Or that in the context of his philosophy, life’s result is always net zero. In contrast to the loosely defined and increasingly unpopular view held by others that creation (virtue) and destruction (sin) can effect momentum before an unknown time of judgment, reckoning, life’s account reconciliation.
I was going to say: “it means what it says.” (but he was totally taking poetic license)
But i like the “balance” and “net zero” angles, and will add: one cannot properly appreciate prosperity without suffering.
If a tree grows tall with shallow roots, even a light breeze can topple it.
But if roots dig deep, without producing appreciable growth, that would be hellish futility.
I think the tree statement in question aptly captures and illustrates multiple relevant and interconnected aspects. It’s a good analogy.
I never knew he made that analogy, but have used trees in my own, many times.
Think about it: how much of life can be easily and somewhat accurately represented or explained by simply observing a tree?
Some ironic synchronicity: earlier today i was sitting outside contemplating, and i looked at this rather large old tree in my backyard, and thought “we should ask ourselves: what is this? What is a tree, really?” (and i mean to think about all its materials, how it grows, what it grows from, what it becomes, how it looks…)
We should sometimes stop and ask ourselves: “what is a tree?” And then think on that tree, and allow ourselves to understand it as it is.
It seems mundane and easily taken for granted… but trees can teach us things, if we’re willing to listen… and they’re not the only things capable of such.
i tend to agree with “one cannot properly appreciate prosperity without suffering.” without enduring pain one cannot truly understand pleasure, or contentment.
consider what types of “fruit” a “tree of knowledge” might bear.
What would constitute “bad fruit?” What might happen to someone who consumes bad knowledge, or poisonous fruit?
Do you think they might, perhaps, become weakened and confused?
What would happen to someone who consumes good “knowledge fruit?”
Do you think that might make them… strong and resolute? Do you think it might nourish their minds, uplift their bodies, and subsequently increase their resistance to things like bad knowledge?
Good and bad “fruit” totally fits with the “tree of knowledge” concept.
The bible is “bad fruit,” just like every other system of psychological indoctrination and enslavement. If you weaken someone enough, they won’t be able to muster any substantial resistance. If you confuse someone enough, they won’t know what to resist or pursue. If you combine both of those with fear of “hell,” what do you think happens? They tend to submit and obey, and become very… resigned and docile… i think “meek” is the word they use.
The meek do not inherit the earth. The meek are lead to slaughter by the strong and powerful who have weakened them enough that they follow the wolves in shepherd’s clothing… while those wolves warn of “wolves in sheep clothing,” in order to turn their attention away from the evil leaders, toward being wary, suspicious of each other, and superstitious. They are so weak and confused, they are eager to follow anyone who seems to know the way. But the way is lead by wolves, as the weak, meek sheep, follow closely behind, oblivious in approaching their designed demise.
The world is full of kings and queens who will blind your eyes and steal your dreams. Any mainstream ideology, be it religious, cultural, political, academic, w/e, will contain *some* truths, and some disinfo. People in general are too fast to be either all for something, or totally against it. Like, all or nothing. “This is what I believe, now, let me read up about what I believe.” Usually this follower mentality means these people can easily be silenced by beating them with their own stick, be it the bible, koran, liberalism, conservatism, capitalism, communism, or even science. Question everyone and everything. Even yourself.
This is actually Carl Jungs quote, and he used the phrase “it is stated” meaning it was a common adage he had himself picked up along the way. Like many “words of wisdom,” it sounds immensely clever and can have many interpretations, which us indeed part of its genius. Knowing at least a little of Jung’s work, he was refering to the duality of nature. The yin-yang present in man. That still leabes it open to many applications and uses.
Personally, I see it the ability to feel. Being an atheist, heaven and hell are for me states of mind: exquisite pleasure and agonizing torment. In reading this quote, I am given a visual metaphor for what I have come to learn through experience: you cannot reach one emotional extreme without exposing yourself to the opposite end of the spectrum.
Imagine a short, stubby tree. Its roots are kept far from the fire and brimstone. Yet, because its shallow root system, it cannot reach the ethereal, cloud filled bliss. This is presented in your even keel type person. The man (or woman) who shows equanimity in all situations. She does not get hurt. But she also does not leap for joy. I picture Christopher Walken :-). or Ben Stein. Inversely, a tree that delves deep and reaches for the stars touches both. A man who can weep both tears of joy and pain, a man who would jump from a bridge both in happiness and depression, just one with a safety harness one without. For some reason Tom Cruise is springing to mind….quick get him out!
carrying your own stick makes it harder to beat someone else with theirs. Better to be empty handed and prepared, and “beat them with their own stick,” by using that very same tactic against them, and preventing it from being used against yourself, but not even wielding a stick of your own.
I find something wrong with every labeled style of group-think. That’s why i don’t like labels: i can’t claim the whole thing, so i can’t claim any of it. That’s part of why i’m conflicted about the “philosopher” label. Philosophy isn’t my goal, it’s a tool i learned how to use out of necessity, and i don’t necessarily agree that everything everywhere needs to be endlessly “philosophized,” just for the sake of philosophy.
Some things should be naturally understood as axiomatic… kinda like the hell/heaven tree. “It means what it says.” I don’t think it needs millions more words applied to it. I think the best way to understand it is to get some life experience, and make a point to take a moment to stare into a tree, now and then, while trying to imagine its roots.
@fortunear:
Good lookin’ out. I tend to like quite a lot of Jung’s quotes. If i didn’t hate reading books, he’d be on my do-read list (more likely my “already read” list…).
Reminds me of this whole notion that you don’t get hurt if you don’t expect anything. So what, we live our lives without hope? Well, yeah. What a depressing life to live (says the girl who does exactly that, hence my being here).
12 comments
Maybe he was hinting at the balance of effect or power, that there is never something for nothing.
Or that in the context of his philosophy, life’s result is always net zero. In contrast to the loosely defined and increasingly unpopular view held by others that creation (virtue) and destruction (sin) can effect momentum before an unknown time of judgment, reckoning, life’s account reconciliation.
I was going to say: “it means what it says.” (but he was totally taking poetic license)
But i like the “balance” and “net zero” angles, and will add: one cannot properly appreciate prosperity without suffering.
If a tree grows tall with shallow roots, even a light breeze can topple it.
But if roots dig deep, without producing appreciable growth, that would be hellish futility.
I think the tree statement in question aptly captures and illustrates multiple relevant and interconnected aspects. It’s a good analogy.
I never knew he made that analogy, but have used trees in my own, many times.
Think about it: how much of life can be easily and somewhat accurately represented or explained by simply observing a tree?
Some ironic synchronicity: earlier today i was sitting outside contemplating, and i looked at this rather large old tree in my backyard, and thought “we should ask ourselves: what is this? What is a tree, really?” (and i mean to think about all its materials, how it grows, what it grows from, what it becomes, how it looks…)
We should sometimes stop and ask ourselves: “what is a tree?” And then think on that tree, and allow ourselves to understand it as it is.
It seems mundane and easily taken for granted… but trees can teach us things, if we’re willing to listen… and they’re not the only things capable of such.
By the way, Jesus talked about trees a lot (ya know why?)
Is that a “tree of knowledge” reference? (which is then a “psychological enslavement” reference… ^^)
no actually, he spoke a lot about trees bearing bad and good fruit
(aka bad and good people)
i tend to agree with “one cannot properly appreciate prosperity without suffering.” without enduring pain one cannot truly understand pleasure, or contentment.
consider what types of “fruit” a “tree of knowledge” might bear.
What would constitute “bad fruit?” What might happen to someone who consumes bad knowledge, or poisonous fruit?
Do you think they might, perhaps, become weakened and confused?
What would happen to someone who consumes good “knowledge fruit?”
Do you think that might make them… strong and resolute? Do you think it might nourish their minds, uplift their bodies, and subsequently increase their resistance to things like bad knowledge?
Good and bad “fruit” totally fits with the “tree of knowledge” concept.
The bible is “bad fruit,” just like every other system of psychological indoctrination and enslavement. If you weaken someone enough, they won’t be able to muster any substantial resistance. If you confuse someone enough, they won’t know what to resist or pursue. If you combine both of those with fear of “hell,” what do you think happens? They tend to submit and obey, and become very… resigned and docile… i think “meek” is the word they use.
The meek do not inherit the earth. The meek are lead to slaughter by the strong and powerful who have weakened them enough that they follow the wolves in shepherd’s clothing… while those wolves warn of “wolves in sheep clothing,” in order to turn their attention away from the evil leaders, toward being wary, suspicious of each other, and superstitious. They are so weak and confused, they are eager to follow anyone who seems to know the way. But the way is lead by wolves, as the weak, meek sheep, follow closely behind, oblivious in approaching their designed demise.
The world is full of kings and queens who will blind your eyes and steal your dreams. Any mainstream ideology, be it religious, cultural, political, academic, w/e, will contain *some* truths, and some disinfo. People in general are too fast to be either all for something, or totally against it. Like, all or nothing. “This is what I believe, now, let me read up about what I believe.” Usually this follower mentality means these people can easily be silenced by beating them with their own stick, be it the bible, koran, liberalism, conservatism, capitalism, communism, or even science. Question everyone and everything. Even yourself.
This is actually Carl Jungs quote, and he used the phrase “it is stated” meaning it was a common adage he had himself picked up along the way. Like many “words of wisdom,” it sounds immensely clever and can have many interpretations, which us indeed part of its genius. Knowing at least a little of Jung’s work, he was refering to the duality of nature. The yin-yang present in man. That still leabes it open to many applications and uses.
Personally, I see it the ability to feel. Being an atheist, heaven and hell are for me states of mind: exquisite pleasure and agonizing torment. In reading this quote, I am given a visual metaphor for what I have come to learn through experience: you cannot reach one emotional extreme without exposing yourself to the opposite end of the spectrum.
Imagine a short, stubby tree. Its roots are kept far from the fire and brimstone. Yet, because its shallow root system, it cannot reach the ethereal, cloud filled bliss. This is presented in your even keel type person. The man (or woman) who shows equanimity in all situations. She does not get hurt. But she also does not leap for joy. I picture Christopher Walken :-). or Ben Stein. Inversely, a tree that delves deep and reaches for the stars touches both. A man who can weep both tears of joy and pain, a man who would jump from a bridge both in happiness and depression, just one with a safety harness one without. For some reason Tom Cruise is springing to mind….quick get him out!
@snakenumbers:
carrying your own stick makes it harder to beat someone else with theirs. Better to be empty handed and prepared, and “beat them with their own stick,” by using that very same tactic against them, and preventing it from being used against yourself, but not even wielding a stick of your own.
I find something wrong with every labeled style of group-think. That’s why i don’t like labels: i can’t claim the whole thing, so i can’t claim any of it. That’s part of why i’m conflicted about the “philosopher” label. Philosophy isn’t my goal, it’s a tool i learned how to use out of necessity, and i don’t necessarily agree that everything everywhere needs to be endlessly “philosophized,” just for the sake of philosophy.
Some things should be naturally understood as axiomatic… kinda like the hell/heaven tree. “It means what it says.” I don’t think it needs millions more words applied to it. I think the best way to understand it is to get some life experience, and make a point to take a moment to stare into a tree, now and then, while trying to imagine its roots.
@fortunear:
Good lookin’ out. I tend to like quite a lot of Jung’s quotes. If i didn’t hate reading books, he’d be on my do-read list (more likely my “already read” list…).
Reminds me of this whole notion that you don’t get hurt if you don’t expect anything. So what, we live our lives without hope? Well, yeah. What a depressing life to live (says the girl who does exactly that, hence my being here).