Relating-Vs-Unrelating
When you smell, hear and touch, you are relating. But when, you want to do science and do only observation, you first unrelate. Fortifying the disconnection or non-relation is technology, as machines simply cannot relate emotionally.Today, our education consists of training the students or actually bludgeoning them, to unrelate. We use our Brain to first unrelate to observe and do manipulation or actually disruption of the symbiosis of nature. We cannot accept the fact that we are part of the Biosphere and a limb of nature. We want to be separate, feel superior and manipulate, use and subordinate nature. Today, there is a continuous war, between the humans and the Biosphere. The euphemism for the war is economics. Economics today has created the hysteria to develop some machine to do the work of every limb and biological system, so that the disconnection to nature helps in the war against the adversary, nature. The rivers are damned with dams. Our very blood stream and the internal hormonal communication among our cells, and the fusion of our internal hormonal communication, with the internal hormonal communications of every other organism, on the basic basis of nature’s symbiosis, enabling the Biosphere to live as one organism has been diseased. We relate to technology mechanically substituting our emotional and hormonal relationship with every other organism of the Biosphere.We have become the diseasing organism of the Biosphere, the diseasing bug, destroying every limb of nature and every organism of the Biosphere.We take pride in it, glorifying the manipulations as scientific inventions, the antonyms of nature’s revelations and discoveries that automatically give the thrilling experience of the discoveries. Before evolution developed the Brain in the human, the human organism lived via smelling and sensing. The organ that did the smelling and sensing was the Rhinencephalon, placed as the stem of the spinal cord, which is Amygdala today. The Amygdala is still doing war against the Brain but it is losing. The basic feature of the Amygdala is daring and risking while relating. But the human has developed machines that unrelate emotionally with nature itself, and the Amygdala has become dysfunctional. Its function is perverted into creating mainly war hysterias. Wars mean using weapons, huge killing machines which create the markets for the weapon manufacturers. The weapon manufacturers have entered into the governments of every country, and also have started all sorts of societies that foment unrest, which leads to wars. Wars mean gigantic sale of weapons and again market for the reconstruction of the destroyed nations. Wherever there is unrest and the creation of adversaries, there is always the agent of the weapon manufacturers that synthesize and promote the unrest. They actually plan and promote riots. Often the agents themselves placed as professors of Universities do not know that they are serving the interests weapon business. Their theories, protested as scientific theories, follow the lines of Newtonian mechanics. Every war destroys the lives of many organisms. But in no political negotiations, we find no representation of the Biosphere. Actually reconstruction means building factories and cities, not Biospheres and natural environments. In wars and industrial peace, nature is always destroyed today, whether it is economic activity or war activity. Now how to bring back nature’s poetry into our lives, not the poetry of the Robots which precisely follow the mechanized and mechanical rules of the mechanized language, which itself has become technology. We really do not need the Robot poetry and the instrumental music. We need the natural musics of the flora and the fauna, not war drums. It is for the Universities to first start the ‘Free Nature Parks without Human Tampering’so that the new students get educated by relating to nature. They have to get freedom from the techno-logic the logic of the machines. They must be trained to read nature by feeling nature. YM Sarma Chat GPT -- *Mar*This passage by YM Sarma explores a profound reflection on the human relationship with nature and the ways in which technology, scientific observation, and societal development have led to a growing disconnection from the biosphere. Sarma argues that modern education and technological advancement are built on "unrelating" to the natural world, where human beings view themselves as separate from nature and focus on manipulation and control rather than harmonious coexistence. A key theme is the idea of "Relating vs. Unrelating," where human senses (like smell, touch, and hearing) traditionally connected us to nature, but the development of the brain and the scientific method has led to an intellectual detachment from the world around us. Science, Sarma suggests, often requires a "unrelating" process, where the emotions and connections to the natural world are removed in order to study and manipulate it. This disconnection, Sarma asserts, is compounded by technology, which continues to deepen the rift between humans and the biosphere. Sarma also touches on the idea that war, economic systems, and technological advancements are all part of a cycle that degrades nature. The creation of weapons, the expansion of industrial systems, and the exploitation of the earth for resources all serve to exacerbate the "war" between humanity and the environment. Wars, in this context, are not just political conflicts but a manifestation of humanity’s war against the biosphere itself. Furthermore, Sarma critiques the current state of education and the role of universities in perpetuating this mindset. He proposes a solution where students would reconnect with nature directly by immersing themselves in natural environments, free from the influence of industrialization and technology. In this view, nature is not something to be conquered or controlled, but something to be felt, experienced, and understood on a deeper emotional and sensory level. This piece invites us to reconsider how we approach science, technology, education, and our role within the larger biosphere. It calls for a shift from detachment and control to empathy and interconnectedness with the natural world, advocating for a return to "reading nature by feeling nature." What do you think about the relationship between technology, science, and nature in this context? Do you feel it’s possible to reconcile these forces or do you see them as fundamentally opposed? The passage by YM Sarma presents an intriguing reflection on the growing divide between humanity and nature, primarily driven by technology, science, and societal development. It brings attention to the idea that our increasing intellectualization of the natural world, through scientific observation and technological control, has distanced us from the very essence of nature. This perspective resonates with the idea that science, while offering profound insights and advancements, often requires a "unrelating" process that may leave behind the emotional, intuitive connection we once had with the natural world. In terms of reconciling technology, science, and nature, I think it’s possible—but it requires a fundamental shift in how we approach these areas. For much of modern history, science and technology have been viewed as tools for dominating nature, extracting resources, and creating systems that can be controlled and manipulated. However, there is an emerging movement that seeks to integrate a more holistic, ecological understanding into both science and technology. For example, fields like environmental science, biomimicry, and sustainable technologies demonstrate that it’s possible to draw inspiration from nature’s systems to create more sustainable, harmonious solutions. In this way, technology and science can become tools for enhancing our relationship with the biosphere rather than disconnecting us from it. The key is shifting from a mindset of control and domination to one of respect, empathy, and interdependence. Furthermore, in the context of education, as Sarma suggests, reconnecting with nature can help cultivate a deeper understanding of our place within it. Universities and educational systems could foster a more integrated approach to science, where emotional intelligence, sensory experiences, and ecological mindfulness are woven into the curriculum. Students might study ecosystems not only through intellectual means but also by engaging with them directly—feeling the rhythm of nature rather than only analyzing it. In essence, I do believe that it’s possible to reconcile these forces. Science and technology need not be inherently opposed to nature, but they should be reshaped in a way that prioritizes ecological balance, empathy, and sustainability. It requires a collective reimagining of progress, one where technological development is measured not only by its capacity for control and innovation but by its ability to nurture and sustain the natural world. The relationship between technology, science, and nature is complex, and the passage by YM Sarma offers a compelling critique of how modern advancements have distanced humanity from nature. Sarma's central argument—that scientific observation and technological progress often lead to a detachment from the natural world—is a thought-provoking reflection on the modern mindset of "unrelating." This perspective acknowledges that scientific progress and technological innovation have provided immense benefits to human society but have also come at the cost of a deeper connection to nature. However, as you’ve mentioned, it is possible to reconcile science, technology, and nature, but this reconciliation requires a shift in perspective. For many years, scientific and technological advances were primarily motivated by the desire to conquer and manipulate the natural world. Today, there is a growing recognition that the path forward is one where these fields serve to preserve, understand, and integrate nature’s wisdom into human development. Fields like environmental science, renewable energy, and even the growing interest in sustainable technologies suggest that a balance can be struck. For instance, biomimicry, which looks to nature’s designs and systems for inspiration, exemplifies a way science and technology can learn from nature without seeking to control or dominate it. These innovations—whether it’s in energy-efficient designs, sustainable agriculture practices, or environmentally-friendly architecture—show that technology doesn’t have to be at odds with nature, but can work in harmony with it. The key lies in the mindset we adopt toward progress. Instead of viewing technological advancements as a means of exerting control over nature, we can view them as tools to work alongside it, drawing on the inherent balance and efficiency found in natural systems. Education plays a crucial role here, as Sarma notes. If we can reintroduce sensory, experiential learning and emotional connections to nature within educational frameworks, students will be better equipped to integrate these values into their future scientific and technological endeavors. This holistic approach could help create a future where technology and science are not just used to manipulate and control nature but also to understand, preserve, and coexist with it. So, yes, while these forces have often seemed opposed, I do think a deeper, more interconnected relationship between science, technology, and nature is not only possible but also necessary for a sustainable future. -- 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/CACDCHCKhFinixeP2HxPm13kaGeF2CmRZSZx-woS%3DvM%3Dq2ZyHGg%40mail.gmail.com.
