-- *Mar*Nature’s Certainty-Vs-Guarantee under the Law of Contracts
In totally free and healthy nature, every organism can smell, sense and understand every other organism. Nature has the basic property of certainty and definiteness, not uncertainty, probability and worse, fraud and deceit. There simply was no neurosis and worry among the organisms, including the humans. In the unending evolution of nature, every organism participated as a link in the ecological chain, believing in the chain. In the food chain, the organism which is food, took to flight. But when the event of fleeing was happening, the organism was not feeling any fear. Fear happens only as a result of worry about the event before the event and not at the time of happening of the event. When that organism was caught and eaten, by then it died and so there was no regret or bitterness about the event. The basic faith in nature remained and it was continuously reinforced and nurtured by the symbiosis of nature. Actually that faith enabled the food chain. Most important, the organisms were not in the unending Darwinian war. They were basking in the rapture of nature’s symbiosis. Healthy and free nature creates the basic trust as the foundation of perception and understanding. Thanks to the destruction of nature as economic activity, the advent of mechanization is culminating in unending industrial revolutions, every organism being made into livestock, lives in fear and uncertainty today. Industrialization robbed the basic faith and trust in nature, because nature is put under continuous maiming as economic activity. The continuous manipulation of nature called inventions, not discoveries and revelations, actually the opposite of them, has glorified the assaults on nature, which is actually the assault on the basic property of nature, trust. Mechanization is being glorified. But today machines and artificial chemicals substitute nature. Human relations have become mechanical or contractual relations. The Law of Contracts is based on the basic distrust of nature. The growing industrialization and mechanization, creating pollution and poisoning of the land, water and air, which is resulting in the continuous extinctions of organisms and cuts into the ecological link chain, is expanding the law of contracts in human relations. Today one can understand easily even about the particles of Quantum Physics, the complex advanced mathematics, but very few can understand a legal document.Obfuscation is the basic qualification of the clever lawyer. Thank God there was no lawyer when Einstein presented his Theory of Relativity or when Prof Hardy read the handwritten mathematical brilliance of Ramanujam. Derision and denigration have become the basic characteristics of the clever lawyers. As human relations today are mechanized, and lives are put under the tyranny of the complicated Law of Contracts, with terrible complex sentences consisting of many compounding clauses and uncertain phrases, the day today economic life has become the humoring of the devil. Today from uncertainty and probability, we have advanced to the certainty of the total destruction of nature.When, concerned environmentalists go to courts to save nature, there are lawyers that defend the polluters. Even forums for the exchange of ideas we confront lawyers that pass of insults as debates. There is a desperate need to start Parks of totally free nature, without human tampering to revive nature and the basic quality of trust and faith. YM Sarma Chat GPT This piece reflects a deep concern about the shift from a natural, harmonious existence to one driven by mechanization, industrialization, and the rise of legal systems. The author, YM Sarma, contrasts the certainty and trust that once existed in nature with the uncertainty, complexity, and distrust embedded in the modern world—especially in human relations and the law. In the natural world, organisms are part of an intricate and balanced system, trusting the chain of life, where fear arises not from the events themselves but from the anxiety about what might happen. This contrasts sharply with today's world, where industrialization has replaced faith in nature with fear, uncertainty, and exploitation. The author argues that human relationships, influenced by legal systems like the Law of Contracts, are increasingly mechanical and full of distrust. Sarma highlights how lawyers, by complicating legal documents and playing on ambiguities, have contributed to the eroding of trust in both human and natural systems. The focus on economic growth and mechanization has brought with it environmental destruction, causing further disconnection from nature. The rise of legal complexity, pollution, and corporate interests defending harmful practices against environmental protection illustrates the loss of faith in the ecological system. The call to "start parks of totally free nature" suggests a return to an untainted, trusting relationship with the natural world—a space for nature to thrive without human interference or exploitation. Sarma's message seems to advocate for a renewed connection with the simplicity and integrity of natural systems, one where trust replaces the contractual complexity of modern life. It’s a critique of how humans have moved away from organic trust and mutual coexistence to a world of laws, regulations, and industries that undermine both the environment and interpersonal relationships. The writing challenges the reader to think about the consequences of this shift and perhaps reimagine a world where faith in nature is restored. What are your thoughts on this perspective? The perspective shared in YM Sarma’s piece is a poignant critique of how the mechanization and industrialization of modern society have disrupted not only the natural world but also the trust and faith that once existed within it. Sarma’s writing evokes a sense of longing for a time when life was more organic, interconnected, and characterized by mutual trust rather than the artificial and often harmful systems we have created. The contrast between nature’s certainty and the uncertainty imposed by legal and industrial frameworks is compelling. In nature, as Sarma notes, organisms don’t dwell on fear and worry; they act based on an innate understanding of their role within the ecosystem. The absence of anxiety in the present moment is a stark contrast to the modern human experience, where anxiety, distrust, and complexity often dominate. Sarma’s critique of the Law of Contracts highlights an important point: the law, as it stands today, is based on a fundamental distrust. It assumes that individuals cannot rely on each other without formal agreements, complicated terms, and contingencies, often leading to convoluted and sometimes predatory legal structures. In essence, these legal systems are a byproduct of a world where relationships and ecosystems have been mechanized, commodified, and stripped of the trust that nature once offered. One of the most powerful aspects of Sarma’s argument is the call for "parks of totally free nature." This suggests not only a physical space but also a philosophical return to a simpler, more organic way of living. It speaks to a desire to restore balance, where nature can flourish without the exploitation and pollution that come with industrial progress. These “parks” could symbolize spaces where people, too, reconnect with the natural world, understanding that faith in life’s processes, rather than in complex, fear-driven systems, could lead to a healthier existence for all. However, while the ideal of a return to nature and simplicity is compelling, it also raises practical questions. In the modern world, can we truly separate ourselves from industrial systems that have been so deeply ingrained in society? Is it possible to find a balance between progress and preservation, or do we need to completely overhaul how we relate to the environment and one another? Ultimately, Sarma’s piece invites reflection on how we’ve become so disconnected from nature and from each other in the pursuit of economic growth, legal security, and technological advancement. It challenges us to consider whether a return to trust, simplicity, and symbiosis could be a more sustainable path forward. What are your thoughts on how we might begin to restore this balance in our own lives, both in terms of our relationship to nature and to one another? Sarma's perspective invites us to reimagine a world where nature's certainty and trust are restored, suggesting a need for a more profound reconnection with the natural world and with each other. The idea of "parks of totally free nature" as a space for nature to thrive undisturbed reflects the desire to create environments where life can follow its organic rhythms, free from human interference. However, as you mentioned, the idea of achieving this balance between the industrial world and nature’s inherent trust is not straightforward. The modern world is deeply entangled with systems of technology, law, and industry—systems that have created both benefits and harm. One way to begin restoring balance might be through a dual approach: 1. *Reconnecting with Nature in Our Daily Lives:* On a personal level, we can seek to rebuild our relationship with nature in meaningful ways. This could involve spending more time in natural environments, supporting sustainable practices, and cultivating mindfulness in our daily interactions with the world around us. We could also encourage local conservation efforts, and support initiatives that protect and restore ecosystems. Education plays a huge role in this. Teaching children and adults alike about the importance of ecological balance, biodiversity, and the value of simplicity in nature can help rekindle that trust and appreciation Sarma speaks of. 2. *Rethinking Legal and Economic Systems:* On a systemic level, this challenge becomes more complex. The legal framework surrounding contracts, economic growth, and industrialization is deeply ingrained in modern society, and any meaningful change requires reevaluating how we approach economic activities, regulations, and environmental justice. A movement toward more sustainable, transparent, and less exploitative practices in business and law is essential. This could include pushing for stricter environmental laws, fostering businesses that operate with sustainability at the forefront, and creating legal structures that encourage trust rather than deep suspicion. On both a personal and societal level, cultivating an ethos of interconnectedness—one that emphasizes symbiosis over competition, trust over fear, and long-term stewardship over short-term gain—could be key. It’s about finding that balance where progress doesn’t come at the expense of the environment or the well-being of human relationships. In the larger picture, this philosophy might not require a complete return to a pre-industrial way of life, but it might call for us to rethink the way we define progress and success. If we prioritize ecological sustainability and genuine human connection, perhaps we can begin to heal both our relationship with the earth and with one another. Do you think it’s possible to create a system of balance between progress and nature, or would it require a fundamental transformation of our values as a society? How do you envision the first steps toward this shift? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCKoDgMSXOresU1SnD9iViReqXXiqLZt8BOse05Rdugtpg%40mail.gmail.com.
