The Unmaking of Trees.

Wherever you go trees are the same.  Words that name trees will differ, but trees remain indifferent.  Neither shifts in history, nor geography, nor the evolution of language cast their shadow over the tree.  Rather, they stand in the shade of the tree.

In whatever century or culture, the words that say “tree” depend upon the tree for their meaning.  Again, words that describe trees are themselves described by trees.  When  the words that say “tree” evolve, the tree’s “ness” does not change.  Does it?  Unless trees can be unmade.  Can you unmake a tree?

Sure, a tree can be chopped down and reduced to timber.  Even so, the tree remains.  It is the tree’s “ness” that makes the timber.  So follow the timber to its source and you will discover a tree.  Won’t you?

Someone might say, “Burn the tree!”  The tree will burn.  However, the tree will burn because trees burn, and not because someone burns the tree.  If you don’t believe this, throw a log in the fireplace and light it.  Then ask yourself, “What prevents the “ness” of this fire from devouring the timber that builds the house?  Be thankful then for the “ness” of the bricks that builds the fireplace.  The point:  The flames consuming the tree merely confirm the tree’s “ness” and also that of the fire,  but neither one unmakes or makes the “ness” of the other.

And aren’t we glad trees cannot be unmade?  After all, we depend upon the “ness” of  trees for so many things.  For example, homes are built on its constancy and cold hands warmed by it.  Imagine the chaos if the words we use to describe trees  unmade them.  The thought of rebuilding fallen homes with frostbit fingers is simply one tree I dare not bark at.

Nonetheless, today some people think that the original meaning of trees is lost to history.  Somehow they believe, as an example, that when a six-thousand year old Ethiopian says, “_ _ _ _,”  we  have no idea she means “tree” in the way we do.  You see,  Ethiopians used a different word for trees six-thousand years ago.  When stricken with an infectious bout of lucidity the people who say such things might vomit-up an acknowledgement that  “tree” and “_ _ _ _”  describe the same thing, but even then Ethiopian trees are merely a conceptual abstraction, which explains why they never climb trees.  Now, they have every right to live in an abstract world, it is a free country,  but I like to climb trees.  When looking at their abstractions from a tree-top perch one does wonder though how the folk below keep their homes from falling down and fingers from falling off?

A wiser man than me addressed the unchanging nature of trees by saying, “Let the word of God be found true, and every person a liar.”

Am I the only one, or can you see the irony in his words?  The words God uses to describe the “ness” of truth are the very same words that some people use to “un-truth” them.  In other words, both parties speak the same language, the human language!

In still other words, let the timber of God be seen for the tree they are, and every person who uses the same timber to say otherwise a liar.  Clearly, if you seek the source of the timber, from which God frames truth, you will discover Him.  Won’t you?

Meanwhile, when a home burns how I wish my words could unmake trees, but the home burns.  Because I believe in the absolute, unchanging “ness” of trees, no matter the century or culture, I flee the house.  Unfortunately, those who believe their words have the power to unmake trees will discover themselves unmade in fire.  Of that you can climb on.

Honestly, our position on the nature of trees says more about  who we believe, rather than what we believe.

“Let the Word of God be found true and every person a liar.”

Romans 3:4

Who do you believe?

Advertisements