It is harder to justify putting this collection here than the other four as there is really not much about trees in the notes, nor do I find trees all that interesting, but I did like the idea of putting together side by side the twig and leaf things, and the term tree appears in the notes seemingly quite a bit. Thus, I figured it would be interesting to put all the tree references together. Not as good as the All Good Things collection, nor as focused as the Growth one, the first two pruning (sorry) down of the notes into more coherent collections, but still very tree-ish.
 

Tree of life- its roots surround its reality (from outside of it) coming    equally from the future, the past, and all points in-between. 

Whole process of tree, not its existence at any one point in time 

The leaf example: Each person is like a leaf on a tree, connected to the life of the tree in some way we cannot see or understand, living by and for the benefit of the tree that spawned us and we are never separate from it. Others are other leaves we are connected to by or looking backward in a direction we cannot see into the branches and roots which connect us still. Now imagine each of the leaves contains a seed of which a new tree can grow. Even the leaves after leaving the tree growing into their own trees which will spawn other leaves and other trees, each of these leave/seeds is still connected to their (originating) trees when observed through an angle we call time. No matter how separated you can imagine them (eventually) becoming, from another angle they are always connected and as one.

There are no such things as objects. There are only relationships. Between what is the question. Space within space, twisting around and through itself and through time like a really twisted up oak tree, but what is the tree if all we can know are the branches, and the branches only connect to each other and only exist where they brush up against each other, who can say? 

On one hand I can seem wise and mature while on another at the same time simplistic, very immature with an outlook that is constantly new and different, always changing and evolving. Taoists and Buddhists would understand this (seeming contrast in polar notions of maturity) as the same thing and do not see a contradiction in it. Western thinking has no map or guidebook for such notions. Their thinking is more one dimensional, thinking wisdom is found in a line of gaining knowledge and giving up what makes life fun and worth living to gain it, a straightjacket of behaving according to well defined patterns in tandem with others is how to grow up. That is how to grow old, not up. Age is not wisdom. Holding to beliefs of any type is not wisdom. Spinning them always on their head or viewing the world upside down, not because you will see it from a new perspective and thus further your goals and accumulate knowledge, but simply because doing so is more fun, makes life more interesting, unpredictable, and that is where wisdom lives. Those who hold to knowledge gain a ground or a "how to be" and "where" to view life from, but stand too long there and that ground or spot will grab you like vines, turn you into a tree unable or unwilling (same thing) to move from that spot for the rest of what will pass for the remainder of your "life". 

What is more intelligent, the average human or the average tree? Hint: the average tree is never wrong or mistaken about anything. Guess which way humans approach 100%. 

Relational views (apply) to science as well as philosophy. People pick a branch which they think has more assurances to survive or more fruit to be picked from, and defend that branch because their lives works are invested in it as a subset of it. If the whole tree of this or that theory is uprooted, their contribution to a flawed or wrong theory, however insightful or elegant (their supporting works were), would be seen as a waste of time. This is why subjects and theories become entrenched and dogma, because those who live or are the majority (of a group of opinion) at any given present, want it to prevail no matter how often it needs to be patched up, for trading it in for a new model puts their lives works seemingly in the scrap pile with it. Personality cults and whose works are seen as good hitching posts to build onto, these are not only a way to survive in the present (not to be belittled as that is not always easy to do) but a way to gain some respect for you own life's work (as long as that other bigger more renowned theory or subject is held in favor). Yet all great deeds and theories and outlooks will fall eventually no matter how many people in one present swear to uphold them and frown on others looking outside it for any other reason than to justify or validate it, though they rarely will admit to putting it or seeing it that way. 

Born into a more advanced culture with a stable and just political system, how much could I have developed more? No matter what I achieve or do not, it would have been nice to know how I might have developed if freer to do so. You take the world and time you get and make the best of it you can, yet religion, greed, and power keep the best in the shadows where they know they are safest. (Taoist saying, tallest straightest trees first to be cut down, keep your head low to keep your head.) It would have been nice to have grown under ideal conditions without fear of myself or others as strong as others may be able to in the future if successful. 

One good thing that can be said for being human is that you are never a tree, though you are in fact, always a twig. If you think of how you start out as being a small stalk with a few leaves, as you grow your consciousness is always following a small branch which is you at that moment breaking off into smaller and smaller sub-branches, so you are always, at all presents, a little twig. You can imagine the whole tree, but you are never the whole tree. You can follow back mentally the path you took from the ground, your accomplishments which have grown wider, but they are not you anymore, you always were the twig you are. That line you (seemingly) came from (grew out of) is multiples of what was you compounded over time, though you are not the sum of all of them, and will be lucky to gain strength from all of those direct lines back to the ground and try to draw them together always in focus, and kid yourself into believing you are the sum of all of them when you are, in fact, a twig. More representative of you in a way is all the other twigs around you, those same smaller branches (alternate present times) not in a direct line back to the ground from where you are. These non-branches, the other possible yous, other (present) twigs, are more representative of you than the direct line which has now grown so fat it is nothing at all like what you were then, a twig closer to the ground. 
 

Though trees were mentioned in a lot of the poems, (River of Knowledge, A Spring Breeze, The Blackbird and the Dove, Cosmos, Branches, Montage, Mocha Moses, Can't you hear the music dance?, , Four-leafed Clovers, and Contemplating Freedom) this poem below this paragraph is the only one (except for Growth, forgot about that one) that was actually about trees, sort of, (actually its about societies killing their own people too, but still very tree-ish) from Towards Tomorrow (Part 2: Natural and Unnatural Selection).

     To each branch cut 
       the tree owes its shape 
      guided by the gardener 
        toward its intended state 

     For the health of the tree 
       the dead wood is stripped away 
      taking what could cause disease 
        and for the best it gives way 

     But the gardener seeks not 
       just the health of the tree
      he wishes it to fit a mold, 
        some ideal state he wants to be, 
       so he cuts away the living 
         growing, striving parts of the tree 
        guiding it to be not what it would otherwise become 
          but instead some butchered version more pleasing to see