When the Life (botany) morphed into a mobile form from a centered and rooted orientation, the whole paradigm of and for existence changed. Or should I say expanded so to have consumers/cannibals to defecate/excrete the fertilizing (or toxic) elements for a regeneration (or degeneration) from the imperceptible rooted consciousness to a more consumptive sensory one.

It became the difference from an inherent symbiotic dynamic of logic to an aggressing, competitive dynamic with it thought-paradigm horizons.

 

So.. I read that through a couple of times to make sure I got the gist of it, and it's obvious that the most important aspect of the whole rambling mess is that plants can just get up and wander around now

 

I disagree that botanics became cannibals based on the idea that their innate nature is to seek nourishment to sustain even basic life yet I do not believe that their source was decidedly of plant based matter but instead from a microbiological enzymic life form that utilized the botanical fade of the past to feed and what resulted was the same basic system that humans and all animals use today and rely on for mere sustenance. We require certain items to remain alive but to have those items it requires the passing of other living beings be they mammal or botanical or even a fungi, protist, archea, or bacteria and that is something that will never end. Currently in many nations they are using human waste to fertilize crops, and yes the US is included in that number, but does that force them into being labeled as a cannibal? Animals eat grasses and grains that are grown using the waste from their own kind, does that make them cannibals? Remember these life forms did not migrate so far on their own, they were taken there either by will or ignorance but the life form only knows their need to survive.

 

That is a lucid assertion of truth. I could not have put that better myself.

*sarcasm off*

 

I disagree also, plants consuming frogs, fly's and such has nothing to do with nourishment, ....they like the taste of meat!, ever see a plant eat a Brussels sprout?

 

Unlike and more importantly than what Joemahans say about Iowans-Idiots Out Wandering Around, the psychology of a plant without roots for its sustenance is the point of this raving.

 

I disagree with the OP's assertion. My understanding is that evolution went the other way around. Mobile botany morphed into immobile, rooted botany. Life on Earth started in the waters of the planet. The first plants were phytoplankton. They were the original mobile botany as they had no roots. They went where the waves sent them. After two or three billion years, botany (mosses) developed the ability to live on dry land.

Ironically, these first land plants had small, weak roots. I think these plants could 'unanchor' or 'uproot' themselves and let the wind blow them to different, hopefully better, land on which they could 'lay down roots'.

 

Eat shit repeat, the spaces in between the words, are the questions of the deepest meaning, black matter, evolution, God, and it is there for the asking. Answers are a dime a dozen, all arguably true, and as real as the person repeating the rhetoric. Some where between the eat shit repeat.
Don't think on it to hard, don't want to miss lunch.

 

My existence in the spaces have been my incidental reality. Realizing that reality and its various dimensions over time has made me more and more comfortable with the topography of the terrain that presents these patterns of speculation that I troll here more for the declaration of affirmation awaiting the metaphysical I-Ching response of inspiration/motivation by the confluence of consequences that will be the propulsion for me, who's no longer the chattel of temporal thinking of contemporaries

 

'Shy Guy's and "Val's"meme indirectly point out the case I'm making w/the opposite characterizations. Anthropomorphic depictions use hominid aggressive behavioral motivations that are a projection of Euro-American historical interactions with aboriginal peoples around the world.

Go outside tonight or during the day tomorrow and talk to a tree. Or even hug said tree. The sensations you get will be from the shared symbiosis with said tree. Botanical "psychology" would be different from kinetic oriented human psychology. Much as I noted in another trolling post here on the swing of energy at a homeostatic imperceptibility-plants. While manic human emotional swings come closer to your portrayals