"Talking with trees" in July's Touchstone

[Explorer]

...perhaps bad- and ill informed.

Finally, that took long to admit.

And what would you prefer, that we let that go unnoticed? And as a result spread "ill informed" idea's and sustain ignorance?
Or trying to point out what is wrong with it, hoping that people can learn something, and hopefully even to distinguish true or false claims for themselves?

[Hennie]

The word 'truth' has been deliberately left out of the prayer,I think, just to avoid the kind of discussions we are holding right now.

Same with truth and pragmatism. No, they are not the same thing, as any scientist of science can explain to you.

@Nico : I never doubted your right to fight an, any, opinion. I do however oppose to big words as 'lying, cheating, ' and calling people 'idiots'.

EDIT : BTW : The opposite of 'lying' is not 'telling truth' but 'being honest'.

[Explorer]

It saddens me as a scientist by calling and profession to see the discipline so misperceived.

Not only misperceived, among certain types of 'spiritual' people it is considerd okay to bash 'science'. Which is the same as bashing 'spirituality' among certain ultra rational groups. It is not much different than bashing homosexuality, paganism or skin color in other circles. It is caused by the same dynamic of ignorance, arrogance and respectlessness. It's only human I guess.

What these people don't understand is how hard we work at these institutes, with how much passion we try to gain knowledge and understanding (which IS in the druid prayer). Most spend years and years at universities to study how to do this, and how they can continue the work of those before them. Of their mentors, their guides, their ancestors even. It is a system of truth and honour, like you don't steal other people's idea's or change their results. It is a system of adding to the storehouse of collective knowledge and understanding of humankind. It is a huge quest to seek truth, almost like a modern Grail Quest.

The reward is that they found a profession that can be deeply rewarding and spiritual. A chance to peer through the veils of the mystery to find the hidden truths. And reality is a lot more awesome than the fantasies of charlatans, simply because it is real.
For instance. I am currently working on enabling our new telescope to see cosmic rays that bounce off the moon. I know how that must sound, but I mean REAL cosmic rays, the remnants of the big bang, bouncing of the REAL moon. Without a bloody dowsing rod, but with the biggest telescope ever build. To do that I must be able to calculate the exact alignments with the moon, and if I use 'new age' ways of astrology and imagination then I would never find the moon (I tried ).
When I then switch the system on, to test if it works, I see stuff that nobody has ever seen before. It's just 'data' when arrives at my workstation, but I also realise what I am doing and watching, and how our big brain astronomers will later decipher it into Knowledge about our Universe. And that is just cosmic rays bouncing of the moon, childs play compared to the real mystery that we try to unravel, 'dark energy'. Reality is totally awesome.

Some of us, here at my work, are christians, some atheists, some pagan (one at least ), and it doesn't matter because we share this passion. At the observatory, there is a group of people who simply refuse to retire, they continue to work for free, both scientists and engineers, out of love for what they do. Like Lily says, it is a calling. So, to offhandedly judge these people and their work, which is also my work, as irrelevant, or to distort the meaning of their discoveries (like in that article), is offending and respectless. Not only to the scientific community by the way, also to the druid community, because they make us druids look like ignorant fools that way also.

I think that OBOD should be very happy, and bloody proud, to have some real scientists and scolars in their ranks. Because, being a scientist AND a druid, means that you have managed to overcome the pitfalls of dualism. These people managed to find verifyble factual real knowledge about our world, universe, life and reality AND spiritual meaning in the same process. Without having to resort to naieve fantasies, and without losing the sense of magic, connection and belonging. For me, these people come the closest to the archetypical wizzards, shamans, and wisest of druids.

[Explorer]

The gods are having fun with me. Just got an internal e-mail here at the observatory, next week we have a workshop .. dowsing.

[Merlyn]

He he... yes, it would have been simpler to simply reply to the OP question: "no".
...”At least not yet.”

There are many things science proved out long after we knew full well but could not prove. The article is best understood as something written from a stand point of ignorance.
I doubt there was any ill intent, save to make a published work, and for that the slap in the face is well deserved.

We do however need the questioning minds. Even those not seasoned quite yet. If asked: Do feelings exist? and Can science prove feelings exist? we then have just as much a gap in experience and proven science.

Can the OP defend the article? Again: no.

I figure we landed on the moon just to prove to any and all it wasn't really made of cheese
We do have a rather intimate relationship with trees, consciously or not, Druid or not, we rely on them. We rely on the moon perhaps even more, as without either or both we all would not exist..

Many accounts of a reciprocal relationship exist, still yet not truly scientifically proven.
It would be quite the mind bender if a scientific "relationship" of communication with trees could be proven.

Then however, we do have to consider that, making a scientific point needs to stand the test of peers... and no matter the proof in hand, some scientific minds still cling to their own views on spiritual matters..

In light,
Merlyn

[Explorer]

There are many things science proved out long after we knew full well but could not prove. The article is best understood as something written from a stand point of ignorance.
I doubt there was any ill intent, save to make a published work, and for that the slap in the face is well deserved.

We do however need the questioning minds. Even those not seasoned quite yet. If asked: Do feelings exist? and Can science prove feelings exist? we then have just as much a gap in experience and proven science.

Can the OP defend the article? Again: no.

I figure we landed on the moon just to prove to any and all it wasn't really made of cheese
We do have a rather intimate relationship with trees, consciously or not, Druid or not, we rely on them. We rely on the moon perhaps even more, as without either or both we all would not exist..

Many accounts of a reciprocal relationship exist, still yet not truly scientifically proven.
It would be quite the mind bender if a scientific "relationship" of communication with trees could be proven.

Then however, we do have to consider that, making a scientific point needs to stand the test of peers... and no matter the proof in hand, some scientific minds still cling to their own views on spiritual matters..

It may surprise you, but I mostly agree with what you say, although we may mean different things by it.
I'm now reading "Spell of the Senseous" by David Abram, and it is a fascinating philosophical book about the relationship between language and our perception of reality. Such reciprocal relationships plays quite a role in that book, but he uses a much simpler approach. Instead coming up with silly pseudo scientific theories about the physical nature of such relationships, he simply describes how it works.

The most compelling story was that of the australian aboriginees. They use a concept called 'songlines'.
From our perceptive these are poems that tell the story of the land along a certain line of travel. But from the aboriginal perceptive it is the story of the land that manifests in the poem when you travel along that line. For them it is the land that speaks its own song that way.
Not only that, at the same time, when they sing/speak it, they empower the land to strengthen the very properties that are in the poem. I find this a fascinating concept.
Every songline also has an ancestor, a sort of archetypical mythological figure who first sang it, or who first sings it on another level of perception, they call this 'dream time'. And every person is bound to the ancestor/songline that he was born to. (the songline closest to the where the mother was when she felt the first stirrings of the unborn baby, they believe that that is the moment of (spiritual) conception, from the songline). It is even more fascinating than I can tell in a few lines, but I find this a beautiful example of a reciprocal relationship between people and the land. And it doesn't require 'bad science'.
(well, perhaps bad anthropology and social sciences, because I may have totally misunderstood it also, but at least not bad physics and astronomy ).

[DaRC]

I must admit I do love the Aboriginal song line meme as it infuses their whole culture.

Every songline also has an ancestor,

It's a bit like the family roots of the Anglo-Saxons who traced their bloodline to a god, the English royal family can still trace theirs back to Woden, but I wonder whether at some time before christianity there was more involved. Some of the Icelandic saga's contain hints that there could have been but there's no clear understanding why some families / individuals choose one god/goddess over another. Probably because they were written in a Christian age.

[Merlyn]

In a lot of ways we as humanity, have reasoned away our connection with nature, and many of the most powerful and rich rewards that being in harmony with nature holds.
I could give countless accounts. Not sure it would help this debate..

Religion and science both have their part in this, partly in good intent, and sadly some in bad intent. It is up to us to sort it out, given we are all too often under the hammer, time is short for such things. Both science and religion attempt to make golden standards, always tempered by new discoveries.

Song of the lands,
Merlyn

[Al Hakim]

Religion and science both have their part in this, partly in good intent, and sadly some in bad intent. It is up to us to sort it out, given we are all too often under the hammer, time is short for such things. Both science and religion attempt to make golden standards, always tempered by new discoveries.

Merlyn, it is good that you mentioned "both science and religion". If feel that the present debate has become more a debate on what is more appropriate: Science or religion? I do not think that the question should be who works more: A serious scientist or a visionary humanist. We are living in an epoche in which "belief" became a "phased-out-model"and just a niche for everything that science cannot explain yet. All scientific efforts to explain the world are all right but they ignore the wish of the individual to "just believe" in a higher power. I think that is an essential wish, crucial for the psycholgical well-being. My suggestion -therfore -is not to bash each other but to try to come to a philosophical synthesis. Some astronomers are already going that way as they cannot (yet) explain all phenomena by formulas.
May there be peace with you,
Al Hakim

[Merlyn]

Hi Al Hakim,
I didn't have the time to carefully read the July article about talking to trees, I did however see a few references to "proven by science" in what I see as "associations".
Because = therefore, kind of thinking.

No real solid reference is given, as best I can tell.

Justification for spiritual connections does not need scientific proof IMO. The history of religion dictating science is just a small but overwhelming fact. We certainly should not try imposing science on religion IMO.

Merlyn /|\

[Explorer]

Justification for spiritual connections does not need scientific proof IMO. The history of religion dictating science is just a small but overwhelming fact. We certainly should not try imposing science on religion IMO.

I agree with that.

The trouble is that the article spreads the suggestion that it is based on science, mentioning research, NASA, 'facts' about planets and the solar system. And it crosses the line with that, because those 'facts' are falsehoods.

If the article had been clear that it is a religious view, a personal opinion or a even simply a daring hypotheses. Leaving out the false evidence and suggestions that it is backed by science. Then it would be clear and honest. But in its current form the article tries to hide that clarity and honesty, by adding falsehood, and THAT is my (moral) problem with it.

[DaRC]

I suppose it comes down to your expectations - given the nature of OBOD and Druidry I don't expect full scientific rigour from Touchstone. If it were a scientific or university magazine/paper I might well expect it.

So when I read Touchstone, many of the articles I take "with a pinch of salt"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_of_salt

However, I do agree that I do not like to see bad or pseudo-science masquerading as science. I guess I don't get too worked up about it because my expectations (or fluff-o-meter ) is set to high.

[Explorer]

However, I do agree that I do not like to see bad or pseudo-science masquerading as science. I guess I don't get too worked up about it because my expectations (or fluff-o-meter ) is set to high.

yeah, you are right ofcourse.

I do get worked up about it, because I work in the scientific community and I'm a druid. So combining science and spirituality, knowledge and meaning, is something that is important to me.
Combining is not the same as 'mixing'. One leads to knowledge and understanding, the other to ignorance and stupidity, and I really hate to see that happen.

[Al Hakim]

Hi,
now the discussion turns to the more practical aspects. Nico is right that scientific work demands scientific meathods which vary from methods used in Arts. Any obviously cruel mix is fatal to truth. I also agree with DaRC's suggestion to understand the article with the benefit of the "pinch of salt". Touchstone is no scientific magazine and - I guess - nobody would use it for a scientific quotation. It rather deals with ideas, sometimes images. Thus, such articles trigger our own imagination - may their contents be correct or not. Therefore, I am a bit reluctant to reject even strange ideas.

Al Hakim

[Merlyn]

Don't know why,
When I speak to the trees, I get answers....
..different ones...
Not the ones I get when thinking, or even speaking to the spirits.

Is this the tree? or my own relative energy shift because of them..?

[Will]

Hello All, Thanks for the great discussion. I would like to add to one note to a particular comment:

"...With regard to "electromagnetic hypersensitivity", it has so far not been shown that people can pick up weak EM fields at all, even if they think they can..."

Pls see "How We Read People's Moral Minds" by Liane Young (available via google last I checked). She reports that mild electromagnetic stimulation (via transcranial magnetic stimulation, aka TMS, pls google) can in fact be shown change the outcome of subjects moral decision making processes under lab conditions. The sensitive point for moral decisions seems to be the RTPJ (pls google) located just bove and behind the right ear.

Via a related personal observation, I notice that this locates the sensitive brain point pretty close to the cell phone transmit antenna. While particular frequencies, doses, exposures etc have not yet been explored (to the best of my knowledge); this does a raise a question. For example: is the reported increase in driver error during cell phone use due in part to EMR induced "virtual lessions" altering the ability to make informed ethical decisions on when it is safe to perform a particular traffic manuever. Does this depend on how much the talk (transmit) vs how much they listen (recieve)?

We have much yet to learn about EMR, brains and muc else.

[Will]

Merlyn,
When I speak to the trees, I get answers......different ones...Not the ones I get when thinking, or even speaking to the spirits. Is this the tree? or my own relative energy shift because of them..?

Merlyn, Thank you. I think this suggests a good line of questioning. You notice the (individual) phenomenological fact. The question is to learn more about it. Along with the afore mentioned "arts" and "science" duality, it may be useful to consider a bit of philosophy. Is philosophy an art? A science? Or a third constituent of something that might ce called the domain of :knowledge"?

In any case, one version of "semiotics" suggests *everything* is a "significant" carried into individual consciousness by “sign” where it obtains meaning. If one assumes, then, that a tree is conscious in some sense similar to me being conscious; then yes we are all talking to trees (and all else) all the time. This suggests two follow up questions. (1) How do I determine if a tree is conscious? (2) Have either I or tree ever taken the time to learn the others language? Does the sign entering my consciousness elicit the same notion that it held in tree’s consciousness.

Clearly this latter is a difficult task as I am often unsure if the “word signs” entering by consciousness via speech, email, etc elicit the same notion as they did in the consciousness of the sender. However, assuming the validity of (1), that tree is both aware and willing to allow me into that awareness, the question now becomes not whether or no talking to trees is in some sense “real”; but what work must be done to convert this chatter into a trusted communication? Of course, we also may need to do more than assume (1); but that is a separate task, also in need of attention. There is *so* much that is curious; and soooooo little time.

[Al Hakim]

Hi Will,

There are some "plant-neurobiologists" at Bonn university (and Berlin, too, I believe) who claim that "plants can see, hear, smell, taste and feel". There is, of course, lots of controverse about it. Experiments were done to study the effects of pain signals like burning leaves, and they meant to find "reactions" like certain signals from the roots. Yet, nobody has ever found sort of nerves or a brain. It just means that we do not know how plants communicate. Its seems clear to me that the way a tree works with signals may be completely different from that in humans. But as long as some people (including me) believe in certain powers of stones and minerals, why should it be impossible for a living being to communicate even if it is a plant?
We only cannot understand the code, and this resembles a bit our attempts of communication with pets...

Al Hakim

[Explorer]

There are some "plant-neurobiologists" at Bonn university (and Berlin, too, I believe) who claim that "plants can see, hear, smell, taste and feel".

Could you please provide some evidence for this claim that there are university researchers with this hypothesis? Like the names of these biologists and a link to their research?

As said in the opening post of this forum, the credibility of such claims strongly depends on evidence to back them up. That is the only thing that makes it possible for us to distinguish truth from fantasies.

Experiments were done to study the effects of pain signals like burning leaves, and they meant to find "reactions" like certain signals from the roots. Yet, nobody has ever found sort of nerves or a brain. It just means that we do not know how plants communicate. Its seems clear to me that the way a tree works with signals may be completely different from that in humans.

Also for this claim. Please provide some proof that these experiments are indeed being done.
I would love to see how they do that, and what the results are.

[Will]

Certainly, establishing a bibliography of accepted sources is a worthy task. Many will be in subscription only publications. One relevant article for the list may be:

ANTHONY TREWAVAS at the Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology, Mayfield Road, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JH, UK, article at
http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/93/4/353.full