Sunday, July 31, 2011

There is No Beauty without some Strangeness of Proportion/ Part 9/ Section 10

By Brian George

Nanu nanu

“If the Sun transgresses his proper measure, the Furies will find him out.”—Heraclitus, Fragment 33

Hello Stu Kavendish,

1) You wrote, “People like Septagenetic save Reality Sandwich from its tendency towards po faced acceptance of New Age authoritarianism.” I was just turning your phrase “New Age authoritarianism” over in my mind. The use of this phrase raises several questions. These are as follows:

a) How far can the concept of “authoritarianism” be expanded before it turns into its opposite?

That is, if the ideological authority that you fear involves thousands of people and tens of thousands of contradictory viewpoints, and if the structure of that authority is not hierarchic but centrifugal—with no leader, and no mechanism for enforcement—then is it even possible to speak about “authority”?

And b) Should the phrase “New Age authoritarianism” be classified as a “concept” or a “viewpoint” or an “argument?"

—Or perhaps, once again, we should simply refer to it as an “insult.” Such verbal devices are a means of dressing up complacency in a courage suit, as well as of never having to venture beyond the force-field of one’s comfort zone.

2) Perhaps the threat of “New Age authoritarianism” is similar to the threat of “Feminazism”—that octopus of evil, against whose influence Rush Limbaugh has so energetically warned us?

Have jack-booted angels forced you to remove meat from your diet, or to think only positive thoughts, or to undergo shamanic surgery without anesthesia on their UFO, or to drink large quantities of ayahuasca?

Laws for telepathic openness would result in irreparable damage to one’s Reason.

Just as unisex restrooms have resulted in irreparable damage to one’s genitals. Alas, it is too late now!

Saturday, July 30, 2011

There is No Beauty without some Strangeness of Proportion/ Part 8/ Section 9

By Brian George


“This otherness, then, the text that illuminates the geometry of the All, when things became clouded, went out to the furthermost revolution, and seems to me to have been what was called ether by men of old.”—Heraclitus, from Fragment 30

The Sun has been replaced by an indeterminate sphere. It grows and shrinks. Wind whistles through the laboratories. In the deserts of the West, they have left all the cage doors open. No humans depart. Those who look almost—but not exactly—like them do. Their memories are recombinant—and only much later on, and from a distance, “real.”

Friday, July 29, 2011

There is No Beauty without some Strangeness of Proportion/ Part 7/ Section 8

By Brian George


The vast, non-local web of correspondences is no bigger and no smaller than one circle in a field

“Eyes and ears are bad witnesses, especially if we have souls that do not understand their language.”—Heraclitus, Fragment 5

Septagenetic wrote, “Stu's comment questions why it is so hard for people to believe in the capabilities of humans to create even somewhat miraculous things.  I think this is a VERY relevant question.  Perhaps even the crux of the debate.”

AgneyastraWeapon wrote, “Crop Circles have been mystified in order to manufacture doubt regarding their human origins. The only debate we ever really see is the one that infers that some crop circles are too difficult or too complex for human beings to make.”

In the study of classical rhetoric, this would be referred to as an “argument by straw man.”

You set up a straw man, then you knock him down.

Who anywhere on this forum or this site is arguing that humans cannot “create even somewhat miraculous things”? Not me—who believes that a now lost world-maritime culture was once far more sophisticated than our own, that the Seven Rishis could control the weather, that all megalithic sites were constructed as the nerve-nodes of one geomagnetic grid, and that the Earth itself could be imagined as a kind of man-made ship.

This is actually how I spend most of my free time during the week—in attempting to conceive of and then create a few “somewhat miraculous things.”

Many skeptical reductionist arguments have the tone of aggrieved religious fervor. “What have you got against us humans, aren't we creative or pure and good enough in our intentions?” sounds much like, “Why do you think that Jesus Christ can’t save you?” But Crop Circle Making is not some sort of Olympic competition, with Humans on one team and Aliens on the other.

No, what many if not most serious researchers are saying is that the evidence does not point to a human origin for the circles, but that it does point to their “other-than-human” origin—however this might be understood.

In comments such as these, it amazes me to see how the poster will first claim to be “scientific,” and then immediately proceed to shout, “The Earth is flat! And we know this because the Earth is flat!” What I do not see is any step by step examination of the evidence. No arguments are put forth to counter those of the author—in this case Red Collie, an actual scientist.

So much effort to run as if in a straight line through a maze, in order to arrive at the exact point where one started.

Science follows where the evidence determines that it should go—however radical must be the change in its concepts or its methodology. If humans were to suddenly remember where they came from, and how strange and powerful and paradoxical that place of origin is, then the whole of the human/ alien controversy would fade into irrelevance.

Transpersonal memory does not allow one be “safe.”

Do not seek—for you will find what has been planted on the Earth. The true investigator does not invest the whole of his Ego in one outcome. He is curious, and never knows for sure what horizon the next fact may open up.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

There is No Beauty without some Strangeness of Proportion/ Part 6/ Section 7

By Brian George


The ghost of revolutions past

“Fire in its advance will catch all things by surprise and judge them.”—Heraclitus, Fragment 66

Hi Betawave,

You wrote, “Everywhere I see the claim that ‘many plant stems...were found to be bent smoothly, something like an iron bar subjected to high temperatures, then re-cooled into another shape.’ If this is by any means a COMMON occurrence in crop circles, why aren't samples being collected? Where's the graph of ‘looks like bent by human feet’ circles VS ‘looks like the stalk was genetically altered’ circles. I refuse to believe that stems are *most often* supernaturally bent when there's zero photographic or scientific evidence for every new circle.”

In a letter to Kepler, Galileo wrote, “"What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times?”

Even now, I can see the illustration in my fifth grade science book.

Here is Galileo pointing to the telescope, or to the moon. And here are the church officials and the famous academic philosophers—with looks of horror on their faces, and with their hands thrust out in gestures of refusal.

It is not clear whether this actually happened—either once or more than once, or in three-dimensional space—or whether the story was a theatrical construct by the scientist. In any case, the story has become true through many tens of thousands of repetitions. In the theatre of my memory, I can play out the scene as follows:

“No, Mr. Galileo, we will NOT look through your telescope! You cannot make us, and you will cause much trouble for yourself if you persist in these observations that there are ‘craters’ on the moon.”

In “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds,” the Scottish historian Charles Mackay wrote, “Of all the offspring of time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder’s welcome.”

As I have argued in “On the Dangerousness of the Zero,” and elsewhere, very often the simplest explanation may be also the least conventional one—however counter-intuitive this may seem. So too, the skeptic questions everything but himself.

He is the Flat Earth at the center of a heliocentric system. To him, Science is a kind of occult ritual, driven by fear, and sustained by heroic feats of institutionalized violence. By hook or crook, it is necessary that we should keep the world from moving. If, for a moment, the skeptic were to remove his fixed gaze from the mirror, then it is all too likely that the sky would fall, as once, 12,000 years ago, it did. The laws of nature would thus revert to being habits.

“Sense” and “common” do not always go together. At the moment, the kind of large-scale data collection and classification that you are looking for is difficult, and not only because of the liminal nature of the phenomena in question; most mainstream scientists would prefer to “keep their heads”—or, at a minimum, their jobs.

When faced with a mystery, which presents itself as an ultimatum, denial is certainly one of the generally available options.

But there can be no Science without curiosity.

For Curiosity is perhaps the most practical of the gods. It wants only to be appreciated, and desires to be of help.

Let us say that, once again, Galileo were to drop two cannonballs of different sizes off of the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and one cannonball fell up while the other one fell down. And if, in addition, this happened not only once but several dozen times, would it be “reasonable” to assume that nothing strange was going on?

Saturday, July 23, 2011

There is No Beauty without some Strangeness of Proportion/ Part 5/ Sections 5 and 6

By Brian George

Tribes argue over a topless tower; black vessels cannot penetrate the Deluge

“The Logos, which is as I describe, proves incomprehensible, both before it is heard and even after it is heard. For although all things happen according to the Logos, many act as if they have no experience of it, even when they do experience such words as I explain, as when I separate out each thing according to its nature and state how it is; but as to the rest, they fail to notice what they do after they wake up, just as they forget what they do when they sleep.”—Heraclitus, Fragment 1


There are—at a minimum—2 sides to the Sign

“A hidden connection is stronger than an apparent one.”—Heraclitus, Fragment 14

Hi Stu,

You wrote, “(Being British), I have an instinctive, perhaps even cultural dislike of the kind of self-important rubbish brought to the table by someone like BG. There are many, many interesting people who use Reality Sandwich, with much to say, but, in my humble opinion, BG is not one of them. I find his onanistic noodling almost as dull as the hijacking of interpretations of this year’s circles by fundamentalist Christians."

I am always amazed when people say something like, “I don’t mean to be offensive, but”—and then go on to be as offensive as is possible. YES, I UNDERSTAND.

From behind, a set of unknown forces propels the cloud of your anxiety, which swells, as though pregnant. This makes it difficult to be open to my innocence-destroying arguments. They are, perhaps, too much of a good thing, too much of what you had not known that you had asked for, or have been delivered much too soon.

The voice that echoes in your head—the voice of the archetypal messenger—both is and is not mine, as it both is and is not yours. If you were to paraphrase what you believe me to be saying, you would find that my “belief system” is as changeable as mercury, and that each opinion, when you look at it, becomes less solid than it seemed at first.

And so, you might ask, do I really have any opinions on the subject? YES and NO; I have insights and experiences that may one day turn into opinions, for the briefest of brief moments, before turning back into insights and experiences—as worlds turn back into water, and water then turns back into an indeterminate cloud. See, from out of it flashes the three-rayed sign for “Atomic Danger.”

You have no doubt heard the phrase “Don’t shoot the messenger!” There are many reasons for this—primarily, that the release of tension does not in any way alter the message. Regardless of who delivers it, the message that there are alternate levels of reality is and will continue to be disturbing, so long as we have no vehicle to transport us, and no way to get from one side of the mirror to the other that does not cue up an experience of death.

It is difficult to acknowledge the face of the Beyond—the face in the mirror—and then simultaneously live.

Such then are the hazards that forever face the messenger—the voice from nowhere, the holographic breath. He would much prefer it if someone else where to volunteer to take over. He has other atoms to smash. He is getting old, and, already, he has quite a few years on Methuselah.

The “Brian George” that you have met on these crop circle forums was, truth be told, a deliberate literary device—designed to challenge what I saw as the self-deception and arrogance and lack of curiosity and mechanistic reflex that so easily attaches itself to a discussion of this sort.

To this end I have decided to follow the example of Heraclitus, whom his contemporaries called “The Obscure.”

Some portion of what I have presented on these forums could certainly be described as "concepts." As regards these, rest assured that they have not been predetermined by some program at the "Reich New Age Bureau of Occult Affairs." There are other portions of my comments, however, that we would do better to describe as "jokes" or "provocations."

Stu, if I might be permitted to make an observation?—: Your diet does seem to be somewhat irony deficient. More irony-rich organ meats, with a metaphorical salad on the side! The "pulling of the leg" and the "throwing of the gauntlet" are several of the gestures that you seem to have misinterpreted. Sad to say, much humor is unfunny. To each his own.

Just to clarify: I do not see myself as in any way a "New Age" writer; "New Age"—yet another insult that pretends to be a description. On this, we will have to agree to disagree, nor will I provide you with an alternate cliché with which to pigeonhole my work. There is one key issue on which our attitudes do overlap: I do share your distrust of any and every form of institutionalized "common wisdom."

Stu, you are clearly an outsider, and imagine that there must be some global spider-web of insiders. But we insiders are all outsiders too! "Opposition is true friendship”—one of my favorite Blake quotes.

Geometries branch. The one world becomes two, and the two becomes eight billion—without ever ceasing to be two. As to the order that hides behind the panoramic flux, Heraclitus says, “The transformations of fire—first, sea; and of sea, half becomes earth and half the lightning flash.”

I stand in relation to the object called “Stu Kavendish” as my Double stands in relation to the object “Brian George.” Stepping from behind the sun, and armed with a technology that once existed before the Deluge, the one hand of the messenger washes death off of the other. For such a force is contagious, and a scrap of its shadow has illuminated mine.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

There is No Beauty without some Strangeness of Proportion/ Part 4

By Brian George

Apophasis/ Or the "uncanniness" of the Sign

‘There await men after death such things as they neither expect nor have any conception of.”—Heraclitus, Fragment 35

Hi Septagenetic,

I had written, "It is this field that creates the circles, which speak to us in a forgotten and yet somehow familiar language."

In response, you said that this statement "doesn't seem to me like someone solidifying their point; rather, it seems like someone grasping.  I really don't get this point at all. It seems to appear suddenly and with no attempt at an explanation."

The only thing wrong with this statement is my conviction that you have also had this experience. You have, but it is hidden inside of a cloud from which I am powerless to retrieve it; for, absent your cooperation, only death will be able to do so. Aside from that, I will stand by what I have said.

And if the idea of my “grasping” for a connection seems somehow inappropriate, I would refer you to Montaigne, the first author to describe his investigations as “essays”—from the French “essayer”: “to attempt.” The word also has a secondary meaning of “a trial,” which, it would seem, is what my RS mini-essays are to my detractors.

In any event, the concept that I am playing with in this statement is a very old one indeed, and refers back to the root meanings of the word "education." This word derives from the Latin "educere," to "bring out" or "lead forth"; thus, to "educate" is to "bring forth" knowledge that is already in existence.

True knowledge is uncanny; we feel that we have seen a thing before.

To "rear" a child is to bring him/ her back to an earlier state of connection—to what existed before the drinking of the waters of Lethe, before the cutting of the umbilical cord, before the separation of the person from the daimon.

In this classical view, we are not empty vessels that a teacher must fill up; we are preexistent knowers, now amnesiac, for whom a sign might serve to reactivate the once common "art of memory."


Tuesday, July 19, 2011

There is No Beauty without some Strangeness of Proportion/ Part 3/ Section 3

By Brian George
“If we do not expect the unexpected we will not discover it, since it is not to be searched out and is difficult to apprehend.”—Heraclitus, fragment 17

Stu Kavendish, you wrote, “All said and done, it is shaping up to be a season of beauties. Funny how as the nights get longer the formations become more complex...” Let me paraphrase your argument as follows: The complexity of a crop circle is related to the number of minutes in the night. Please tell me that you are joking.

Is the “Beggar’s Knoll” crop circle, created on July 27th, 2010, really more complex than the “Pewsey ‘Golden Ratio’” crop circle, created on June 21st, 2010? And are either of these more complex than the “Mandelbrot Series” crop circle, created in 1996, in a field right next to Stonehenge—a crowded tourist destination—which was not there at 5:30 PM but was completed in one half hour, by 6:00 PM.

As I have previously argued: The simplest explanation may, at certain times, be also the most mysterious one, while the conventional explanation may not account for most or any of the facts.

Let this updating of Occam be my leitmotif, my organizing image, and my shield!

From his 14th century crypt, my adjutant will reach out to protect me. The “simplest explanation” is a concept with which to conjure.

It may be possible that the simplest explanation is that time/ space is a circle—and that it thus moves accordingly.

Have I argued this before? Very well then, I shall argue this again.

The specific point that I was making here about the “Shroud of Turin” crop circle(s) is that—in displays of circular logic, which we should perhaps view as a kind of remedial education—it seems possible for an image to move from the future to the past, as well as from the past to the future, and that the boundary between the subjective and the objective worlds is not at all what it appears.

Who creates what, and where does the first form originate? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The playing of complex games does seem to be at the heart of the phenomenon of the circles.

When I made this somewhat arbitrary connection between the creator(s) of the Shroud of Turin and the creator(s) of the crop circles at Wiltshire, I certainly never expected that a Shroud of Turin crop circle would appear the following summer. Clearly, “Brian George” is not the creator of these circles, but this is only true for the “Little Brian,” or the “Little Stu,” for that matter. I would argue that we are all members of a punctuated but never broken field of consciousness—both human and alien and altogether “other”—that stretches back to the beginning of creation, and beyond.

It is this field that creates the circles, which speak to us in a forgotten and yet somehow familiar language. They are koans or catalysts, whose job it is to provoke our leap into a primal depth of energy. There, with a bit of help from the alternate versions of ourselves, we will reclaim our capacity to move freely through the ocean.

Sunday, July 17, 2011

There is No Beauty without some Strangeness of Proportion/ Part 2/ Section 2

By Brian George
X marks the spot of the transplantable Omphalos

“Time is a child moving counters in a game; the royal power is a child’s.”—Heraclitus, Fragment 52

Let “here” be the time, and let “now” be the place. As if, made manifest by the energies of a vortex on a field, the last 12,000 years were to be stretched out horizontally.

Saturday, July 16, 2011

There is No Beauty without some Strangeness of Proportion

By Brian George

Over the next two weeks, I will be posting the 21 sections of this essay. Some posts will contain more than one section, so the numbers of the sections in the essay and the numbers of the posts in Masks of Origin will be different.


“The sun is the breadth of a man's foot”—Heraclitus, Fragment 3

In his Reality Sandwich essay “The 2010 Crop Circle Season,” Red Collie wrote, “Finally, just a few days ago on July 30, 2010, at Wickham Green in Berkshire, we saw two circular crop pictures which showed apparently the ‘face of Jesus’ as it appears on the Turin Shroud, along with a complex, unsolved message in binary code for everyone on Earth.

Does anyone seriously believe that those two highly-elaborate crop pictures were locally human-made? And what might their underlying binary code have to tell us?”

The north and south Wickham Green crop circles are made up of two grids of binary dots—arranged, no doubt, in a cosmological code. They look like two digitized photographs. If one overlaps the circles, the dots then arguably arrange themselves into the face from the “Shroud of Turin”—whoever’s face that is, and from whatever historical period.

It seems likely that we are expected to read the language of the face. But how, and why—when we have invested so much time and energy in learning how to be blind, and when so much evidence now points to our incompetence? I am reminded of the Indian story about the two hands of the teacher. It goes: The good teacher applies pressure to the outside of the pot, while, from the inside and with his other hand, he invisibly supports it.

Our one hand may not know what its counterpart is doing; our other hand may, nonetheless, be equal to its task. We are free to perceive this hand as being almost untranslatably “alien”—if we choose. Or as the manifestation of an action that we had once performed in a dream.

This image from the “Shroud of Turin” certainly took me by surprise! It was almost exactly a year ago that I posted a “confession” on the forum for Amely Greeven’s RS essay “Crop Circles; An Invitation,” in which—in the guise of a 432,000 year old trickster—I claimed to be the actual creator of the Shroud of Turin, of the Great Pyramid of Giza, and of the then current group of crop circles at Wiltshire.

It is fascinating to see how the circle makers play games with our well-worn preconceptions, as they mock our opposition of the “subjective” and the “objective” worlds.

We are accustomed to classifying some things as “intellectual” and others as “experiential,” some things as “abstract” and others as “tangible,” but I do not accept this way of dividing up the world. We are all collaborating to provide each other with the missing pieces of a puzzle that cannot be visualized from any single angle, and the universe—like a mischievous child—delights in shocking us with still other parts that we have “accidentally on purpose” overlooked.

But why have we overlooked them?— For it is not as though those almost unimaginable details and correspondences were ever, in fact, hidden from our view. Space separates the pieces of the puzzle, yes, and yet time draws us back as to an “organizing image,” and to the circle upon which we will reenact the crime that first made us stupid.

In the “Odyssey,” after Odysseus and his men have killed and feasted on the cattle of the sun, Homer says that, in punishment, Helios “took from their eyes the day of their return.” This phrase has always fascinated me. It really is quite odd! The “day of their return” has not gone anywhere at all. It is still there, but they simply cannot see it anymore.

When faced with no-win ultimatum from the Beyond—in which one can rise to the challenge only by leaving one’s past life, like a broken crash-test dummy, behind—my strategy is to attempt to integrate observation with analysis with direct inter-dimensional experience with intuition.  If the “small, robotic probes” that are so often spotted at the birth of crop circles turn out to be a form of material technology, as Red Collie argues, and not versions of the Bindu, as I suggest, then I will not stay angry long; archetypal forms can manifest in different ways on different wave-lengths of reality.

My goal is not to compel agreement, but simply to point out certain possibilities and connections. To the extent that I have an agenda, it is an open-ended one: To catalyze memory, and thus to open doors that were never actually locked.

(Illustration: Brian George, Embodied eye with bow and lightning arrow inside vortex, 2004)