Heresies 101: Trees don't have immune systems

Re: Heresies 101: Trees don\'t have immune systems

I typically say "seal" to describe codit, but look at the dictionary--"heal" also makes sense, in the bigger picture.

Wounds seal, but trees, and tree systems, can heal.

Anyway, is everyone comfortable with Dave's proposal of limiting the definition of terms to Shigo's usage? Or does the theory of evolution also apply to concepts?

How many arborists can dance on the head of a pin oak?
wink.gif
 
Re: Heresies 101: Trees don\'t have immune systems

Well I thought hard today about the WHY trees don't have an immune system and the BECAUSE.
It actually made me quit anxious with an accelarated heart rate.
DIctionary states that immunity is a trees special capacity to resist disease.

What is this special capacity?

Homeostasis. Simple enough? Is this the because?
 
Re: Heresies 101: Trees don\'t have immune systems

homeostasis a tendency towards a stable state of equilibrium between interrelated factors.[ QUOTE ]
Well I thought hard today about the WHY trees don't have an immune system and the BECAUSE.
It actually made me quit anxious with an accelarated heart rate.
DIctionary states that immunity is a trees special capacity to resist disease.

What is this special capacity?

Homeostasis. Simple enough? Is this the because?

[/ QUOTE ]
 
Re: Heresies 101: Trees don\'t have immune systems

Discussions can get bogged down by details. When that happens nothing happens.

When I think of what I consider a biological immune system it is one thing. I can't sit here and define what it is...maybe another time. Then I think of how plants work. The system is quite different. As different as heal and seal in my mind. In the end they do the same thing but the process is different.



[ QUOTE ]
homeostasis a tendency towards a stable state of equilibrium between interrelated factors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shigo spoke of dynamic equilibrium rather than the mythical balance of nature.
 
Re: Heresies 101: Trees don\'t have immune systems

[ QUOTE ]
Shigo spoke of dynamic equilibrium rather than the mythical balance of nature.

[/ QUOTE ]Dynamic, yeah,. always changing. That dichotomy has a modern equivalent: Claus Mattheck's Axiom of Uniform Stress undone, since Nature seems more stochastic/chaotic than his model could fit.

Like the heal/seal thing, it's in the POV. Look real close and the details get crazy. Step back and the big picture gets cloudy. Maybe the answer is to shift back and forth, like Schwarze focusing in on cell wall layers, then pulling back to the whole tree.

Another example: a crazy irishman at harvard who counseled us to turn on our awareness, tune into the details, then drop out to get the long view. Outside, looking in...No ergot required; it's all in the wrist.

wink.gif
 
Re: Heresies 101: Trees don\'t have immune systems

Outside looking in, inside looking out.
What is immunity looking out from within? Be the exact molecule, atom, quirk etc contributor/catalyst/stimulus etc to the reaction.Photosynthesis. Respiration. Immunity.
I would love to relive that dream.But I gave up on everything cept a strong cider.[ QUOTE ]
[Outside, looking in...No ergot required; it's all in the wrist.

wink.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
 
Re: Heresies 101: Trees don\'t have immune systems

[ QUOTE ]
I found 727,000 scholary articles by googling “plant immune system”. Shigo compared the human immune system to a tree’s “response system” in Arboriculture in the 21st Century.

Bob, whatcha thinkin?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I've actually been thinking quite a lot, but haven't been able to do anything about it. Over the weekend, my fancy machine went off to digital Lala land and decided to forget its copy/paste functions. I never really noticed how much I use them, so that was the initial horror. Then my ISP went off on its own adventure and the recorded telephone message I got said ATT was upgrading its system.

On Saturday evening after working with the tech lady in the Philippines, I stayed up all night trying to assemble my bits and bytes so I could get back to this thread. Sunday wasn't any better with Da Bear's game el al, so I was incredibly surprised and pleased at what I finally saw was written in my absence. (Spare me the comments: “That's what we've been trying to tell you Wulky, we do a lot better without ya.”)

So let me begin by sincerely complimenting everybody who sent in their posts and agreed to consider stretching their minds. It's all good, deep, soulful writing for the most part and a lot of it even mentions trees. What more could an arborists forum ask for?

My first post in this thread said I was writing a topic titled Some troubles with trees is just words. which was meant to explain how our choices of language and semantics, oftentimes kept us from new truths about trees and tree health. There are many reasons why people read and write on this site and I'm sure most expectations include learning, along with teaching by shared experience.

In that other thread I intended to caution us that our discussions could lead to many new ideas and practices, but discussions also do very well at maintaining misinformation. Yup, that's me complaining again about dogma, lazy language, and our probably ever-present concerns about how others view us.

Here I'm going to try to “bang the few answers together,” mostly because the views and comments are very well written, but even more importantly, I'd like people to note the common themes they are presenting. I think it's quite remarkable and I'm not sure that Tubs here and his limping machine can match the eloquence of a lot of what had been written.

I'll be back in a little bit…


Wulkowicz
jiggy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom