Reflections on . . . SURPRISE LILIES!!!

July 29, 2022

I remember seeing three surprise lilies (aka “naked ladies,” “resurrection lilies”) last summer right by the steps of my front porch. Was enchanted, the way they rose up, one long slim stalk that ended in a beautiful bud which bloomed.

And, because of the name, and because I certainly was surprised, I thought this meant that these lilies could rise up anywhere at any time. That they’d always surprise.

Then, this year, I saw a single stalk rise up about ten days ago, in a different garden out front. Was delighted to think that it chose my yard to bloom again, and watched excitedly day by day, as the stem grew longer and longer, the bud swelling, opening, and finally, to bloom.

But then, wait a minute. Other stalks were rising up around it!

And, wait a minute! There’s some stalks rising up over there, about ten feet away.

And WAIT A MINUTE! The place where they rose last year is again inhabited, by surprise lilies coming up prolifically.

Geez! What does it mean?

I decided to research them, and discovered that they are not spread by birds, as I had assumed. How could they be? They don’t grow from seeds, but from bulbs, which are two to three inches long! No. The bulbs are planted, by people. That means me. Huh? If so, when? Did I really plant surprise lily bulbs the autumn prior to the first ones that popped out last summer?

Besides, why are they then called “surprise lilies,” if their bulbs have to be planted?

Because, it turns out, they put out leaves in early spring, which then die off, with the flowering stalk seemingly appearing out of nowhere in either late July or August. Check. That IS what happened.

I looked up “surprise lily leaves” and found a photo.

 

Aha! I remember those leaves, and that I knew instinctively not to weed them out. But I sure had no idea that their presence signaled that a lily would bloom later in the summer, months after the leaves had died off.

Also, I wondered: Could it be that their bulbs can stay in the ground for many years before flowering? That would explain them, assuming they were planted by whoever owned this house 20 years ago . . . But no, The bulbs may not flower the first year, but they definitely will the second year.

So .  .  . I planted the bulbs, apparently, though I have no memory of doing so. You’d think I’d remember, because apparently I planted them in three different places!

I looked up how they propagate themselves, because surely they do. What started as three surprise lilies the first year, turned into 53, so far, this year.

And I’m still a bit perplexed by the fact that only three came up last year, in a single place, whereas entire clusters came up this year, in three widely separated places. Wouldn’t they have all shown up in the same year? Makes me wonder if the gardening explanations are somewhat off.

This entire saga reminds me of many things. But especially:

1) How I can make assumptions that can turn out to be entirely wrong. (“Surprise” had a different meaning than I had given it.)

2) How so many times in my life, something starts to grow, and not just flowers, but movements, decisions, and so on. Even this little Green Acres Permaculture Village: it began with a single decision, a single bulb planted. Or did it? And besides, what was that single decision? Was it when I moved here with my husband, then he died, and I stayed on, not knowing why (2003)? Was it when I took the permaculture course (2005-06)? Was it when I decided to take in two housemates, in order to lighten my energy imprint (2005? 2006?)? Was it when I bought the second house (2008)? Or when I started the permaculture workshops that created the main garden (2009)? Was it when so many people had started to gather for, not just workshops, but for dinners and other social events that we realized the garden itself was a subset of community, and that we were “growing community from the ground up” (2011? 2012?)?

Though it appears that gardeners can give linear chains of cause and effects for plants, I wonder if they at times cover over what’s really happening with their logic. Because, in the case of the surprise lilies: though I may have planted the first bulbs two years ago (as I say I don’t remember, but I have planted bulbs before that never came up), why did the second and third clusters only appear the second year after the first one did? Because I know damn well, that I wouldn’t have planted surprise lilies in successive years. That, I would have remembered.

 

Just In: HOW MANY BIDENS?!?

July 28, 2022

Is it time to flesh in, for the normies, one long-running “conspiracy theory” — that many famous politicians and others are actually dopplegangers, doubles, actors, clones, i.e. not the real, original, flesh-and-blood person?

This blew up last night. Saw versions of it all over social media. Two appearances within two hours, one the usual slitty eyed, the other wide-eyed and staring.

All versions and interpretations focus on the eyes. Wait a minute! We thought Buy-den had slitty eyes! But in one video they’re wide open, staring, in fact, he (or it?) didn’t blink for a total of 42 seconds? Or was it 33, or 20 seconds .  . .

Hmmm . . . did Dr. Jill administer a double or triple dose of whatever it is she spoonfeeds him to briefly rev him up? Tucker thinks so, and says, tongue-in-cheek, that “whatever he’s taking ought to be publically available to all of us.”

But let’s back up in time. What about the color of the eyes. Blue? Brown? or Black? And the earlobes. Attached or unattached. If I’m not mistaken, the color of his eyes, both wide and slitty versions in the two videos made two hours apart, is either brown or black. But wasn’t the original color blue?

https://www.ibtimes.sg/joe-bidens-eye-color-has-changed-blue-black-body-double-surgery-conspiracy-theories-58078

And the ears?

https://rumble.com/vfb8hl-two-bidens-will-the-real-joe-biden-please-stand-up.html?mref=2oodx&mc=8wf7a

And it’s not just Biden. Many of us have surmised that Trump’s double is the casual one who doesn’t wear a tie but does wear a MAGA hat that obscures his eyes.

But doubles are not nearly as interesting as the possibility of clones . . .

The history of cloning, at least in the public eye, seems to date back to 1997, with the sheep clone Dolly.

So if the public was informed then — the Dolly clone “narrative” trotted out by the MSM for us to pick up on — that means, usually, that whatever they announce as materialized, was usually being worked on for decades before that. How long? Who knows.

Meanwhile, conspiracy theories for many years were rife with stories of underground tunnels where clones were made and stacked, one after another, each one to be brought out when the one before it started to dissipate.

Search <underground tunnels and cloning factories> . . .

Hillary Clinton is another specially good candidate for the theory of clones to replace the original, over and over again. The current Hillary, however, is visibly shorter than usual. Is this because “they” are wanting to alert us now to the fact of body replacements (by whatever means: actors, doubles, clones) and even cgi, like when the pope appeared at the window and then disappeared!

This Creepy Video Showing Pope Francis Vanishing Into Thin Air Has People Believing He’s A Hologram

Wait a minute! What’s the difference between cgi and hologram? I have no idea, but searching around, got waylaid and came across this:

10 Surprising Body Doubles and CGI after Actor’s Death (Michael Jackson and Bruce Lee are the Best)

Back in 1972, when I was “defending” my revolutionary dissertation in front of a committee as the final requirement before being “awarded” the PhD in Philosophy, I was asked, “Well, Ms Kreilkamp, you say, ‘There’s a fine line between fiction and fact’. Okay, give us an example.” (I could tell that he thought he had me, with that question.) Immediately, I blurted out, “My son Colin, who is five years old, asked the other day, “Mom, which is more real, my dreams or yesterday?”

That was the final question. The entire process came to a sudden, embarrassed halt. “Okay, you can go into the other room.”

I went. Ten minutes later, the chairman of the department walked in where I was waiting with bated breath, and announced, okay, we’ll award you the PhD. But only if you change the title. The original title? “This Is Not A Book about Wittgenstein.” They changed it, not me; to something innocuous.

Which is more real? I have no idea. Back then, I just said to him, “What a good question, Colin!”

The line between fiction and fact has now blurred to the point where only our gut instinct can be used to distinguish what is real, what is not. And to operate with gut instinct, we must be centered, as sovereign souls, inside our own bodies, reaching through them to the natural world.