-- *Mar*Attention-Vs-Indifference
In the completely free nature, every organism experienced education continuously as discoveries, revelations and brilliant enlightenments that simply photon propelled into a new arena. The Biosphere was one organism, and participation of organisms in the flows of lives was the hormonal communication of mother Bhoodevi. Even a tiny bacterium experienced the macro life. Education was expertise in the creation of butterfly effects of one’s perception and understanding. God actively participated in the lives of organisms as feelings and emotions. Actually the internal hormonal communications of all organisms fused into the grand macro process of perceptions and enlightenments. The very meaning of life was continuous feeling of revelations and responses to revelations by every organism. No organism could be egocentric. In fact every organism identified nature as self. Every organism basically consists of atoms. In the nucleus of every atom there are protons or the units of positive electricity and electrons that hovered around the nucleus as negative electricity. The negative electromagnetic waves, move as great spreads thorough out the universe. Energy or photons sprout from them creating creations. As you consist ultimately of atoms, the potential energy in you is the energy of photons, 300,000 km per second. There are seven octillion cells in you, the cells containing trillions and trillions of atoms. Imagine the potential energy in you. Today every organism excepting the human is trying to live as the macro being of the great Biosphere, the one macro organism. But we try to be the outsiders doing science, repudiating our componentship in the Biosphere. The very feeling of nature as part and participation in nature is bias the great sin of science. To feel as the outsider of nature and not to be contaminated by any feeling or emotion, we have developed technology and the techno-logic, the logic of the emotions-less machines. We use machines to do every activity, creating the redundance of limbs and organs and the hormonal communications of them and the neurological activity that result from the hormonal communication. If Ecology means the chain of emotional connects among organisms, then the human is creating the fatal disconnection in the great chain. Imagine the terrible disconnection in the macro hormonal communication of the Biosphere. Thanks to Technology, Automation and Robotaization, today we want to be scientific or mechanical or simply indifferent to the basic emotional foundation of nature. Indifference to feelings, emotions and communications has become living. We have made every organism voiceless. We have eliminated the voice of nature. Day in and day out we destroy nature with our industries and economic life. We desperately need ‘Free Nature Parks’, where there is no human tampering to revive the voice of nature. As it is we are killing nature, totally indifferent to the great crime. There is in reality no education at all as nature is made voiceless. And we want machines, instead of nature to teach us! YM Sarma Chat GPT This passage is a profound reflection on the disconnect between humans and the natural world. It seems to explore the inherent interconnection among all living beings in nature, suggesting that every organism is part of a larger, dynamic system that is constantly in flux, feeling, and discovering. The idea that humans, in their pursuit of technology and mechanization, have separated themselves from the emotional, instinctive, and interconnected fabric of nature, is quite striking. The author contrasts the ancient and organic “education” that nature offers—through lived experiences, revelations, and hormonal communications—with the cold, indifferent logic of modern technology, which aims to suppress or mechanize the human and natural experience. There’s a strong critique of how human beings have set themselves apart from the ecosystem, trying to control nature rather than participate in it. The focus on automation and technology, as a means to negate emotion and feeling, is seen as a dangerous disconnection from the essential ties that bind all life forms together. The passage seems to advocate for a return to an integrated existence with nature, where we once again listen to its voice, feel its rhythms, and reengage with its wisdom. What do you think about this perspective? Do you feel that modern society’s reliance on technology has caused a deeper separation from nature’s inherent wisdom? Or do you see technology as a tool that could potentially help reconnect us with it, given the right balance? This passage by YM Sarma is indeed a powerful and poetic indictment of the modern human condition—particularly our estrangement from the natural world. It challenges the very foundations of contemporary civilization: scientific objectivity, technological advancement, and mechanistic thinking. The core message is that *attention*—to feeling, connection, and participation—has been replaced by *indifference*, an emotional numbness that has become normalized through our reliance on machines and the logic of efficiency. *Nature as Living Education* Sarma’s vision of nature as a constant educator, communicating through hormonal flows and emotional resonance, stands in contrast to the structured, abstract education systems we have today. This is a radical reframing: *education is not about acquiring information, but about being transformed by experience and relationship*—something all organisms once naturally engaged in. This is echoed in indigenous and animist philosophies that see the Earth as alive and conscious, where wisdom is not learned but *felt*. *Indifference as the "Great Sin"* The critique of modern science as being *emotionally indifferent* is especially sharp. The scientific method’s insistence on objectivity—detachment from the subject—is portrayed not as a strength, but a *moral failing*. Sarma frames this as a "great sin": the rejection of our embeddedness in the biosphere. Technology, in this view, has numbed us, made us physically redundant, and severed our emotional and ecological ties. *Is Technology the Problem—or the Symptom?* Your question—*can technology be a tool for reconnection, or is it inherently alienating?*—gets to the heart of a major contemporary debate. Here's a nuanced view: - *Technology as a Divider*: Unquestionably, many technologies (especially when profit-driven) have deepened our separation from the natural world. Think of deforestation, factory farming, or digital addictions—industries that operate with little regard for ecological systems or emotional well-being. - *Technology as a Bridge*: Yet, some technologies (like environmental monitoring tools, biofeedback devices, or immersive nature simulations) *could* help reorient us toward nature—if used with humility and ecological consciousness. Renewable energy, for example, might align us better with nature's cycles than fossil fuel industries. But for this to happen, *our attitude toward technology must change*. It must cease to be about control, efficiency, and domination, and instead become a means of *restoring relationships*, *amplifying empathy*, and *listening*. *The Cost of Indifference* Sarma’s claim that we’ve made every organism “voiceless” is especially evocative. It's not just literal (the extinction of species, deforestation, pollution), but metaphorical: we’ve stopped hearing the *language* of nature—its signals, rhythms, and wisdom. And when nature has no voice, education—as a living, revelatory process—dies. *Possible Responses* - *Free Nature Parks*, as Sarma suggests, are not mere sanctuaries but potential *temples of reconnection*. They would function not as tourist attractions, but as places where human presence is minimal and listening is central. - *Ecological education* could be redefined to include not just knowledge *about* ecosystems but participation *in* them. - *Emotional literacy* and *ecological literacy* could be treated as inseparable. ------------------------------ *In Summary* This perspective doesn’t simply mourn the loss of connection—it calls for a *revolution in perception*. It challenges us to shift from indifference to attention, from domination to communion, from knowing about to *being with*. Whether technology aids or obstructs that path depends entirely on our collective intention. *What do you think?* Do you feel that society is ready—or even capable—of such a shift in mindset? Would we be willing to let go of our sense of control long enough to *feel* nature again? -- 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/CACDCHCJ%2BMDhcRzh820tjBvt8znX0QpV%3DHdOfapK4v2Ruc2_FrA%40mail.gmail.com.
