This insight was triggered by reading about datura as the lily of Christianity in the latest Entheos issue,
and following that to
The World of Classical Myth: Gods and Goddesses, Heroines and Heroes
by Carl A. P. Ruck, Danny Staples
which has an excerpt at
http://csp.org/chrestomathy/world_of.html -- "Melampous and his brother Bias were recent new arrivals from the Egyptian Blacklands. Melampous, himself, was a cattle rustler down at the Gate-city of Pylos, and a prophet; he had discovered a redeeming new entheogen called 'rust,' a fungal surrogate for Amanita, by taking the rust that had grown upon the sacrificial knife as it lodged in a sacred tree or axis mundi and using it to cure the impotence of the 'king's' son and intended victim. We will have more to say about 'rust' later, when we investigate the goddess Demeter. (pages 253-254)"
Whenever you see "king" in religious/mythic texts, the first meaning is the initiate's seeming control-power.† King = egoic cybernetic power = kingship liable to death, that must be sacrificed to gain self-integrity and reconciliation with higher truth.† The king's son = delusion about cyberpower that must be sacrificed as part of discovering high truth and wisdom.
The limping king or impotence of the king is the partial ego-death after the first dabblings with entheogens.
Given that these authors wrote a book about myth that covers entheogens, I need to know if they understand kingship cybernetics -- philosophy of self-control, self, control, and time.† I don't see strong indication of that grasp so far.† As with other authors I've studied, I'm realizing that it's not a matter of *whether* they cover certain elements, such as no-free-will, or kingship as egoic control -- rather, what matters is the ergonomics of their system of philosophy.†
I have found their other works such as Persephone's Quest and Apples of Apollo to be unfulfilling -- their deep scholarship is often lacking the big picture.
Wilber's coverage of mythic thinking is a flop -- it's correct in such a weak way, that ultimately he paints a *false* picture of the mystery-religions, yanking Christ out of that realm and making him a mysterious exceptionally advanced man of the future.† His theory of myth is elegant -- too bad it so distorts and belittles Hellenism, failing to see Wilber's exalted Christ (shown missing the crown of thorns around his heart and the quasi-fatal wound, which no-kingship concept is the whole point) as a product of that very Hellenism.
So also can I consider Freke and Gandy's coverage of no-free-will correct in only a weak way -- like epicycles stuck on with Scotch tape and bubble gum, or like Lorentz' tangled precursor to Einstein's clear theory of invariance.†
What's a term for a system that is struggling to come together into an elegant crystal, but is still in a grotesque and distorted state?† Such is the current coverage of the confluence of entheogens, myth, Christianity, religious experiencing, and freewill debate -- the elements are more or less present, but they don't come together into a satisfying clear paradigm.
Is it complete?† Have they broken through from epicycles to a full-on new paradigm?† Have they flipped in inside out correctly, or just lifted a corner here and there?† This distinction is similar to existing coverage of psychedelics in rock -- the existing studies just barely scratch the surface and don't really comprehend their subject.
Fertility was an element in ancient religion -- however, the fertility religion wasn't first, with a later sophisticated spiritual re-allegorization.† The spiritual renewal of controllership should be seen as primary, with literal fertility being a "later" or lower derivative.†
The literal king was supposedly sometimes sacrificed for fertility of his kingdom -- but once you understand the cybernetic meaning of kingship as virtual controllership illusion that is ended and restarted in ego death, the first meaning that evermore comes to mind by "sacrificial king for fertility" is "sacrifice ego delusion to gain restored and continued viable controllership, now purified and made to conform with higher experiencing and insight".†
The literal sacrifice of a literal king for literal fertility can only be seen as a lower shadow cast by the original, primary pattern, which is the cybernetic self-control phenomenon of "ego death and corrected restart", triggered originally and primarily by visionary plants.
The alchemical and Arthurian myth of the injured king with limping leg and injured genitals refers not to a literal foot, leg, or genitals, but rather, the loss of accustomed sense of personal power over one's control-thoughts during the ego-death peak.
King, kingdom, banquet, death, restoration, fertility all are metaphors for the initiate ingesting the entheogen, experiencing loss of the sense of controllership, correction of the mind's mental worldmodel about controllership, and then a restoration of practical controllership.
http://www.iav.com/~sponge/stuff/achilles/achilles_myth.htm - excerpts:
Achilles Heel - The Myth
Achilles was the son of Thetis and Peleus, the bravest hero in the Trojan war, according to Greek mythology.
When Achilles was born, his mother, Thetis, tried to make him immortal by dipping him in the river Styx. As she immersed him, she held him by one heel and forgot to dip him a second time so the heel she held could get wet too. Therefore, the place where she held him remained untouched by the magic water of the Styx and that part stayed mortal or vulnerable.
Achilles fought heroically against the Trojans, but was killed by Paris,† who shot him with an arrow from behind.† Paris's hand was guided by Apollo who took revenge for the death of his son.
To this day, any weak point is called an "Achilles heel". We also refer to the strong tendon that connects the muscles of the calf of the leg with the heel bone as the "achilles tendon".
http://www.wordfocus.com/Achilles-heel-story.html -- "Although the above rendition of the Achillesí story is in current vogue, Michael Macrone, in his Itís Greek to Me, tells us that Achilles didnít always have a vulnerable heel. Oh yes, he had a weak spot, but according to the original story about Achilles, Homer, in the Iliad, said it was his pride [that would be the liver-heart; egoic self-control - mh]. Later versions indicate his weakness was his love for the Trojan princess Polyxena. In his Metamorphoses, Ovid suggested that Achilles had a vulnerable spot on his body; but the Roman poet, Statius (c. A.D. 45-96), was the first to imply in a poem that it was his heel."
Thus the general idea of "king with bad foot/leg" is the mortal foot which is the liver-heart-foot which is egoic self-control.† Consider a godman: he is half-mortal.† His lower half of the 2-level psyche is mortal, and his higher half is immortal.
Shiva stands on the midget-self with one foot, so that Shiva is supported by one foot on the donkey-self and one foot floating in the heavens.† One foot is egoic pride (delusion of personal self-control sovereignty with respect to time), which partially supports the complete integrated psyche, and one foot is transcendent mystery so that the initiate "depends on" both egoic delusion and transcendent mystery assumed to be one's own hidden compassionate higher self that resides somehow outside time.