Tree series, II: Phototropic Simplexities

Beauty is one simplexity perceived by another: the eye of the beholder, with optic nerve, “brain”, branching neuron paths that other simplexity, “consciousness” the perceiving.

*

Meaning also:

That all is jostle, striving — a strife for life, in which the outcome overall is for each a “place in the sun” but not without skirmishes, shadows. The overall picture, therefore, beautiful — but this overall beauty hard to perceive when the specific shadow falls in the specific sought place of the moment, the “available” is not available, and the strife of the moment is paramount.

Branching being the order behind simplexity, differentiation…

Differentiation for maximal tropism at all levels — life seeking always the light, honey, beauty, is always and everywhere in conflict also with itself, competitive: and competition the necessary act of the avoidance of shadow, and the shadow creating act.

And beauty — the light, thing sought, implacably necessary food and drink, the honey — thus the drive that would make us kill for life.

I could kill for beauty.

I could kill for honey.

Figuratively speaking.

*

Implying:

Paradise and Fall, simultaneous, everywhere.

It is at this juncture, at this branching, that we are “expelled from the garden” — can no longer see the beauty that is and remains overall, that can allow us to say also, “we are never outside the garden” — for the dappling of light on and among the leaves has become to us, too closely jostled, shadow.

And shadow for shadow we jostle, and life is strife.

*

Thus:

The dappling of light on leaves, beautiful, is for each shadowed leaf, shadow, death-dealing, is for each lit leaf, light, life-giving: a chiaroscuro, beautiful, see.

Roots, too, have their mirror branchings.

Page 2 of 2 | Previous page

  1. Negro:

    hey Zen, get this dude Charles Cameron off your blog man. I used to love your writing, your peerless networking and crossposting efforts. ever since this dude started posting on your blog it’s been full of weird random pie in the sky stuff that makes no sense

  2. zen:

    Hi Negro
    .
    Very glad you have enjoyed ZP in the past – appreciate that. The problem is not that Charles is too prolific, it is that my own posting has fallen way, way off this past year due to family and work obligations. I had to put many blog-related and writing projects on hold and (very briefly) considered a hiatus from blogging altogether. I think I have gotten over the hump and you should see more writing from me this summer.
    .
    As for Charles, I brought him on board because he has very deep knowledge on subjects where I can only scratch the surface and he pulls in readers, especially from the CT and some academic communities, that I cannot. Ditto for Scott who has a firsthand grasp of naval, nuclear arms and business expertise that I do not share, but none of us appeal equally well to all ZP readers who are clustered into some fairly specific fields of interests ( the mil folks being the largest). There are many fine, fine bloggers who I admire and read regularly who I have not asked to join simply bc I do not want ZP to become too much another blog echo chamber. But your point that I need to be more active is well taken!