By Joe Cozart
Perhaps nowhere is this confusion between naming and knowing more easily concealed than in the ordinary things surrounding us. Extraordinary phenomena announce their mystery. A black hole appears mysterious because it violates ordinary intuition. Consciousness appears mysterious because no one can adequately explain how subjective experience arises. The beginning of the universe appears mysterious because explanation eventually approaches conditions beyond which our existing models become uncertain. Yet a tree does not appear mysterious. We know what a tree is.
Or rather, we know what to call it.
The distinction seems trivial until one stands before an actual tree and attempts to answer the question without using the word. What is this thing? We can classify it. We can identify its species, describe its anatomy, analyze its DNA, explain photosynthesis, trace the movement of water through its vascular system, measure the carbon it stores, examine the microorganisms surrounding its roots, reconstruct its evolutionary ancestry, estimate its age, calculate its economic value, and determine how much lumber it might produce. We can know more about a tree than any civilization before us could have imagined knowing and still encounter an unexpectedly difficult question.
What is it?
The scientific answer can become increasingly precise without necessarily exhausting the question. A tree is a multicellular organism belonging to particular botanical classifications, but classification tells us where we have placed it among other things. It possesses roots, trunk, branches, leaves or needles, vascular tissue, cells, genes, chemical processes, and complex relationships with its environment, but description tells us how the thing is organized. Evolution explains how organisms possessing these characteristics emerged through immense periods of variation and selection, but historical explanation tells us how one arrangement developed from earlier arrangements.
Each answer is valuable.
Each reveals another square.
Yet the original thing remains standing there.
This is not a criticism of science. It is almost the opposite. Science has allowed us to move astonishingly close to the tree, revealing structures and processes invisible to ordinary perception. The danger arises only when the precision of description creates the impression that description and ultimate explanation are the same achievement.
We know how the tree works with extraordinary sophistication.
That does not necessarily mean we know why there is such a thing as a tree.
The word why immediately creates difficulty because it can ask several different questions while pretending to ask only one. Why does the tree grow toward light? Biology can answer. Why does it possess particular characteristics? Evolution can answer. Why is this species found here rather than elsewhere? Ecology, climate, geology, and history may answer. Why was this particular tree planted beside this particular road? Perhaps a city planner can answer.
But continue asking why.
Why does life exist?
Why does matter permit life?
Why do the physical laws of the universe allow atoms to form molecules capable of producing chemistry sufficiently complex to become biology?
Why does biology produce organisms capable of surviving for hundreds or sometimes thousands of years?
Why is there a universe in which any of this can happen?
At some point the answers change character.
The mechanisms remain increasingly describable while the underlying existence of the mechanisms becomes more mysterious.
This may be one of the strangest features of knowledge.
The farther inward we travel, the more sophisticated the explanation becomes, yet the oldest question survives.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
The tree has been standing inside that question all along.
We simply stopped noticing because someone taught us its name.
Perhaps naming is one of consciousness’s most useful forms of cognitive compression. The child encounters an astonishing vertical organism emerging from the ground, covered in thousands of structures converting sunlight into chemical energy, moving water upward without a mechanical pump, exchanging gases with the atmosphere, communicating chemically through networks involving fungi and other organisms, responding to seasons, repairing injuries, reproducing, adapting, and sometimes remaining alive across generations of human beings.
The child asks what it is.
Tree, we say.
Mystery resolved.
The word performs a small magic trick.
Nothing about the object has become less mysterious.
Only our uncertainty has acquired a label.
Once labeled, the thing becomes familiar.
Once familiar, it becomes ordinary.
Once ordinary, inquiry moves elsewhere.
Perhaps familiarity is partly linguistic.
We stop seeing because we recognize.
Recognition is efficient. A mind that treated every tree as an unprecedented metaphysical event would have difficulty crossing a forest before dark. Evolution presumably rewarded organisms capable of categorizing quickly: food, danger, shelter, mate, stranger, predator, tree. Recognition allows action without requiring complete understanding.
But the same efficiency that helps us survive may conceal reality from us.
The brain says tree and moves on.
The Observer says wait.
What did we just move past?
This may be one of the simplest acts of cognitive distance available to consciousness: to encounter something familiar and temporarily remove its name.
Imagine standing before a tree without the word tree.
Not pretending ignorance of botany.
Not romanticizing nature.
Simply suspending the category long enough to see what recognition normally conceals.
There is a living structure emerging from soil, built largely from carbon drawn indirectly from the atmosphere, organized according to information encoded within molecules, powered by radiation arriving from a star approximately ninety-three million miles away, participating continuously in exchanges with an environment containing organisms above and below the threshold of human perception.
Some of its atoms were forged in ancient stars.
Some of its water may contain molecules older than the tree, older than humanity, perhaps older than the planet in their constituent histories.
It has no brain as we understand brains.
Yet it responds.
It adapts.
It repairs.
It competes.
It cooperates.
It records seasons physically in its growth.
It may outlive everyone who has ever touched it.
Call it a tree again and the astonishment contracts.
The word is useful.
The word is also small.
Reality is larger than its nouns.
This may be true of almost everything.
We say ocean and compress an incomprehensible moving planetary system into five letters.
We say brain and compress roughly eighty-six billion neurons and their staggering networks of interaction into one syllable.
We say time as though naming it explains why events appear to occur sequentially.
We say gravity as though giving the phenomenon a name tells us why mass and spacetime behave as they do.
We say consciousness while remaining unable to explain why there is something it is like to be conscious at all.
We say universe.
Perhaps no word demonstrates the problem more perfectly.
Universe.
One word for everything.
The compression is almost comic.
All observable matter and energy, every galaxy, every star, every planet, every field, every event, every distance, every moment of cosmic history accessible to us, every living organism, every thought ever thought, every civilization that may exist anywhere, every black hole, every unexplained phenomenon, every known law of physics, and everything we do not yet know enough to know we do not know.
Universe.
Eight letters and we feel strangely organized.
Language must do this because without compression thought would be impossible. But cognitive distance requires remembering that compression occurred.
The map is not the territory.
The word is not the thing.
The explanation is not necessarily the reason.
And recognition is not understanding.
Perhaps this is why the tree matters.
The tree is ordinary enough to expose the illusion.
If we began with a black hole, mystery would already be expected. If we began with consciousness, uncertainty would be admitted. If we began with the origin of the universe, everyone would agree that profound questions remain.
But a tree?
We know what that is.
Until we ask.
The question of who made the tree introduces another difficulty because the grammar itself smuggles an assumption into the inquiry. Who presumes a someone. To ask who made the tree is already to imagine agency somewhere behind its existence.
Science properly refuses to insert an agent merely because ultimate explanation remains incomplete.
Evolution explains the emergence of trees without requiring a separate act of manufacture for each organism. Seeds produce trees through biological processes inherited across evolutionary time. No carpenter assembles the trunk overnight.
Yet explaining how the tree came from previous life does not answer why there is life.
The questions are different.
This distinction may be one of the places where opposing worldviews repeatedly fail to see that they are standing at different distances.
One person asks how.
Another asks why.
One describes mechanism.
Another seeks origin or purpose.
Each believes the other has failed to answer the question.
Perhaps neither has noticed that they are not asking the same question.
The scientist says evolution.
The believer says creation.
The argument begins.
Cognitive distance moves backward.
Evolution describes a process through which biological forms change and emerge across time.
Creation proposes an ultimate source or agency behind existence.
These propositions can certainly conflict when either makes specific claims about the mechanisms or history of life.
But at the largest scale, mechanism and ultimate origin are not automatically the same category of question.
To explain how rain forms does not establish why there is a universe containing water.
To explain how stars form does not establish why there are physical laws permitting stars.
To explain how trees evolved does not establish why existence contains anything capable of evolving.
The mistake is not in answering.
The mistake may be in believing one answer necessarily exhausts every distance from which the question can be asked.
This returns us to the truth neither side possesses.
Not a compromise.
Not an attempt to make incompatible claims artificially compatible.
A change of scale.
Perhaps the argument everyone is having occupies only one region of a much larger board.
The Observer asks what both sides assume before the disagreement begins.
Both assume there is something here to explain.
That may be the greater mystery.
The tree exists.
Before biology.
Before theology.
Before philosophy.
Before language.
Before the argument.
There it is.
Something rather than nothing.
Perhaps we move too quickly past this fact because existence itself has become familiar.
Everything exists, so existence appears ordinary.
Yet if there had been nothing, there would have been no one to find nothing strange.
Instead there is something.
Not merely something.
There are stars.
Planets.
Water.
Carbon.
Life.
Trees.
Consciousness.
Memory.
Language.
Observers.
And somewhere on one small planet, one arrangement of conscious matter stands beneath another arrangement of living matter and says tree.
Then cuts it down.
The act introduces another layer because the tree changes meaning according to relationship.
To the logger, timber.
To the builder, lumber.
To the economist, inventory.
To the ecologist, habitat.
To the atmosphere, part of a carbon cycle.
To the bird, perhaps home.
To the fungus beneath the soil, partner or resource.
To the person sitting beneath it, shade.
To someone returning to a childhood yard decades later, memory.
To a family who planted one beside a grave, something language may not adequately contain.
Which one is the tree?
All of these descriptions concern the same organism.
None exhausts it.
Meaning changes with the Observer.
This does not mean the physical tree is created by perspective. The organism does not disappear when no human is looking at it. But the meanings surrounding it arise through relationships.
Timber is not a property contained inside the tree in the same way cellulose is.
Timber is what the tree becomes inside a human system of use.
Sacred is not located in the bark.
Sacred emerges through relationship.
Property does not grow in the rings.
A legal system places ownership around the organism.
Value changes with distance.
The tree does not know its market price.
At least we have no reason to think it does.
This should make us curious about how much of what we call reality consists of physical things and how much consists of meanings consciousness has placed around them.
A forest becomes real estate.
A river becomes a border.
A mineral becomes a strategic resource.
A piece of paper becomes currency.
A sequence of sounds becomes a national anthem.
An arrangement of fabric becomes a flag for which people will die.
The physical object remains one thing.
Human meaning constructs another.
Both produce real consequences.
Perhaps civilization itself exists largely in this second layer.
We live among matter wrapped in meaning.
Language does much of the wrapping.
Then generations inherit the package and forget it was wrapped.
Cognitive distance begins unwrapping.
Not to destroy meaning.
To see where meaning came from.
The Observer asks which qualities belong to the thing, which belong to the relationship, which belong to the culture, which belong to history, and which have become so entangled that separating them may no longer be useful.
The tree returns.
Before anyone named it, owned it, priced it, worshipped it, studied it, protected it, harvested it, or remembered someone beneath it, something was already growing.
What was it then?
Tree is our answer.
The thing itself never told us.
Perhaps this is the humility language ultimately requires.
Reality does not arrive with labels.
We supply them.
The labels are extraordinarily powerful.
They allow knowledge to accumulate, civilization to coordinate, memory to travel, science to classify, law to function, and one consciousness to place an idea inside another consciousness centuries later.
But the label remains ours.
The thing remains what it is.
And perhaps we do not always know what that means.
The same may be true of ourselves.
Human.
Person.
Self.
Consciousness.
Observer.
Names.
Useful names.
Perhaps indispensable names.
But names nonetheless.
What is the thing beneath them?
We return to the original mystery from the opposite direction.
The Observer has spent the entire inquiry attempting to gain distance from what he observes.
Now language asks him to gain distance from the name he has given himself.
Remove Observer.
Remove self.
Remove consciousness.
Remove human.
What remains?
Something is here.
Something is experiencing.
Something is asking.
We can describe mechanisms.
We can trace evolution.
We can map neural activity.
We can name increasingly precise structures.
But eventually the tree is standing before us again.
We know what to call it.
We know astonishing amounts about what it is made of.
We know much about how it came to be.
And still, beneath all the names and explanations, there remains the strange fact that it is here at all.
Perhaps the deepest cognitive distance is not achieved by moving farther into the universe.
Perhaps it occurs when we stand before the most ordinary thing imaginable and suddenly realize we have never actually seen it without its name.
A tree.
Then, for one moment, not a tree.
Just the mystery that was there before the word.
——— GMJoe™ ———
Clarity. Strategy. Sovereignty.
Books by Joe Cozart are available at: amazon.com/author/joecozart
GMJoe.org