There is a saying, describing a person who pays too much attention to detail, someone who misses the "big picture" in their pursuit of said details. They are "missing the forest for the trees."
Why trees? Why is it that the forest is missed simply because of the trees? Maybe the person is a birdwatcher? Or perhaps is more interested in the composition of the ground flora? Or maybe even interested in the soil composition, or maybe even the earthworms tending to the soil density? Perhaps an archeologist is looking for the signs of an ancient civilization? Perhaps someone is looking for a place to build that building they will eventually call "Home?" Or maybe we have a hunter looking to have some venison and a leather jacket?
There are many people who pay too much attention to the aggregate that they do not pay enough attention to the individual. Why is it that the trees are not important, but the forest is? And why are the trees more important than any other part of a completely healthy forest?
Even so, why should the trees be missed? Why miss the massive oak, the delicate willow, or the symmetrical pine, just because they aren't the aggregate? Aren't the individuals just as important as the aggregate they make up? Would a forest still be a forest without the trees?
Come to think of it, that saying kind of... misses the trees for the forest.
No comments:
Post a Comment