G.I. Gurdjieff's Perspective: Beelzebub as an Extraterrestrial Being

G.I. Gurdjieff, an influential spiritual teacher of the 20th century, presented a unique cosmological perspective in his magnum opus, "Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson." Central to his cosmology is the character of Beelzebub, whom Gurdjieff portrays as an extraterrestrial being. This essay touches very superficially on possible motivations for Gurdjieff's choice to present Beelzebub in such a manner. By delving into Gurdjieff's metaphysical framework, esoteric teachings, and psychological insights, we can understand how his portrayal of Beelzebub as an extraterrestrial serves as a symbolic tool for exploring profound existential questions and bridging the gap between humanity and the cosmos.

G.I. Gurdjieff's spiritual teachings and cosmological perspectives continue to captivate and challenge readers. Among his notable works, "Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson" stands out for its profound symbolism and intricate narrative. Within this text, Gurdjieff presents Beelzebub, traditionally portrayed as a demonic figure, as an extraterrestrial being. This essay will explore the reasons behind Gurdjieff's portrayal and delve into the metaphysical framework, esoteric teachings, psychological insights, and symbolic significance associated with Beelzebub as an extraterrestrial.

G.I. Gurdjieff, born in the late 19th century, was a mystic, philosopher, and spiritual teacher. He traveled extensively in search of esoteric wisdom and claimed to have encountered ancient spiritual traditions during his journeys through Central Asia, the Middle East, and Egypt. Gurdjieff's teachings, known as the Fourth Way, integrate elements from various spiritual traditions, including Sufism, Buddhism, and Christianity.

Gurdjieff's exposure to diverse cultures and spiritual practices influenced his cosmological perspective. He synthesized these influences with his own insights, creating a unique framework that emphasized self-awareness, inner transformation, and the search for meaning.

"Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson" is a complex work that defies traditional narrative conventions. Divided into three volumes, the book comprises various allegorical stories, anecdotes, and philosophical discourses. Its purpose is to provoke deep self-reflection, challenge preconceived notions, and awaken readers to the complexities of existence.

Beelzebub, presented in the book as an extraterrestrial being from the planet Karatas, plays a pivotal role in the narrative. He represents wisdom, experience, and a profound understanding of cosmic laws. By presenting Beelzebub as an extraterrestrial, Gurdjieff offers a fresh perspective on the nature of higher beings and their relationship to humanity.

Gurdjieff's cosmology rests on the principles of the Law of Three and the Law of Seven. The Law of Three describes the interplay of three fundamental forces, while the Law of Seven describes the cyclical nature of transformation and evolution.

Gurdjieff's cosmological model, known as the Ray of Creation, depicts the hierarchical structure of the universe. At the center lies the Absolute, followed by various levels of cosmic laws, planets, and conscious beings.

Within the Ray of Creation, Gurdjieff describes different cosmic hierarchies and the diverse beings that inhabit them. Beelzebub, as an extraterrestrial being from the planet Karatas, represents a higher order of intelligence and wisdom, serving as a bridge between humanity and cosmic consciousness.

Gurdjieff's teachings emphasize humanity's potential for self-realization and the pursuit of higher states of consciousness. By presenting Beelzebub as an extraterrestrial being, Gurdjieff expands the scope of human potential, encouraging readers to question their place in the grand scheme of the cosmos.

Beelzebub, as a character, acts as a catalyst for self-reflection and inner transformation. His tales and interactions with other characters prompt readers to question their beliefs, attitudes, and mechanical patterns of behavior, leading to a deeper understanding of themselves and their relationship to the universe.

Gurdjieff emphasizes the importance of self-observation and self-remembering in the process of inner transformation. By presenting Beelzebub as an extraterrestrial being, Gurdjieff invites readers to observe their own mechanical behavior, awaken from their ordinary state of consciousness, and remember their inherent connection to the cosmos.

Gurdjieff highlights the tendency of human beings to operate mechanically, driven by conditioned responses and unconscious patterns. By personifying Beelzebub as an extraterrestrial being, Gurdjieff challenges readers to transcend their mechanicalness and awaken to a more conscious and intentional way of being.

Gurdjieff's teachings emphasize the development of conscience as a vital component of spiritual growth. Beelzebub's role as a wise extraterrestrial being reinforces the importance of conscience and the need for conscious choices in navigating the complexities of existence.

Gurdjieff employs symbolism and allegory to convey profound metaphysical concepts. By presenting Beelzebub as an extraterrestrial being, Gurdjieff utilizes the archetype of an otherworldly entity to explore humanity's relationship with the unknown and the transcendence of limited perspectives.

Through Beelzebub's experiences and teachings, Gurdjieff universalizes the struggles and challenges faced by humanity. Beelzebub becomes a symbol of wisdom, compassion, and enlightenment, offering insights into the universal human condition and the potential for growth and transformation.

Gurdjieff's portrayal of Beelzebub as an extraterrestrial expands our understanding of creation and existence beyond the confines of traditional religious or scientific paradigms. By incorporating extraterrestrial elements, Gurdjieff challenges readers to question their preconceived notions and explore the vastness of cosmic possibilities.

Gurdjieff's choice to present Beelzebub as an extraterrestrial being has sparked debates regarding the literal versus symbolic interpretation of his works. Critics argue that the extraterrestrial aspect detracts from the spiritual essence of his teachings, while proponents suggest that it serves as a powerful metaphor for the expansion of consciousness.

Gurdjieff's cosmological ideas, including Beelzebub as an extraterrestrial, can be challenging to grasp within the context of mainstream cultural and religious frameworks. This has led to both acceptance and rejection of his teachings, depending on individual beliefs and openness to alternative perspectives.

Gurdjieff's portrayal of Beelzebub as an extraterrestrial being in "Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson" serves as a profound symbolic tool within his cosmological framework. By expanding our perspectives and challenging conventional notions, Gurdjieff encourages readers to embark on a transformative journey of self-discovery, inner awakening, and connection to the vastness of the cosmos. Beelzebub's extraterrestrial nature serves as a bridge between humanity and the mysteries of the universe, urging us to explore our place in the grand tapestry of creation.

Your Mind Is The Fermi Paradox

reddit  |  Our “consciousness” accepts a different permutation of reality, one that isn’t predictable or cognitively relatable to us as we have laid it out.

It isn’t inherently “logical”, nor does it fit in any scientific box that we can categorize or at any scale that we can scientifically validate.

It is most certainly real/tangible, but also not at all. It is color/light/intensity, solid/holographic but at once devoid of light, matter. Separate from any agreed upon logic, glitchy and off putting at times, bridging the paranormal and the occult.. directed by intention. But most definitely real.

How do you/we think in our minds?, how does one actually “think”? ( pull In thoughts )… - Pay attention to your imagination/your antenna … what do you desire/imagine.. collectively what do we all believe?. What shapes/ archetypes have these ufo taken?, what shape did they take in the past and now in our present time. What are you thinking/forming into reality now and why?. Have you stopped to think.

“They” act out, misbehave. Play like children - like make believe - like imagination, a dream, a random thought/fantasy, a fleeting spark in one’s mind….

How do we think?, how do we actually imagine?… how many jittery ufo videos have you seen, how do your eyes “dart” as you scan your environment or how your thoughts dart around as you jump to different ideas. How do UFOs skip, jitter and appear irrationally, almost like a thought pattern. Like consciousness.

You have been conditioned your whole life away from one crucial part of your being..

“Make believe is for children”, imagination isn’t “Real”…

Practically on the surface, that totally makes sense.. our 3D world has rules to sustain our 3D bodies so we can extend our lives, propagating evolution, we need to be grounded to progress, it’s indeed critical.. but it isn’t all.

We do need our connection to this reality to survive, no doubt. But other intelligent entities can access consciousness through other means and aren’t purely tethered to our 3D space, they can play/navigate on their own terms. Their usage of “imagination” is unbound.

Hypothetical Higher beings without a limiting lack of ressources, could navigate in any permutation of space/time seeing no “good or bad” because why would they, there is no need.. those emotions stem from our resource management. Our reality would be a test bed to explore. Because ”It just is”.

So why will you never know?.. truly .. why is there a Fermi paradox? :

Picture billions of predictable human beings conditioned over all known history to flow/conform, dance an agreed upon dance, one that crafted over time leads us on a “safer” path, one that is predictable, one that should ensure a progression to evolution and one that if all fails can be redirected with relatively minimal effort.. ( keep in mind humans are emotional/reactive beings that can disregard logic frequently at a whim, so we navigate within a set of parameters )

Now what if we realize that we are in fact tethered to our individual thoughts as a real tipping point that can mold this reality.. our emotions/fears/fetishes/disgusts/loves/likes being a real reality shifting factor…, they now have true weight. They are a directing force that consciousness can flow through. This, all at once ( or within weeks/years ) humans realize their mental frequency does in fact actually shape/form/morph reality into a space/or confine that we must all live in together, one that can fluctuate on a whim… We can in fact all shape this world. Quite literally. So I actually get the fear of what that represents.

This current system you see is a “child’s lock” on human evolution, possibly rightly so. It is a way to gate us until we can finally learn and accept this truth, step out of emotional resource patterns and “see”. As much as I wish we were ready, we are not even remotely close to accepting this as a “whole” ( “whole” being the key, you could alone as a reader accept this 🙏, large populations just won’t be able to take that step at all, our mind is the Fermi paradox, THIS is the key).

To “disclose” and finally progress as an intellectual species in this dimension?... Humanity must deal with the simple facts above. Rules/guidelines are here because we aren’t able to process the actual reality, we may want too but logistically cannot. Your neighbor could influence your whole life path, as could you to them, you could topple regimes, but also be enslaved just as easily. This power/knowledge will remain “vaulted” forever, or until we are ready. I likely will not see that day and I get it.

How do we “believe” as a unified intelligence. How do we understand, accept these facts and not kill each other to get there. That I honestly don’t know. I recognize we probably can’t know, at least not now. “We” as a global intelligent entity are just not able to process this information and react to it without immediately going into fear, greed, lust or hatred, you can disagree but it’s just a clear fact with all known history to support it.

When/if we can parse this information, we will move forward.

There is indeed a cover up, it isn’t to fuck with you or suppress you for the elites benefit or to withhold resources, it is to ensure we continue as an extension of consciousness into this dimension, it’s that simple, nothing more. We may believe we are ready, our species is not. It’s that simple.

More-Broad-Smythies Theory: A Radical Monism Of Space And Sentience

iai  |  The first affirmation of the possibility of a fourth spatial dimension comes through the Cambridge Platonist Henry More in his book of 1659, The Immortality of the Soul, where he calls the fourth dimension spissitude. This rather spiritual apprehension of hyperspace was reflected in the twentieth century by certain writings [31] of the Welsh, Oxford philosopher H. H. Price – who, incidentally, was one of the first philosophers to write on the psychedelic (mescaline) experience. [32] In his later book of 1671, the Enchiridion Metaphysicum, More explicitly writes that ‘besides the three dimensions which are filled with all extended material things, a fourth must be admitted, with which coincides the spirit’. [33] A century later in 1746, in his very first publication, Immanuel Kant considers hyperspace as the condition of other universes:

‘If it is possible that there are extensions of different dimensions, then it is also very probable that God has really produced them somewhere. For his works have all the greatness and diversity that they can possibly contain. Spaces of this kind could not possibly stand in connection with those of an entirely different nature; hence such spaces would not belong to our world at all, but would constitute their own worlds. I showed above that, in a metaphysical sense, more worlds could exist together, but here is also the condition that, as it seems to me, is the only condition under which it might also be probable that many worlds really exist.’ [34]

In Kant’s later transcendental idealism, space is not taken as real but rather as a mere human mode of perception through which we frame the real, noumenal, world. Consequently, one can say, the three dimensions of space are but a human projection, not of necessity an actual reality. If space is subjective, then its observed three dimensions cannot be considered a necessarily objective limitation. One of the pioneers of Relativity, the great French mathematician and physicist Henri Poincaré was in agreement:

‘the characteristic property of space, that of having three dimensions, is only a property of our table of distribution, an internal property of the human intelligence … . [We] could conceive, living in our world, thinking beings whose table of distribution would be four dimensional and who consequently would think in hyperspace.’ [35]

It was, arguably, Kant’s conjectures that sparked the later interest in the fourth dimension, especially in the later nineteenth century. As one of the most prominent popularizers of hyperspace, the British mathematician Charles Hinton, expressed it in 1888:

'the exploration of the facts of higher [dimensional] space is the practical execution of the great vision of Kant’. [36]

We will leave to the side the controversial question as to whether time can properly be a dimension of space. [37] But looking back in time, we see that in the shadow of Kant, concepts pertaining to the fourth dimension were being considered in serious fashion by a series of first-rate mathematicians. [38] These mathematicians, first and foremost the German Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann, discovered that spaces of any number of dimensions, n-dimensional space, were not contradictory or paradoxical, but in fact intelligible and systematically congruent.

Riemann was the student of the equally great mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss.

In the words of the prominent logical empiricist Hans Reichenbach, ‘[in] analogy to [Gauss'] auxiliary concept of the curvature of a surface … Riemann introduced the auxiliary concept of curvature of space’. [39] That is, the curvature of three-dimensional space itself into a fourth dimension, analogous to the curvature of a two-dimensional sheet into a third dimension. Riemann’s ultimate end was to simplify the laws of nature through his complexification of the laws of geometry – for instance by reducing “force” to curvature.

But the physics of Riemann’s age was behind the mathematics, and so his endeavour to explain natural law through geometry was unfulfilled. But his geometry did enable the new physics to come: the theories of Relativity. As physicist and a co-founder of string theory Michio Kaku puts it, ‘Einstein fulfilled the program initiated by Riemann 60 years earlier, to use higher dimensions to simplify the laws of nature.’ [40] The well-known instance of this is the reduction of the “force” of gravity to spacetime curvature. As Bertrand Russell puts it:

‘the sun exerts no force on the planets whatever. Just as geometry has become physics, so, in a sense, physics has become geometry. The law of gravitation has become the geometrical law that every body pursues the easiest course from place to place, but this course is affected by the hills and valleys that are encountered on the road.’ [41]

The notion that imperceptible spatial curvature is perceived through forced feeling rather than vision is one that was brought out through the English translator of Riemann’s aforementioned paper, the great mathematician and philosopher William Kingdon Clifford. [42] In the 1870s Clifford wrote of a hypothetical one-dimensional worm (AB) that lived in a thin oval tube, endlessly circling it clockwise, without any degree of freedom to go counter-clockwise let alone escape “up” or “down” (which would be useless concepts or intuitions to the worm). The worm itself would not even see the second dimension, that is, the oval-like shape in which it lives its life. However it would perceive differences in extra-dimensional curvature (i.e. two-dimensional curvature) as bodily feelings, because its body would curve more at points of acute curvature (viz. H, E, F, and G in Figure 2). [43]

Figure 2: Clifford’s one-dimensional worm

Clifford writes that:

‘a being existing in these [<3] dimensions would most probably attribute the effects of curvature to changes in its own physical constitution in nowise connected with the geometrical character of its space. … [If we consider ourselves,] changes in shape may be either imperceptible … or if they do take place we may attribute them to “physical causes” – to heat, light, or magnetism – which may be mere names for variations in the curvature of our space. … [We may be] treating merely as physical variations effects which are really due to changes in the curvature of our space; … some or all of those causes which we term physical may … be due to the geometrical construction of our space … variation in the curvature of our space…’ [44]

Following Einstein’s revelations [45] we see how advanced Clifford was, at least with regard to the feeling of gravity. Yet there are perhaps further developments to be made in this field relating extra-dimensional curvature to qualia [46] – thereby correlating not just force to geometry but qualia too. That is to say that a relation of (n-dimensional) space and sentience is here suggested.

Mathematicians and physicists, then, have given feasibility to the idea of n-dimensional space. [47] We have seen how Clifford relates such space to sentience, let us augment this relation by looking at the ideas of John R. Smythies (1922 – 2019), a neurophilosopher and associate of psychedelic cognoscenti Aldous Huxley and Humphrey Osmond. Smythies provides two sub-theories through which we can understand the relation of space to sentience:

Theory I: ‘Sense-data[48] ... are spatial entities distinct from physical objects and bear temporal and causal relations but no spatial relations to physical objects.’[49] – i.e. an exclusive theory.

Theory II: ‘Sense data … are spatial entities distinct from physical objects and bear both temporal and causal relations and higher-dimensional spatial relations to physical objects.’ [50] – i.e. an inclusive theory.

Theory I is taken by certain figures such as H. H. Price[51] and Bertrand Russell, [52] but Smythies considers Theory II preferable as it is more parsimonious and offers a contiguous spatial connection between mind and matter; mind-matter spatial relations that would be lacking in Theory I (which would then only have temporal (i.e. successive) and causal (i.e. transordinal) relations between physical space (PS) and visual space (VS).

Theory I advances that all the three-dimensional spaces of all beings’ sense data, and the one three-dimensional space of physicality are a multiplicity of separate spaces. In emergentism, each VS would ‘emerge’ from sections (such as those within brains) of the singular PS. We have already hinted at the inadequacy of this mysterious transordinal upward transition. Theory I would require causal rather than spatial relations between all myriad spaces, and thus would be an emergentism, and thus the mystery of transordinal nomology emerges once more. Thus we reject Theory I.

Theory II then advances the actuality of a unified space of multiple dimensions (= n-dimensional space) in which all of VS and PS are cross-sections. Moreover, Smythies agrees with psychiatrist Paul Schilder that the perception of PS is VS. He quotes Schilder thus: ‘The space in which objects are perceived and the space in which they are imaged, are one and the same.’ [53] This in turn implies, Smythies writes, that ‘[in] this n-dimensional space Scientific Space [PS] and a visual field [VS] would not be two different kinds of section but would merely be two different sections.’ [54]

This is not to say that PS is not real but rather to say that our access to it is through VS (plus other senses) which is prosaically three-dimensional. Thus the reality of physical space as more than three-dimensional is not falsified by our common perception of it as three-dimensional. I write ‘prosaically’ because it may be possible to visualize objects of more than three spatial dimensions – Smythies does suggest that ‘[t]here is no a priori reason why we should not develop the ability to appreciate directly an n-dimensional spatial system’, and there are reports of such vision. [55] Indirectly, we can easily conceptualize and work with[56] more than three dimensions of space through algebraic topology using the Cartesian coördinate system where points, areas and volumes, etc., can be located by numeric variables of each dimension’s axis, e.g. point h: (x₁, y₂, z₃). To locate a point in a four-dimensional space, one simply adds an axis and its variable, e.g. point h: (x₁, y₂, z₃, w₄). Ad infinitum. Alternatively, one can visually represent (though not prosaically present) [57] four-dimensional space through for instance a four-dimensional cube, or tesseract (hypercube) – see Figure 2.

The word tesseract was coined by the aforementioned mathematician and author Charles Howard Hinton, [58] whose work on the fourth dimension can be used to our ends. In his essay of 1880, ‘What is the fourth dimension?’ – published four years prior to the related book Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott – Hinton employs analogy to lower dimensional worlds to elucidate a speculated four-dimensional world. I shall briefly explain it, then connect this four dimensional world to the n-dimensional world of Broad and Smythies, so to entertain a theory of the relation between space and sentience. Note that by four dimensions, we are speaking of four spatial dimensions, not a fourth temporal dimension in addition to three spatial dimensions. [59]

Let us imagine a two-dimensional world, a plane, or a Flatland as Abbott calls it, like a sheet of paper. Any beings therein would only be aware of two dimensions, and would only be aware of borders describable with two axes (x,y). Thus they would be unaware of the existence (as we perceive it from our three-dimensional perspective) of the top and bottom faces of their plane that is also contiguous, that borders, their two-dimensional world. Now, we three-dimensional observers could see a multiplicity of such planes, sheets, each floating one above the other. Although each entity of the flatland could not perceive the other flatlands (just as in our world we cannot perceive other entities’ experienced three-dimensional spaces), as they were not contiguous at the x and y axes, we could perceive the multitude of flatlands, or worlds, from our higher-dimensional space – and we could perceive the spatial contiguity (i.e. fundamental unity) of two-dimensional worlds in a three-dimensional space. Thus though each such two-dimensional world would not be contiguous with another two-dimensional world, [60] each two-dimensional world would be contiguous with, i.e. within the same space as, all the other two-dimensional worlds via the intervening three-dimensional space. Thus the relationship between such flatlands would be spatial rather than merely causal, under the perspective of a world with a higher dimensionality than that of each two-dimensional world. The nomology would be of one order rather than transordinal, because the levels would be unified here. Rather than one world emerging from another (as in emergentism), they would each be equally fundamental and unified. Now, let me allow Hinton, 1880, to shift the argument up a dimension:

‘Take now the case of four dimensions. Instead of bringing before the mind a sheet of paper conceive a solid of three dimensions. If this solid were to become infinite it would fill up the whole of three-dimensional space. But it would not fill up the whole of four-dimensional space. It would be to four-dimensional space what an infinite plane is to three-dimensional space. There could be in four-dimensional space an infinite number of such solids, just as in three-dimensional space there could be an infinite number of infinite planes.

Thus, lying alongside our space, there can be conceived a space also infinite in all three directions. To pass from one to the other a movement has to be made in the fourth dimension, just as to pass from one infinite plane to another a motion has to be made in the third dimension.’ [61] 

Thus we place Smythies’ n-dimensional spaces (i.e. PS with a multitude of beings’ VSs) within the Hintonian four-dimensional space so to render intelligible the Theory II relation between VS and PS.

So: through this approach, we exhibit the possibility that though visual spaces and physical space are not strictly identical, refuting the Psycho-neural Identity Theory, they neither need be strictly distinct, as in Substance Dualism. Neither need one (VS) emerge from the other (PS). Through a four-dimensional perspective, we can see that the mental (all of which for James is necessarily spatial) [62] and the physical can be both fundamental and unified, i.e. a mind-matter monism. The imagined triangle and the physical correlates thereof are both part of one n-dimensional space rather than members of distinct categories. This is all to say that the More-Broad-Smythies Theory (Theory II) is one, albeit radical, way to respond to the mind-matter mystery. It is a radical monism of space and sentience.

Whether we can call such a monism an identity theory is merely a matter of definition. Spinoza’s system, for instance, is certainly a monism and has certainly been classified as an identity theory.[63] In this regard, it is interesting to note that Hinton, in the above-quoted 1880 essay, also writes that:

‘In the [four-dimensional manifold] which we have traced out, much that philosophers have written finds adequate representation. Much of Spinoza’s Ethics, for example, could be symbolized from the preceding pages.’ [64]

It is also interesting to note here that Hinton corresponded with William James on the subject of four-dimensional consciousness.[65] Both Spinoza and James were, in the end, panpsychists, and the full extent of the relationship between higher-dimensionality and panpsychism – or more broadly, between n-dimensional space and sentience – is a woefully underexplored world, [66] a world where one may find idios kosmos within koinos kosmos, thought within extension.

What About Maurits Cornelis Escher?

mcescher  | Maurits Cornelis Escher (1898-1972) is one of the world’s most famous graphic artists. His art is admired by millions of people worldwide, as can be seen by the many websites on the internet.

He is born in Leeuwarden as the fourth and youngest son. After five years the family moves to Arnhem, where he spends most of his youth. After he has failed his final exam, and after a short interlude in Delft, M.C. Escher starts with his lessons in architecture at the School of Architecture and Decorative Arts in Haarlem.
Already after a week he informs his father that he wants to quit his architecture lessons and focus on studying graphic arts. He is supported in this by his teacher Samuel Jesserun de Mesquita, to whom he has shown his drawings and linocuts.

After completing his school, he travels for a long time through Italy, where he meets his wife Jetta Umiker and whom he marries in 1924. They go to Rome, where they live until 1935. During these 11 years M.C. Escher travels every year through Italy where he makes drawings and sketches that he later uses in his studio for his lithographs, woodcuts and wood engravings.

For example, the background in the lithograph Waterfall (1961) comes from his Italian period. The trees that are reflected in the woodcut Puddle(1952) are also the same trees that he uses in his woodcut Pineta by Calvi, made in 1932.

During the time that he lives and works in Italy, he makes beautiful, also more realistic works such as the Castrovalva litho in which one can see already his fascination for perspective: close, far, high and low. Likewise is the lithograph Atrani, a small town on the Amalfi coast in Italy, which he makes in 1931 and comes back in his masterpieces Metamorphosis I and II.

He is most famous for his so-called impossible drawings, such as Ascending and Descending and Relativity, but also for his metamorphoses, such as Metamorphosis I, II and III, Air and Water I and Reptiles.

During his lifetime, Escher made 448 lithographs, woodcuts and wood engravings and more than 2000 drawings and sketches. Just like some of his famous predecessors – Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Dürer and Holbein – Escher is left-handed.
In addition to his work as a graphic artist, he illustrates books, designs carpets and banknotes, stamps, murals, intarsia panels etc.
M.C. Escher is fascinated by the regular geometric figures of the wall and floor mosaics in the Alhambra, a fourteenth-century castle in Granada, Spain, which he visits in 1922 and 1936.

During his years in Switzerland and throughout the Second World War, he works with great energy on his hobby. He then makes 62 of the 137 symmetrical drawings he will make in his life. He also expands his hobby by using these symmetrical drawings for cutting wooden balls.

He plays with architecture, perspective and impossible spaces. His art continues to amaze and wonder millions of people around the world. In his work we recognize his excellent observation of the world around us and the expression of his own fantasy. M.C. Escher shows us that reality is wonderful, understandable and fascinating.

Who And What Was Taught By NATO Military Instructors In Ukraine?

sputnik  |  Access to high-tech weapons and Western military master classes was not only available to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, but also to fighters of the nationalist battalions. According to Scott Ritter, a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, US and British military instructors began training Ukrainian soldiers from the Azov Battalion in 2015. Ritter said that the goal of Western specialists was to create nationalist detachments in Ukraine, which is why the Americans and Britons got in touch with the Azov Battalion.

In an interview with an unnamed website on 18 March 2016, Roman Zvarich, the head of the headquarters of the Azov Civil Corps, said that “last summer”, they had organised an officer school with Azov’s “Georgian brother”. According to Zvarich, the tutors were four former American officers and one Canadian.

 

He also said that 32 Azov officers had graduated from the school and that they were “ready to carry out tactical tasks according to the procedures adopted in NATO countries, and they know better than Ukrainian generals”. Zvarich argued that a new military headquarters had been built in Azov in full line with NATO standards – “probably the only such headquarters in the system of the Ukrainian Armed Forces”.

 

In 2018, American journalist and blogger Max Blumenthal published a study on the contacts of the Azov Battalion with US military personnel. According to the author, in November 2017, overseas military inspectors visited the Azov Battalion, “known as a bastion of neo-Nazism in the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine”, to discuss “logistics and deepening cooperation”. An unnamed Azov fighter quoted by Blumenthal told American journalists that US instructors and volunteers worked closely with his battalion. American officers met with Azov commanders for two months for “training and other assistance”.

 

The leadership of Azov, Blumenthal argued, managed to establish warm relations with the US military. A photograph posted on the Azov website shows a US officer shaking hands with the Azov commander (and the American is not at all embarrassed by the Nazi symbols on the uniform of his Ukrainian counterpart). These photos confirm the secret ties between Ukrainian nationalists and US military personnel, according to the journalist.

 

Blumenthal drew a parallel between Washington's billion-dollar programme to train Syrian “moderate rebels” and the US military’s ties to Ukrainian nationalists, claiming that there are clear similarities between the two projects. Previously, heavy weapons allegedly designed for the Free Syrian Army fell directly into the hands of Daesh*, and now US arms go directly to Azov extremists, Blumenthal concludes.