Lessons learned from Psychedelics

Lessons learned from Hallucinogens

 

When I was in my very early 20’s (post-Woodstock) living at home, I hitch-hiked with a friend from Kankakee to Champaign to visit friends. We were picked up on the highway by hippies in a decked-out Cadillac hearse – how propitious!

 

During the drive (about 90 minutes) a small tablet was presented to me; I don’t recall what it was purported to be. Very often the one offering such drugs had little to no idea what it was or where it came from. Such was the nature of things then.

 

I took the tablet and waited. (Those were more carefree days.) By the time we arrived at our destination, I was exceedingly high; so high that I was unable to walk unassisted. However, in my mind I was tremendously lucid and ‘expanded’. I had internal visions of the solar system; looking down on the orb of the earth from some vast distance. 

 

I recall being lead up a flight of stairs and equating each step with an increase in my ‘enlightenment’. Each step was to a new level of understanding, I recall thinking. At that point, confident that I had reached a new level of enlightenment and wisdom, I asked my friend to ask me anything, anything at all. She reposted sensibly with ‘Like what?’

 

The question came as the most weighty philosophical query ever presented me. I was unable to answer the question which caused me to laugh at my own hubris. I was simply out of my right mind because of the unknown drug I had taken earlier.

During the same era of the ‘Age of Aquarius’, I was in a group of ten or twelve young men and women who had ingested mescaline, alcohol and cannabis in various amounts. The party was held in a nature reserve along the river. We were all light-hearted and each member was in their own little world of blissful hallucination. Then, reality in the form of a patrol of two park rangers, arrived to spoil the party. The rangers rousted us for having alcohol in a nature reserve and for suspected under-age drinking.

 

Although tripping heavily, it fell to me to negotiate with the armed, uniformed rangers about the situation. At times, it seemed as if I was the only one of the party who could deal with the officers rationally – but what did I know? I was tripping. 

 

One member of our party had clambered up to the top of a large rock and refused to come down when commanded by the rangers. Others slunk to the perimeter to observe the proceedings, frightened and anxious. The one member of the party who had been named to be our designated driver for the day had consumed large quantities of marihuana brownies and was incapacitated, incoherent and only barely conscious.

 

Paranoia ruled the moment. The rangers explained that our driver’s licenses could not be posted in lieu of a bail or a fine because they were park rangers and not ordinary policemen. One scenario which the officers proposed involved our entire party accompanying them to the office, about 30 miles away and awaiting arraignment. This idea panicked several members into near delirium. It did my own mental state no favors either.

 

The rangers decided not to spoil our day – and indeed ruin our lives. Ultimately, a fine for the open alcohol in the park was negotiated as the better way to handle the situation; principally because our party was so large that the rangers would have had to call for back-up, wait possibly hours and arrange transportation for all of us back to their office. 

 

The amount of the fine was gathered from various members of the party in dribs and drabs. The officers took the ‘fine’ (about $25, as I remember) and recorded some information from our I.D.s and left us to de-compress from the incident. After the rangers departed, however, most in the dispirited party felt that the mood had been ruined and decided to leave the area before the officers could re-think the situation and possibly return.

 

This required operating motor vehicles while under the influence, however. This consideration was tabled in favor of bugging out from the crime scene post haste; sensible practicalities were tossed to the wind, so to speak.

 

As our designated driver was incapacitated (by the over-ingestion of magic brownies), driving the car fell to me as no one else felt capable. It fell to me to drive the family car of the incapacitated designated driver and four members of our group about 10 miles back to town through afternoon traffic. I did so without incident although I was still tripping balls. 

 

At one point in the drive, I remember that a friend remarked that I should see the sunset out the rear window as the colors were fantastic – mind-blowing (in the vernacular of the times). I demurred saying; ‘You’ll have to tell me about it as I’m a little busy at the moment.’  

 

What I learned from this and other psychedelic episodes was that I could maintain societally accepted behavior while blitzed. I could experience the hallucination and the mind-altering effects of the chemical and still do the necessary societally accepted functions – meeting the police, dealing with authority, drive a car. To be clear, the ability to maintain such a state of control was not always possible nor required.

Psychedelics II

 

Psychedelics:

 

One prevalent ‘mystic’ experience expressed by drug takers and ‘traditional mystics’ is that they feel ‘at one’ with the universe; that everything in the universe is connected and that includes their own sense of being. Books and poems have been written trying to express this sensation; I trust that you, dear reader will accept this fuzzy reference to that. The experience – the feeling of being a part of the ‘big picture’, connected to all of the natural world - might bring a sense of peace or intellectual agitation. To my mind it is a wonderful observation that affirms the natural world and our species place within it. The mistake is to then leap-frog from the natural physical world to claiming the experience affirms a ‘super-natural’, mystical, deistic world.

 

A joke is called to mind: the Buddhist monk orders a hot dog saying, ‘Make me one with everything’. When the monk pays with a large bill, and waits to be reimbursed, the vendor quips, ‘Change comes from within.’

 

Let me state that far too often, the hallucinations – which are the result of ingesting psychedelic/psychotropic chemicals - are interpreted as personal ‘revelation’ of some sort. This leap of ‘faith’, this erroneous interpretation of one’s experience must be discouraged; even though such erroneous interpretation will inevitably happen during the temporary ‘psychotic episode’ while one is under the influence. It must be remembered that in cultures throughout the world in ancient and modern times, those who experience ‘visions (i.e. hallucinations) are often revered as ‘holy’ and in touch with the ‘Great Spirit’, a god or the ‘God’. The hallucinatory state might be brought on by psychotropic substances but might also be induced by fasting, chanting, dance, stress, sensory deprivation or sleep deprivation, as well as.

 

Personal interpretation of disparate and unassociated mundane events on the television or in a song, (for example) are far too often taken as ‘secret messages’. These ‘messages from the universe’ are part of the hallucination. They might be both auditory and visual but the messages are mental constructs fabricated by the mind to explain the hallucination. There is a ‘feed-back loop’ between the hallucinations and the rationalization of that false sensory input (hallucinations) which the altered conscious mind then attempts to form into a pattern which fits an established criteria or story. The basis of the story - psychological priming - might be a legend, myth or religious tenet. It might also be a personal experience which is used as the foundation to explain or rationalize the hallucination by the chemically altered conscious.

 

There has been a tendency for ‘truth-seekers’ to interpret their hallucinations as having ‘deeper meaning’; a ‘deeper truth’ that is transcendent and revelatory.  Their experience is not in question here. It is the interpretation of the ‘visions’ which must be disabused and discouraged. As an example, ‘Alice in Wonderland’ and ‘Through the Looking Glass’ are remarkable tales; they may be taken as allegory or simply as fantasy bedtime stories. Here, too, there has been a tendency for ‘truth-seekers’ to interpret these stories as having ‘deeper meaning’, a ‘deeper truth’ that is transcendent and revelatory often asserting the use of psilocybin or other hallucinogen by Lewis Carroll (author, poet and mathematician, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson). Such ‘depth’ is an interpretation of the written word and is to be expected and anticipated but not sanctified.

 

Such false interpretation of hallucination – the vision, translated by awe, ignorance, cognitive bias – is one explanation for the personal revelations of god claimed by Believers as the basis for their Faith. Lest the reader feel that I have strayed from rationality, allow a quote from Valerie Terico, Ph.D. who cites the ‘transcendence hallucination’ as the likely psychological source of mystical and religious experiences. “Transcendence hallucination can be triggered by neurological events (lie seizure, stroke, or migraine aura) or by a drug (such as psilocybin)…” Dr. Terico goes on to list medieval mystic, Hildegard of Bingen and author, Karen Armstrong as examples of transcendence hallucination.  It may also explain the ‘Saul of Tarsus’ Road to Damascus’ incident, however, Dr Terico determines his mystical, life-changing experience to be the possible effect of a temporal lobe seizure. 

To be certain, a very serious error is made by the mental adventurer who takes to heart the visions, the ‘insights’ and revelations experienced under the influence of psychoactive substances, migraine aura or seizure. While there may be much to be gained by having psychotropic experiences, the specious interpretation by the altered mind (secret messages, revelations, cosmic insights, etc) must not be taken ‘on faith’ as being a path to truth. 

 

In mystical experiences, the expectation that there will be an accompanying hallucination is prevalent. That accompanying hallucination might be visual, auditory or olfactory. It might be a combination of two or more of these. The vison of a celestial beings may speak or be accompanied by a fragrance. For instance, in the 1996 film, ‘Michael’ the presence of the archangel Michael (played by John Travolta) is accompanied by a pleasing aroma which triggers personal memories. It matters not that the premise of film is preposterous, the notion that the appearance of a celestial being is accompanied by an olfactory hallucination is indicative of the expected nature of such ‘miraculous revelations’.  

Psychedelics!

First, a caveat: psychedelics are not for everyone.

 

The babble of god and other palaver

“I used the smoke-able version of DMT and God himself showed up. After 3 large consecutive puffs. DMT is found in all life and occurs natural in your pineal gland. (the 3rd eye(!)) it's in every living plant and animal….also known as the spirit molecule or the God particle. I was instantly transported before I let the third puff out. I saw red and had thought I was dead. I saw a time lapse of my life over one spot. Through God’s eyes. God had giant, invisible hands and moves so quick and showed me how ‘he’ was always there and from above us. I thought in my head, ‘how is this possible?’. Then I thought it must be God showing me. No possible way. I seen (sic) a male type figure with a hammer just pounding away at the table. All that came from every smack was more creation. Like clockwork. All that came out was good and perfect. Was the ultimate being. Then God spoke through me and told me when I go back just to tell others he existed. That was it. I woke up on the ground and it immediately started to rain. I was reborn. I can already hear the ‘coincidence and I was just high bs’ now but I guess you would have to feel and see to really know. That's my story. Hope you enjoyed it and get something out of it.”

'The transcript of a caller into the Atheist Experience relating his ‘personal revelation’ under the influence of DMT' 

 

Nota bene: DMT (N,N-dimethyltryptamine) is one of the most powerful naturally-occurring psychedelics on the planet. When smoked, it only lasts about 20 minutes, but the experience can be intense and life-changing. Some users report vivid hallucinations like fractal-filled chambers or encounters with "beings" that can feel like a near-death experience.

 

The Atheist Experience; 21.14 with Matt Dillahunty and Tracie Harris;

Caller: ‘Well, I believe in god…because…I had an experience…on mushrooms.’

Host 1: ‘How did you know that was god?’

Caller: ‘Because it has to do with equilibrium…connectivity, oneness… um…I’m trying to find the right words. This is a little hard. 

Host 2: (laughs) ‘True.’

Caller:  The reason I brought up words in the first place was because was… like I said, I’m an artist. I write, so the way I think about things…  like, uh, everything around us is a noun. Ummm… noun, verb, you describe nouns, verbs using archetypes.

Host 1: (interrupting) Okay, okay. No, we’re not going down this road…

[Cross-talk] (Caller talks about verbs, nouns, adverbs, archetypes and god as the Hosts try to break in.)

Host 1: ‘God is a noun?’ God is a noun. 

Host 2: …and sometimes a pronoun…

Caller: (blathers on incoherently about adverbs and verbs and archetypes and god.)  ‘At the end of the day, when you write it on paper; it’s all yin and yang.

 

Clear as day, or mud. 

 

An analysis of mummified heads and cadavers discovered on the Southern coast of Peru has pushed back the earliest known date of psychedelic cactus use and other psychoactive plants. Toxicology reports on five individuals who were ritually executed between 500 to 2100 years ago revealed the use of coca leaves (which contain cocaine), hallucinogenic San Pedro cactus and Banisteriopsis caapi, a plant often used in the psychedelic brew, ayahuasca. Mescaline, which naturally appears in many different cacti, is especially associated with peyote, a small cactus that has been used for religious purposes for thousands of years before Jesus was born.

When a Believer has backed themselves into a corner on explaining why they believe, it seems they will invariably – and rather sheepishly – claim that they had a ‘revelation from god’ or that the Holy Spirit entered them and guided them on the ‘path of righteousness’. Sometimes, the Believer will relate a dream they had which they take as the direct contact from god.

It’s so common to hear ‘Believers’ justify their Faith in god with ‘personal revelation’, often during periods of emotional stress, expressing baloney like that written below:

‘But I felt it! It was so real. I felt like there were more dimensions than we can know in real life! It was supernatural. I’m sure of it because it felt so real. I saw a vision in my head; there was a figure who spoke to me telepathically! I can’t explain it but it was so moving! I was so real! I knew that it was from god.’

Wah-dee-doo-dah. Nice story, dude!

Having experienced the vagaries of perception which I witnessed when I was 19 in LSD trips, I could not accept the vagaries of ‘Faith’ as inviable reality. Nor would I allow myself to be englamoured by the personal revelation and confusion of what others deemed ‘profound’. Quite typically, the revelation/dream/Holy Spirit/vision will be extremely mundane and unremarkable to any but the most sympathetic fellow Believer.

I contend that the Believers who have had ‘personal revelation’ had ‘fugue-state’ experiences that are akin to psychedelic episodes. If they had had true drug-induced psychedelic episodes, they would realize that such departures from reality were not unusual or supernatural but are not only natural but common-place. Then they would realize that the ‘revelation’ was nothing more than a passing brain state, devoid of supernatural intent or spiritual content.

What is to be understood is that the brain functions electro-chemically. When a mind-altering chemical is introduced to the chemical mix of the brain, the brain functions differently, as it must. That simple fact is too often over-looked; the resultant dysfunction due to the use of mind-altering substances is falsely interpreted as ‘supernatural’ or ‘meta-physical’ or ‘spiritual’. 

 

It is a falsehood to contend that there’s nothing to learn from psychedelic drugs. It would compound the error to assume that psychedelic drugs provide a ‘supernatural’ or ‘spiritual’ experience. Dr. Jordan Peterson, claims that everyone who takes them (i.e. DMT, psychedelic drugs) “under reliable settings, generally comes back and claims the presence of a mystical experience.” 

 

First, his assessment is filled with weasel words such as ‘generally’ and ‘under reliable settings’. He also alludes to unfounded, unsupported claims; ‘claims the presence of a mystical experience.’ Moreover, Peterson asserts that they (the DMT users) ‘come back’. Really from where do they return to make the claim of ‘mystical experience’? The phrase ‘mystical experience’ holds no real meaning at all, to my mind. 

 

What is ‘mystical’ after all? A ‘mystical experience’ is an unfalsifiable claim and is thus invalid for evidence. Peterson has demonstrated again and again that he is a polix, bloviating tosser of word salad; a bombastic, obtuse obfuscator who strives to baffle and disarm the listener with utter bullshit and non-sequitur.

However, there is something to be learned from psychedelic experience, though that experience is not a mystical, supernatural or spiritual one.

The Final Segment on the Bobble - at long last!

 

To reiterate, Roman Catholics are instructed to never read the Bible without the supervision of an expert to properly translate the text. This might well be the reason for this injunction; if the Bible and the Gospels were written not to reveal the truth but to obscure the truth, then a simple reading would lead the reader far astray. The mystery would be forever hidden until the subtle, inferred sub-text, allusion, mythical aetiological and literary artifice could be tweezed from the written word to reveal the ‘secrets’ of the cult.

 

If such is the case – and I contend that it is – the necessary encoding of a fictional tale of the son of god on earth would require years to accomplish. If the gospel of Mark had been an effort to tell an accurate tale of an itinerate preacher’s time on earth, it would have been far more advantageous to put pen to paper as soon as possible so as to retain details in memory and to call upon eye-witness testimonies. That would have been the process if a simple journalistic, historic account was intended.  Moreover, if, as evidenced by recent scholarship that Jesus was a mythic character who never actually lived, then that would explain why there hadn’t been even a rudimentary biography written on the Man from Nazareth; there simply was nothing to write.

 

The stylistic, enciphered renderings of ‘teaching parables’ were never meant to be simple reportage of events. The Gospels were never meant to be a simple telling of the story of ‘Our Lord’. What was required of a mystery cult in a service to preserve its secrets yet offer parable to the ignorant masses would take far longer than a simple biography. A mythos based on the Biblical tales - with faint clues encrypted slyly into the text – would be necessary to present the sect’s tenets and at the same time protect the cult’s mysteries.  This would explain why the Gospel of ‘Mark’ wasn’t finished until two generations after the purported events (c. 66–70 CE); the writer(s) were constructing a new encoded fiction based loosely - if at all – on the events of an earlier time while simultaneously writing for the ages. 

 

 

This notion also goes far to explain why the other three evangelists waited until after Mark completed his gospel (c. 66–70 CE) before writing their own. They were waiting for a template to be provide by which both the parables of Jesus’ earthly life and the mysteries of the celestial creature of the Redeemer and his heavenly kingdom could be written. Matthew based his gospel (c. 85–90 CE) on what Mark presented; changing and redacting the Markan gospel to be more alluring to the Torah observant Hebrews. Luke (c. 85–90 CE) then took both Mark’s rendition and Mathew’s version and spun his Gospel back to a middle-ground between the Gentiles - who Saul/Paul had been preaching to - and the Jews. 

 

‘John’ (or whoever) then came along long afterward (c. 90–110 CE) and added some miracles which aren’t mentioned at all in the other three Synoptic Gospels; the wedding at Cana and the famous water-to-wine for one. (By the way, the Mystery Cult of Dionysus (the god of wine) had the miracle of turning water the wine in its temples.) Another of the miracles which ‘John’ talks of is the recounting of the resurrection of Lazarus, the ‘Beloved Disciple’ and of his presence at the crucifixion. (Spoiler alert! Lazarus is a totally fictional character. John also invents other fictional characters such as Nicodemus.) ‘Luke’ only speaks of dead Lazarus in a parable involving Abraham and a ‘rich man’.  Lazarus is not raised from the dead in the Lucan parable. John, on the other hand, refutes Luke’s parable and reverses Luke’s message about resurrection and the triumph of over-coming death. ‘John’ also included loads of tidbits and details of Jesus’ life which were apparently manufactured from whole cloth. A further difference which sets ‘John’ apart is that ‘John’ completely avoids all of the exorcisms which the Synoptic gospels reported. 

Casting out demons evidently was not to the collective taste of the anonymous team who produced the Johannine Gospel.

 

Paul/Saul’s epistles were written about a decade before Mark’s Gospel (c. 50 and 58 CE) with only 7 or so being actually written by Paul/Saul. Each of the other three Gospels, plus Acts, followed Mark’s and were redacted and embellished by each/all of the anonymous author(s); Matthew was second, followed by ‘Luke’ with ‘John’ coming up behind with his own special re-wording and stylistic embellishments – such as miracles and characters never seen or mentioned before or after - that served to flesh out the story, supposedly, with humanistic notes. ‘Acts’ is generally assumed to have been written by the same anonymous team that composed ‘Luke’.

 

Of course, it must be held in mind that this is a very simplistic telling of the tale of the New Testament. The in-depth story of the who/what/when/how the Gospels, Acts and Epistles were produced is one that has occupied historians for centuries and has filled volumes. As stated before, writing about a fictitious man created to obfuscate the mystery teachings embedded and disguise by unhistorical parables composed and compiled by a slew of anonymous writers has been a trial. Hopefully, there has been enough presented here to lead the more intrepid to further pursue a truer telling of the New Testament. 

The Bobble ( I know it never seems to end, does it...) part the 7th

 

To re-emphasize, none, NONE, of the gospels were written by eye-witnesses but rather were written at least a generation later and as much as century (!) later then the reported events. (Kind of like if the story of your grandfather’s brother was written by a non-family member 50 years later without ever interviewing any of the surviving family members or consulting newspapers or public accounts and your grand-uncle worked miracles.)

 

Folderol, hogwash and balderdash.

 

One question asked among Believers is, ‘Why would Paul of Tarsus and the ‘Evangelists’ make it all up?’ ‘Why would they give their lives as martyrs to a lie?’

 

Decent questions but ones which ignore facts such as those presented here. To restate: none were eye-witnesses and most of the Bible was NOT written by the purported authors of same. Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Moses, are traditionally cited as the authors but there is no consensus among Biblical scholars or specialists in ancient texts as to how much was actually written (or transmitted orally) by actual participants in any of the Biblical stories in either the Old or the New Testament. 

 

(Caveat: Paul/Saul of Tarsus actually did write a couple of the letters which were included in the New Testament, however, Paul/Saul never met Jesus in the flesh. Additionally, his view of Jesus, as a celestial being without human form or existence, led to a heretical faction called Paulines.)

 

To answer the first question: Paul and the Evangelists didn’t simply make anything up because they didn’t actually write anything but a small portion of the Jesus story. Most of the ‘Good News’ is a fabrication in which no eye-witnesses or participants took any part. 

 

Keep that in mind.

 

The second question follows the same route; accounts of martyrdom are largely unverified and unsubstantiated by anything other than by accounts in the Bible and likely falsified to enhance the story. 

 

Even so, had early Christians, like Stephen and Peter, been martyred for their faith, that in no way whatsoever verifies the Jesus story of redemption, the professed divinity of the ‘Man from Galilee’, the miracles he supposedly performed, or the bromides he espoused.  The martyrs of early Christianity no more verify the Bible than the slain fighters of the Islamic State or Al Queda or the Taliban verify the Koran. 

 

Taking this a balanced step further, the martyrdom of Jan Hus, Giordano Bruno, and Jerome of Prague for heresy, though noteworthy and emotionally evocative do not verify that their own beliefs were true, though many were; Bruno’s concept of a heliocentric solar system, for instance.

 

Listening to a Christian criticize criticism about the accuracy of the Bible, his argument will tap-dance all over the place; a regular Gene Kelly. He’ll even argue that he wasn’t arguing about the historicity of the Gospels, but simply criticizing those who claim that since the first Gospel wasn’t written until half a century after the crucifixion, the Gospels weren’t accurate.

 

Talk about a hopeless case, but apologists like the aforementioned are insistent – adamant, even - claiming that the ‘Telephone Game (or Chinese Whispers) is a flawed analogy for the oral transmission of the Jesus stories because oral transmission was rigorous and for more accurate than oral transmissions are today.

 

Right.

 

The story of Noah was transmitted perfectly with all the animals of the earth marching two-by-two onto Noah’s boat and landing on Mount Ararat 40 days later.

 

Right.

 

Or the Garden of Eden story; certainly, every word uttered by the talking snake was faithfully and accurately transmitted in the oral tradition for several thousand years amongst the uneducated goat-herders of Bronze Age Palestine.

 

Right.

 

Not to mention that the Torah, itself, was written down and memorized to deliver with no error at the average Judean boy’s bar mitzvah.

 

Are we sure that the Hebrews didn’t do peyote or something? Who could write this balderdash down or memorize it and relate it to someone who was literate? 

 

According to Professor John Crossan of Biblical Studies at DePaul University, the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (274-337 CE), who was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity, needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the Christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman Empire. Until this time the various Christian leaders could not decide which books would be considered “holy” and thus “the word of God” and which ones would be excluded and not considered the word of God.

 

Emperor Constantine, who was Roman Emperor from 306 CE until his death in 337 CE, used what motivates many to action – MONEY! He offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. The Church leaders gathered together at the Council of Nicaea and voted the “word of God” into existence. Church leaders didn’t finish editing the “holy” scriptures until the Council of Trent when the Catholic Church pronounced the Canon closed. However, it seems the real approving editor of the Bible was not God but Constantine! It can therefore be reasonably argued that the first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, inspected and approved by a pagan/born again Christian emperor for church use.

 

That the Gospel of Mark wasn’t written by ‘Mark’ but was the first of the Gospels written is well-established by historians. Who actually wrote the Gospels is totally unknown to us. When the Book of Mark was written is a point of contention however, it is generally thought to date from about 60 years - two generations! - after the purported events of Jesus’ life. 

 

(It is quite difficult to write about the Gospels as if they were historic and actually related real and true events wherein real and true people participated. It’s akin to relearning a language after a severe stroke. To be clear; none of what is reported in the Gospels is historic – none of it actually happened so far as can be discerned by recent scholarship.)

 

If one were to take the early Christian sect as a mystery cult as has been suggested, then the gospels must be viewed differently; their historicity must be discounted at the least. If early Christianity was a mystery cult and all its writings viewed as cryptic parables meant only for the uninitiated, ignorant masses, then the written word was only meant to disguise the ‘hidden truth’ of the mystery cult. 

 

That means that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the Acts and Paul’s letters must be taken as extended parables without historicity and intentionally written to mislead the uninitiated reader.  They were lies put to paper to disguise the ‘mystery’, the hidden truth of the cult. They were never intended to be an historic record of the life of Yeshua of Nazareth, his ministry or anything else. They were meant as a deception; written in a codified, mythic style which alluded to ‘deeper, celestial meaning’ which could be deciphered by the adept who understood the mythic references and literary features such as ‘chiasmus’, ‘echoing’ and ‘mirroring’.