What is the meaning of the shape of a tree?

There is no nudity at CamChatting. If you are looking for that, click here.
Visit The CamChatting Personals
  CamChatting Message Board
  CamChatting Community
  What is the meaning of the shape of a tree?

profile | register | faq

Author Topic:   What is the meaning of the shape of a tree? Ouroboros
posted 05-09-2002 01:03 AM PT (US)
Madness
www.alanwatts.com Gladrial posted 05-10-2002 06:43 AM PT (US)
It means to us, whatever we interpret it to mean. In any case, whatever we see, has to go through the our mind's eye. It looks as though Alan Watts has some interesting ways of looking at things. But the shape of a tree can usually tell you what type of tree it is, just as the shapes of other things tell us information. Ouroboros posted 05-12-2002 11:37 AM PT (US)
That is putting the cart before the horse, I think. Gladrial posted 05-13-2002 01:04 PM PT (US)
What is? Ouroboros posted 05-14-2002 01:16 AM PT (US)
Saying that the shape of a tree tells you what type of tree it is.
A tree's type is its objective reality - and objective reality is no more reality than a picture of a duck is a duct. So, humans create "objects" for our conceptual map of reality, and many of these objects are types of trees. Then we project upon the real physical world "objectivity" - meaning, in this case, we project upon a tree our conception of "oak" or "maple". So, we give the meaning of "maple" to the shape of the tree - we do not get the meaning of "maple" from the shape of the tree. Ouroboros posted 05-14-2002 01:17 AM PT (US)
"A tree's type is its objective reality - and objective reality is no more reality than a picture of a duck is a duck." (Sheesh.) Gladrial posted 05-14-2002 06:56 AM PT (US)
How the hell is a type of tree not a reality? Because I am discussing identifying the tree from shape rather than standing by it. Well I am standing by it when I look at it's shape so it is reality to me and not merely a description of something I can't touch. Objective reality is my interpretation of reality and not the reality itself. I see this as both reality and objective reality all rolled into one reality. And a picture of a duck is a duck on paper. So if I am looking at that paper and seeing a picture of a duck then that is my reality. The paper is reality is it not? Hmmmmmmm *head is spinning* hahaha LoRdByRoN posted 06-27-2002 06:48 PM PT (US)
Thoreau and Emerson (Ralph, incidentally, lived in Thoreau's backyard for a time chopping wood and gardening) actually tackled this topic...
Essentially, talk of what a tree is, or -- for that matter -- the shape of a tree, is useless.
On the most basic level, is the word "tree", one level up, there is the image "tree", and the final and unattainable level is the essence that is "tree-ness"
All of our talk about trees is necessarily subjective... we cannot get beyond our subjective musings to reach the objective essence which is "tree-ness". See "Walden", "Nature", and "The American Scholar" for a much more eloquent discourse than I could ever hope to expound. LoRdByRoN posted 06-27-2002 06:59 PM PT (US)
Just a thought, Glad..... I think you're confusing your own subjective reality with the thing-in-itself...
We can never know the thing-in-itself because we can never stop filtering through our own perceptions... Reality for you is not reality-in-itself.
Now I'm off to sit under a "tree" and draw a picture of Donald Duck... I'll let you know when I'm finished, Glad... Ouroboros posted 06-28-2002 11:32 AM PT (US)
That's not the same thing at all.
If you think that there is a "reality-in-itself" which is different from your perception of reality, then that "reality-in-itself" is just a concept - on object - within your conceptual map of reality. And it's a meaningless one, by the way, since it's existence can neither be proven nor disproven. It's nothing. LoRdByRoN posted 06-28-2002 03:44 PM PT (US)
Well, I'm not so sure...
Although we are contained in a subjective box, its undeniable that something exists "out there"...
And certainly, our own existence can be proven ("cogito ergo sum")... Perhaps my existence, to you, is questionable (although I'm pretty sure I'm here)... but I'm sure you know that you yourself exist... I'll be back later to try and argue that there is a reality-in-itself... (this is fun!) Ouroboros posted 06-28-2002 08:24 PM PT (US)
A reality independent of your subjective apprehension of it is undeniably not affirmable.

Hop to:

Contact Us | Return to the Cam Page | Webcam Index |