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)

No comments:

Post a Comment