytheme of {transcending the sphere-and-gateway of the fixed stars (Heimarmene)} but he doesn’t exactly identify the referent; the specific item in “things that are observed and experienced in the altered state”, in terms of Psilocybe-induced loosecog, altered-state transformation of the mental worldmodel from possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking. -mh]
The key that he always holds — the key is one of the most appropriate of all symbols of boundaries and boundary-crossing.
Thus the goddess Hekate, mistress of boundaries and crossroads, was from Hellenistic times on often associated with the symbol of the key.
And in his work On the Genius of Socrates 591 A-C, Plutarch describes how the three Fates guard the thresholds between cosmic realms, each of them holding a key.
[“the three Fates” — there’s my number 3 that I was looking for to decode {the three snakes}; the chalice cup of 3 snakes
Significantly, the first of these cosmic thresholds, presided over [ie guarded] by the Fate Atropos, is that which separates what is outside the cosmic sphere from what is inside it.
[2nd & 3rd??]
____
The key held by the Mithraic leontocephaline, then, indicates his role as a type of boundary guardian: specifically, as we have seen, the Barberini symbolism shows that he is associated with the boundary between what is inside and what is outside the cosmic sphere.
But what could be the significance of this boundary such that the Mithraists were motivated to personify it in the form of a powerful divine being?
____
An answer to this question can be found in the fact that the Mithraists were surprisingly not alone in the seemingly peculiar act of personifying the cosmic boundary.
For in the Chaldaean Oracles (where, as we saw earlier, it is taught that there exists beyond the universe a realm of fire) the boundary between the cosmos and what is beyond was personified in the figure of the goddess Hekate, a central divinity in the Oracles’ religious system.
____
The figure of Hekate in the Chaldaean Oracles derives ultimately from speculations on Plato’s description of the World-Soul in his dialogue Timaeus.
There, Plato says that the Demiurge– the creator of the universe– as part of the process of creation made a soul for the cosmos as a whole.
Plato says that the Demiurge set this “World-Soul” in the center of the cosmos “and caused it to extend throughout the whole and further wrapped [the body of the cosmos] round with soul on the outside….”
____
The World-Soul of Plato became the object of extraordinarily complex and far-reaching speculations in subsequent Platonic and other Greek philosophy, but it always retained its role as the boundary of the cosmos and the mediator between the cosmos and the realm beyond.
The fact that in the Chaldaean Oracles this abstract entity became personified as the goddess Hekate shows that it is at least plausible that the Mithraic leontocephaline could represent a similar personification of the cosmic boundary.
[lion-in-rock-on-Zodiac = crossing boundary — REGARDLESS OF WHETHER we describe that as:
Transcending possibilism-thinking to reach eternalism-thinking.
Transcending eternalism-thinking to reach ultra-transcendent thinking.
{fire} = altered state = crossing boundary (regardless of issue of “transcending eternalism”) -mh]
This plausibility is strengthened by the fact that the Chaldaean Hekate, like the Mithraic leontocephaline, is constantly associated with an array of symbols involving fire.
____
But the key piece of evidence supporting our hypothesis that the leontocephaline is a symbol of [crossing] the cosmic boundary, and that he is linked, like the Chaldaean Hekate, to the Platonic World-Soul, lies in the most consistent of all of the attributes of the leontocephaline: namely, the snake wrapped around him.
____
Many explanations for the presence of the snake wrapped around the leontocephaline have been offered, focusing on the snake as a solar symbol, as a symbol for cosmic time, or as a symbol of the celestial ascent of the soul.
However, the connection between the leontocephaline and the cosmic boundary and World-Soul that we have been tracing here suggests an additional factor: for there exists solid evidence that the World-Soul in its role as boundary of the universe was symbolized as a serpent.
[ {snake} = boundary between possibilism-thinking & eternalism-thinking Pretty equivalent: {snake} =boundary between eternalism-thinking & transcendent-of-eternalism-thinking The radical thing for mind to deal w/ is, in general, transformation of the mental worldmodel from possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking. eternalism-thinking could include “t’ding eternalism”. -mh]
____
This evidence is found in Origen’s Contra Celsum, immediately following his discussion of the Mithraic eight-gated ladder.
In Book VI, chaps. 24ff., Origen discusses the teachings of the Gnostic sect of the Ophites or serpent-worshippers as expressed in certain diagrams of theirs.
In one of these diagrams, he says, was “a drawing of ten circles, which were separated from one another and held together by a single circle, which was said to be the soul of the universe and was called Leviathan.”
Origen goes on to explain that this Leviathan is a great serpent, symbolizing the soul [‘soul’ implies freewill thinking; not spirit] that permeates the universe.
That this serpent specifically represents Plato’s World-Soul is proven by the fact that according to Origen the diagram showed Leviathan twice, once in the center and once around the circumference, just as in the Timaeus Plato said that the World-Soul was placed in the center of the cosmos and also wrapped around the outside.
Other Gnostic systems also made use of this symbol of a serpent wrapped around the outside of the universe: according to the Pistis Sophia, “The outer darkness is a great dragon, whose tail is in his mouth, outside the whole world and surrounding the whole world.”
[ulan doesn’t mention “outer darkness”, he was talking about “world soul” ??]
____
Here we see the Platonic World-Soul as boundary of the cosmos symbolized by an encircling serpent.
The parallel with the Mithraic leontocephaline as the serpent-entwined symbol of the cosmic boundary
there is in Mithraic iconography another figure besides the leontocephaline who is depicted as entwined by a serpent: namely, the god Oceanus.
Oceanus is often depicted in the tauroctony beside the image of Mithras ascending in the chariot of the sun, and is easily identifiable by associated watery symbols such as waves, a boat, an oar, a vase, or a sail.
[sail = billowing cloth altered state]
However, a number of times the figure beside the image of Mithras in the chariot is depicted as entwined by a serpent in exactly the same way as the leontocephaline.
As Manfred Clauss and M.L. West have noted, this serpent-entwined figure must also be Oceanus.
But why is he entwined by a snake exactly like the leontocephaline?
Fig. 7: Oceanus (on right) with waves and holding sail over head (CIMRM 2244)
Fig. 8: Oceanus (on right) entwined in serpent (CIMRM 1958)
Our discovery of the leontocephaline’s connection with the boundary of the cosmic sphere provides an obvious answer to this question, for of course the most important function of Oceanus in antiquity was as a symbol of the outermost circular boundary of the world.
The fact that both the leontocephaline and Oceanus are identically entwined by a serpent, therefore, makes perfect sense: the serpent around each of them symbolizes their roles as ultimate boundaries.
And, conversely, the fact that in Mithraic iconography Oceanus– the boundary of the world– is entwined by a serpent provides remarkable support for my claim that the serpent-entwined leontocephaline also symbolizes the cosmic boundary— and hence the Platonic World-Soul– as indicated by the Barberini painting.
____
In the Acts of Thomas, the same text that includes the famous Gnostic Hymn of the Pearl, the apostle Thomas is confronted by a serpent.
The serpent speaks to him, and at one point says, “I am son of him who girds the sphere about; and I am kinsman of him who is outside the ocean, whose tail is set in his own mouth.”
Here, exactly as in the Mithraic evidence, we find an enclosing serpent related simultaneously to the world-containing ocean and to the boundary of the cosmic sphere.
____
If the leontocephaline did indeed function partly as a symbol for the ultimate boundary of the universe, this would be in complete harmony with the theory I proposed in my book The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries that Mithraism began as a religious response to Hipparchus’s discovery of the precession of the equinoxes.
[ie Mithraism uses mythemes as a symbol/analogy to describe things that are observed and experienced in the altered state -mh]
Mithras represented the force responsible for moving the entire cosmic sphere in the way revealed by Hipparchus’s discovery
Mithras was understood as a divinity whose essential power lay in the hypercosmic realm.
[personal control power isn’t based in possibilism-thinking; personal control power is based in eternalism-thinking & hyper/trans eternalism-thinking).]
A symbol for the division between the cosmic and hypercosmic realms would have come to play an important role in the iconographical repertoire of his worship.
Experiment: I’m starting this WordPress page to look into this site. As feared, worst-case: 404, for the .org domain. Looks like they went with the .com domain instead: http://ancientesotericism.com –
Curious: even the .com website, in its About texts, says “.org”, but looks like they lost that domain.
The only thing I know about this website is that it’s mentioned in a 2015 newsletter of esotericism scholarship: The Newsletter of the European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism.
The site is about Western Esotericismas manifested inancient Mediterranean religion.
“In 2014–15, Sarah Veale and I both focused our energy on continuing to develop and update the NSEA website, ancientesotericism.org. [sic; .com]
Traffic and subscriptions increased significantly in the past year.
The site has also begun to be used by members outside of the ESSWE and has garnered mention in the ancient religious blogosphere more widely.
It is succeeding in fulfilling its purpose as a bridge between scholars working in:
Western Esotericism.
Ancient Mediterranean religion.”
Website upper left About text:
“AncientEsotericism.org is the website for the Network for the Study of Esotericism in Antiquity (NSEA), a thematic group associated with the European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism (ESSWE).
Our website provides resources and information for students and specialists of ancient esoteric thought, history, and literature.”
Ancient Esotericism.org is the website for the Network for the Study of Ancient Esotericism (NSEA), a thematic network associated with the European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism (ESSWE). NSEA specializes in the study of esoteric phenomena of the ancient period and provides contact for specialists of ancient esoteric thought, history, and literature.
This website is intended as a resource for scholars and students.
While
the ancient sources (Gnostic, theurgic, Neoplatonic, Hermetic, etc.) of Western Esotericism
possess enormous importance for the development of esoteric currents from the fourteenth century onwards, there remains only a minimum of interaction between the antiquity experts and their (proto)-modern colleagues.
The Network therefore is intended to:
Introduce scholarship on ancient esotericism to students of Western Esotericism.
Serve as a forum in which to exchange ideas, notes and references, etc. outside of other professional bodies which are not concerned with esotericism per se.
Provide a junction of the many resources online that can serve as aids in the study of this fascinating and difficult material (dictionaries, textual corpora, blogs, etc.).
Subject: Re: More effective entheogen scholarship and theorizing
Group: egodeath
Message: 7457
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
Hatsis suffers from the single-meaning, surface-meaning fallacy, literalism, like when people say the spaceship in the song does not refer to LSD, because it refers to a spaceship — as if poetry can only have one, clear cut, surface, literal meaning.
Specifically, Hatsis suffers from lacking the correct referent domain: religious mythology refers to entheogen-revealed experiencing of the Eternalism mental model of time, self, possibility, and control.
Mythology and acid popsike lyrics have two domains of meaning: the metaphor domain (whatever the specific surface analogy is; this is an open set; it could be any domain of metaphor), and the referent domain, which is entheogen-induced experiencing of Eternalism (a single specific domain that does not vary).
The New Testament maps the single fixed referent domain (Entheogen Eternalism) to, most notably and relevantly, two metaphor domains: the metaphor domain of mystery religion, and the metaphor domain of socio-politics.
“Put the needle in the groove” — there’s no way this can refer to intercourse, because plainly it is about playing a record. This meaning prevents mapping to a different meaning (according to tone-deaf outsiders).
Hatsis operates from an assumed paradigm of Literalist OSC Possibilism, so he is only prepared to read a single, brittle, literal meaning — like the word ‘die’ for him has not yet been problematized; he shows no awareness of the need to interpret the word ‘die’.
For him, ‘die’ means simply bodily physical death, and that’s it; there’s no possibility in his mind of it meaning any other kind of death or anything other than literal bodily death.
Even academics (clueless outsiders to the riddle) recognize that the Eden tree ‘die’ refers to “spiritual death”, as they put it.
He says these mushroom trees do not refer to mushrooms because they refer to trees and that this is simply how the school arbitrarily by convention depicts trees: they do it in an abstract mushroom-like way (and this is a secular book).
And Ruck has such a weak theory that he has nothing to counter that denseness with.
First of all we have to ask the initial key question: What kind of writing, what kind of art is this? The answer is religious mythology.
In a work of religious mythology, why would you choose to depict trees in a mushroom-like way? The answer is because mushrooms induce religious experiencing, which per Benny Shanon is quintessentially metaphorical in terms of cognitive psychology modes of mind.
Hatsis shows how flimsy the Entheogen theory of religious mythology is when it is not working buttressed in conjunction with the more important point of religious mythology, which is Eternalism — which is the actual referent domain.
Ruck is wrong in his assertion that religious mythology refers to mushrooms. In fact religious mythology refers to Eternalism. Which mushrooms induce.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7459
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
The raised left leg refers to the initial, illusion-based mental model which is baseless, which rests on air and has no foundation.
The right leg on the ground refers to transcendent thinking, recognizing what you were and are actually resting on and what actually carries you.
The world model as imagined originally, based on possibility thinking with possibility branching and you with autonomous power of steering among those possibilities, is a baseless illusion, and it is not the actual basis on which you are actually dependent.
The raised left leg has no real basis, it’s standing on air like a unicorn.
The right leg is like the salamander: it is enduring, it is a real dependable basis foundation, the actual foundation on which you rest as a control agent.
It is the basis on which you are actually dependent.
The expression of poison, hand to forehead, also suggests remorse, mourning, repentance, the realization that your mental model was wrong and is now fallen, catastrophically failed.
Like Ruck feels since he realizes he was dead wrong in caving to Hatsis and was coerced into absurdly denying that the mushroom tree indicates mushroom.
Hatsis viciously attacked Irvin by hearty laughter out of control. I counterattack by laughing even far more heartily at the foolishness of Hatsis in respecting Harvard.
Only by recognizing Harvard as a pile of foolishness can we surpass Harvard in their deadlocked incomprehension of religious mythology.
Your left foot, initial mental model, catastrophically failed, and it was based on illusion.
Your previous basis, on what you thought you depended, turned out to be thin air having no foundation, and you realize in remorse or regret or shame, you turn and are converted and repent during ego death, you realize that your basis was complete fantasy, complete illusion, like a unicorn.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7460
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
The Entheogen half-theory of religious mythic metaphor.
The other, missing, more central half of the theory of religious mythic metaphor is Eternalism Cybernetics.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7463
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
Simple Simon says “evidence shapes theories; theories do not shape evidence.” Actually, evidence is theory-bound.
To perceive evidence, requires and utilizes one theory or another — either a naive theory, or a perspicacious theory.
Hatsis criticized circular argument as if that is bad and could be avoided.
All argument is circular, whether consciously or not. Hatsis adopts Literalist OSC Possibilism, as everyone naively does by default initially. Insiders go on to convert to Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism.
Either you are still an outsider electron initially orbiting in the circular orbit of Literalist OSC Possibilism, or you are an insider electron that has graduated to orbiting in the circular orbit of Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism.
At first in your mind, the sun has a circular orbit around the earth. Later in your mind, the earth has a circular orbit around the sun.
Do not characterize religious mythology as “secret”.
The correct way to understand mythology writing is as ‘veiled’ and bi-valent; 2-mode meaning-switching: it points in two distinct directions; to the outsiders, religious mythology points towards reifying their outsiders’ circular thinking.
To the insiders, this way of writing in religious mythology metaphor analogy points towards reifying and affirming confirming their insiders’ circular thinking.
The goal is not to avoid circular thinking, but rather to have superior circular thinking.
Ruck/Irvin/Rush has a half theory, better than Hatsis’ naive Literalist OSC Possibilism outsiders’ interpretation.
Ruck is neither an outsider nor an insider; he is in the outer area of the temple.
I have a complete theory, better than Ruck. I am an insider in the inner area of the temple.
Where I go, you cannot go; you cannot bear yet what I have to inform you, because you would freak and have control instability and run away fleeing to protect self-control from loss-of-control panic.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7465
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
Brittle thinking; false dichotomies spoken like a true outsider:
“The man in the image has eaten this poisoned fruit and is now dying; not dancing, not experiencing visions—dying.”
As if ego death isn’t experiencing visions.
Religious writing, or a bestiary, or alchemy? Which is the correct category? Which one is it?
The correct genre is: bi-valent religious mythology (metaphor, analogy); describing transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7466
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
My accustomed feeling about the two modes of reading has nothing to do with secrecy and hiding, but with uniformly expressing in analogy.
Outsiders would be quick to label this as “secret hidden meanings” — that is not accurate.
The meanings are effortlessly self-veiling; the meaning will naturally be obscure to outsiders. Consider adults talking in euphemisms in front of children, who lack the target domain.
There is no great effort required to hide the meaning and keep it secret; naturally, inherently, the higher level of meaning will be obscure to outsiders, who lack the target domain of experiencing.
But from the insider’s point of view, the meaning is no more veiled than saying that “legitimate words are those with a repeated letter” — if you are not in on that pattern, if you have not yet picked up on that pattern, you will guess and misinterpret the pattern, and it will seem arbitrary.
There will be a discontinuous jump, an increase of meaning all of a sudden, once you simply perceive that the pattern is “repeated letters”.
Similarly, when a person comes to recognize that what is being discussed here is all being discussed indirectly, there is a discontinuous increase in meaning; they jump up in meaningfulness.
It is challenging and somewhat difficult to learn the reference target domain and how to recognize, how to read the mapping.
The mode of description in religious mythology is based on a kind of literacy about analogy, with more or less standard mappings between analogy domains and the target domain, which is visionary plant experiencing and mental model transformation.
The meaning is not available to outsiders, who lack the target domain of experiencing. Outsiders will have to fall back to superficial literalist reading and that is all they will have.
They will lack the higher meaning.
I would not over emphasize the secrecy; it is simply poetry it is simply a convention of describing by analogy; indirect description of the mushroom experiencing of changing one’s world model.
The bi-valent mode of religious metaphor is not especially secret or especially hidden; it is merely analogy, it’s a system of analogy.
Now you might be an outsider and you might not have the target experiencing. If you do not have the target experiencing, then you will have to fall back to the superficial surface reading.
If you do have the target experiencing, accessed through the mushroom, you have the key increasingly and the referent domain is not particularly hidden.
You have to do the work of learning the language, learning the analogy mapping, but it is not especially secret or hidden.
Like any language, there are various conventions; for example, turning to the right to look back behind you.
Religious mythology is more like a learning a language than like a secret that is hidden.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7467
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
The encoding/decoding rule is simple: do not reveal the mysteries to the uninitiated.
That is, in fact, in effect, the rule that applies.
Distinct from that is justifications for that rule.
Regardless of justifications, that is the rule.
One useful property of that rule is that it is a simple rule. Always speak poetically; in analogy.
Always speak in a veiled way.
Like drug songs broadcast during the Prohibition era.
Like 70s New Age that is discreetly based on LSD.
Like drug culture during Prohibition.
It is a simple rule: don’t be artless about these adult-like meanings.
Be discreet: talk in the standard semi-veiled discreet way about psilocybin inducing control seizure abduction of control, being r*p*d as a control agent by the god and being forcibly carried to his banquet.
Communicate this, in a semi-veiled way, not directly but poetically, per the art tradition, the high culture tradition.
Preserve the boundary between thise on the inside vs. those on the outside.
There are several reasons to list, used to justify veiling that God is the author of evil and of all control thoughts, that religion comes from mushrooms, that religion is entirely metaphorical.
I am not going to tell everyone at church, 100% Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism.
There is a standard traditional way insiders use, a conventional pattrrn of descriptive veiling.
Analogy hides and analogy describes loosecog experiential realization and transformation.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7468
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
Carl Ruck is right: there are no mushrooms. Neither is religious mythology fictional. And, freewill is the case, and Copenhagenism manyworlds.
The correct view of religious mythology is Literalist OSC Possibilism. Jesus was not a mushroom teacher. We have no reason to doubt the existence of Paul, Jesus, Moses, Adam. There is no such thing as insiders; never mind Mark 4:12; nor outsiders.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7469
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
The Munich Psalter shows mushroom trees like those that gave Jacob his vision. It depicts a scene from The Book of Jasher:
After Cain killed his brother, Abel: Lamech, Cain’s great grandson in this story, went hunting one day with his son, Tubal Cain.
Blinded by old age, Lemach accidentally shot Cain with an arrow.
These mushroom trees caused Jacob’s visions and these mushroom trees account for Lamech’s deadly mishap.
Mushrooms cause perceiving that the mind’s initial, the Possibilism mental model of time, self, possibility, and control is based on illusion.
The initial, youthful mental model is then repudiated and sacrificed.
The mind points to its exact error, identifies it as error, and the initial conception of self as control agent, and its model of the world, is ended and cast off, fatally mitigated as illusory.
This was not intended when the mind ingested mushrooms and looked around searching for a more coherent mental model.
The result is the rational, adult, fully developed Eternalism mental model of time, self, and control.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7471
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
Hatsis mis-asesses up front as axiomatic that a bestiary is a nonspiritual work and says that contradicts Rush’s assertion that mushroom trees are rare in secular art because this secular bestiary shows mushroom trees.
I hope Rush is not as dense as Hatsis, and recognizes religious mythology analogy in the bestiary.
This bestiary’s inclusion of mushroom trees doesn’t contradict Rush.
Hatsis is in error in categorizing a bestiary as nonspiritual ie secular.
Rush’s theory is incomplete; his is the Entheogen theory of religious mythology.
The correct, complete, coherent theory is my Entheogen-Revealed Eternalism theory of religious mythology.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7472
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
Here is a good example of how the “historical context” interpretation of religious mythology (per outsiders) actually amounts to the *literalist*, exoteric, surface interpretation.
When an outsider writes “in historical context”, strike that out and write the word ‘literalist’, meaning, blind to analogy alluding to the target domain of Eternalism Cybernetics.
Hatsis writes: “Gold Munich Psalter shows a style of tree that looks very “psychedelic” indeed, but it always ends up the same: when you put the “mushroom tree” in historical context, it never ends up being a mushroom.”
By “in historical context”, Hatsis means that when you read the mythology story in a superficial, surface, literalistic, outsiders’, noninitiates’ way, according to that reading, the item depicted is not a mushroom, does not refer to a mushroom.
For Hatsis, to read a story “in historical context” means to read in a superficial literalist outsiders’ way, without recognizing the analogy to mushroom experiencing.
It’s like saying that the item in the song cannot refer to an LSD trip, because the item is a spaceship traveling to a black hole.
When you consider the lines of lyrics “in song context”, they are about a spaceship traveling to a black hole, and “therefore”, do not refer to LSD experiencing.
What a strange implicit Siri you have to have to be an outsider! It’s a theory that poetry can only mean what its surface meaning is, thus denying it being poetry.
A big part of being an outsider is to commit a massive failure of genre identification right from the start, a failure to recognize what mode of writing and mode of representation is going on — or mode of communication, to put it in terms amenable to Cybernetics.
There is an implicit Siri hear, a wrong theory, of single meaning or more specifically a wrong assumption and interpretation approach, a lack of interpretation, an outsider’s wrong assumption that the analogy, that the metaphor is not a metaphor, but directly refers to its referent.
In fact religious mythology is metaphor that not only means itself on the surface direct level but also is analogy to the higher reference domain.
There is a higher reference domain, and this item is a metaphor that not only carries its direct meaning — this is the very definition of ‘metaphor’, so, Hatsis does not understand.
He’s an outsider, so he does not recognize metaphor as metaphor, because he lacks the experiencing of the loose cognitive state dynamics about self-control and the change of mental world model.
For Hatsis, the only thing there is is the surface meaning; he does not recognize this as a metaphor or as an analogy pointing to something else.
Hatsis lacks the something else; he’s an outsider, he’s a non-initiate.
Ruck/Irvin/Rush — the Entheogen half-theory of religious mythology — is closer to recognizing and comprehending analogy as such recognizing that there exists something in addition to the surface meaning or as Hatsis puts it, something in addition to the “in historical context” meaning.
Proponents of the Entheogen half-theory of religious mythology are beginner initiates in the outer courtyard of the temple; they are not inner-circle full initiates in the inner sanctum as is the Entheogen-Revealed Eternalism theory of religious mythology.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7473
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
By the way, this is not an invented scenario; prior to Rush responding in a music magazine interview stating they use drugs “all the time” and prior to the release of their Flashbacks album covering 60s popsike songs, many Rush listeners disbelieved the very idea I explained in full detail, that Rush wrote songs about drug experiencing; acid.
One girl literally argued that the song cannot refer to, cannot be an allusion to LSD experiencing “because” the song “is about” a spaceship — so she implicitly expressed a very strange poetry denial notion that doesn’t make any sense.
I’ve had a university course in literature, so maybe that gives me some special advanced concept of analogy that she lacks. I also had General Semantics university course.
It is baffling to me how anyone could have such a massive total failure of comprehending the very idea of analogy.
This is really scary to me that not only are people incapable of critical reasoning, but it pains me to say this, it is evident, I cannot deny that it is evident that people do not understand the very idea of poetry, which is that something can allude to something other than its surface meaning.
Outsiders are in denial of the very possibility of the poetic ability to refer, for an item to to be metaphor, for an item to refer to something other than its surface meaning.
They are in denial of that most basic elementary fundamental concept of poetry; if the item in the lyric is {spaceship}, by damn that’s the meaning, that’s the only meaning, and there is nothing, no mental association connection beyond that; there cannot be a connection beyond that.
So they completely fail to understand the very concept of metaphor.
Not only do they deny that religious mythology… not only do they deny that a particular item in religious mythology or in lyrics is an analogy, it’s worse than that: they prove that non-initiates and outsiders, mental children, lack the very *concept* of metaphor and analogy, in practice, in effect.
I’m not making this up, this is painful to egg knowledge, that people literally argued that the Rush song cannot refer to LSD experiencing, “because” the song “refers to” a spaceship or a car or whatever the surface item was in the song.
Noninitiates fail to recognize metaphor/analogy as such.
They are blind to the very activity of referring, or multi-meaning where an item refers to itself in a surface way *and* refers to something else, but here specifically that something else is in the engine revealed you ternal is him [entheogen-revealed Eternalism].
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7474
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
Most astounding of all: some way-outsiders even disbelieve that the song Purple Haze is about LSD. Man what the hell?! Facepalm me with a wrecking ball.
How can people be so 100% perfectly clueless and ignorant?
They are outside of the outer outer outer courtyard of the temple of comprehension of Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7476
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
The “critiques” by Hatsis amount to a heap of outsiders'(to a certain degree) bluster and confusion.
It’s not particularly worth unraveling and correcting his objections or garbled argumentation (like Letcher there seems to be indeterminacy in just what his position is and just what his argument argumentation is).
Hatsis provides us with a great valuable example of the various confusions that an outsider (to a certain degree) is subject to.
We have a great situation here of: Hatsis represents a relatively more outsiders’ cluelessness than Ruck/Irvin/Rush.
Instead of approaching criticizing Hatsis as setting him straight regarding interpretation and winning the debate against him to prove that ‘we’ are right and he is wrong, rather what is a useful exercise is to treat:
Hatsis as Exhibit A
Ruck/Irvin/Rush as Exhibit B
the Egodeath theory as Exhibit C
These amount to distinctive identifiable positions along the spectrum of cluelessness.
Here is how a mostly-outsider reacts… against what position?
Hatsis is not reacting against a fully formed coherent Siri.
This is pretty interesting and valauable.
What we have here is a full outsider responding to a half-baked theory of a semi-outsider.
Using an onion model, I am on the full inside, the innermost zone, the inner sanctum.
Ruck/Irvin/Rush is in the temple courtyard.
Hatsis is at the outer limit of the temple, he is perhaps just outside of the temple, on the path leading up to the temple steps and outer door.
Then there are people way in the dark, who maybe say have never heard of mushrooms or the Entheogen half-theory, much less the fully developed Entheogen-Revealed Eternalism theory of religious metaphor. They could be exoteric religionists or secularists.
Positions along The Spectrum of Cluelessness:
1: Far outsider: Secularists and exoteric religionists. Drug-diminishing meditators.
3: Close outsider: Hatsis and LSD-inspired meditators.
5: Outer circle: Ruck/Irvin/Rush; the Entheogen half-theory of religious mythology.
10: Inner circle: Hoffman; the Entheogen-Revealed Eternalism theory of religious mythology, and the overall Egodeath theory, including the scientific, non-metaphor-focused Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence.
Hatsis is a far outsider critiquing the views of a near outsider; he is a 2/10 comprehending person reacting against the views of a 5/10 comprehending person.
He is an 80% clueless outsider reacting against a 50% clueless outsider.
My critique is that of a 0% clueless outsider. Here is the origin of degrees of initiation.
Non-drug unity meditators are complete virgins.
Hatsis is 1 or 2 months pregnant.
Ruck/Irvin/Rush is 3 or 4 months pregnant.
I have given birth.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7478
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
One move that Hatsis has in common with Letcher is to conflate some particular variant of the entheogen theory with the entirety of the Entheogen theory in general.
Then when he fixates on the one theory variant he has chosen and he shows that that variant has problems, that this version that he has chosen to critique is easy to find problems with, then he (to some extent) acts as if he has rendered the overall general theory problematic.
Naturally it makes sense for him to gravitate toward poorly formed variants or sub-areas of a version of the entheogen theory, and point out problems with those.
But what’s wrong is the tone of saying that this problem with this variant amounts to a problem with the overall theory; that is just false. All he is shown is that there are errors in this version of the theory that he has chosen to focus on, or opportunistically fixate on.
That is a major move throughout Hatsis and Letcher. It is an instance of needing more organization in the argumentation structure, but there are factors that encourage them to avoid increasing the organization of that structure of argumentation.
They need to do more labor, more work, spend more time and more words identifying what they have and have not proved. This is Science progress in an explanation search-space.
It is against their interests rhetorically, to emphasize that they only have rendered problematic or have crossed out specific branches of the tree of possibilities. The tree remains standing fine.
My theory is not “the” entheogen theory; it is the best Entheogen theory; mine is specifically the Entheogen Eternalism theory.
In contrast , Ruck/Irvin/Rush by default is implicitly advocating the Entheogen Possibilism theory.
The mind begins with Possibilism thinking as the default. Then the mind is initiated and transformed into Eternalism thinking.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7479
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Reposts: later = better
I think I should just go with this
it seems I have developed a routine of posting where typically I post an immediate and lively posting with typos and then I correct those typos and add a couple of good points and then repost it and then I delete the original posting
this mobile phablet process works well to combine the lively immediacy of online writing with cleanup
Group: egodeath
Message: 7480
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
I don’t want to give too positive an impression of Hatsis’ argumentation: I reiterate that Hatsis makes a massive genre category error in categorizing a bestiary as a non-spiritual genre, and that deep error complicates and mitigates when I suggest that he has refuted some theory-variant that the entheogen advocates advance.
I am not giving Hatsis credit with disproving (or finding problematic points in) a version of the entheogen theory — this depends on whether Ruck/Irvin/Rush agree that a bestiary is non-spiritual.
If all these guys make that colossal error, then then it just shows that Hatsis has refuted a particularly bad, particularly clueless version of the Entheogen theory
Hatsis is a confused critique of a somewhat confused variant of a theory.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7481
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
Here’s another instance of how hats is is strongly attracted towards a particular narrow week version of the theory and it is in his rhetorical interest to conflate the easy to break Amanita theory with the difficult to break visionary plant theory
to what extent does rock and crew fixate on amanita
I have observed that rock was so fixated on amanita that he was blind to the presence of the blue stemmed Psilocybe mushroom in the leg of Mithras so that rock made a longshot interpretation of looking at red and white colors in the fresco and saying there is the mushroom by virtue of the colors, it is a very secret very hidden reference to Amanita.
And then he stopped writing and that was all he wrote and he wrote nothing about the glaring blue stem Psilocybe mushroom in Mithras leg which stem is divided with lines into some seven segments of initiation levels like planetary spheres.
Here the fault lies partly with hats is and partly with rock and crew
hats is it’s in his interest rhetorically to fixate on amanita antiquate falsely the mushroom Siri religion with amanita theory in particular and to conflate the amanita very particular theory with the entirety of the visionary plant theory of religion.
My theory is not the amanita theory I have a stronger basis that is harder to overthrow then the theory which Hanses so loves to fixate on because it is so easy to problem ties so easy to find problems with
my theory if anything is based on Psilocybin mushroom.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7482
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
We really need to throw away Ruck’s ‘secrecy’ model; it is not a matter of “secrecy” as the most accurate characterization of veiling and bi-mode referencing.
To outsiders, the surface items refer directly, and that’s all.
To insiders, the surface items refer directly, and also refer to entheogen-revealed Eternalism.
He is misleading us: secrecy is not the right mode, the right conceptualization of what genre this is, it fails as a description of the communication dynamics and the meaning dynamics, the interpretation dynamics, the esoteric concealing-and-revealing dynamics.
We have to understand better per freaking Gandy the relationship between exoteric and esoteric, how the mind grows and progresses from exoteric to esoteric thinking, first learning the surface and then unfolding the additional higher referent.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7483
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
Entheogen scholars might celebrate that Hatsis brings more evidence of mushroom trees and mushrooms in art. That helps, it doesn’t hurt, but I emphasize that it is not necessary.
At this point, we can turn our attention away from this ever-increasing pile of mushroom depictions in art and really focus on theorizing.
At this point, the weakness is not lack of evidence or too little evidence; rather the weakness here at this point is in theory.
I solve that by presenting my theory, so to be particular, to be specific, the problem at this point is people’s lack of knowing my theory of interpretation of the mushroom evidence, such as 100% Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism.
In Antiquity, there was not explicit criticism of Christians for using mushrooms, because *everybody* used mushrooms, especially mushroom mixed wine. Hatsis does not consider this explanation.
It is unlawful to reveal the mysteries and by that convention people were already accustomed to not explicitly discussing the mushroom mixed wine used in banqueting and mystery cult.
It was a kind of censorship that you have to take into account. Acid Rock songs during Prohibition are not typically explicit; they are typically discreet, thinly veiled euphemism.
Regardless of how people thought about the justification of this, we are clearly told that there are things concealed from outsiders, from non-initiates, and we are clearly told it is unlawful to reveal the mysteries to the non-initiated.
You can quibble about why that was, but we are told that; that is not in question.
It is clear (as the given data to be explained) that what we have here for whatever reason is a cultural convention of only speaking in an analogy-based way.
To solve the riddle that we are given, we have to accept this given reality that it is presented to us by the world of evidence in a riddle format.
The ancients are not generally going to come forward to us with explicit discussion of mushrooms; that’s the given.
This is exactly why what we have here is a riddle, that it’s not easy to solve, and requires judgment and discernment, consideration from the point of view of what ancients called initiated insiders vs. uninitiated outsiders.
Mark 4:12 is what we are challenged to unriddle.
I don’t at all mean to imply that mushrooms cannot be depicted in art. We have to use judgment on the degree to which things were veiled, concealed and revealed, but Hatsis cannot validly frame this choice as brittle or make-or-break for the general visionary plant theory.
Generally in art and literature, people were discreet and did not come out in explicitly discussion, or we do not have records much of them explicitly discussing mushrooms, but we need finesse here, not a simplistic brittle proving or disproving.
We have to have an overall general model of expecting mushrooms generally to be concealed in some way and also revealed in some way.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7484
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
Ruck is wrong: what is concealed (thinly veiled and then revealed) in religious mythology is not mushrooms, but rather, mushroom-revealed Eternalism Cybernetics, with the emphasis on Eternalism, not mushrooms.
What is concealed is mushrooms, Eternalism Cybernetics, and thoroughgoing metaphoricity.
What is revealed is mushrooms, Eternalism Cybernetics, and thoroughgoing metaphoricity.
God is the author of evil and all control-thoughts.
Free will is childish delusion. Our future stream of thoughts is given to us, frozen, cast in rock.
Psilocybin is the source and basis of religion and religious revelation.
Religion is entirely metaphorical, analogy, not Literalist OSC Possibilism.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7485
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Church fathers didn’t exist, Christianity didn’t exist
Eusebius — as I speculated based on Edwin Johnson — is an empty cipher.
There’s an element of cowardice and playing it safe when you restrict yourself to pointing out the easiest flaws on the part of those brave, bold, manly theorists (Allegro/Ruck/Irvin/Rush) who have put forth a positive conjecture and partially constructed the beginnings of an interpretive theory, while you yourself refrain from putting forth any conjectures of your own in this domain lest you be subject to criticism.
There are no dates on Hatsis’ articles and videos – why such a elementary scholarly gap here? That is a flaw a weakness, shortcoming in the egodeath website: I should have put dates when I copied my 2000-2007 postings to the site, I should’ve put dates and signature on every screenful of information there.
Apparently Hatsis’ somewhat cowardly work on critiquing his easiest-possible, narrowest-possible “secret Amanita cult” target came before his bold manly mature work on witches’ ointment — in the latter, he does put himself out there, he puts himself at risk, he subjects himself to debunking once he is confident that his evidence will stand up to criticism.
All these writers are outdated, Allegro through Rush. They advance the crude, unsophisticated 1967-1970 “secret Amanita cult” theory, which was motivated by Allegro wanting to portray early Christians as discreditable in a sensationalist way.
That was Allegro’s style of writing; his motivation was to discredit early Christianity and make it look despicable. Allegro makes for a very poor, skewed choice if you’re looking for a scholar who is trying to positively put forth a visionary plant theory of religion — that was not Allegro’s motivation or concern!
That *is* the concern of Ruck, Heinrich, M. Hoffman, Irvin, and Rush. I take it furthest: I like Christianity and religious mythology and I am intent on revealing Christianity as a psilocybin tradition and system of metaphor describing by analogy entheogen-revealed Eternalism.
My foundation has a theorist is not religious mythology; my motivation is not to debunk religion; my motivation is to form the non-metaphor Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence and then show it to be successful and coherent by virtue of it being able to do what no one else is able to do: decode religious mythology as metaphor for describing Eternalism Cybernetics.
It is impossible to solve the riddle of the meaning of Christianity if you hate Christianity. Only if you like Christianity and religious mythology is it possible to solve it.
Ruck is distorted by brittle overemphasis on “secrecy”, he carries an unsophisticated theory of secrecy.
The Egodeath theory instead advances the Entheogen-Revealed Eternalism theory of religious mythology, including a far more robust and sophisticated variant of the mushroom Christianity theory, and including the 100% Entheogen Theory of Religion and Culture, which Hatsis’ work, when corrected, serves as a supportive brick for.
A Prohibition-coerced element of cowardice: Hatsis wrote in such a way that he can pose as putting forth additional mushroom evidence, while pretending to disbelieve it.
This way you get to take credit for contributing mushroom evidence, while not subjecting yourself to any criticism.
This is a certain self-preservation mode of criticizing others. It is separate from any systematic critique; it is rather scattershot dancing, to work with evidence while avoiding being subject to criticism during Prohibition.
Why do writers write such an insane way during Prohibition? Prohibition has created, and driven writers into creating, a waffling and roundabout way of writing and theorizing. It’s all an awkward, inefficient, roundabout dance done under the boot-heel of Establishment Prohibition censorship.
There is a temptation to distort your writing and unfairly (and irrelevantly) beat up on other writers, egged on by Prohibition’s rewards which distort the debate and interfere with the positive work of theory building, theory correction-and-construction.
The Establishment forces of Prohibition want to get the researchers to tear each other down instead of constructing a successful theory.
I noticed a comparable kind of evasiveness in Wasson: he wrote in a strange roundabout way where he never made any positive assertions on exactly what his position is regarding the extent of psychoactives throughout Christianity but he instead indirectly alluded to and implied what his position is, and people indeed ended up very confused about just what is his position.
This made it challenging to criticize Wasson because with normal scholars, with normal writers, they write something clearly and then you critique what they wrote, so you for a normal scholar you would need to reread and check your sources once.
But with Wasson it was required to intensely decipher his readings three or four times to unravel implicitly just what exactly is he asserting. He was a terrible terrible writer!
It’s shocking that anyone would say that Watson is a good writer; he was extremely evasive and prevaricating, to the point of having to quadruple check and exactly quote every passage he wrote on the subject, because he was so intent on giving a misimpression of what his position is, of what he is and is not asserting.
It is extremely not my style to formally quote passages, but I had to take that writing style to an absurd extreme in my article on Wasson, because there was nothing but confusion over who wrote what and who asserted what.
To all those who say that Watson was a good writer: explain to me why everyone misunderstood what his position is regarding the extent of mushrooms throughout Christianity.
This confusion was baked into the writing style of both Wasson and Allegro; they made it very difficult for themselves and everyone else to follow the non-conversation, the strangely abortive non-debate.
They failed to put it out in the open, on the table, the clear Michael Hoffman question and discuss it openly like plain straightforward people:
To what extent were visionary plants used throughout our white Christian European history?
Why in the hell can’t researchers and scholars simply put this out on the table publicly and discuss it like adults straightforwardly? What’s the problem, what’s the hang-up? Why such shirking of this question and such a refusal to look directly at this question and discuss it openly and directly in a straightforward way? Taboo, Prohibition, censorship of the press? Censorship of the brain?
Tricycle magazine, Gnosis journal, Zig Zag Zen: The first thing all of them should’ve done on page 1 is to put the question out on the table: to what extent visionary plants in history?
All of them failed to do this. They all failed to look at the question, to raise the question, to put the question out on the table; instead, they all silently caved to Prohibition assumptions and silently assumed the lack of visionary plants in religion.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7491
From: egodeath
Date: 26/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
Hatsis fails to address this obvious question that his argumentation raises.
He says that the artists chose to depict trees in an abstract stylized fashion in a mushroom-like way, and denies that this refers to mushrooms.
The screamingly obvious question that he fails to raise and address is:
Out of all the ways that the school of artists could’ve chosen to abstractly represent trees, why did they choose such a mushroom-like stylization?
Mushrooms induce religious experiencing appropriate for these depictions-by-analogy describing what is experienced induced by visionary plants (psilocybin).
The fact that Hatsis neglected to address that obvious question shows that what we have here is apologetics.
Proper debate is a matter of stating what the opponents would argue and then addressing those stated opponents’ arguments. Hatsis should’ve stated his argument of:
In these abstract representations, why did the artists choose to use an emphatically mushroom-like style of trees?
Genuine scholarship, not apologetics, would have addressed that natural question of the opponents.
A hallmark of apologetics is its one-sidedness, persuasion by the deliberate omission of what the opponents would point out.
Subject: Re: Drug-free pseudo-shamanism fails authentication test
A radical difference of emphasis is the difference between a good and bad, true vs. false theories.
Wilber/Ball puts unity at the center, with slight mention (as if incidental inconvenience) of submission, trust, dependence, prayer, and the lack of practical control of our control-thinking during the mystic peak state.
They have a semi-articulate theory of unity consciousness and a weak, inarticulate, non-integrated, non-theory of non-control like the song Little Dolls or Twilight Zone or No One at the Bridge.
Yet Ball says that through trust and submission we arrive at unity. So you would expect a robust crucial theory of cybernetic noncontrol, trust in the unveiled source of frozen future control thoughts.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7495
From: egodeath
Date: 26/12/2015
Subject: Re: Drug-free pseudo-shamanism fails authentication test
My material, my theory is precisely the most profound part of what Ball criticizes as missing when he says that people leap over all their “shit” that they have to “work through” and they jump straight up to unity consciousness and then fall straight back down into the egoic, back into their “shit”, back into their egoic everyday thinking
Let me translate: when these people (Grof) talk about the “spiritual emergency” and their “dark material” that they have to work through, what the hell are they talking about?
The Egodeath theory, my theory, the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence, specifies exactly what they’re talking about in incomprehension: most profoundly, we are not talking about workaday psychotherapy; what we’re really all ultimately talking about that I have refined systematically, we are actually talking about possibility thinking, the Possibilism mental model of time, self, and control, free-will thinking, egoic delusion — that is our so-called “dark material”, the so-called “shit” that we have to “work through” as Ball puts it vaguely, woefully inadequately.
Putting together Ball’s inarticulate mentions of surrender and trust, it becomes clear that the unity theory is inadequate to the extreme. Ball’s theory is entirely missing the real action.
Where the real action is at in enlightenment is not the unity consciousness goal, but rather the gateway of how to get there.
Everyone has been focusing, theorizing on unity — that is wrong. You have to do what I do, which is focus and zero-in on the *gateway to* unity, which is “surrender and trust”, which is, to be specific, transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism thinking — cybernetic egodeath. Eternalism self-control cybernetics.
It is impossible to enter fully in or remain in unity consciousness when you lack the complete Egodeath theory, including the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence, and the Entheogen Eternalism theory of religious mythology.
Woe to those who would venture into unity consciousness, trespassers lacking the access password, bringing their contamination, their impurity of control-thinking into the inner sanctum.
You will be thrown out of unity consciousness by control seizure, thrown out into the outer darkness outside the banqueting garden wall gate, with wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7496
From: egodeath
Date: 26/12/2015
Subject: Re: Drug-free pseudo-shamanism fails authentication test
The furies sleeping around the omphalos navel tombstone trap in the inner sanctum of the temple are awakened when you bring your Possibilism-thinking impurity and contamination into the sacred holy no-free-will zone of clear light of coherent thinking in the torch-illuminated loose cognitive state.
Hera is furious when Apollo’s impure thinking awakens the Furies sleeping around the omphalos net tomb stone of rock birth.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7497
From: egodeath
Date: 26/12/2015
Subject: Re: Drug-free pseudo-shamanism fails authentication test
Where the real action is at in enlightenment is not the unity consciousness goal, but rather the gateway of how to get there and how to remain there in peace, legitimately, authorized, with authority, legitimate, blessed — not being in unity consciousness while you are under the curse of control instability due to contaminated, accursed thinking, the Possibilism mental model of time, self, possibility, and control.
Non-drug unity meditation is illegitimate bastardized imitation of religion that cannot endure, that cannot stand testing, that testing proves to be no foundation for practical control.
Authenticity, authorized, legitimacy, authenticated, trial by ordeal, trial by fire of loose cognitive binding, trial by testing control stability to see if it collapses into instability and self defeat, or if it stands durable and reliable, enduring foundation, or a foundation of impotent air and illusion.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7499
From: egodeath
Date: 26/12/2015
Subject: Re: Drug-free pseudo-shamanism fails authentication test
The teaching gesture is pointing down while pointing also up.
Pointing down to the noninitiates’ outsiders’ mundane surface exoteric lower meaning per Literalist OSC Possibilism; ‘Orthodox’ per Pagels’ first 3 books.
While *also* pointing up to the initiates’ insiders’ profound transcendent referent esoteric higher meaning per Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism; entheogen-revealed Eternalism noncontrol Cybernetics; ‘Gnostic’ per Pagels’ first 3 books.
Catholic leaders teach exoteric to lay and esoteric to elite, and the New World natives compete against understood Catholic esotericism teaching. Catholic writers about the Eucharist clearly understood it as mushrooms.
There was the same flame war of rhetoric among pagan and Christian: you eat at the table of demons, we eat the divine flesh of the savior.
Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings
If there’s a bustle in your hedge-row, don’t be alarmed
It’s just a Spring-clean for the May queen
Cast out the demon of Possibilism thinking.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7500
From: egodeath
Date: 27/12/2015
Subject: Re: Drug-free pseudo-shamanism fails authentication test
It is curious that psychedelics writers recommend as standard but CRUCIAL the vague, strange, alien, undefined saving-advice “trust” and “surrender”, amounting to submissive prayer of formal conscious dependency.
What the hell are they talking about? Explain this in terms that a no-nonsense, self-respecting Acid Metal guitarist or soldier can make rational sense out of.
Where does this vague informal folk wisdom come from?
Explain to the tough level-headed soldier or fraternity brother football player why he must surrender to the hidden controller of his control-thoughts, invincible Mithras inserting sacrificial knife into the fatally wounded shoulder on which the bull’s power depends.
In my main article, see my relatively formal writeup of testing control and having to consciously trust in, surrender to, and be submissive to the normally hidden uncontrollable source of control-thoughts, on which you always have been dependent, but previously unconsciously dependent on.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7501
From: egodeath
Date: 27/12/2015
Subject: Re: Photos of tree vs snake diagrams and paintings
Friendly angels poking at the philosophers in the furnace, cooking them in the loose cognitive binding state, demonic animals consuming the mortal, impure, irrational, illusion-based free-will Possibilism thinking, producing enlightened insiders, esoteric religious philosophers, who are fated to be in on the riddle joke analogy language
Subject: Re: Drug-free pseudo-shamanism fails authentication test
Another standard phrase to track is “let go”.
There’s a folk informal practical linguistic equivalent of the Egodeath theory’s explanation of:
consciously repudiating
dependence on egoic freewill autonomy as the foundation of personal control power
and affirming instead
the uncontrollable source of pregiven control-thoughts lying frozen in the block universe as the foundation on which the mind’s control-steering now consciously depends.
This changed model of the source of control is integrated with a changed model of possibility and time — that doesn’t come through in the folk language of “let go, surrender, trust”.
Martin Ball diminishes shamanism as reifying imagined constructs while enlightenment recognizes those as mental constructs.
Similarly I diminish and disparage the folk knowledge that you need “trust, letting go, surrender”, to reach unity nondual consciousness.
The Egodeath theory points precisely to what’s really required, specifically and explicitly: transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism, to fully reach and remain in in peacefully, stably, nondual unity consciousness.
The goal per the Egodeath theory is not nondual unity consciousness, but enlightenment about control,
Cybernetic enlightenment, full mental development and ability to access and fully utilize, authorized, loosecog.
I have provided the specific practical key to go in and out of loosecog garden banquet party with stability.
For example now the Loose Cognitive Science lab is domesticated and open for research business, no longer an unmapped frontier.
Now we can map and explore, the dragon threat is harnessed.
This achievement includes ability to enjoy nondual unity consciousness, but my focus is mental model transformation and civilizing the wild threat of the dragon, to be permitted to access all loosecog state realm and mode. Like harnessing the wild dangerous technology of cranked guitar amps.
I have harnessed dangerous and wild loose cog as a now fully usable technology, not only made nondual unity consciousness sometimes available.
A report of full intellectual comprehension of the Egodeath theory (the 1988 Cybernetic Theory of what Ego Transcendence & Transcendent Knowledge is centrally about) in conjunction with beginning access to loosecog.
Martin Ball is like Wilber not Watts; focused on nondual unity consciousness through non-drug unity meditation.
Watts focused on enlightenment about control, eventually incorporating exploring that through LSD.
Wilber/Ball vs. Watts/Hoffman.
The difference between Wilber and Ball is Wilber lacks entheogens.
Ball is Wilber on entheogens, still lacking Watts’ satori, which blossomed in Hoffman’s Egodeath theory, about Zen and the Problem of Control.
My father gave me Wilber and Watts, said Wilber covers others, yet gave me Watts seoarately.
Watts breaks the Wilber/Ball paradigm of seeing nondual unity consciousness while being blind to Eternalism Cybernetics which is central and a hard requirement, the main requirement, to fully access and stably at peace remain in unity consciousness.
Unity consciousness is not the goal or the central focus or the motivation for the project. My motivation was not unity; my motivation was enlightenment to gain practical control in personal self-help enlightenment.
I read Cyber’s postings with interest in reading my earlier writing. I never get a chance to read my earlier writing. It is new to me. It is like studying for the GRE — I knew that stuff in a previous lifetime and I am encountering it again to re-learn it.
The above report is of a deliberate first learning of Egodeath theory (Cybernetic Eternalism and re-location of dependency, re-pointing of assumed dependency for control and revision of the world model of possibility) in order to then enter and leverage and utilize and explore loosecog.
This report and the Egodeath theory has no particular emphasis on unity nondual consciousness, which has been overemphasized.
The Egodeath theory (which is a model of x, y, z that enables a, b, c) de-emphasizes nondual unity consciousness.
1978-1988 newage Transpersonal Psychology overemphasized nondual unity consciousness. I am setting things straight.
My grandfather: primitive OSC New Testament Christianity.
My father: led me through newage spiritual self-help encounter groups and holotropic breathwork and Transpersonal Psychology, almost totally stripped of its psychedelic origin.
When you remove psychedelics, the result is the idol of nondual unity consciousness.
When you restore the censored and suppressed psychedelics origin and source of religion and newage spiritual psychonautica, the balance is corrected, to emphasize Eternalism Cybernetics rather than nondual unity consciousness.
We are in a special phase now with Martin Ball all focused on nondual unity consciousness but having little focus on the Cybernetic Egodeath theory although we conversed around 2007 and I helped point him in the right direction for entheogen podcasts after Max Freakout.
Martin Ball has as sophisticated a model of entheogenic phenomenology as you can have given the limitation of knowing nondual unity consciousness without knowing Eternalism Cybernetics.
He has the very barest, folk, crude knowledge of “trust, surrender, let go” (prayer, submission; a shift in mental assumption about what our control power is dependent on and what it means to steer among possibilities in time).
A focus on nondual unity consciousness is of no use, without a full understanding and mastery of the conditional gateway, how to sacrifice and repudiate erroneous dependency and revise it to correct dependency, a stable foundation now for not only, not merely having unity nondual consciousness, but more powerfully and usefully and broadly than that, having an ALL-ACCESS PASS now properly equipped as explorer and researcher.
We were explorers before, hunting the prey of nondual unity consciousness, but we had no dragon arrows. Now Apollo has equipped us with the divine tools engineered by Hephaestos, which we need.
We were explorers of the Loose Cognitive Science research lab but we lacked the necessary tools that are required to have a legit, authorized, authenticated, viable, stable access to loosecog.
Now we access not only nondual unity consciousness in lasting, authenticated, earned mode, properly equipped now to do so in peace and stability, but now we also access all areas of the loosecog realm or mode.
— Michael Hoffman, birth day of controller X, Xmas 2015.
On this day, the avatar of controller X is born, savior given to us by controller X, as a sacrifice for new life paradigm that we are brought into.
In him we are made to correct, revise, die, sacrifice, repudiate, and be reconstituted, transformed, given a-thanatos and purity, the offensive-to-divine thinking impurity done away with, now authorized to go in and out through the gate to eat of the Tree of Life.
Now we have been brought into the garden wedding banquet, authorized for All Access of the loosecog lab, no longer being thrown out as malformed trespasser, by higher thinking.
Ball is restricted to a small area within loosecog exploration space. He is permitted to go into the garden banquet party through the gate, but he has bare minimum folk knowledge of trust, surrender, let go, and he fails to appreciate how rich and crucial that subject is, he doesn’t recognize that that closet is the most major area to explore and the most important to map out and domestiate, civilize, develop — it is prime real estate but he merely does away with it, although it is attractive and will demand and command the full attention of a serious sustained explorer.
He has temporarily turned away from that door by folk trust and folk degree of surrender. But the rational mind sees more attraction to Medusa’s snakes.
Ball has opened up a little ability to explore some of loosecog space but his folk technique of trust and let go and surrender is completely inadequate to do a proper scientific exploration of the attractive control riddle, the enigma of surrender, what does this mean really?
We need to know more. We are drawn to know more.
The Egodeath theory equips to explore this in proper adequate scientific detail rather than turning our back to control seizure to gaze hazily at nonduality.
Trust is not a paradigm shift and does not enable exploring loosecog space.
Eternalism Cybernetics per the Egodeath theory is the required equipment to truly explore this realm and not merely appease the mysterious threat.
Nondual unity consciousness is what beginners, dabblers, initially focus on.
I see it as a fireworks distraction, like Ball belittles the pop reifications of shamanism spectacle.
Ball puts down superficial fireworks. I put down Wilber/Ball’s nondual unity consciousness as shallow superficial fireworks for beginners.
Advanced insiders (knowing Eternalism Cybernetics) have access to a superset of that and have stronger, fuller, more stable access to nondual unity consciousness. They have more connections, a more developed model.
Ball calls on us to not jump to nonduality and back to egoic delusion, doing a flyover (ignoring, bypassing) of our dark material that we need to process-through.
I disagree that nonduality is THE goal, and I disagree with the psychotherapy tone of conceptualizing or dark material.
What Ball conceptualizes as dark material is the heart of enlightenment, it is the central matter of enlightenment and transformation, it is more important than non-duality and it is more the destination.
The real goal is to thoroughly understand, thoroughly achieve mental model transformation about control and possibility and time, after we have achieved full adequate mental model transformation, then we can enjoy exploring the overall loose cognitive state realm.
We then have
full access to non-duality,
full access to the loose cognitive realm.
full understanding of the limitations of control,
full understanding of mental model transformation, the two models of time and control.
Which one of these is the goal, which one of these is the gateway?
The gateway is the journey, and the goal is to have a successful journey to the promised land, and the goal is to be in the promised land exploring and growing more, after having finished basic training of mental model correction and purification.
Non-duality appears soon in the journey but fast on its heels is the threatening dragon of control-loss.
Folk trust and surrender will keep the dragon at bay, but you have to really truly engage, fully engage the threat, fully explore the threat.
You cannot be at peace in the promised land when you have not fully explored and tamed the vulnerability, the threat of the dragon of surrender.
Yes initial crude basic trust and crude surrender does enable you to not be kicked out, but you’re not really in the promised land until you have fully confronted head-on, fully mapped out this dragon threat and enjoyed your full attraction to the Medusa attractor.
Ball things that we want Is nonduality consciousness and that Medusa is an unfortunate minor requirement demanding folk surrender/trust.
What we actually want is to fully engage and explore Medusa.
You have not really passed through the gate in any full sense until then.
The goal is not just non-duality; the goal is to explore the loosecog space particularly Medusa monsters.
Therefore the goal is to explore the threat, not just surrender; but to fully understand what surrendering is all about.
Ball leaps over this too quickly. Just because he succeeds via folk trust and surrender does not really mean he has transcended or explored the Dragon threat, no way.
Ball doesn’t have transcendent knowledge even if he understands in some way non-duality; it is a beginner, very inadequate, very minimal understanding of non-duality.
That’s not what we are attracted to. We are attracted to the valuable treasure-guarding threat that Ball would have us folk-curtsy to and move along past.
The treasure is not nonduality consciousness, but mental model transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism, which includes full access to nondual unity consciousness.
Ball’s folk degree of trust/let go/surrender doesn’t enable or accomplish full sacrifice and repudiation of delusion and achieve full mature stability of control.
Thus his nondual unity consciousness is dirty and combines nonduality with mental-model impurity and delusion — an unstable mixture of incompatibles.
As soon as you relax into unity consciousness, the dragon will loom forcing looking at the most-attractive problem of loss of control.
Enlightenment is not by stealing unearned nonduality through folk trust/surrender, but through looking *fully* at the guarding dragon, mature completed nonduality subsequent to *full* exploration of noncontrol, and full *intellectual* revision of mental model of possibility and control and time.
The result is fully durable nonduality that now is compatible with thinking about and testing self-control.
There can be no satori, no resting in the sensation of nonduality, without full sacrifice of childish *thinking* about control and time.
We must correct our thinking, explore it, not just avoid it by incomprehending surrender/trust/letting go, which fails to climax, fails to enlighten, fails to transform.
First we have the sensation of nonduality and we have folk surrender/prayer, then full mental model transformation, Eternalism cybernetics study and grappling and full sacrificial repudiation.
You cannot steal unity without paying the price: sacrifice fully Possibilism thinking, to purchase full enlightenment, which is Eternalism Cybernetics as well as partial unity nonduality.
YOU CANNOT HAVE FULL NONDUALITY WHILE HAVING egoic freewill Possibilism incoherent cybernetics foundation — and folk trust will fail when pressed, out of unsated curiosity about Transcendent Knowledge.
Enlightenment is not just about the sensation of nonduality, but constructing a durable reliable basis of transformed mental model of control and time and possibility.
A superficial inadequate folk trust is feeble and inadequate.
We *cannot* trust and surrender *adequately*, without full formal intellectual sacrifice of assumed control power premised on the initial, Possibilism mental worldmodel.
Folk trust/surrender doesn’t cut it — doesn’t satisfy higher thinking, doesn’t produce the climax and new enlightened mental model we want and are driven to pursue.
People want more than unthinking nonduality that explodes into panic as soon as the mind perceives its control vulnerability.
Folk trust doesn’t satisfy and will run out when inevitably inspected and tested.
The mind is not only attracted to nonduality feeling; the mind is attracted to the Cybernetics noncontrol aspect of nonduality.
We need a full complete intellectual model of the Cybernetics aspect of Zen nonduality per Watts, per the Egodeath theory — THAT is what we want, not an inarticulate illiterate feeling of nonduality that is all too amenable to deluded freewill confusion and mental incoherence.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7508
From: egodeath
Date: 27/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
Always speak in a semi-veiled way that is obscured enough.
How hidden is hidden enough?
Do not reveal the higher referent (psilocybin-revealed Eternalism) to those on the outside.
Revealing only an isolated piece keeps the overall referent meaning sufficiently concealed.
“Do not reveal the meaning to outsiders.”
This principle thankfully is relatively clear.
Possible reasons why writers and artists followed this tradition of meaning-veiling, is a distinct topic. I listed such reasons in past postings.
Regardless of their reasons for veiling and being obscure to the outsiders, that is what they did, and recognizing that helps to decode analogy into the loosecog cybernetics referent.
The esoteric artists have manifestly been successful, because now people who ought to recognize a mushroom as a mushroom (blind man Hatsis and his follower Ruck) are reduced to denying that what is plainly depicted as a mushroom is a mushroom.
Hatsis fails to even perceive that the bestiary is in the language of {sufficient concealing of analogy-for-Eternalism from outsiders}.
This can be characterized as a definitely evident ambiguity, but this is a very specific ambiguity: write and draw in such a way that those who are on the outside are uncertain, even if it does look like a mushroom, they lack the other connections to make any real coherence out of this.
Why would it be a mushroom? Why would there be a mushroom in this secular non-religious art?
Esoteric artists can reveal mushrooms and yet the outsiders remain completely puzzled and in the dark over the meaning-connections, so the mushroom might as well be hidden.
The meaning is hidden from them, so they are left saying things like “the mysterious mushroom-shaped object” or “this mushroom-shaped tree” without really comprehending the meaning behind it, which only the insiders have locked onto.
Only those who are inside have locked onto the framework, the language of making sense out of this.
The outsiders see a mushroom, but in a way, they don’t see a mushroom.
They are unable to connect the idea of {mushroom} to the other symbols and mythemes presented.
Outsiders can’t even recognize mythemes as such; they can only perceive the surface, not the higher referent; they are outsiders to the higher, referent meaning.
Outsiders cannot even perceive that there is an activity of referring going on here.
The mysteries (analogies referring to entheogen-revealed Eternalism self-control cybernetics) have been effectively concealed from those on the outside.
It is an emphatic non-goal to persuade or convince outsiders to adopt isolated elements of the insiders’ comprehension, the insiders mapping.
I will discuss the incomprehension of the outsiders and how that works: how is it that the outsiders are prevented from comprehension?
How does veiling work? How does concealing and then revealing work?
The outsiders lack the target referent experiencing domain.
Even if you do reveal to an outsider-to-Eternalism like Ruck that a mushroom tree in a bestiary refers to a mushroom, it actually refers to more than a mushroom: {mushroom tree} refers to a systematic whole entire system of connections (entheogen-revealed Eternalism).
A mushroom tree refers to the use of mushrooms revealing frozen-time no-free-will and mono-possibility.
A non-goal is to convince outsiders to use the insiders’ reading/decoding. It is not a goal to persuade outsiders.
A goal is explain why outsiders cannot perceive the referent, and why the referent remains hidden from them, obscured, veiled and not visible.
It is a goal to reveal the mysteries on the World-Wide Web. All will be revealed.
All has been here revealed by me to anyone who is made to learn this.
My role is figure useful sh*t out and present explanations. Not to try to persuade outsiders.
Those who are given to me hear my voice and follow me.
Those whose ears are closed to my voice do not see what I have revealed; my words remain concealed to them.
As the Hatsis/Ruck school of interpretation asserts (since Ruck is a follower of Hatsis), these are not mushrooms; they are trees.
For you they are trees. Stay on the outside. The gate is closed for you.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7509
From: egodeath
Date: 28/12/2015
Subject: Re: Church fathers didn’t exist, Christianity didn’t exist
Read Kilindi Lyi to prepare for the military militant radical durable righteousness of the non-Prohibition-complicit Egodeath theory, which stands up to vigorous testing.
I was also stunned by the lack of Prohibition-complicit compromise by Vivian McPeak, as freedom-comprehending as Steve Kubby.
I am so accustomed to expecting compromised thinking and rhetoric, it was almost shocking to see other clear-thinking radicals.
Shun the tainted Prohibition-complicit entheogen-diminishing academic Establishment, who are in bed with the Creator’s delusion enforcement automatons. You’ll no sooner find a quest for truth there than in the non-drug unity meditation zendo.
How far behind does academia, with its retarding ball-and-chain of Prohibition compliance, lag behind the Internet? Is academia falling behind, or catching up?
The Establishment is committed to a false narrative of “our white religion lacks entheogens”. This narrative causes Harvard’s Schultes to dance awkwardly in his 1975 Golden Guide to Hallucinogens, as I deconstructed previously.
Don’t trust *anyone* while this narrative clouds the mainstream mind and skews research and theory-construction, just like the apologetics motive prevents unbiased “research on early Christianity” (aka experts in unicorns farting rainbows). Most entheogen scholars fell headlkng into
Most academic scholarship on entheogens is as heavily compromised as Bart Ehrman and relies on the same non-foundation of argumentation style as Ehrman: credentialism, old boys’ network, discussing the credentials and esteem and who you are friends with at the moment, who has written about you favorably.
“Is Doherty right? Let us put him to the test: let us examine his Establishment academic credentials. Who is he friends with?”
That is the foundation of Bart Ehman’s argument for the historicity of Jesus.
The Establishment in-group view doesn’t agree with Doherty, therefore this reduces the credibity of Doherty’s research.
This needs the concept of correction mechanisms in Science and academia.
Irvin is right to not respect Harvard. Its correction mechanisms are weak. Correction is likely to come from outside The System.
Harvard eg. Schultes wrongly asserts that our own white Christian history lacks entheogens at the heart of the church.
Even McKenna dug us into this self-defeating, dead-end, most-crucial and fatal fallacy.
McKenna invested in the Establishment narrative that Catholocism wasn’t mushroom-based, but the way the Eucharist is described indicates mushrooms to those who are on the inside, initiates.
It is now clear, easy to theorize, why the Catholic dominators demonized natives’ mushroom use: competition.
Harvard needs radical correction, which is unlikely to come from within macadamia given that it is in the bed with Prohibition, complicit, and is therefore hopelessly compromised by a conflict of interest.
When evaluating the Egodeath theory, all groups can go to Hell, as far as me whorishly trying to curry favor with them and trying to ingratiate myself with them.
I am an adult mature constructive theory builder: where Ruck is wrong, I point that out, and right similarly. What is relevant is the theory elements, not esteem and credentials. ‘Esteem’ means the *appearance* or *semblance* of merit.
Everyone is a mixed bag, (even the Egodeath theory, in theory, although almost every hypothesis in it is durable under genuine critique and will withstand the fire of critical testing).
The Egodeath theory targets clarifying for insiders, not ingratiating with outsiders. Not complicity with the entheogen-diminishment Establishment.
A proven effective strategy for developing the Egodeath theory is, approaching it as an exercise in circular/systemic theoretical consistency.
Sure-footed Hephaestos magically forcing interpretation, is the unimpeachable, fire-tested, invincible, all-conquering Mithras’ Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence and 100% Entheogen Theory of Religion and Culture.
Academic esteem counts for shit. Fools peer-reviewing fools, blind will both fall into the pit.
Who you are for the moment pretending to be friendly with counts for shit.
Everyone judging the Egodeath theory, go Hell; judge it on the genuine basis of content merit, not transient social esteem.
You can all bl*w me; which is to say, you must judge my content based on its merit, not on my credentials and social standing.
Don’t be like Bart Ehrman judging Doherty on his credentials; instead, read the content of arguments in his book.
Academia deserves no respect when it props up the Jesus figure’s historicity on the foundation of sand, of focusing on Doherty’s credentials. Is that all you’ve got?! Alas we are disappointed it is.
The entheogen-diminishing theory of white Christian practice must stand up by itself, not propped up by worthless meaningless diplomas unearned by people who know nothing of Apollo’s laurel wreath victory shooting arrows at the dragon threat of control-loss to gain fire-durable mental worldmodel transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7511
From: egodeath
Date: 29/12/2015
Subject: Re: Church fathers didn’t exist, Christianity didn’t exist
My credibility has nothing to do with my Establishment credentials.
I am proudly planting the flag of IEEE/HKN on my mountain of breakthrough priority of discovery.
I claim this victory for decoding Entheogen Eternalism on behalf of EE students.
I am only interested in destroying the system of Establishment citations network. Fools citing fools, a matrix of error. I just figure shit out.
A citation network leading deeper into a labyrinth of folly, or correcting towards the direction of wisdom? It has gone both directions.
At the heart of the labyrinth of searching, is the Egodeath theory: Mithras puts the sacrificial knife in your hand to seize the bull, bring down his linchpin of illusion-based control-power foundation.
Insert the pointed thought into the seizure wound opening at the bull’s foundation of power.
People should be citing Thagard when they cite Kuhn — Kuhn merely *presented* the paradigm incommensurability problem, Thagard *solved* it rationally.
Institutional researchers have lost control of the conversation.
The Internet democratized independent scholarship to stand on its own merit, not the Establishment system of prestige (the *appearance* of greatness and insight). I shun that failed game.
The Establishment’s citations network has led to folly perhaps as much as wisdom.
The System wants to cite my Theory? Cite all of it, damn it: 100% Metaphorical 100% Entheogenic 100% Eternalism. The most radical extreme theory possible. None More Extreme.
You worship print? Here is my peer-reviewed comic book salvation tract from the rave and Rock arena. But who are my peers? Not Doherty, Ruck, barely Freke at best. Cliff Burton (but he’s dead).
Where are the peers to review a multiply radical revolutionary novel theory? I am teaching everyone and I am stating what everyone is prevented by The Rules from saying (or thinking).
Peer review is irrelevant posturing. Peer review of censored unthinkable tabooed realizations: Peart cannot comment.
Peer review is not viable when a theory combines forbidden Metaphorical forbidden Entheogenic forbidden Eternalism.
Peart’s peer review assessment of the Egodeath theory: “Holy shit!!”
Sam Harris’s peer review assessment of the Egodeath theory: “Holy shit!!”
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7512
From: egodeath
Date: 29/12/2015
Subject: Re: Church fathers didn’t exist, Christianity didn’t exist
Stop citing my 100% Metaphoricity/Ahistoricity theory without mentioning that it is an integral part of my Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism theory.
Stop citing my 100% Entheogen theory without mentioning that it is an integral part of my Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism theory.
Stop citing my 100% Eternalism Cybernetics no-free-will theory without mentioning that it is an integral part of my Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism theory.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7513
From: egodeath
Date: 30/12/2015
Subject: Re: Church fathers didn’t exist, Christianity didn’t exist
John Bartram’s site is fresh, recent, reached a certain milestone and he’s ready to summarize as videos.
Seems like what I wished for: a modern-day Edwin Johnson. The clue that bothered me was the scholarly just-so storybooks that had no pictures of Jesus or the cross or Christianity in the first centuries, only generic images with fake Christian captions attached like:
“This depicts Jesus with the attributes of Apollo.”
“These people banqueting indicates a Christian agape meal.”
“This depicts Jesus secretly, disguised as Dionysus.”
“This Chi-Rho is how the cross was depicted in the first Christian centuries.”
“Ok, that’s the pictoral evidence for Christianity in the first centuries. Next up, the Holy Roman Empire.”
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7514
From: egodeath
Date: 30/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
Scholars only know one language: Literalist OSC Possibilism.
I am the first to decode and translate the second language: Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism. I’m the first bilingual modern scholar.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7515
From: egodeath
Date: 30/12/2015
Subject: Twins
The first one is mortal, the second a-thanatos. I am lately of two minds, two legs, two mental models.
Dukes of Stratosphear:
Collideascope
Everything looks topsy turvy
You will see one young girl split into two
One half who’s false one half true
You better get your glue ready
Boy and girl carried by ram flying, girl falls to her death
Man on horse battles subterranean serpent underneath horse
Serpent is worldline heimarmene fated future path of rider who steers horse
After ingesting the cognitive loosener, the mind perceives its hidden underground invisible preset rail that forces control-thoughts into the mind along the time axis in the frozen rock universe, and control-thinking struggles to retain control that is premised on the illusion foundation of freewill autonomy power.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7517
From: egodeath
Date: 30/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
IT IS *IMPERATIVE* THAT WE FLIP THE NARRATIVE!!
from “Catholic religion eliminated mushroom use” to “Catholic religion was always understood as based on mushroom use.”
How close is James Arthur to recognizing that mushrooms were the center of Catholic Christian practice throughout history? I don’t recall discussing this particular point with him. I suspect his book is closer to this view than are Heinrich, McKenna, Ruck, and M. Hoffman.
Even Internet radicals are incapable of wrapping their mind around this idea.
Too many — everyone — follows McKenna the mental mis-leader down his dead-end, self-defeating path, of being blind to the presence of mushroom use and comprehension within Catholic historical normal practice.
The System has tricked entheogen scholars into denying and suppressing mushroom use within our own religion’s history. With complicit collaborationist allies like this, who needs Prohibitionists?
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7519
From: egodeath
Date: 30/12/2015
Subject: More effective entheogen scholarship and theorizing
More effective entheogen scholarship and theorizing
Everyone who writes about entheogens in history, here is my better leadership in mentally framing the narrative:
#1 most important, that entheogen scholars fatally failed to do and must emphasize, is: *explicitly* pose the question, at the start of every investigation, the Michael Hoffman question, out on the table:
THE EXPLICIT CENTRAL QUESTION AT HAND: TO WHAT EXTENT WERE VISIONARY PLANTS USED IN OUR RELIGIONS AND CULTURAL HISTORY?
What kinds of ways of handling kinds of evidence are possible per Feyerabend’s “anything goes” scientific method, to construct a durable Entheogen Theory of Religion and Culture?
Stop silently prejudging and assuming. Assume the 100% Entheogen Theory of Religion and Culture in order to sincerely try your hardest to perceive the evidence.
Do not be complicit with appeasing the entheogen-belittling Prohibition Establishment like Letcher/Hatsis initially were.
Be conscious of all possible strategies and their pros and cons. Don’t just latch onto the first strategy you happen upon. Be ready to adjust and change your strategy of conceptualizing entheogen scholarship.
You can prostitute yourself to be a paid lackey of the Prohibitionist Establishment by the initial Letcher-Hatsis strategy of conflating the broad entheogen theory of religion with the narrowest conception you can invent or fixate on, which is the “secret Amanita cult” theory, which is crude, outdated, and unsophisticated.
You will be eagerly published and rewarded by Prohibition Press, Inc., by striving to suppress and cripple and isolate the kinds of evidence for the 100% Entheogen Theory of Religion and Culture.
Don’t be fooled by insincerity: although such writers said rheorically “the entheogen scholars need to explain problems a, b, and c”, they were not (prior to their correction of their strategy) seriously interested in finding and constructing successful answers.
Entheogen-diminishing scholars, committed to complicity with the Prohibition narrative, were interested in crippling the argumentation possibilities, shutting out a viable theory.
The valid strategy is to adjust the theory of interpreting evidence to make it sophisticated, such as I have written new conceptions of ‘semi-veiling’ and writing by analogy-only.
Assume myth writing is semi-veiled and analogy-only, written to communicate to insiders and sufficiently conceal the referent domain from outsiders. This enables recognizing Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism.
Study skilled concealing and revealing per esotericism. Consider the exoteric surface referent and esoteric ultimate referent.
It is unlawful to reveal the mysteries to the uninitiated, Mark 4:12.
Don’t have a brittle, crude concept of “hide/secret”; have a sophisticated concept of speaking veiled to insiders to communicate to initiated insiders while sufficiently concealing meaning from noninitiated outsiders.
Be more strategic in your nuance of narrative. Religion was always understood by initiates as based on psilocybin and visionary plants.
An analogy is broadcast Rock lyrics, which had to semi-veil to use encoding. Even the Grateful Dead don’t explicitly write lyrics about acid.
Don’t expect esoteric writings to be fully explicit. Expect them to clearly enough allude to Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism.
See Hanegraaff’s keynote paper Entheogenic Esotericism, about initially being blind to the psychedelic traditional basis of New Age practice, and then after writing the history book I was waiting for in the 1990s, Hanegraaff realized he made a huge error, being “naive” to censorship and suppression by Prohibition.
Realize that everyone agrees with the 100% Entheogen Theory of Religion and Culture but is blocked from expressing agreement.
Don’t be deceived by the Prohibition view appearing to be popular.
That’s an illusion caused by selective permitting of publishing. There’s *not* free speech, under the predatory forces of Prohibition.
Letcher-Hatsis initially got his start by being a writer-for-hire employed as a Prohibition Establishment propagandist, like Hanegraaff initially mis-describing Esotericism and New Age as rejecting entheogens, and subsequently writing the truth of the matter, self-correcting.
Read the Egodeath theory; read my writings. Recognize Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism.
Don’t see Amanita everywhere, like the first, off-base generation of entheogen scholars; instead, perceive and recognize Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism everywhere.
Science is self-correcting. Correct the theory-errors of the first-generation entheogen scholars; preserve their accomplishments and discoveries but reframe them in a corrected, revised, more coherent explanatory framework.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7520
From: egodeath
Date: 30/12/2015
Subject: Re: More effective entheogen scholarship and theorizing
We insiders are more focused on Eternalism Cybernetics than on visionary plants (cognitive-binding dissolvers) that induce the Eternalism state of consciousness.
You outsiders err in thinking we are centrally focused on concealing entheogens. Your entheogen history theories don’t ring true, because you have only the entheogen half-theory of religion.
Myth analogy isn’t focused on entheogens, but rather on the Eternalism noncontrol that they reveal.
We insiders are centrally focused on semi-veiling then revealing entheogen-revealed Eternalism Cybernetics, *not* entheogens! The referent meaning-domain is two degrees removed from your ability to perceive it.
Another error rife throughout your outsiders’ crude first-generation entheogen scholarship is your failure to fully consistently systematically take into account the major distortions caused by Prohibition Censorship and taboo.
has such a BAD pop sensationalist presentation of QM and “the new Physics” that has supposedly replaced Classical Physics.
It’s the most flimsy, extreme, sensationalist nonsense, for example: Chaos theory says things are too complicated to predict and therefore things are not predetermined.
It’s unbelievably shoddy, by *anyone’s* standards. It’s like a confused college freshman, who has picked up bits and pieces and combined them freely according to the most willfully sensationalist preconceptions.
He is basically saying that Newton = no-free-will and that modern physics per Einstein and his followers = freewill.
In fact, Einstein strongly asserted block-universe no-free-will; “God does not play dice.”, against Bohr. A hallmark of bad, pop writing on QM is that, unlike James T. Cushing, writers conflate the mutually exclusive opposites: they tell a tale where Einstein/Bohm and Bohr are in agreement and all is peaceful and happy per Bohr’s Copenhagenism dogma.
But Einstein fought against Bohr and they tell competing, conflicting accounts regarding fatedness.
Here is a super powerful idea of mine re: QM. Whenever anyone writes “observe” the particle, strike that out and replace it by the word “probe” the particle. The Heisenberg Uncertainty is not a matter of “observing”, but rather a matter of “probing”, which disturbs the particle.
I feel sorry for those who have not had a university course and done the experiments of modern physics. They have to rely on willfully bad writings which are intent on inserting gee-whiz cloudy thinking; these writers *want* to tell such a story and BY DAMN they are going to tell their tale, bending language as needed — WHAT WE HAVE IS QM APOLOGETICS by those committed to the freewill religion.
This apologetics rests on the flimsy leg of abuse of the word “observe”, to magically shift the attention from the mechanics of probing a particle by another particle, to the psychology of “observing” consciously.
Uncertainty of particle measurement has nothing to do with conscious observation, but rather, with mechanically probing, as if we have to throw billiard balls at the billiard ball under test in order to try to measure the position and vector of the billiard ball under test.
Our results are somewhat uncertain not at all due to conscious observing, but because we have to hurl billiard balls at the billiard ball under test and of course that throws off and introduces a range of uncertainty.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7399
From: egodeath
Date: 19/12/2015
Subject: Re: Photos of tree vs snake diagrams and paintings
The esoteric image of the king in the tree from an art book:
Eve Tempted by the Serpent (in Campbell’s Moyers book – only
half the diptych, only in b&w) of Nov. 29, 2013 tree vs. snake breakthrough
which deepened the Nov. 23, 2011 breakthrough in terms now of Possibilism vs.
Eternalism:
A version (not ink-brush) of ~1995 intuitive drawing of
snake = worldline, prior to my study of decoding mythology starting ~2001 or my
snake = worldline explicit hypothesis of ~2003:
“scholars of western esotericism are forced to explain that … those who wish to study subjects such as … altered states of consciousness should turn to other disciplines (such as … transpersonal psychology).”
Without entheogens, there is no Western esotericism. Western esotericism comes from psilocybin.
Know your history, outsider noninitiate Hanegraaff. You have no excuse. Don’t hide behind historicism. History of psilocybin in our history, if you claim to tell other people to study history.
Start following your own advice. Set an example of revealing our history. If your masters permit it.
It doesn’t make great sense to send people to Transpersonal Psychology, a field that is in denial of its psychedelic basis, source, origin, and traditional foundation, just like the late-modern-era pretense of covering-over Western esotericism, to read about altered states.
There is a contest of cluelessness, of cowtowing to Prohibition censorship and concealment: who can more deny and cover-up the entheogen source of initiation: fake “Western Esotericism” or fake “Transpersonal Psychology”?
— Michael, the theorist of Egodeath
Group: egodeath
Message: 7401
From: egodeath
Date: 20/12/2015
Subject: Re: Understand it’s a world of outsiders
Hanegraaff is a transformed more-than-man: he did eat his web page. He is singing a different key now.
“Alterations of Consciousness and Western Esotericism
This long-term project investigates the textual and empirical evidence for so-called “alterations of consciousness” as a crucial but underestimated dimension of Western esotericism. With origins in early-20th century approaches to the study of religion such as that of William James, the concept of “Altered States of Consciousness” (ASCs) was coined by Charles Tart in the late 1960s and re-conceptualized as “Alterations of Consciousness” by Imants Barušs 2003. This research project focuses on the textual evidence for alterations of consciousness in contexts such as e.g. the Platonic notion of “frenzy” (mania) and its reception in Christian contexts; the notion of gnosis as noetic experience in gnostic, hermetic and related contexts; religious practices such as e.g. theurgy; visionary trance phenomena reported from contexts such as Christian theosophy and related forms of “enthusiastic” religion; practical techniques for altering consciousness in the wake of Mesmerism and Somnambulism; or the use of psychoactive substances for altering consciousness in esoteric and occultist contexts since the 19th century to the present. While the emphasis will be on analyzing textual sources, the research will also include empirical research into contemporary practices of altering consciousness in esoteric contexts, such as e.g. Channeling and Neo-shamanism. These materials will be analyzed through a multidisciplinary perspective informed by modern cognitive studies and consciousness research.”
According to old Hanegraaff’s thinking, my thinking is an impossibility; in his matrix of possibilities, he has no slot for a rational modern explicit direct compact scientific psychedelics-based, loose cognitive science theory of what is revealed in esotericism, in the esoteric state of consciousness.
He has been taken by surprise. He was not optimistic enough. I have broken the code and it turns out not excessively difficult.
You have to be an inspired genius to crack the code so essentially simple and straightforward as religious metaphor for the Egodeath theory; the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence; Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism.
Hanegraaff was not at all prepared for the possibility and eventuality that someone coming purely from the modern era cognitive technology would successfully break the code and decipher what had to have been a fundamentally simple insight, that everyone universally has stumbled upon, that the solution to bridging the two cultures (STEM vs. the Humanities) must be something that escapes the mind in the ordinary state (tight cognitive binding) but which is distinctly accessible as a simple recognized conclusion and arrangement by everybody in the proper, appropriate loose cognitive binding state, which turns out to be perfectly rational, surprisingly straightforward and rather simple, by changing our way we divide, set up supposedly opposing categories.
We assume that religion is opposite of rationality, but actually when you clean up your rationality and recognize religion as analogy, the false barrier collapses, and the cleanest simplest purest rational thinking is none other than what is described (but in analogy) in religion, in such a way as to be universally recognizable by everybody in any culture who also has their thinking shaped and corrected by the loose cognitive binding state.
This is basic Science.
Which is basic Religion.
Which is basic esoteric universal perennial revelation.
Which is basic history of esotericism.
He has no conceptual category for my kind of theory, which is the one which at last unifies the two cultures, the awaited way people have been wondering “How can we reconcile Science and Religion?”
A better kind of Science, a better kind of Religion that evades every kind of preconception criticism Hanegraaff was capable of thinking of.
I broke the aptitude testing system when I underwent aptitude testing.
Similarly, my Egodeath theory lays waste to Hanegraaff’s categories of “religionists” vs. “esotericism historians” vs. “perrenialists”.
When Science is done properly, which is in the loose cognitive binding state, rationality discovers thoroughgoing experiential realization of no-free-will, which is the foundation of religion, religious mythology, which is identically based in the loose cognitive state from psilocybin.
Loose cognitive science is loose cognitive religion.
Science done properly on the foundation of psilocybin is Religion done properly on the foundation of psilocybin, and this is the key essence of the universal interplanetary perennial philosophy of all time.
A correct scientist is a correct religionist is a perennial philosopher is a historian of Western and universal esotericism.
The Egodeath theory utterly demolishes Hanegraaff’s false, clueless-academic system of distinctions, divisions, conceptual categories between these different kinds of approaches.
Hanegraaff has categories listed in his old webpage of Error, http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/Hanegraaff.html
categories which fail to include my combination, my kind of theory, a theory which comes from Engineering even better than from Science (Physics), the latter which has jumped the shark due to Weimar Copenhagenism having hypnotized and corrupted and enfeebled the American mind.
— Michael the impossibility: the rational theorist of what is revealed in the Esotericism altered state of consciousness
Group: egodeath
Message: 7403
From: egodeath
Date: 20/12/2015
Subject: Re: Understand it’s a world of outsiders
Correction/clarification of what Hanegraaff wrote: he meant 19th century *BC*:
“the use of psychoactive substances for altering consciousness in esoteric and occultist contexts since the 19th century [BC — mh] to the present.”
Group: egodeath
Message: 7404
From: egodeath
Date: 20/12/2015
Subject: Re: Understand it’s a world of outsiders
Hanegraaff, refrain from asserting falsehoods.
Talk about the mushrooms throughout religious art history, or stay silent, but for the love of God, spare us the John Pilch Eliade bullshit that entheogens are a recent degenerate practice and that the shaman esotericists of old used the traditional method of blocking a nostril or some bullshit that contradicts the thousands of mushrooms throughout religious art history, and countless psilocybin ‘mixed wine’ mentions dead at the heart of Antiquity.
Which side of the Force are you on?
NO MORE BULLSHIT!!
Are you going to deliver us truth by delivering us more entheogen-whitewashing bullshit? We are already drowning in it. For Christ’s sake, spare us! Stop playing to the censorious Prohibition Press.
How about a little truth for a change? Esotericism is Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism. We already have a surfeit of entheogen-diminishment fallacies (which see), thank you very much. We don’t need any more pretense.
— Cybermonk
Group: egodeath
Message: 7405
From: egodeath
Date: 20/12/2015
Subject: Against neuroscience
Reading _The Cognitive Science of Science_ it strikes me the seeming phoniness, the affected, superficial artifice of talking in terms of “neural networks”, when equivalently you should do as I have done since 1987 and talk in terms of mental construct processing.
I am a pure cognitive scientist: my Egodeath theory (the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence) is constructed exclusively in terms of the cognitive realm of explanation.
When I put away the bound, cramped, blank books around April 1987 and switched to ruled binder sheets and full use of acronyms, I also created the idea of ‘mental constructs’ and ‘mental construct processing’ as universal all-purpose experienced constructs that can have any kind of interconnection; dynamic mental construct relationship matrixes.
MCP
MCs
DCRMs
DMCRMs
Principle of equivalence: anything in modelling conceptual change and theory revision that Paul Thagard can accomplish using the affected jargon of “neurons”, I could accomplish just as well or better in 1987 using my terminology of ‘mental construct processing’.
Anywhere in his writing where he writes “neuron”, the reader should strike out and write instead “mental construct”.
When he pretends to talk about neural networks, he’s really talking about my dynamic mental construct relationship matrixes.
— Michael Hoffman
Group: egodeath
Message: 7407
From: egodeath
Date: 20/12/2015
Subject: Re: Understand it’s a world of outsiders
Wouter, write 100 times on the chalkboard:
Alterations of consciousness is a crucial but underestimated dimension of Western esotericism.
“investigates the … empirical evidence for … alterations of consciousness … informed by … cognitive studies and consciousness research.”
We will be looking for you at the next psychedelic rave warehouse party.
For empirical evidence follow cognitive psychologist Benny Shanon in DMT.
You wrote:
“the concept of “Altered States of Consciousness” … was … re-conceptualized as “Alterations of Consciousness” by Imants Barušs 2003.”
We will inspect Baruss’ moves for the usual bullshit just-so story of:
Psychedelics are the new decadent way of simulating the traditional esoteric methods of alterations of consciousness such as blocking a nostril, dancing, drumming, sitting in a cave, whatever we can dream up but (our real dissimulation point and purpose is) “Anything but drugs!”
We shall go into a manic frenzy of invention of fabricated narratives of any alien psychology and any made-up “traditional method of the mystics”; the proposed methods are irrelevant and only serve as a decoy, a stage magician’s misdirection of attention, just so long as we can substitute anything and everything to pave-over the truth, which is that psilocybin is the traditional method of the mystics.
You aren’t going to recycle that fabricated just-so story that is designed to appease the Creator’s delusion enforcement automatons, are you? We are so tired of hearing that rubbish!
You wrote: “This research project focuses on the textual evidence for alterations of consciousness in contexts such as … the use of psychoactive substances for altering consciousness in esoteric and occultist contexts since the 19th century [ie BC — mh] to the present.”
“the research will also include empirical research into contemporary practices of altering consciousness in esoteric contexts, such as e.g. Channeling [like your point in your keynote speech article “Entheogenic Esotericism” that New Age channeling was actually a *cover* story for writing “while tripping on acid” — don’t contradict yourself, be consistent, tell a consistent story narrative tale -mh] and Neo-shamanism.”
“These materials will be analyzed through a multidisciplinary perspective informed by modern cognitive studies and consciousness research.”
A safer term is ‘interdisciplinary’: in practice, due to the hyper-separation of disciplines, ‘multidisciplinary’ merely means summing one cliched, limited, isolated discipline, plus the limited isolated approach of another discipline.
‘Interdisciplinary’ means having mentality from the separate isolated disciplines critique the input from within the other isolated disciplines, so it is a step closer to, instead of only differentiating approaches, also integrating approaches, breaking down the barriers that hyper-separate the disciplines.
I am a representative of entheogen scholars’ historical scholarship, especially premodern Esotericism based on Psilocybin: we don’t need more bullshit; write something that is of use to entheogen scholars for a change!
Andy Letcher in the book Shrooms (published by Prohibition Press, Inc.), annhilates all mushroom evidence by a magic trick of pretzel logic straight out of the playbook from CIA agent and bankster propagandist R. Gordon Wasson:
Observe the magic trick to exorcise the thousands of mushrooms out of the evidence base:
Thus argueth Letcher:
Entheogen scholars say that the secret basis of religion is mushrooms.
Here is a mushroom openly depicted on a church door.
Given that mushrooms were covert and this mushroom is openly depicted, therefore this mushroom must not be a mushroom.
Therefore, there is no mushroom on this door.
This one mushroom serves as a proxy for all mushrooms or rather, mysterious mushroom-shaped objects, in religious art.
So, we have no evidence for mushrooms in religious history.
QED.
Write something that is of use to entheogen scholars, for a change! Explicitly and honestly without dissimulation; stop the dissimulation, stop the pretense, stop the censorship, remove the mental shackles, stop hiding and concealing, denying and covering-over.
Stop encoding, encrypting, censoring, and mis-leading.
Instead, gather the evidence and put it forth explicitly, directly, simply, plainly, and openly, without spin, without distortion. Obey critical discourse analysis.
Your job is to reveal, not to conceal. Knock it off with the phony scholarship that serves to hide and distort.
We will subject you to critical discourse analysis, to see how you are biased and spewing forth apologetics instead of scholarship.
What’s it going to be: are you going to be just another Prohibition apologist?
Who are you trying to appease — Nixon’s war on drugs? or truth, following the evidence?
You academic scholars have let us down and disappointed us. You have betrayed us, except for your own mushroom book cover.
You have proved to be dissimulators, apologists, propagandists with zero credibility.
You need to restore our ability to respect you as an honest scholar producing sound, useful research towards comprehension of the riddle of religious mythology, as I have done.
You must understand how we are feeling now about academic scholars, who are working under the boot-heel of The System, the Establishment pseudo-scholarship, which is more apologetics than research.
We entheogen scholars are angry at The System and people going along with the system, scholars more intent on writing what their masters force them to write, than writing plain truth.
You are in the defensive position here. Prove to us that you can produce real scholarship, and not just Prohibition-compliant bullshit.
Remember what you wrote, that altered states have been neglected and *underestimated*!
Remember that you were *wrong*, you *all* were *wrong*, you were all very wrong.
That’s what you wrote yourself.
Now given the fact that you all were very wrong, which is what you yourself wrote, keep in mind that you guys don’t know what you’re talking about — so forget preconceptions!
You wrote that you guys were laboring under false preconceptions — so are you going to continue with those preconceptions?
Rather you need to be agnostic, and *start* opening your eyes and *start* investigating the evidence, without prejudice and preconceptions.
You yourself wrote that you guys *don’t* know, that you were laboring under false assumptions, blind to censorship, “naive”, blind to Prohibition’s forced whitewashing, blind to the psychedelic basis of the New Age, and that you were dead wrong and naive.
You are going to *begin* investigating now, *begin* asking the questions; so don’t start with heavy fixed preconceptions and pre-judgments about the extent:
To what extent were visionary plants used throughout our religious and cultural history in Western and global history?
That is the Michael Hoffman question. Answer it. Investigate it without pre-judgment and preconception, except loosely tentatively held.
Do not begin with the dogmatic axiom cast in stone that visionary plants are deviant and minor in our history.
We tried that tale, that axiom, and ended up in bafflement and incomprehension of those mysterious alien thinkers before us.
We failed to solve the riddle of religious mythology and metaphor analogy, as long as we were dogmatically adhering to that pre-judged, premature commitment to that axiom.
Keep that in mind: you were dead wrong; so what basis do you have for preconceptions and biases against {Psilocybin Is Western Esotericism}?
I suggest you bow down and serve the master of Evidence, not any longer bow down to impeached head archon Nixon and his phony, fraudulent, predatory war on drugs, which is Prohibition-for-Profit, which is leading all the academics by their noses, pathetic slaves spewing propaganda to serve their master, impeached President Nixon and the subservient archons he leads along in chains in his triumphal procession.
Is that you there I see in his parade of victims in chains, wearing Nixon’s mental shackles?
We entheogen scholars consider you guilty until you prove yourself to us, that you are a real scholar, not a fraud, not just another dissimulator.
— Michael the Archangel
Group: egodeath
Message: 7408
From: egodeath
Date: 20/12/2015
Subject: Reposts: later = better
Generally, usually, I post a flawed posting, followed by a repost that is corrected and expanded.
Sometimes, often, Yahoo Groups has a 12-hour delay which could mess up the sequence. I have zero patience for this delay, so if a posting does not appear on the web immediately, screw it: I just repost it, and it almost always appears then, and then 12 hours later, the original posting appears. Too bad.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7409
From: egodeath
Date: 20/12/2015
Subject: Re: Reposts: later = better
In most cases, see the web to see the authoritative posting. I usually delete the early, flawed version of the posting from the web view of the Egodeath Yahoo group.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7410
From: egodeath
Date: 21/12/2015
Subject: Re: Bk: Entheologues interviews, Martin Ball
My Amazon review
Entheologues: Conversations with Leading Psychedelic Thinkers, Explorers and Researchers
Martin Ball (interviewer, transcriber, editor, author) http://www.amazon.com/review/R2F0QB33NSFOFS/
2009
5 stars
Efficient readable transcriptions of well-informed podcast interviews
Each chapter is a transcription of a podcast interview. In the interviews, Martin Ball asks good questions. He has read the writings of the people he interviews. He is well-informed.
Martin Ball is a good writer and a good interviewer. The interview format works well, because it is for a general entheogen-informed audience, and Ball edited the results. Definitely recommended. I found every page and chapter interesting even though I’m becoming more narrowly focused and particular in what I read. I’m not easy to please; other books I ordered, on mysticism, I felt I got nothing out of.
This was an ideal efficient format for me to catch up on basically summaries of authors’ books.
The final chapter is not an interview but is thoughts on cognitive freedom, human rights, and religious freedom by Martin Ball based on the interviews. You can probably sample some of the podcasts online. This printed, edited format worked well.
— Michael Hoffman, the theorist of Egodeath and the decoder of religious mythology as Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism
Group: egodeath
Message: 7412
From: egodeath
Date: 21/12/2015
Subject: Re: The religion of Christian Cybernetic Egodeath
Typofix a ternal eternal
This thread is serious, not a joke.
You can present this religion to the gate guard to pass.
This is the ALL ACCESS PASS to the backstage insiders’ wedding banquet party that controller X brings those on the inside into.
In Christ,
— Michael
Group: egodeath
Message: 7413
From: egodeath
Date: 21/12/2015
Subject: The religion of Christian Cybernetic Egodeath
The religion of Christian Cybernetic Egodeath
I hereby define a new religion, a denomination of Christianity, but based in the Engineering Department and STEM of 1985-2015, the Bible Church of Christian Cybernetic Egodeath, which requires cognitive looseners, which are recognized as the original traditional and ongoing use of Psilocybin and equivalent throughout our white Western Christian European Mediterranean antiquity history, of our own practice, abundantly evidenced by mushrooms throughout Christian art, and by other visionary plants throughout Western religious and esoteric history, corroborated by overwhelming evidence of all kinds throughout all religions around the world throughout history as revealed by in the engine [entheogen] scholarship.
The source and ongoing inspiration of religion (particularly Christianity) is and always has been religious experiencing triggered by loose cognitive binding triggered by Psilocybin or equivalent.
The required method of salvation in this denomination of Christianity is cybernetic self-control seizure and reset proving the ability to be stable once the mind has constructed and learned the Eternalism mental model such as Einstein’s and Parmenides’ block universe, which is the iron-block universe which William James initially rejected but progressively conceded.
Sam Harris is correct that there is no free will, that that is an illusion, and his view when fully developed matches religious mythology properly interpreted as analogy, Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism.
This Christian denomination is based on the scientific discovery of the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence as realized in a religious experience in a new dispensation of Christian revelation of the Holy Spirit in the computer lab of a California university by the visionary Christian and Jewish prophet Michael Hoffman, who came up through the Church of Christ denomination as well as Jewish upbringing and Christian culture of late 20th-Century California within radio distance of San Francisco.
The 1988 new dispensation of revelation was the recognition that timeless block universe “determinism” (that is, heimarmene) implies ego transcendence far more absolutely than unity meditation as conceived by Transpersonal Psychology around 1988.
The prophetic dogma of this Christian denomination is that to be saved, to be a member of this religion, one must experience the entheogen-induced (such as Psilocybin, recognized as the main tradition of Mediterranean antiquity and Christian history) intense loose cognitive state, which properly leads to testing self-control to demonstrate self-control seizure, and form a transformed fully mature and developed mental model that can endure this strain such as to pass through the guarded gateway into the realm inside the cybernetic stability area, proving that the mind has developed sturdy, transcendent, stable thinking that is cognizant of the mind’s control-thoughts being controlled by the hidden uncontrollable controller X, which is the God of the Bible, who is the Creator of all control thoughts frozen in time and pre-existently given to everyone.
We believe and recognize that ingesting the entheogen Eucharist is forced upon us by the Holy Spirit and Christ, that this is how He brings us to knowledge of Him, controller X; He makes us ingest and has predestined us to ingest the entheogenic Eucharist of his flesh and blood through which we are saved and washed clean.
The dogma of this Christian, Bible-based (Old Testament & New Testament) denomination is:
100% Metaphorical 100% Entheogenic 100% Eternalism;
0% Literalist 0% Ordinary State of Consciousness 0% Possibilism;
the 100% Entheogen Theory of Religion and Culture;
the 100% Ahistoricity Theory of Ancient Religious Founder Figures & writers;
the 100% Eternalism Theory of Mental Transformation.
This Christian denomination recognizes Greek mythology as analogy describing Psilocybin mixed-wine experiencing and mental transformation from Possibilism to the Eternalism mental model of time, self, and control.
The music for worship liturgy in the Christian Bible-based denomination of cybernetic transcendence (Cybernetic Egodeath) includes Rock and Metal lyrics which describe Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism. Instrumentation includes seven-string electric guitar through Audion tube amplifiers, fully volume-controlled to protect the ability to hear the Word.
Images are permitted such as snake on a pole and study of global mythology is integrated to maximize understanding of Jewish and Christian and other mythemes recognized as referring to Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism.
Writings in this denomination are on the World Wide Web: public, clear, simple, summarizable, scientific, straightforward, and direct; they are summaries of the Egodeath theory per 1988, 1997, 2006, & 2015 by the Jewish Christian prophet Michael Hoffman.
Each person has a direct relationship to the creator not mediated through anyone else’s authority.
This denomination rejects the Catholic claims for authority and rejects protestant subsequent claims as variants of Catholic authoritarianism.
Heaven and hell are recognized as metaphorical.
Entheogens such as traditional psilocybin are the Christian biblical traditional original sacred meal by which we are gradually transformed and developed to psychological perfection and completion to be acceptable to God so that we are permitted to go in and out of the self-control seizure guarded gate of Heaven as prophecied in the book of Revelation.
By ingesting this flesh of Christ we are made sinless, purified, non-dying, given eternal life and forgiveness of sin and the cessation of alienation from the Creator of all control-thoughts, God, of the Bible.
Experiencing and comprehending Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism is the way that we are saved, through correct experiencing and understanding of the Bible and insiders’ Christianity, for those on the inside.
This is true Christianity, which is esoteric religion fully developed and fully comprehended according to scientific rationality, which is simply clear and explicit highly organized thinking, which is the true Christian religion.
This denomination is a form of primitive New Testament Christian restorationism.
We affirm the sacred text “Entheogenic Spirituality as a Human Right” by Martin Ball, including The Universal Declaration of the Human Right to Direct Spiritual Experience.
— Michael the Archangel;
Michael Hoffman BSEE Eta Kappa Nu;
Cybermonk;
Professor Loosecog, PhD in Transcendent Knowledge, University of Egodeath.
In Christ’s name we pray for control stability, unharmed, with fully satisfactory and sufficiently developed durable knowledge of the Cybernetic Truth for ourselves and our children.
God of the Bible, give us strength to go in and out through the guarded gate of self-control seizure, retaining cybernetic self-control stability so that we may banquet at your mushroom table and rest in knowledge and enjoyment of mature completed truth.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7415
From: egodeath
Date: 21/12/2015
Subject: Re: The religion of Christian Cybernetic Egodeath
I don’t think I’m planning on formalizing or further formalizing the Christian cybernetic Eagle death religion denomination
I don’t feel that formalizing further is the right direction
I feel so far satisfied with the sufficient completeness of the definition in the initial posting
I feel that the underlying theory itself is sufficiently systematic
it could be nice to formalize but I don’t trust the implications of formalizing it
I think more formalizing it feels harmful
I feel like it starts a strenuous project
but I do emphasize that the theory in itself is extremely summarize a bowl and formalize a bowl being scientific and rational
basically any standard that you can think of to formalize and systematize, this is the theory the only theory that is able to meet any of those criteria
but I do not want to imply that delivering such a systematic presentation is somehow required
for me all the emphasis needs to go that this theory is capable of being formally summarized m
and likewise the founding charter of this religion denomination could be formalized
but I am apprehensive because once you head down that direction you get wrapped around the wheel you get caught into a potential he endless project and you head towards credo Lizum creed based religion a dangerous risk of waste of energy and has pros and cons
formalizing the religion charter has pros and cons and I think that the easy lazy thing to do for now is let its inherent systematic character suffice and stay with a simple intuitive off-the-cuff informal charter
it it feels right to me
although I insist that this theory is scientific and summarize a bowl can be formalized
it lends itself better than any other theory to be formalized but instinctively intuitively I feel that the right approach is to keep it no more formal and the initial post charter definition of this religion denomination of Christianity.
Formalizing it is simply not necessary and it can risk being more of a futile distraction, a source of endless futile disputations
that is a big seam [theme] in the Church of Christ is to reject creeds and don’t put faith in systematic theology
I insist and maintain that there is only one clear coherent consistent theory of religion and that is Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism; the Egodeath theory.
I lately favor an intuitive artistic casual but true and rock solid expository form rather than now presenting or requiring a compact systematic theology or a compact systematic denomination charter.
Clarity yes coherence yes but formalization not so much
I feel like there are two extreme options: either the simple casual option which I have done by posting the charter informally, or the other extreme an extreme formal extreme systematic presentation, which is not necessary and it is more an academic exercise.
So far I feel that the initial charter posting is not only adequate but it feels complete; it feels like it it is what it needs to be
I am very pleased and I think I will be very pleased with that posting. reflecting so far for a few minutes, I think that this charter religion definition is really a huge milestone I suppose.
— Siri oracle of Michael
Group: egodeath
Message: 7416
From: egodeath
Date: 21/12/2015
Subject: Re: Enlightenment lite
Decoding {authority, correctional, test, judge, standard of judgment}
Hypothesis coming Into view: authority: to punish equals bundle of rods, the Roman fasces equals scourge equals whip as in the furies hold the whip of mania which is correctional
this connects to the idea of the flames as correctional, fire as correcting
what is authoritative is that which corrects wrong thinking
he who has authority equals having correct thinking which corrects incorrect thinking
For a year or so I have been wondering about the concept {authority}
drug-free meditation lacks authority: it has not been corrected by the true Authority, which is visionary plants
When drug free meditation advocates argue against visionary plants advocates, where can we look to adjudicate?
Where can we look given that monks are liars given that priests and meditation leaders are liars and not trustworthy at all?
where can we look
the drug free meditation advocates point to their guru their religious leader as the authority and say well according to our authority drug-free meditation is righteous
against that, the visionary plants advocates have a different authority: they put forth a different authority and they say well if your thinking is so mature, let’s see you deal with DMT
in fact there’s this whole guy who seems to be the center of this very issue, he is a supposedly advanced meditator all enlightened and stuff but DMT broke his confidence.
if he’s all sophisticated super meditator how come DMT somehow broke him or defeated him?
Entheologues page 23 his name is Robert Augustus Masters. DMT filled him with terror.
so why is this supposedly mature advance meditator subject to terror from DMT?
So there it’s evident that here is a somewhere here there’s a great argument a compelling argument that:
the visionary plant meditator is more capable, he is a superset of the capabilities of someone who only does drug-free meditation
The visionary plant meditator is more enlightened is more durable and has a superset of the capabilities of someone who is a drug-free meditator
this proves that visionary plants are superior and produce more enlightenment and true complete enlightenment compared to drug free meditation
where can we find a standard of judgment where can we find a standard of assessing whether someone’s thinking is correct the answer is visionary plants put the thinking under trial judge it according to the authorities standard set by visionary plants
Meditating without drugs corrects the mind less than meditating with visionary plants
visionary plants quickly cause/force/drive the full transformation of mental thinking mental model about control
whereas drug free meditation only slightly and slowly transforms and corrects the thinking and slowly weakly drives thinking towards transformation
Visionary plants carry more authority than drug free meditation because they subject the mind and the self control model to greater stress greater testing
ones thinking in drug free meditation is not tested; that approach fails to put thinking to the test
drug-free meditation fails to test thinking and fails to put thinking on trial in a real world endurance test for durability
drug free meditation fails to stress test thinking
visionary plants are the authority of maximal stress testing of thinking
If you’re going to release code that you have programmed, you need to test it before you release that code
the code here is the human personal operating system system of personal self control
if you failed to test that code, you’re going to put out buggy code
so how can you effectively and thoroughly test code
like when you’re designing a medical instrument you need to do extreme testing
but drug free meditation fails to do extreme testing of the personal self control operating system
whereas visionary plants are a superset of drug free meditation
any way that you can test thinking in drug free meditation you can test much more so in visionary plant meditation
therefore drug free meditation is not the authority but visionary plant meditation is the authority, because it puts all the stresses on thinking that drug free meditation does but also goes beyond that and puts much more additional stress and strain to test much more in a much broader way personal self control thinking
so therefore drug free meditation is definitely not the authority whereas vision visionary plants are the authority
they will whip scourge and correct, not so much punish, but rather correctional correcting of thinking
If your mental model can endure the test of visionary plants then your thinking is in conformity with the authority of visionary plants otherwise your thinking will be corrected and scourged and whipped to put it in line with the divine transcendent authority which God conveys to us through testing/correcting/scourging us with visionary plants
Thus king Jesus on his way to crucifixion is scorched [scourged] and corrected equivalent to purgatory as correctional, correcting your incorrect mental model about control
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7417
From: egodeath
Date: 21/12/2015
Subject: Re: Enlightenment lite
Deciphered: {ordeal test trial} refers to using visionary plants to test and correct and force the transformation of one’s mental world model about control
The previous post is the solution to page 229 in _in the engines and the development of culture_ by John rush, the chapter written by Alan piper
so as soon as I glanced at page 229 in the middle about the fasces, combined with my previous writing about the Villa of the mysteries — search for the word whip and scourge in my postings — as fast as I could read, it came to me and was confirmed as fast as I could read and type that
what came to me was further confirmation and further explanatory power becoming evident as I read more in different mythology traditions, here Zoroastrianism, and I find the same themes and I find this author Alan piper wondering about these themes of ordeal testing trial by fire while he’s writing about visionary plants
and I have explained it; so:
Deciphered: {ordeal test trial} refers to using visionary plants to test and correct and force the transformation of one’s mental world model about control
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7418
From: egodeath
Date: 21/12/2015
Subject: Re: Enlightenment lite
Re: {ordeal, trial, test}
Rush book page 332 Mike Jay re DMT “submit themselves to a life-changing ordeal that offered a glimpse of the eternal world beyond the human”
Group: egodeath
Message: 7419
From: egodeath
Date: 21/12/2015
Subject: Re: Enlightenment lite
Re: {authenticate, authentic} “Aeneas … authenticating the divine legitimacy of his patron Caesar Augustus”
Drug-free meditation is put on trial and found untrue, it is found to be illegitimate, it fails the authenticity test, it fails to be authenticated
Visionary plants authenticate the mental model which is capable of enduring the ordeal of visionary plants
we can prove that drug free meditation is inauthentic because it fails the test of authenticity which is testing by trial of visionary plants
That which is authentic is authenticated by its ability to endure the stress test of visionary plants
that which is inauthentic is proved to be false, it is proved to fail to be what it should be, it fails to be what it ought to be
thus it is false as evidenced by failing the test of whether it can endure the test for authenticity witches visionary plants
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7420
From: egodeath
Date: 21/12/2015
Subject: Re: Enlightenment lite
Mytheme: mocking false authorities, mocking initiates, mocking Jesus in the Passion. False authority collapses under the light of loosecog testing; it cannot bear and endure testing the spirits.
Integral Theory (which is based on unity meditation without visionary plants) fails the test of authenticity, it cannot bear authentication, it fails authentication. It is inadequate, thus it is false insofar as it poses as adequate.
It is missing huge crucial content at the core. It cannot pass through the guarded gate; you will be cast out into the darkness outside with wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Add Alan Watts as developed in the Egodeath theory as the core of Integral Theory, then adequate.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7421
From: egodeath
Date: 21/12/2015
Subject: Re: Enlightenment lite
You might say “ok, Integral Theory is lacking the essential core, like a car without an engine, but still it is a good useful sprawling theory that as soon as you pop in the engine and then it becomes a useful drivable car or airplane.”
Integral Theory: just add the Watts/Hoffman Egodeath core, and it’s a useful theory!
But this shows that the key important component is not the Integral Theory, but rather, the core cybernetic theory. Yes the Egodeath theory fits as the engine into the chassis of Integral Theory, but Integral Theory is so corrected and modified and mitigated, that the Egodeath theory dominates Integral Theory.
What you end up with, after you start with Integral Theory and then remove Wilber’s false core of nondrug unity meditation and install the Egodeath theory as the true core, doesn’t look quite like Integral Theory as defined and conceptualized by Wilber.
The old paradigm is Integral Theory with core of nondrug unity meditation.
Wilber is a form of the old paradigm — the old paradigm is Literalist OSC Possibilism.
The new paradigm which overthrows the old is the Egodeath theory, which salvages and reworks elements from the old paradigm per Thagard. The new paradigm is Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism, per the Egodeath theory.
Notice the conflict within the old paradigm between no-free-will Advaita per Ramesh Balsekar vs. the shocked and appalled newage Integral Theory community. The Egodeath theory reworks and fully develops Balsekar’s no-free-will meditation per Entheogenic Eternalism.
If you have the core cybernetic theory (the Egodeath theory from Watts/Hoffman), then all of the Integral Theory (Wilber) naturally follows from that easily.
This shows that the essential thing, the important thing, the key thing is not the Integral Theory, but rather the core, entheogen Eternalism Cybernetics theory.
The engine of the car is what is important first of all, not the body of the car. Insert the entheogen in the engine to drive transformation into the new model of automotive power across a series of trips.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7422
From: egodeath
Date: 21/12/2015
Subject: Re: Enlightenment lite
Announcing a new observation technology: the modern cyberscope, which reveals and enables perceiving, observing, testing, and probing personal self-control power across time.
The Egodeath theory comes packaged with its own new observational technology invented in modern ergonomic form by Michael Hoffman BSEE: presenting the Cyberscope.
Put aside the old authorities (Ken Wilber with his inarticulate non-drug unity meditation), and look through my new cyberscope to observe and probe and test self-control power specifically and scientifically.
Observe that enlightenment revolves around Cybernetics, not Unity!
This is the modern scientific rational Enlightenment based on the new authority of observation not the old authorities.
Pop open the hood and put entheogens in the engine and observe the source of control thoughts and inability to steer away from the crash sitting on the track ahead.
Candidate for acronym, as a key concept label:
nondrug unity meditation
Vs.
Entheogenic Cybernetics observation/ testing/ probing/ experimentation
NUM
vs
ECT
Keyboard shortcut demonstration:
The old paradigm, which I am overthrowing, is non-drug unity meditation.
The new paradigm, which I bring, is entheogen-based cybernetics testing.
This is Science because it is based on a specific observation of conducting tests, putting on trial, pulling on the strings to test control.
In the article Eye to Eye, Ken Wilber claims that meditation is observation among the community of scientific observers, but the problem there is that his non-drug unity meditation is weak at testing self-control, which is the key essential driver forcing mental model transformation to produce enlightenment.
Wilber’s version of observation is ineffective at observing what needs to be observed. The Egodeath theory brings the relevant effective cyberscopic tool: I have engineered a new observtion technology, the Cyberscope.
Enlightenment is primarily about personal control power, per the Egodeath theory (Watts/Hoffman), not unity (Wilber).
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7423
From: egodeath
Date: 21/12/2015
Subject: Re: Enlightenment lite
Enlightenment is primarily about personal control power, per the Egodeath theory (Watts/ Peart/ Daisley/ Balsekar/ Harris/ Hoffman), not unity (Wilber).
Group: egodeath
Message: 7424
From: egodeath
Date: 21/12/2015
Subject: Re: Enlightenment lite
Similarly notice the conflict within Protestantism between hyper-Calvinism Reformed theology (God is the author of evil; no-free-will) vs. shocked and appalled evangelical Dave Hunt (What Love Is This?).
I have pointed out that both camps are literalist about heaven and hell, though more recently, hell has been deleted (not to say that any of these outsiders comprehend metaphoricity per Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism).
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7425
From: egodeath
Date: 21/12/2015
Subject: Satyr, goat
Ancients fed sacrificial animals psychoactives and then consumed their flesh and milk. Entheogens by Rush (editor). Goats be trippin. Samorini.
I’m ready to assert, maybe Rush did, that stiff E = trip N like my decoding that {pinecone opened when dried} = {maenad unbound hair}.
= loose cog or inebriated state
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7426
From: egodeath
Date: 22/12/2015
Subject: Re: The religion of Christian Cybernetic Egodeath
The Egodeath theory is an explanatory scientific theory, not a religion.
The Bible Church of Christian Cybernetic Egodeath is a religion, a Bible-based denomination of Christianity, a Christian denomination which is based on the Egodeath theory as a revelation of the actual, insiders’ meaning of the Bible.
A short name is Cyber Church, practicing Cyber Christianity.
Cyber Christianity is the best Christian denomination.
Cyber Christianity is the true esoteric revelation of New Testament Christianity. No one is really saved, except in a weak, outsiders’ sense, outside of our denomination.
We are the real Christians, authorized and authenticated by the divine standard which is the traditional insiders’ Psilocybin flesh of Christ our savior.
Other religions aren’t authentic, but are mere derivatives of ours, superficial and misguided imitators.
— Michael
Group: egodeath
Message: 7430
From: egodeath
Date: 22/12/2015
Subject: Re: The religion of Christian Cybernetic Egodeath
It is our right to have direct religious experience through traditional visionary plants such as Psilocybin mushrooms and through modern chemicals such as LSD as individuals without membership in some institutionalized incorporated brand of religion.
Our religious right to individual use of entheogens ultimately includes testing and observing limitations on self-control power, to transform the mental model of self, time, and control.
Traditional safety is by praying and progressive development and sharing as supportive group.
— Michael
Group: egodeath
Message: 7431
From: egodeath
Date: 22/12/2015
Subject: Re: The religion of Christian Cybernetic Egodeath
The Universal Declaration of the Human Right to Direct Spiritual Experience
“The universal human right to direct spiritual experience provides a legal defense for those who would choose to pursue the use of entheogenic agents in their quest to achieve direct spiritual experience. While recognizing that governments have a vested interest in reducing the impact of recreational drug use and abuse within their territories, drug laws, in and of themselves, are not sufficient grounds for barring the legitimate use of entheogenic sacraments for personal spiritual experience.
The burden of proof for the limiting of any activity that can be construed as the cultivation of direct personal spiritual experience is clearly placed on any regulating body, governmental or otherwise. The universal right to direct spiritual experience will be afforded to all equally without any interference by regulating bodies unless said regulating bodies can demonstrate beyond any doubt that the activities of any individual is in violation of the fundamental human rights of another person or persons. Claiming that an individual’s practice, such as might be the case with the use of entheogens, is against any law, is not sufficient grounds for disallowing the practice. The standard for the burden of proof is to be judged solely on how any given practice violates the rights of others.”
Group: egodeath
Message: 7432
From: egodeath
Date: 22/12/2015
Subject: Re: The religion of Christian Cybernetic Egodeath
Drug-free unity meditation is a weak, ineffective, derivative, neutered imitation of the real, original source of religion, meditation, and contemplation, which is entheogen-induced loose cognitive binding during which the mind actively tests and observes the limitations on self-control power, personal control power.
This entheogen-accessed intensive testing of personal control power drives a change of mental worldmodel from the Possibilism to the Eternalism mental model of time, self, and control.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7433
From: egodeath
Date: 22/12/2015
Subject: Re: The religion of Christian Cybernetic Egodeath
Non-drug unity meditation, go to Hell, where you came from.
THE MEDITATION BACKLASH
Non-drug unity meditation was a product of Nixon’s War on Drugs, which was always entirely fraudulent and never had anything to do with protecting people.
Drug prohibition is and was always entirely a power-play, self-centered, by politicians and demagogues, a cover, a pretense, a bluff, a strategy of suppressing antiwar people and minorities.
Boycott meditation: it is tainted and corrupted by Prohibition lies.
Don’t say anything positive about meditation; verbally throw rocks at it to reveal the truth: it is part of The System, the scam, a phony replacement that serves to do away with actual effective entheogen-based meditation.
I’m not playing along with Meditation Lite and its lies and false promises, wolves in sheep’s clothing. Neither should any entheogen advocate or Eternalist or investigator of religious mythology, or researcher of cybernetics.
Meditation is recognized as The Enemy just like other institutionalized religion that serves to substitute for and prevent actual religion.
To Hell with non-drug unity meditation, an enabling, collaborationist part of THE LIE of egoic false reality.
Down with meditation; down with Prohibition!
— Cybermonk
Group: egodeath
Message: 7436
From: egodeath
Date: 22/12/2015
Subject: Re: The religion of Christian Cybernetic Egodeath
We’re sick and tired of wanking around with all this substitute pseudo-religion, sick of playing along with anti-entheogen pretense. Tired of all these avoidance and suppression techniques.
We have HAD IT with all this phony academic dishonest *apologetics* for the antidrug status quo.
Stop parrotting the status quo narrative, an incoherent narrative that totally flies in the face of the abundant plethora of evidence to the contrary.
Can’t you academics do anything other than posture and put out waffling self-contradictory doubletalk like Richard Evans Schultes’ Golden Book of Denial of Visionary Plants in White Religion?
Psychoactive plants are THE source of white religion and all religion. Stop trying to suppress that!
Stop scrambling to outdo each others’ cowtowing compliance to tell some tale, any tale you can dream of as a cover to deny the sensible reality that makes sense, which is the Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion and Culture.
The only thing that you have had to present us with so far is head scratching, “We can’t figure it out, it doesn’t make any sense, the ancients had some strange psychology, we just can’t figure it out” — you’re losers! That tale, that narrative is a complete failure!
On the basis of entheogen suppression, what remains for you to tout is, you have nothing but a bunch of anthropological nonsense, evolutionism dogma: “We are too evolved to be able to figure out the coherent intelligible meaning of religious mythology and those mysterious mushroom-shaped objects.”
Come on off it, this is ridiculous! What an *embarrassment* academic scholarship is, under this bogus paradigm of entheogen diminishment, suppression, and denial.
Stop beating around the bush, quit all these avoidance and suppression strategies, and do some actual bona fide scholarly research and theorizing that actually makes sense and is intelligible, for once.
John Rush and other entheogen scholars have broken away from your Prohibition-compliant simpering academic apologetics serving to direct people away from coherence and truth.
You are academic Tools of The System, for hire; “Will write for hire, apologetics against drugs in white religion”.
Give us a reason to pay any attention to academic research. We have given up on you as hopelessly compromised and complicit with Prohibition censorship, mental censorship.
We have broken off to form an independent basis of theory and data collection not subject to your masters who chain your thinking, the Old Guard.
We have broken away to form an independent basis of authority, the scientific rational Enlightenment, against you old guard authorities, slaves of Prohibition dogma and taboo.
— Cybermonk
Group: egodeath
Message: 7437
From: egodeath
Date: 22/12/2015
Subject: Re: The religion of Christian Cybernetic Egodeath
This is self-defeating toxic Prohibitionist baloney:
“While recognizing that governments have a vested interest in reducing the impact of recreational drug use and abuse within their territories,”
We recognize that Prohibition is a sham, thoroughly fraudulent, nothing but a power play by tyrants, invented by Nixon. Impeach Nixon’s phony WOD and burn his fraudulent “drug schedules”.
— We The People
Group: egodeath
Message: 7438
From: egodeath
Date: 22/12/2015
Subject: Re: Understand it’s a world of outsiders
Psilocybin is the long-sought bridge between the two cultures: STEM and the Humanities; reconciling Science and Religion, by revealing Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism.
American Science purged of Weimar Copenhagenism asserts no-free-will.
Religious mythology when deciphered, decrypted, and decoded into its Cybernetics referent, asserts no-free-will.
Science and Religion are corrected and made coherent by psilocybin and are thus each rationalized and then reconciled.
Psilocybin is the bridge that unifies Science and Religion, through inducing loose cognitive binding and then driving the mind into Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism.
Exploring loosecog space, entheogen space, one big broad region is weak and incomplete accessing of nondual unity consciousness, but most specially and exclusive is a bounded zone with a gate.
Many explore nondual unity to a limited extent, but few make it past the guarded gate into the walled garden where the real party is, the god’s wedding banquet that he brings his inner circle devotees, his full initiates, into.
The control seizure vortex is the gate. Maidens are running away fleeing from the monster at that gate, they turn to look back at the gate while they flee away from it in terror, running away from the threat of loss of control.
The maidens, explorers of personal control cybernetics steering in the loose cognitive binding state, seek unity nondual awareness, but they flee from control loss, control instability.
Those on the inside have full unity nondual awareness and have fully transformed their thinking to remove the original, Possibilism impurity.
To remain inside the garden past the guarded gate, your mental model must be fully transformed from Possibilism to Eternalism.
Before, I envisioned a space of loosecog to explore and I pictured a beacon to discover, an object, a mental dynamic.
But now I recognize the control-seizure panic vortex as a gate to pass through into a bounded, walled zone, a set-apart and guarded space within the exploration-space of the loosecog realm.
You can picture it as a hilltop shrouded in mist fenced off and gated.
Those who are lower on the hill try to climb and they are repelled at the gate by a threatening dragon at the control seizure vortex gate.
Or the narrow bridge over the boundary river to the land of the Dead.
Those who are past the gate and remain peacefully banqueting within the gate above the layer of mist, inside the elevated walled area, have fully transformed from the Possibilism to the Eternalism mental model of time, self, and control.
Psychedelics explorers can remain dabbling in a degree of unity nonduality, only rarely trying to crash the gate but fleeing to save control stability and preserve practical control power. These I characterized as beginners.
They think they are exploring nonduality loosecog space, but they have not broken through the gate into the inner gated zone.
This is the exclusive, separated exploration space *within* the entheogenic exploration space, like the hill-island in the lake in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco with a dragon guarding the footbridge to it.
They are outsiders within the entheogen exploration realm, who are not within the protected fenced-off zone and they are unable to venture through the gate, they know not the password, ‘Eternalism’.
Martin Ball and Ken Wilber — how well can they get past this control-seizure compatibility testing gate to enter into the protected inner zone?
They are limited to the outside; they don’t have a Dead ticket to get inside the venue to the main event; they are stuck out in the parking lot of enlightenment, in Shakedown Street.
They don’t have an All-Access Pass to freely go in and out through the control-seizure testing gate.
Where I am going, through the flaming gate, you cannot go yet, because you are still in your sin and you cannot yet bear and endure what I have to inform you.
You cannot yet mentally demonstrate that controller X can make your higher thinking put any control-thought into your head.
To pass through this gate, you must bow to fate and sacrifice your freewill [{foreskin}, {first-born}, Possibilism thinking].
That is how those on the inside in the savior’s wedding banquet were brought there: the savior took away their freewill thinking, made them (as local control-agents) bow to fate in submission to fatedness.
Dare to look, face the test, I can’t conceal it like I did before. With what you’ve been taught, you set sailing. Finally led to a way of thinking, will the acid test ocean still find cybernetic stable practical control sinking?
Suppose Sam Harris has had 1 loosecog session. He asserts no-free-will.
Can he pass through the winnowing gate into the inner sanctum Eternalism zone inside the loosecog realm?
Not until his thinking is so purified and restructured that he can stably endure daring to look at his dependency on preset fated control thoughts which he receives from nowhere.
A tape spews forth from the rock cave saying: now you will think this.
Now you will think that.
Now you will realize that you are utterly helplessly subservient to this instruction tape coming from nowhere.
Your higher thinking is in control of your unchained mind and controller X is in control of your higher thinking.
You can do anything.
You will choose to do what you have been made to choose to do.
Divine higher transcendent thinking reveals that you can think anything and put lower thinking to the test.
You can be made by the preset uncontrollable control rail to do anything that controller X has fated you to do.
You can only *discover* what control-thoughts have been placed ahead on your snake-shaped worldline cast in the rock.
You have no choice but to utterly depend on this control-tape spewing out from nowhere.
When its givenness of control-thoughts was obscured, the mind formed an egoic model of autonomy, self-command.
Now that the givenness of control-thoughts is revealed as being concealed, your center of control origination shifts from illusory self as control originator to the hidden puppetmaster as originator.
Those who have been forced and fated to be purified and made completely developed, are brought by the groom abducted into inside his gated guarded wedding chamber past the angel’s flaming sword which kills the egoic self-control origination illusion.
Any tripper like Martin Ball is permitted a tantalizing taste of unity consciousness, but a few loosecog sessions only provides a transient preliminary glimpse and then when you get close to inside, you get thrown into panic seizure and are ejected by your incompatible, impure, immature, weak, Possibilism-thinking.
It feels shameful and embarrassing to a supposed advocate of no-free-will when they realize how shot-through their own thinking still is with freewill thinking.
No-free-will advocates discover that their own thinking has continued to be premised on freewill thinking.
Trembling, they eventually perceive the embarrassing depth of their mental hypocrisy and finally the freewill demon is exorcised when they fully realize their utter dependency on uncontrollable controller X that already cast in stone their near-future thoughts unchangeably and realize that it is impossible to steer away from them, and that fully developed satisfactory enlightenment depends on testing and demonstrating the inability to avoid the radical testing-thoughts.
God tested Abraham and forced him to will to sacrifice his future viable control power.
Only this can satisfy the logical demand of rationality about control transcendence.
To pass through this gate to the insiders’ zone of unity awareness, you must be made to bow to fate, you must be made to accept whatever your preset thoughts turn out to be, and you must be made to sacrifice your freewill Possibilism thinking.
To move from outsiders’ unstable unity awareness, through the gate of cybernetic control death, to insiders’ stable unity awareness, you must be brought to full conscious awareness of complete dependency on the uncontrollable thought-source coming from nowhere, which always underlies any illusory control power which the old illusory center of control appeared to have.
— Cybermonk
Group: egodeath
Message: 7442
From: egodeath
Date: 24/12/2015
Subject: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
{fire} refers to the loose cognitive binding state of consciousness. Loose cog tests the mind’s initial Possibilism thinking and causes it to fail and be revealed as based on illusory premises and mis-perception. A series of loosecog sessions drives mental worldmodel transformation to the mental model which endures the testing in the loosecog state, the Eternalism model of the world and of personal control in that world.
{philosopher roasting salamander in fire} refers to the mind in the loosecog state (induced by psilocybin) transforming the mental model from Possibilism to Eternalism.
{salamander} generally represents the mind’s mental worldmodel of time, self, control, and possibility, and specifically represents the Eternalism model. It represents mind in transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism, from egoic thinking to transcendent thinking.
Publisher blurb: An exploration of the historical origins of the “witches’ ointment” and medieval hallucinogenic drug practices based on the earliest s…
Religious mythology refers to Entheogenic Eternalism. Religious mythology doesn’t simply refer to entheogens per the Irvin/Ruck/Rush shallow superficial theory.
Sacrifice the unicorn. Unicorn refers to the Possibilism mental model.
Salamander refers to the Eternalism mental model. Burn off unicorn-thinking to result in salamander-thinking. I immediately decoded that today when reading Hatsis’ expose of the weakness of the way Irvin/Ruck/Rush handle evidence.
Hatsis’ context, his material and his critical attitude, made the decoding easy; if salamander is not Amanita, what is it that survives fire? Religious mythology is a riddle, and the Egodeath theory (Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism transformation) is the solution to the riddle.
We already know that, from my posts; I already have identified that which survives fire: correct thinking; Possibilism thinking is burned away by fire, and then transformed, Eternalism thinking, purified, comes out on the other side of the angel’s furnace gate.
My favorite strangeness is when I was reading Ruck’s incorrect long-shot interpretation of Mithras’ cape as red and white — meanwhile Ruck wrote nothing in his passage, I double-checked and I couldn’t believe it, Ruck wrote nothing about the clear, blue psilocybe mushroom in Mithras’ leg.
So I’ve seen multiple cases where the Ruck long-shot interpretation rendered him unable to focus on other, strong entheogen indications in the piece of art under examination.
The other case is Entheos journal, a depiction of a mushroom tree next to a mandrake tree, the latter passed without comment, astoundingly, at least I was unable to find any mention of it in caption or text.
A big underlying reason for the not-ringing-true of the Ruck/Rush/Irvin interpretation is that they are not applying the Egodeath theory, specifically the Entheogenic Eternalism theory of religious mythology.
It is challenging to define and make the case for my boldly forced interpretation, Entheogenic Eternalism. But it is even much more difficult to make the case for the off-base, mis-focused theory, the Entheogen theory of religious mythology lacking Eternalism theory.
I am theory-based, not evidence-based, and my mission is a tight theory — not historical accuracy. The first order of business is to initially define a tight, clear, distinctive theory of religion and of interpretation of evidence.
Without the Egodeath theory, especially without Eternalism and the explanation of loose cognitive binding enabling mental worldmodel transformation from the Possibilism to the Eternalism mental worldmodel of time, self, and control, entheogen theorists are only playing with half a deck, half the required pieces of a viable solution.
The labor of forced interpretation is hard enough when you have both pieces — entheogens and Eternalism. The case is doubly hard to make when you have conceptual incoherence by advancing the entheogen theory of interpretation without leveraging the partner theory, which is the Eternalism interpretation.
If the fire-purified, fire-impervious salamander doesn’t represent an element from the domain of entheogen plants, what better domain could it refer to?
The true primary referent domain of religious mythology is not visionary plants, but rather, that which they reveal, which is mental worldmodel transformation to Eternalism.
King doesn’t refer to king. Wine doesn’t refer to wine. Salamander doesn’t refer to salamander. Unicorn doesn’t refer to unicorn. Maiden doesn’t refer to maiden.
Mythemes don’t refer primarily to mushrooms. Close but no cigar; no death and rebirth yet, there, into a new mental model of world and personal control agency.
Mythemes refer to the mushroom-revealed Eternalism mental worldmodel transformation.
— Michael Hoffman, the theorist of Egodeath, decoder of religious mythology as Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism
Group: egodeath
Message: 7443
From: egodeath
Date: 24/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
Four Part miniseries discussing the infamous “Roasting the Salamander” illumination that Irvin clearly knows nothing about. (Go figure.) These videos are an expansion of ideas discussed in my…
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
I am not a Christian Mushroom Cult theorist.
I am a Christian Mushroom Eternalism theorist.
I am a critic of the adequacy of the Ruck/Irvin/Rush view. Ruck/Irvin/Rush advocate the Christian Mushroom theory, which is incomplete, and which is false insofar as it poses as complete and claims to have identified the primary referent of myth.
The Christian Mushroom theory lacks Eternalism and — despite Ruck’s book title, which is mispreresentative of his thinking and his book’s content — Ruck lacks cognitive phenomenology.
A bestiary is a book of myth. Therefore it is a book of religious mythology. Therefore it is a book of metaphors describing entheogen-revealed Eternalism.
Animals in myth are analogies to, and metaphors for, mental model transformation from Possibilism to Eternalism, as a model of the world, and a model of personal steering power of control in that world.
— Professor Loosecog
Group: egodeath
Message: 7446
From: egodeath
Date: 24/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
From one of Hatsis’ articles:
“how will Mushroom Cult theorists contend with these trees from bestiaries—red capped, complete with spots?
Is this asp from the Aberdeen Bestiary (12th century) clinging to a “mushroom-tree?” After all, the top is red with passable “white spots.”
Where do asps fit into the Christian Mushroom Cult theory? Also in need of explaination [sic] … violence … “
This thought leapt to mind:
“Jesus dude, stop wasting time reading that Irvin shit and learn the Egodeath theory — illiterate!”
And quit saying “mushroom cult”. Whatever theory you think you are refuting, is irrelevant. All the connections around “mushroom cult” are wrong. It isn’t 1970 anymore. Stop letting Allegro set the limits of your horizon of thinking.
Hatsis is just leading himself further into confusion by reading inferior writers. He needs to learn the Egodeath theory, which is substantially different than Hatsis’ fabricated imagining of a “mushroom cult theory”.
Hatsis is taking the Letcher position: fixate on an imagined variant of entheogen theory and then shadow-box that — a straw man argument.
Better, profitable, with a chance of insight and viable theory, would be to critique the Egodeath theory including the 100% Entheogenic 100% Eternalism theory of religious mythology.
Stop fixating on your imagined “mushroom cult” theory and reorient critical thinking around the Egodeath theory.
I don’t even know what you mean by “mushroom cult” except it is an assumed minimalist Entheogen theory of religion. I reject the minimalist Entheogen theory of religion.
All religion is understood to be based on mushrooms. That is the theory to critique. Hatsis is wasting his time focusing on some other, imagined foe.
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
There are no secular books, per the 100% Entheogen Theory of Religion and Culture. A bestiary is a religious book.
Ruck/Irvin/Rush is blind: he sees mushrooms everywhere.
If Ruck/Irvin/Rush wasn’t blind, he would see the mushroom-revealed Eternalism depictions everywhere.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7451
From: egodeath
Date: 24/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
Hatsis = outsiders critiquing outsiders’ attempts to solve the riddle of religious mythology. The result is confusions upon confusions. It’s a hopeless unraveling problem; they’ll never get it unraveled in any finite time. It’s a malformed criticism of a malformed theory.
The right, effective approach is to start with the Egodeath theory and explain from there and critique from there.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7452
From: egodeath
Date: 24/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
To interpret any item in question, consider the most distinctive position at the right-hand end of three spectrums.
Where these three spectrums intersect at the right-most extreme position is Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism.
The combination of three spectrums at the *left*-hand end is Literalist OSC Possibilism.
To interpret item X, consider how item X is interpreted by those two distinctive easily identifiable positions where the three spectrums’ extreme endpoints intersect or combine.
How does Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism interpret the item?
How does Literalist OSC Possibilism interpret the item?
Group: egodeath
Message: 7453
From: egodeath
Date: 24/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
There is really no focus on the concept of secret in the theory
there is the concept of insiders to understand the analogies and outsiders who fail to understand the analogies
and there is instead what I have instead of the concept of secret is the concept of veiling, that there is a veil hiding the source of control thoughts when the mind is in the tight cognitive state
Group: egodeath
Message: 7454
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
The man with his hand to his forehead is turning to the right like looking behind him and he is on one leg which is a common theme.
There are connections and associations among all mytheme instances.
From the perspective of 100% Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism, what linkage connection associations are there in each of the elements of this picture isomorphic with all other mythology pictures or pictograms, pictorial diagram elements?
Do not analyze elements in isolation; analyze elements in groups spanning all altered state artwork and themes.
Analyze = break out each element:
Mushroom tree refers to loose cognitive binding
Salamander in flames refers to durability of Eternalism
Hand to head refers to poisoned egoic thinking
One leg raised refers to having egoic and transcendent mental models
Head turned right refers to remembering Transcendent Knowledge
Forget this picture as a whole; instead focus on themes interpreted across all art interpreted by 100% Metaphorical 100% Entheogenic 100% Eternalism.
Psilocybin poisons and kills the Possibilism mental model of time, self, and control, in the loose cognitive binding state, producing the Eternalism mental model of time, self, and control, which withstands the revising force of loosecog. Psilocybin causes an experience of remembering (deja vu) cybernetic self- control Eternalism.
You are left with a combination of Eternalism thinking and qualified Possibilism thinking.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7455
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
What Hatsis registers as a problem, does not register as a problem at all from the Egodeath theory.
There’s no conflict between the text and the image.
I’ve seen at least one Greek statue propped up by a debranched tree trunk that instead of the normal snake per the staff of Asclepis has a lizard, thus establishing an equivalence between lizard and Heimarmene worldline snake.
Two out of three images which Hatsis shows, depict a serpent in the tree or in the flames, not a lizard or salamander. So we get straight into the heart of the image of the snake versus tree, where the snake terminates in the fruit of the tree, and we have the Genesis question of “Will you die from the fruit, as God says, or will you not die, as the wise crafty serpent declares?”
You have the association of the serpent leading up to, in his mouth, the fruit, which God and the snake debate.
You will kind of die and you will kind of not die.
You will die and you will not die. Hatsis is perfectly naive using ‘die’. He is ignorant of egodeath.
You will and won’t die. Will you die from eating the serpent-poisoned fruit? Yes and no. The egoic freewill self-concept and world model dies.
We have this poison fruit which poisons the mental model and kills it, leaving you alive with a new different mental model.
Now I am transformed, and when you put me in the flames, or you put me in a sea-storm, I calm the sea-storm.
I have the magical power to raise storms and calm storms.
I have the magical power to create flames and put out flames.
I am an indestructible salamander that is not only immune to the flames, I am so cold I put out the flames.
So there is no conflict between the text and the image.
The Egodeath theory — the Entheogenic Eternalism theory of mythology — enables reconciling and making sense out of this text in conjunction with making sense out of the imagery in the several depictions of the so-called salamander which Hatsis puts forth.
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Group: egodeath
Message: 7456
From: egodeath
Date: 25/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entheogen theory of myth is half-correct
Carl Ruck can’t handle the entheogen theory of myth. He caved and got Hatsis to dissuade him from seeing that a mushroom tree depicts a mushroom.
I am a super genius and I have a ultraradical theory that when you see a mushroom depicted in religious mythology, the secret hidden meaning of that is a mushroom. I am so brilliant and radical to accomplish this decryption, this decoding, this decipherment.
Here is how very far off of the scent, far from the trail, Hatsis is: he does not recognize the bestiary as a religious mythology collection.
Now Ruck has been coerced into saying that this mushroom tree does not depict mushrooms. He is utterly wrong. How can his instinct of interpretation be so weak?
This is what Ruck gets for not applying my theory of interpretation, which glues together these interpretation items that Ruck can only present as isolated assertions.
The Entheogen theory of myth without the Eternalism theory of myth is weak and incoherent, inadequate to glue together a robust interpretation that coheres.
The Egodeath theory 
.jpg){kind=link}
