"Talking with trees" in July's Touchstone

[Explorer]

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

Thank you.

This isn't a research article, but a response by the author to critisism on an earlier interview. But interesting in itself, and full of links to sources. Good stuff.
What is interesting is that the discussion (with his collegue) seems to be mostly about the terms that he used, not about the reseach itself. Terms like intelligence, learning, goals, choices, etc. Terms that rock the boat a bit. But also explains why he used those terms to rock the boat: "Different concepts and imaginative approaches are used in science because they suggest new experiments, new conceptual approaches and throw new light on complex problems". Good stuff, I like this. I think I might actually agree with him this way.

In the light of this thread. This is the quality that we should aim. Intelligence, common sense and claims backed by resources.

[Will]

Pls also see: http://www.dowebsites.net/linv/images/about_pdf/Trends%202007%20Brenner.pdf with a list of authors including two located in Bonn:
Stefano Mancuso; International Plant Neurobiology Laboratory, Viale delle idee 30, 50019 Florence, Italy; Kirschallee 1, 53115 Bonn, Germany
Frantisˇek Balusˇka; Institite of Cellular and Molecular Botany, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University of Bonn, Kirschallee 1, 53115 Bonn, Germany

Apologies, but my German, French, are quite old and rusty, with non existant Italian and Spanish; unsuited to more than skimming articles other than English, so many of the original sources are both subscription only *and* may require translation.

[Explorer]

Pls also see: http://www.dowebsites.net/linv/images/about_pdf/Trends%202007%20Brenner.pdf with a list of authors including two located in Bonn:
Stefano Mancuso; International Plant Neurobiology Laboratory, Viale delle idee 30, 50019 Florence, Italy; Kirschallee 1, 53115 Bonn, Germany
Frantisˇek Balusˇka; Institite of Cellular and Molecular Botany, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University of Bonn, Kirschallee 1, 53115 Bonn, Germany

Apologies, but my German, French, are quite old and rusty, with non existant Italian and Spanish; unsuited to more than skimming articles other than English, so many of the original sources are both subscription only *and* may require translation.

Indeed, same story, the controversy is about the naming, not of the phenomena. Interesting.
(that reminds me of the Spell of the Senseous, where the role of language/terms in perception is investigated).

I've mixed feelings about using language that way.
One one hand, I love it. I think it is a great way to open the mind, change the perception, find different approaches. This way of using language was very important during my druid training, to get a handle on 'spiritual' terms.

But on the other hand, it also leads to a lot of confusion in the less informed public... to say it politely. The article in touchstone is an example of how that works.

[Al Hakim]

Sorry for having forgotten to give some bibliographical hints:

Volkmann, Dieter: Untersuchungen zu Membranfluss und Membrandifferenzierung in Zellen der Wurzel von Lepidum sativum L. während ihrer Entwicklung, 2 Bände, Bonn, 1981
("Investigation in the flow around membranes and membrane differentiation in root cells of Lep...)

František Baluška ; Stefano Mancuso (eds.): Signaling in plants. Berlin: Springer, 2009

Perotto, Silvia [Hrsg.] ; Baluška, František [eds.]: Signaling and Communication in Plant Symbiosis, Berlin: Springer, 2011

Bodrass, Elke: Pflanzen besitzen eine besondere Intelligenz. – In: Welt online Magazin, unter: http://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article ... igenz.html
("Plants posess a particular intelligence")

Book#3,4 are bigger volumes in English. The rest is in German. I trust your German is good enough. I can provide more sources if you need them. "Die Welt" is a renown and respactable public journal.

Greetings

Al Hakim

Al Hakim

[Will]

I'll post one more related link and add a few comments: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634130/;

The import of posting these links is, I think, to (1) suggest at least briefly, the state of the more widely accepted thinking on “talking with trees“; (2) provide specific authors, institutions and "key words” useful for further nvestigation. I agree these articles do not report on quantitative data collection.

Clearly these links suggest we are a long way from an available on-line objective "tree translator"; and much of the current academic discussion is a theoretical exploration rather than quantitative data collection. Both in their own way contribute to the "research". It might be difficult for this forum to contribute to the latter; but it could easily contribute to the exploration of the former.

Towards this, it might also be useful to agree to distinguish between "communicating" and "communing" with trees, rather than restricting the discussion to “talking with trees“. The former being more in line with the research discussed in these three articles. The latter being more in line with a phenomenological approach ala Dench's work "Whirling Sub-Alpine Fir" inspired by Abram's essays.

For example, in the CedarLight Sanctuary a somewhat ailing Green Ash stands in the midst of the grove as the sacred tree; and a red oak of about the same age and size stands a few yards away to the north east forming part of enclosing grove. Gazing up into the canopy, the branches of both trees clearly curve rather than reach straight out from the trunk. Adjacent limbs of each tree curves away from the direct line connecting the two trunks. In a some what anthropocentric view (as I am neither oak nor ash) suggests that the two trees greet each other with out spread open arms, preparing as it were for a hug; rather than extending one limb forward towards the other to initiate a hand shake.

Or maybe it’s a grappling maneuver common to wrestlers? Or Robin Hood meeting Little John on the log bridge? Or a football blocking stance?

Clearly the two trees are closer than best fit allows. The sanctuary was laid out well before either tree. (The first tree was golden apple hybrid/draft that fell to a late ice storm; the second a mountain ash (aka rowan?) was simply unhappy and ill-suited to the dense clay soil and hot coastal humidity). The oak in the grove was planted by squirrels who did not consult on location.

In any case, how do we discuss a human trying to fathom a “felt?” relationship between oak and ash? Or between a fir and a mountain (see Dench)? Talking with trees? Communicating with trees? Communing with trees? Day dreaming? Imposing anthropocentric fantasy? Living in lala land?

Does oak, ash, fir the tree “know” of our observation? Care? Reciprocate? How could we determine if such occurred? We can’t always tell if one human knows, cares or reciprocates that another is watching or thinking about or speaking to them. Do you always know when someone is observing you? And what they think about you? Do you always hear and respond when addressed? How long does it take? In tree years?

So many trees, so little time!
What's a druid to do?

[Hennie]

A side note on consciousness and quantity. I have two times experienced the state of being locked in. I was fully conscious, hearing what people were saying, feeling my heart beat, but not being able to speak or to move. The second time there was a nurse who checked, by asking to blink with my eyes, if I could hear her. So they knew I was probably conscious, but had no way of testing how close to my "normal" conscious state I was.

[Merlyn]

Hum..... So what expert do we know? Who can really say that trees communicate?
How it was "explained" to me (by the trees themselves) was that, the roots of the tree combine with the earth as a link, much like we think of the internet. That is how they communicate. We are viewed as a "point of energy" they can sense. They cannot see us or how we look, what we wear, or anything of that sort.

Such is how the trees explained it to me. I wish I had some verified scientific proof of this.
Possibly someday..

Merlyn /|\

[DJ Droood]

I talk to trees, plants, animals, my car, dead relatives, people on TV...they don't always talk back, or if they do, I have to use imaginative interpretation...the trees like to give me songs, for instance...I don't know why.....I don't think scientific studies would change my behaviour, one way or the other....and I don't feel a need to justify my communications with pseudo-science, either....it is really between me and the trees and no one else.

[Merlyn]

Hiya DJ,
Yes a car, bike, boat can indeed have a personality. They know if they want to be "part of tha family" ... or not.
Steel, stone, water, sky, trees and all of nature will communicate with us, all in very special ways.

How can we translate this into the ways as verifiable by changes in our mind or body?
They are many, accounts as old as time itself. Yet... the Mind body realtionship is ignored when profits from drugs and the class action suits settle things...
We seem to take decades (even centuries) to believe that EMT radiation from cell phones is bad, Global wierding, warming, overpopulation, deforestation, slavery, pollution, the world is round, and ... on & on
is ... bad for us...

Can we really trust science to be any better at convincing us about things well enough?

Foods fer thought...
Merlyn /|\

[Will]

Hiya DJ,

Can we really trust science to be any better at convincing us about things well enough?

Foods fer thought...
Merlyn /|\

Merlyn, a solid question indeed. For me, the answer can and must be a definitive yes! This not because science is science; but because *we* contribute to; *we* participate in the science. Or if you prefer in the "academic discourse" rather than "science". The "science" must begin to address the individual. In his article "Finding Data: Some Reflections on Ontologies and Normativities" Kocku von Stuckrad
(University of Amsterdam, Dept. of Religious Studies, Oude Turfmarkt 147, Amsterdam, NL-1012 GC, The Netherlands
c.k.m.vonstuckrad@nva.nl writes

Joan Halifax does so in her "The Fruitful Darkness", a book full of wisdom and astounding mysticism. Repeatedly she appeals to ontological dimensions of nature that escape rational observation.

The world around us, culture and the wilderness, make indelible impressions on our minds. A timeless conversation is going on among all things, yet we seem to have selected out our next of kin as the only ones we actually listen to (Halifax 1994: 93).

Halifax is fully aware of the fact that if we listen to entities and species other than human, we will leave the confines of academic discourse: ‘This wisdom cannot be told, but it is to be found by each of us in the direct experience of silence, stillness, solitude, simplicity, ceremony, and vision’ (Halifax 1994: 148).

We are confronted here with the gap between personal experiences that are capable of deeply moving human beings, and the demands of academic discussion that has to insist on inter-subjectivity, falsifiable argument, theorizing and communication in rational
language. Noting this gap does not disqualify experience or ontological statements as ‘wrong’; it simply insists that scholarship and argument is something else. Of course, we will have to state the same with regard to negative ontologies, for instance the idea that nature is there for us to use and exploit, because nature is devoid of any spiritual or divine elements. Again, scholarship and argument is something else.

Pls see http://www.religionandnature.com/journal/sample/Stuckrad--JSRNC(1-1).pdf

I'd like to think that more than just knowing the value; and trusting in the validity of "...personal experiences that are capable of deeply moving human beings..." druids own sense of responsibility to enter into the discussion of "... because nature is devoid of any spiritual or divine elements..."

Can we accept this latter notion? without comment?

I cant!

[Explorer]

We are confronted here with the gap between personal experiences that are capable of deeply moving human beings, and the demands of academic discussion that has to insist on inter-subjectivity, falsifiable argument, theorizing and communication in rational
language. Noting this gap does not disqualify experience or ontological statements as ‘wrong’; it simply insists that scholarship and argument is something else. Of course, we will have to state the same with regard to negative ontologies, for instance the idea that nature is there for us to use and exploit, because nature is devoid of any spiritual or divine elements. Again, scholarship and argument is something else.

I'm confused by who said what now, you quote too many people who quote people ;-).
But the above statement is something that I totally agree with.

Our society, our education, our perceptions are based on scholarship and science. Just like they are strongly based on a christian religious world view and morality.
I am for a more holistic approach, where we try to bridge this gap that is mentioned here, but with some intelligence and wisdom.
I'm not for just mixing everything up in a random way because it feels good, or because some hippies had some interesting personal experiences. Crap like that gave us 2000 years of christianity, where virgins got pregnant by beams of light, pigs could fly and people who thought differently where burned at the stake. We need to do that with more awareness and wisdom this time.

The trouble is always in the words and definitions it seems. Words and definitions are horrible things.
It can broaden the perspective to use terms as 'communicating with trees' or 'the earth is a living entity' and then think about what that could really mean for our perspective. Good stuff.
But you then also immediately see other people taking that too litterly and through their own narrow mindedness turn that into a 'belief' again. And the worst case scenario is that they put that 'belief' central and then change the facts to fit that. And that is what happened in the article that this thread is about (the facts are false). This is why I am so against this article, especially because many people won't see that trap.

Interesting source.. we had a researcher from the Univerity of Amsterdam (also from that department I think) in our group to study neo-paganism in The Netherlands. Interestingly enough, she couldn't maintain a purely objective scolarly stance, because we accepted her as an active group member. And after a while she considered herself a pagan also. She bridged the gap.

[Merlyn]

Interesting point Nico..
At what point do we find science defining us as pagan? No longer believing creation theories put to us by religion and finding a common creation story is core to each and all religions, only defined by each of them from their own POV.
From out of the dark ages, science brought a set of values, something tangible that religion could not account for, deny or force on all of humanity by divine right.

Still confined by what we can sense and articulate, science seems like a universe of its own, always expanding and forever explored.
The realms yet to be within the peer reviewed and verified scientific views is still vast. However science has broken the chain and allowed free thought to be something good, great and connected to so many aspects of life.

This good quality of science is indeed something druid
I agree that using "good science" in a forthright manner should be a part of druid lore in "today’s" druidism.

[Will]

I concur my prior post included a bit of layered quoting; mostly to sort of stir the pot a bit about what others are doing. Any interested in sorting it out more clearly can follow the link to the dutchman Kocku von Stuckrad's paper which btw also gets you the publishing journal and website for "ReligionandNature.com" which seems to sort of be in line with this discussion. A search on "Joan Halifax" may also be worth a visit. I am looking now for her book "The Fruitful Darkness". She is reported as Buddhist.

On a separate note, I see Yale Univ (New Haven CT) offers an MA in Religion and Ecology through its "Forum on Religion and Ecology" http://fore.research.yale.edu/. I wonder if there are any druids participating with either Yale's Forum; the Religion and Nature Forum, conference and publication, or other similar? Should we?

[Explorer]

Any interested in sorting it out more clearly can follow the link to the dutchman Kocku von Stuckrad's paper which btw also gets you the publishing journal and website for "ReligionandNature.com" which seems to sort of be in line with this discussion.

Funny, this guy is now a professor at the University of Groningen. I regularly work with the astronomy people there, so perhaps I should knock on his door next time ;-).

[Argenta]

Haven't been around much, so I've only read this thread now, and am wondering if anybody here has anything to say about a book I recently stumbled upon (though it is, too, rather dated, I guess), The Secret Life of Plants? Seemed pretty interesting and possibly even useful, but having read this thread, I thought it best to do a "reality check"

[Al Hakim]

"Our society, our education, our perceptions are based on scholarship and science. Just like they are strongly based on a christian religious world view and morality."(Nico)

There the scientist has spoken. It would be great if you could include the humanist's arts into your scientific realm. Without philosophical methods you can hardly bridge mere science and religion/morality. Let's combine both under the "academic hat". Your are absolutely right that the historical persecutions of persons with different ("wrong") ideas were based on ignorance and stupidity. Mainly the results came from superstition. Nowadays scientists tend to claim that they are in the possession of the "only truth" which may be misleading, too. Druidry, as I understand it, could be able to combine both ways of knowledge. What do you think?

Al Hakim

[Explorer]

Nowadays scientists tend to claim that they are in the possession of the "only truth"

Really? And which truth might that be?

[DJ Droood]

Really? And which truth might that be?

Didn't scientists come up with "string theory" which makes the most absurd claims sound remotely possible?

Monkeys control the weather...my proof?...oh...um...string theory....multiple universes...it must be true in one of them....don't impose your "truth" on me....

[Explorer]

Nowadays scientists tend to claim that they are in the possession of the "only truth"

Scientists 'believe' their own very different theories, just like any other person does. There is no 'only truth'.
The only thing is that they agree on a method to investigate these theories. Through experimentation, which is an objective form of experience.

Many theories are still unproven, because nobody found a way to come up with a clever experiment to prove them.
Even the big bang theory. There is a lot of evidence to support it, but there are also astronomers who question it, and who came up with other theories that also fit the evidence. Science is the Wild West with one rule, back up what you claim. It is not a dogmatic religion, and scientists are not evil priests.

And some theories are proven. Then it becomes fact, unless the proof is proven wrong. But fact is only fact, nothing else. It is not the same as meaning. It is knowledge, which is not the same as wisdom, or even common sense.

A fact is, for instance, that there was only one space probe ever send to Uranus, and it zipped passed it in a few hours. And because it takes a close-and-personal encounter to measure the magnetic field of a planet (because the sun magnetically overshines everything) there was only one taking of data of the magnetosphere of Uranus.. ever. That is knowledge.

If a guy writes a story about the growing magnetosphere of Uranus, it means that either he went there, or he is wrong. I cannot prove that he didn't build a spaceship and went to Uranus, or channeled the info through Goddesspedia, but common sense tells me that that is not what happened. The same for Mars, Neptune, Mercury, the Moon and the solar bow wave. So when somebody tells this as 'facts', and build a theory on it that trees can talk, then common sense says that he is an idiot. And that people who believe him need slightly more education.

How does that contradict your humanist views then?

[Will]

Interesting point Nico..

Still confined by what we can sense and articulate, science seems like a universe of its own, always expanding and forever explored.
-------
I agree that using "good science" in a forthright manner should be a part of druid lore in "today’s" druidism.

Thanks Merlyn, I think you highlight an important potential of this forum. Despite the individual nature of personal experience (fuzzy or otherwise); I believe many on the forum know the power of such. Power experienced and wielded by one alone, but power none the less. Science may dismiss "fuzzy individual power" as not relevant to any particular field of study. Just so, classic physics dismisses friction. Everyone knows friction exists, but mechanics gets to useful science by ignoring friction "as a first approximation". Science can also say yes the fuzzy individual power" is not only relevant to my field of study; its *is* my field of study. There are academically creditable pockets looking in that direction. Not many, but some. Its a high risk endeavor, requiring a lot of work with little hope for rapid return; and no well defined process path to follow.

I think you highlight an important next step when you suggest "...sense and *articulate*..." We must carefully and thoroughly articulate the fullness of " fuzzy individual power" if we are to study it. Certainly not all who experience and use want to such study. Some, quite properly, experience and use it to good value with neither question nor need to know. Nor are there many who can "self-study" and "articulate" *during* the experience of "fuzzy individual power". For me at least, attempting such interrupts the "flow" and detracts from or disrupts the "fuzzy individual power". (Which btw may be an an important factual articulation in its own right. Do others find it difficult, distracting, detrimental, to "self observe" or "articulate" during the actual individual experience of "fuzzy individual power"?)

An important step in developing a scientific approach to understanding "fuzzy individual power" is *articulating* it. We must first define (or identify?) a field of study that includes "fuzzy individual power" rather than excludes it. Ok, we can do that. Our field of study not only includes the importance of "fuzzy individual power" as in important factor of study; it focuses primarily on "fuzzy individual power". Anyone got a name for our new science? (on naming, pls see my recent post on the "renaming" board in the roundhouse)

A next step is articulating both (1) the boundaries of our field of study (of course subject to change); and (2) cases that are and are not within the bounds of the area of study. This is where our science can get personal and hostile. We cant study anything without critical and careful articulation. A geologist can't get far simply studying rocks (or "hard stuff under foot"). The geologist must distinguish between granite and sandstone and slate; between hardness and crystal structure and strike; between all kinds of various identifying features. A geologist must also begin to classify that this rock is good for carving, this good for building, this good for burning, this good for jewelry, this good for smelting, this good for nothing (that I know of at the moment, but I will keep it in mind for latter.)

As best current culture accepts, rocks care not how humans classify and use them. (Many here may know otherwise, but that is another post.) People, we may assume are not rocks. People, druid or otherwise, may be more sensitive to classification than rocks. Or at least more willing and able to communicate the impacts of classification than rocks.

In studying "fuzzy individual power" we most have both (1) a process protocol enabling thorough articulation without judgement; and (2) individuals experiencing "fuzzy individual power" that are personally "secure" enough to place their experiential selves "under the microscope" knowing that it will result in careful articulation, examination and classification; but not judgement. To say this rock is good for jewelry, this for tools and this for nothing, is to distinguish; not to judge. All are perfectly fine rocks. To say that any particular individual experience of "fuzzy individual power" meets the requirements for inclusion in a particular study at a particular time neither validates nor invalidates; neither marks any individual experience as true nor untrue; let alone establishes or comments on the worth of the experience to the individual, nor on the very selfness of the individual.

Merlyn, You are right. To study, science must articulate. That may be no easy task. There also may be no better time and place than now, the Druid's Head to begin learning how to do that. And doing it.

Once begun, articulation itself will likely suggest further theoretical and experimental steps. Without articulation further science stumbles blind, as likely to find a cliff as a sanctuary.

With or without articulation and science "fuzzy individual power" continues its useful and valid flow impacting impacting, guiding individual lives. As druids, is it enough to know this use it and hold it secret? Or teach it? I think we must teach, because I think rocks and trees and most of Earth's kin are already screaming at us. Too few hear. We who do hear hear too little; understand too little. If to teach, we may need to know both the experience, the validity of the experience and the science.

Being a druid can be tough; needing three legs to stand secure, rather than just one (tree) or two (normal folk).

Thanks for your time.
Will