Maurits Cornelis Escher, Dutch painter, 1898-1972.

He has attracted my attention for a long time with his unusual appearance. I tried to read long comments – the preface of a certain specialist J.L.Loher, but quickly abandoned this boring activity for two reasons:

The first is that the explanation is typically “artistic”, vague and foggy. There is no clear and precise definition of the work. The commentator tells us about HIS professional vision of Escher’s paintings and prints.

The second is that he stubbornly imposes his vision on readers. And I’m a supermarket cart with a broken wheel, and all the time I’m trying to swing somewhere to the side, instead of obediently, respectfully rolling to where the author pushes me.

We see, and, in general, perceive the world, not with our senses, but PRESETS! Therefore, usually the same phenomenon forms completely different “models” of reality in the minds of different people.

Here is an aphorism by Albert St. Gyorgy:

“The one who makes the discovery sees what everyone sees, and thinks what no one comes to mind.”

(I would slightly change this saying: “But he thinks IN a way that no one thinks of.” A person who thinks in an original way (TRULY ORIGINAL, and not just showing off, portraying a lack of originality) has a DIFFERENT WAY OF THINKING, not a stereotypical, the gregarious one!

So, I asked myself the question: WHAT does the artist Escher want to tell us, the audience?

And answered myself: He doesn’t want to say anything because he DOESN’T KNOW WHAT to say!

HE’S LOOKING! HE’S ASKING HIMSELF!

Take a look at the drawings, similar to which Escher painted or engraved a lot.

What comes to mind first?

THE INTERPENETRATION OF OPPOSITES!

For me, this immediately brought to mind the dialectical “Law of the Mutual Transition of Opposites into Each Other”!

Which reads:

No process in nature proceeds monotonously indefinitely (increasing or decreasing), but always turns into its opposite.

This is not the law of dialectics about the Unity and Struggle of Opposites, but rather the dialectic of any change, its finiteness and transition into its opposite.

But. WHAT DOES this law mean?

That “inside” any process of change, there always appears a “germ” of a reverse change, preventing sooner or later its departure into infinity and turning it back in space and time.

THE INTERPENETRATION OF OPPOSITES.

This is what I saw in many of Escher’s works.

I remind you again: We do not see with our eyes, but with PRESETS, which form images of what we see in our minds.

Faciant meliora potentes.

If I’m wrong, let my seniors correct me.

15 VII 2026