Toward a Philosophy of Psychedelic Technology: An Exploration of Fear, Otherness, and Control (Houot, 2019)

Michael Hoffman, September 17, 2025

The present page is full text of dissertation.
My orig. notes page: https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/22/toward-a-philosophy-of-psychedelic-technology-an-exploration-of-fear-otherness-and-control-houot-2019/
Citation/link:
Toward a Philosophy of Psychedelic Technology: An Exploration of Fear, Otherness, and Control, A. M. Houot, 2019
https://www.academia.edu/38583547/Toward_a_Philosophy_of_Psychedelic_Technology_An_Exploration_of_Fear_Otherness_and_Control

Site Map: Alan Houot

Contents:

Toward a Philosophy of Psychedelic Technology: An Exploration of Fear, Otherness, and Control [cover page]

By A.M. Houot

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences of the University of Twente in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science MSc Philosophy of Science, Technology and Society

First supervisor/examiner: Dr. Michael Nagenborg

Second reader/examiner: Prof. Dr. Lissa Roberts

Defended on 25 February 2019 Enschede, Netherlands

Page ii

Toward a Philosophy of Psychedelic Technology: An Exploration of Fear, Otherness, and Control [copyright page]

By A. M. Houot © A. M. Houot 2019

Page iii

Abstract

The central question guiding this study is:

In what ways can modern users conceptualize the psychedelic experience that counters the current fear-laden discourse on drugs?

Misconceptions and falsehoods conflate current ways of considering drugs in general and psychedelics in particular.

Fears of psychedelics serve as the framework to apply philosophies of mind and technology to the reexamination and amendment of psychedelic concepts and terms.

Governmental and religious institutional actors fear psychedelic users will:

  • harm one’s self and others because psychedelics are still falsely believed to have analogous properties to mental illness;
  • the incommunicability of seemingly non-rational states cause disjunction between shared sociocultural knowledge; and
  • psychedelics are arguably similar to mystical experiences, thus mainstream religion fears individuals’ direct access to divine realms, which could upend their hierarchical and spiritually monopolistic power structures.

Next, modern researchers commonly advise users to “surrender” to psychedelic experiences, a term likely adopted from mysticism.

Since surrender implies a master role is at play, a discussion on master-subject relations emerge when confronting the “psychedelic Other,” i.e. the spatial context, experiential content, and originating from within or without users’ minds.

To better understand users’ fears, an analysis of known and unknown fears provide context to the ultimate psychedelic fear, that of a conscious and intelligent unknown presence.

Against these fears of psychedelic Others, a new conception of (altered) states of self develops that considers the current debate in cognitive neuroscience and philosophy.

Narrative and minimal selves are co-present during psychedelic experiences depending on dosage and intoxication levels, and a new qualitative framework is proffered to understand these implications.

Finally, it is suggested that modern psychedelic users need not abandon the prototypical mystic to conceptualize their experiences, but instead might consider another prototypical figure, the shaman.

Rather than dealing in surrender and fear like mystics and modern users, drug-taking shamans control and master their experiences through the joint use of symbolism, techniques, and technologies.

A change in prototype also has epistemological significance, that is, from perennialist to constructivist approaches when considering psychedelically subjective knowledge.

In view of built narratives regarding self and knowledge, i.e. narrative self and epistemological constructivism, analysis shows how shamans use symbols with technologies to control their experiences and the idea of symbolico-technological relations is proposed.

The above philosophical insights have prescriptive consequences that provide new opportunities for modern society and users to conceptualize psychedelic experiences, to control them, and as a result, to reduce fear.

Page iv

Preface

This philosophical work addresses fears of psychedelics and proposes new ways of conceptualizing modern society’s and individuals’ relationship to these substances.

Tackling such a project, to rationalize about the seemingly non-rational, was not only demanding but also fun.

I am convinced there is a need to philosophize further about psychedelic experiences since they question the foundations of human thought and experience.

Within the field of philosophy of technology, I applied a humanities approach to my research; however, the engineering/design and ethical approaches should also be researched to expand a philosophy of psychedelic technology.

I want to thank both of my supervisors: Dr. Michael Nagenborg and Prof. Dr. Lissa Roberts.

Michael initially took my project onboard and showed enthusiasm for a subculture he wanted to know more about (that is to say, academically, not experientially).

I believe I can speak for Michael in that we enjoyed scratching our heads during meetings while trying to untie psychedelic knots with our philosophic tools.

And it worked! Thank you Lissa for partaking in shaping my critical mind, pushing us to do our best, and for having reservations about my first “final” thesis proposal.

I know now, only in retrospect, that this was the thesis I was supposed to write and am extremely pleased at what was discovered along the way.

As for MasterLab class, I appreciate the patience of instructor, Dr. Lantz Fleming Miller, who said it was like going on a “trip” merely reading early outlines of this project; I took this as a compliment and knew I was onto something.

I am grateful for the feedback I received from my peer review group, Roos d. J. and an anonymous Finnish man, for their suggestions throughout much of the writing process.

Thank you Alice F., Jonathan d. H., and Patrick M., who gave helpful, and at times, critical, comments at different points in the writing process, and Sam V. and Alessio G. for the living room chats.

Within the Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, I thank the faculty members of the Department of Philosophy and the Department of Science, Technology, and Policy Studies for the brilliant job they do and the intellectually stimulating environment they provide.

The Philosophy of Science, Technology and Society (PSTS) master’s program has given me so much and I hope to give back one day in any way that I can.

Last but not least, I thank my family and friends who supported me and for listening and politely nodding their heads, i.e. not fully understanding my ideas because of my inarticulateness, which compelled me to become clearer in my thinking and writing.

A. M. Houot

Page v

Einstein Quote

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.  It is the source of all true art and science.

He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.

This insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion.

To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness.

In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men.

—Albert Einstein (1931)

Sayim Quote

An encounter with an unknown encourages us to reconsider mental processes that are non-rational, speculative, and intuitive—processes that complement general modes of thinking, which are often ruled by requirements of efficiency and productivity— without disqualifying them a priori as useless, unnecessary, and distracting.

To lose the known, to see the apparently impossible, and to be pushed to guess and speculate, and attend to the transient, faint, and intangible may make us more open to seeing the ordinary as it ultimately is—unknown.

This could be a source for expanding common modes of thinking and of acquiring and producing knowledge—the possibility to review what reality consists of and to imagine and explore the structures and relations that we exist in and create.

—Bilge Sayim and Ivana Franke (2018)

Page vi

Table of Contents

todo: make sure toc at top of present webpage matches this content from the pdf:

Introduction …1

1. Social Order Shakeup …5

1.1 Institutionalization of the human, sane and insane …6

1.1.1 Perceived inhumanness of non-rational persons …7

1.2 Harm to others …9

1.3 Incommunicability of experience and direct access to the divine …11

2. Psychedelic Other and the Self …16

2.1 Master-subject relations …17

2.2 Psychedelic matrix of knowability …21

2.2.1 Known knowns: Bodily surrender …22

2.2.2 Known unknowns: Death, or rather, nondualism …23

2.2.3 Unknown knowns: Unconscious mind …25

2.2.4 Unknown unknowns: Human absence and nonhuman presence …27

2.3 The self: Narrative vs. minimal …31

2.3.1 Understanding self in the presence of psychedelic Other …32

3. Psychedelic Symbolico-technology …36

3.1 Epistemological framing …37

3.2 Practical insights …38

3.2.1 Shamans …39

3.2.2 Modernists …40

3.2.3 Between two world(view)s …41

3.3 Form and technology …42

Conclusion …48

Bibliography …52

Page 1

Introduction

Renewed interest in psychedelic substances is opening up research in therapy and neuroscience.

Scholars and lay experts claim:

  • psilocybin (i.e. visionary mushrooms) alleviates headaches (Sewell et al, 2006);
  • lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and mescaline help patients in psychotherapy (Masters and Houston, 1966);
  • Silicon Valley technologists “microdose” LSD for cognitive enhancement (Brodwin, 2017; Hogan, 2017);
  • 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) aids in couples therapy (Waldman, 2017) and to relieve posttraumatic stress disorder (MAPS, n.d.);
  • ayahuasca and iboga help opioid addicts overcome additions (Winkelman, 2014), and so on.

Additionally, neuroscientists and philosophers study psychedelics’ effects on the brain when looking for neural correlates of: consciousness, mystical experiences, and selfhood (Lebedev et al, 2015; Millière, 2017; Barrett and Griffiths, 2018).

The abovementioned practices intrigue, and, benefit many people in need; yet, the opposite side of the psychedelic coin is hardly discussed in great detail, that of the negative experience or “bad trip,” the fear people experience.

In a recent psilocybin study at John Hopkins University, nearly 40% of hallucinogen-naïve participants reported “extreme ratings of fear, fear of insanity, or feeling trapped at some time during the session” with 44% reporting delusional or paranoid thinking (Griffiths et al, 2011, 656).

I want to know more about the why and what people are fearful of.

Aldous Huxley (2013) writes about fear of mescaline-induced altered states in his seminal work, The Doors of Perception:

The fear, as I analyze it in retrospect, was of being overwhelmed, of disintegrating under a pressure of reality greater than a mind, accustomed to living most of the time in a cosy world of symbols, could possibly bear.

The literature of religious experience abounds in references to the pains and terrors overwhelming those who have come, too suddenly, face to face with some manifestation of the Mysterium tremendum.

In theological language, this fear is due to the incompatibility between man’s egotism and the divine purity, between man’s self-aggravated separateness and the infinity of God (34-35).

For Huxley, the symbols humans create play a comforting role because they represent and define sober reality.

Psychoactive agents such as mescaline put pressure on, or rather, amplify, one’s senses and mind, altering one’s sense of reality, perhaps even revealing obfuscated realities of sublimable significance.

Terence McKenna (1998), another well-known psychedelic writer, says all psychedelics are experientially the same at low doses.

Sub-perceptual and sub-threshold states do not induce the kind of fear I intend to investigate; instead, large doses—or what McKenna (1998, 15) calls “heroic” or “committed” doses (i.e. five dried grams of mushrooms) and what psychologist Stanislav Grof (1980, 2 18-20) calls “single overwhelming dose” (i.e. 250 micrograms of LSD)—tend to induce the most fear.

Fear caused by the overwhelming disintegration of one’s ego and (symbolic) reality depends on dosage, as I shall argue in subsequent chapters.

For example, to understand what the experience entails, McKenna (1998) summarizes the tryptamine family of psychedelics as “interesting” because of: [T]he intensity of the hallucinations and the concentration of activity in the visual cortex.

There is an immense vividness to these interior landscapes; …When one confronts these dimensions, one becomes part of a dynamic relationship relating to the experience while trying to decode what it is saying (35).

Thus, it seems that the vivid vastness of psychedelic dimensions/realities can be too much for the human organism to bear for there is difficulty and potential frustration in translating the experience with the (sober) symbols to which one is accustomed.

Furthermore, the psychedelic experience can be equally as hellish as it is mystical or therapeutic as Huxley suggests from the title of his book, Heaven and Hell.

It is the overwhelming fear, “the Fear1,” brought on by large doses of psychedelics that I will philosophically explore.

In an attempt to rationalize psychedelic experiences, modern scholars since the 1950s commonly equate them to Eastern religious and philosophic traditions such as Buddhism and Vedanta, and more importantly to mysticism (Leary et al, 2007; Huxley, 2013; Shipley, 2015); hence, members of psychedelia2 likely applied the surrender motif found in mystical traditions to their psychedelic experiences.

On the other hand, shamans do not surrender but instead are said to control the psychedelic experience through the use of techniques and technologies.

In this thesis, I reflect upon the use of symbols and technology during seemingly non-rational psychedelic experiences to know more about the interaction between self, Other, human and nonhuman actors.

The central question I am concerned with is: In what ways can modern users conceptualize the psychedelic experience that counters the current fear-laden discourse on drugs?

My aim is to provide new conceptions of psychedelics within the broader field of philosophy of drugs.

I criticize illogical categories, unspecific terms, and dosage and levels of intoxication not being carefully considered.

Properly defining and deconstructing terms allows a clearer picture of what is meant when psychedelics are discussed and how this relates to fear.

Further, I apply the abovementioned critiques to fears stemming from current discourse surrounding psychedelics from the perspectives of modern society/institutions and users.

Considering modern narratives shape my

Footnotes:

1 Journalist Hunter S. Thompson (2005), arguably one of the most eccentric and known drug users of the twentieth century on record and in rumor, recalls a particular weekend in Las Vegas in which his attorney refers to the overwhelmingness of the mescaline experience as “getting the Fear” (47-48).

2 Refers to the psychedelic subculture or community (Sessa, 2012).

Page 3

thinking—particularly when analyzing dualities between sober and intoxicated states, experiential content from within or without the user’s mind, and shamanic and modern worldviews—I do not claim to fully understand societies, cultures, and states of consciousness different to my own.

Rather, I draw on modern academics’ research about other (sub)cultures and their practices in order to confront fear-laden discourse about psychedelics in society, resulting in conclusive prescriptive consequences for modern audiences—academics and users alike—to conceptualize psychedelic experiences anew.

In Chapter 1, I examine modern society’s fears of psychedelic users, represented as (society<–>individual) relations, by asking: How do psychedelics threaten the idea of being a rational subject in modern society where there exists established behavioral norms and shared knowledge among the citizenry?

Society expects individuals to be rational agents making rational decisions, ensuring a synchronization of common knowledge and behavior, i.e. how one should act, (perhaps) think, and speak as a member of society.

I focus the analysis on two institutions threatened by psychedelics: government and religion.

First, through Foucault’s historical analysis on asylums and the mentally ill and a number of pioneering psychedelic researchers, I show that the outdated conception of psychedelics as producing temporary states of mental illness fabricates fears that drug users will harm themselves or others.

Second, Stace’s philosophical analysis of mysticism highlights the incommunicability/ineffability of perceivably non-rational psychedelic experiences that confronts ideals of being a rational subject, causing fear in non-users because users have access to un-relatable experiences.

Furthermore, religious institutions fear psychedelics, and by comparison, mystical, experiences because of their claimed divine nature, thus, direct access to divine realms bypasses mainstream religions’ hierarchical power structures.

In Chapter 2, I aim to understand (self<–>psychedelic Other) relations, posing the question:

To what extent do Otherness and the unknown contribute to individuals’ fears of psychedelics in a modern context?

Individuals’ fears are also modern society’s fears because of the realness and profundity of altered states and nonphysical entities, for example, that confront notions of shared sociocultural knowledge.

Modern psychedelic users’ adoption of mystics’ surrender paradigm, or what I call “surrenderism,” induces fears when confronting what I call the psychedelic Other: the context and content of people’s altered minds.

Surrender implies a master role, and thus, three mastersubject relations emerge to understand in which kind of relationship self and Other engage.

The philosophies of Hegel, Derrida, and Tupper inform master-slave, master/host-guest, and master/teacher-student relations respectively during encounters with psychedelic Others.

Next, I use a framework that I call the psychedelic matrix of knowability to delve into individuals’ likely fears from known knowns (i.e. bodily surrender) to unknown unknowns (i.e. human absence vs. nonhuman presence) borrowing from a multitude of thinkers such as Shanon, Freud, Lovecraft, and Harman.

The ultimate fear, I argue, is of a seemingly conscious and intelligent unknown presence.

Finally, I expand the current debate in cognitive neuroscience and philosophy regarding the concept of self, i.e.

Page 4

between narrative and minimal self, basing my arguments on Gallagher, Zahavi, Millière, Stace, and Pahnke.

Although I make a case that narrative self is dominant in sober states, I propse a new framework accordant with surrenderism, suggesting that both narrative and minimal selves are present during psychedelic experiences depending on dosage and intoxication levels.

In Chapter 3, I pit modern notions of surrender and fear of psychedelic experiences against shamanic traditions of control and mastery.

I contend that modern users need not abandon mystical traditions to explain their psychedelic experiences, however, to consider another prototypical figure, the shaman, to control, thereby reduce, users’ fears discussed in Chapter 2.

Regarding symbols, techniques, and technologies that couple with psychedelics, I investigate: How can technology and the symbol provide a greater sense of control to psychedelic users? First, I explore contrasting epistemological claims within philosophy of religion, offering a rebuttal to the largely perennial arguments used thus far by Stace and Pahnke by bringing in Katz’s epistemological constructivism.

Interestingly, just as narrative and minimal selves are possibly both present during psychedelic experiences depending on dosage, so too, constructivist and perennialist approaches to subjective knowledge are likely also co-present depending on dosage.

Second, I offer practical insights into shamans’ and modern users’ psychedelic techniques and technologies, arguing that one’s worldview determines what kind of knowledge is sought and the means used.

It would be unwise to assume that modern users can use shamans’ methods ipso facto and vice versa.

Finally, I base my final arguments on Cassirer to extrapolate the role of psychedelic symbols and technologies in (self<–>symbolicotechnological<–>psychedelic Other) relations.

I propose that combining symbols with technologies, as drug-taking shamans ostensibly do, form symbolico-technological relations that offer promising avenues of psychedelic research and exploration.

Page 5

Chapter 1: Social Order Shakeup

In an interview called The Rhetoric of Drugs, Jacques Derrida plays devil’s advocate taking policymakers’ position: “…Institutions protect the very possibility of the law in general, for by prohibiting drugs we assure the integrity and responsibility of the legal subject, of the citizens, and so forth.

There can be no law without the conscious, vigilant, and normal subject, master of his or her intentions and desires” (1995, 230).

As Derrida points out, the prohibition of drugs aims to guarantee basic, rational standards are in place.

Drug use manifests another kind of rationality during and after the experience—one that may seem non-rational to most people.

Psychedelic use is not prohibited in all countries and cultures.

For the purpose of this discussion, I focus mainly on modern societies, using the United States as a case study where psychedelics are illegal for general consumption.

I do not intend to give a comprehensive account of modernity, society or social order for they comprise entire academic fields on their own.

Nevertheless, I offer the following definitions below.

Sociologist Anthony Giddens has written extensively on modernity, defining it as: “modes of social life or organization”; originating in seventeenth-century Europe eventually spreading to other parts of the world; and characterized by four main institutions: capitalism, industrialism, surveillance, and control of the means of violence, i.e. warfare (1990, 1, 55-63).

Important to note is industrialism because this institution requires science, technology, and rationality.

Furthermore, Giddens views modern society as a “post-traditional order” that “institutionalises the principle of radical doubt and insists that all knowledge takes the form of hypotheses: claims which may very well be true, but which are in principle always open to revision and may have at some point to be abandoned” (1991, 2-3).

Constantly doubting knowledge creates a society that values objectivity, repeatability, and justification through methods such as the scientific method.

Society can be seen as a collective of individuals governed by multiple institutions that promote shared common denominators, such as language, culture, history, and so forth.

Everyone in a society is unlikely to be homogenous; yet, it is assumed that all members have a baseline level of understanding and knowledge about their sociocultural constitution wherefore members can smoothly function with one another.

I define society institutionally rather than normatively (i.e. social norms, values) because institutions deal with insubordinate behavior through laws and sanctions whereas violated norms might result in mild reprimands.

Therefore, the informal rules that are social norms (bottom-up approach to social order) are but one part of the larger, formal institutional system (topdown approach) (Miller, 2011; Bicchieri et al, 2018; see also: Elster, 1989, 97-107).

I allude to two ubiquitous institutions in modern society threatened by psychedelics: government and religion.

This chapter is about modern society’s fears of individuals taking psychedelics, asking: How do psychedelics threaten the idea of being a rational subject in modern society where there exists established behavioral norms and shared knowledge among the citizenry? I answer this question by 6 drawing on the work of Gehlen, Berger, and Luckmann to establish the arguable need for institutions in society that give stability to people’s (“undirected”) lives.

Foucault’s historical analysis of madness and asylums provides context to the institutionalization of individuals who do not or cannot conform and highlights the pivotal moment when mad persons were segregated from sane, albeit immoral, individuals.

While I focus on the potential for self-harm in Foucault’s analysis, and past academics’ false assumptions that psychedelics share analogous properties with mental illness, I argue that the government fears psychedelics’ degenerating/maddening effects, and thus, their potential to harm others.

Finally, through Stace’s philosophical analysis on mysticism, I show how governmental and religious institutions fear psychedelics because the incommunicability of altered experiences confront shared knowledge of members of society, and religious power structures are threatened by psychedelic users’ access to possible divine realms.

1.1 Institutionalization of the human, sane and insane

Individuals learn to depend on institutions for society’s functioning since they provide a sense of social stability.

Sociologists Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann (1991) define institutionalization as: “…Whenever there is a reciprocal typification of habitualized actions by types of actors” (72), and more precisely as, “…the sum total of ‘what everybody knows’ about a social world, an assemblage of maxims, morals, proverbial nuggets of wisdom, values and beliefs, myths, and so forth” (83).

Institutions provide direction and structure to humans that lack the arguably stable biological condition present in other animals.

Philosophical anthropologist, Arnold Gehlen, argues that humans’ biological instability take the form of “undirected drives,” and thus non-biological methods of containing these drives, such as culture and institutions, provide stability “to relieve [humans] of the tensions caused by the accumulation of these drives” (Berger and Kellner, 1965, 111-112).

Animals may not act rationally in the way humans do; however, animal biology, according to Gehlen, gives stability and order to their lives.

Animals’ instinctual drives are directed towards an environment suited to them, while humans lack such specialization of drives, born into an “open world” (Weltoffenheit), i.e. not a “species-specific environment” (ibid., 111).

Undirected drives and desires, especially in groups, can be detrimental to the survivability of the human species.

Humans’ ability to rationalize can be used for good or ill; in other words, humans are able to plan and execute their drives on a grander scale than animals, which is contradictory, at times, to peaceful co-existence between humans and/or other living organisms.

The human being becomes accustomed to and accepts being one of many individuals in a collective through stabilization, routinization, and habitualization.

In addition to acting as outlets to channel undirected drives, institutions also act as moral yardsticks, so to speak, to quell the drives that do not serve the collective good.

For Gehlen, this “mechanization of consciousness” through shared sociocultural media simultaneously constrains and supports individuals: constraining in that once individuals are “collectivized” they “only give out such fragments of desire …as the large group will 7 accept” (2003, 218-219), and supporting since “the burden of human living would be too heavy without a ‘background’ of routinized activity the meaning of which is taken for granted” (Berger and Kellner, 1965, 112).

For example, one can call a simple three-digit telephone number in an emergency and expect police, fire, and/or medical services to arrive shortly thereafter.

Berger and Luckmann (1991) concur with Gehlen, saying that institutional habitualization narrows the choices for individuals, hence, “…Freeing the individual from the burden of ‘all those decisions,’ providing a psychological relief that has its basis in man’s undirected instinctual structure” (71).

Gehlen, Berger, and Luckmann show the necessity of social institutions to account for the biological lack in “normal” human beings.

Nevertheless, some individuals operate outside of commonly accepted reason and rationality.

Eventually, there comes a moment when society is tested, resulting in society taking action appropriate to the threat.

The fear of madness led the sane to establish asylums, i.e. mental institutions, to confine the mentally ill—including deviants and dangerous individuals—with the hope of ensuring the orderliness3 of society.

The mental order of the masses can be viewed as a microcosm of social order just as mental disorder in large numbers is a microcosm of social disorder.

I examine madness and its containment in the following.

1.1.1 Perceived inhumanness of non-rational persons

Michel Foucault historicizes the conceptual evolution of madness in Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason.

For Foucault (1988), the forerunner to modern psychiatric hospitals took the form of confined leper colonies on the outskirts of urban settlements.

As leprosy declined, the empty edifices used to house lepers were converted into workhouses.

French society, among other European countries, confined a slew of “undesirable” people to workhouses from the medieval period until the late-eighteenth century, such as lepers, criminals, delinquents, the poor/unemployed/mad, etc.

A defining moment in the way madness (mental illness) is portrayed today, to some extent, occurred when early-eighteenth-century prisoners implored Hôpital directors to separate them from the cries and confusion of the madmen:

Hence an abyss yawns in the middle of confinement; a void which isolates madness, denounces it for being irreducible, unbearable to reason; madness now appears with what distinguishes it from all these confined forms as well.

The presence of the mad appears as an injustice; but for others (Foucault, 1988, 228).

In this way, sane criminals were shown mercy when hospital directors segregated the mad from living quarters and workshop floors.

Footnotes:

3 The confinement of selected (mad) individuals was not only to protect society’s sane and moral, but also could be construed as a guise to lock up all “undesirables,” representative of Foucauldian power relations.

See next section.

Page 8

What does it imply about the mentally ill if they must segregate from sane, albeit immoral, individuals?

Foucault’s analysis focuses on four types of madness—melancholia, hysteria, hypochondria, and mania.

All four share varying degrees of irrational behavior in Foucault’s (1988) definition of madness: “Madness begins where the relation of man to truth is disturbed and darkened.

It is in this relation, at the same time as in the destruction of this relation, that madness assumes its general meaning and its particular forms” (104).

In eighteenth-century France, mania instilled the most fear in the sane, for it was the most extreme and disruptive form of madness.

Hospital directors’ definition of mania is as follows: prone to violence, frenzy, elevated spirits, audacity, fury, explosive gestures, agitation, unaffected by extreme cold temperatures, and, “a tension of the fibers carried to its paroxysm, the maniac a sort of instrument whose strings, by the effect of an exaggerated traction, began to vibrate at the remotest and faintest stimulus” (ibid., 122-129).

An updated understanding of mania is found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

The DSM-5 states mania is common among schizophrenic and psychotic disorders with a range of symptoms depending on the severity of the manic episode, such as: “inflated self-esteem or grandiosity, decreased need for sleep, more talkative than usual, racing thoughts, distractibility, psychomotor agitation, and excessive involvement in activities that have a high potential for painful consequences” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, 124).

The eighteenth-century definition of mania is quite different from today’s understanding of mental disorders and may refer to different illnesses altogether.

However, the point stands that non-rational behavior might be something to be cautious of or contain if necessary, irrespective how it is defined.

The above accounts of madness, particularly mania, were seen as reminiscent of animalistic behavior, at the very least when juxtaposed to sane individuals.

What is it about animals and the inhuman behavior of the insane that broods fear in society? Foucault (1988) says, “The animality that rages in madness dispossesses man of what is specifically human in him” (74).

That is not to say sane people are exempt from fits of passion; however, according to Foucault’s historical analysis, the untamedness of arresting bestial-like passions is to be animal-like, to be inhuman.

Where does one draw the line between reason and unreason, human and animal, human and inhuman? In moving from historical to contemporary thoughts on this matter, philosopher of mind and mental illness, George Graham, offers practical boundaries for disordered minds in orderly society.

For Graham (2010), there are three main reasons why mental disorders are undesirable for individuals and society: 1) disorders can be harmful or dangerous leading to incomprehensibility or death, 2) disorders are of a non-voluntary and uncontrollable nature, and 3) disorders upset the functioning of general mentality and cannot be restored by simply adding other psychological resources (46-47).

Unpredictability and harm are important to note.

An individual unbound from reason could act highly irrationally and erratically, and thus, such unpredictability could lead to harming oneself.

The insane might not comprehend the potential harm they could inflict for they know not what they do or why they do it.

“Being in the dark about one’s own person means that an individual is incapable of rational 9 self-scrutiny or taking proper responsibility for self” (ibid., 46).

It is no wonder individuals who fit Foucault’s and Graham’s descriptions were feared and confined.

Various degrees of mental illness test the bounds of rationality and perceived humanness of individuals.

Since the widespread outburst of psychedelic use in the mid-twentieth century, namely during the 1960s in United States, until now, modern society has been confronted with serious questions concerning supposed temporary states of mental illness caused by psychedelic substances.

I discuss next the claimed analogous properties between mental illness and psychedelics, and what regarding psychedelics alarms government.

1.2 Harm to others

From modern society’s perspective, concerns of unpredictability and potential for self-harm in insane individuals, as mentioned above, are comparable to psychedelic use since early researchers considered psychedelics as temporary states of mental illness.

Early- to mid-twentieth century psychiatrists and psychologists took an interest in, and doses of, psychedelics because of psychedelics’ perceived ability to produce states of insanity in otherwise healthy subjects.

Psychiatrist Humphrey Osmond (1957) mentions Gerard’s (1956) term, psychotomimetic, to describe compounds that alter individuals’ minds, i.e. mimics states of psychosis, schizophrenia, and delirium (see also: Osmond, 1970; Strassman, 1984).

In Osmond’s estimation, one cannot fully understand something unless one experiences4 it:

“There is one golden rule that should be applied in working with model psychoses.  One should start with oneself” (1957, 421).

Former Czechoslovakian researchers in the 1950-60s self-experimented with LSD to grasp a richer understanding of non-ordinary psychological states and mental illness, to learn more about the substance, and thus to be able, so they thought, to help their patients more effectively (Winkler and Csémy, 2014).

Erich Guttmann (1936), another psychedelic pioneer, wrote a paper called Artificial Psychoses Produced by Mescaline in which he details the alteration and amplification of his subjects’ senses, including reports that schizophrenics given mescaline had more auditory hallucinations than their non-schizophrenic counterparts.

At least two observations can be deduced from the above research foci: psychedelics allegedly mimic states of mental illness (1) artificially (not in a synthetic substance sense but rather the ability to experience an altered mental state at will merely ingesting a substance), and (2) temporarily.

The aforementioned researchers among others were under the impression that there was something to learn about mental illness from artificial and temporary psychedelic states.

Early researchers were motivated to compare the reported effects experienced by individuals suffering from mental illness with psychedelics’ believed temporary maddening effects in healthy individuals.

4 Don Ihde (2004) argues similarly that philosophers of technology “must ‘go native’” to some degree regarding the technologies and practices they study, becoming more than distant observer toward informed participant (91).

Page 10

Historical and current conceptions of mental illness, and “temporary mental illness” via psychedelics by extension, were/are assumed to produce inhuman qualities in users, leading to unpredictable consequences for drug users and others.

Thus, the second worry society might have about psychedelics concerns harm to others.

John Stuart Mill (1996) asks when society should intervene in individuals’ actions, concluding that society should restrict an individual’s autonomy when the individual’s actions directly or indirectly harm others: “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (110).

Mill does not concern himself with people “[mature] of their faculties” (ibid); though, it can be argued that sane or insane people harming themselves costs taxpayers through hospitals, police, and other public services, thus the State may deem it necessary to intervene.

For example, the psychiatric division of a hospital in New York City during the 1960s reported a surge in self-experimenting individuals who took between 200-400 micrograms of LSD and needed treatment (Frosch et al, 1965).

From health and financial perspectives, the State could deem such “surges” as grounds for regulating particular substances to protect people from themselves and others, and to save taxpayer money.

The counterculture movement of the 1960s produced a turbulent era in U.S. history.

In September 1968—amid the Vietnam War, the draft, civil/gay/environmental/women’s rights movements, and vast experimental drug use—Nixon denounced drugs in his campaign to be president: “Narcotics are the modern curse of American youth” (Musto and Korsmeyer, 2002, 42).

While only three percent of polled citizens thought drugs and alcohol posed problems to the nation (ibid., 39), Nixon believed that all drug use—particularly heroin and cocaine (ibid., 43) but including psychedelics—led to crime, deviance, and social disorder.

The public soon adopted Nixon’s views when reports surfaced of increased drug use among soldiers stationed in Vietnam.

The impact of drugs on combat readiness, coupled with the belief that soldiers were on drugs during the My Lai Massacre in March 1968 (ibid., 48-50), further compounded by increased use of LSD and other drugs back home, prompted Nixon to sign into law the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act (CDAPCA) in 1970, in effect banning most psychedelics as Schedule I drugs (the most severe classification).

Foucault (1988) speaks of a “great fear” spreading after the “great confinement” of society’s debauchees; citizens were scared of the unknown and mysterious evils housed in the asylums, of the “fermentation” of a “contagious atmosphere” that could contaminate the cities (ibid., 202-207).

Similarly, the current “war on drugs” does not take issue with psychedelics being regarded as nonaddictive 5, but rather from the fear of drugs’ ability to degenerate and deprive the minds of unwitting individuals.

Footnotes:

5 Psychedelics are not proven per se to be non-addictive; nevertheless, many researchers regard them as such considering LSD, peyote, ibogaine, and ayahuasca have the ability to reduce cravings for addictive drugs (Winkelman, 2014).

This would suggest that even if psychedelics were addictive, frequent use of them would annul addictive effects.

It is argued as

Page 11

Greater homogeneity of the collective ideally leads to greater social conformity, and thus, agreement of foundational sociocultural norms and knowledge.

Deviants who do not conform to endorsed principles face fines and confinement among other penalties to steer behavior.

Change, especially of the minds of citizens via drugs, is conceivably daunting for modern society to endure.

As seen from the government’s continuance of drug prohibition, institutions thereby suggest the direction of individuals’ drives to prevent deviance from spreading.

Hence, the perceived drug-addled individual is less likely to conform to the collective than sober individuals and potentially could be more dangerous to one’s self and others.

Until now, I centered on the government’s fear of harm caused by drugs.

In the following final section, I address another of society’s fear of drugs, that of the incommunicability of the psychedelic experience and direct access to possible divine realms.

1.3 Incommunicability of experience and direct access to the divine

Foucault (1988) was interested in mad persons and their work, such as de Sade, Artaud, Nietzsche, Bosch, and Goya to name several.

There is something peculiar about such works in that the average person may be unable or not inclined to identify with the mad artist’s creative expressions; something is lost in translation between the insane and the sane person’s “dictionaries,” so to speak.

It could be argued that many people do not take the insane seriously and therefore their art, or their art may be upsetting to experience, as a quick Google search for “schizophrenic art” shows.

Likewise, modern society fears psychedelics since: the

(1) incommunicability of such experiences lead nonusers to question the accounts of psychedelic users who employ

(a) different vocabularies in their attempts to

(b) explain mystifying experiences that are probably not relatable, and

(2) mystical-like psychedelic experiences might offer direct access to otherworldly and divine realms that threaten the hierarchical power structures of religious institutions.

The first likely umbrella term for “hallucinating substances” was called phantastica, given by German pharmacologist Louis Lewin (1924).

Until Osmond coined the term psychedelic to mean, “mind manifesting,” psychoactive compounds were called by a number of off-putting names by psychiatrists; for instance: psychotomimetic, schizogen, psychotica, psychotogen, phantastica, hallucinogen, and elixir (Osmond, 1957).

Even today, the idea of taking a schizogen or psychotogen might impress fear upon the minds of users and non-users alike.

As for recreational users prior to the term psychedelic, I have yet to find any literature of amateurs referring to a particular class of drugs that refer to what are known today as psychedelics.

The only difference between terminology used by academics/professionals and amateur researchers/recreational users seems to be that the latter refer to drugs by their specific name as Huxley does in The Doors of Perception and Heaven and Hell.

Footnotes:

[con’t from previous page:] well that the intense side effects of psychedelics do not make them addictive, i.e. these are substances one would not take everyday as done with other drugs (Lerner and Lyvers, 2006).

Furthermore, rapid tolerance of LSD use shows psychic effects “significantly diminished” by the second or third consecutive day (Trulson and Jacobs, 1979), making the drug inconsequential to users who took it for its desired effects.

Page 12

Ruck et al (1979) argue for a new term, entheogen, to describe the experience produced by psychedelic compounds since the root psycho- is reminiscent of psychosis and psychotic.

Entheogen means to “generate the divine within” and is better suited, according to Ruck et al, to mean “prophetic seizures, erotic passion and artistic creation, as well as to those religious rites in which mystical states were experienced through the ingestion of substances that was transubstantial with the deity” (1979, 146).

On the one hand, highly addictive drugs like heroin (opioid) and cocaine (stimulant) are undoubtedly degenerative, wasting away one’s body and mind; on the other hand, the above proponents of psychedelics claim that entheogens are generative, particularly of “the divine within.”

Interesting to note is the terminological shift of psychedelic experiences from temporary state of mental illness to mystical experience, and the principal users of these substances shifting from psychiatrists, academicians, and shamans to eventually include average modern persons.

In a recent study, 667 participants were surveyed of which more than one third of participants report using psychedelics for “autognostic” purposes—religious or spiritual practices, self-knowledge and self-inspection, and self-medication—and half say they use all types of drugs for the same reasons (Móró et al, 2011, 193-194).

Whether the reconceptualization of psychedelics to entheogens had a positive effect on people’s autognostic motives for taking these substances today is still unclear, but possible.

Ruck et al (1979) mention “religious rites” and “mystical states” in their definition of entheogen; what is the connection between mystical states and psychedelics to which they refer?

Philosopher of mysticism, Walter Stace (1960), identifies a “common core” of universal characteristics found in mystic traditions across religions and cultures: unity/union (unifying vision or consciousness); non-spatiality/non-temporality; sense of objectivity or reality; blessedness and peace; feeling of the holy, sacred, or divine; paradoxicality; and ineffability (131-132).

Techniques used by mystics to access these states include but are not limited to: heavy breathing, shouting, singing, selfflagellation, and fasting to increase carbon dioxide (in the blood and lungs), and histamine and adrenaline (leading to shock), affecting the brain, which ultimately affects the subject’s consciousness (Huxley, 2013, 90-97; see also: Masters and Houston, 1966, 248-250).

Psychedelics also affect the brain to produce mystical experiences.

For example, Philosopher of religion, Walter Pahnke (1963), discovered in his now famous Good Friday Experiment that psychedelics replicate mystical experiences: Psychedelic-naïve divinity students receiving psilocybin in a double-blind experiment had more of a religious/mystical experience compared to students given a placebo.

(Pahnke uses Stace’s typology of characteristics found in mysticism to gauge participants’ experiences.)

In a similar experiment, 58% and 67% respectively, of psychedelic-naïve volunteers “rated the psilocybin-occasioned experience as being among the five most personally meaningful, and among the five most spiritually significant experiences of their lives,” with 58% of volunteers meeting the criteria for a “complete” mystical experience after a 14-month follow-up (Griffiths et al, 2008, 621; see also: Griffiths et al, 2011; Grob et al, 2013).

Yaden et al (2017) take the psychedelic-mysticism connection one step further, claiming that religious, spiritual, or mystical experiences 13 (RSMEs) brought on by psychedelics are more mystical, spiritual, and meaningful than RSMEs caused by non-psychedelic means.

The empirical evidence above suggests the competence of psychedelics to occasion mystical experiences including the potential to surpass traditional mysticism techniques.

When asked whether drug and mystical experiences were similar, Stace went so far as declaring: “It’s not a matter of its being similar to mystical experience; it is mystical experience” (Smith, 1964, 523-524).

In light of psychedelics being experientially similar6 to mysticism to a great degree, another similarity psychedelics presumably share with mysticism is the ineffability reported by mystics about their experiences.

The symbolic language used to describe intense emotional experiences of immensity, sublimity, and formlessness (i.e. “the void”) (Stace, 1960, 287-288) and “‘fading away,’ ‘melting away,’ ‘passing away’ into the infinite or the divine” (ibid., 301) leads Stace to construct a “theory of unconceptualizability.”

Such a theory suggests mystical experiences are: [W]holly unconceptualizable and therefore wholly unspeakable.

This must be so.

You cannot have a concept of anything within the undifferentiated unity because there are no separate items to be conceptualized.

Concepts are only possible where there is a multiplicity or at least a duality (ibid., 297).

The core of the ineffable nature of mystical experiences stems from the idea that in order for concepts to emerge—an X vs. a Y, a subject vs. an object—the individual is dependent upon and must be working with non-mystical consciousness where the rules of logic can be applied.

For this reason, it is difficult to understand what mystics mean by a fading individuality, the Universal Self, or the One, and by default, such ineffability can be applied to psychedelic experiences as well.

Likewise, McKenna (1998) comments on the unspeakableness of psychedelic experiences: “Reality is truly a creature made of language and of linguistic structures that you carry, unbeknown to yourself, in your mind, and that under the influence of psilocybin these begin to dissolve and allow you to perceive beyond the speakable.

The contours of the unspeakable begin to emerge into your perception, and though you can’t say much about the unspeakable, it has power to color everything you do …it is the invoking of the Other” (69).

The unconceptualizability, and thus ineffability, of mystical and psychedelic states suggest that mystics and psychedelic users’ egos merge into a “nondualistic” state of being.

Stace says the difference in interpretation between Eastern and Western mysticism is similar, but varies somewhat.

The Vedantic (Hindu) interpretation says “the individual self and the Universal Self are not two existences but [were always already] identical,” that is, the individual’s pure ego merges with the pure ego of the Universe in a sort of homecoming; whereas the Christian, Islamic, and Judaic mystic

6 See also Stace’s (1960) “principle of causal indifference”: If mystical and drug-induced experiences are phenomenologically indistinguishable it matters not how they are caused (29-30).

Page 14

interpretation is one of “union with God,” i.e. union of mortal and deity (Stace, 1960, 90).

In either case, the nondual state indicates individuals surrendering, and then merging, into a unitary state with the Other.

Religious institutions are arguably threatened by psychedelics, but also by mystics’ practices, because one potentially bypasses the mediated means, i.e. the priest class, to commune with God, being able to experience the divine directly.

Users’ motives in taking psychedelics are not always spiritual.

Psychiatrist Ben Sessa (2012) says people take psychedelics for a number of reasons depending on what they want to get out of the experience, such as: synesthesia effects, access to archetypal legends, contact deceased family members, access memories and events from one’s past, experience heightened states of empathy toward others, or experience alternative ways of being and knowing in “hyperspace” dimensions (17- 20).

Furthermore, psychedelic users would disagree with the claim that psychedelics degrade or degenerate the body or mind, makes one less human, digresses one into animalism, or causes one to lack in some way.

Rather, they would argue the opposite, in that, psychedelics extend the mind, allowing one to transcend the biological, sensorial apparatuses with which one was born to experience altered states of consciousness (ASC), thought, reality, and the Other.

In a subchapter titled “Notes from the Psychedelic Underground,” Masters and Houston (1966) state that psychedelic users “feel very strongly that their motivation is healthy and ethical” and that users see these drugs as a “tool for bringing about changes which they deem desirable …emphasis is on enhancement of inner experience and on the development of hidden personal resources” (57-58).

The mentally ill, mad artists and thinkers, mystics, and psychedelic users share something in common that modern society fears: an incommensurability of experience by a large portion of the population and thus a difficulty in expressing such experiences.

As for mystics, but also applicable to anyone experiencing drug- and nondrug-induced ASCs, Stace (1960) says they can and do explain quite well their experiences; however, “the language is only paradoxical because the experience is paradoxical.

Thus the language correctly mirrors the experience” (305).

The synchronization of sociocultural common denominators become out of sync when modern users recount their psychedelic experiences, which ultimately have not been approved by modern society as expressed by past and current drug laws.

Perceived threats and non-rationality stemming from psychedelics—i.e. harm to self and others, insufficiently communicating experiences, and accessing divine realms—could create fearful tensions between users and non-users since nonusers do not share a common understanding of psychedelic experiences and in some cases work with outdated conceptions of what psychedelics are and what they do.

Modern society asserts that drugs deprive and degenerate, while mystics and psychedelic users appeal to notions of generating the divine within, extension, enhancement, and transcendence.

All psychedelics are drugs but not all drugs are psychedelics; a present-day reexamination is needed to dissociate the two categories.

Insofar as psychiatrists have learned much about mental illness since the time of eighteenth-century France, it is conceivable that academics will make further discoveries 15 that validate psychedelic users’ claims, and as a result, change society’s perception of psychedelics as well.

Whereas (society<–>individual) relations were discussed in this chapter, the next chapter examines (self<–>psychedelic Other) relations.

Many, if not most, psychedelic experiences appear to be positive and insightful; yet bad experiences can and do happen, which leads to an investigation of individuals’ fears of the experience itself, namely: the Other, knowns and unknowns, and the self.

Page 16

Chapter 2: Psychedelic Other and the Self

As I argue in the previous chapter, there are numerous testimonial and empirical evidence and philosophical analyses suggesting that mystical and psychedelic experiences are very similar.

Psychedelic users in modern society—who I refer to as “modernists” henceforth—recognized and lionized many parallels with mystical traditions such as the surrender motif.

Before addressing drugtaking shamans’ role in philosophic and psychedelic discourse in Chapter 3, I analyze modernists’ borrowed notion of surrender as it relates to the prototypical nature of the mystic in addition to individuals’ psychedelically-related/amplified fears and concepts of self.

Modernists inspired this chapter.

But it is not written for them; rather, it is for philosophers and neuroscientists to rationalize and make sense of psychedelic experiences, and to shed some light on concepts of self when confronted with the “psychedelic Other.” I define psychedelic Other as: alterations in spatio-temporal context, experiential content such as entities, and stemming from within or without the user’s mind.

In consideration of fearful individuals, to what extent do Otherness and the unknown contribute to individuals’ fears of psychedelics in a modern context? Chapter 2.1 deconstructs the concept of surrender, which involves one actor submitting to another, thereby signaling a master-subject relation.

Through Hegel, Derrida, and Tupper, I deduce at least three kinds of relationships that psychedelic users find themselves in when confronting a psychedelic “master” so to speak: master-slave, master/host-guest, and master/teacher-student respectively.

All three relations signify an inward struggle between the sober self and intoxicated self before and after surrendering to the psychedelic Other, although such relations might also manifest in struggles with external entities, as discussed in Chapter 2.2.4 Chapter 2.2 discusses four categories of what is known about individual psychedelic fears borrowed from Rumsfeld’s famous “there are known knowns” comment regarding terrorist risk assessment.

In what I call the psychedelic matrix of knowability, known knowns: bodily surrender (e.g. purgation), known unknowns: death and nondualism, unknown knowns: Freud’s concept of unconscious mind, and unknown unknowns: human absence and nonhuman presence, provide a framework to conceptualize the progression of psychedelic fears from within to potentially from without the user’s mind.

Upon establishing the surrendering motif represented in master-subject relations and what psychedelic users likely fear during their experiences, I aim in Chapter 2.3 to understand what kind of self confronts psychedelic Other(s).

Gallagher and Zahavi argue that self is a “minimal self” in sober conditions and Millière argues for minimal self also during intoxicated states.

Conversely, I argue that self is mostly of the “narrative” sort in sober conditions and during most phases of the psychedelic experience.

However, I show that self can be narrative and minimal depending on dosage and during which stage of experience is considered, thereby suggesting a new framework to qualitatively analyze psychedelically intoxicated conceptions of selfhood that coincide with modernists’ surrenderism.

Page 17

2.1 Master-subject relations

The narratives one tells about one’s self do not develop in a vacuum.

Individual narratives budge against the narratives of others, including the grand social narratives discussed in Chapter 1.

One facet of the narrative self approach7 is that subjects are embodied, and thus embedded, in a society wherein interaction between other selves occur (Schechtman, 2011, 404-405).

Individuals arguably have an (informed, fairly good) idea who they are and where they stand in contrast to other humans and perhaps other living organisms; but how should the individual consider him- or herself when confronted with the psychedelic Other?

In the following, I discuss the concept of surrender and how one might conceptualize (self<–>psychedelic Other) relations.

Mystics and modernists encounter “the Other” during their experiences.

Surrendering to this Other, whatever it may be, gives credence to its overwhelming nature and incomprehensibleness.

William James says in his psychological analysis of self-surrender in religious contexts, “There are only two ways in which it is possible to get rid of anger, worry, fear, despair, or other undesirable affections.

One is that an opposite affection should overpoweringly break over us, and the other is by getting so exhausted with the struggle that we have to stop—so we drop down, give up, and don’t care any longer” (2002, 167).

More specifically, the mystic yields to a similar kind of “abeyance” or passive state in which he or she is “grasped or held by a superior power” (ibid., 295).

Modernists can strive to be unafraid and/or in control to counteract fears brought on by mystical states; however, if or when such measures prove unsuccessful, the individual will, according to James, surrender to the experience with no choice but to let it happen.

The concept of surrender in modern psychedelia is largely found in therapy and harm reduction texts8 (Masters and Houston, 1966; Blewett, 1970; Leary et al, 2007; Johnson et al, 2008; Girón, 2013).

As James notes, an unsustainable struggle leads to exhaustion, which leads to surrender.

Likewise, modernists give themselves over to the substance when they eventually let their “defenses” down: [T]he individual must either struggle to reassemble his shattered defenses …or he must forgo his customary defenses and surrender them by accepting a revision of his self-concept.

This point of surrender is the crux of the experience, for it forms the great divide in the individual’s psychological response to the impact of the drug (Blewett, 1970, 346).

Footnotes:

7 To be discussed in detail in Chapter 2.3.

8 For details on psychedelic users’ personal accounts of surrendering, see: Erowid.org’s Experience Vaults (https://erowid.org/experiences); Fadiman’s (2011) research with LSD; and Strassman’s (2001) research with DMT, to name several.

Page 18

It appears that intense psychogenic effects escalate toward a crescendo at which point the self cannot cope and then gives up.

For this reason, psychedelics force the modernist9 to accept: his or her predicament, a loss of partial or total control over the body and mind, and submission.

How then should the psychedelic Other be regarded when individuals must surrender to it and on what foundation is this relationship based?

There seems to be a master role at play by way of surrender.

What is, or can be assumed of, the narrative of the psychedelic Other?

Answers to the above question help inform the following:

When confronted with a master-like, psychedelic Other, what role does the submitting individual assume?

Next, I examine three master-subject relations such as

  • master-slave (Hegel),
  • master/host-guest (Derrida), and
  • master/teacher-student (Tupper) to draw out the psychedelic Other regarding how it confronts the self.

Master-slave relation

Hegel’s master-slave dialectic is a paradoxical exercise in recognizing self-consciousness in others and oneself.

For Hegel (1977), two persons meet and become uncertain of themselves as independent, essential beings in the presence of the other.

Both persons desire to be certain of their being through the other’s recognition, but there can only be a “recognized” and a “recognizing” (Hegel, 1977, 112-113).

With one’s “being-for-self” at stake, both persons fight to the death until one submits to the other for fear of dying, resulting in one master and one slave: the master risked his life for the recognition he so desired, thus attaining the status of an essential being by negating the slave (ibid., 112-116).

In one sense, the master is independent because he gained his recognition and freedom from the other; however, he is dependent on the slave for said recognition.

The person that risks life attains the truth that he is an essential being and attains a sense of freedom in knowing that fact for he won the struggle.

The slave recognizes being-for-self in the victor and negates himself just as the master negates the slave, since the slave lost the life-or-death struggle for recognition.

In modern notions of the psychedelic experience, the pre-surrender stage is equivalent to two competing states of mind: that of sober self and intoxicated self.

As both selves fight for recognition from each other, or rather for control over the individual’s single mind, sober self (slave) surrenders to the overpowering intoxicated self (master) in the face of ego dissolution/death.

As understood in Hegel’s analysis, the master is dependent on the slave; likewise, the psychedelic post-surrender stage consists of a dependence relationship where intoxicated self presumably uses sober self—i.e. the sober self’s lived experience or narrative self as it were—for inspiration, ideas, addressing repressed feelings and traumas, etc., to evaluate, activate, and manipulate for the sober self to process during the experience.

For the sober self’s part, “work” is thus required to attain being-for-self just as the master had achieved through the initial struggle for recognition.

Hegel says, “…Although the fear of the lord [master] is indeed the beginning of wisdom, consciousness is not therein aware that it is a being-for-

9 I say modernist specifically because shamans are said to control experiences and appear to not experience psychedelics in the same way.

See Chapter 3.

Page 19

itself.

Through work, however, the bondsman [slave] becomes conscious of what he truly is” (1977, 118).

The master learns one lesson in being-for-self insofar as winning the initial life-or-death struggle; the slave effectively learns many lessons in his attainment of being-for-self by shaping himself through introspection and the skills learned in serving the master.

For the slave, attainment of self and thus recognition is learned through the initial fear of the Other (master) and “self-will” to improve (ibid., 119).

As will be discussed in Chapter 3, modern users may be able to learn from shamans and their practices to control psychedelic experiences when facing the psychedelic Other.

Master/host-guest relation

Another way to understand master-subject relations is through Derrida’s (2000) analysis of hospitality.

In this scenario, there is a host or master of the house, and a guest or foreigner/stranger.

Derrida demonstrates the notion of hospitality requested by Socrates in Plato’s Apology of Socrates.

Socrates is foreign to the courts and thus does not speak the legal jargon.

He asks to be treated as a foreigner, and as such, to be shown hospitality as was customary in ancient Athens.

Two forms of hospitality emerge through Derrida’s analysis: conditional hospitality (hospitality by right) and unconditional/absolute hospitality.

Conditional hospitality gives rights to foreigner and host.

The foreigner has a right to hospitality if he or she enters into a “pact” with the host, to mean a declaration of name and identity, where he comes from, perhaps how long he will stay, etc., and thus is subject to the laws of the host nation or the individual’s/host’s home (Derrida, 2000, 23-25).

The host also has rights to know a guest’s name and to dictate the laws of his home, i.e. to set boundaries for his guests (ibid., 27).

The paradox is whether the host is being hospitable by interrogating the guest and setting boundaries.

Unconditional hospitality is paradoxical as well, for if the host welcomes anyone and everyone into his home, foreigner or absolute other (with whom there is no pact), the host losses control of his home and no longer remains the host, but instead becomes the hostage:

“…It’s as if the master, qua master, were prisoner of his place and his power, of his ipseity, of his subjectivity …indeed the master, the one who invites, the inviting host, who becomes the hostage” (ibid., 123-125).

There are paradoxes in the psychedelic experience as well related to Derridean hospitality.

Sober self (for most people) is master of his own mind until he willingly relinquishes sovereignty in surrendering to intoxicated self.

In a sense, sober self practices unconditional hospitality; intoxicated self practices conditional hospitality viewed, thus, as hosting one’s sober self.

Sober self is on a “trip” and is no longer at home—i.e. baseline consciousness/reality—and depends on intoxicated self to offer refuge, or at least to not be too strict on rules and boundaries of the temporary visit.

One rule is certain: sober self surrenders to gain access to the psychedelically altered space.

Unclear are the other boundaries of which sober self is unaware.

It is paradoxical that intoxicated self is not as welcoming as the sober self who volunteered to leave the comfort of his home.

From a Freudian psychoanalytic perspective, the unconscious mind, in combination with an intoxicated self, continues to keep secrets or at the very least trickles insights to sober self.

Also noteworthy is the idea of the pact; the sober self post ego dissolution cannot introduce himself to the intoxicated self/host for there is nothing, or 20 hardly anything resembling sober self, to introduce, and thus a possible tension between the two selves.

It is customary to know whom one lets into one’s home.

On the one hand, sober self takes a leap of faith10 and hopes for the best, and on the other, intoxicated self is reserved and less forthright.

Master/teacher-student relation

Finally, the master-subject relation can be viewed as master/teacher-student.

Here, the relationship between psychedelic Other and user finds new meaning in shamans’ use of “plant teachers,” namely ayahuasca.

The Peruvian shamans believe that with the help of certain psychoactive plants, many of which have their own “mother/spirit,” they gain powers how to diagnose illness, knowledge of plants to cure sick patients, how to defend themselves from evil spirits and other shamans, and acquire traditional magic/healing songs known as icaros (Luna, 1984, 139-142).

Shamans’ claims to acquiring knowledge through plant teachers offer promising avenues for academic research.

Canadian philosopher of education, Kenneth Tupper, researches the benefits of using psychedelics as cognitive tools for learning.

Commenting on Huxley’s views of incorporating psychedelics into the education system, Tupper (2014) explores the possibility of “entheogenic education.” Such a curriculum could fill a gap in the modern education system by “fostering the emotions of wonder and awe and their relationship to creativity, life meaning, and purpose” (ibid., 15; see also: Tupper, 2002).

It remains uncertain whether he advocates the learning of or the taking of psychedelics as education, students’ age in this idealized entheogenic education program, or the dosage he has in mind, but the point Tupper makes is sound: people might be able to learn about themselves through the use of plant teachers.

Being informed about psychedelics’ traditional use and previous misuse in modern society might help people handle their fears as well.

In sum, according to modernist approaches, the psychedelic Other is necessarily in control for the duration of the experience, certainly after surrendering and near peak experience.

Intoxicated self becomes the pilot of the individual’s psychic vehicle (the mind) while sober self becomes the passenger hoping the pilot does not crash the plane, which would cost them both of their lives, or rather, selves.

Similar to what Hegel argues, intoxicated self is (or might be) the sober self, but a different version thereof.

Both selves fight for recognition, but only one will win, especially as sober self approaches the experience’s peak, at which point intoxicated self forces submission and sober self gives up by force or knows beforehand of the pending surrender.

The master/teacher-student relation is as paradoxical as the previous two relations: the Other is an atypical teacher and the “class lesson” 10 I say leap of faith because no one can predict how the psychedelic experience will play out.

The seeming lack of agency on modernists’ part happens chiefly during the experience.

Certainly, the sober self has a great degree of agency before taking the substance: he or she can

  • choose whether to take the drug;
  • to choose the conditions of location (retreat, private, or public setting);
  • to choose with whom he or she will take the drug (fellow users and/or sober guides); and,
  • to educate him- or herself on the phenomenology of the experience through conferences, online media such as drug fora and YouTube, books, conversations, etc.

Therefore, according to Derrida’s views on hosts and guests, the sober self is the guest during the experience, yet, is the host prior to the experience.

One of the themes of Chapter 3 is how sober self can wield more agency through technical and technological use during experiences and when confronting the psychedelic Other.

Page 21

is likely a one-way conversation in a seemingly different language without opportunity for questions or breaks.

Next, I discuss degrees of knowability of the psychedelic experience, most importantly loss of bodily and mental control, which correspond to the loss of control found in master-subject relations, inducing fear in users.

2.2 Psychedelic matrix of knowability

During a Department of Defense news briefing, U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld (2002), made some puzzling (yet articulate) remarks over the war on terror:

Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know.

We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.

But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know.

And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.

As national defense professionals, Rumsfeld, and his Department’s task, was to anticipate and hopefully subdue future threats.

To do this, they need to know what is known—things that are known but to which extent are uncertain, and how to respond to unexpected, unpredicted unknowns.

Slavoj Žižek (2006) argues that Rumsfeld forgot to add a fourth category to his analysis, that of unknown knowns.

The known category (known knowns and known unknowns) vary in degree of knowability; the same can be said about the unknown category (unknown knowns and unknown unknowns), that is to say, one might have an idea of what is known, but at some point the completely unknown takes one by surprise or leads one to speculate.

It is through this psychedelic matrix of knowability that I analyze the structure and content of individuals’ likely fears.

Analyses of knowns and unknowns have been made before in the fields of terrorism (Daase and Kessler, 2007), international sporting events (Horne, 2007), policymaking (Pawson et al, 2011), and business risk management (Fadun, 2013), to name several.

I provide a similar analysis on psychedelics.

With that said, I do not claim to be an expert in assessing risk, nor implementing and analyzing formulae, etc.; rather, I use Rumsfeld’s remarks as a qualitative framework to philosophically probe the psychosomatic effects of potentially fearful psychedelic experiences.

Along these lines, I expand upon discussions of mystical ineffability from Chapter 1 by unpacking the comparable experiences inherent to psychedelics.

I predict there is correlation between the effable-known and the ineffable-unknown since it is reasonable to assume difficulty in describing yet-seen and yet-experienced intense imagery, emotions, and ecstatic states.

Supernatural and cosmic horror fiction writer, H. P. Lovecraft, says, “The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and 22 the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown” (1973, 12).

Thus, “the (psychedelic) Fear” of individuals will be covered in succeeding sections, steering one toward the utter unknown.

2.2.1 Known knowns: Bodily surrender

“Known knowns are facts, rules, and laws that we know with certainty.

We know, for example, that gravity is what makes an object fall to the ground” (Rumsfeld, 2011, xiv).

Before addressing mental aspects of psychedelic experiences, this section underscores the body, the first feature of individuality to surrender.

Assuming the brain acts like a pivot between bodily perception and mind, one must first be willing to surrender the body to gain access to altered states, expressed as: [body—brain—mind].

Surrendering the body to the psychedelic includes bodily fluids and their possible purgation, or vomiting.

Under normal circumstances, vomiting suggests something is physically wrong, one has an illness, one must vomit out toxic substances, including associations of shame and guilt of being unable to control one’s bodily functions.

Most likely, the shaman is more familiar with bouts of psychedelic-inducing purgation, while modernists are not.

Thus, one of the best-known fears about substances such as iboga (Lotsof, 1994) and ayahuasca (Shanon, 2002) is the loss of bodily control, namely the purgative aspect.

Purgation takes on metaphorical significance, especially in ayahuasca ceremonies, notably bodily and affective effects.

According to psychologist Benny Shanon (2002), vomiting is not universal, however, some drinkers “often feel that they are pouring out the depths of both their body and their soul” (57).

For ayahuasca practitioners called ayahuasqueros or curanderos (healers), the purgative process is a curative one with multiple levels of cleansing.

First, is bodily, achieved through purgation; second, is psychological, forcing people to face their issues and problems; and third, is spiritual (religious, mystical), representing a sense of “true knowledge” attained, in addition to insights regarding ethical conduct in one’s life (ibid., 49-51, 307).

Therefore, the body and mind are cleansed, and to some extent purified, in this cathartic and surrendering moment.

In Poetics, Aristotle speaks of the tragedy in a similar fashion.

The tragedy, unlike the comedy, arouses the imitation of pity and fear in the audience, allowing the purgation or release of said emotions with the benefit of not having to experience them first-hand.

“Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude …through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions” (Aristotle, 1922, 23).

Through imitation, and without having to suffer the consequences of the characters on stage, the tragedy serves as a learning exercise, i.e. learning through others.

In the case of the psychedelic user, he or she does experience these emotions first-hand in the moment, as well as the claimed release of preexisting traumas or repressed emotions.

The psychedelic experience can be viewed as a tragedy or comedy depending on the individual’s outlook.

Although the tragedy evokes pity and fear according to Aristotle, that is not to say all psychedelic experiences are tragic; the experience might be pleasant even in the event of inconvenient vomiting and/or diarrhea.

Page 23

Another known known is the inability to stop participating in the experience once it has started, e.g. to try purging the substance hoping that effects cease to continue.

For example, LSD produces initial effects between 20-60 minutes after ingestion and for mushrooms between 7-45 minutes (Stafford, 1992, 68, 265).

DMT, on the other hand, is active under 30 seconds after ingestion (Strassman, 2001).

One must be sure when taking these substances for it is nearly11 impossible to reverse the process.

As Shanon (2002) hints at with ayahuasca, the body is the first to surrender as it metabolizes the seldom-ingested psychedelic.

The next three sections cover the further loss of control of the human organism, primarily of the mind.

2.2.2 Known unknowns: Death, or rather, nondualism

“Known unknowns are gaps in our knowledge, but they are gaps that we know exist.  We know, for example, that we don’t know the exact extent of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. 

“If we ask the right questions we can potentially fill this gap in our knowledge, eventually making it a known known” (Rumsfeld, 2011, xiv).

It is reasonable to want an idea of what to expect during a psychedelic experience and variations in its intensity, i.e. how much of one’s self remains, changes, or dissolves.

Philosopher and cognitive scientist, Link Swanson (2018), provides a detailed overview of what one can expect:

  • perceptual effects (“sense of meaning in percepts is altered,” perceptual distortions, illusions);
  • elementary hallucinations (geometric patterns); complex hallucinations (visual scenes, landscapes, cities, human and nonhuman beings);
  • emotional effects (intensification of feelings, losing control); and
  • cognitive effects (acute changes in linear thinking and increased levels of creative thinking) (3-5).

Many fear-inducing occurrences fall within the known unknowns category because there is much that is known about psychedelic experiences, but the degree to which they manifest is unknown.

Greater instances of ego dissolution correspond to increases in dosage (Griffiths et al, 2011); thus dosage, coupled with personal lived experience, produces limitless percepts to experience.

Death is the exemplar of a known unknown.

Individuals know they are going to die without knowing the exact conditions.

The same can be said about ego dissolution in that the psychedelic user does not know to which degree his or her ego/self will merge toward and with a nondual state.

Since nondrug users also contemplate death, it seems appropriate, then, to discuss “ego death,” or the state of non-beingness.

I argue that psychedelic-induced alterations of ego/self are the focus of a category mistake unknowingly promulgated by academics’ terminological use concerning psychedelic research and conceptualization, which can be misleading and therefore conjures fear.

First, current terminology mistakenly frames psychedelics in terms of death and mental illness.

In psychiatry, psychology, and neuroscience, the following terms are used synonymously to

11 Strassman (1984) says major tranquilizers should be used as a last resort “for only the most disturbed and agitated patients” (589), and while tranquilizers calm patients down, there are no guarantees that visionary effects will be annulled.

Page 24

describe the non-ego state:

  • “ego death” (Pahnke, 1969b; Grof, 1980; Leary et al, 2007),
  • “ego loss” (Leary et al, 2007),
  • “ego disintegration” (Muthukumaraswamy et al, 2013; Lebedev et al, 2015),
  • “ego dissolution” (Masters and Houston, 1966; Dittrich, 1998 [dread of]; Studerus et al, 2010; Lebedev et al, 2015; Tagliazucchi et al, 2016), and
  • “drug-induced ego dissolution (DIED)” (Millière, 2017).

While the concept of death shares elements of awe, acceptance, and a state of non-being with mystical and psychedelic experiences, death is also often associated with pain, suffering, and reduced quality of life, which are characteristics perhaps inherent to but not definitive of mystical and psychedelic experiences (i.e. during negative experiences).

Arguably, one of the central fears of death lies in knowing that one will not be oneself or present in a physical (and possibly mental) form, that one no longer exists.

However, this is not the case with “ego death” since one comes back from the nondual experience.

Not only are these terms used in academic discourse, but also colloquially, which academicians’ usage of these terms certainly influenced popular culture.

Regarding mental illness, terms such as “dissolution” and “disintegration” referring to notions of ego/self/I/individuality, notes Lebedev et al, are reminiscent of psychiatric terms referring to cases of acute psychosis and temporal lobe epilepsy auras (2015, 1-2; see also: Stockings, 1940; Hoffer et al, 1954; Grinker, 1963; Mogar, 1970).

Usage of the abovementioned ego terminology is a carryover from psychiatric research of psychedelics in the mid-twentieth century.

Academics still cling to the term dissolution to refer to the ego when it is clear, as I argue in Chapter 1, that psychedelic experiences are more aligned with mystical states than mental illness.

Thus, in an attempt to curtail fear, academics could move away from associating the altered ego with anything to do with dissolution, disintegration, loss, death, or DIED! when discussing these experiences.

Second, dissolution and disintegration do not accurately explain psychedelic experiences.

They are “active” words, in that they are “in the process of,” neither specifying unity nor semiintoxicated states, but rather both states concurrently.

For example, dissolution is defined as “the act or process of dissolving” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.

–a) and disintegration as “the act or process of disintegrating or the state of being disintegrated” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.

–b).

It is unclear whether one had a “melting away” experience, in the words of one mystic (Stace, 1960), or a “melted” experience, whether the ego/self is dissolving or is dissolved.

Lumping the two categories together confounds exactly what is meant.

There is no clear-cut demarcation of experience as Stace (1960) makes in his analysis of mysticism, specifically regarding his criterion of unity/union.

Fears about psychedelic experiences in general might lessen when terms are conceptualized as precisely as possible.

Therefore, notions of death12 and mental illness could be dissociated from psychedelic experiences; invoking present participle (-ing suffix) and past tense (-ed suffix) 12 My use of Hegel’s struggle to the death concept in relation to surrendering may seem contradictory to my proposition to abstain from associating concepts of death and loss to psychedelic experiences.

I use the master-slave dialectic as a heuristic to construct a typology of master-subject relations, acknowledging that this might seem paradoxical to readers, but unavoidable.

25 conjugations are less erroneous; and finally, people sympathetic to the commonly used terms could at very least discriminate between ego dissolving and ego dissolved13.

2.2.3 Unknown knowns: Unconscious mind

“Things we don’t know that we know—which is precisely the Freudian unconscious, the ‘knowledge which doesn’t know itself’” (Žižek, 2006, 137).

Specifically, unknown knowns are: “…The disavowed beliefs, suppositions, and obscene practices we pretend not to know about, although they form the background of our public values” (ibid.).

Žižek rightly includes an additional category to Rumsfeld’s original three.

The collective unconscious, at which Žižek hints, impacts individuals’ unconscious minds; however, it is at the level of the individual that psychedelics agonize neuronal receptors (e.g. serotonin, κ-opioid) and can potentially terrorize the mind.

In reference to the cliché iceberg-mind metaphor, what lies in the dark abyss of the unconscious mind and of unacquainted realities, that which the conscious mind, the protruding tip of the iceberg, floats atop, and that which individuals fear?

Surely, everyone is fearful of something, whether it be an object, emotion, etc.

But what if the fear object, the psychedelic Other, originates from within oneself; what if the fear object is one’s self?

In other words, what is revealed about the self when the subject becomes the object of fear?

There are at least two ways to examine self-as-psychedelic-Other within the context of the unconscious: Freud’s theory of the uncanny and Huxley’s “Mind-at-Large.” Through these examples, the aforementioned master-subject relations become evident.

The uncanny.

What are the causes of behaviors, and are these causes so ingrained in one’s unconscious that they make up a part of the individual’s identity for better or worse?

It can be argued that everyone has something to hide from themselves and others: yet-processed intense emotional episodes, repressed memories and traumas, forgotten once known knowns, or future aspirations and dreams to which individuals aspire.

To discover what individuals fear about psychedelics is part and parcel to make the unconscious conscious.

One seemingly shared aspect of humans’ unconscious regarding the psychedelic experience is the idea of not being at home with oneself.

In German, das Heimliche (“the homely”) means “belonging to the home, not strange, familiar, tame, dear and intimate, etc.,” whereas das Unheimliche (“the unhomely”, the uncanny) stands for “everything that was meant to remain secret and hidden and has come into the open; something removed from the eyes of strangers; and notions of danger” (Freud, 2003, 126, 132-134).

For Freud, the uncanny is: “…That species of the frightening that goes back to what was once well known and had long been familiar” (ibid, 124), an “intellectual uncertainty” that arises when “the boundary between fantasy and reality is blurred, when we are faced with the reality of something that we have until now considered imaginary” (ibid., 138, 150).

Thus, 13 I resume this discussion in Chapter 2.3.

26 uncanny moments elucidate something that is hidden or secret, a reminder from a forgotten past, the blurring of boundaries even but for seconds.

Both types of trips, either physically traveling (without psychedelics) or mentally (with psychedelics), implies that one is somewhere other than home, i.e. one is not in the familiarity of one’s home.

I propose in Chapter 2.1 that the sober self’s home in this case is familiar, baseline consciousness and reality; under psychedelics, the conscious mind is temporarily not “at home” but rather in a state of disequilibrium.

Likewise, the unconscious mind is a pseudo home that some seldom venture into or never at all, with or without drugs.

Is fear of the unconscious mind under psychedelic conditions, then, a threat to sober self and conscious mind, a fear of not being at home with oneself?

One of Freud’s (2003) examples regarding the uncanny is the Doppelgänger.

Such a familiar Other may cause one to identify with and “so become unsure of his true self” (ibid., 142); that is, there is cause for a “double take,” a second look, to affirm that one is truly oneself.

Looking at a face familiar to one’s own is like looking into a mirror, yet it is not an inanimate mirror; this mirror moves and is alive and thus is uncanny.

Similarly, under psychedelic influence, the Other may not be just another Other, instead is within the individual, a part of, or a different version of, sober self.

For example, there is an adage not to trust people who do not drink alcohol.

Perhaps alcohol is viewed as a “truth serum” that reveals one’s honest inner opinions to oneself and others.

According to this view, one should not trust someone who dares not be honest and vulnerable in front of others, especially with family and friends.

With psychedelics, however, one shows one’s “true colors” to oneself.

Just as unsavory qualities exist in others, there exists negative aspects within oneself, and these, in addition to other hidden aspects, might become illuminated to sober self.

The psychedelic Other exposes the good and the bad of oneself based on whatever lurks in both conscious and unconscious minds.

In surrendering to the psychedelic Other, from the modernist’s perspective, one has little control over the experience’s narrative.

Mind-at-Large.

While there exists duality between sober and intoxicated self, and conscious and unconscious mind, Huxley seems to have considered only one part of an important equation regarding the mind.

Huxley (2013) argues that the brain and nervous system act as “reducing valves” and the ego as a “filter” to limit what is perceived of “Mind-at-Large” (pure consciousness, other realities, unlimited potential, etc.) to not overwhelm the human organism, thus to maximize survival.

If Huxley’s hypothesis is correct, he may be considering only half of the equation.

Instead of brain-asvalve and ego-as-filter acting as bottleneck in the shape of a wine bottle for example, might the mind act instead like an hourglass?

In what I call “Mind-at-Small,” the localized level plays the part of the individual’s unconscious mind.

As psychedelics increase the flow of information from Mind-at-Large to the conscious mind, it seems possible that psychedelics might also increase the flow of information from Mind-at-Small to the conscious mind.

I hypothesize in Chapter 2.2.1 that the pivot in bodily surrender is the brain expressed as [body—brain—mind].

In accordance with Huxley’s Mind-at-Large model viewed within the category of unknown knowns, the pivot in mental surrender could be the 27 conscious mind, expressed as: [(unconscious mind)—(conscious mind/ego)—(Universal mind/ego)].

This might explain the hourglass bottleneck I propose, for it seems that the unconscious mind and Universal mind affect the conscious mind concurrently.

I argue that the catalytic psychedelic shines light, or opens the doors of perception to use Huxley’s phrase, on both the conscious and unconscious minds.

Just as Huxley’s reducing valves limit what is perceived to maximize survivability of the human organism, note too, the unconscious mind hides or forgets what is unnecessary to daily survival.

Insofar as individuals fear surrendering their body to purgation and their mind to ego “death,” it seems that fear of mental pain and suffering through exploration and potential discovery of one’s behavioral causes offer a possible explanation to the unknown knowns category.

2.2.4 Unknown unknowns: Human absence and nonhuman presence

“The category of unknown unknowns is the most difficult to grasp.

They are gaps in our knowledge, but gaps that we don’t know exist.

Genuine surprises tend to arise out of this category; …The best strategists try to imagine and consider the possible, even if it seems unlikely.

They are then more likely to be prepared and agile enough to adjust course if and when new and surprising information requires it” (Rumsfeld, 2011, xiv).

As Rumsfeld and his military strategists have contingency plans, individuals should also reflect upon whom or what they encounter during psychedelic experiences.

Otherwise, how can one properly prepare for visionary content and context if one exclusively contemplates the knowns?

Philosophical analysis is an asset to psychedelic research to make informed speculations how these experiences might be understood within the realm of the unknown.

The domain of the psychedelic unknown is where academics and amateurs share a common discourse, that of speculation.

Why does the unknown, especially under psychedelics, frighten some individuals?

How can someone be fearful of which he or she does not know?

How does one find/create meaning from things one has never perceived?

Whereas inductive reasoning was used to rationalize the previous three categories of the psychedelic matrix of knowability, I endeavor to frame in this final section what the psychedelic experience could be, using conceivable fears as my guiding principle, to discuss: psychedelic entities, absence of humanness, and presence of nonhumanness.

In the process of surrendering, psychedelic psychotherapist and researcher, Duncan Blewett (1970), metaphorically states that the “ultimate fear” of the individual is locked in his or her heart and this fear reveals something previously unknown about the self: “If I should come to know myself completely and still hate and revile myself—what then?

What if the self is unacceptable, completely unwanted—an entity without purpose or meaning?” (347).

To be fair, Blewett does consider the unknown, but his view falls short in the matrix of knowability, perhaps going so far as the unknown knowns category.

The ultimate fear for Blewett is self-revealment if the psychedelic Other originates 28 from within oneself; however, might this Other be external to oneself, or a combination of within and from without the individual?

There is ample testimonial evidence that psychedelics utilize information from the subject’s psyche—i.e. the Freudian unconscious including repressed traumas and memories, and Jungian archetypes, myths, and symbols (Masters and Houston, 1966, 213-246).

However, experiential content may be something different altogether in the realm of the extraordinary, which lead academics and users to question how to regard the nature of the experience.

Huxley (1999) disagrees with the premise that the psyche 14 plays a role in the psychedelic experience (particularly regarding mescaline).

He argues that the “Antipodes of the mind”—the equivalent of Australia and its fauna: kangaroos, wallabies, duck-billed platypuses, creatures never before seen by Europeans until Australia’s discovery—is “the Other World” in which to explore these beings-in-themselves.

For example, a symbol represents the meaning of something else, yet, according to Huxley, the inhabitants of these Other Worlds are not symbols, “they do not stand for something else, do not mean anything except themselves.

The significance of each thing is identical with its being.

Its point is that it is” (1999, Ch.13).

For Huxley, visionary content do not represent something, are not symbols for something else, or invented by the psyche; rather, they allow (mescaline) users to perceive psychedelic things-in-themselves as they appear.

Anthropologists (ayahuasca: Harner, 1973; iboga: Fernandez, 1982; ayahuasca: Luna, 1984), psychiatrists (DMT: Strassman, 2001), and psychologists (ayahuasca: Shanon, 2002; DMT: Luke, 2011; Winkelman, 2018) progressively report of contact with spirit helpers/guides and ancestral spirits, and some have developed preliminary ontologies of nonhuman psychedelic beings.

Not only is contact reported of these entities but also communication with these entities.

McKenna was asked in the final interview before his death what the nature of these entities might be, what constitutes their apparent agency or communicative agency.

McKenna (1999) replies, “That’s the question that remains unanswered …that’s the grail of the thing, what is the nature of the [psychedelic] other …it’s not clear to me what it is.” Despite the essence of the psychedelic Other being unclear, McKenna (1998) states elsewhere: “These places are profoundly strange and alien” (37).

Phenomenologically speaking, reports of encountered beings during psychedelic experiences cannot be ignored since it is happening.

Psychedelic entities repeatedly manifest into human and humanoid-looking entities; whether they are hallucinatory or veridical matters not: it is a reoccurring phenomenon, one that is seeping from the unknown into the known.

The unity state described by mystics is indeed an unknown unknown for many psychedelic users; but is it the ultimate fear?

Likewise, reports of human-like and nonhuman entities would normally fall under the category of known unknowns since their existence is known, yet it is unclear who these entities are, where they come from, what they want, or how many types there are.

I include 14 Hence, Huxley’s unwillingness to consider whether the unconscious mind (Mind-at-Small) plays any role in psychedelic experiences (see Chapter 2.2.3).

29 entities in the category of unknown unknowns to argue that their presence alone is a candidate for the ultimate fear.

As previous subchapters highlight the relinquishment of bodily control, fear of (ego) death, and fear of one’s mind respectively, the philosophy of horror offers unhuman and deanthropomorphized approaches needed to fully appreciate drug and nondrug users’ fears of the psychedelic unknown in all its uncertainty.

The degree of alienness coupled with possible agency or consciousness on the part of entities involves a human absence and a nonhuman presence, both of which intensify simultaneously in philosophy of horror and unknown contexts.

Until recently, discourse on Otherness primarily focused on “Other as human.” Philosophers Eugene Thacker and Dylan Trigg, and to some extent subscribers to the recent field of speculative realism, claim that philosophy is anthropocentrically biased.

“Anomalies” of psychedelic entities, in the Kuhnian (1970) sense, are difficult to explain using the current anthropocentric paradigm: Enter the philosophy of horror.

Thacker (2011) proposes that, “Horror be understood not as dealing with human fear in a human world (the world-for-us), but that horror be understood as being about the limits of the human as it confronts a world that is not just a World, and not just the Earth, but also a Planet (the world-without-us)” (8).

When considering psychedelic experiences, it may be more effective to dissociate oneself from human rationalization, to recognize that the world is not a human world, but rather simply a world indifferent and neutral to human existence, perhaps even a world with nonhuman and nonphysical inhabitants.

Such a world could accommodate hypotheses of psychedelic entities.

Thus, a new phenomenology is needed to discern Huxley’s so-called “Other World” and its inhabitants.

Similarly, from a philosophy of body horror perspective, Trigg (2014) says, “The unhuman is closely tied up with notions of alienation, anonymity, and the unconscious,” in other words, an “unhuman phenomenology,” a “xenophenomenology,” that is “concerned with the limits of alterity” (6, emphasis added).

The psychedelic experience is an exercise in deconstructing human concepts such as symbols, language, culture, belief systems, etc.; thus, as the subject approaches the limits of alterity by merging with the Other, one’s humanness becomes increasingly absent, i.e. one is not wholly oneself.

In light of psychedelic-induced ASC, a xenophenomenology in a de-anthropomorphized world would do well to conceptualize the significance of the altered-toabsent human subject as well as psychedelic entities and the world(s) they inhabit.

Lovecraft makes use of xenophenomenology to describe nonhuman antagonists in his horror fiction stories.

Long before Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase, “the medium is the message,” Lovecraft epitomized this idea in his writing style that brimmed with outdated, strange, and incomprehensible words and that incited fear and mystique in and of themselves.

Philosopher Graham Harman (2012) analyzes Lovecraft’s stories in his book Weird Realism.

One of the trademarks of Lovecraft’s style is his ability to implicitly say something about something opaque, some cosmically horrible entity, to allude to “the spirit of the thing” or “general outline of the whole” (Harman, 2012, 237).

Lovecraft’s many unnamable creatures hearken back to Derridean hospitality in that one cannot 30 name the psychedelic Other(s).

It is unsettling to not know with whom or what one is dealing, i.e. psychedelic users get some information but not the whole picture, and hence the ineffability shared by mystics.

Moreover, according to Harman (2012), Lovecraft’s characters have sincerity—especially the nonhuman sort—meaning that they “fascinate,” “engross,” and “seem to exhibit a genuine inner life of [their] own” (44).

Inasmuch as Lovecraft’s human protagonists strain to see the outlines of appalling “noumenal beings” (Harman, 2012), psychedelic users attempt to make sense of rarely or never seen entities that exhibit an “inner life,” an agency, an intention, perhaps being conscious or intelligent.

The psychedelic user broaches a boundary where he or she enters into questionable territory: known-unknown, merging-unmerging, safe-unsafe?

One thought going through one’s mind might be “what am I merging with?” as one merges/unifies/“dissolves” toward a nondual state.

What if one does not want to merge with a nonhuman, that whomever or whatever happens to be present on that particular experience?

Especially if this entity exhibits a genuine “life of its own.”

Even though Lovecraft says one should leave their “humanity and terrestrialism at the threshold” when crossing the “boundless and hideous unknown” (Thacker, 2011, 80-81), he does offer consolation: that the beneficent aspects of the unknown have been reserved by mainstream religions, and therefore, according to religious leaders, any unknown other than what is endorsed by religious institutions is demonic (Lovecraft, 1973, 14).

Lovecraft disputes religious leaders’ claim to ownership or rights in the realm of the unknown, implying that the so-called bad or evil unknowns might not be as bad or evil as religious leaders claim them to be.

They are simply unknown.

Irrespective of the beneficence or maleficence of entities, it is the mere outlined presence of such beings that have the potential to cause fear in individuals for such beings seem alive, real, and to have a sense of agency.

Visual artist, Ivana Franke, exhibited her artwork in Berlin, Germany, from April to July 2017, entitled Retreat into Darkness.

Towards a Phenomenology of the Unknown.

One of her installations involved aluminum structures comprised of monofilament nets.

The light from the bulbs reflected off of the structures to create an eerie presence as one moved around the dark room.

Sayim and Franke (2018, 119, emphasis added) say: Such fear and discomfort were caused not only by the darkness and the need to move around and navigate in the dark, but presumably also by the presence of something unexplainable at an unclear distance that moved on its own and in response to the motion of observers, and sometimes even appeared alive.

It is in darkness, or the abundance of moving miniature lights in darkness, where one can appreciate the phenomenology of the unknown.

The incertitude of percepts allows one to experience the uncanniness, the strangeness, “where ordinary object categorization collapses” (ibid., 107), and thus the inability to categorize objects that should fit into some known category of one’s lived experience and lifeworld.

Similarly, how can the phenomena reported by psychedelic users possibly

31

manifest/exist?

The content of psychedelic experiences is a category mistake, or rather, a category needing clarification.

In the absence of light, in the absence of humanity where the presence of psychedelic entities exists, is where the ultimate fear lies.

For it is here at the limits of the known, in the dark recesses of the mind and obfuscated Other Worlds, where the psychedelic Other lingers and its intentions unknown.

It is against this backdrop of knowability, human absence and nonhuman presence, where self confronts psychedelic Others from without.

Next, I discuss implications for an understanding of self, using psychedelic ASCs as counterweights against which to compare.

2.3 The self: Narrative vs. minimal

What is the self—this first person referential point of experience of the individual, and which theory of self should be applied to the framework of fear of psychedelic experiences?

I expand upon Gallagher’s (2000) claim that the concepts of minimal self and narrative self deserve special attention as they lead to the current debate15 in cognitive neuroscience and philosophy.

Both selves are ideal candidates for a richer appreciation of mystical and psychedelic experiences depending on the individual’s level of intoxication.

To better comprehend which concept of self applies to which stage of the psychedelic experience, I continue the discussion from Chapter 2.2.2 concerning the notion of “ego dissolution” and propose a new set of terms to conceptualize the psychedelically altered self.

Whether framed in the context of drugs or not, philosophers and neuroscientists are eager to weigh in on neural correlates of consciousness and their significance for the concept of self16 (Gallagher, 2000; Lebedev et al, 2015; Millière, 2017).

Phenomenologist Dan Zahavi (2003) argues for a (phenomenological) minimal self, or “core self,” in which self and experience are integrated and have an inherent “givenness” that makes the experience unique for a particular conscious being: “…It just entails being conscious of an experience in its first-personal mode of givenness, that is, from ‘within’” (59).

Gallagher (2000) says regarding minimal self: “Phenomenologically, that is, in terms of how one experiences it, a consciousness of oneself as an immediate subject of experience, unextended17 in time” (15).

Minimal self is a concept that determines one’s sense of self in its most 15 I am aware of Damasio’s (1999) contribution to this discussion.

Although based on his writings of proto, core, and autobiographical self, and core and extended consciousness, I chose rather to focus on the most current debate.

16 Gallagher (2011) and his contributors introduce a variety of ways to consider the self: “Minimal, narrative, real, not real, existing, illusory, reduced, irreducible, embodied, psychological, social, pathological, socially constructed, and deconstructed” (1-29).

Disagreement about what the self is stresses the importance of defining self in the context of psychedelic experiences.

In addition to minimal and narrative selves I highlight in this section, the concept of no-self is relevant.

Proponents argue from neuroscientific and Buddhist approaches: neuroscientific as there is a “set of functional mechanisms that would integrate individual property-representations into a unified ‘self-representation’ or self-model,” thus does not constitute a self, and Buddhist, which argues that there is no such thing as a self, therefore, such beliefs are merely illusion/fiction (ibid., 10).

17 “Unextended in time” does not refer to Stace’s (1960) core characteristics of mystical states, such as non-spatiality and non-temporality; Gallagher refers to the immediacy of the subject’s conscious experience.

Page 32

minimal quality: a sense of presence and consciousness in and of the immediate moment irrespective of self-identity or personal meaningfulness attributed to one’s life.

In contrast to minimal self, proponents of narrative self suggest that self is autobiographical and extended in time, thus memories of one’s lived experiences and future aspirations play significant roles.

The (hermeneutical) narrative self can be viewed as two sides of the same “sense of self” coin: “Beings who lead their lives rather than merely having a history, and leading the life of a self is taken inherently to involve understanding one’s life as a narrative and enacting the narrative one sees as one’s life” (Schechtman, 2011, 395).

For one’s actions to become meaningful and significant, agency is another important quality of narrative self because it “requires that we interpret our behaviors in the context of a narrative” (ibid., emphasis added).

As I show throughout this chapter, the individual brings his or her personal narratives into psychedelic experiences.

It is equivalent to embarking on a trip: an individual does not check in at the airport naked with nothing but a passport; rather, he or she arrives clothed, usually with luggage, and has a reason/intention to travel.

As well, individuals do not begin a psychedelic experience naked, i.e. as some kind of minimal self devoid of lived experience.

Individuals bring with them historical, sociocultural, emotional, conscious, and unconscious baggage.

Zahavi places the notion of minimal/core self under the category of phenomenology, yet it is the hermeneutical-narrative sense of self that is better equipped to explain the phenomenology, and in part the meaning and root, of potentially fearful psychedelic experiences.

2.3.1 Understanding self in the presence of psychedelic Other

Pahnke (1963, 1969a) developed the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) using Stace’s (1960) phenomenological account of mystical experience to test whether psychedelics such as psilocybin occasion mystical experiences.

In recent studies, Griffiths et al (2011) used a modified version of the MEQ to test specifically for: “unity (either internal or external18, whichever was greater), sense of sacredness, noetic quality, transcendence of time and space, positive mood, and ineffability” (653; see also: Griffiths et al, 2006).

Volunteers must have scored ≥ 60% in each of the six scales to affirm “complete” mystical experience with psilocybin.

The prescription of ratios and numerical scores is questionable, pace Pahnke and Griffiths et al, to gauge whether one had a so-called complete mystical experience.

The ratio of ≥ 60% should not be used unquestionably as to whether one had a mystical experience for: 1) Dr.

Griffiths (2018) acknowledges in a personal email communication that the 60% threshold is “arbitrary,” and 2) Pahnke does not explicate in any of his texts referring to the MEQ why he chose that number19.

Is it possible

18 Stace (1960) differentiates between two types of mysticism: extrovertive perceives outward through the physical senses to recognize unity or oneness in all things, while introvertive looks inward toward the ego/self, “in that darkness and silence, he alleges that he perceives …the wholly naked One devoid of any plurality whatever” (61-62).

19 Pahnke (1969a) cites a seemingly nonexistent article/study, or rather poorly referenced, bringing into question how and why he and his associates agreed upon the 60% ratio minimum (see: pages 153 and 162) to determine complete mystical experience, and which subsequent researchers follow de facto.

Page 33

to have a complete mystical experience without experiencing a wholly nondual state, i.e. any figure above 0.60 ratio, according to the MEQ?

Perhaps.

Although, according to the above view, it seems that if a state of oneness is the ultimate mystical experience one can have, it should be expressed by the greatest score possible: 1.0.

All things considered, threshold ratios need to be reexamined and possibly revised, or, academics could use a qualitative approach to test for mystical attainment.

Researchers are undoubtedly on the right track in testing these extraordinarily profound subjective experiences; nonetheless, a more logical way to determine complete mystical experience and conceptualize degrees of selfhood during the psychedelic experience is possible.

In a move away from psychiatric and neuroscientific terminology, I propose an alternative set of concepts inspired by the aforementioned category mistake in Chapter 2.2.2 and Stace’s (1960) universal characteristics of mystical experiences:

  • dual state (DS),
  • semi-dual state (semi-DS),
  • semi-nondual state (semi-NDS), and
  • nondual state (NDS):

list:

  • DS: complete sober state of narrative self;
  • semi-DS: pre-surrender state of narrative self;
  • semi-NDS: post-surrender state of narrative self;
  • NDS or complete mystical experience: the state whereupon the subject does not experience a sense of narrative self/ego, but there remains a minimal/core self that experiences nonduality.

This is not to say that experiences not of a nondual nature are any less interesting or important.

For Stace (1960), “borderline cases” are “cases in which some but not all of the defining characteristics appear, and which may even include features the absence of which is characteristic of typical cases” (81).

Stace acknowledges the existence of states falling between the mystical and non-mystical and that satisfy some but not all of his universal characteristics.

In consideration of Stace’s most defining characteristic of mysticism—i.e. unity (1960, 66), psychedelic experiences of a non-NDS nature (semi-DS and semi-NDS) are intoxicated states that do not satisfy a complete mystical experience.

To use an example from physics, one cannot claim to have experienced the singularity of a black hole if one is on the other side of the event horizon.

In other words, such borderline cases that approach the void but are not subsumed by it fall under the “semi” category.

Both viewing a black hole and approaching an NDS from a distance are probably spectacular even though they are not experienced directly.

Therefore, semi-DS and semi-NDS refer to some degree of narrative self presence, i.e. a “mineness” or “me-ness,” associated with one’s life story/narrative.

For this reason, I argue that narrative and minimal selves are not mutually exclusive during psychedelic experiences: narrative self represents a default sense of self that grounds individuals in sober and semi-intoxicated states, while minimal self is one’s sense of self/awareness stripped away of all (human and individual) narratives 34 during NDS, including language/symbols.

With that said, there could be something “still there20” during NDS since mystics and psychedelic users alike are able to describe their experiences, albeit not very well due to the ineffable nature of psychedelic experiences and according to Stace’s (1960) theory of unconceptualizability.

If the nature of psychedelic experiences is to be analyzed properly, not only should the psychedelic Other be considered regarding potentially fear-inducing stimuli, but also a detailed conception of self.

The terminology I propose above helps understand what kind of self most likely confronts the psychedelic Other depending on levels of intoxication.

I agree with Millière’s (2017) claim that the drug-induced ego could offer an understanding of the neurobiology of sense of self, but I disagree with his claim that minimal self is of primary importance while narrative self plays a secondary role (1-2).

Conversely, I argue that narrative self plays the primary role in individuals’ understanding of themselves, particularly when facing psychedelic knowns and unknowns.

As narrative self “short-circuits” near peak experience, minimal self takes over once the individual nears or enters NDS.

I suspect that most psychedelic experiences fall within semi-DS or semi-NDS, that is, there exists some degree of narrative self presence, diminished at varying degrees.

It is at the tipping point between semi-NDS and NDS where narrative self completely diminishes and the individual is left with a minimal self that experiences the state of unity (i.e. NDS) with the Other.

Minimal self is a kind of backup/emergency lighting system when the dominant narrative self fails to function.

The eventual metabolization of the substance returns “normal lighting” so to speak, i.e. narrative self, from dim to bright as one moves from NDS toward DS.

Lebedev et al (2015) say the brain’s default mode network (DMN) may relate more to narrative self, whereas the salience network21 may align more with minimal self (10).

Dr. Lebedev (2018) says in a personal email communication that as far as he knows, no one has tested yet whether DMN or salience network diminishes first under psilocybin, but it is possible to test.

On approaching NDS or complete mystical experience, and taking Lebedev et al’s premise to be valid, I hypothesize that narrative self (DMN), comprising one’s rich personal history and identity, diminishes first.

When DMN ceases to function, remnants of the salience network do not fully diminish leaving some trace of minimal self to experience NDS.

Therefore, not only does narrative self play more of a central role in daily (sober) life, but also in psychedelic experiences since most of the experience will occur in the ascension and declension of peak nondual experience.

Furthermore, assuming the individual’s peak experience is not an NDS, then, the entire experience is within the realm of semi-DS and semi-NDS,

Footnotes:

20 I thank Professor Nagenborg for his insight on this topic.

While there might not exist a mine-ness or me-ness in a narrative self sense during NDS, there is still a “your-ness” from a non-experiencer’s perspective.

Something is presumably still there to experience NDS, even though it pushes against the boundaries of language, conceptualizability, and categorization.

21 The DMN is “a network of functionally and structurally connected brain regions that show high spontaneous or ‘on-going’ metabolism yet a relative deactivation during goal-directed cognition” (Carhart-Harris et al, 2014, 2), while the salience network “…is hypothesized to contribute to the brain mechanisms of self-awareness, higher cognition,” and has been previously linked to dementia, impaired self-awareness, and psychosis (Lebedev et al, 2015, 3).

Page 35

meaning there was narrative self/ego presence throughout.

This is important for cognitive neuroscientists because it suggests that individuals operate with narrative self (DMN) most of the time except in intense psychedelic conditions, e.g. the nondual state.

Any experience when one’s narrative self is present suggests that one’s lived experience, whether from the conscious or unconscious mind, comes to the fore during psychedelic experiences, and thus, concerns of fear as per the matrix of knowability.

It is my estimation that nil, partial, or complete suspension of awareness and selfhood via psychedelic-surrender states could be called DS, semi-DS, semi-NDS, and NDS respectively for the reasons explicated above.

Moreover, the terminology I propose offers a nuanced understanding of the current debate in cognitive neuroscience regarding minimal and narrative self.

In the next and final chapter, I examine how individuals can regain a greater sense of agency through techniques and technologies when faced with the psychedelic Other.

The role of psychedelic symbols and technologies sets up the next discussion of (self<–>symbolico-technological<–>Other) relations.

Page 36

Chapter 3 Psychedelic Symbolico-technology

Modernists need not discard all mystical concepts since many explain psychedelic experiences well.

Regarding the abandonment of surrenderism, however, modernists can look to other prototypical drug-taking figures such as shamans on which to model their experiences.

In this chapter, I contrast mysticism’s surrender and fear outlooks with shamanism’s control and mastery to understand what modernists can glean from shamanic practices.

To be clear, I borrow from anthropological, psychological, and other academic disciplines, of which the authors come from a modern worldview like me; therefore, what modern scholars perceive to be “control” of psychedelic experiences through “techniques” and “technologies” (T&T henceforth) is either filtered through modern notions of these concepts, or, shamans do indeed engage in degrees of control, techniques, and technologies regarding psychedelics, but modern scholars aggrandize22 these concepts beyond what shamans deem them to be.

With that said, when referring to the shaman’s ability to control (psychedelic) altered states of consciousness (ASC), I mean: “the ability to enter and leave the ASC at will, and …the ability to determine the experiential content of the ASC” (Walsh, 1995, 43).

I begin my assessment of (self<–>symbolico-technological<–>psychedelic Other) 23 relations with an epistemological dispute in philosophy of religion by contrasting the largely perennial interpretation of mystical and psychedelic experiences advanced thus far by Stace and Pahnke, contra Katz’s views on epistemological constructivism.

As mentioned in Chapter 2.3.1, narrative self likely diminishes toward minimal self as one moves from DS to NDS depending on dosage; similarly, mystical, shamanic, and psychedelic experiences likely move from constructivist toward perennialist interpretations of experience, also depending on dosage.

Next, I draw on the works of Noll, Walsh, and Krippner to elucidate shamanic and modernist techniques and technologies and how they relate to controlling psychedelic experiences.

Shamans and modernists have differing worldviews, and thus, the kind of knowledge sought and technologies produced will vary.

For example, while modernists might be frightened by the psychedelic entities discussed in Chapter 2.2.4, shamans embrace “spirits” as purveyors of information and knowledge about sober and altered realities.

Finally, I apply Cassirer’s philosophy of symbolic form and technology as factors mediating reality and as sharing qualities how they interact with nature.

Inspired by shamans’ synchronous use of symbols and technologies, I expand where Cassirer left off by proffering the idea of symbolico-technological 22 For example, anthropologist Erika Bourguignon (1989) offers sobering counterarguments to the widely referenced concept of shamans’ “control” by modern academics.

Footnotes:

23 One proofreader said this relation looks similar to Ihde’s (1990) existential technological relations: embodiment, hermeneutic, alterity, and background (72-111).

Note that I am not referring to Ihde or postphenomenology here.

The manner in which I view (self<–>symbolico-technological<–>psychedelic Other) relations corresponds to Cassirer’s philosophy; unlike Ihde who views technology as mediating reality for users, Cassirer (2012) understands symbols to be non-artifactual “tools of the mind” (23) that allow users to grasp reality in new dynamic ways.

Such symbols include but are not limited to: science, art, myth, etc.

Thus, for all intents and purposes, symbolic mediation is of thought while technological mediation is of activity.

Interestingly, and to be discussed, shamans can and do combine symbols with technologies.

Page 37

relations.

How can technology and the symbol provide a greater sense of control to psychedelic users?

3.1 Epistemological framing

Adherents of perennial philosophy, such as Huxley (1947) and Stace (1960), among others, argue that all religious and mystical experiences are reducible to a common set of characteristics.

Undoubtedly, there are commonalities across traditions.

However, constructivists, such as philosopher of religion, Steven Katz (1978), argue that all experience—ordinary or mystical—is mediated by one’s culture and worldview: “There are NO pure (i.e. unmediated) experiences …all experience is processed through, organized by, and makes itself available to us in extremely complex epistemological ways” (26).

For example, the Hindu mystic’s conception and experience of Brahman will be different from the Christian mystic’s experience of God, according to constructivists, because each experience is “pre-formed” and shaped by the training that each mystic receives prior to the experience (ibid.).

Anticipation of experiential content may affect what one experiences, hence, “…the forms of consciousness which the mystic brings to experience set structured and limiting parameters on what the experience will be, i.e. on what will be experienced, and rule out in advance what is ‘inexperienceable’ in the particular given, concrete, context” (ibid., 26-27).

In the previous two chapters, I argue mainly from perennial perspectives of mysticism because Stace’s (1960) reductionist stance concerning “core” characteristics fits within the modern worldview well, e.g. Pahnke’s and Griffiths et al’s empirical studies; however, constructivist takes on mysticism allows for deeper analysis of shamanism and modern psychedelic use.

I argue that various mystical traditions/experiences become similar the closer one approaches NDS.

In Chapter 2.3.1, I ask readers to consider the possibility that both narrative and minimal self are co-present during psychedelic experiences depending on dosage, thus, affected by how distant or near one is to NDS; that is, as the individual approaches NDS, the constructed narrative self diminishes to the point of minimal self.

Likewise, from a broader epistemological view, it may be the case that mystics, shamans, and modernists start from their respective constructivist perspectives and unique worldviews/cosmologies, but as each of these three types of users approach NDS brought on by larger doses, each moves closer to a perennial/core experience.

As the parallel with narrative and minimal self suggests (again, depending on dosage), I posit that constructivists are correct when users are in semi-DS and semi-NDS, yet perennialists may also be correct as users move closer to NDS.

In addition to the considerations of constructivist and perennial epistemology, psychologist and shamanism scholar, Roger Walsh (1991), asks whether the shaman’s experience or cosmology came first: “…To what extent do spiritual practitioners create their tradition’s cosmology from their experience and to what extent is their experience created by, or at least molded by, their cosmology?

…Which is chicken and which is egg, or are they mutually interdependent?” (89).

Whether there is a written record of a tradition’s cosmology or not, Walsh’s question is unanswerable and could be 38 argued either way.

How did practitioners know what kind of experience to look for if they did not already have a cosmology that reinforced such seeking, and how did they acquire their cosmology in the first place if they did not already have the experience to know what to seek?

Walsh (1991) adds, “Why would shamans learn to journey to the upper world if they did not already believe there was one?” (90).

Four years later, Walsh proposes another similar causality dilemma regarding technologies used during shamanic experiences: “…These experiences are consistent with the worldview and cosmology of the tradition.

This suggests that there is an intriguing complementarity between a tradition’s worldview and its art of transcendence; an effective technology (set of practices) elicits experiences consistent with and supportive of the worldview.

Since worldview and expectation can mold experience, it is, therefore, an interesting question as to what extent technology or worldview is chicken or egg” (1995, 45).

Needless to say, this question cannot be answered either for certain.

Walsh opts for a middle path between short- and long-term considerations to infer the best explanation.

In referencing Mircea Eliade’s claim that experience is determined by cosmology, and Michael Harner’s claim that technique-eliciting experiences allow shamans to reach their own conclusions about their cosmology, Walsh (1991) argues for a “reciprocal determinism”: “In the short term, shamanic experience is definitely shaped by cultural cosmology.

Perhaps in the long run, the reverse also occurs so that cultural cosmology and personal shamanic experience mold each other” (89-90).

Thus, one could argue that once shamans’ cosmological foundation was set, techniques and technologies were created to further explain their worldview, broadening/co-shaping the cosmology over time.

Further development of the cosmology would have occurred with the discovery and use of psychedelics and technologies tailored to psychedelic experiences.

In the following section, technological context provides a finer understanding of shamanic practices and worldview that can enlighten modernists.

Moreover, if researchers were to look for common ground between shamans and modernists, a common interest in artifacts would be a topic of interest to which modernists could relate.

3.2 Practical insights

Walsh defines shamanism as: “A family of traditions whose practitioners focus on voluntarily entering altered states of consciousness in which they experience themselves, or their ‘spirit(s),’ traveling to other realms at will, and interacting with other entities in order to serve their communities” (1995, 28-29).

In view of numerous definitions of shamanism, I choose Walsh’s because I agree with his claims that

(1) the above definition describes a group of people that most people would agree to be shamans, and it

(2) differentiates shamanic tradition from other similar 39 traditions, such as “…mediums, priests, and medicine men, as well as from various psychopathologies 24, with which shamanism has been confused” (ibid.).

Mystical and shamanic practices differ in at least two ways that might be helpful for modernists to control and mitigate fear of psychedelic experiences.

First, mystics aim to obtain knowledge from ASCs, suggesting anticipation of unity/oneness with the divine (Stace, 1960); shamans aim25 to make contact with spirits to obtain information for members of the shaman’s community (Krippner, 2000, 93), contrarily suggesting a desire for ego presence during the experience.

Considering control is a fundamental aspect of shamanism, drug-taking shamans likely do not aim for NDS as does the mystic, but rather semi-NDS.

Second, in their attempt to unite with the divine, it seems that mystics use T&T to enter into altered states to lose control.

Shamans also use T&T to enter into altered states, but unlike mystics, their intention for T&T use is to control the experience for the most part.

The above concepts of union vs. contact/interaction and losing control vs. control are rooted in the worldview of each tradition.

Therefore, in contrast to the mystic and modernist’s surrender motif, likely (at one point) inexperienced drug-taking shamans developed methods to control the experience, including but not limited to their fears, through T&T when confronted with psychedelic Others.

What can be learned from differences between shamanic and modern T&T that contribute to a philosophy of psychedelic technology?

3.2.1 Shamans Techniques

Shamans use a number of techniques before, during, and after rituals.

Many shamanic techniques26 seem to be variations of what psychologist Richard Noll (1985) calls “mental imagery cultivation.”

This skill gives shamans a sense of increased (1) vividness (clarity and liveliness) and (2) controlledness of visions.

First, the novice is trained to block out external stimuli to focus his or her full attention on spontaneous and imaginative visions (Noll, 1985, 445).

Second, increased vividness and exposure to mental imagery such as spirits and other structural characteristics of altered states lead to increased controlledness of visionary content (ibid., 448).

The more one experiences altered perception and visionary content the more able one is to control them, according to shamans.

Before shamans can control mental imagery, they must first be able to clearly see the content.

Mental imagery training “transforms” the shaman’s eyes by developing an “inner” or “spiritual” eye

Footnotes:

24 E.g. the false claim that many shamans have schizophrenic tendencies.

See: Noll (1983) and Walsh (1995).

25 Note: To state that shamans do not or have not aimed for mystical union would be argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument from ignorance.

In consideration of shamanism’s oral tradition, Walsh (1995) says: “…Although the unio mystica is not the goal of shamanic practices, it may sometimes occur” (49-50).

Thus, a lack of reference to shamans aiming for or entering into NDS in the literature, according to Walsh, does not suggest that it is absent from shamanic tradition or experience.

26 For detailed descriptions of shamanic T&T, see: Noll (1985, 447); Walsh (1989, 36); Woodside et al (1997); and, Krippner (2000, 102).

Page 40

(ibid., 446).

Accordingly, drug-ingestion at night is practical for seeing visions.

Krippner (2000) says drug-specific practices include “sleep deprivation, restricted night-time vision, and accompanying music” to “enhance the experience’s profundity” (102).

Walsh (1989) says shamanic journeying is “done at night so that the spirits and geography of the other world can be better seen” (36).

Another central technique is the shamanic journey or soul flight, comparable to the modern notion of “out-of-body experience” (see: Monroe, 1971; Tart, 1995).

Shamans journey to “acquire knowledge or power and to help people in their community, …interacting with and controlling ‘spirits,’ …[and] while many of their fellow tribes people might claim to see or even be possessed by spirits, only shamans claim to be able to command, commune, and intercede with them for the benefit of the tribe” (Walsh, 1991, 86).

I mentioned above arguably the two most common techniques used by shamans.

My brief mention of them does not do justice to their rich tradition and the amount of training novice shamans must endure.

I add a final remark regarding shamanic training: as Buddhists must learn concepts of no-self and the workings of their spiritual practice’s cosmology before learning meditation techniques to experience the concepts first-hand, note too, shamans must learn about their spiritual practice’s cosmology and techniques before journeying to other worlds and meeting spirits (Rock and Baynes, 2005, 59).

Therefore, shamanic techniques taken out of context are perhaps meaningless unless framed within the larger cosmology; for example, a modernist who does not believe in spirits, upper, and lower worlds will likely not fare as well as the shaman using such techniques.

Technologies

Clothing decorations, rattles, and drums are significant artifacts in shamanism.

For example, mirrors and metal discs attached to garments make clanging and ringing sounds that are thought to scare away evil spirits (Matthews, 2013, 187-188).

Rattles filled with stones, seeds, or beads make “high-velocity” sounds to produce “sound landscapes” that are thought to have healing and magical powers (ibid., 192-195).

The drum is an important and ubiquitous shamanic tool.

The act of drumming serves navigational purposes: the drum, also known as the symbolic “World Tree,” guides shamans toward “upper” and “lower” worlds in altered states (Krippner, 2000, 102).

The World Tree serves as “the cosmological symbol of the connection between worlds, a connection that the shaman, alone among humans, is able to traverse” (Walsh, 1991, 89).

3.2.2 Modernists

Regarding the use of artifacts, modernists may think in terms of “set and setting,” guiding with props, and festivals.

First, set or mindset refers to the internal state of the user, and setting refers to the external conditions where drug-ingestion occurs (Metzner and Leary, 1967, 5).

Technologies are likely to be used in one’s external environment, such as music playing device, music genres stored as MP3 files, interior design of the locale, paraphernalia, etc.

Second, and related to the first, is the guide.

If the drug user is thought of as the pilot, the guide is the navigator.

The guide directs users through experiences often with props and objects so users can contemplatively analogize an aspect of 41 themselves that they want to work on in a therapeutic context (Masters and Houston, 1966).

Such objects can be used as tools to uncover something about users.

Leary et al (2007) recommend guides read passages from their book—inspired by the Tibetan Book of the Dead—to assist people with the “dying” (read: psychedelic) process.

Guides’ suggestive use of objects and other guiding techniques found in books, or perhaps music, gives the appearance of control of some aspects of the psychedelic experience.

Third, according to cultural anthropologist, Graham St John (2011), electronic dance music culture (EDMC) embodied as festivals act as “spiritual technologies”:

The use of “DJ techniques, optimized audio-visual production, performance, and participant expectations at raves” suggests that “‘technological advancements may compensate for the lack of coherent cultural signifiers’ vis-à-vis ‘the sophisticated scripted process of initiation observed in ceremonial possession’” (217; St John cites Takahashi, 2005).

Just as the drum’s beat allows the shaman to move through upper and lower worlds, the technoshamanic DJ fills a probable gap felt by modernists who look to shamans and their techniques for guidance on “proper” drug use.

3.2.3 Between two world(view)s

The gap between modernists’ surrender and fear, and shamans’ control, of psychedelic experiences suggest that modern psychedelic T&T are less efficacious than shamanic methods, lacking on three fronts—before, during, and after the experience, and perhaps a fourth encompassing front predicated on one’s worldview.

Before

The shaman must learn how to “see” and then “control” spirits, and to navigate through the altered state (Noll, 1985), but more importantly, to be knowledgeable about his or her culture’s (spiritual) cosmology.

According to Noll (1985), the shaman is a powerful member of society, acting as healer, mediator between worlds, and “mnemonic purveyor of culturally relevant material” that ensures the survival of the community (445).

Shamans are not recreational users of psychedelics; instead they enter into altered states/realms to “bargain, negotiate, or plead with spiritual entities” to obtain information on behalf of individuals or the entire community (Krippner, 2000, 101; see also: Walsh, 1995).

Shamanic T&T are used primarily for daily survival purposes (e.g. finding game animals, plants for healing, predicting weather patterns, etc.), and secondly, for spiritual uses, on which modernists place the most emphasis, according to Krippner (2000, 113-114).

During

The altruistic27 nature of shamans’ motives contrast many modernists’ “selfish” motives for taking psychedelics since shamans act as conduits to obtain information for others, while modernists seek information for themselves (e.g. therapeutically) or use psychedelics recreationally.

Tupper (2002) agrees with Albert Hofmann, the chemist who first synthesized LSD, in that recreational psychedelic use might entail unsafe circumstances and lacks the psychospiritual 27 It can be said that shamans do get something for themselves by helping others: alleged “powers” from helping spirits called “allies” (Walsh, 1995; Krippner, 2000).

Furthermore, some shamans claim to protect themselves with their powers against jealous “black”/bad shamans and against evil spirits (Luna, 1984).

Page 42

safeguards found in rituals (503).

While Tupper and Hofmann claim there may be risks associated with non-ritual, recreational use of psychedelics, there may also be risks when modernists attempt to use psychedelics in ritual contexts that call for shamanic-like techniques.

For example, Rock et al (2008) claim that individuals unfamiliar with drumming techniques—and prone to “need for order,” “childlikeness,” and “sensitivity” to name several mood types—experience higher levels of mood disturbance; therefore, “shamanic-like techniques may be counterproductive if applied in the absence of shamanic training (e.g. learning a cosmology, cultivating a mastery over mental images)” (75-76).

Rock et al (2008) add that mood disturbance may decrease after prolonged exposure to such techniques.

Modernists are caught in a dilemma: they are

(1) recommended to take psychedelics in a ritualized manner, yet

(2) shamanic T&T might be unhelpful to one’s mood, and as a result, the visionary content and experience.

After

Regarding the efficacy of psychedelics, Smith (1964) says, “Churches lack faith; …hipsters lack discipline” (529-530).

Faith refers to the potential that psychedelic visions might contain truths, and discipline to the diligent integration of said truths in daily life.

“Daily” integration and contemplation could be construed as a lifestyle, suggesting frequent psychedelic use.

Shamans and contemplative meditators diligently work on their practice and faith for perhaps decades, thus their minds are more prepared to deal with the effects during and after the experience than recreational psychedelic users (Walsh, 1989, 39).

Many modernists arguably do not devote their entire lives to the faith and discipline required for frequent psychedelic use as drug-taking shamans ostensibly do.

How do untrained modernists reconcile the abovementioned claims of shamanic ritual T&T being counterproductive to them?

“DIY [do-it-yourself] consciousness” (St John, 2011) and neoshamanic methods frankly seem less competent than traditional shamanic methods, considering academics and writers encourage modernists to surrender whether T&T are used or not (see Chapter 2.1).

Modernists have lost the tradition of institutionalized consciousness alteration, while shamans have “magico”-religious and cosmological accompaniments to aid them at all stages of their altered experiences.

Shamans operate within a worldview that supports T&T tailored to that worldview; in the following section, I unpack this statement to find out how modernists might develop and use symbols and technologies to act as prostheses favorable to their worldview that gives them more agency during psychedelic experiences.

3.3 Form and technology

An investigation of knowledge, gained through psychedelic use, would ideally take an intercultural approach.

Knowledge is contextual, in that it is determined by one’s worldview, and in the case of psychedelics, the kinds of T&T used and for what purpose.

Ernst Cassirer wrote an extensive three-volume series called Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, covering language, mythical thought, and phenomenology of knowledge.

He wrote a paper called Form and Technology shortly 43 thereafter to give some sense to the rapid mechanization of his native Germany in the 1920s.

In what follows, I use Cassirer’s philosophy to expand the current debate by extrapolating the role of psychedelic symbolic form and technology.

In An Essay on Man28, Cassirer (1956) invokes the ideas of biologist Johannes von Uexküll that all organisms have a “receptor system” that receives outward stimuli and an “effector system” by which organisms react to stimuli (42).

Cassirer argues for a third system in humans, the “symbolic system,” which acts as a mediary between outward stimuli and reactions, thereby delaying responses “by a slow and complicated process of thought,” allowing the human to inhabit a “new dimension of reality” (ibid., 43).

If symbols create new realities for humans to experience, according to Cassirer, then it is fair to say that human cultures using different symbols would have different outlooks on what reality is or could be.

Current and past members of society build the world that they perceive/perceived.

Cassirer (2012) says, “The ‘form’ of the world, whether in thought or action, whether in language or in effective activity, is not simply received and accepted by the human being; rather, it must be ‘built’ by him” (24).

Whereas animals are merely in a world, humans construct their world through thought/language and activity/tools (ibid.).

For example, Uexküll discusses the incommensurability of experience from the perspectives of flies and sea urchins; the experience and realities of each will be different (Cassirer, 1956, 41).

Shamans and modernists are certainly the same biological organism; nonetheless, their realities and worldviews differ depending on what symbols mediate each of their realities, whether these symbols are believed to have causality as they are thrown into the world in net-like fashion, and the kinds of technology that reinforce or add to such knowledge.

The modernist cannot fully understand the shaman’s world from the modern worldview and vice versa.

Considering the shaman’s worldview includes T&T that supposedly control psychedelic experiences, how might modernists treat drug-taking shamans’ T&T from the modern worldview perspective?

What clues does the shaman’s worldview give that might inspire or be appropriated by modernists?

Thought and activity “freeing” itself from nature, and by extension, individuals, can be considered as an “obligatory passage point” (Callon, 1986) to gain access to new dimensions of reality; that is to say, symbol and technology users must ally themselves with and adjust to new modes of experiencing to gain new knowledge and more control, especially for psychedelic users.

Cassirer (2012) contends that the first technologies were modeled on humans’ anatomy such as the hand; as technologies became more advanced, they eventually detached from nature’s models creating something entirely new.

For example, the problem of flight could only be solved once “technological thinking freed itself from the model of bird flight and abandoned the principle of the moving wing” (Cassirer, 2012, 39).

Regarding spoken language, it “wrestled itself free” from the metaphor of sound (connected to nature) toward the symbol of the written word (ibid.).

The above examples highlight an

Footnotes:

28 An Essay on Man is an abridged version of Cassirer’s Philosophy of Symbolic Forms (Vol. 1-3), written for English-speaking audiences.

Page 44

important aspect of Cassirer’s theory of symbols and technology: that technological and symbolic advancements create a distancing effect between humans and nature, between unmediated (read: less mediated) and mediated reality.

In other words, Cassirer’s (2012) concept of “distance” allows the symbol or technology user to foresee the means of discovering reality between the “will” and the “goal” (29-31).

Humans lose their connection to nature “…as soon as activity takes the form of indirectness, as soon as the tool comes between the human being and his work” (ibid., 39-40), and as symbols and technologies become better at predicting (one’s) reality.

In view of Cassirer’s thoughts on symbolic form and technology, it can be argued that as technology accelerates in wrestling itself free from its original form, technology users become increasingly separated from nature and natural processes (baseline reality)—a necessary concession to expose oneself to other (intoxicated) dimensions of reality.

Cassirer (2012) says that technology’s essence for the most part had escaped the realm of philosophic inquiry and that “‘abstract’ thought is unable to penetrate into the core of the technological world” (17).

Further, he unjustly criticizes non-“civilized” peoples for not understanding objective causality as understood in modern society, specifically that “the mythical-magical world still knows nothing about a sense of causality that both constructs and renders possible the sphere of objects, making them accessible to thought” (ibid., 32).

With due respect, I disagree with Cassirer on the above points because he was thinking within the realm of sober consciousness.

I use Cassirer’s philosophy against him, showing that abstract symbols and thoughts can penetrate technology’s essential core and that shamans do understand objective causality, albeit within the realm of psychedelics, a state Cassirer likely knew little of first-hand.

Cassirer’s philosophy of symbols and technology is compelling; however, he does not appreciate the ingenuity of shamanic culture that combines thought (symbol) with activity (tools) in psychedelic ASCs.

In reference to Max Eyth’s the “word and the tool,” i.e. concepts that distinguish humans from animals (Cassirer, 2012, 22-23), Cassirer speaks of thought and activity as if they were separate entities; on the contrary, they do compliment each other in their combined use.

Eyth later refers to his concept of “tool of the mind,” that “both word and tool are a product of the same fundamental mental force” (ibid).

In other words, words and tools respectively are tools of the mind, both originate from thought; thus, surely there exists overlap between them.

For example, claiming that all symbols are immaterial and all tools are material is false since there are exceptions: symbols can be scribed or stamped onto signs, and tools like language are immaterial.

All things considered, let us take as our premise that symbols represent ideas while tools represent a particular function inherent to the tool.

Further, there are at least three ways to experience psychedelics: 1) (psychedeliconly), 2) either (psychedelic+symbol) or (psychedelic+technology), and 3) (psychedelic+symbol+ technology).

I argue that psychedelics, symbols, and technologies used together reveal new applications, resulting in a wrestled-free symbolico-technological third function.

Coupling symbol with technology creates avenues of new experiences, experiences malleable by the user depending on 45 the co-equal symbolico-technological relation and how each co-shapes the created third function.

To illustrate this, imagine a vesica piscis made of one red and one blue circle.

As these circles overlap, the mandorla, the emergent almond-shaped center, becomes purple.

It is this newly created tertiary triad and its functionality wherefrom users can gain access to other dimensions of reality hitherto unknown, to revisit previously discovered realms, discover new knowledge, and exercise greater control over their experiences.

As Walsh (1991, 1995) proposes causality dilemmas regarding cosmology-or-experience and worldview-or-technology and vice versa, a new dilemma emerges through the application of Cassirer’s work regarding psychedelics: did the symbol or technology come first; did one cause the other?

The famous example given by anthropologists, psychologists, and religious scholars is the aforementioned World Tree.

The ubiquitous symbol of the World Tree, in all its variations across tribal cultures, acts as axis mundi or universal pillar that holds up the upper world and its roots securing the lower world, allowing the shaman to journey between them (Eliade, 1987, 32-42).

The cosmological symbol of the World Tree and the (drum + drumbeat) that represents it allow shamans access to the created third function, that is, the act of journeying to and experiencing of Other Worlds and their inhabitants.

At stake is: if the World Tree succeeded the drum, one must wonder whether this particular technology used with psychedelics would have eventually, or will always in similar circumstances, bear World Tree-like symbolism.

Conversely, does working with symbols like the World Tree, evolutionarily speaking, produce a drum to represent it?

The verdict is still undecided.

However, just as there are manifold psychedelic-only experiences, there are potentially other symbols and technologies just beyond grasp that may co-shape, or wrestle-free, one another into existence upon their discovery/creation.

As for reciprocal determinism in a spatial context, space between the will and goal, as in the farther or nearer one is to either, depends on one’s level of thought incubation; viz., the discovery/creation of symbols and technology being directly related to one’s level of desire (or need) to effectuate them.

For example, in consideration of the proverb, “necessity is the mother of invention,” what was necessary about transcribing speech, why did this phenomenon spring from oral tradition?

Writing allows thought to be extended through time and to be read by multiple persons spatially separated in addition to a sense of permanence of the author’s thought and self-identity.

Similarly, psychedelic users’ desire to control (goal) the experience and to reduce fears must be embodied in the kinds of symbols, technologies, and symbolico-technological relations (will) to do just that.

Regardless whether the symbol or technology came first, it is more than likely psychedelics would have been taken antecedently since symbolic and technological thought-forms presumably derive from ASCs, but more importantly, users would need to be in psychedelic ASCs to discover, test, and retest their symbols’ and technologies’ efficacy.

Deliberating on whether symbol or technology spawned the other is likely to have happened reciprocally at varying degrees.

Insofar as

Page 46

language wrestled itself free from thought, and the written word from language, what symbols or tools might wrestle themselves free from intoxicated thoughts?

They might be ideas, concepts or nonphysical objects to be used solely in psychedelic ASCs.

Determined will and set goals ultimately will coax symbolic and technological thought-forms free from intoxicated thought.

Shamans are better candidates or prototypes, compared to mystics, for modernists to model the mitigation of fearful psychedelic stimuli.

The shaman seems to know how to turn metaphor— unintelligible and incomprehensible percepts—into workable symbols.

Krippner speaks of shamans’ ability to “manipulate” symbols in altered states (2000, 102-103) and Walsh says shamans may be “‘imposers of form’ who easily create meaningful patterns from unclear data” (1991, 90).

The same shamanic symbols used during psychedelic experiences may be ineffective or not as effective in sober states, which suggests that shamans are highly trained professionals who give form to ASC and its content, hence, a degree of control over the experience.

The shaman is said to be a world builder and a reality manipulator in altered states and uses thoughtfully designed or discovered symbols and technologies when looking for a particular kind of knowledge.

In referring to technology’s ability to tease out nature’s secrets, Cassirer (2012) says, “This discovery is a disclosure; it is the grasping and the making one’s own of an essential connection that previously lay hidden” (29-30).

The human mind is a part of nature, and as such, the combination of psychedelic symbols and technology need not disclose something about one’s external environment, but rather could disclose something hidden about one’s (altered) mind or (perhaps) objective Other Worlds, allowing new meanings between “I” and world(s) to be grasped (ibid).

In order to test new hypotheses of what (altered) reality is or could be, users can assume new premises, allowing new symbolico-technologies to emerge that confront current ways of knowing by opening “new dimensions of reality.”

Section Break

Effective modern psychedelic symbols, techniques, and technologies currently do not exist, and I am not in a position to suggest specifics on their future discovery, development, and use.

However, if pressed to make an educated guess, I predict that combining a variant of mental imagery cultivation with modern sound/music technology might provide further insights into psychedelic ASC, particularly in the areas of structural acoustics, psychophysics, and cymatics that deal with frequencies, vibrations, and harmonics.

Winn et al (1989) elucidate such a step forward in their understanding of sonic driving29: “…Strong, repetitive percussive sound used to quiet the verbal, linear left-hemispheric functioning to allow symbolic, non-linear modes of problem solving to

Footnotes:

29 See also: Neher’s (1961, 1962) “auditory driving”; Monroe’s (1985) brain “hemispheric synchronization” via binaural beats; Woodside et al’s (1997) “acoustical driving”; Winkelman’s (2010) “rhythmic auditory stimulation”; and Boccolini et al (2018) regarding their work with “ghost imaging” and human perception.

Page 47

emerge—is an essential part of all shamanic practices” (69).

Initial findings from marrying psychedelics with modern technology and symbols will push known boundaries; though, I suspect over time new frontiers shall become increasingly understood, leading to greater user control and reduction of fears.

[no – rather, more und’g of control transformation & fear – mh]

Page 48

Conclusion

The present study began with the observation that many modern societies and individuals fear psychedelics.

By investigating how psychedelics threaten the idea of being a rational subject in modern society, to what extent Otherness and the unknown contribute to individuals’ fears of psychedelics, and how technologies and symbols can provide more agency and control to psychedelic users, I am confident in answering my central research question:

In what ways can modern users conceptualize the psychedelic experience that counters the current fear-laden discourse on drugs?

Using modern fears of psychedelics as my framework, and the foundations upon which those fears are based, allows for richer understanding of current conflicting views of drugs in general and psychedelics in particular.

Only when antiquated conceptions are understood can recommendations inform future direction, advancing further creation of knowledge into psychedelic realms and practices.

With that said, my philosophical inquiry has prescriptive consequences.

First, everyone should get clear about the terms they use.

In this thesis, I repeatedly redefine terms or create new ones such as the analyses I provide on psychedelic Other, (bodily and mental) surrender, known and unknown fears, notions of self, control, symbolico-technological relations, etc.

However, academics and users’ pathological descriptions, i.e. ego death/dissolution terminology, to explain psychedelic experiences deserve special attention.

This category mistake should be abandoned if fear-based concerns are to reduce.

The concept, merging, from mysticism could replace previous descriptions; therefrom, “ego merging” is an appealingly disarming term.

Pathological terminology suggests a becoming-less-than state, a description mystics and shamans do not endorse.

Past and current fear-laden discourse suggest that psychedelics make people insane, that users might lose part of what makes them a rational subject, and thus, could harm one’s self and others.

Psychedelic users claim otherwise, comparing their experiences to mystical states, moral and spiritual enhancement, and extending conscious experience beyond their five senses.

As for religious institutions fearing mystics and psychedelic users’ direct access to possible divine realms, such experiences would likely reinforce religious doctrine, not counter it.

The nearly fifty-year prohibition on psychedelics creates an atmosphere of misunderstanding.

Insofar as alcohol, nicotine, and prescription drugs are institutionalized in modern society, opening up psychedelics to research and responsible use might create a common language/framework to better explain these experiences leading to less fear among users and non-users.

Additionally, psychedelics appear to be effective means of fighting addictions to degenerative drugs such as opioids.

Second, dosage is an important variable when philosophizing about psychedelics.

Current debates in philosophy regarding the self, and epistemological debates in religion and mysticism, seem to not account for various dosage levels on oscillating and diaphanous mental states between semiintoxication and full-intoxication.

I propose a qualitative framework in Chapter 2.3.1 for philosophers and neuroscientists to assess mystical/psychedelic experiences that allow a middle path for both narrative and minimal selves to be expressed.

The framework was written with surrenderism in mind; 49 however, it can be adapted to include control aspects related to shamanic methods.

Furthermore, epistemological polarities such as constructivism and perennialism highlight the narrative-minimal self negotiation but on a broader scale.

Constructivists might be correct in their claims that mystics and psychedelic users enter altered states of consciousness (ASC) with views of their (religious) world, however, perennialists too are possibly correct when mystics, modernists, and shamans approach the nondual state, again, depending on dosage.

Scholars have researched thus far religious, psychological, therapeutic, and neuroscientific angles, to name several.

The philosophic study of psychedelics is more or less a dormant field; the more society and individuals understand psychedelic phenomena the greater chances there will be in changing discourse on drugs.

Considering philosophy of psychedelics and psychedelic technologies are still in their infancy, there is room to study these abstract realms with the criticality and logic of the philosopher’s perspective.

Also, evidence suggests that ASCs provide clues to the nature of (neural correlates of) consciousness, selfhood, and a reexamination of one’s sober self.

Third, in short-term and therapeutic contexts, surrender might be ideal for many individuals.

Surrender can be considered a form of passive control, in that surrendering to the experience is a better alternative than resisting the oncoming altered state, which could lead to bad experiences.

Surrendering entails relinquishing one’s symbolic system used for sober reality, hence new symbols are needed, i.e. “tools of the mind,” for psychedelic ASCs.

This thesis is replete with paradoxes and I suggest a final one that contrasts my proposed operationalization of shamanic control methods: modernists would benefit from surrendering their current modern rationale, to hit pause, as it were, to observe and consider alternative ways of approaching psychedelic experiences that do not succumb to fear.

I am not advocating that modernists forego their entire worldview, but instead take a respite from their commonly accepted knowledge and reality frames to learn something from non-modern psychedelic users.

Psychedelia needs philosophers more than ever; especially as advancements in neuroscience better explain neuronal functioning and indigenous drug-taking cultures and traditions continually come under threat.

Finally, identifying, understanding, and as a result, operationalizing, middle ground in the way modernists conceptualize psychedelic experiences enlarges discourse on what seems to be, from modern perspectives, magical/mythical practices found in shamanic cultures.

Psychedelic scholars and practitioners suggest modernists surrender, while other scholars reference shamans’ control of psychedelic experiences through technology; however, it appears that both academic disciplines do not interact.

To the best of my knowledge, scholars have not asked as extensively as I have whether modernists too can control said experiences.

While it is reasonable to use concepts from mysticism to intellectualize psychedelic experiences, the likely more helpful prototype in the context of fear are shamans who are said to control experiences through symbolism and technology.

Thus, modernists can borrow from both ideologies, using mysticism to explain and shamanism to control experiences for the most part.

Page 50

As I argue in Chapter 2.3.1, diminishment of narrative self leads to semi-DS and semi-NDS.

Thus, symbolico-technologies can fill the gap created by reductions in narrative/sober self; or put another way, states of intoxicated self are more conducive to using psychedelic symobolicotechnologies than DS and NDS, and intoxicated individuals can make great use of them when applied to a range of purposes, such as: controlling, navigating, and seeking new knowledge.

Symbolicotechnologies are prostheses, or crutches so to speak, in that psychedelic users are likely more able to maintain balance during uncertain and unpredictable mental conditions when they rely on these accoutrements.

Epistemologically speaking, psychedelic realms might be considered as intermediate platforms of knowledge exchange between constructivist and perennialist positions.

Symbolicotechnologies might allow users to better capture and process insights to bring back to sober reality.

I strongly defend the idea that symbolico-technological relations is how shamans control and understand their experiences and that this concept will be an extremely important research topic toward a philosophy of psychedelic technology.

The kind of knowledge modernists seek will inform the symbols and technologies they discover/develop and use according to their worldview.

Symbolico-technologies provide insightful, richer experiences of other realities that co-exist alongside humans’ increasingly estranged, according to Cassirer (2012), natural origins; the totality of reality exponentially increases as humans discover more ways of experiencing and knowing.

The conceptualization of psychedelic knowledge, the Other, and Other Worlds from modern worldview perspectives will require a redefining of knowledge and psychedelic technology.

Currently unanswerable questions arise: How will modern society cope with psychedelic knowledge; what kinds of psychedelic technologies will be developed for modern audiences; and what would it take for psychedelic knowledge to be recognized as useful or as a topic of interest to research?

Limitations

My modern perspective of the world, i.e. my American background and the Dutch education system—regarding the context of the master’s program and perspectives of the largely European/American faculty members—likely shape my thinking and processing of texts and the manner in which I frame my arguments.

Since this project is chiefly a theoretical investigation, I draw on mainly continental philosophers and secondary empirical research.

Primary research would undoubtedly provide corroboration or refutation of modern academics’ analyses of drug-taking shamans’ cultures and modern users’ applications of psychedelics.

I focus on the most likely psychedelic fears society and individuals have in consideration of brevity.

There are surely other fears that are worthy of exploration.

A more thorough investigation might involve finding out what people fear to know how to design and use psychedelic symbols and technologies per culture, perhaps even per individual.

Additionally, I group all psychedelics into a single category, albeit a category that shares many common characteristics, for example, when compared to deliriants and dissociatives.

With that said, James (2002, 300-301) alludes to the potentially unlimited altered states of consciousness to 51 explore regarding his experimentation with nitrous oxide, and likely, these experiences are dependent on countless other variables at the moment of ingestion—worldview, substance, dosage, life experience, mood, present and repressed emotional states, etc.

Future studies dedicated to specific substances and controlled variables would illuminate further insights.

Future research

There are at least two directions for future philosophical research that stem from the present study: philosophical (xeno)anthropology and/or xenophenomenology, and Cassirer’s philosophy of symbolic forms and technology.

Research into (altered) self and psychedelic Other can expand beyond this thesis to include new de-anthropomorphized and de-anthropocentric approaches; for example, in a philosophical (xeno)anthropology context, and perhaps a xenophenomenological approach to further explicate nonhuman and/or nonphysical psychedelic entities and their perspectives.

Such areas broaden the current dominant singular/sober approach to consciousness and concepts of self and Other in altered realms.

For example, what do modern users learn from intoxicated self and psychedelic entities; how do users incorporate psychedelic knowledge in their daily sober lives?

Cassirer’s philosophy of symbolic forms shows promise for psychedelic (technology) research, perhaps fusing with Ihde’s postphenomenology.

Psychedelic researchers can investigate the development of modern symbolic and technological accoutrements, i.e. symbolico-technological relations, for modern audiences.

Researchers and expert/lay users are left the colossal task of codiscovering and co-shaping psychedelic symbols and technologies according to modern worldviews since it has yet to be done as thoroughly and effectively as those of shamans according to their worldview.

Regarding shamans’ superimposition of World Tree symbolism with the drum/drumbeat, how might modern psychedelic symbolism pair with modern technologies and for what purposes?

The discovery and design of symbols offer new means of communication/ mediation with psychedelic Others, control, and navigation in altered realms respectively.

Further, when psychedelic symbols wrestle themselves free from original thought-forms, researchers might be able to reverse engineer the meaning of these symbols to understand what they represent or take raw experiential data to create new symbols.

Page 52

Bibliography

A

American Psychiatric Association.

(2013).

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5.

Arlington, Virginia: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Aristotle.

(1922).

The Poetics of Aristotle (4th ed.).

(S. H. Butcher, Trans.).

London: MacMillan and Co., Limited.

B

Barrett, F. S., & Griffiths, R. R. (2018).

Classic Hallucinogens and Mystical Experiences: Phenomenology and Neural Correlates.

Behavioral Neurobiology of Psychedelic Drugs, 36, 393-430.

Berger, P.

L., & Kellner, H.

(1965).

Arnold Gehlen and the Theory of Institutions.

Social Research, 32(1), 110-115.

Berger, P.

L., & Luckmann, T.

(1991/1966).

The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge.

Penguin Books.

Bicchieri, C., Muldoon, R., & Sontuoso, A.

(2018).

Social norms.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Retrieved October 10, 2018, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-norms/ Blewett, D.

(1970).

The Psychedelics and Group Therapy.

In B.

Aaronson & H.

Osmond (Eds.), Psychedelics: The Uses and Implications of Hallucinogenic Drugs, (342-357).

Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.

Boccolini, A., Fedrizzi, A., & Faccio, D. (2018).

Ghost imaging with the human eye.

arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.05137.

Bourguignon, E. (1989).

Trance and Shamanism: What’s in a Name?  Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 21(1), 9-15.  Brodwin, E. (2017, May 9).

“Scientists are about to find out how Silicon Valley’s LSD habit really affects productivity.” Retrieved November 30, 2018, from http://uk.businessinsider.com/microdosing-lsd-effects-risks-science-2017- 5?r=US&IR=T

C

Callon, M. (1986).

Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay.

In J. Law (Ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, (196-233).

London: Routledge.

Carhart-Harris, R.

L., Leech, R., Hellyer, P.

J., Shanahan, M., Feilding, A., Tagliazucchi, E., Chialvo, D.

R., & Nutt, D.

(2014).

The entropic brain: a theory of conscious states informed by neuroimaging research with psychedelic drugs.

Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 20.

Cassirer, E.

(1956/1944).

An Essay on Man: An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human Culture.

Garden City, New York: Doubleday.

Cassirer, E.

(2012).

Form and Technology.

(W.

M.

Dunlavey & J.

M.

Krois, Trans.).

In A.

S Hoel & I.

Folkvord (Eds.), Ernst Cassirer on Form and Technology: Contemporary Readings, (15-53).

Palgrave Macmillan.

[Originally published as: Cassirer, E.

(1930).

Form und Technik.

In L.

Kestenberg (Ed.), Kunst und Technik, (15-61).

Berlin: Wegweiser.]

D

Daase, C., & Kessler, O.

(2007).

Knowns and Unknowns in the ‘War on Terror’: Uncertainty and the Political Construction of Danger.

Security Dialogue, 38(4), 411-434.

Damasio, A.

1999.

The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness.

Harcourt.

Derrida, J.

(1995/1992).

The Rhetoric of Drugs.

In E.

Weber (Ed.) & M.

Israel (Trans.), Points…: Interviews, 1974-1994, (228-254).

Stanford University Press.

Derrida, J.

(2000/1997).

Of Hospitality.

(R.

Bowlby, Trans.).

Stanford University Press.

Dittrich, A.

(1998).

The Standardized Psychometric Assessment of Altered States of Consciousness (ASCs) in Humans.

Pharmacopsychiatry, 31(S 2), 80-84.

53 Drug Enforcement Administration.

(2017).

Drugs of Abuse: A DEA Resource Guide [PDF].

Produced and published by the U.S.

Department of Justice.

E

Einstein, A.

(1931).

In H.

G.

Leach (Ed.), Living Philosophies.

New York: Simon & Schuster.

Eliade, M.

(1987/1957).

The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion.

(W.

R.

Trask, Trans.).

New York: Harcourt, Inc.

Elster, J.

(1989).

The Cement of Society: A Study of Social Order.

Cambridge University Press.

F

Fadiman, J.

(2011).

The Psychedelic Explorer’s Guide: Safe, Therapeutic, and Sacred Journeys.

Park Street Press.

Fadun, O.

S.

(2013).

Risk Management and Risk Management Failure: Lessons for Business Enterprises.

International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(2), 225-239.

Fernandez, J.

W.

(1982).

Bwiti: An Ethnography of the Religious Imagination in Africa.

Princeton University Press.

Foucault, M.

(1988/1961).

Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason.

(R.

Howard, Trans.).

New York: Vintage Books.

Freud, S.

(2003/1919).

The Uncanny.

(D.

McLintock, Trans.).

Penguin Books.

Frosch, W.

A., Robbins, E.

S., & Stern, M.

(1965).

Untoward Reactions to Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) Resulting in Hospitalization.

New England Journal of Medicine, 273(23), 1235-1239.

G

Gallagher, S.

(2000).

Philosophical conceptions of the self: Implications for cognitive science.

Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(1), 14-21.

Gallagher, S.

(2011).

Introduction: A Diversity of Selves.

In S.

Gallagher (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Self, (1-29).

Oxford University Press.

Gehlen, A.

(2003/1983).

A Philosophical-Anthropological Perspective on Technology.

In R.

C.

Scharff & V.

Dusek (Eds.), Philosophy of Technology: The Technological Condition: An Anthology, (213-220).

Wiley-Blackwell.

Gerard, R.

W.

(1956).

Neuropharmacology: Transactions of the Second Conference.

Josiah Macy, Jr.

Foundation.

New York, NY.

Giddens, A.

(1990).

The Consequences of Modernity.

United Kingdom: Polity Press.

Giddens, A.

(1991).

Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age.

Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press.

Girón, S.

(2013).

Working with Trauma: Psychedelic Harm Reduction and Transpersonal Psychotherapy.

MAPS Bulletin, Vol.

23, No.

3, 2013 Annual Report, 47-49.

Graham, G.

(2010).

The Disordered Mind: An Introduction to Philosophy of Mind and Mental Illness.

New York: Routledge.

Griffiths, R.

R., Richards, W.

A., McCann, U., & Jesse, R.

(2006).

Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance.

Psychopharmacology, 187(3), 268-283.

Griffiths, R.

R., Richards, W.

A., Johnson, M.

W., McCann, U.

D., & Jesse, R.

(2008).

Mystical-type experiences occasioned by psilocybin mediate the attribution of personal meaning and spiritual significance 14 months later.

Journal of Psychopharmacology, 22(6), 621-632.

Griffiths, R.

R., Johnson, M.

W., Richards, W.

A., Richards, B.

D., McCann, U., & Jesse, R.

(2011).

Psilocybin occasioned mystical-type experiences: immediate and persisting dose-related effects.

Psychopharmacology, 218(4), 649-665.

Griffiths, R. R. (2018). Personal email communication on October 24-25, 2018.

Grinker, R. R. (1963). Lysergic Acid Diethylamide. Archives of General Psychiatry, 8(5), 425-425.

Page 54

Grob, C. S., Bossis, A. P., & Griffiths, R. R. (2013). Use of the classic hallucinogen psilocybin for treatment of existential distress associated with cancer. In Psychological Aspects of Cancer (291-308). Boston, Massachusetts: Springer.

Grof, S. (1980).

LSD Psychotherapy.

Pomona, California: Hunter House.

Guttmann, E.

(1936).

Artificial Psychoses Produced by Mescaline.

Journal of Mental Science, 82(338), 203-221.

H

Harman, G.

(2012).

Weird Realism: Lovecraft and Philosophy.

Winchester, United Kingdom: Zero Books.

Harner, M.

J.

(1973).

The Sound of Rushing Water.

In M.

J.

Harner (Ed.), Hallucinogens and Shamanism, (15-27).

Oxford University Press.

Hegel, G.

W.

F.

(1977/1807).

Phenomenology of Spirit.

(A.

V.

Miller, Trans.).

Oxford University Press.

Hoffer, A., Osmond, H., & Smythies, J.

(1954).

Schizophrenia: A New Approach.

II.

Result of a Year’s Research.

Journal of Mental Science, 100(418), 29-45.

Hogan, E.

(2017, September 1).

“Turn on, tune in, drop by the office.” Retrieved November 30, 2018, from https://www.1843magazine.com/features/turn-on-tune-in-drop-by-the-office Horne, J.

(2007).

The Four ‘Knowns’ of Sports Mega-Events.

Leisure Studies, 26(1), 81-96.

Huxley, A.

(1947).

The Perennial Philosophy.

London: Chatto & Windus.

Huxley, A.

(1999).

Mescaline and the “Other World.” In M.

Horowitz & C.

Palmer (Eds.), Moksha: Aldous Huxley’s Classic Writings on Psychedelics and the Visionary Experience, (Ch.

13).

Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press.

Huxley, A.

(2013).

The Doors of Perception & Heaven and Hell.

United States: Important Books.

(Original works published in 1954 and 1956 respectively.).

I

Ihde, D.

(1990).

Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Earth.

Indiana University Press.

Ihde, D.

(2004).

Philosophy of Technology.

In P.

Kemp (Ed.), Philosophical Problems Today, Volume 3: World and Worldhood, (91-108).

Springer-Verlag.

J

James, W.

(2002/1902).

The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature.

Routledge.

Johnson, M.

W., Richards, W.

A., & Griffiths, R.

R.

(2008).

Human Hallucinogen Research: Guidelines for Safety.

Journal of Psychopharmacology, 22(6), 603-620.

K

Katz, S.

T.

(1978).

Language, Epistemology, and Mysticism.

In S.

T.

Katz (Ed.), Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis, (22- 74).

Oxford University Press.

Krippner, S.

(2000).

The Epistemology and Technologies of Shamanic States of Consciousness.

Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7(11-12), 93-118.

Kuhn, T.

S.

(1970/1962).

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.).

University of Chicago Press.

L

Leary, T., Metzner, R., & Alpert, R.

(2007/1964).

The Psychedelic Experience: A Manual Based on the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

New York: Citadel Press.

Lebedev, A.

V., Lövdén, M., Rosenthal, G., Feilding, A., Nutt, D.

J., & Carhart-Harris, R.

L.

(2015).

Finding the Self by Losing the Self: Neural Correlates of Ego-Dissolution Under Psilocybin.

Human Brain Mapping, 36(8), 3137- 3153.

Lebedev, A.

(2018).

Personal email communication on October 26, 2018.

55 Lerner, M., & Lyvers, M.

(2006).

Values and Beliefs of Psychedelic Drug Users: A Cross-Cultural Study.

Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 38(2), 143-147.

Lewin, L.

(1924).

Phantastica: Die betäubenden und erregenden Genussmittel für Ärzte und Nichtärzte.

[Phantastica: Narcotic and Stimulating Drugs, Their Use and Abuse; English translation, 1931.] Berlin, Germany: Verlag von Georg Stilke.

Lotsof, H.

S.

(1994).

Ibogaine in the treatment of chemical dependence disorders: Clinical perspectives.

MAPS Bulletin, Vol.

5, No.

3, 16-27.

Lovecraft, H.

P.

(1973/1945).

Supernatural Horror in Literature.

New York: Dover Publications, Inc.

Luke, D.

(2011).

Discarnate Entities and Dimethyltryptamine (DMT): Psychopharmacology, Phenomenology and Ontology.

Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 75(902), 26-42.

Luna, L.

E.

(1984).

The Concept of Plants as Teachers Among Four Mestizo Shamans of Iquitos, Northeastern Peru.

Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 11(2), 135-156.

M

MAPS.

(n.d.).

MDMA-Assisted Psychotherapy.

Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies.

Retrieved November 30, 2018, from http://www.maps.org/research/mdma Masters, R.

E.

L., & Houston, J.

(1966).

The Varieties of Psychedelic Experience.

New York: Dell Publishing Co., Inc.

Matthews, J.

(2013).

The Shamanism Bible.

London: Octopus Publishing.

McKenna, T.

(1983).

Alien Love.

Shared Visions Bookstore, Berkeley, California.

Transcript of lecture downloaded July 23, 2018, from http://terencemckenna.wikispaces.com/ (now defunct), linking to https://terencemckennaarchives.com/transcription-project/ (still active).

McKenna, T.

(1998).

True Hallucinations & The Archaic Revival.

New York: MJF Books.

(Original works published in 1993 and 1992 respectively.).

McKenna, T.

(1999, October-November).

Terence McKenna Vs.

The Black Hole a.k.a.

Terence McKenna’s last interview.

McKenna’s house, Big Island, Hawaii.

Interview by Erik Davis.

Transcript of interview downloaded July, 23, 2018, from http://terencemckenna.wikispaces.com/ (now defunct), linking to https://terencemckennaarchives.com/transcription-project/ (still active).

Merriam-Webster.

(n.d.

–a).

Definition of dissolution in English by Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

Retrieved, October 22, 2018, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disintegration Merriam-Webster.

(n.d.

–b).

Definition of disintegration in English by Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

Retrieved, October 22, 2018, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disintegration Metzner, R., & Leary, T.

(1967).

On Programming Psychedelic Experiences.

Psychedelic Review, 9, 5-19.

Mill, J.

S.

(1996).

From “On Liberty.” In R.

M.

Stewart (Ed.), Readings in Social & Political Philosophy (2nd ed.).

Oxford University Press.

(On Liberty first published in 1859.) Miller, S.

(2011).

Social institutions.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Retrieved October 10, 2018, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-institutions/ Millière, R.

(2017).

Looking for the Self: Phenomenology, Neurophysiology and Philosophical Significance of Druginduced Ego Dissolution.

Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 245.

Mogar, R.

(1970).

Psychedelic States and Schizophrenia.

In B.

Aaronson & H.

Osmond (Eds.), Psychedelics: The Uses and Implications of Hallucinogenic Drugs, (257-276).

Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.

Monroe, R.

A.

(1971).

Journeys Out of the Body.

New York: Doubleday.

Monroe, R.

A.

(1985).

Far Journeys.

New York: Broadway Books.

Móró, L., Simon, K., Bárd, I., & Racz, J.

(2011).

Voice of the Psychonauts: Coping, Life Purpose, and Spirituality in Psychedelic Drug Users.

Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 43(3), 188-198.

56 Musto, D.

F., & Korsmeyer, P.

(2002).

The Quest for Drug Control: Politics and Federal Policy in a Period of Increasing Substance Abuse, 1963-1981.

Yale University Press.

Muthukumaraswamy, S.

D., Carhart-Harris, R.

L., Moran, R.

J., Brookes, M.

J., Williams, T.

M., Errtizoe, D., Sessa, B., Papadopoulos, A., Bolstridge, M., Singh, K.

D., Feilding, A., Friston, K.

J., & Nutt, D.

J.

(2013).

Broadband Cortical Desynchronization Underlies the Human Psychedelic State.

Journal of Neuroscience, 33(38), 15171- 15183.

N

Neher, A.

(1961).

Auditory Driving Observed With Scalp Electrodes in Normal Subjects.

Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 13(3), 449-451.

Neher, A.

(1962).

A Physiological Explanation of Unusual Behavior in Ceremonies Involving Drums.

Human Biology, 34(2), 151-160.

Noll, R.

(1983).

Shamanism and schizophrenia: A state-specific approach to the “schizophrenia metaphor” of shamanic states.

American Ethnologist, 10(3), 443-459.

Noll, R.

(1985).

Mental Imagery Cultivation as a Cultural Phenomenon: The Role of Visions in Shamanism.

Current Anthropology, 26(4), 443-461.

O

Osmond, H.

(1957).

A Review of the Clinical Effects of Psychotomimetic Agents.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 66(1), 418-434.

Osmond, H.

(1970).

On Being Mad.

In B.

Aaronson & H.

Osmond (Eds.), Psychedelics: The Uses and Implications of Hallucinogenic Drugs, (21-28).

Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.

P

Pahnke, W.

N.

(1963).

Drugs and Mysticism: An Analysis of the Relationship between Psychedelic Drugs and the Mystical Consciousness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).

Harvard University: Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Pahnke, W.

N.

(1969a).

Psychedelic Drugs and Mystical Experience.

International Psychiatry Clinics, 5(4), 149-162.

Pahnke, W.

N.

(1969b).

The Psychedelic Mystical Experience in the Human Encounter with Death.

Harvard Theological Review, 62(1), 1-21.

Pawson, R., Wong, G., & Owen, L.

(2011).

Known Knowns, Known Unknowns, Unknown Unknowns: The Predicament of Evidence-Based Policy.

American Journal of Evaluation, 32(4), 518-546. 

R

Rock, A. J., & Baynes, P. B. (2005). Shamanic Journeying Imagery, Constructivism and the Affect Bridge Technique. Anthropology of Consciousness, 16(2), 50-71.

Rock, A. J., Wilson, J. M., Johnston, L. J., & Levesque, J. V. (2008). Ego Boundaries, Shamanic-Like Techniques, and Subjective Experience: An Experimental Study. Anthropology of Consciousness, 19(1), 60-83.

Ruck, C. A. P., Bigwood, J., Staples, D., Ott, J., & Wasson, R. G. (1979).  Entheogens.  Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, 11(1- 2), 145-146.

Rumsfeld, D. (2002).  DoD News Briefing – Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers.  U.S. Department of Defense. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from https://archive.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=2636 Rumsfeld, D. (2011).

Known and Unknown: A Memoir. New York: Sentinel.

Page 57

S

Sayim, B., & Franke, I.

(2018).

Towards a Phenomenology of the Unknown.

In H.

C.

Mertens & K.

Naie (Eds.), Ivana Franke: Retreat into Darkness – Towards a Phenomenology of the Unknown, (107-135).

Berlin, Germany: Spector Books.

Schechtman, M.

(2011).

The Narrative Self.

In S.

Gallagher (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Self, (394-416).

Oxford University Press.

Sessa, B.

(2012).

The Psychedelic Renaissance: Reassessing the Role of Psychedelic Drugs in 21st Century Psychiatry and Society.

London: Muswell Hill Press.

Sewell, R.

A., Halpern, J.

H., & Pope, H.

G.

(2006).

Response of cluster headache to psilocybin and LSD.

Neurology, 66(12), 1920-1922.

Shanon, B.

(2002).

The Antipodes of the Mind: Charting the Phenomenology of the Ayahuasca Experience.

Oxford University Press.

Shipley, M.

(2015).

Psychedelic Mysticism: Transforming Consciousness, Religious Experiences, and Voluntary Peasants in Postwar America.

Lexington Books.

Smith, H.

(1964).

Do Drugs Have Religious Import?.

The Journal of Philosophy, 61(18), 517-530.

St John, G.

(2011).

Spiritual Technologies and Altering Consciousness in Contemporary Counterculture.

In E.

Cardeña & M.

Winkelman (Eds.), Altering Consciousness: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, Volume 1: History, Culture, and the Humanities, (203-225).

Praeger.

Stace, W. T. (1960). Mysticism and Philosophy. London: MacMillan and Co., Limited.

Stafford, P. (1992/1978). Psychedelics Encyclopedia (3rd ed.). Berkeley, California: Ronin Publishing, Inc.

Stockings, G. T. (1940).

A clinical study of the mescaline psychosis, with special reference to the mechanism of the genesis of schizophrenic and other psychotic states.

Journal of Mental Science, 86(360), 29-47.

Strassman, R. J. (1984). Adverse Reactions to Psychedelic Drugs: A Review of the Literature. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 172(10), 577-595.

Strassman, R. (2001).

DMT: The Spirit Molecule: A Doctor’s Revolutionary Research into the Biology of Near-Death and Mystical Experiences.

Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press.

Studerus, E., Gamma, A., & Vollenweider, F.

X.

(2010).

Psychometric Evaluation of the Altered States of Consciousness Rating Scale (OAV).

PloS one, 5(8), e12412.

Swanson, L.

R.

(2018).

Unifying Theories of Psychedelic Drug Effects.

Frontiers in Pharmacology, 9, 172.

T

Tagliazucchi, E., Roseman, L., Kaelen, M., Orban, C., Muthukumaraswamy, S.

D., Murphy, K., Laufs, H., Leech, R., McGonigle, J., Crossley, N., Bullmore, E., Williams, T., Bolstridge, M., Feilding, A., Nutt, D.

J., & Carhart- Harris, R.

(2016).

Increased global functional connectivity correlates with LSD-induced ego dissolution.

Current Biology, 26(8), 1043-1050.

Takahashi, M.

(2005).

Spirituality through the Science of Sound: The DJ as Technoshaman in Rave Culture.

In M.

J.

Gilmour (Ed.), Call Me The Seeker: Listening to Religion in Popular Music, (239–266).

Continuum International Publishing Group.

Tart, C.

T.

(1995).

Toward the Objective Exploration of Non-ordinary Reality.

Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 27, 57-67.

Thacker, E.

(2011).

In The Dust of This Planet: Horror of Philosophy, Vol.

1.

Winchester, United Kingdom: Zero Books.

Thompson, H.

S.

(2005/1971).

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A Savage Journey to the Heart of the American Dream.

London: Harper Collins Publishers Ltd.

Trigg, D.

(2014).

The Thing: A Phenomenology of Horror.

Winchester, United Kingdom: Zero Books.

58 Trulson, M.

E., & Jacobs, B.

L.

(1979).

Alterations of Serotonin and LSD Receptor Binding Following Repeated Administration of LSD.

Life Sciences, 24(22), 2053-2061.

Tupper, K.

W.

(2002).

Entheogens and Existential Intelligence: The Use of Plant Teachers as Cognitive Tools.

Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 27(4), 499-516.

Tupper, K.

(2014).

Entheogenic Education: Psychedelics as Tools of Wonder and Awe.

MAPS Bulletin, Vol.

24, No.

1, Psychedelics and Education, 14-19.

W Waldman, A.

(2017).

A Really Good Day: How Microdosing Made a Mega Difference in My Mood, My Marriage, and My Life.

New York: Knopf.

Walsh, R.

(1989).

Shamanism and Early Human Technology: The Technology of Transcendence.

ReVision, 21, 34-40.

Walsh, R.

(1991).

Shamanic Cosmology: Psychological Examination of the Shaman’s Worldview.

ReVision 13(2), 86–100.

Walsh, R.

(1995).

Phenomenological Mapping: A Method for Describing and Comparing States of Consciousness.

Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 27, 25-56.

Winkelman, M.

(2010).

Shamanism: A Biopsychosocial Paradigm of Consciousness and Healing (2nd ed.).

Praeger.

Winkelman, M.

(2014).

Psychedelics as Medicines for Substance Abuse Rehabilitation: Evaluating Treatments with LSD, Peyote, Ibogaine and Ayahuasca.

Current Drug Abuse Reviews, 7(2), 101-116.

Winkelman, M. J. (2018).

An ontology of psychedelic entity experiences in evolutionary psychology and neurophenomenology.

Journal of Psychedelic Studies, 1-19.

Winkler, P., & Csémy, L.

(2014).

Self-Experimentations with Psychedelics Among Mental Health Professionals: LSD in the Former Czechoslovakia.

Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 46(1), 11-19.

Winn, T., Crowe, B.

J., & Moreno, J.

J.

(1989).

Shamanism and Music Therapy: Ancient Healing Techniques in Modern Practice.

Music Therapy Perspectives, 7(1), 67-71.

Woodside, L.

N., Kumar, V.

K., & Pekala, R.

J.

(1997).

Monotonous Percussion Drumming and Trance Postures: A Controlled Evaluation of Phenomenological Effects.

Anthropology of Consciousness, 8(2-3), 69-87.

Y

Yaden, D.

B., Le Nguyen, K.

D., Kern, M.

L., Belser, A.

B., Eichstaedt, J.

C., Iwry, J., Smith, M.

E., Wintering, N.

A., Hood Jr., R.

W., & Newberg, A.

B.

(2017).

Of Roots and Fruits: A Comparison of Psychedelic and Nonpsychedelic Mystical Experiences.

Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 57(4), 338-353.

Z

Zahavi, D.

(2003).

Phenomenology of Self.

In T.

Kircher & A.

David (Eds.), The Self in Neuroscience and Psychiatry, (56- 75).

Cambridge University Press.

Žižek, S.

(2006).

Philosophy, the “unknown knowns,” and the public use of reason.

Topoi, 25(1-2), 137-142.

Page 59

End Quote

And now we stand on that threshold, hand in hand with this strange new partner; out of historical change comes the unexpected.

The problem of the Other, the need for the Other, the presence of the Other, the nature of the Other—these are the questions and the concerns that will drive the next order of human knowing (McKenna, 1983).

Critiques by Michael Hoffman

The Entrenched “Unitive” Model is NOT “mystical experience”

Corrupt terms that cannot be used b/c tainted w/ connotation network:

  • ego dissolution [ = covert nondual Neo-Advaita wrong model; the term, as always used, is always networked and embedded in a paradigm, unity = mystical revelation. instead of in the correct paradigm, which is “control transformation = mystical revelation”.

Houot participates in the dominant confusion: the Unitive model of “mystical experience”.

Actual mystical experience is not Unitive, but rather, control transformation.

At best – most charitably – the Unitive model is too vague and not focused on the driving dynamic.

Shamans Do NOT Have Control that Mystics Lack

It has NOT been established in this paper, the claim that “Shamans have control, unlike mystics” (in the sense Houot means).

The Egodeath theory (analogical psychedelic eternalism with 2-level, dependent control) is a model of how the mind transforms, whether mystic or shaman.

The altered state is NOT “non-rational”

Houot participates in the dominant confusion:

  • rational = ordinary state
  • non-rational = altered state

In fact, tight cognition & loose cognition are both rational.

The difference is not rational vs. non-rational. The difference is two POVs and two experiential states.

Motivation for this Page

I need the full text of the dissertation, to analyze and comment on, here.

Formatting:

  • Ignored paragraphs; para. breaks are not indicated here.
  • 1 sentence per paragraph (WordPress block).
  • Lost italics on document titles.
  • Footnotes not all formatted eg superscript.
  • Biblio needs concat’n.

This dissertation covers important topics.

I already started a Houot dissertation page:
Toward a Philosophy of Psychedelic Technology: An Exploration of Fear, Otherness, and Control (Houot 2019) – my orig. page with comments, not full text.

I’ve been listening to Houot read aloud at Houot’s Iboganautics podcast:
https://amhouot.com/iboganautics/
eg:
https://open.spotify.com/show/6rWQ4xFHadAcyFJvKyxJpE

Podcast Episodes:

  • 1.3 – Intro (starts at mm:ss)
  • 1.4 – Ch. 1
  • 1.5 – Ch. 2
  • 1.6 – Ch. 3
  • 1.7 – Conclusion (addendum starts at mm:ss)

See Also

Site Map section:
https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Alan-Houot

Toward a Philosophy of Psychedelic Technology: An Exploration of Fear, Otherness, and Control
A. M. Houot, 2019
https://www.academia.edu/38583547/Toward_a_Philosophy_of_Psychedelic_Technology_An_Exploration_of_Fear_Otherness_and_Control

Toward a Philosophy of Psychedelic Technology: An Exploration of Fear, Otherness, and Control (Houot 2019) – my orig. page with comments, not full text.

Desert Dwellers, Paul Stamets

YouTube channel: Desert Dwellers
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjiBc42IDok3Yy9RQ4CDy0w

About 10 church people went to the D.D. show Sep. ~8, 2025.

They blew everyone away, including my producer friends.

Met Paul Stamets, got photos with him.

Got vids & pics of show & ppl.

Scored a reserved booth.

Met the Dwellers & David Starfire.

Some dubious person on the street beforehand claimed Stamets is here.
Stamets was here.

f107 Great Canterbury Psalter: God’s Hand from Heimarmene-Stars Cloud Directing Jesus Lifting from Ossuary, Escaping Demon

Michael Hoffman, Sep. 3, 2025

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Contents:

links work in desktop Edge/Chrome:

Intro

Image Gallery

f107: Lifted Up from Ossuary by Right Arm

Gallery image:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f107

Crop by Cybermonk
“Canterbury-f107.jpg” 899 KB [9:30 a.m. April 4, 2023]
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f107.item.zoom

Commentary & crops

Jesus Lifting from Ossuary by God’s Hand

Crop Including God’s Right Hand from Celestial Heimarmene-Stars Cloud

[Sep. 3, 2025] Not just “cloud”; Heimarmene-Stars cloud; night sky = Celestial Cloud

Crop by Michael Hoffman
“f107 ossuary lifted.jpg” 396 KB [12:53 a.m. August 21, 2025]
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f107.item.zoom#
Probably superior res, vs. 2023 – includes God’s hand from cloud, missing from 2023 crop

Crop by Michael Hoffman
“f107 ossuary lifted.jpg” 396 KB [12:53 a.m. August 21, 2025]
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f107.item.zoom#

Probably superior-res, vs. 2023; includes God’s hand from Heimarmene-stars cloud, which is missing from 2023 crop.

Jesus Lifting from Ossuary (Missing God’s Hand Directing from Heimarmene-Stars Cloud)

Crop by Cybermonk. Detail from image f107.
“Canterbury-f107-lifted-ossuary.jpg” 264 KB [9:55 a.m. April 8, 2023]
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f107.item.zoom#

Moliero Full Page, Gold Flattened to Olive Brown

Distracting text of full page. Against the Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art, who over-rely on the text around images, the surrounding text PREVENTS focusing on the image’s message.

Mol https://www.moleiro.com/en/biblical-books/the-great-canterbury-psalter/miniatura/253 – I can see the page below when in Edit mode:

Christ lifts him up from ossuary by right hand / right hand. demons roasting hell pit flames, sun vs. moon

1 mushroom tree, 2 YI vine-leaf trees

a tree touching Sun

a tree touching Moon

/ end of sections copied from main Great Canterbury Psalter Gallery page > Commentary page

Compare f177 to Elucidate the Message of f107 & f177 Together

todo:
add the crops of the same themes on left of f177 & f107
make fresh optimized crop of f107 & f177 to highlight the equivalence

f177 Looking-Lines Connecting Items

Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, Egodeath.com
“f177 left looking lines.jpg” 362 KB [11:34 pm Jan. 3, 2025]
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f177.item.zoom#

See https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/12/4-horses-mushroom-tree-right-foot-balancing-great-canterbury-psalter-f177/ for the start of listing equivalence of f177/f107.

Crop by Cybermonk

f177 features:

held up by God

chute to rams in hellmouth furnace

fear furrow brow of balancing guy being held up from falling down chute so long as he is made to rely on right-foot eternalism-thinking not left-foot possibilism-thinking

rock ossuary

Motivation for Page

Compare same themes in f177, to grasp and decode both images.

Order of Detailed Decoding of Folio Images from Great Canterbury Psalter

  1. f134: Nov 2020
  2. f145: 2021?
  3. f177: 2021?
  4. f11: Jan 2025
  5. f109: 2025
  6. f107: Sep 2025

See Also

pend

The Egodeath Community

Michael Hoffman, August 30, 2025

Crop by Michael Hoffman: the Egodeath community

Contents:

links work on desktop Edge/Chrome:

This Draft Post an Exercise in Off-Topicness: todo: move sections across pages, add more content about the Egodeath community

At least, sending this draft post achieves a place about the Egodeath community, to develop. I gotta go for now: reading stack of 13 documents about psychedelic-church policies.

It’s same as an idea development page eg 31.

The Egodeath Community: List Includes

  • First of all, everyone except drive-by posters, in Egodeath Yahoo Group & unmoderated Egodeath Yahoo Group.
  • the first guy who posted in Egodeath Yahoo Group June 2001
  • wrmspirit, the 2nd person i think to post in Egodeath Yahoo Group
  • the guy who provided puzzle 4 pieces per common-core mysticism and perennialism image for that article
  • Strange Loop, Strangeloop
  • Max Freakout
  • Cyberdisciple
  • Kafei
  • Strange Loop
  • Dr. Brown & Brown against the Ardent Advocates team (= the Egodeath community & vigorous Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art – but i converted him to join the AAs)
  • the guy who helped condense The Entheogen Theory of Religion and Ego Death (Hoffman, 2007 main article) http://egodeath.com/EntheogenTheoryOfReligion.htm & https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/the-entheogen-theory-of-religion-and-ego-death-2006-main-article/

This was supposed to be a short post to rest fingers.

now printing my church’s ~13 documents about drafting policies re: ceremonies.

Least Ceremony

  • What is your name? = religious ritual.
  • Pass the collection plate. = religious ritual.
  • Which sacrament? = religious ritual.
  • Dosage? = religious ritual.
  • t0? What time for small group forming a circle? Write down the time. = religious ritual.
  • my distinct contribution, the question: at t2hours, re-gather in small circle: redose? to extend the flat curve and stay cruising altitude.
  • very optional: Intention? (not suggested by me; from someone in the Gongs community: that community gets credit for the present list)

Desert Dwellers – Downtempo Dub Psytrance Tech House, West Coast Electronic Scene

https://desertdwellers.org/bio/

The Hite Dwellers: Electronica Gongs

  • todo: bandcamp url, random example found on the web, Richard Hite: 1996 Gongs recording.
  • Desert Dwellers concert Seattle Sep 2025 url. todo.
  • Merge Hite + Dwellers, THE HITE DWELLERS.
  • url: The Famous Bicycle Ride.

Kafei Episodes & Strange Loop & Cyberdisciple

Proof that Everything Max Freakout Says Is False

in 1:28 in episode 12 of Transcendent Knowledge Podcast Max Freakout says I’m not going to do any more episodes w/ Cyberdisciple who is boring and uninspiring — yet they did more episodes together.

So, no mushrooms.

oops i meant:

So, everything Max says is false.

That logic is the “catastrophizing” fallacy:

If
any statement by any Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art is false, then that proves:
No mushroom imagery in Christian art.

This tone is the tone used by Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art. I am making true statements about art, therefore: So, no mushroom imagery in Christian art/ = no Secret Christian Amanita Cult = no provable intentional use of mushrooms in eur hist to deliberately have [me: don’t forget to say PEAK] religious experiencing.

todo: link Letcher page where he was forced to respond to my bk review apirl 2007/04/01 then Jan Irvin review 2007/04/08.

  1. An Affirmer of mushroom imagery in Christian art made a false statement, like Ruck 2009 Sacred Mushroom & The Cross writing that Dancing Man salamander bestiary’s mushroom-tree has a red cap (it’s blue).
  2. So, that disproves Allegro/Ruck’s Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory. [insert here any small, transitional arg – doesn’t matter; stepping stone to the end goal:]
  3. So, that proves (per Andy Letcher’s book Shroom, 2006 UK):
    No mushroom imagery in Christian art. = no mushroom use in Eur history. THEREFORE WHITES MUST CRAWL grovelling BEGGING ON KNEES PERMISSION FROM THE DERBY TEAM, THE INDIGENOUS SHAMS. CONTRADICTING Thomas Hatsis own book arg. b/c the Indigenous Shams OWN psilocybin and the loftiest of spir’y eg quote the violent mayhem savagery incorp’g psilocybin that’s cited in:
    Jan Irvin’s 2022 book God’s Flesh: Teonanacátl: The True History of the Sacred Mushroom, August 2, 2022 https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Flesh-Teonanac%C3%A1tl-History-Mushroom/dp/0982556225/
    ji22
    & Thomas Hatsis 2025 book Psychedelic Injustice.
    i wrote review of – posted review of Jan Irvin in wrong small Amaz page, linked it here at present site. Need to move, i owe Jan Irvin, he asked meto copy it to correct Amzn big page, 5 star i think. https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Flesh-Teonanac%C3%A1tl-History-Mushroom/dp/0982556225/
    the Indigenous Shams
    i-s
  4. Also, per th25 Thomas Hatsis 2025 book Psychedelic Injustice – Euopr history DID TOO have rich full psychedelics history EXCEPT NO Secret Christian Amanita Cult IE NO MUSHROOMS IN EUROP HISTORY, b/c even though “Allegro is and was my fav author all my life” [point url blog post], [per my book review] Thomas Hatsis says “I wish above all that europe had psychedelics history, but, alas, the Secret Christian Amanita Cult is false, you are idiot if you ever thought allegro any good. So, there were no mushrooms in Christian art / history.

UK Spelling FTW: Grovelling, Not Groveling

for the win [FTW]

Is ‘grovelling’ a legitimate spelling of the word ‘groveling’?
https://www.google.com/search?q=Is+%27grovelling%27+a+legitimate+spelling+of+the+word+%27groveling%27%3F
“Yes, “grovelling” is a legitimate spelling, but it is primarily used in British English, while “groveling” is the standard spelling in American English. Both spellings refer to the act of being excessively servile or humble or the act of lying or crawling on the ground.”

vs.

Thomas Hatsis 2025 book Psychedelic Injustice https://www.amazon.com/dp/1634312783 & https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/08/17/psychedelic-injustice-how-identity-politics-poisons-the-psychedelic-renaissance-hatsis-2025/
th25
update the keyboard shortcut th25 to include urls: TEST:
Thomas Hatsis 2025 book Psychedelic Injustice https://www.amazon.com/dp/1634312783 & https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/08/17/psychedelic-injustice-how-identity-politics-poisons-the-psychedelic-renaissance-hatsis-2025/
Success.

Houot Says “Psychedelic Technology” [= chant drum dance, giving the Indigenous Shams FULL SELF-CONTROL on Psilocybin], but I Actually CREATE Psychedelic Technology

Rise of the Psychonaut

Rise of the Psychonaut: Maps for Amateurs, Nonscientists and Explorers in the Psychedelic Age of Discovery (Houot, 2025) https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/12/24/rise-of-the-psychonaut-houot-2025/ & https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DPSJGMFR

+ his master’s thesis title, ah19 – keyboard shortcut fail [disappointed emoji]😞 OMG i was guessing correctly, my fav sad emoji is named “disappointed face”, i retract yesterday claim that the expressions don’t match the emojis.

https://emojipedia.org/disappointed-face

https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Alan-Houot

Toward a Keyboard Shortcut:

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/22/toward-a-philosophy-of-psychedelic-technology-an-exploration-of-fear-otherness-and-control-houot-2019/

Toward a Philosophy of Psychedelic Technology: An Exploration of Fear, Otherness, and Control (Alan Houot, 2019, master’s thesis in degree programme) https://www.academia.edu/38583547/Toward_a_Philosophy_of_Psychedelic_Technology_An_Exploration_of_Fear_Otherness_and_Control + https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/22/toward-a-philosophy-of-psychedelic-technology-an-exploration-of-fear-otherness-and-control-houot-2019/
ah19 – Abstract of thesis: WHAT DEGREE – FIND in my page “philosophy”

“The central question guiding this study is: In what ways can modern users conceptualize the psychedelic experience that counters the current fear-laden discourse on drugs? Misconceptions and falsehoods conflate current ways of considering drugs in general and psychedelics in particular. Fears of psychedelics serve as the framework to apply philosophies of mind and technology to the reexamination and amendment of psychedelic concepts and terms. Governmental and religious institutional actors fear psychedelic users will: harm one’s self and others because psychedelics are still falsely believed to have analogous properties to mental illness; the incommunicability of seemingly non-rational states cause disjunction between shared sociocultural knowledge; and psychedelics are arguably similar to mystical experiences, thus mainstream religion fears individuals’ direct access to divine realms, which could upend their hierarchical and spiritually monopolistic power structures. Next, modern researchers commonly advise users to “surrender” to psychedelic experiences, a term likely adopted from mysticism. Since surrender implies a master role is at play, a discussion on master-subject relations emerge when confronting the “psychedelic Other,” i.e. the spatial context, experiential content, and originating from within or without users’ minds. To better understand users’ fears, an analysis of known and unknown fears provide context to the ultimate psychedelic fear, that of a conscious and intelligent unknown presence. Against these fears of psychedelic Others, a new conception of (altered) states of self develops that considers the current debate in cognitive neuroscience and philosophy. Narrative and minimal selves are co-present during psychedelic experiences depending on dosage and intoxication levels, and a new qualitative framework is proffered to understand these implications. Finally, it is suggested that modern psychedelic users need not abandon the prototypical mystic to conceptualize their experiences, but instead might consider another prototypical figure, the shaman. [the Indigenous Shams] Rather than dealing in surrender and fear like mystics and modern users, drug-taking shamans control and master their experiences through the joint use of symbolism, techniques, and technologies [translation: drum, chant, dance – VERY IMPRESSIVE TECHNOLOGY!]. A change in prototype also has epistemological significance, that is, from perennialist to constructivist approaches when considering psychedelically subjective knowledge. In view of built narratives regarding self and knowledge, i.e. narrative self and epistemological constructivism [SMELLS LIKE TEEN BULLSHIITE], analysis shows how shamans use symbols with technologies to control their experiences and the idea of symbolico-technological relations is proposed. The above philosophical insights have prescriptive consequences that provide new opportunities for modern society and users to conceptualize psychedelic experiences, to control them, and as a result, to reduce fear.”

the Egodeath theory = MAXIMIZE FEAR / Max Freakout , fear you to death, egodeath.

EUROPE MYSTIC SURRENDER ACTUALLY IS VASTLY SUPERIOR TECHNOLOGY TOWERING OVER the Indigenous Shams SAVAGERY AND VAGUE “HEALING” AND CURSING ENEMY SHAMS.

Toward a Philosophy of Psychedelic Technology: An Exploration of Fear, Otherness, and Control (Alan Houot, 2019), master’s thesis for Master of Science in Philosophy of Science, Technology and Society, https://www.academia.edu/38583547/Toward_a_Philosophy_of_Psychedelic_Technology_An_Exploration_of_Fear_Otherness_and_Control & https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/22/toward-a-philosophy-of-psychedelic-technology-an-exploration-of-fear-otherness-and-control-houot-2019/
ah19

Master of Science in Philosophy of Science, Technology and Society = Superior Shaman Technology, Better than Western Surrenderism

Master of Science in Philosophy of Science, Technology and Society = Superior Shaman Technology, Better than Western Surrenderism, Is, Specifically: Chant, Dance, Drum, to Have Full Control on High-Dose Psilocybin During Human Sacrifice & Curse-Weaponry Against Enemy Shamans (*and to Find Lost Objects) – PEAK SPIRITUALITY!

We European Mystics Can Learn SO MUCH from the Indigenous Shams, if They Accept Our Plea for Permission to Use Their Psilocybin and Usage Technologies: How to Human Sacrifice on High-Dose Psilocybin?

Marilyn Manson – Sacrilegious

YouTube channel: Marilyn Manson
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbirjI1K3MGu0-Y1gTBNR5w

Video title: Marilyn Manson – Sacrilegious (Music Video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q_pSTNX5ro —

lost the line breaks from More.. link

Lyrics:

I’m feeling sacrilegious

Put your arms around me

I’ll stab you in the back

You’ll never see a skeleton

Christ I’ll be the one in Bible black

You should have treated Your saviors better

With the tombs that you left behind

Do you think that coffins gossip

And all of your ghosts are blind?

Are you here for the resurrection?

How deep did you dig my grave?

Cancel your subscription

You’re the one who needs to be saved

Let’s get evil

I’m feeling sacrilegious

You can climb

To the top of my horns

but make sure that you don’t look down

Don’t spit in the face of God
When you’re trying
To wear his crown

Are you here for the resurrection?

How deep did you dig my grave?

Cancel your subscription

You’re the one who needs to be saved

Let’s get evil I’m feeling sacrilegious

You can’t kill it until it’s born

You can’t kill it until it’s born

Let’s get evil

I’m feeling sacrilegious

I’m coming back, baby

Alan Houot 2019 Thesis in Philosophy of “Science, Technology” and Society

What is “technology”? What is “surrenderism”? we asked Him in psychedelic church book club, big-brain academic couldn’t answer these elementary definitional questions, but “Mystics Bad, Shamans Good” –> u win degree!!

Toward a Philosophy of Psychedelic Technology: An Exploration of Fear, Otherness, and Control (Alan Houot, 2019), master’s thesis for Master of Science in Philosophy of Science, Technology and Society, https://www.academia.edu/38583547/Toward_a_Philosophy_of_Psychedelic_Technology_An_Exploration_of_Fear_Otherness_and_Control & https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/22/toward-a-philosophy-of-psychedelic-technology-an-exploration-of-fear-otherness-and-control-houot-2019/

🎉

Europe Psilocybin Technology of Surrender Is Vastly Superior to Savage Primitive Unfocused the Indigenous Shams’ Psilocybin Mis-Use and Lost Opportunity

Europe 100% Developed Spirituality vs. Barbaric and Savage Indigenous Shams’ Crude Tech of Drum/Chant/Dance/[human sacrifice/ savagery/ perpet. warfare]

cit: irvin & hatsis.

test keyboard shortcuts:

UPDATE keyboard shortcut —

Jan Irvin’s 2022 book God’s Flesh: Teonanacátl: The True History of the Sacred Mushroom, August 2, 2022 https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Flesh-Teonanac%C3%A1tl-History-Mushroom/dp/0982556225/ & https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/27/gods-flesh-teonanacatl-the-true-history-of-the-sacred-mushroom-irvin-2022/
ji22
test:
Jan Irvin’s 2022 book God’s Flesh: Teonanacátl: The True History of the Sacred Mushroom, August 2, 2022 https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Flesh-Teonanac%C3%A1tl-History-Mushroom/dp/0982556225/ & https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/27/gods-flesh-teonanacatl-the-true-history-of-the-sacred-mushroom-irvin-2022/ [tada emoji]

test take 2:

🎉

Alan Houot Talks about and throws around the word ‘technology’, I actually USED Acronym technology / concept-labels for 1988 Breakthrough

Alan Houot Talks about and throws around the word ‘technology’, I actually USED Acronym technology / concept-labels [+ expansive binder sheets [vs tight small blank books] and no-paragraph text word-processor files] [vs. regular sentences way of writing] 04/87-01/88 to breakthrough figure out per STEM, psychedelic eternalism

Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, August 2025

“Yes, Wasson certainly screwed over the Catholic entheogenic reformation” – M. W.

Yes, Wasson certainly screwed over the Catholic entheogenic reformation

Michael Winkelman, pers. comm. to Michael Hoffman, Friday, August 29, 2025

in response to my writing – see idea development p 31 Michael W, todo: link

todo: beautiful photo of Belladonna from web

make page – much needed – listing the 4 witch Scop plants, w/ photos, link to Witch Hatsis.

Datura Jimsonweed Thornapple

todo: Photo Credit Michael Hoffman last week: 5/6 photos of Datura Thornapple in my sacred church garden.

Henbane

Mandrake

Check TH Thomas Hatsis the expert, Witches Oint bk, and Thomas Hatsis 2025 book Psychedelic Injustice

Belladonna

New Page: The 4 Witch Scopolamine Plants

Amanita = honorary; cite “Daturas for the Virgin” artuges what?

Does Ruck argue that (like Heinrich: Strange Fruit + 2nd Edition title from Park St Press) Psilocybin is a suitable standin for the real, uber psychedelic Amanita? NO! b/c they are not both psychedelics.

When the real thing, Amanita, was unabilable, alas they were forced to inferior Psilocybin – strike that – Datura. – Ruck 2001

Ruck 2001 “Daturas for the Virgin” argues that Datura/Scopalamine is a suitable equivalnt of Amanita.

Link/cite Keven Feeney’s book on Amanita. The Effects cahapter reads as if he made it to order per my request, perfect chatpr, says Amanita effects = Deliriant like Scop.

David the expert at Amanita, cite, link.

New Fallacies Generated Daily by Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art

JLF: for Experimental Use Only, and Incense for Religious Ritual

I invented (derived) concept of Least Ceremony – my inspiration was 5MeO packaging from JLF 1986-2003 mail order, “for experimental use and religious ritual incense” but what is “religious ritual”??

See Also

2 POVs Married: End Up Permanently Having Two Vantage Points of View, Across Both States of Consciousness

Michael Hoffman, August 28, 2025

Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman, August 28, 2025

Contents:

links work on desktop Edge/Chrome:

Intro

This does answer my

Q: Why does Adam seem clueless in “eat tree of knowledge” art?

Ans: At tree of knowledge, in art,

  • Eve can = the outside-the-ego POV (eternalism-thinking), while
  • Adam can = the inside-egoic-thinking POV (possibilism-thinking).

A breakthrough, to fully grasp this brilliant model / idea from before the Modern era.

From Antiquity and from Medieval art motifs, have concept of having, together, two POVs, like Rebis.

I was so glad to recently re-find this Y image [alchemical rebis art below]: but, recently, used this picture to grasp concept of: STOP DISPARAGING AND GETTING RID OF INITIAL POV AS IF A ZERO-SUM GAME.

You do not “destroy” or “do away with” the 1st POV!!

Who Provided the 2nd Mushroom-tree Instance After Plaincourault Fresco: Ruck??

todo. for so long, entheogen scholarship acted as if Plaincourault fresco is the only extant mushroom-tree despite 1952 Panofsky tip that censor-Wasson surprisingly, let “the public” see: “There are hundred…

I like my Recog article’s clearer, condensed extract of Panofsky’s tip that Panofsky gave in 1952 to Wasson, then was revealed in 1968 SOMA p 180, then FINALLY Samorini 1998 cashed in on the 1952 tip.

History of Mushroom-Tree Scholarship: Was Ruck in-between the Plaincourault Fresco Brouhaha and Samorini Finally Getting Serious & Digging into Multiple Mushroom-Trees?

1996: Stamets book & Gartz’ book show 1 of the 7+ mushroom-trees from Bernward: the “forbidden” tree of knowledge , Bennett makes stink over which panel, silly, he PRETENDS THERES ONLY 1 MUSHROOM-TREE to be discussed, he isolates the panel that Brown et al cites.

Refusal to think of the evidence, but “isolate and diminish”.

BENNETT MAKES A BIG FKKING STINK, AS IF DEMOLISH ENTIRE THEORY, MICA , YET, ERAL REALLY – SAME AS ALL DENIERS — HE ACTUALLY MERELY CONTRIBUTES A BIT OF MINOR CORRECTION.

Bennett “DESTROYS!!” Brown re: one tiny point that MAKES NO REAL DIFFERENCE to the positive theory.

I wouldn’t even grant that “Bennett wins the battle but loses the war”; Bennett doesn’t win any “battle” but MERELY corrects a detail.

Just like the contributions from all the Deniers.

So Big Fkkin Deal: Chs Stang stupidly says Day 3 is a bowl of mushrooms. No bowl, but still, mushrooms.

CONGRAT, Huggins — YOU CORRECTED AN ERROR by Affirmers, who remain correct.

Pat yourself on the back, it’s called scholarship that includes correction — correction of the correct theory: there’s tons of mushroom imagery in Christian art.

Huggins “DESTROYS” Stang – but that “correction” makes no difference in the end – they are still mushroom-trees, per the Affirmers.

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/02/10/the-seven-liberty-cap-mushroom-trees-of-the-bernward-doors-and-column/#liberty-cap-mushroom-tree-3 —

Liberty Cap mushroom-tree 1 & 2

https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/images/BernwardDoors_19.jpg
https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/BernwardDoors.html

Liberty Cap mushroom-tree 3

Bennett arg so thin, can’t remem. “Brown is a fraud! b/c [detail re: tree of knowledge]!!!”

I wrote: as bad by Brown: Claim that Bernward’s Blame panel depicts the tree of knowledge. — https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/02/03/conceptual-errors-misinterpretations-and-bad-argumentation-from-entheogen-scholars/#Brown — jesus chris, i can’t even SEE your point, hair-splitting. HOW IS THIS NOT THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE?? IN https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/29/idea-development-24/ i wrote: he overstates; I don’t agree w/ simple-minded “that tree is not tree of knowledge in the Blame scene.” Bennett article Fungi-Paraeiieaiiolia — i also wrote there:

a Lib Cap tree.

That’s fallacious argn by a MICA Affirmer. Bennett then acts as if pointing out Brown’s fallacious arg’n = disproving MICA.

The Fungi-Pareidolia of The Psychedelic Gospels
By Chris Bennett, August 5, 2021
https://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2021/08/05/__trashed/
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/17/chris-bennett-entheogen-scholarship/#Pareidolia

Browns’ arg is fallacious, their interpretation of the scene’s Liberty Cap tree is wrong in important ways, yet, Browns’ thesis of mica MICA remains, in a way, completely untouched by Bennett’s disproof of Browns’ interpretation of the Blame panel.

Bennett is right: the Liberty Cap mushroom-tree in the Blame panel is different than the non-mushroom tree of knowledge in the “Eat from Tree” panel above the Blame panel, yet Brown conflates the two trees in the two panels and acts like the tree of knowledge (in Eat from Tree panel) is shown as a Liberty Cap mushroom-tree. Bennett is right, this tree of knowledge is only indirectly associated with the Lib Cap tree in the Blame panel below it.

/ end of copied

Concl: you cannot rebut Chris w/o showing together the 3 panels. do i have crop of 3 panels? not quite. Close, below.

https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/images/BernwardDoors_16-7.jpg
https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/BernwardDoors.html

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/05/27/bernward-doors-and-column-hildesheim/

from https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/05/27/bernward-doors-and-column-hildesheim/#conj-eden-count-bernward —

Panels 1 & 2, Left & Right Door

Copyright © 2019 Genevra Kornbluth: policies on image usage
http://www.KornbluthPhoto.com/archive-1.html
https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/BernwardDoors.html

Panels 3 & 4, Left & Right Door

upper left: tree of knowledge.

lower left: blame scene.

Chris acts like the Blame scene is not the tree of knowledge.

His arg: Look at “eat tree of knowledge” tree. Then compare “blame tree” – it’s different than the eat tree of knowledge tree.

So, NO MUSHROOM IN TREE OF KNOWLEDGE.

Q.E.D.: BROWN = IDIOT/academic fraud (argues Chris).

That arg is typical of Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art: potentially slightly legit, but totally wrong on the big-theory scale.

Gaslighting.

Given proximity of the two panels / events in the episode, it is rather ridiculous to make a big stink as if: “So, no mushroom.” When really C B merely contributed a fine point of detail.

Deniers of Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art Contribute a Fine Point of Detail, and then Pronounce: “Therefore, No Mushroom Imagery in Christian Art”

keyboard shortcut:

Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art
d m i c a

Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art
a m i c a

test:

Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art 🎉

Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art 🎉

How I word it:

The tree of knowledge that’s shown in “eat tree of knowledge” panel is not a mushroom-tree. (However, per Great Canterbury Psalter, still must pay full attention to branching form in all trees.)

The tree of knowledge that’s shown in “blame” panel is a mushroom-tree.

Features of the TOTALLY NOT TREE OF KNOWLEDGE in lower panel:

  • More branching on L than R.
  • Visually {cut right trunk}.
  • {cut right branch}
Copyright © 2019 Genevra Kornbluth: policies on image usage
http://www.KornbluthPhoto.com/archive-1.html
https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/images/BernwardDoors_127-8.jpg
https://www.kornbluthphoto.com/BernwardDoors.html

A form of motte-and-bailey fallacy.

HA! YOU WROTE TEH INSTEAD OF THE.
THEREFORE, NO MUSHROOMS IN Christian ART! Gotcha!

I am the leading mushroom-trees scholar, yet, I have NO IDEA of this history. Read Samorini 98: who does he cite re: mushroom-trees other than damned Plaincourault fresco?

ppl fixated and halted at Plaincourault fresco b/c OMG its a kiddie Amanita! The uber-psychedelic!

The Plaincourault fresco is the only Amanita-based mushroom-tree (in effect). So, ACT LIKE it’s the only extant mushroom-tree, EVEN THOUGH Panofsky 1952 was reavealed in 1968 giving the lead: “hundreds”. https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/08/08/recognizing-mushroom-imagery-in-medieval-art/ —

Even the most mushroom-like specimens show some traces of ramification; if the artist had labored under the delusion that the model before him was meant to be a mushroom rather than a schematized tree, he would have omitted the branches altogether.

Panofsky, 1952, in Brown, Entheogens in Christian art: Wasson, Allegro, and the Psychedelic Gospels, Journal of Psychedelic Studies, 2019, tweaked by Michael Hoffman for grammar.

Wrong quote, get the one from my last week Hatsis book review: https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/08/17/psychedelic-injustice-how-identity-politics-poisons-the-psychedelic-renaissance-hatsis-2025/ —

“The Plaincourault fresco is only one example of a conventionalized tree type, prevalent in Romanesque and Early Gothic art, which art historians actually refer to as “mushroom tree” in Roman and Early Christian painting, and there are hundreds of instances exemplifying this development.”

Panofsky, 1952, in Brown, Entheogens in Christian art: Wasson, Allegro, and the Psychedelic Gospels, Journal of Psychedelic Studies, 2019, condensed by Michael Hoffman to highlight the positive tip that Panofsky meant negatively.

brouhaha means a noisy stir, uproar, or commotion, often with a lot of public interest or discussion.

Panofsky said “there are hundreds”, but he was a Denier of mushroom imagery in Christian art.
GIVEN: There are hundreds of mushroom-trees.
THEREFORE: Plaincourault fresco cannot possibly mean mushrooms.
(Pan skipped 2-3 steps, prejudiced, proxy arg.)

Who was the first MICA Affirmer to present positively, a mushroom-tree other than damned Plaincourault fresco? Carl Ruck??

todo: research – what scholarship was there on mushroom-trees, in between SOMA 1968, and Samorini 1998?? GOOD QUESTION!

Ecstasy = Stand Outside of personal control system perceiving it from outside

todo: copy from email yesterday to the Egodeath community

The Sacred Marriage: You do not “destroy” or “do away with” the 1st POV! possibilism-thinking remains constantly present, now w/ 2nd add’l POV: eternalism-thinking — a holy pair of unified opposites in the adult mind; the child+adult mind

You “circumcise” / qualify it. Do not cut it off; except the 1 aspect, of naive reliance on egoic personal control system.

Do not wholly get rid of egoic personal control system; only “qualify” it to death.

After Ego Death, Ego Is Constantly Used, now as just One of TWO POVs: The egoic personal control system is Superseded in a Way, Yet Remains Ever-Present, Accompanied by a Revealed, Adult, “Outside” POV/ Vantage Point Looking at Egoic Control System from Outside

Like a rider on a donkey; a sacrificial king, welcomed to the fate-gate by followers who put {cloak} mental model under the ruling king epiphany at the fate-gate of the Rev 22 city of the last page of the Bible, bookending {kicked out of Eden} Gen 2-3.

Abr & Isacc walked away together, to the youths, except missing mention of Isaaac there. don’t worry, he probably still lives, never mind the glaring absense of mentioning him

my keyboard shortcut lacks the sentence at end:

“The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?” Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering.” Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Do not lay a hand on the boy. Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.” Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.” “I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky. Through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.” Gen 22:7-18 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%2022%3A7-18&version=NIV

19: 19 Then Abraham [WHERE IS ISAAC??] returned to his servants, and they set off together for Beersheba. And Abraham stayed in Beersheba. [Where did Isaac stay — smoked on the altar? “because you have done this thing and not withheld Isaac”

Crop and annotations by Michael Hoffman
“f134 boxes on pairs of sets of eyes.jpg” 829 KB, August 28, 2025
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f134.item.zoom

todo: copy image to f134 page

Email Initial Phrasing/Writeup

todo: copy from email the other day to Loop Max Cyb about “two POVs”.

Date of Grokking Permanently Having Two POVs

NOT zero-sum game: “either you think one way, or, you think the other way”.

roots: not long ago, grokking Dionysus Victory parade — embarrassed in 2023 when went back to look at 2006/2007 main article, and only THEN, saw:

  1. Ariadne hold branch in L arm
  2. Day later, grasp that Dio & Ari are a pair – like a pair of POVs, in chariot.
  3. emails yesterday to Loop, Max, & Cyb, seems like the moment when I grokked. ~Aug 26, 2025
  4. Aug 28, 2025: drew white boxes after worrying about my final rev of Recog article submitted yesterday Aug 27 to editor of Church Reader: I forced into the article, into the 4 unrelated motifs, the least-bad fit: forced “two POVs” into the mushroom motif category. Aug 28 now, I woried, (few min ago) WHAT IF I’M CHALLENGED BY DOUBTER: SHOW ME WHERE THERE IS PICTURE OF TWO POVS SPECIFICALLY IN Great Canterbury Psalter, NOT JUST IN GOLDEN PS > “ENTRY INTO JERU” or other medieval Entr Entry into Jerusalem iomages.” https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/08/29/entry-into-jerusalem-two-sets-of-eyes-left-hoof-lifted-heimarmene-gate/
  5. I mentally pictured some pairs in this picture = I AM A SCIENTIST MAKING AND THEN TESTING A HYPOTHESIS ACCORDING TO THE MOST STRINGENT 8TH-GRADER JUST-SO STORY ABOUT HOW SCIENCE THEORY DEVELOPMENT WORKS. “THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD = PREDICTION, HYPOTH, CONFIRM OR DISCONFIRM THE ENTIRE THEORY THE INSTANT YOU GET RESULT, WHICH IS TOTALLY CLEAR-CUT AND DEFINITIVE”.
  6. Because I have ready-to-hand on the bench workbench ULTRA HIGH RES 20MB png files of the 5-6 pictures for Church Reader editor/Reader, easy to copy the 20MB f134 .png, ideal for annotating and then after, exporting as blurry jpg small 900 KB tiny file.
  7. Took a LONG TIME to draw so many white boxes! Confirmed. THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULT WAS POSITIVE INSTEAD OF DISCONFIRMED, SO, THE THEORY IS PROVED TO BE CORRECT: THE PREDICTION WAS CONFIRMED. The same high standard used by the Deniers of mushroom imagery in Christian art — the 8TH GRADE “THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD” [FLAT MOUTH “overconfident” EMOJI] DELIVERS THE GOODS YET AGAIN, EXACTLY SAME AS FOR COPERN, GALLI, NEWTON, AND Minkowski” 😑

Church Reader Article Submitted to Editor w/ “2 POVs” motif Fakely Tacked-On at the Last Second – forced into the Mushroom motif category

notes on yesterday’s sumittal of article: Editor wanted me to EMAIL the article to him, not using Word, so I provided the text (w/ hyperlinks) as .rtf file.

  1. Email 1: The .rtf file. At end is 6 .jpg file names.
    great-canterbury-psalter-folio-1r-url-f11-rows-1-2-1mb.jpg
  2. great-canterbury-psalter-folio-1r-url-f11-rows-3-4-1mb.jpg
  3. x
  4. x
  5. x
  6. x

i rather list the awesome giant pngs file names:

  1. great-canterbury-psalter-folio-1r-url-f11-rows-1-2.png – 9.8 MB
  2. great-canterbury-psalter-folio-1r-url-f11-rows-3-4.png – 9.5 MB
  3. great-canterbury-psalter-folio-50r-url-f109.png – 10.5 MB
  4. great-canterbury-psalter-folio-62v-url-f134.png – 20.4 MB
  5. great-canterbury-psalter-folio-68r-url-f145.png – 16.8 MB
  6. great-canterbury-psalter-folio-84r-url-f177.png – 14.9 MB

WHICH IMAGE TO LOVE & DETAIL NEXT?? F107 HAS SAME AS F177, it’s important for that reason, if nothing else.

Remember in 2021 spring, how it felt to be picking which 2nd, 3rd, etc. folio comic to analyze!

f134, then … f145? then f177?

then …

It took too long to make a webpage for the popular folio f11 “done to death, by entheogen scholars with eyes closed tightly shut”, eg Ronald Huggins flimsy treatment of Day 3 panel.

quick, Huggins, skip over Day 4 w/ 4 literal mushrooms, do not mention that!

It has no branches, RUN AWAY!

BURY IT LIKE AGENT WASSON BANKER FOR POPE BURIED PANOFSKY’S EXTREMELY STRONG MULTI-TIME RECOMM TO CONSULT BRINK’S BOOK. NEVER HAPPENED!

You failed to CONSULT THE ART AUTHORITIES, STUPID IGNORANT MYCOLOGISTS [as Affirmers of mushroom imagery in Christian art], p. 180 SOMA 1968 Gordon . . . .🔍🧐🤔 Wasson. …

Then I last month finally said:

MUST HAVE PAGE FOR IN-DEPTH DECODing of f109 “BUS” IMAGE, which at first, a year ago, i loved my crop of the fearful sages at the hellmouth but i didn’t konw where I got that crop, Ans: f109!

literally only yesterday aug 27 or last week, i finally memorized the folio url #: 109, 109, 109!!

107? i asked, two days ago. NO! 109, get it right!

The same folio image that has the bus!

and ossuary,

and stand on right foot below net to catch fall of control, etc.

and fear-sage hellmouth. and young jesus, and mysterious cloth which NOW I NAILED, TOT IN THE BAG; OBV WHITE CLOTH = REV22:14 —

“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.” – Revelation 22:14 (the last page of the Bible), NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2022%3A14&version=NIV

todo: list all Eadwine comic panels in order of coolness. try listing my 5:

  1. f134 – Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter
  2. f145
  3. f177
  4. f11 — popular since 2000, and Ronald Huggins declares proxy war over panel Day 3. Bet the farm on that, AND LOSE – THE NEW Plaincourault fresco , DECLARES Ronald Huggins, TO FIGHT OVER AND EXCLUSIVELY FOCUS ON. But, good: Ronald Huggins’ focus on Day 3 is not ridiculously isolated like Plaincourault fresco was, or Eleusis, or Secret Christian Amanita Cult narrow hyper specific theory to “bet it all” on, as proxy fight. Ronald Huggins covers more than ONLY Day 3, Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case (Ronald Huggins, 2024) https://www.academia.edu/118659519/Foraging_for_Psychedelic_Mushrooms_in_the_Wrong_Forest_The_Great_Canterbury_Psalter_as_a_Medieval_Test_Case & https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/11/23/huggins-foraging-psychedelic-mushrooms-wrong-forest/
  5. f109 – #1 or #5? great image, but later than above ones – i am mixed up: error in presnt page: which image has God directing Jesus lifting guy out of ossuary, w/ demon threatening at the oss?????
  6. which image is the next-cooleest.

it is f107:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f107

f109: Hellmouth Furnace Loss of Balance Caught by Net, Summoned to City Gate Entrance Past Ossuary Corpse, Stable Building Protected by Cloth Washed Clean

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f109

f177: 🐴 Horses and Rightly Standing Balancing, {balance scale}

Crop by Michael Hoffman
“f177 big screen.jpg”
hi-res 495 KB .jpg from 14.9 MB .png of Dec. 18, 2024, uploaded Jan. 6, 2025 10:00 pm
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f177.item.zoom

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/07/eadwine-images-great-canterbury-psalter-catalog-gallery/#f177

f107: Lifted Up from Ossuary by Right Arm

Crop by Michael Hoffman

= f177 elements on Left

Aug 27 2025 processing of image files for Church Reader to finally Email w/ 1MB limit

I first exported from png to jpg as highest avail res. can’t email too big, would have to carry thumb drive to editor.

2nd export time: made the 6 ultra-res 20MB .png files expoert as 2MB .jpg. Still too big to email.

3rd export time: ” 1 MB. I was able to email, fine, AS CHAIN OF 7 EMAILS. 1 .jpg (1MB) per email.

It is great having the…. SOLVED A PROBLEM yesterday: I split f11 into row 1&2, and row 3&4 – following the comic page itself 1/2 = 6 days of creation, 3/4 = Eden. especially — as I discovered and emailed cyb a few days ago — PAIR day 3 > mushroom-tree 2 (Liberty Cap) w/ tree of knowledge 2 rows below. i been comparing them for past year, but, recently a few days ago, had clear idea to crop tightly those two trees and discuss how they work powerfully together. re: I posted here at WordPress few days ago, my recent breakthrough: two fruits = two caps; L & R arm/ cap of plant #2, and inside grid of tree of knowledge two rows below it. Both treees are surrounded / bracketed by other trees.

todo: crop f11 Day 3 tree 2 Liberty Cap and crop tree of knowledge , make a png that shows both crops in isolation. what else did i exclaim to Cyb, pair clever two things? f109 = f177.

todo: crop the elements of f109 & f177:

  • demon = burning rams = fear threatened.
  • god lifts up the balancing guy = god directs Jesus lifting guy out of rock ossuary.
  • guy held up by R hand in both folios.
  • hellmouth in both.

Image f11 is hard to crop for the 2-4-page church article for Church Reader, b/c it is Portrait orientation but my screen is Landscape orientiation.

f11 (the famous comic book panel from Great Canterbury Psalter since 2000 provided by mystery-man Paul Lindell who is credited at bottom of p 1 of “Conjuring Eden” 2001;

Day 3 on cover of entheogen scholarship books:

  1. Arthur, Mushroom & Mankind, 2000
  2. The Psychedelic Gospels: The Secret History of Hallucinogens in Christianity (Jerry Brown & Julie Brown, 2016) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1620555026
    do i not have a page for that book? All of Brown works, = page.
  3. John Rush 2011? or 2nd Edition?

The mushroom images from Great Canterbury Psalter were first used by James Arthur: Mushrooms and Mankind the Day 3 — Ronald Huggins DECLARES BATTLE WITH DAY 3 AS THE BET-IT-ALL PICTURE FOR THE ENTIRE DEBATE – NOTICE THIS REPLACED Plaincourault.

Take note that Ronald Huggins did NOT fixate on Plaincourault fresco; but instead, Day 3

my cool Lash articles: https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#John-Lash

todo: List all the pictures from Great Canterbury Psalter from Lash.
Already done for Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article “Foraging Wrong”.

2008 May, i think, John Lash uploaded Great Canterbury Psalter images to web, right when I started hiatus 2008/01-2011/08. incl Day 3??

Recognizing Mushroom Imagery in Medieval Art
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/08/08/recognizing-mushroom-imagery-in-medieval-art/

Plaincourault fresco as the proxy = 1st-generation entheogen scholarship (the Secret Amanita paradigm)

Day 3…. good …. although Samorini 98 is the one who created 2nd-generation entheogen scholarship (the Explicit Psilocybin paradigm), Great Canterbury Psalter PAUL LINDELL Lindgren WASN’T DISCOVERED UNTIL 2000.

THAT’S WHY ALAS, Samorini DOESN’T SHOW DAY 3 (USED ON COVER OF AT LEAST 3 ENTHEOGEN SCHOLARSHIP BOOKS) …

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE FOR 1998 ARTICLE TO INCLUDE DAY 3. 2-YEAR DELAY.

FROM POV OF Ronald Huggins 2024 forging wrong article; the several threads ALMOST come together in “Mushroom-Trees” in Christian Art (Giorgio Samorini, 1998) https://www.samorini.it/doc1/sam/sam-alberifungo-1998.pdf & https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/mushroom-trees-in-christian-art-samorini/

ALSO Paul Lindgren IS CREDITED — DON’T SKIP OVER – INNER COVER OF ARTHUR. 2000.

Dionysus & Ariadne Steering the Chariot in the Thiasus Victory Wedding Parade: The Triumph of Dionysus

She was abandoned by labryrith guy King Theseus so that Dio could marry her.

https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/12/13/photos-of-amanita-muscaria-mushrooms-to-identify-mushrooms-in-greek-christian-art/#Amanita-Photos-by-Michael-Hoffman —

Photo: Michael Hoffman, the theorist of ego death 10:10 a.m. 10/10/2010
photo — Michael Hoffman, the theorist of ego death 10:10 a.m. 10/10/2010
IMG_3638.JPG
Photo: Michael Hoffman, the theorist of ego death 10:10 a.m. 10/10/2010

See Also

https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/08/29/entry-into-jerusalem-two-sets-of-eyes-left-hoof-lifted-heimarmene-gate/

Entry into Jerusalem: Two Sets of Eyes, Left Hoof Lifted, Heimarmene Gate

Michael Hoffman, August 28, 2025

Crop by Michael Hoffman

Contents:

links work on desktop Edge/Chrome:

Intro

Gallery

The “Features” list in in branching-message mushroom trees draft article pages/ outtakes pages. to start, below only has pics. “silent gallery” like i made for all Great Canterbury Psalter images. STFU and look at pics.

Joe Perry Project (Aerosmith guitarist): Let the Music Do the Talking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mWT9DFjwwI —

Let the Pictures Do the Talking: The “Silent Gallery” Type of Webpage

The new article for church reader is kind of that: it separates the lists of motifs, from the pictures; lacks a Features list under each pic.

Entry into Jerusalem (Church of Saint Martin)

Photo by Julie M. Brown, used with permission.

Purification of Isaiah’s Lips and Christ’s Entry into
Jerusalem. Fresco on south choir wall, Church of Saint Martin de
Vicq, France. Early 12th century (photo by Julie M. Brown, used with permission).

todo: remove words except credit Brown.

Towers of Jerusalem (Church of Saint Martin)

Photo by Julie M. Brown, used with permission.

Figure 1. Detail from Towers of Jerusalem. Church of Saint Martin de Vicq, France. Early 12th century (photo by Julie M. Brown, used with permission).

todo: state justification for keeping this pic in this Entry into Jerusalem page.

Entry into Jerusalem (Otto Gospel)

Entry into Jerusalem. Page 94, Otto Gospel.

If you believe Archive org, this is the cover of the crucial 1906 Brinckmann book censored by Wasson the Pope’s banker.

Entry into Jerusalem (Lorenzetti)

Entry of Christ into Jerusalem (1320) by Pietro Lorenzetti. Provided by Cyberdisciple the Egodeath community.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Sunday#/media/File:Assisi-frescoes-entry-into-jerusalem-pietro_lorenzetti.jpg

Entry Into Jerusalem (Golden Psalter)

Entry of Christ into Jerusalem (image 54 top, Golden Psalter)

Motivation for this Page

Motivation for page: can’t believe i don’t have a page for Entry into Jerusalem, key scene for motifs.

copy from https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/02/16/branching-message-mushroom-trees-psychedelic-eternalism-depicted-in-medieval-art-as-branching-mushrooms-handedness-and-non-branching/#Entry-into-Jerusalem-Martin just the pics.

Need page to gather the images, to link to & to analyze.

See Also

pending

The Spectrum of Determinism Positions: from Free Will to Determinism to Eternalism with Control Aspects

Michael Hoffman, 4:40 a.m. August 23, 2025

Contents:

links work on desktop Edge/Chrome:

Intro

absolute four-dimensional spacetime

Cube w worldline snake from The Entheogen Theory of Religion and Ego Death (Hoffman, 2007 main article) http://egodeath.com/EntheogenTheoryOfReligion.htm & https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/the-entheogen-theory-of-religion-and-ego-death-2006-main-article/

Diagram by Michael Hoffman, 2006

Posting Convention for Mobile: Potentials of a Rough Draft Flow (non hidden)

limitation of Mobile app for WordPress called Jetpack:

sluggish with long pages.

be super careful to sync w Desktop browser edits drafts, else RISK LOSING CONTENT.

when i know i need to create a page on a good idea for a topic , get started: post it as outline sketch and not hidden. especially mobile.

this site is leading edge rough idea development then some pages reach polished state – including mobile experimental tech.

this post is presently a mow-bile rough starter outline.

i dont like saving a hidden draft of a post, it gets lost and hard to track; it is easier for me to post as draft.

joke: as a privilege for followers who pay $$$ they get to see early draft. ( = 💥🗑️ )

Intro

superdeterminism falsely claims to be more radical than determinism, but falls short of eternalism which falls short of eternalism with control ramif that The Dillema of Determinism (William James, 1897) objected to.

James, it is not – as i recently realized (wrmspirit emails) – a zero sum game

integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking – ie, not a zero-sum game between either possibilism-thinking wins & eternalism-thinking loses “or” eternalism-thinking wins &

Psychedelic RenaissanceTM — p r Psychedelic RenaissanceTM

todo: review all keyboard shortcut because = review all key concepts.

k c

key concept

keyboard shortcut = acronym (invented by me 4/87 for dadt-path idea development enabling figure out enlightenment ego transcendence in just 1987/04 to 1988/01/11 years ) = key concept

keyboard shortcut , acro, key concept

same thing – super powerful PROVED by how dast fast i went from reading the Way of Zen by Alan Watts like 4/87, to breakthru jan 88.

eternalism 4D block spacetime + ego dies from no-free-will + loose cognition / psychedelics

  • Minkowski keyboard shortcut absolute four- dim s

absolute four-dimensional spacetime

afds

absolute four-dimensional spacetime 🎉

a cool acronym to type on keyboard left fingers: A F D S — ez

absolute four-dimensional spacetime

absolute four-dimensional spacetime

per Petkov intro of Minkowski booki

Minkowski book

I found the words eternalism & superdeterminism (vs determinism ) on the day after i rearranged the separated Summary to become the inline Intro, on Sep 2007 main article, & rearranged phrases to not have nested sentences (to enable voice reading recording of article).

todo: gather past week of writeups

yesterday & past two days, wrote: …

copied emails to idea development p 30 or 31

eternalism is as far beyond determinism as determinism is beyond freewill !

search site: spectrum of determinism recent good list

find superdeterminism

The List of Spectrum Positions

  • freewill
  • determinism
  • superdeterminism
  • emily adlam version of superdeterminism wgat WHAT IS HER KEY TERM?, see my adlam page. & SEE V1 of this list recently by finf dFind in site: dt superdeterminism
  • eternalism per Snodfart Ency Phil – phil o time – omits ANY consid of control ramif
  • proper eternalism (with Control aspects) which Wm James 1897 railed against while pretending to rebut determinism

2 definitions of eternalism : without Control considerations, with

Degree of Grasping Eternalism 4D block spacetime by Minkowski vs Einstein (weak)

Einstein initially rejected or disrespected Minkowski s 4D block spacetime – Petkov book’s intro phrase:

absolute four-dimensional spacetime

“absolute four-dimensional spacetime”.

“absolute”, because everyone f’d up by the word ‘relativity’ connotations.

relativity is OF SIMULTANEITY, but still, everything is a frozen spacetime block per Minkowski / Ein.

posted 6 mo ago about this, Petkov page/ Minkowski page: 4D Spacetime Mysticism

petkov book says Minkowski grokked the full mind-blowing ramifs of 4D block spacetime unlike Einstein

stupid idiot Minkowski, his 1908 draft initially said, appropriately,

OMFG MIND BLOWN!! A BFD! THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING 😵🤯– then he struck that deaft draft clarification!

might have photo of that page at WordPress gallery here

he really screwed himself– FATAL MISTAKE. failure to self promote, so now everyone thinks Einstein both thought of 4D block spacetime and grokked it.

No one but Minkowski gradped ramif of eternalism 4D block spacetime – but James 1897 did and so h–

in 1897 Hames James tripped on nitrous and discovered 4D block spacetime , then rejected it when he returned to ordinary state — this is early example of my male female two headed final result: integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking

against Wm Em James, do not reject eternalism and only affirm mental model 1.

afainst advaita, do not reject possibilism and only affirm mental model 2.

keyboard shortcuts:

William James

wj

The Dillema of Determinism (William James, 1897)

wj97

todo:

keyboard shortcut w the url of my page The Dillema of Determinism (William James, 1897)

The Dillema of Determinism (William James, 1897) url of my page & url of the pdf

wj97u

u suffix of a keyboard shortcut includes url of my page & of book or article

recent awesome convention for citation keyboard shortcuts: fl## — author initials + year (+ url!! fl##u )

demos:

m h 0 7

The Entheogen Theory of Religion and Ego Death (Hoffman, 2007 main article) http://egodeath.com/EntheogenTheoryOfReligion.htm & https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/the-entheogen-theory-of-religion-and-ego-death-2006-main-article/

Demo of url book: EXTREMELY USEFUL:

w h 2 2

Hermetic Spirituality and the Historical Imagination: Altered States of Knowledge in Late Antiquity (Wouter Hanegraaff, 2022) https://egodeaththeory.org/2022/07/14/hermetic-spirituality-and-the-historical-imagination-altered-states-of-knowledge-in-late-antiquity-hanegraaff/ & https://www.amazon.com/Hermetic-Spirituality-Historical-Imagination-Knowledge/dp/1009123068/

new convention: u suffix – keyboard shortcut expansion tgat includes 2 urls:

  • url of my page
  • url of bk or article

the definition of determinism is rigid and not re definable as i wrongly attempted in 2007 main article

move out: Date of Main article 2006 & 2007: Fully Written 2006; Fixed Layout 2007

    what is totally f’d up: 2006 fail: I developed an Intro ABOUT this article – a summ. of it — on the home page of Egodeath.com, then in 2007 had the good sense to start article w/ that condensed “progressive disclosure” summary. Then Sep 2007 I read-aloud and found too-long, nested sentences. Fixed those. Finalized in Sep 2007. Thus, “2006 / 2007 main article”. Next day, alas, found the word ‘eternalism’, shoulda replaced ‘determinism’

    hell you could even research cybtrans.com at Archive.org in 2006 Sep. to see the nested senences and lack of Intro/Summary section.

    todo: [heading from page “1987 notebooks”: History of Finalizing Article from Sep 2006 to Sep 20] – move present section to there? yes def. a good place to gather same info, even if not ideal

    verdict: article written 2006; layout fixed 2007 to

    • bring the “Summary” section from the separate, home page of Egodeath.com, into the article inline as the Intro section (like part 0 then parts 1-4);
    • and to break out the nested sentences (discovered during recording reading aloud the article).
    • [The day after I finalized the article in Sep. 2007, I discovered & posted in Egodeath Yahoo Group about the words ‘eternalism’ and ‘superdeterminism’; should’ve changed ‘determinism’ to ‘eternalism’ in the article.]

    Every phrase of the final article was written in 2006, not quite brought together properly inline, and not as readable due to long-because-nested sentences.

    image photo 2006 draft p 1 toc missing Intro summary

    by conventional standards, 2006 was merely a draft , because the Intro (called Summary, ) was outside the article as :

    Summary of that article over there in other webpage

    not :

    inline as “Intro” in article’s webpage

    (also, nested sentences not readable aloud) in main webpage of article in 2006

    the wording choice is same in 2006 2007 but LOCATION of sections or phrases changed

    image p 1 from recent 1987 Notebk post

    1. wrote body 2006 4 main sections
    2. wrote Summary of article on separate, home page 2006
    3. 2007 moved Summary from home page to start of article
    4. 2007 fixed nested sentences. = the real, publish ready article BUT:
    5. [The next day (per Egodeath Yahoo Group posts): discovered and posted for the first time the words eternalism and super determinism; should’ve changed ‘determinism’ to ‘eternalism’ in the article.]

    My First Ever Writing/Posting the word ‘eternalism’: Sep. 12, 2007

    Subject: Block universe, Four dimensionalism, Eternalism, B-Theory, Unrealit[ity of time]
    https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-96/#message4897

    Superdeterminism is weak compared to eternalism which is weak compared to [eternalism incl control ramifications that The Dillema of Determinism (William James, 1897) objected to after etm was revealed on Nitrous, and Minkowski said OMFG 4D block spacetime changes everything!!🤯 — like recent video by Emily Adlam. url my page

    The All-At-Once Universe (Emily Adlam)

    keyboard shortcut

    superdeterminism

    s d t m

    superdeterminism 🎉

    BUT, neither Emily nor Minkowski nor James fully grasped, … James — BECAUSE he had a psychedelic, NITROUS, — grasped more than Minkowski or Adlam, the CONTROL aspects of eternalism

    Adlam superdeterminism …. is stronger than regular superdeterminism – thus separe list items. on the spectrum list.

    keyboard shortcut ie concept-label — making a keyboard shortcut acro is a big deal, it means crafting casting a new concept.

    a keyboard shortcut = a super concept. april 1987 technique breakthrough : I invented the acronym. 👉😑

    Inventor of the Acronym: Michael Hoffman April 1987

    when my father died tgat month i had a huge breakthru in idea development technique and started thinking in terms of not wroking on myself control repair via blank books but instead big empty ruled binder sheets to develop a theory model; prototype project to set iut out intentionally to create an exmd em e

    keyboard shortcut

    explanatory model

    exm

    explanatory model 🎉

    bad: keyboard shortcut thats part of english words eg : em

    would not work

    1987 binder sheete and word procesdor text file format:

    absolute four-dimensional spacetime [AFDS]

    allcaps keyboard shortcut feature is on desktop only

    special feature of this software (no; desktop browser only, not mobile) : allcaps expansion is avail IF acro is lowercase:

    absolute four-dimensional spacetime

    absolute four-dimensional spacetime

    didnt work. test:

    keyboard shortcut

    not work.

    end of allcaps note

    Concept of “explanatory model”

    idea of explanatory model is per 350$ book of on the Science of Model-Based & Paul Thagard (cited there i think)

    keyboard shortcut

    Paul Thagard Conceptual Revolutions my url if any?? do i have page? TODO

    PAUL THAGARD PAGE

    who invented the acronym when? history: IBM even the damn name of the co is an acro

    1987 notation:

    foo bar [FB]

    hand writing big init cap + all caps hand writing P205

    FOO BAR [FB]

    is how figured out ego transcendence by interrogating the Way of Zen by Alan Watts from 1987/04 to 1988/01 SHyT THATS HOW FAST I FIGURED OUT ego transcendence per STEM standards by using acro to speed thinking & forge key concept concept-labels as acronyms.

    forge a new term + acro = powerful. started apr 87 doing that.

    No longer sent’s in small, tightly bound blank books,

    5 threw away in 4/87.

    from 1985/10 thru 1987/03 , wrote 5 blank books in the effort to repair my dysfunctional cross-time control

    engr class notes photo 1986 here shows my pre-theory-construction phase

    When did i start CONSCIOUSLY developing the Egodeath theory ?

    its not as if on day 1: Oct 26 1985 i thought “Im gonna create/ develop the Egodeath theory”

    before i had started consciously developing theory.

    1. no acros, blank books, not building a theory. 1985/10
    2. no acros, figure out ego transcendence not because that was my goal, but, to repair / analyze dysfunctional cross-time control i should take 2 weeks to first per STEM standards figure out ego transcendence. started like 06/86
    3. 04/87 started acros = forging, constructing key concepts, name an acro for the key concept – super powerful. and, started intentionally thinking in terms of creating an explanatory model of nctc non dysfunctional cross-time control to write a book for everyone one; self help done right, incorping loose cognition lessons.

    loose cognition

    better notation tho for mobile:

    foo bar

    f b

    i might have photo here of when i invented the acronym.

    google:

    when was the acronym invented? did Michael Hoffman invent the acronym, in 4/87?

    AI response:

    NO. The acronym was invented in -1987 B C by Joe Acronym, thats where the word comes from.

    (stupid idiot)

    see yesterday post 1987 Notebooks photo of artic printout missing Intro section just 4 main sections

    metaphor

    determinism

    dissociation (psychedelics loose cognition )

    fully tracked in article’s Subject thread at Egodeath Yahoo Group archive

    make sure Cyberdisciple know my dates of 2006 2007 main article intro added 2007 , sentences de-nested & shortened for read aloud ability voice recording 2007

    Egodeath Yahoo Group shows Sep 2007 day i finalized main article, the following day i first posted the word eternalism. Find that word at Egodeath Yahoo Group – Max Freakout Archive

    Psychedelic Snake Oil: Psychedelic Pseudo Science, the Fake CEQ, & the Astroturfed Psychedelic Renaissance[TM]

    Michael Hoffman, Aug. 22, 2025

    Art by Sam Gray

    Contents:

    links work on desktop Edge/Chrome:

    🐍🍾

    ⚗️

    Wasson’s Academic Fraud, Obstructionism, Censorship of Brinckmann Book Citation, Lying about What He Believes, Dissimulation at “Consult”

    Wasson’s academic fraud/ obstructionism on p. 180 of his 1968 book SOMA where he heavily censored and misrepresented the TWO letters (not one, as Wasson lies) that the top art historian Erwin Panofsky wrote him in 1952. 

    Both letters STRONGLY recommended consulting* the book Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings (Albert Brinckmann, 1906) https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/12/11/brinckmann-mushroom-trees-asymmetrical-branching/  (an actual proper academic published work).

    Yet in the same paragraph where Wasson shows part of one of Panofsky’s letters, with that citation silently withheld, Wasson berates and insults mycologists for not “consulting” the art historians.

    Recently, Ronald Huggins has the AUDACITY to describe Brinckmann’s censored-by-Wasson book as a “NOTED” exception to the rule that “art historians never think or write anything about trees, because trees are merely incidental in medieval art”.  🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

    In fact,  trees are the pinnacle of transcendent meaning/ the message, in medieval art.

    Foraging for Psychedelic Mushrooms in the Wrong Forest: The Great Canterbury Psalter as a Medieval Test Case (Ronald Huggins, 2024) https://www.academia.edu/118659519/Foraging_for_Psychedelic_Mushrooms_in_the_Wrong_Forest_The_Great_Canterbury_Psalter_as_a_Medieval_Test_Case & https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/11/23/huggins-foraging-psychedelic-mushrooms-wrong-forest/ – bets everything on Great Canterbury Psalter > Day 3 of Creation (4 mushroom-trees, popular picture) — and loses, here at Egodeath.com/ EgodeathTheory.WordPress.com.

    Improper, Anti-Academic “Consulting” in Place of Scholarship (to Prevent Scholarship).

    What books and writings and paragraphs and articles should we “consult”, Wasson? The only thing any art historian ever wrote, as of 1952, about either trees or mushrooms, was Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings (Brinckmann, 1906) https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/12/11/brinckmann-mushroom-trees-asymmetrical-branching/

    And that’s what Wasson censors out, so what library works are we to “consult”? You mean, phone up? Why, because no academic ever wrote/published anything at all, so why then “consult” them in person? THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY on this (don’t say “related topics”) topic of trees, or, of mushrooms. 1952 academics are COMPLETE IGNORAMUSES having never thought or written anything about trees (per Ronald Huggins ’24) or about mushroom (per Wasson SOMA p. 180 1968).

    Every aspect of Wasson’s argument is pure dissimulation, propaganda, B S, and he lies about what he — we really can be certain — privately believes. He lies about what he privately believes; pretends to not believe there’s mushroom imagery in Christian art but he privately knows that’s the case. He is banker for pope; max conflict of interest.

    Panofsky MUST have cited some in his “letter” (a Wasson lie; it is letterS; directly relevant thus a lie to write “letter”).

    https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Panofsky —

    Titles of this Page

    • Psychedelic Snake Oil
    • Psychedelic Snake Oil: Psychedelic Pseudo Science, Fake CEQ Reduced to Healing, and the Top-Down Astroturfed Psychedelic Renaissance[TM]

    That snake oil image is used in my 2021 page:

    https://egodeaththeory.org/2021/01/07/idea-development-page-9/#Hanegraaff-Proposes-Non-Drug-Entheogens

    Hunt Priest, Founder of Ligare Psychedelic Christianity Org, Let Go

    Hunt Priest fell from heaven – founder of Ligare psychedelic Christian org https://www.google.com/search?q=satan+fell+like+lightning

    Serves him right, for writing “Psilocybin in Christian history? No, didn’t you hear? Allegro’s been debunked”

    https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/05/15/moving-past-mysticism-in-psychedelic-science-article-debate-series/#Psychedelic-Priest-Deposed-by-the-Episcopal-Church

    The Grifty Group Blew Up

    the Grifty Group — Roland Griffiths team at Johns Hopkins Dept. of Psychedelic Pseudo Science — blew itself to pieces

    Web Search: Matthew Johnson Hopkins: “Sorry, Page Not Found”

    Matthew “Lose the Buddha Statue, and I Really Mean It!” Johnson

    JHU.edu > Experts > Matthew Johnson:
    https://hub.jhu.edu/experts/profiles/matthew-johnson/ –>
    https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/profiles/results/directory/profile/0800020/matthew-johnson –>

    Sorry, Page Not Found – If you have a medical emergency, please dial 911 on your phone.

    The “Religious Leaders Study” Fiasco

    Matt Johnson filed ethics violations complaints against his Hopkins team, so the 10-years-long-awaited article has “Conflicts of Interest” section that says:

    “Do not use this article, it is unclean for building-up Science.“

    Sections / entries from page Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science:

    Motivation for this Page

    Sent to whistleblower last night, the snake oil image that came across when zooming through my pages looking for images yesterday

    just thought of how funny such a new page called just “Psychedelic Snake Oil”

    I Advised Portland Oregon Law Group in 2021 about the experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control, and requirements of how to teach per Great Canterbury Psalter

    https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#training-requirements —
    copy of links from there:

    Training Requirements

    Whistleblower Exposes by Travis Kitchens, Matthew Johnson, Brendan Borrell, & Joe Welker

    https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/05/15/moving-past-mysticism-in-psychedelic-science-article-debate-series/

    • Travis Kitchens articles
    • Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science debate series – fav page added to sidebar nav

    Web Search: Psychedelic Snake Oil

    https://www.google.com/search?q=%22psychedelic+snake+oil%22

    The Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) Forces an Outcome of a Giant, Artificial “Grief” Category of Effects, by Ignoring Control-Related Challenges, Where the Real Action’s At

    Exposing How the CEQ Sausage Was Made 🤢

    Psychedelic-assisisted therapy as a pushed business model to profit Big Pharma, by people who know nothing of the Fear of God that’s packed into psilocybin.

    The Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) forces a business-model driven, Premeditated Outcome, of a Giant Bloated “Grief” Category of Effects, for Profit-Driven “therapy/ healing”, By Simply Discarding and Ignoring the Classic, Hallmark, Control-Related Challenges, Where the Real Action’s At: The {shadow dragon monster}

    https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#CEQ

    The Dread ETCLOC 😱🐉🚪🏆

    The Experience of the Threat of Catastrophic Loss of Control

    The therapists and scientists have NO IDEA what they’re dealing with:
    the dread ETCLOC:
    experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control

    Omitted in the most-ugly process of fabricating the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ):
    OAV questionnaire’s Item 54: I was afraid to lose my self-control.

    https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#CEQ

    Ann Taves’ expose of Bogus Model of Mysticism, Stace 1960

    https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/05/15/moving-past-mysticism-in-psychedelic-science-article-debate-series/#mystical-and-other-alterations-in-sense-of-self-an-expanded-framework-for-studying-nonordinary-experiences-taves-2020

    todo: what’s the scope of this rebuttal?

    Jeffrey Breau’s expose of Bogus Model of Mysticism, Stace 1960

    https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/05/15/moving-past-mysticism-in-psychedelic-science-article-debate-series/#psychometric-brahman

    todo: what’s the scope of this rebuttal?

    This New Field as an Opportunity for Bad Actors to Takeover to Push “Tear Down Civilization” Propaganda

    Psychedelic Injustice: How Identity Politics Poisons the Psychedelic Renaissance (Hatsis, 2025)

    God’s Flesh: Teonanácatl: The True History of the Sacred Mushroom (Irvin 2022)

    Conceptual Errors, Misinterpretations, and Bad Argumentation from Entheogen Scholars

    Wouter “Star Destroyer” Hanegraaff: non-drug entheogens; and a “Cosmos Model” WITH NO STARS

    Actually, the psychedelic state is from ingesting psychedelic chemicals, not “non-drug entheogenic practices, in the wide sense”.

    🐖

    Hanegraaff tripping on non-drug psychedelics:

    https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Hanegraaff

    Hanegraaff put the stars into his “Rejected” wastebasket, to protect rebirth (phase 1 of 2) from being into heimarmene/ no-free-will/ eternalism.

    Every schoolboy knows that when you look up, you see sphere 8 (the fixed stars).

    Moving beyond sphere 7 (Saturn) does not mean, yet, transcending cosmic heimarmene, as he wrongly writes; only moving beyond sphere 8 (fixed stars) is transcending cosmic heimarmene.

    The material cosmos = fixed stars = sphere 8. NOT sphere 7 (Saturn); the ancient texts contradict Hanegraaff’s fabrication.

    He wrote a tower of books and articles about sound scholarship in the historiography of esotericism – so, citation needed., that sphere 8, beyond Saturn, is “beyond the cosmos, beyond heimarmene”.

    Back to remedial ancient Ptolemaic cosmology 101, Darth Wouter, destroyer of the fate-soaked fixed stars:

    The Eighth Gate: The Mithraic Lion-Headed Figure and the Platonic World-Soul, David Ulansey, http://www.mysterium.com/eighthgate.html

    Mithras and the Hypercosmic Sun, David Ulansey, http://www.mysterium.com/hypercosmic.html

    1. Rebirth phase 1, from sphere 7 (Saturn) into sphere 8 (fixed stars) = your soul portion halts stuck in the stars fastened to the celestial cross for eternity at heimarmene/ no-free-will/ eternalism.
    2. Rebirth phase 2, from sphere 8 (fixed stars) into sphere 9 (precession outside the physical cosmos) = your spirit portion, only, transcends heimarmene/ no-free-will/ eternalism.

    Thus the title “On the 8th and 9th”, not “On the 8th/9th”. 8 and 9 are DIFFERENT, unlike Hanegraaff depicts, conflating them.

    Your soul halts, stuck in the [5000, not just 7] stars, fastened to the celestial cross for eternity, never rises higher; only your spirit is lifted outside the 5000 stars. [August 22, 2025]

    What ancient text says that the outer boundary of the physical cosmos is sphere 7 (Saturn), as Hanegraaff mostly describes it?

    He fabricates — CITATION NEEDED, Hanegraaff! — and projects onto hermetic texts what is simply not there, an outsider’s confused, imagined tale of:

    Transcendent Knowledge = mental model transformation from eternalism to possibilism; from disempowered no-free-will, to transcendent freewill power.

    Hanegraaff VIOLATES HIS CLAIM TO BE DRIVEN BY THE TEXT EVIDENCE.

    No ancient text says that rebirth from Saturn is immediately into the level “above heimarmene”.

    I would have seen that text by now. I posted extremely detailed passages here.

    First you must reconcile with and reach the Fate-ruled fixed stars, in the first rebirth phase. Only after that, do you arrive “beyond the stars” in the 2nd rebirth phase.

    He places “beyond the [7] stars” too soon. ie his bunk, confused and confusing subheading Beyond the Stars.

    7 planetary stars of the cosmos +
    5000 fixed stars of the cosmos

    The planetary stars are wandering, relative to the fixed stars.

    Mental model transformation in the loose cognitive association state from psilocybin is from possibilism to eternalism.

    The mind ends up with integrated possibilism/ eternalism thinking, transcending any single mental model, in a harmonious complementary, fecund combination of two different perspectives on control and posssibiltiy.

    Crop by Michael Hoffman
    1. {stand on left foot} = naive possibilism-thinking. sphere 1-7, planets, Saturn.
    2. {stand on right foot} = basic eternalism-thinking. sphere 8: fixed stars.
    3. {stand on no foot} = integrated possibilism/eternalism thinking. sphere 9: precession, beyond the stars.

    Hatsis’ Deleted Sites and Articles with Logical Fallacies backed up by His Rich Gallery of mushroom imagery in Christian art, to Prove No Secret Christian Amanita Cult, therefore no mushrooms in Christian art

    https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Hatsis

    https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/08/17/psychedelic-injustice-how-identity-politics-poisons-the-psychedelic-renaissance-hatsis-2025/#book-review-by-michael-hoffman

    David the Amanita Expert Tells Psychedelic Church Service and Book Club, Amanita Is the Psychedelic that Is Your Heritage [ie., Psilocybin Is Not]

    Recognizing Mushroom Imagery in Medieval Art

    The Towering Edifice of Grand Psychedelic Science Rests on a Foundation of the Bogus, “Unitive” Model of Mysticism (Covert Neo-Advaita), not the Relational Model of Mysticism that’s Depicted in Greek Myth, Religious Art, and Christian Mysticism

    The False, “Unitive” Model of Mysticism Held by Everyone

    Houot’s Master’s Thesis Accepted by Thesis Committee Because Says “Indigenous Shamans Good, Western Mystics Bad”

    https://egodeaththeory.org/nav/#Alan-Houot

    Western Mystics Suck and Fail b/c Resort to Surrenderism, while Indigenous Shamans Have Sophisticated High Tech that Gives them Full Control of High-Dose Psilocybin via Technologies of Drum, Chant, & Dance

    Crop and annotations by Cybermonk; art by Eadwine 1200 A.D., Great Canterbury Psalter

    The New Phrenology: Science Proves the Brain Turns Orange

    Psychedelic Brain Scans an Exercise in Outright Futility & Fraud, Trying to Generate Results, to Impress the Rubes

    vid title: Transcendent Knowledge Podcast Episode 6
    ch: Max Freakout
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLUQEVmMmKQ&t=300s = 5:00 minutes


    search: psychedelic phrenology brain scan
    https://www.google.com/search?q=psychedelic+phrenology+brain+scan

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

    quote Max Freakout podcast Transcendent Knowledge podcast “orange”
    https://egodeaththeory.org/?s=phrenology – solution: find “carhart”:

    https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/11/07/transcendent-knowledge-podcast-episodes/#Episode-6
    Go to YouTube > More… > Show Transcript > click text of transcript > Find: orange

    eg:

    “neuroscientist so we’re going to look at all these flashy you

    5:42know pictures of brains lit up with orange when they’re under the influence of LSD and think wow you know and it’s a

    5:50lot of the feedback that I’ve had because I’ve been putting a lot more effort into promoting the podcast now

    ack that I’ve had because I’ve been putting a lot more effort into promoting the podcast now

    5:56that we’ve got some real theme shows I find it easier to promote those around the internet and the vast majority of

    The reaction to Carhart-Harris (with the sole exception of Michael Hoffman) has been rube-like; “How can you possibly criticize that, he’s showing us all these wonderful things about what psychedelics due to the brain”, and I’m calling the bluff

    vid title: Transcendent Knowledge Podcast Episode 6
    ch: Max Freakout
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLUQEVmMmKQ&t=240s = 4:00

    “The vast majority of the feedback I’ve been getting — in fact with the sole exception of Michael Hoffman — has been to has been very rube-like;

    it’s been just following on from the from the supposed meaningfulness of Robin Carhart-Harris’s results and saying:

    “well how can you possibly criticize that? you know he’s showing us all these wonderful things about what psychedelics due to the brain.”

    “And i’m i’m calling the bluff, and seems to be not very well understood exactly where where we you and I are really coming from in critiquing it in this way”

    Concerned with Publicity: Don’t Want to Try to Explain Simulation of Psychotic Episodes to the Press; You Want the Bright, Shiny Orangeification of the Brain, to Spin to People

    vid title: Transcendent Knowledge Podcast Episode 6
    ch: Max Freakout
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLUQEVmMmKQ&t=600s = 10:00

    11:30 – Cyberdisciple recomm Benny Shanon’s approach.

    Hyper-Materialist, Cognitive-Eliminating “Cognitive Neuroscience”

    13:45 – Max Freakout says psychedelic science is materialist – understatement. See articles by Matthew Johnson strongly advocating a marketing posture of hardcore reductionist eliminative materialism sold as “naturalism”:
    https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/05/15/moving-past-mysticism-in-psychedelic-science-article-debate-series/#Consciousness-Religion-and-Gurus

    I COULD GO ON…

    See Also

    Roasting Entheogen Scholarship: How the Field of Entheogen Scholarship Was Wrecked by the Amanita Primacy Fallacy

    1987 Notebooks: Way of Zen + Block-Universe No-Free-Will = Ego Death Theory

    Michael Hoffman 9:40 p.m. August 21, 2025

    Contents:

    links work on desktop Chrome/Edge:

    Motivation for this Page

    Titles of this Page

    1987 Idea Development Notebooks from Interrogating Way of Zen to Adding Missing Determinism Key, to Discover Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence Breakthrough

    Photo Credit: All Photos: Michael Hoffman 1986-2025

    Today I read the 2001 email from Strangeloop asking about my pre-1988 writings that bridged from intensive interrogation of the Way of Zen by Alan Watts, to my Jan 11, 1988 breakthrough.

    Server gallery month of upload the set of photos: Dec 2020

    These photos are surely in posts here in Dec 2020 – with some writeup. Faster to redo now.

    Not Able to Find Which Articles Dec. 2020 Show These Photos

    Search this site: binder sheets Pentel P205 1987
    https://egodeaththeory.org/?s=binder+sheets+Pentel+P205+1987
    found earliest:
    https://egodeaththeory.org/2021/01/07/idea-development-page-9/#Formatting-Considered-Harmful

    Tried idea development pages Dec 2020, only found 1 pic.

    ERROR: Site Map lacks 2020-2022 pages list in temporal order – really need all pages in chron order list. todo: Check private dashboard.

    March 21, 2022 = email to Brown writing for first time “branching-message mushroom trees” ie THE BRANCHING IS THE PAYLOAD MESSAGE, NOT WHIMSICAL!” vs Marcia Kupfer marked-up passage Brown emailed me, cutting branches in St. Martin rotund youth.

    July 4, 2022: Morphology: branching-message mushroom trees

    Huggins asks about Plaincourault fresco w/ trident under crown.

    1997 Core Theory Spec at Principia Cybernetica

    https://egodeaththeory.org/2020/11/30/self-control-cybernetics-dissociative-cognition-mystic-ego-death/#About-the-Article —

    March 9, 2014 Coffeehouse Guest Book Summary

    Both Pages

    Religious Myth Deciphered

    Appearance vs. Reality

    August 1988 First Draft, Handwritten, Minn. – The Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence

    Chalkboard Lecture, Video Link, Dec. 3, 2013

    Search this site: chalkboard video
    https://egodeaththeory.org/?s=chalkboard+video

    Search Egodeath Yahoo Group site: chalkboard video
    https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/?s=chalkboard+video – found the announcement post:
    Subject: Egodeath diagram and lecture
    Dec. 3, 2013
    https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-124/#message6349 –

    Video: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/egodeath/photos/albums/1651450143 – “The religious myth portion of the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence. This photo is proof of my priority of discovery of the following:

    “tree vs. snake means Possibilism vs. Eternalism (2 models of time and personal control power).

    “This is the key to religious myth, which I discovered and figured out. I also have a great 2GB video lecture 17 minutes long explaining this chalkboard, that I will upload. I am emailing key professors and theorists. University of Washington, Loew hall, room 220 (Electrical Engineering).”

    Post-It Note Summary of Mono-Possibility Tree of Asclepius

    Pike Place Market SAC Gym Coffeehouse, End 2013-Early 2014

    Electrical Engineering Class Notes

    Main Binder: Fall 1987; thru Dec 1987

    Binders from Above

    5th binder = Summer

    based on examin pic & memory:

    1. Spring 86 purple – used blank books
    2. sum 86 black – used blank books
    3. fall 86 blue – used blank books
    4. spring 87 red bright – changed to binder sheets
    5. sum 87 flat red thick – looks like thick Fall 87
    6. fal 87
    7. spr 88
    8. sum 88
    9. fal 88
    10. spr 89
    11. sum 89
    12. fall 89

    1988 Art Blank Book

    Page 485, Binder Sheet, Oct. 19, 1987

    mentions big day Oct. 19, 1987

    Michael the Archangel, 1991 Art Blank Book, Ink Brush

    Post-It Note, Appearance vs. Reality

    Worldline Snake Transcends the Block Universe, Art Blank Book, 1991, Liberte, Le Univ Bloc

    search site:
    https://egodeaththeory.org/?s=Le+Univ+Bloc
    https://egodeaththeory.org/?s=Liberte

    1988 Hand Draft 1, Binders, Art Blank Book, Draft 2 Printout

    Hand Binder Sheet, Giant Shifting Words

    Hand Notes: Branching

    Art Blank Book 1994: Cross, Blotter, Ouroboros, The Illuminated Intellect

    right-hand handwriting, which was bad: lost Left hand, had to extremely work to recover it in 2008

    Hand Binder Sheet Cube Slices

    Hand Binder Sheet Diagram

    Spiral Notebook Sheets Engineering Class Notes

    p 525 Break on Through, Typical Acronym Shorthand Powerful

    Hand Binder Sheet: Mind, Drawings

    2012 1986-Style Blank Book, Pentel P205

    1986-style blank book 2 pages

    1986-style blank book front cover

    felt, P205

    Blank Book, P205

    Oct. 13, 1987 Hand Writing Binder Sheet

    Hand Binder Sheet

    Hand Written with Pentel P205 Mechanical Pencil on Binder Sheets, Daily Idea development, Late 1987

    • left hand
    • all caps

    Binders Factored ~2011 New Binders, Now Per-Semester: Spring 1986-Summer 1989; 1990 Blank Book; Aug 1988 Draft 1 Handwritten Minn. Draft; Printout of Word Processor 2nd Draft

    uploaded Dec 2020 – oldest/ first one uploaded

    Fixed-Space Word Processor Files No Paragraphs, Heavy Acronyms, 1987

    Sep 2006 Done but Not Done Main Article (Sep. 2007): Intro on Sep Webpage; Nested Sentences Too Long

    • Lacks intro condensed: excusable: the MORE detailed content is present in article webpage.
    • Nested sentences in sentences: excusable: I converted (for readble-aloud) to shorter sentences, but content is same/ is all present.
    what is totally f’d up: 2006 fail: I developed an Intro ABOUT this article – a summ. of it — on the home page of Egodeath.com, then in 2007 had the good sense to start article w/ that condensed “progressive disclosure” summary. Then Sep 2007 I read-aloud and found too-long, nested sentences. Fixed those. Finalized in Sep 2007. Thus, “2006 / 2007 main article”. Next day, alas, found the word ‘eternalism’, shoulda replaced ‘determinism’

    History of Finalizing Article from Sep 2006 to Sep 2007

    Wrote 60-page excellent 2006 Allegro article for Journal Higher Crit w/ input Jan Irvin.

    Re: Entheogen Theory Egodeath article:

    What is totally f’d up: 2006 fail:

    1. sep 2006: I developed an Intro ABOUT this article – a summ. of it — on the home page of Egodeath.com
    2. 2007: had the good sense to start article w/ that condensed “progressive disclosure” summary.
    3. Sep 2007 I read-aloud and found too-long, nested sentences. Fixed those, to finalized in Sep 2007. Thus, “2006 / 2007 main article”.
    4. Next day, alas, found the word ‘eternalism’, shoulda replaced ‘determinism’. Kafei ran into that problem after 2007 main article — ETERNALISM IS AS FAR BEYOND DETERMINISM AS DETERMINISM IS PAST FREEWILL. Not possible to redefine determinism; its meaning is tightly fixed: domino-chain determinism w/ open non-existent future; eternalism has fully closed future. Big diff’c.

    Email 1 to Strangeloop “Server Down”

    Sent Aug. 21, 2025

    https://egodeaththeory.org

    2020

    Egodeath.com = 2007

    I Didn’t Email Strangeloop Before, Had Semi-Hidden Contact to Discover

    Answer to my Search question: 

    No, I don’t find records of emailing Strangeloop before.

    Printed Version of Egodeath.com

    I envy Strangeloop reading printed Egodeath.com.  

    Content posted at Egodeath Yahoo Group from start in June 2001-Feb 14 2004 is both at:

    * the Max Freakout Archive of Egodeath Yahoo Group and 

    * Egodeath.com.

    It’s all absolutely gold content, I’m always blown away too much to read it much.

    I’m composing a sep. email for Strangeloop, but found this curious finding:

    Contacts

    I should be more assertive in asking for contacts from Max (/Cyb).

    It turns out that I had Strangeloop’s email/name, but extremely hidden in present thread which caused me to copy Cyberdisciple and make 2nd website:

    https://EgodeathTheory.WordPress.com = 

    https://egodeaththeory.org

    Egodeath Yahoo Group archive
    https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com

    10/10 content quality, amazing to search

    Why Have Two Websites: Backup

    Verio.com host recently renamed to …. something else.  Unreliable host.

    todo: search crawl my two WordPress sites.

    — Cybermonk

    Email 2 to Strangeloop “Can You Upload Pre-1988 Writings from the Way of Zen by Alan Watts to Block-Universe Eternalism, Discovering Watts’ Failure to Mention Determinism (Unlike Balsekar)?”

    How I Got from Way of Zen to Block-Universe No-Free-Will in Jan. 1988

    Sent Aug. 21, 2025

    Hi Strangeloop,Today I read your unread email sent via Contact page, Jan. 10, 2021.

    My Early, Short Psyched. Perception article, 1994

    6 Years After 1988 Breakthrough

    3 years before 1997 Theory Summary Spec

    My 1994 zine article, metaperception.

    Making a book from My Dense Text Files 1987; Binder Sheets 1987; Way of Zen Copy

    Printing Out then Analyzing my Idea development Notes: Oct 1987- Feb 1988, how exactly did I get from the Way of Zen by Alan Watts, to 

    Strangeloop wrote:

    “Any chance you could 

    download [upload] your typed pre-1988 breakthrough material to this site, where you were figuring out the “no-freewill” solution to the book The Way of Zen?

    (Nov/Dec 1988) 

    EgodeathTheory.WordPress.com = https://egodeaththeory.org

    Records available:

    * (April 1987-Jan 1988 – Handwritten binders sheets)

    * (Aug 1988: 1st draft of The Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence: P205 Pentel pencil on binder sheets, Minn.)

    * Late 1988: Mac floppies of v1 of Egodeath site = first drafts late 1987 of article for the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, “the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence”.  

    * June 1987 – 1989 Word/PC text files

    * Copy of The Way of Zen by Alan Watts.   See article in This Is It but alas I didn’t find that article summary, until after Jan 1988, but, same thought process.  I could tell you how to get from there, to the no-free-will breakthrough, by adding 4 other topics listed below.

    I can remember the thought process.  

    I can read my notes in the book Way of Zen by Alan Watts – I can read that book copy, and tell you which passages were key but best tip is:

    forget the Way of Zen by Alan Watts, instead read the article in book This Is It: “Zen and the Problem of Control”.

    The question is completely familiar, I think I may have posted this response on a webpage to you.   I don’t think we used email for such a question before.

    Answer:

    Impracticable, but possible.  It would be good to know – but hard to do meaningfully.  That’s why I kept paper archives 1986-1990, for that purpose you asked.

    I couldn’t read the Mac floppies from 1988.  No idea why not.  The content migrated into Egodeath.com, re: my word processor articles.

    The 4-5 Topics Brought together for Jan 1988 Breakthrough

    (“Why didn’t Watts just write ‘determinism’ [eternalism]?!”

    It is extremely slow going, reading my handwritten idea development prior to Jan. 11, 1988 breakthrough combining:

    * Minkowski block-universe eternalism ; 4D Spacetime Mysticism 

    * loose cognition ASC

    * Control Systems coursework

    * self-help/ metaprogramming

    Pulling those together, was the key, then I exclaimed “Why didn’t Watts ever write anything saying ‘determinism’?!” by which I meant, eternalism.

    Determinism is on the bad end of a spectrum of variants; my eternalism (w/ control transformation aspects that Wm James rejected in 1890s, “The Dilemma of Determinism”), is at the good extreme of the spectrum.

    Determinism is weak and clueless, opposite of Eternalism.  Roughly:

    1. freewill 

    2. Determinism 

    3. Eternalism

    ie, go from freewill to determinism, then go equally far to finally get to eternalism.
    The Dilemma of Determinism (James, 1897) Is Against Eternalism, Not Causal-Chain Determinism

    https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/04/10/the-dilemma-of-determinism-james-1897-is-against-eternalism-not-causal-chain-determinism/

    Minkowski Book, “the Absolute Four-Dimensional Spacetime World”

    The 2nd Edition of the Minkowski 4 articles book by Petkov intro is great intro.

    https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/04/11/psychedelic-4d-spacetime-block-universe-mysticism/#spacetime-minkowskis-papers-on-spacetime-physics-petkov-2021

    Conclusion: the term to use per book is: “the Absolute Four-Dimensional Spacetime World”

    Psychedelic 4D-Spacetime Block-Universe Mysticism

    https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/04/11/psychedelic-4d-spacetime-block-universe-mysticism/

    Petkov book.

    One form of writing during 1987 is the best: text computer files June 1987 through 1988.  

    Those text files have no CRLF whitespace/ paragraphs; giant paragraph shorthand – again, pretty tough and slow jungle.  

    It’s possible to turn such materials into a bound printout PDF produced on demand book cheaply.

    Would require work, and a strange book but I kept records for that reason.  I have hard drives that have the files.

    Amnesia, Project of Reconstructing Timeline Intellectual Autobiography

    I had serious amnesia, I discovered, when started hiatus Jan 1, 2008, because since 1985 I had been blasting forward, forward, always looking forward, leading edge, never reviewing:

    How did I get here?  I could not remember!  Scary.  I had to re-construct my intellectual autobio; timelines.  Which I then had in hand when returned from hiatus Sep 2011 3.75 years later, major threat at Egodeath Yahoo Group called “Intellectual Autobiography“.

    During hiatus 2008-2009, I had awesome art pictures diagrammatic in the main article 2007, but, failed to comprehend the YI branching vs. nonbranching.  To grasp that finally in 2023, 

    * During 2008-2010, I speculated walking forest preserve forking paths photo’ing mushrooms every October, I thought:

    Didn’t Greeks have Cog Sci and knew 4-D block universe? Along w/ loose cognition?

    Then Nov 2011, Nov 2012, Nov 2013, I decoded branching in myth.

    2015 xmas: Isn’t “Dancing Man” stand on right foot = eternalism mental model??  Hard to confirm. … Test this scientific hypothesis.

    …

    2020 Nov: Confirmed, jackpot!  Great Canterbury Psalter, Eadwine’s leg-hanging mushroom tree image in the Great Canterbury Psalter.  At web May 2008 by John Lash, 2/5 of 1 of 3 rows of 1 image.

    Then Cyberdisciple provided 2020 too-dark full res, Great Canterbury Psalter.

    I was slow to finally in March 2023 comprehend ALL of the art pieces I had since like 2004, re: YI branching vs nonbranching = possibilism vs. eternalism.

    That became the theory of the set of 4: {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs, summarized in my psych’d Church Reader article yesterday:

    • Recognizing Mushroom Imagery in Medieval Art — added few more key mythemes in the compact list – well less than 2 pages of text! 
      Trick (attn: Cyberdisciple): I removed tons of words by not listing features for a specific image. 
      2 pages of text + 1 tall picture page + 2 pages w/ two images each. 
      Pleased w/ the dense article.  The keys to everything, there.  Church, a newly ordained woman praised it, I am glad.

    My 1988 draft article – equiv = 2007 main article.

    1st draft was hand written in Minn. I have it.  Then about 6 printouts of that via the orig computer center w/ glass wall and ivy covered univ buildings.

    / end of email

    See Also

    pend

    The False, “Unitive” Model of Mysticism Held by Everyone

    Michael Hoffman, 7:30 a.m. August 21, 2025

    Crop by Michael Hoffman

    Contents:

    links work on desktop Chrome/Edge:

    My First Post Rebutting the Unity Model of Transcendent Knowledge, in Favor of Fatedness/ Determinism: Nov. 21, 2001

    Egodeath.com lacks dates, and dups Egodeath Yahoo Group 2001-Feb 14 2004. Therefore this post from 2001 is there. 1997 spec lacks “unit”.

    determinism [as i redefined it] = fatedness = eternalism

    The word ‘eternalism’ properly includes personal control aspects/implications.

    Proof: Wm James objected to when he rebutted “determinism”. in article 189x “The Dilemma of Determinism” which actually rebuts eternalism, not ultimately rebutting determinism.
    https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/04/10/the-dilemma-of-determinism-james-1897-is-against-eternalism-not-causal-chain-determinism/

    https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-6-2001-11-11/#message297
    Find: unity

    “the unity feeling, or the new identification of the mind with stationary
    consciousness rather than mental constructs in motion, is not the
    fulcrum driving revelation.

    The one-word answer for “What is hidden at first, but then revealed
    by loose cognition?” is “determinism” or “Fatedness”, not “unity”
    or “consciousness”    .

    The word “determinism” lends itself better to having these ideas attached, than the word “unity” or “love” or “consciousness” or “enlightenment”.

    Enlightenment amounts to determinism, more than enlightenment is unity or consciousness.

    What is revealed is determinism and its concomitants.

    All other proposed single answers leave room for confusion. What
    word most forcefully shuts out possibility of
    confusion? “Determinism”. Determinism is usually mis-defined as
    predictionism and domino-chain causality, instead of the non-
    branching singleness, fixity, and even pre-existence of the future.
    Still, after correction, “determinism” implies far more principles of
    High Religion than do the terms “unity”, “love”, “enlightenment”,
    or “truth”.

    “Unity” is not the key to high religion. Neither is “consciousness”
    or “love”. “Determinism” is the key to the knowledge revealed in
    high religion.”

    / end of excerpt from my 2001 post

    Latest Kitchens emails

    hi-lev goal/mission: 

    i wish to make Christian, relational mysticism victorious over Eastern, nondual type mysticism.

    * relational model of mysticism  (eg Christian mysticism)  2-level, dependent control.

    * unitive model of mysticism <– blecch, i don’t think the actual, psychedl. control-transformation dynamics support this being the central focus, despite ALL writers (other than Christian mystics). 

    the Unitive model is related to (a product of) egoic, “monolithic, autonomous control” model. 

    This is the poor type of, or model of, “mystical experience” that is expected, by people who merely have the mundane, untransformed, “monolithic, autonomous control” model.

    the old theory: unitive.  expected by ppl who have monolithic, autonomous control.  presupposition, foundation of sand.  Greek myth does not at all support this!  neither does art!

    the new theory: relational.   end up with “2-level, dependent control” model.  transformed, redeemed.  Greek myth agrees with this.  Art depicts this.

    “Solid mission.

    “Griffiths et all want a global mono-religion that solves all conflicts, sounds horrific.”

    Differentiate: Religious Particularism; Perennialism; Essentialism; Unitive; Relational; Universalist – Stop the False Dilemmas and Limited Options/Groupings

    I bleieve universal – a kind of perennail – and a kind of essentiallism. BUT NOT Unitive, that’s the massive difference, like between ‘determinism’ vs. very different ‘eternalism’. Their universal peren. essen. model is WRONG.

    I do not believe in J or Christian particularism – though/ but I am saved by blood of Christ in a esoteric way. fear of God, check. 2-level, dependent control

    relational mysticism not unitive. but, ‘relational” does not mean particularistic.

    MY SCIENTIFIC MODEL IS NOT Christianity PARTI’IC. Nor Jewish particularist as Strass advocates – I reject that aspect of Strass pdf.
    Yet I am saved by the blood of Christ. I sat as child in Jewish temple.
    No lambs or messiahs – violent or not – were harmed in the making of this theory.

    Not their bogus “esotericism”;
    esotericism per psychedelic eternalism per the Egodeath theory, rather.

    distinct: do not conflate:

    My #1 complaint after rereading Strassman pdf: he conflates the hell out of these concepts.

    I could make a page containing a copy of Strassman’s critical review of 2015 book by Wm Richards “Sacred Knowledge”, then show how Strassman, many times, conflates and wrongly equates & groups these concepts:

    • universalism/ist
    • particularism
    • perennialism which kind
    • essentialism/ist “
    • Unitive != universalist
    • relational mysticism

    sometimes mysticism = Unitive

    sometimes mysticism = neutral; both Unitive and Relational

    eg: he says Relational mysticism = Judaism — and implies wrongly:
    Christianity != relational mysticism.

    Instead, against Strass, seems simple and clear to me:

    Jewish & Christian mysticism = Relational mysticism, NOT unitive mysticism.

    If Richards equates Christian mysticism = Unitive mysticism, that is misrep./invention.

    also Strassman like everyone, wrongly contrasts: DMT vs. traditional traditional methods of the mystics.

    false dilemmas, galore; the article is an exercise in false dilemmas & groupings/ conflations. So, Richards fails to handle Relational mysticism (like the Egodeath theory’s 2-level, dependent control from eternalism), and, Strassman fails to group things in a viable way to enable my scientific, universalist, perennial of a sort, essentialist of a sort (non-Unitive; my Relational essentialism).

    My Science theory of mental model transformation = Relational, not Unitive. It is Relational AND Universalist. Strassman wrongly shuts out that combination. He wrongly says Relational != Universalist — but Greek myth shows he is wrong.

    Greek myth, & religious art (the good kind that matches my theory) is Relational mysticism and is Universalist.

    Greek myth is Relational mysticism and is Universalist.

    Strass acts like Jewish owns Relational. That’s conflation.

    First of all, obv, Christianity mysticism is Relational mysticism. immed destroying his wrong way of dividing / grouping the concepts in play.

    Really strange, that Strass doesn’t point out the obvious: that Christian mysticism is Relational mysticism eg per R C Zaehner against Huxley’s brand of universalist perennist essentialism.

    • UNITIVE universalist perennist essentialism.
    • RELATIONAL universalist perennist essentialism.

    two differeent groupings thus are possible.

    The Egodeath theory = the RELATIONAL-mysticism version of universalist perennist essentialism = Scientific, model of mental model transformation from Psilocybin loose cognition.

    psychedelic pseudo science = the UNITIVE-mysticism version of universalist perennist essentialism, which is not how Psilocybin transformation actually works. Psilocybin gives a little unitive, then crushes w/ demon/angel teeror-teaching giving producing evanuetually 2-level, dependent control which is relational.

    also horrible cliche stupid fallacy:

    • psychedelics = instant expereincee of mysticism
    • tradition traditional methods of the mystics = long-term, difficult.

    total false dichot. why not combine options?

    • within a structured Christian framework, do long-term 10 sessions of Psilocybin, do the very hard work to reconfigure mental model about personal control system in relation to the uncontrollable hidden source of control-thoughts.
    • I have one recent printout of 1 article (the only one) that says to consider this “unthinkable” combination that breaks that baloney false dilemma that everyone parrots unthinkingly – ie,
    • The method that mystics ACTUALLY used: repeated/ long-term 10 sessions of Psilocybin within Christian framework to do hard work of mental model transformation, giving 2-level, dependent control model of control and world.
    • mysticism vs. science? which sense?

    email 1 to Kafei

    Find “Kafei” in new page:
    https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/08/21/idea-development-page-31/
    and in:
    https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/06/11/idea-development-page-30/ – especially see the section:
    https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/06/11/idea-development-page-30/#kafeis-initial-total-misunderstanding-of-the-egodeath-theory

    … last night’s draft for Kitchens, about your initial thinking the Egodeath theory = domino-chain determinism instead of block-universe eternalism which I think you call The Absolute.Glad to have your contact. 

    Need you to weigh in on Unity model of mystical experience.  vs. potential new foundation in psychedelic pseudo science — a control-centered, Balsekar’s no-free-will centered, model of mystical experience instead.  

    Balsekar = Advaita, but, Wilber and Andrew Cohen (also Advaita ppl, probably) recoiled b/c only Balsekar put focus on no-free-will.

    Ken Wilber never wrote anything on topic of free will vs. determinism (or way better, eternalism).  Wilber eventually in 1990s mag What Is Enlightenment? w/ Cohen, eventually they were shocked to find & recoil against the no-free-will pushed by Balsekar.

    So, interesting! Same in East religion as West religion:

    Pop rediscovery of eternalism in Western religion

    * Western religion: 1997, I discover Reformed Theology / Hyper-Calvinism; then my author Dave Hunt and Christians –

    amazingly they all had forgotten Reformed Theology / Calvinism! —

    they, 2 years after me, re-discovered and were SHOCKED! SHOCKED! to discover history of theology = asserting no-free-will:

    God is the author of evil. 

    God is to blame for all bad things. 

    Then, Reformed theology exploded.  into pop’y & controversial.

    Hunt wrote What Love Is This? book, shocked at Hyper-Calvinism/Reformed theology. 

    How could a Christian author never have heard of Reformed theology?! 

    It was new to him so late, 1998-ish! 

    Dave, thanks for failing to teach me in 1995, basic theology, as a “Christian writer”. 

    Ignorant of no-free-will / Reformed theology – basic, for theology.

    Pop rediscovery of eternalism in Eastern religion

    * Eastern religion: In late 1990s, Wilber & Cohen were SHOCKED! SHOCKED! to find that Balsekar says the central focus of Transcendent Knowledge (mystical enlightenment) is no-free-will.

    That’s my understanding, putting the pieces together.

    — Cybermonk 

    I wouldn’t have resumed using ‘Cybermonk’ except for you; except for Max saying “we are not mystics”, as he had to explain himself later.  

    i was SHOCKED! SHOCKED! by Max saying “we are not mystics”, so i restored / reclaimed the use of “Cybermonk” for years.  First used when, 1995??  2000?

    Lately moved back to “Michael Hoffman”, recently.  Must keep “Cybermonk” branding alive, not let it die out again.

    email 2 to Kafei

    thx for (re-) sending me that Strassman PDF.  

    I had only read it like twice – now the pieces are coming together tighter.  

    I wrote against the Unity model in “Sacred Knowledge” poor book by Richards, in 2015 when I pre-ordered it.

    https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-143/#message7377

    91 hits on ‘unity’

    3 hits on “Sacred Knowledge”

    Travis Kitchens interviewed Richards and described him to me today as “a dyed-in-the-wool” follower of the Vivek/ James/ Stace/ Hood wrong, Unitive model of mystical experience.

    Unitive experience is merely a component of the experience.  

    The actual central focus of the transformation experience is control transformation, producing personal, relational, 2-level, dependent control.

    You have read much more than me, of writings of the mystics.  You are the expert there.  I suppose I have read just enough.

    2015: “Enlightenment is about cybernetics, not unity”

    In 2015 I wrote:

    https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-143/#message7377

    strassman pdf mentions his book i just got, DMT and the Soul of Prophecy. got it after our church book club had him as guest for autobio new book. club had suggested that book like 6 mo ago. jury is out.

    Arnold, “Bullsh!t!”, in Mars Movie “Total Recall”

    search youtube
    “Total Recall” bullshit
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22Total+Recall%22+bullshit
    too short: but could be good general-use for my purposes, freq. needed:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NppTqCWp-MM

    I want the scene from the Mars movie where he takes the hallucination journey pills, to experience a fantasy of being a spy, and then says “b.s.” about what’s real. I’m rusty on the scene/ story/ scenario.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4psKYpfnYs

    I Preordered Sacred Knowledge and Fell Asleep, now i know b/c it uses wrong, Unity model

    i posted about it
    https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-143/ 3x

    such a snoozer, i hardly wrote about the book. I HAD HIGH HOPES! BUMMER BOOK FAILS TO DELIVER. b/c Unity model.

    Strass review of it is good to read 3 times.

    score! i actually say “unity” — 91x! https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-143/#message7366

    “sacred knowledge” – 3 hits there.

    Strassman Gets Credit, 2018, for Exposing Unity/ Neo-Advaita Model Infesting/ corrupting psychedelic pseudo science

    https://www.rickstrassman.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/JPS_Strassman.pdf

    i had already read this, and this is one of my sources for — Kafei in July also sent me this link – for name “Swami Vivekananda”.

    My church book club had Strassman as a guest, for his new autobio book.

    I watched 1-2 YouTube vids of Strassman.

    I got his Old Testament = DMT reports book on audiobook, but it seems really choppy, not what I wanted:

    I wanted him to present a list of Old Testament mythic/ psychedelic stories/analogies, and how his participants in DMT had same experiences.

    Possible Titles for this Article

    • The Reigning False, “Unity” Model of Mysticism (Covert Neo-Advaita), vs. Control-Transformation
    Crop by Michael Hoffman, Aug. 20, 2025: 2-Level, Dependent Control with Vulnerability

    two other crops:

    • f177 — the above + below it, tower, ossuary, corpse, lifted by two guys
    • equiv: f107 — hand of god controls Jesus lifting guy from ossuary, threatened by demon

    This junky draft not even filled in yet = Privileged Early Announcement for Elite Privy Followers

    😕 😬 🥺 👀

    easiest for me to publish this page first, then fill it in. consider the resulting junk-email to be a priviledge early announcement for high-paying exclusive members club

    Breakthrough Announcement

    What date, two weeks ago, did I – via Taves & Breau via Kitchens-crowd — suddenly majorly connecting all dots:

    every writer, it turns out, makes same FUNDAMENTAL mistake: “mystical experience = nondual Unity oneness; cessation of mind constructing the usual expeirencee of a self/other boundary

    • explains my dislike of Wm Richards book Sacred Knowledge
    • explains my 1987 dissat w/ Ken Wilber (around 2023, I wrote his engine of his fwk is worthless – doesn’t fly off the ground — doesn’t deliver the goods – because it is really nothing but conventional Advaita
    • explains why M E Q and C E Q are trash questionnaires. and whole field of psychedelic pseudo science is aimed straight toward {shadow dragon monster}.

    noticed sort of since Jan 1988 – assumes Unity model of mysticism, but – u konw how this goes – by leaps and bounds, a drastic sudden increase of network-connections a couple weeks ago. = breakthrough.

    To Touch Upon

    Everything, all my critiques of everything, fit exactly into this critique:

    • My Jan 1988 breakthrough against the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology & Ken Wilber exactly turns out to have been a rejection of their universally held “Unity” false model of mystical experience / enlightenment / Transcendent Knowledge / ego transcendence.
    • The other day, confirmed Wilber = Unity. (i think i confirmed that – or, I drew the connetions and I should formally prove that)
    • The other day, found or re-found… recount and write up: i posted that i glimpsed an article by a woman saying to stop saying “ego dissolution” – in field of psychedelic pseudo science — and I couldn’t figure who, ; I SUSPECT i glimpsed Taves article a few months ago, but maybe some other writer. CONFIRMED MY FINDINGS AND EXPANDED THEM/ substantiated.
    • The other day, i found – thanks to Travis and/or other whistleblowers — Breau article and the name Swami Vivek-ananda; the other day by searching web, for Vivek, or Breau, I found the Breau article. CONFIRMED MY FINDINGS AND EXPANDED by listing 3-4 swamis not just Vivek – those before him and after him.

    Taves Article Exposing the Bogus “Unity” Model

    Erik Davis Condensed Quote “Vouchsafed”

    from email to Kitchens last night – see new, idea development page 31.

    Breau Article Exposing Stace = Covert Neo-Advaita

    link: Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science Debate Series

    Name of the Old Theory and the New Theory, of Mystical Experience/ Transcendent Knowledge/ Ego Transcendence: 1st-Gen = Unity; 2nd-Gen = Control

    1. Unity – everyone else
    2. Control – the Egodeath theory

    In 1986, I strategically said: to fix my personal control system, I need to learn ego transcendence from all the poor writers about mystical experience – should take two weeks (accomplished Jan 11 1988).

    In 1986, I said: “Learning ego transcendence/ Transcendent Knowledge will not fix my personal control system, but is required, as a piece of knowledge toward that end.” Turns out, their model = merely the Unity model (false model) of ego transcendence.

    My point in my early 1988 first drafts of the Egodeath theory — the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence — was, ALL YOU GUYS AT Journal of Transpersonal Psychology ARE WRONG:

    THIS ETERNALISM / CYBERNETIC / LOOSE COGNITION MODEL IS THE ACTUAL WAY THAT NUKES ‘EGO’ / EGOIC THINKING.

    How then to characterize their wrong model? Since my breakthorugh on this 2 weeks ago, the answer turns out to be: the false, Unity model of Transcendent Knowledge / satori/ enlightenment / etc.

    Paul Thagard: Phil o Sci: Conceptual Revolutions book [link my page]:

    • The old theory = the Unity model of mystical experience
    • The new theory = the Eternalism/Control model of mystical experience

    See Also

    A search on “unit” at my site map only finds 1 article, thus confirming that the present new page is needed:
    Rejecting Confused, Unhelpful Explanatory Constructs: Naturalism, Ego Dissolution, Neuroplasticity, Unity, Default Mode Network

    Why My January 1988 Non-Branching Block U

    Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science Debate Series
    yesterday added link to nav sidebar as [Moving Past Mysticism]

    search this site for unity:
    https://egodeaththeory.org/?s=unity

    Did I make pages focusing on the Unity model of mystical experience? instead of the Control-centered Jan 1988 model (eternalism including control, is the ACTUAL nature of mysticism

    my email for Kitchens last night: good summary.

    link to my todo list re: containing contacting Kafei. idea development page 31.
    https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/08/21/idea-development-page-31/