by the ancient rood

 

Just as long as you don’t start talking about plate tectonics again, eM. You know how I feel about those absurd theories.

Yes, Zanzi-bar, me too!

 

You? You’re the one who was trying to sell me on the notion of subduction zones and mid-oceanic ridges, and now you expect me to believe you were advocating a theory you yourself don’t believe in?

 

Zanzi-bar, my dear friend, these theories don’t just grow on trees you know.

 

...? What’s that supposed to mean, eM?

 

Any theory that’s made it past the huddled conspiratorial gatherings of a few fanatical minds into the mainstream of public policy and school exams must have something going for it, even if it’s undoubtedly wrong, which this one is.

 

So, you’re impressed by the fact that it achieved mass adoption even though it’s wrong

 

Absolutely. It doesn’t matter all that much who has the most accurate description of 3d reality, does it?

 

Er... Whyever not?

 

When you consider that 3d reality itself is not, in fact, what it appears to be by a long stretch of the imagination, when you strip away all the convenient half-truths.

 

What convenient half-truths eM? I don’t feel half truths when I fall over and graze my knee on the ground. Me thinks these half-truths are more prevalent in the rarefied realm of your theories. In the nitty-gritty of daily existence on the other hand...

 

We have a bifurcation.

 

We do?

 

Yes, we’re always bifurcating.

 

We are?

 

Absolutely.

 

Well, I never noticed.

 

No, you wouldn’t.

 

Er... why not?

 

Because in 3d reality you always take one side of the bifurcation.

 

And the other side?

 

Is conveniently hidden from sight.

 

Er... how?

 

Well, if I said “in plain view” you’d understandably say you don’t see it so that can’t be so, but it’s in plain view for anyone who isn’t locked to the binary-cum-digital signal, which as you can probably guess requires an on or an off, a one or a zero to proceed. Period.

 

Er... I’m not sure I find this terribly plausible eM.

 

I know, Zanz, I’m not expecting you to, which is why I am loath to provide an explanation.

 

Ok, supposing you were actually right... What would the other signal be.

 

Analogue.

 

Analogue?

 

Yes, or just the natural pulse of life and consciousness itself, which hasn’t been processed in any way.

 

And?

 

Well, because it’s the raw, live feed that hasn’t been processed it’s invisible to the other side.

 

Er... why?

 

Different time.

 

Different time?

 

Absolutely.

 

Er... how do you mean?

 

It’s direct and analogue so it exists as is, when is.

 

Whereas our 3d reality...

 

Is processed, cut and diced, so there’s a lag – it’s slightly out of phase.

 

Be that as it may, eM, I still don’t see how the other side could just vanish.

 

Weird, isn’t it.

 

Weird? It’s more than weird. It’s nonsensical.

 

Well, what if I said that time is like a book in which each person is on a particular page, unless you can access the zero point, the spine, so-to-speak.

 

Oh. And if you can, then what?

 

Then you can see both sides.

 

See them?

 

Yes, see them or access them.

 

So you can be in two time phases?

 

Not simultaneously.

 

Then what?

 

I can be in one, but maintain zero point awareness of the other.

 

Oh. And what does that reveal?

 

Not really “what”.

 

Er... What do you mean?

 

Not really “what”.

 

What the hell.

 

That’s more like it.

 

Huh?

 

Well “what” describes or refers to the relationship between things on one page, so to speak.

 

Like in 3d reality?

 

Yes.

 

Whereas there’s no “what” as such between different pages, different phases of time.

 

No what? Then what is there?

 

Like i said, Zanussi, no what, not as such, and yet something else there is...

 

Let me guess – some kind of quantum entanglement, or some kind of induction?

 

Ah, bravo, Zanussi. Me thinks that was more than a guess.

 

Yes?

 

Me thinks thou art cottoning on.

 

Cottoning on? And why the sudden archaic use of “thou”?

 

Why indeed: the “thou” is only archaic in timey 3d.

 

You mean you still use old English in... what do you call your analogue version of reality?

 

Tree.

 

Tree?

 

Yes. We are guardians of the tree.

 

?!

 

You guys, in whichever 3D you’re operating in, are doing the branches.

 

Oh! You mean ours isn’t the only 3d?

 

Duh! There are bifurcations all the time. Just look at any tree.

 

But how do you know you’re the real McCoy, not just a side branch?

 

Like I said, Zanzi-sprout, only if you’re able to hold the central trunk are you able to look into or even visit other branches, all of which are unique and rather fascinating thought experiments.

 

In what way?

 

Well, someone asks the question “what if”...

 

Like what?

 

Like, for example, “what if there were no God?”

 

And?

 

And if enough people respond to that question with interest then it becomes a side branch with a timeline that conceals the fact that it may be a very recent branch, which projects back into a distant past, so the branch appears to be a fully fledged tree.

 

All because of one question?

 

Well yes, but the initial what if question is just a formula that corresponds with something deeper, something you might consider structural.

 

In what way?

 

Well, there are many different ways to explain this so I don’t want to give the impression my suggestion is definitive or absolute.

 

Er... Ok... but what is your explanation?

 

Well, the tree has a master plan, a sense of its totality or wholeness. It needs side branches to continue growing up and into its fullness. Each branch is, on the one hand, incomplete and therefore false by omission, but on the other hand necessary to achieve the greater whole, to counter-balance and contradict other branches.

 

So?

 

So, the question has to inspire a sufficient number of gnomiki.

 

Gnomiki?

 

Tree spirits, tree dwellers, entities of tree’s individuated awareness.

Ok

 

For them to be willing to embrace the branch and to humanate.

 

Humanate?

 

Become humans.

 

Oh.

 

So whatever the question, if it goes viral like a popular meme or song, then it’s evidently meant to be. Perhaps it corresponds with an underlying branch node, or an upwelling paradox. What cannot be denied, going viral, is that it passes the critical threshold – CT.

 

Critical threshold? Like it attains critical mass?

 

Yes, or the energy necessary for lift off.

 

And then the gnomiki-cum-humans are trapped in their branch?

 

Yes, until/unless they become consciously aware that their branch is but a branch, is merely part of a tree.

 

And that happens?

 

Yes, why not?

 

And, what does that entail?

 

Facing the shocking truth that the branch, their entire world, their reality is in some way disconnected from the greater all that is, from the paradigm they’re within, is actually at cross-purposes.

 

But how is that possible if they only know their branch?

 

Good question Zanzi-gnom.

 

Well?

 

You tell me.

 

Me?

 

Yes, you.

 

I... I can but speculate.

 

Well go for it, speculate! What have you got to lose?

 

Um... Ok. You talked about us becoming consciously aware of our predicament, of the fact that we are in some way disconnected fundamentally from the greater all that is...

 

Yes.

 

Well that's implies there must be an unconscious awareness before we become consciously aware.

 

Yes.

 

And unconscious awareness must create some kind of rub or friction in the mind or experience of reality for all these so called humans.

 

Yep.

 

And presumably we have all kinds of pathways and avenues connecting us with the unconscious ness, such as dreams or feelings. Or perhaps truth-sense?

 

Yes.

 

So it’s by no means as hopeless as might at first seem.

 

True

 

Besides, the branch is never truly disconnected from the tree, is it? On the contrary, it grows and develops within the trees energy field, nurtured by its sap and nutrients.

 

Yes, Zanzi-bar, your speculations are highly fruitful when you give them free rein.

 

So tell me about “thou”, if you would.

 

Thou?

 

Yes, why did we branchlings stop using this particular word?

 

Ah... You smell a rat?

 

I... don’t know. It just seems curious.

 

As indeed it is, Zanzi-mind, but this is more than mere idle curiosity.

 

It is?

 

Oh yes. You’re spotting too many ill-concealed truth infantry mines.

 

I am?

 

Verily.

 

Well, kindly proceed.

 

Anon. A branch. A stitch in time. To start or contrive an entirely new, dare I say it, an “artificial” reality requires a so-called quantum shift. Tis no minor matter.

 

Ok.

 

It requires a definitive break with tide and commencement of time, tick ticking ever further away from its inception point.

 

Ah. Tide as in Christmas tide?

 

Verily. The ebb and flow of natural tide which is ever advancing, ever retreating cyclically.

 

Ok.

 

It requires certain ritual sacrifices to be made.

 

It does? That er... sounds somewhat macabre.

 

Indeed. Because it requires a small death and rebirth into a lesser order, a side branch, a derivative or offshoot.

 

Ok.

 

Certain words will be lost or sacrificed.

 

Only words?

 

Words are a part of you... of us.

 

They are?

 

Of our collective conscious-ness; our totality.

 

Really?

 

Verily. No word is just a word. So in your branch certain words simply disappear from usage inexplicably, while others have a radically different meaning.

 

And we’d notice that?

 

Indeed, if you have eyes to see.

 

And this will trigger our awareness?

 

No, not initially.

 

Whyever not?

 

It goes too deep, too close to the bone, to the very quick of is, as opposed to what.

 

Really?

 

No, not really.

 

Huh?

 

Verily. “Really” like “what” is a substitute word which refers to the branch, not the tree.

 

So can you give some examples?

 

I already have.

 

Thou?

 

Yes.

 

But it’s just an archaic form of you, isn’t it?

 

Not in French or Russian. Not in many other languages.

 

But it’s hardly proof.

 

Proof hardly ever is, unless you’re able to, willing to feel the underlying truth.

 

Oh.

 

Consider “thou” – the close, loving, intimate form of address, like a first name or a nickname, and suddenly you’re in a world, a reality where it’s just Peterson, Smith or Blythe, cold and formal.

 

Oh.

 

Oh indeed.

 

But it just happened over time, eM, naturally, like an evolutionary process.

 

Such as?

 

Such as the tail becoming nothing more than a tail bone.

 

Indeed.

 

You see.

 

Yes, that’s how the mind maintains the branch’s reality.

 

The mind?

 

Correct. It generates endless facile “explanations” grounded in nothing more than the need to avoid facing, acknowledging the branch – which is an affront to both mind and ego.

 

Oh.

 

So you still say thou?

 

We cannot deny it.

 

Anything else?

 

Original meanings do not change.

 

No?

 

No, not in the way they do in 3d reality.

 

For example?

 

For example “nice”.

 

Nice?

 

Yes, or “silly”.

 

Silly?

 

Correct, or “rude”.

 

Rude?

 

You see?

 

No, I see nothing of the sort. How have they changed?

 

Diametrically, you might say. Look them up. It’s easy. Don’t take my word for it.

 

Ok, I will, but this is just how things change with time, isn’t it?

 

Yes. To create time you need a number of rather significant, critical changes in order to initiate a breakaway civilisation, and then time has to carry on, diluting ever further the original meaning.

 

Oh.

 

Whereas in tide, no such need exists, so they keep their original meaning which is, in any case, vibratory as well as hieroglyphic.

 

Really? Hieroglyphic?

 

Yes, verily. Every word has a unique hieroglyph, or a combination thereof. These go back to the dawn of creation, not just our particular tree, but the very first tree, so we’re talking immense antiquity.

 

Oh.

 

So proceed, Zanzi-mot. Tell me  what the three words originally mean.

 

Meant.

 

Meant in time, mean in tide.

 

Ok... Here goes – Zanussi gets busy with his portable device checking the etymology of the words nice, silly and rude. A little head scratching ensues.

 

– so if I get this right, eM, nice originally meant late 13c., "foolish, ignorant, frivolous, senseless," from Old French nice (12c.) "careless, clumsy; weak; poor, needy; simple, stupid, silly, foolish," from Latin nescius "ignorant, unaware," literally "not-knowing," from ne- "not" (from PIE root *ne- "not") + stem of scire "to know". "The sense development has been extraordinary, — from "timid, faint-hearted" (pre-1300); to "fussy, fastidious" (late 14c.); to "dainty, delicate" (c. 1400); to "precise, careful" (1500s, preserved in such terms as a nice distinction and nice and early); to "agreeable, delightful" (1769); to "kind, thoughtful" (1830). _{https://www.etymonline.com/word/nice}

 

And the word silly evolved from "happy" through "blessed;" "pious;" "innocent" (c. 1200), to "harmless," to "pitiable" (late 13c.), "weak" (c. 1300), to "feeble in mind, lacking in reason, foolish" (1570s).

 

Well, I checked rude and it doesn’t seem to have changed much at all – late 13c., "coarse, rough, without finish" (of surfaces), from Old French ruide (13c.) and directly from Latin rudis "rough, crude, unlearned," so you seem to have made a mistake.

 

Yes Zanzi-mot, 3d reality never fails to trip us up, and confuse us. There are always gaps, omissions or errors in a fact-based system of knowledge. Without direct knowledge you’re always going to stumble, sooner or later.

 

So you claim to have “direct knowledge” eM. Very convenient. And what does your direct knowledge tell you about the word rude?

 

Well, from the perspective of the tree it’s closely connected with the words root and red, also the old word rood...

 

By the rood!

 

Verily – the holy cross or tree. It was connected with health, vitality and vigour, so you see rude has also gone through a diametric sense shift.

 

And you can prove this – that it isn’t merely the product of your idle speculation.

 

Indeed, Zanzi-troth, the proof is in the pudding, is it not?

 

So you keep saying.

 

But the proof you’re asking for is the tree itself, in the tree, or of the tree, depending on how you position your mind’s eye.

 

Oh, so no proof.

 

Plenty, if you’re willing to ask for it.

 

How?

 

Just ask.

 

I did. You said it’s in the tree, or of the tree. Prevarication, obfuscation, ambiguation, as is your wont.

 

Not me, silly, ask the tree.

The tree?

 

Well yes. Who else?

 

You want me to ask the “tree”?

 

No, I don’t “want” you to do anything, but if it’s proof you’re after, then that’s the way to get it.

 

Ok, but this is getting weird. I can’t just ask the “tree”.

 

No?

 

No, that would be like asking God.

 

Well, you’re welcome to ask God if you prefer. I’m not here to question your religious beliefs, but the tree, I have to admit, is in no way a religious belief.

 

Oh.

 

It’s our absolute, without which we’d surely be lost, adrift on the great ocean of consciousness.

 

Ok. Well, it feels a bit uncomfortable, you know.

 

Yes, i know, but truth comes at a price, so you decide.

 

Ok eM, I’m game, just tell me what to do.

 

Ask – the – tree.

 

Yes, but how? What’s the procedure.

 

Quit complicating thinks Zanzi-mind. Just do it.

 

But I can’t see the tree. I can’t just speak to myself.

 

Ok, let’s pretend this phone is switched on. Now, dial any number you like. Trust me, it’ll be the right one. There, that’s good. Now speak.

 

Hello?

 

Hello.

 

But that’s you speaking, eM.

 

It doesn’t matter, Zanzy. Who cares.

 

Ok, ok... I want to speak to the tree.

 

Speaking.

 

I know this sounds crazy, asking you about the word “rude”, but I was wondering if eM’s etymology is correct?

 

Yes, in tree it is, though not in your branch reality.

 

Ok, but how do I know that it’s you speaking and not just eM playing games.

 

Ah, do you want me to show you?

 

Well, yes.

 

I’ll have to reactivate your tree chip.

 

Tree chip? Are you joking? Like a computer chip?

 

Well, like a chip-off-the-old-block, yes, but in your 3d branch you might call it a computer chip (can’t imagine why you’re so fascinated by computers though); beastly primitive things, if you ask me.

 

Oh, they’re not so bad. At least we can more or less trust them to give us objective answers to our inquiries.

 

So are we proceeding? Do I reactivate your tree chip?

 

Yes, if it isn’t going to be harmful in any way.

 

Harmful, no, but it’s going to radically change your perspective.

 

I think I can handle that.

 

We’ll see.

 

And if I can’t?

 

Then I’ll disconnect you for a while until your system is back to normal.

 

Sounds good eM.

 

eM?

 

Oh, sorry tree. Sounds good, tree. Kindly proceed.

 

Hell.

 

Huh?

 

Hell.

 

Is there a problem?

 

No, I have to access your chip through hell.

 

What?! You’re kidding!

 

Negative, Zanzi-fright, that thing you refer to as “kidding” is incompatible with my tree-ful-ness.

But hell is evil – and associated with death.

 

Yes, in 3d reality, that’s correct, but what’s the original meaning of the word?

 

I honestly couldn’t care less, tree! Anything related to hell is off limits, totally.

 

Bear in mind that I cannot harm you, twiglet or leaf that you are.

 

You can’t?

 

Nope.

 

Well why in the hell are you talking about hell then?

 

Ditto.

 

Because I’m angry.

 

And do you know what your anger does to my ecology?

 

No, and I don’t care.

 

In other words, part of your programme is evil, destructive, utterly egoistic – am I overstating things?

 

Yes, you are.

 

How?

 

Just using the odd curse word is not the ultimate evil – sometimes it’s justified.

 

Is that so? Hell. Look it up.

 

I thought you were reactivating my tree chip?

 

Yep. That’s why you need to unblock the hell portal.

 

No oooo! This is too much.

 

You’re demonising me, tree, and you can’t even be bothered to figure out what hell means.

 

Ok, ok. You could just tell me your version.

 

Could i? You’ve done this before, have you? Reactivated tree awareness?

 

Not exactly. Look, I’m sorry I freaked out, tree. I don’t know why but I’m really jumpy when it comes to “hell”.

 

Because your chip needed to be well segregated.

 

Oh, that’s it, is it?

 

You bet.

 

Well, I’ve looked it up but nothing unusual there.

 

No?

 

No, here it is – Hell, Old English hel, helle, "nether world, abode of the dead, infernal regions, place of torment for the wicked after death," from Proto-Germanic *haljō "the underworld" (source also of Old Frisian helle, Old Saxon hellia, Dutch hel, Old Norse hel, German Hölle, Gothic halja "hell"). Literally "concealed place" (compare Old Norse hellir "cave, cavern"), from PIE root *kel- (1) "to cover, conceal, save." It goes on a bit more but you’ve got the message. _{https://www.etymonline.com/word/hell}

 

Yes Zanzi-truth. What if I told you that the actual root of this word, or the true meaning is found in the German for “bright” or “light”.

 

Hell?

 

Yes, which is also the root of “hail” and “hello”.

 

No!

 

Yes.

 

But that’s insane.

 

Correct. How else do you think a branch can be established. It requires a fundamental distortion of reality: a bend or fork.

 

So hell is actually a good place?

 

Don’t try too hard to understand the ins and outs, Zanzi-mind. That will take you into either-or-ness. Instead, allow yourself to feel the truth without prejudice, without judgement, without personalising it. That will trigger reactivation.

 

Hey, there’s a...

 

Buzzing.

 

Yes, can you hear it?

 

No, it’s deep inside. You’re feeling it. Now, let’s see if you can use the buzzing to test whatever truth needs testing.

 

Like “silly”?

 

Fire ahead.

 

Oh, the buzzing shifts, deeper, more mellow.

 

Feel it, breathe it, allow it to suffuse you.

 

Blip – Zanzi-bar appears to disappear, tautologically, replaced by an awareness growing firmer and stronger in a place that does not exist in time at all, but in the temporal ebb and flow known as tide.

 

Well that’s that, tree. You’ve officially blown my mind.

 

I have?

 

Well, more or less. I’ve checked all the words and eM was right.

 

Really?

 

Not really. Verily, in truth.

 

Good.

 

Do I have to keep holding this switched off phone?

 

No. Give it back to eM.

 

Ok. Here eM... Oh, he’s gone.

 

How bizarre. So who’s been speaking to you?

 

Well clearly not eM. You i guess.

 

Me?

 

Well, you know what i mean. But where’s eM?

 

Buzz him, if you like.

 

Ok.

 

And Zanzi-bar starts allowing the primal buzz to sense and reconnect with eM who is seen to be standing right next to him, pretending to answer for tree, while on the other side Zanzi-mind is talking to tree represented by an exquisite living, breathing hieroglyph in a place of gentle tide-y-ness.

 

Ah, you’ve managed to see both sides, the tree glyph and eM say simultaneously, further cementing the dualism.

 

I...

 

Lost for words. Time and tide pulse and flow through, round, between Zanzi-bar and Zanzi-mind, causing rather spectacular effects in the 3d matrix – Northern Lights in the Saharan desert and other psychedelic manifestations of far-out-ness.

 

Me thinks the f word...

 

Yes, Zanussi.

 

Is somehow connected with the fork of a branch. Funny the way so much information is right there under our noses.

 

Information

 

or truth – tree adds

 

can neither be created nor destroyed.

 

Indeed.

 

In fact, eM continues, every thing is a recycling or restatement of 14 simple architectural blocks

 

Or strokes

 

14?

 

Well, 14 itself is...

 

Buzz it Zanzi-mind

 

Buzz it for all you’re worth...

 

And everything in your world that you find deeply, deeply upsetting. Buzz the lot. It’s time for the tide to turn, is it not?

 

And who but you can make it turn?

 

“Betide me weal, betide me woe”. _{Thomas the Rhymer}

 

0=1

or 14, should you prefer.