"Point, Line and Plane. 
The point is the first thing that can be done. It is without dimension and is not in space. Without an inside or an outside, the point is the source for all that follows. It is represented as a small circular dot. 
The first dimension, the line, comes into being as the One emerges into two principles, active and passive. The point chooses somewhere 'outside' of itself, a direction. Separation has occurred and the line comes into being. A line has no thickness, and it is sometimes said that a line has no end.
Three 'ways' now became apparent.

1. With one end of the line stationary, or passive, the other is free to rotate and describe a circle, representing heaven.
2. The active point can move to a third position equidistant from the other two thus describing an equilateral triangle.
3. The line can produce another which moves away until distance are equal to form a square, representing Earth."

 From Sacred Geometry by Miranda Lundy - found by Kristina.

I got up well before dawn today and went to the shortest stream to move before starting vigorous doing with the strimmer at about 6. A completely unimaginable beginning of the day for someone who never got up before 10 if he could possibly help it.

I wondered where the satisfaction of being with, holding, pressing against, lying on a tree comes from. Does it arise from within me? It doesn't seem to. 

I moved all the time with the word and idea of satisfaction. Lots of thoughts:
the 'faction' is making, the 'satis' is enough.
making enough not making full.complete
making enough not made enough
making enough not given enough
making enough not getting enough
who is doing the making? surely I am? 

I half stood/half lay against/on one of the mossy trees and there arose such a strong and clear sense of satisfaction. 

The feeling arose but I was unclear where it began, where it came from. It was a response to the shape and texture and solidity and pressure offered by the tree, or offered by my pressing myself against the tree. But I couldn't say that the feeling was entirely mine. 

It was somehow caused in part by the tree and seemed to come into me, to arise between me and the tree as a sensation which I then experienced - as if it had a life of its own. And I couldn't exactly say that I received the feeling any more than I could say that I produced the feeling - it was partly active and partly passive. 

Then, thinking about satisfaction (which comes from the Latin 'to make [or do] enough', I was interested in the making or doing. What about receiving enough as well as doing enough? That would be satisception. Or being enough? That would be satisessence. 

Circumferences and rays: the two polar principles of the circle. On the left the morphological "egg cell principle", on the right the morphological "sperm cell principle"  
Van der Wal on:
THE ONE TO BE MET: THE MORPHODYNAMICS OF HUMAN SPERM CELLS

Unlike the solitary egg cell a sperm is never on its own. The production of sperm cells in the human testis is characterized by the production of enormous numbers of cells. On the other hand the process of oogenesis (i.e. the process of ripening and production of egg cells) is characterized by a tendency of diminishing and reducing in number. The facts will support this view. During the fetal phase of a female, at first millions of egg cells are produced by means of cell division. Next the number is reduced to about 2,000,000 cells at birth until about several hundred thousand remain at the beginning of the menstrual cycles (menarche). In every cycle however some ten to twenty egg cells may reach the final stage of ripening, but only one of them (very seldom two or three) is released (ovulation). The rest of the ripened cells disintegrate. So the whole process of egg cell production and ripening might be described as a converging tendency (gesture). On the contrary the male process (spermatogenesis) exhibits a diverging tendency: continuously enormous numbers of sperm cells are produced within the testis. Millions per day, thousand per second! This huge numbers are also functional. Very many sperm cells will be sacrificed in the process of overcoming a lot of anatomical, physiological and biochemical barriers, which a sperm has to face in order to finally make contact with an egg cell. The production of egg cells from the ovary is a process of titration (one by one), the production of sperm cells in a testis is massive and explosive. These features cope with the polarity of one and solitarily for the egg cell versus many and community for the sperm cells.

As to their shape the contrast between the two gametes is very strong. The egg cell could be described as purely spherically shaped. On the contrary the sperm cell, with its total length of about 60μ, with a diameter of the head of the cell of about 3 to 4μ (at the most) and a diameter of the so-called tail of not more than 1μ, should be characterized as a radial-shaped cell. In the sense of morphodynamics the polarity here is evident and impressive. The egg cell is a ball. Isn't the ball a form with (endlessly) many non-visible radiuses? The sperm cell on the opposite brings the principle of radius to appearance. Later on, prior to and during conception, many sperm cells will converge and focus on just one egg cell. Don't they bring in this way transcendentally (sinnlich-übersinnlich) a ball shape to appearance, with the sperm cells as visible rays of the sensorially perceivable manifestation of that ball? The sperm cells are making visible what is present in a non-visible way within the egg cell!

Describing the egg cell previously it has been argued that the spherical shape represents the spatial form with the least environmental contact that could be adapted to by a cell. It therefore represents par excellence the shape that fits to being brought into motion (being moved). On the other hand the radius-like shape represents the principle of motion and (self) mobility. The fact that the sperm cell is an actively moving organism (in opposition to an egg cell), is not actually surprising or unexpected for the dynamic morphological observer. It is the same flow of fluid within the ovarian tube by which the egg cell is being transported passively in the direction of the uterus, that offers to the sperm cell the resisting stream against which he can exhibit his potency to move.  At the same time the flow of fluid is directive and guiding for his movement.

The end of spermatogenesis is marked by the event of seemingly eliminating nearly all its cytoplasmatic content. This process therefore results in a cell with a cell membrane, a very small amount of cytoplasm and with merely a nucleus as its cellular content. The dynamics of a ripening egg cell may be characterized as one of enlargement, swelling and diverging, the formation of a sperm cell as a gesture of concentration and diminishing (loosing volume). Just like in the case of the egg cell and its being-large, the signature of being-small of the sperm cell represents a qualitative rather than a quantitative characteristic, and therefore represents a morphodynamic gesture.

The egg cell actively and metabolically relates to its physiological context, the sperm cell on the contrary does not exhibit any metabolic exchanges or interaction with its environment. Could the egg cell therefore be described as open and vulnerable and the complete opposite be true for the sperm cell? Apparently without any difficulty the sperm cell might undergo all kinds of mechanical and physical manipulations (maltreatments) – for example being centrifuged, being frozen to more the 60 degrees Celsius below zero – without any evident or notable damage. In terms of morphodynamic gesture the sperm cell may be characterized as a closed or non-open cell.

All this from Van der Wal again:
http://home.unet.nl/walembryo/econceptie.htm

I have become a tree hugger and realise the tenderness that emerges from the tiniest fluttering of my fingers against the mossy trunk. The fluttering is a reminder and a generator of tenderness.

This is the delicacy of interweaving - in smiling, I remember having been happy and engender happiness.

In fluttering, I remember tenderness and engender it.

This seems to connect to Van der Wal, quoted by Stephen Talbott:

Moreover, “when blood vessels first start to form, the heart does not yet exist . . . . early blood flow stimulates the development of the heart” (ibid., pp. 82–83). As we see everywhere in the world, fixed form not only shapes movement, but is first of all the result of movement. The human body is a formed stream. Thus, the spiraling fibers of the heart muscle that help to direct the blood in its flow are themselves a congealed image and consequence of the swirling vortex of blood within.

Oh, all that and sitting quietly with Nancy for almost an hour, watching the fire and looking out of the window at sheep, a farmer and a putative giraffe are as stilling and as softening as working with any client - and there is no catching - nothing whatsoever is required of me so long as she  seems to be content.

There is something about repeating the movement - to Wales, out to the wood, etc.

And there is something about having a commentary spoken on my movement, like Wallender.

Cwm Lwch - and I have rather ordinary realisation that trees grow up and apart, while rivers flow down and together. 
Production and reception.
Male and female.
Divergence and convergence.

So, one question I have for myself and my project is whether it's growing or flowing, diverging or converging. From one point of view it's obviously diverging - leaping from one stone to another in the stream. But then the sense of trajectory says something about a pattern,  a flow, a convergence.

And this all relates to my Open and Vulnerable post.

At Cwm Llwch, there is some question about the flow - the sense that my crystallisation has already begun and that its ending has already begun and that my letting go of how it felt has already begun - and that all this is a river, a flux and there isn't a precise 'here and now' in it. 

So that I wonder whether the idea of being present in the here and now is - in some senses - limiting in its exclusion of what has gone before and what is already emerging.

Is now-centred the temporal equivalent of self-centred?