In response to Jan. 5’s post “Z & Her Tree Sisters,” Mike said...
“Athana, Morgaine, are trees conscious or not? Morgaine's comments seem to presuppose that trees are, indeed, conscious. Athana's comments are a touch more vague.”
One Mack-truck-sized difference between boys and girls is that boys tease and trick each other, and then jeer at the boy who falls for the trick.
As a general rule, girls & women don’t do this. Not that we’re perfect; we have our own little ways of driving each other bananas – this just isn’t one of them. So rest assured we’re not trying to pull your leg here, Mike.
Check out my Jan. 6 Post. In it, Ursula King says ‘thealogy’ (with an "a") is "a fundamental departure from traditional male-oriented theology [with an "o"], characterised by its privileging of symbols over rational explanation.”
Male-based theology-with-an-‘o’ rests upon “rational explanation.” As a Westerner, this is the religion you know. It stands on words, logic, and rational thinking. “In the beginning was the word.”
In contrast, theAlogy rests on a “privileging of symbols.” And this is only one of the Big Differences between theOlogy and theAlogy. Whereas theOlogy is humor-less and body-less, theAlogy is humor-ful and em-bodied. Even Jesus, although loving, is disembodied and humorless. As a rule, anything smacking of the senses is stripped out of the New Testament (and except for Psalms out of the Old, too). Jesus walks on an earth robbed of greenery, trees, eyes, flowers, noses, sneezing, red lips, chairs, tables, furniture, bright sunlight, beauty, coolness, textures, smells, or anything else suggesting humans have eyes, ears, sexual organs or nerve-lined fingertips.
The result? Those of us born into godFather worlds are morons when it comes to much of the knowledge available in the embodied world.
So, to get to your question: Are trees conscious? You’re pushing me to the wall here, asking for an either-or answer -- yes or no, black or white, war or peace. A rational response. And I gave you a theAlogical response: ”It's all up to you, Mike. Trees can be whatever you want them to be. Why not explore this idea and see what happens?”
Morgaine’s answer, however, is just as accurate: ”It is not up to you whether a tree can emote or communicate, but rather your choice as to whether you want to listen. The world is conscious and interactive. All you have to do is be still and listen.”
Our two answers share this: theAlogy is not a matter of being dependent on god, guru or genius to lead you down their path. With theAlogy, you are free and independent, and you create your own path. Most of us, however, shake in our socks at the thought of real freedom and independence. We crave others to lean on and follow.
On the other hand, I can hear you groaning, and so I’m going to throw you a rational, scientific, godFather answer. It’s this: I suspect that there is more to trees than our rational world allows us to see. I base this on two sets of data: (1) Personal experience: more than once I've experienced non-rational, unexplainable events in connection with trees, and (2) Rational people I respect have experienced even more powerful and significant non-rational events than I have.
But again – don’t take my word for it. As Morgaine counsels, “be still and listen.” And read her response to you in the Jan. 5 post.
Thnx to agrigg for the foto