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.