Towards an (expanding) spherical epistemology, or: how to hold it all without needing to “believe” any of it

Last night I got together with my friend and permaculturist Keith ( for our “second annual exopermaculture board meeting.” Kind of a joke, except not really. In December 2010, on a surprise visit from him, I had started to riff about the necessity I felt to somehow bridge the two worlds within me, the one that flies high and wide (into UFOs and multidimensions and astrology and any number of right-brain “weirdnesses”) and the other that roots into the ground (as a permaculturist running the Green Acres Neighborhood Garden and ecovillage activist).

A few days later, Keith came up with the name, exopermaculture. Bingo! That was a year ago. (And see About.)

Okay, fast forward to last night. He brought the salad. I decided to make baked chicken and vegetables. The two were so striking together that we decided to take a picture.

As usual, the fractal nature of the endlessly proliferating universe made a visual joke out of our combined efforts — the wild exuberance of Keith’s greens in a transparent bowl coupled with the dark pan full of earthy, meaty, dark grounded tubers, including rutabagas. The above and the below, on one table, side-by-side, inviting our mouths and stomachs to dissolve their edge.

Our actual meal-time conversation didn’t seem nearly as “radical” as last year’s; maybe that’s because we now assume “spherical” (rather than linear) intelligence as a matter of course.

Of course we spoke of the latest global cops-‘n-robbers caper as narrated by David Wilcock and Ben Fulford. How could we not? Anyone who follows and engages in the enormous, multidimensional, sci-fi(?) world that verges continuously on possible “disinfo” would be aware of this latest wild, death-threat-ridden story about the cascading and now climaxing(?) historical ramifications of hidden gold treasuries — in caves under the earth, under the World Trade Center Building 7, inside a deep ocean trench. . .

I noticed yesterday afternoon a post on the site saying that Fulford says that initial reports were wrong. He wasn’t kidnapped, or in hiding; he was just seeing someone and had to do it without anyone listening to what they were saying, so he went into a mountain valley by a stream where white noise would drown out any hidden mike. I told this to my son Colin, and he said, “See, this is what I don’t understand about Fulford. Why would he say where he had been, if his life is always in danger? That’s why I have trouble trusting what he says.”

Well, maybe.

Also yesterday, another permaculturist, friend, and commentator Rob A on this site who has been following the Wilcock/Fulford story line, wrote to me personally:

Rob here. Listened to that interview (go to this post for a link to the interview and my initial response to it)- definitely a wild and weaving story underway here. Not sure how much I think it’s ‘true,’ but then again, living a good story is what’s important to me.

Any take on that anonymous character? The implication I heard was that he was a part of a swift and justice-dispensing ‘higher power,’ ET or divine or whatever, and that they’d protect us. Don’t think I like that message so much- seems to be a re-creation of the story of good and evil, now with non-human players who might *actually* be good, instead of just like us. Plus the redemptive violence thing- it’s easy to get swept up in, to wistfully imagine how nice it would be to see the evil-doers suffer, to have the big guns behind you if you’re threatened, etc. But I tend away from that and toward a story that doesn’t rely on deferring to benevolent masters, trusting that they are righteous, but instead focuses on how each of us are just trying to meet our needs, sometimes in ways that end up causing pain and hardship. That story resonates with me more.
[A.K.: I too, found the anonymous character chilling.]
Also, the gold stuff- interesting, and could be true. But like some maybe apocryphal American Indian chief is quoted: ‘When will the white man learn? You can’t eat gold.’ It’s only valuable because we agree that it has value. It may be useful in some technological applications, but in general, it’s value is based on an agreement that can theoretically be reneged on at any time. (Maybe the tech. applications have to do with ETs, though- dunno. That still seems a re-creation and projection of our own petty preoccupations on mining metals though).
Any thoughts? Be in touch,

Any thoughts?!? . . . Well, here goes:

When speaking of what’s “true” and what’s not: I’ve been playing around with the idea that “everything is true” for awhile now, and attempting to understand how that could be, and even what I mean by it. The reason I’ve been almost forced to entertain this idea is because I’ve heard so many conflicting stories from so many well-meaning, intelligent people during this time when I’ve opened my mind to entertain all sorts of things that I used to refuse to even consider.

The usual (“scientific”) way we use the word “truth” is to say that there’s only one truth, or maybe I should say, one “objective” truth, the “real truth,” and lots of “subjective” interpretations of it, not to mention lies, disinfo, and other kinds of dissembling. But how about thinking of “truth” as something that adheres to the individual, in that everybody’s experiences, and the meaning assigned to them, i.e., their stories, is true for that individual? In other words, that each person, you might say, to use another phrase in current parlance, is on his or her own “time-line.”

My dear late husband Jeff used to say, humorously, whenever I would get too serious or rigid in my thinking or belief system, or too monomaniacally determined to find out what’s really going on, “but Ann, we’re making it all up!” I.e., truth is being created moment by moment, by each of us, to set up in a certain way!

It used to really piss me off when he said that. Now I appreciate his wisdom — as well as the vast, inclusive reaches of his intelligence and curiosity and the lightness with which he could entertain and appreciate various ideas without needing to attach to any of them.

If then, we are making it all up, if truth is being created moment by moment, by each of us to set up in a certain way, then our specific set-ups (composed of our memories of the past from which we base expectations of the future) can each be considered a time-line.

I woke up in the middle of last night and got this visual: each of these time-lines as existing within the “space” of a plane (not an airplane; think geometry, three or more lines linked at their ends to form a “space” within them).

And when we feel a “conflict” or contradiction between story-lines, when we wonder just what is true, thinking we have to “come down on one side or the other,” what we’re really experiencing is the intersection between two story-lines, two planes, at 90° angles (in astrology, the 90° angle is one of conflict, fueling growth). Like this.

And when that happens, unless we stay in the center, and stand there in the intersection, we feel uncomfortable. Why? Because otherwise we find ourselves flippng from one reality to another, from one plane to another. It’s strange, off-putting, destabilizing. Okay, agreed! So don’t flip back and forth! Don’t try to crush one in favor of the other! Instead, stand in the center, feel the frisson as the two story-lines move through each other like currents in water or air.

Mostly, without realizing it, we go about our lives “making it up as we go along,” both the shapes we give to memory and therefore to expectations of the future (based on those memories, because we don’t want anything new to pop in and disrupt our routine). And mostly, without realizing it, we see all this, the line connecting past to future, as if it’s in a space, the 3-D space, the one we’re all in. But what if we’re not, not really? What if it only seems that way because we’ve been conditioned to shape memory and expectation according to certain forms or norms?

What if we wake up in the present moment, and learn how to stay right there, right here, with our memories and expectations obliterated? What if those (usually old ones) who “have dementia” are actually modeling what’s next for all of us? Our essential innocence. The bliss of this unique, onrushing moment, the gift of this pulsing, living presence, right here, right now, the multiverse endlessly and creatively breathing in and out through each of us, spinning out forms we identify as objects in space inhabiting past and future, these — really, quite arbitrary, or, I should say, all of equal value, in the long run, the big picture — threads of our various story-lines?

Like this.

What if, with every breath, on the inhale I sense my “self”, my physical form dissolve into the nanosphere, and with every exhale the entire sky and earth dissolves as well? What if, we are each separately and all together breathing in and out in the exact center intersection node of an infinity of planes, not just two at right angles to another, but an infinity of them, where any time line, any story line you want is, or can be, “true.” It’s up to you to choose. Or not. You don’t have to inhabit a story-line. You don’t have to confine yourself to one linear line linking memory to expectation. You can, instead, stand in the center of Now and breathe forms into the void.

We tend to want to hold on to a particular story line, as if it were flotsam floating in an ocean of being, so that if we let go it’s all over, we’ll dissolve into the oneness. Well, is that so bad?

How about letting go of any story line as something to “hold on to,” to “believe.” How about just recognizing the incredible fertility of the human mind and imagination, how it spins stories into manifestation, some of them stories held in place by many many people, others just by two lovers in “a world of their own,” or even by one, a lonely artist, expressing him or herself into paint or music or dance, with no one around to see. Does that make his or her story less real? Less true? Less valuable? Is the audience necessary for dreams to manifest? Isn’t that one individual, all by his or her lonesome, a fractal of the whole, a living, breathing, manifestation of all that is?

So anyway, these were the thoughts that beset me in the middle of last night, when I woke up, stomach grumbling to dissolve that edge between above and below, exuberant salad greens and earth meat and roots. Thoughts about how to hold any idea, any story, any “truth.”

Yes. To center in this current in this stream, forever falling towards the ocean of being.

Stream, wandering towards Griffy Lake near Bloomington Indiana, November 2011

This entry was posted in as above so below, local action, multidimensions, Reality Ramp-Up, unity consciousness, Uranus square Pluto, visions of the future, waking up, zone zero zero. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Towards an (expanding) spherical epistemology, or: how to hold it all without needing to “believe” any of it

  1. From David Wilcox site, as of 12:43 PM PST Dec 17, 2011:

    “UPDATE THURSDAY 5:30 PM: We are scrambling to get Part Two finished but making good progress. David was contacted by Coast and will be appearing briefly at or around 10PM Pacific time to give a short three-minute synopsis of what happened. This SUBSTANTIALLY increases our protection and security.”

    So-o-o-o-o! It’s time for a bowl of lentil soup. If anyone finds Part II, please post the link right here.

  2. Mike V. says:

    The Scottish anonymous character in the Wilcock interview is a very high official who is telling the truth. Your friend Rob separates we humans and “non-human players that might actually be good” too much in my way of thinking. The greatest lesson I’ve learned in this life is that all beings in our universe are sovereign souls, equal in every way, not a single one better than the other. Knowing this elucidates the illusion we’re living in; an illusion where good guys and bad guys are playing their divinely decreed roles. The benevolent masters will save us and they’ll do it because that’s how the script was written. In this grand stage production our problems came from off-world. The only solution will come from off-world, also.
    So pan back away from earth and have a look. Yes, the evil dudes will get punished, but they’ll get it in the form of their individual karmic debts, not from “the redemptive violence thing” that Rob mentions.
    The “story of good and evil” is just a game we all chose to play and all of us need to recognize it as such. If the story doesn’t sit well with someone or they choose to deny its existence, then that person hasn’t put together the big picture just yet.
    When humanity raises itself above this monumental illusion, we will see that everyone, good and evil and otherwise, is an equal sovereign soul in our universe who came here to play a part in a grand experiment.
    It’s then that the curtain will drop and the orchestra will play a final note.
    Mike V.

    • I too was drawn to “Anonymous”. It’s probably a father-attachment thing or something.

      While reading C. G. Jung’s autobiography I happened across this excellent article,
      while looking up the definition of “Projection and the Numinosum.” I discovered none of the writers or contributors to the bibliography listed in this extraordinary summation written by Beatrix Murrell, profess to have ever had a personal documented encounter with off-world alien technologies or beings. Jung, for example, died in 1961 and treated the emergence of the subject as a “projection of the subconscious.” The number of 3-way-or-better documented encounters (3-way being: visual, radar, multiple persons) has changed the context for many of us with such personal experiences,
      to now move further into a realm of calling for Full Disclosure, as we know beyond reasonable doubt the world of science and perceived reality(ies) has been needlessly bifurcated. This is not a matter of speculation for us. But “Full Disclosure” I feel, must be treated within a culture of loving patience, tolerance and encouraged skepticism yet kicked into an accelerated mode of public dialogue.

      Suffice to say this excellent summary on “Projection and the Numinosum” by Beatrix Murrell, is simply not equipped (yet) to take the next likely step that seems to require scientifically measurable data to move beyond society’s inherent discomfort — a discomfort created by heavily documented intentional ridicule and professional debunking initiated through government linked threat of economic reprisal.

      I sponsor First Contact Project . org to help ease us into the apparently needed dialogue.

    • Thanks, Mike. This is terrific perspective on 3D illusion where polarity is in constant play. (In notes on how I look at things with a geometrical focus, I’d see each polarity as the end points of a single line . . .) And BTW, I still feel chilled by the way the Anon guy talked. From his perspective, I suppose that’s just sentimentality.

  3. molly says:

    Fantastic! I’m sharing this link to your post! Very interesting!

  4. MIke V. says:

    This is a post I wrote for Ashtar Command:

    Ahoy fellow lightworkers!

    Did anybody listen to the Wilcock interview on American Free Radio?

    I did. It was great! Not because of the content, but because of the hints that the anonymous caller gives to the world. The guy is Scottish, or, at least, he’s using a Scottish accent for the call.

    Listen carefully to him, then listen again. He’s not here on earth. He states this quite clearly. So, if he’s not on earth, then where the hell is he? I don’t know, but it becomes very obvious to me that the anonymous caller is a galactic, a member of our stelan family.

    He spells everything out quite clearly: our world is in good hands, the bad boys are gonna get their lickins’, Wilcock has absolutely nothing to worry about.

    Ya gotta listen to the Scottish guy and get a feel for his nuance, his subtlety, his complete calm and his authority. He speaks of the Illuminati as if they’re his little brothers and it’s time for them to get their comeuppance, but he does it in a loving and sympathetic way.

    Wilcock and Cassidy sound anxious and nervous but the Scottish guy is not in the least bit concerned. He’s as cool as a cucumber, he knows what’s going on and he has a looming authority that you can feel by just listening to his voice. He sounds almost like Wilcock’s father when he says that no harm will ever come to him.

    Listen to him! But don’t focus on the content, focus on his demeanor and his command and his peaceful reassurance. I wouldn’t be surprised if the anonymous Scottish dude turns out to be a starship commander or a high ranking GFL official who has incarnated here.

    This is it, people! I don’t know how close we are, but this event with the gold/Fulford/Wilcock is enormous. We’ve cracked open the door and now it’s time to swing it wide open!

    Be ready, everybody!

    Mike V.

    And this is a reply to my post:

    Mike V. got it right!

    An excerpt from Rayelan owner of RMN where I am an agent. Mr.Ed

    “BTW… the Scottish Irishman who was talking to David is the same Shamus who worked with me for over ten years and then married me off to Gunther. Shamus is a starship captain. He is Gunther’s higher self and now that I have heard his again, I know where Gunther is these days! And I hope to hell those of you who know what he is capable of are shaking in your Texan boots!”

    I find the Scottish guy very reassuring and peaceful. But hey, that’s just me.

    Mike V.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *