Don’t you just love how when you look closer and closer to something it gets more and more foreign. As you see more closely the structure of a thing, as you see more accurately the parts that make up the whole, the stranger the whole thing becomes. You look at molecular structures and they don’t look anything like what you think they should or would. Is there a distance, relative or objective, that defines what we see as a whole or parts? It does seem to suggest what we already assume to be true: That what you see is not what is there. You see what you expect to see. You look out to look in and never realize what it is you’re doing. But there must be something there to begin with. There must be some bit of the Real that you interpret into your own respective and subjective realities. The Real is the mother of reality.
The obvious retaliation to this way of thinking is a fractal pattern. In any fraction of the pattern is the form of the whole. Trees are great like this because they are at once fractal and not. The extension of the branches follows a pattern that allows for a certain degree of randomness but within certain parameters such as:
1) Must be made of wood
2) Must grow more-or-less upward
and so on. But if we choose to look not at the form but the construction of the tree we will find that the bark covering the branches is massively more detailed than we could have ever assumed. Manet (I think it was Manet) was so disturbed by trees that he would request to be seated facing away from them at restaurants. Your challenge today is to notice the things you look at, rather than simply seeing what you already know is a “tree.” I think you’ll be amazed at the diversity of nature and the oddness of trees.