Recently, I was pondering the structure of a mystical, Alan Watts-style reality (an omnipotent/present/scient consciousness imposes the illusion of individuality and space-time upon itself, so it can experience linear progression, and thus narrative, learning, motion, and evolution, because in its native omnipotent/present/scient state, it can’t experience linear phenomena like motion, progress, or choice, because it is everything everywhere all at once, so it has nowhere to go, nothing to become or overcome, nothing to learn, etc. etc., and so it is limited unless it experiences itself from constrained individual, space-time-bound perspectives).
I realized the model that resonated with me was that of a tree. The trunk is nonduality in its native state (omnipotent/present/scient), while a branch is the higher or deeper self.
The branch is defined by generalized goals, direct access to nondual power, but can’t fully interface with logical/linear specifics because it has one foot in space-time-individuality, the other in nonduality; it’s primary purpose is to orchestrate the realization of its goals (desire to live certain themes) without the confusion and peskiness of having to deal with space-time-individuality immersion. Its defining intent, as a branch, is to grow toward the sun (realize certain themes).
Our surface/conscious selves would be the leaves growing from the branch, and since we all sprout at different points, we must all find our own unique way to the sun. Unpleasantness arises when we decide to grow downward, crimping our design and the flow of nondual power from the trunk to the branch to the leaf. Eventually, if the leaf persists in defying the branch and trunk, it will wither away, but that’s not a loss, because the branch will sprout new leaves to either try again or move on to a different adventure (reincarnation).
Of course, that’s all scientifically unprovable. But given the premise of a mystically constructed reality, the tree model seems to explain the multiple aspects of self, and their respective roles in the breadth of existence (at least to me).
Dirty Sci-Fi Buddha 
I love Alan Watts. Went through a heavy period of reading him a few years ago. Your theory has deep roots and is one that will likely grow on me. Sorry for the Dad joke. What you said absolutely makes sense. Thanks for giving my brain food for thought today.
LikeLiked by 4 people
They gotta make a dad joke alarm button so everyone can groan while the joker chuckles in mischievous pride, lol!
LikeLiked by 2 people
A font of Dad Jokes.
Great image, ty.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love the analogy that one could be like a tree. What kind of tree? That is a question. Trees are amazing living things that are injured frequently but continue to grow. I kind of liken that to the way some of us live. We are injured but then keep going. At least we try. Thanks!
LikeLiked by 4 people
You know, I’ll have to think about that one! I’ve always been partial to redwoods…I don’t know! I’ll let that one stew
LikeLiked by 3 people
*taps own nose*
LikeLiked by 4 people
Good one. Your posts are all over the place, really.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Interesting. Time reversal symmetry says in many physical processes, if you could somehow reverse the direction of time, the laws of physics would still hold. Even matter creation is shown to be reversible in Feynman diagrams. So linear could be in either direction, or both, we just don’t know it.
Imho branches or trees don’t have intent to grow certain ways, they are programmed to grow with energy, if energy is more in one direction they will grow more on that side.
We are similar, we are programmed to survive and status improves our chance of survival. The longer we’re alive and the higher our status, the more chance of reproduction, we’re built for nature. Reproduction is simply a trick of hormones for sex. Same as nurturing of infants, like our instinct to walk, nature ties our children’s survival to our own ego’s survival instinct. Some species don’t have this.
Sorry, got carried away! Just my thoughts, thanks for interesting topic!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think it’s good to try out different ‘models’ from time to time. But have you considered that from one perspective the whole tree is still a non-dual ‘happening’ – and the infinite, fractal ‘recursion’ of space-time takes place ‘within’ that undivided whole. So ‘where you are on the tree’ – and your ‘distance’ (or even ‘difference’) from any other part – is really just a matter of perspective: a side-effect of how much of the fractal recursion you take or consider as your frame of reference.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Indeed. I believe from that perspective, even distance is an illusion, or as referenced in the 2022 nobel prize, locality is not valid. However, this may seem weird, but I believe the illusion is valid, there is a purpose behind it, since the nondual perspective cannot experience certain paradigms (distance, time, progression) only available within the illusion.
LikeLike
Or perceptual lag is what we’re trying to cognate, and we’re very bad at admitting we will never experience the NOW.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you lost me on this one, Kent. I need a lot of time to ponder your meaning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I understand. It took me years to cobble that together.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am not surprised that Western science cannot catch, weigh, measure, and copyright purusha as it dances with prakriti. Balancing itself on a perch 99% empty, materialism (as Bernado Kastrup describes in his “Materialism is Baloney”) “suffuses the core of our being by a kind of involuntary osmosis. Like a virus, it spreads unnoticed until it’s too late and the infection has already taken a firm hold.” In philosophy and neuroscience, this virus has produced the “big problem of consciousness” controversy. I suppose consciousness and the Big Bang have become the white whale all materialists seek. Hell, I can’t even find a skeptic who can tell me the meta of their skepticism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exactly. Empirical measurements are what they rely on, which starts falling apart at microscopic or gigantic scales.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As Donald Hoffman teaches, space-time is doomed. It practically ends at 10 to the -35 centimeters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve also heard that scientists are now exploring how quantum effects translate into effects on our brains and bodies. Makes sense, since they’re doing it with computers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your recent posts are fascinating, real brain prodders. I spent so much time as a young kid trying to explain what happens in theory if you travel at the speed of light, to meet with blank stares, it’s always a relief to read other’s cogitations on ‘what ifs’. Like some other readers I shall take a bit of time before I can say I really understand, but this stuff is good, it’s fuel to keep folk going when they feal bored or anything near it. Bravo! (Thinking what tree I am :P)
LikeLiked by 1 person
At a certain point, it’s kind of depressing not to consider these things, in my opinion.
Because by default, if you start constraining our lives to the mundane, it funnels down into sad conclusions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like that analogy. Well, if nothing else because it seems to align with my own theories about life, the universe and everything 🙂 I read Alan Watts when I was in my early 20s, which was too young, I think. I remember his books as fascinating but hard for me to parse at the time, understand, and connect with my own worldview (that was only just being assembled at the time). I think now that I am 50, if I have the time for all the current complications that have since come into my life, then Watts would be a welcome re-read. Thanks for jugging my memory about this great author!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Truth and “Reality” in my opinion, is akin to the dance between the Sun and Moon, Earth, of course, representing our non-static perception and self-awareness of that which we observe and experience. The only thing I have ever found that has a multimillion-year case study in consistency… Is our Moon, which I personify as truth, this not to say that one cannot be convinced of something untrue, like it is made cheese or something ridiculous, but rather the cyclical nature of our strange and mysteriously unique spherical neighborhood. Great piece! Keep em comin’
LikeLiked by 2 people
I never noticed your Musings and Reflections categories before. I look forward to exploring your thoughts some more. I hit the follow button but nothing happened. I’m going to manually add you to my own blogroll so I can find you easily.
I love Alan Watts. Your tree idea does remind me of something he would talk about.
I look forward to reading more 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks! Yes, Alan Watts definitely had a massive talent when it came to articulating a holistic model of reality!
LikeLike