The Psychology Of Planting Seeds and Growing Trees, A Philosophy of Life!

I use these analogies to describe the process we go through with the decisions we make daily. Everything starts with a seed being planted essentially. Some seeds produce small goals and minor relationships (flowers) and some produce large goals and major relationships (trees); both require attention and proper handling to be effective. If we let ourselves be overrun by negativity (weeds); neither can survive in a healthy way.

Another way to look at it; we plant seeds to grow, we pick flowers to smell, we plant trees that we need to prune and we have weeds to pull.

Analogy (from Greek ἀναλογία, analogia, "proportion"[1][2]) is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process.

Imagine the behavior each requires as it pertains to your own life; to be maintained properly:

1) Seeds:

Flower, tree, vegetable or grass seeds all require; solid root structure, cultivated and good top soil, water and sunlight, protection from the environment (pest, insects, birds, elements and human) and daily attention. Some require less or more of each; for the purpose of this article, I will be focusing on flowers and trees.

2) Flowers:

They are really pretty to look at, but once they are cut, they can only survive for so long. If you want a flower to last you have to plant them in the soil and give them plenty of food (sunlight & water). They require more attention to survive indoors; they are vulnerable to the environment outdoors. They grow better outdoors for a reason though; it is their natural habitat. They survive in numbers, some may come and go, but they survive as a group (species) because they adapt. Different types of flowers require different environments to do this. The root of a flower is very delicate in most cases and needs tenderness to survive for the long term. If you put your faith in a flower, be prepared to be disappointed in the end result.

3) Trees:

They have the ability to grow taller and stronger than flowers do. They need to be planted in good soil, with lots of water, sunlight and protection from erosion, to begin their growth process. With a solid root they have an excellent chance at long term survival; some require more attention than others. Some need "pruning", (disease and dead limbs or leaves), to increase overall growth and protect other parts from being affected. While trees may not be as pretty as flowers, (in some cases they are just as pretty), because "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", they generally have a longer life span. This is because they usually have a solid "trunk" to support their growth and a larger "root" system to feed it and sustain it. Like flowers; if you cut the tree down it dies. If you do not give it adequate, attention it may still grow, just not as strong or as quickly as one with proper care. Nature sometimes does this whether we want it to or not.
All trees have leaves and some have flowers, too. Trees will lose their leaves and flowers (seasonal changes); deposit them in the soil to recycle their energy, continuing the cycle of life.

4) Weeds:

They can grow out of control if they are not eliminated. They will choke the life out of everything they come in contact with. Mowing them down or using artificial chemicals that contaminate the soil will not fix the problem. You have to "pull" or "dig" them out from the root. Unfortunately, this has to be done often. Winds will blow weed spores everywhere. The size of the weed and how easy it will be to get the "root" out will depend on how quickly you spot it and eradicate it. They are very unsightly to look at. However, there is a lesson to gain from weeds; just don't let them control you.

Either way, both need a solid root to grow and survive. The survival of some depends on others. Beauty is nice, but a solid structure has more long term benefit.

Take care and much love,

Ascension211

reply to post by ascension211


I went to school in a free country, self determined country free of Neocons, Zionists
FED, IMF, ECB etc

We all as students planted 1 tree each every year, and we gave trees names etc.

After my country was destroyed by those lovely people at the pentagon and NATO.

I got to see how the schools are run in the far western world.

Kids don't even know what a tree is, let alone plant them or know the difference between
them.

reply to post by ascension211


What? Are you kidding me?

Knock knock, hey its reality.

Your metaphor is fine but its so far in left field. This is the real world and if you think that way, you will be the weed. Mowed over.

Yeah I'm insensitive, I'm tired of the pansy attitude everyone has now.

I often use plants and gardening as metaphor or analogy in describing psychological processes!

Not only that, I often will do some real gardening while I am doing the analogue mental process.
Like, when I am weeding out my thoughts and beliefs from the past that are no longer productive or adapted to my current life, I go do real weeding at the same time.

This always makes me feel peaceful, as if body and mind are attuned and synchronized. It seems like it also enables the process to happen quicker and easier.

reply to post by ascension211


Thank you for sharing your hard work!!!!!!!,
With The Earth, and your fellow members of ATS.
Best to You, Wildmanimal S&F

reply to post by Bluesma


Working with plants always results in a positive effect.
Even if it requires an onslaught of physical involvement.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if that were true for people as well.

Blessings

I don't want to be rude, but I did not read the entirety of the OP... I just have to say that the entire notion of psychology and plants is fairly absurd.

But! That is not to say that philosophies and means in general haven't been influenced by agriculture, which then gives way to culture and... ultimately a large factor in the development in ones psychology.

To keep it short...

Agriculture brought us into what we have created to be human, philosophies in religions are based upon the natural world, one aspect of which, agriculture is generally a foundation of many. From corn to trees, every religion pretty much finds comfort in them being acceptable as analogies, parables, metaphors.... and so forth

indicates something I think is vital here: the agricultural revolution was not, strictly speaking, a revolution at all. It probably occurred in these areas over several thousand years. It is a co-evolution. So, too, will the social institutions and behaviors be co-evolutionary. As population sizes rise with the introduction of managed herds, in a semi-nomadic lifestyle as herds are taken to seasonal food sources, interactions between non-kin will rise. Where territories are shared, a way to resolve disputes and increase cooperation is needed. Shared rituals are always how humans do this, no matter whether it is football or sacrifice to the gods (if, indeed, there is a difference). So not only is G�bekli-Tepe not a counterexample, it is a necessary outcome of the gradual rise of what we would now think of as agriculture.

Evolution is a gradual process that occurs at varying degrees of gradualness. Some of this gradualness permits us to mark a more or less definite border, but depending on the scale chosen, there is always something that comes before and goes on after any line we may draw.

scienceblogs.com...

It kind of sums up what I'd like to say lol.

In my opinion.... No, psychology is not based upon a principal of the natural world, that we then pretend is one in the same. The faculties of mind, predispositions... the ability of freewill... I would argue that all these are not shared by plants. We have lobes... a little more complex. It's apples and oranges really, no pun intended. This is the type of logic that dominated philosophy and psychology.... and one that needs to stop. Although that was also accompanied by a need for worship and ability to hold onto false superstitions... such as walking around a rock 7 times and praying 5 times a day. Or... days of the week to worship or act differently.

Because of our co-evolution paths, agriculture, philosophies and ultimately our psychologies(developed) all have a bond. There are multiple articles online from the FAO and WHO in regards to the roles of agriculture and culture, if you're interested. A simple google, or, google scholar search should make them available. Some great articles about creating communities and what works when approaching regions that have extreme political and social conditions, as well in regards about how to bring people together.

I think the cycle can be broken. There are many disgusting philosophies that emerge from basing things on planting seeds and growing trees, although this is removed from psychology.... it's not. One thing that comes to mind... genetics. Research Darwin and better yet... his cousin for a better understanding.

We're not trees or plants, I get the parallels and influences... still, different ball game. The entire psychology of death and dying, or mortality salience alone proves that the faculties of mind far exceed any potential correlations between us and trees. So lets stop...

Not big on religion or what have you... but here's one thing that I think makes sense, and is appropriate:


Romans 12:2

Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Originally posted by litterbaux
reply to post by ascension211

 

What? Are you kidding me?

Knock knock, hey its reality.

Your metaphor is fine but its so far in left field. This is the real world and if you think that way, you will be the weed. Mowed over.

Yeah I'm insensitive, I'm tired of the pansy attitude everyone has now.

LOL! What exactly is bothering you about this??

Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS



We're not trees or plants, I get the parallels and influences... still, different ball game. The entire psychology of death and dying, or mortality salience alone proves that the faculties of mind far exceed any potential correlations between us and trees. So lets stop...

As with the other poster, I am baffled by what you find so troublesome about looking at ones psychological processes as similar to that of the growth of plants??

I am wondering if there isn't some big misunderstanding here, on my part, or yours?

Do you take this to be suggesting plants have a psychology themselves? That isn't at all what I took from it.

But maybe I am the one misinterpretting....

I always see repeating patterns in nature, like the Fibonacci numbers, and our own bodies (including brain) are part of nature.
The natural growth of plants, the way they compete for survival and the results of that, are just the same as with the animal world, and......most relevant to this......memes!

Our mind, our psychology, is made up of thoughts and ideas which evolve and fight for survival and reproduction, just like animals and plants. Why would that bother anyone to percieve that?

Gardening is a good analogy for human psychology. In fact, one of my favourite Shakespeare quotes uses one...

Oh, that this too, too sullied flesh would melt,
Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew,
Or that the Everlasting had not fixed
His canon 'gainst self-slaughter! O God, God!
How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable
Seem to me all the uses of this world!
Fie on ’t, ah fie! 'Tis an unweeded garden
That grows to seed. Things rank and gross in nature
Possess it merely.

Hamlet (No Fear Shakespeare)

These passages are considered as the earliest clear references to clinical depression according to some psychologists.

I'm not sure why the notion of using an analogy has offended anyone? It's a tool of communication that's been used for thousands of years and helps to make tricky subjects easier to discuss. Human psychology is such an awkward subject that it has to be mediated by metaphors and analogies if it's to be understood by more people. Let's say a psychologist attempted a cognitive-behavioural approach and confined their efforts to the technical jargon of the field? Would that be successful or would the client need to complete a course in psychology first? No. They'd seek to use commonly understood terms to make sure both parties were speaking the same language - emotional or otherwise.

@ Bluesma - you may have already seen this >> Is Dirt the New Prozac? Some research suggested gardening is a mood-lifter over and above simple analogies and might have a biological basis.

reply to post by Kandinsky


WOW! That is fascinating! Bookmarked for future reference.......
So many reasons that is important........thanks for sharing it!

reply to post by Kandinsky

I'm not sure why the notion of using an anology has offended anyone? It's a tool of communication that's been used for thousands of years and helps to make tricky subjects easier to discuss. Human psychology is such an awkward subject that it has to be mediated by metaphors and analogies if it's to be understood by more people.

This is more of a reply to other questions as well. I will not be giving this the time that it deserves and I will add more tomorrow...




Here's some fun stuff to read...

en.wikipedia.org...

Correlation and regression

After examining forearm and height measurements, Galton introduced the concept of correlation in 1888 (Bulmer 2003, pp. 191–196). Correlation is the term used by Aristotle in his studies of animal classification, and later and most notably by Georges Cuvier in Histoire des progrès des sciences naturelles depuis 1789 jusqu'à ce jour (5 volumes, 1826–1836). Correlation originated in the study of correspondence as described in the study of morphology. See R.S. Russell, Form and Function. He was not the first to describe the mathematical relationship represented by the correlation coefficient, but he rediscovered this relationship and demonstrated its application in the study of heredity, anthropology, and psychology.

This is one of the men I was referencing when speaking of Darwin and his cousin(s).

Eugenics strikes a mean chord with me and I think it's disgusting how far people can take nature vs nurture battle, apply some philosophy based on plants and come up with a solution that essentially eliminates the only freewill that is worth a damn, love and creation.

Sure, it's fun to play around with ideas and create conceptual metaphors, apply symbolic meaning and archetypal roles to such things as plants. But in the end of the day, we act in accordance with these 'theories' and there's not a single one developed on the basis of plants that is sufficient enough to accommodate such natural theories, and remain accurate.

Do plants know temperance and virtue... I think not.

addition:

Oh, and I can't resist commenting on the following...

Gardening is a good analogy for human psychology. In fact, one of my favourite Shakespeare quotes uses one...

You know what's better? Construction, or better yet architecture. Have you ever been involved with masonry(the profession)? Lay some blocks and cut some stones, weigh and measure, test and approve... plants don't do this.

The only common grounds is evolution, but they are two paths not dependent on one another(dependent on means, moving on from our prior). One is not to be confused as the other... apples and oranges.

I am a farmer by trade, sitting next to maximum yield magazines all around me currently. I also try to study psychology as often as I can. In my opinion, when it comes down to it.... apples and oranges lol!!!

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


But...but... (sorry, I am just very curious about your point of view, because I don't understand it!)

In this analogy, free will is symbolized by the "gardener" the element which steps in between the natural growth and reproductive processes happening, and influences change.

Another analogy that I use often (and that I found later Freud did too!) is that of a horse and rider, in which case the horse is obviously the animal instincts of the person and the rider is the individual will. I like that one, but more people do gardening than horsemanship.

I see you added that you feel cosntruction is a better analogy..... I am starting to maybe grasp your persective a bit more- you seem to making a conflict out of the nature and nurture concepts? -and placing your bets on "nurture" as the only valuable element?

See, I don't see it as nature versus nurture, but nature and nurture combine creatively.

The natural processes of the plants combine with the will and choice of the gardener (farmer if you prefer
) to CREATE the garden (or crop field).

The construction analogy is more suitable for the ego creating itself, I find. Because it is using it's own inert concepts. When it comes to the subconscious growth and evolution of emotions, thoughts and associations, they have a life of their own! They evolve and move and cling to other thoughts and emotions, or drown out and choke off others...... they are not inert like blocks of cement......

reply to post by Bluesma

In this analogy, free will is symbolized by the "gardener" the element which steps in between the natural growth and reproductive processes happening, and influences change.

Well... how many people want to be the Sheppard? You know, people do control and dictate our outcomes, our lives and what we produce.

Now TAKE EVERYTHING that you just said, place that entire premise at the feet of an individual or institution with power and you now have a recipe for Eugenics.

Ok, lets take this a different direct, because I do admit I took what you said a little bit out of context.

Sorry Mods, I know you hate it when I quote too much...

Compartmentalization is an unconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person's having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.

Compartmentalization allows these conflicting ideas to co-exist by inhibiting direct or explicit acknowledgement and interaction between separate compartmentalized self states

en.wikipedia.org...

I reference this, because effectively what we're simply doing is compartmentalization, and allowing ourselves to keep on ticking for we don't know the answers. But all we're doing is attempting to apply a principal of all things that will never accurately reflect what we're trying to understand. IT'S IN THE WAY!!!

There are many strong ties with isolation and rationality, that then are conducive towards some of the most wickedest means, especially when talking about people with Borderline personality disorder (BPD. In which furthering such nonsense as a Psychology based on plants can actually even be more detrimental.

en.wikipedia.org...

BPD often manifests itself in idealization and devaluation episodes and chaotic and unstable interpersonal relationships, issues with self-image, identity, and behavior; as well as a disturbance in the individual's sense of self.

(apologize for the wiki leaks, but I feel like cheating my way through this one)

Now lets think about this... we're addressing Psychology, creating a theory that is heavily associated with trying to recognize patterns in the natural world and essentially... using compartmentalization to rationalize how we treat one another. Well, because of the faulty nature in truly holding onto all these metaphors and analogies, we come to a point in which these revelations are conducive towards... well I don't have to quote it again, look above at the description of BPD. This was the true curse of most religions and still is to this day.... DOGMAS QUICKLY ABANDON FALSE COMPREHENSIONS.(kinda a loaded statement, but yeah)

Before this feels like I'm rambling on... I guess pull what you want from what I've said, others have said it better than me... but I felt like giving it a go.

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


Why don't we just say that interaction with plants
can have a therapeutic influence.

Some Day, You'll figure that out.

I didn't know mods don't like quoting... I prefer it, if that matters.

I'll digest further and see if I cannot come to a better comprehension of your point of view. I appreciate your effort to explain!


It almost seems like you are trying to point to how this sort of tool could be misused by unethical people who desire to take advantage of people who don't want to use this for themselves- those who prefer to defer their power to another, instead of be their own "gardener".

If so, yes, I agree, it could. That does not, in my mind, have anythign to do with it's efficacity as a personal tool for self mastership.

Also, I have seen such self mastership tools to be very effective in aiding BPD (have a few family members with it).
Without some tools and understanding on how to master the emotions and subconscious drives, they often will disassociate instead, which in the long run is no better. Their garden becomes overrun with unchecked weeds, and eventually explodes in crisis which drowns out the will.

There is no "ultimate tool" in self mastership and life creation, granted- but to use another analogy- where a saw become ineffective a hammer can be, and that does not mean the saw should be thrown out then!

reply to post by Bluesma


Thank you for all your responses. I have other analogies that can apply, but these are rooted in nature and we are all part of the same energy. The reason I don't like using construction (building blocks and foundations) is because they are inanimate (concrete, steel, etc.) without any emotions or heart attached. They may have energy attached, but it is from the hands of those that built them. They don't add to the cycle of life. When a building crumbles it doesn't help other buildings grow. When a flower or tree "die", they go back to help others grow. Flowers and trees provide food and shelter for others, a piece of concrete (may provide shelter) and restaurants (food), but they do not sustain life. I watched the series about what if there were no humans; nature overcomes man-made obstacles. I believe that,too,is a metaphor for life.

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

The reason I don't like using construction (building blocks and foundations) is because they are inanimate (concrete, steel, etc.) without any emotions or heart attached. They may have energy attached, but it is from the hands of those that built them

reply to post by ascension211


Like that movie from the late 70s, being there.....

Life is a garden

m.imdb.com...

reply to post by manykapao


Yo Adrian, man of few words, thanks for stopping by.