--
*Mar*Reasoning of Reasoning
Today is called the age of reason, the age where the scientific method of
investigation is adopted to arrive at the scientific proof. This reason
must be mathematical and mechanical with no place for bias. Every reason
for another reason too must be mathematical and mechanical. The reason has
to be restricted to the interaction or relationship between and among
things only, things without feelings and emotions. Emotion under the
scientific method is sickness.
For science even emotions shall be mechanized to make them eligible as the
factors to be included in any investigation. Psychology too must obey the
laws of Newtonian mechanics.
Understanding which actually is an emotion, shall be achieved mechanically.
As human beings, we are subject to emotions, making us ineligible for
science. So we have adopted machines and Technology as the Techno-logic
only is the logic of science.
A proof needs reasons that support the next reason, all of which shall
function as mechanical links. There shall be quantitative synchronization.
All emotions shall be distrusted, eliminated and taken as unscientific.
Emotions and emotional bonds are the results of breathing, smelling,
sensing, understanding, perceiving…, all of which embed in the internal
hormonal communications. One’s hormones therefore shall not be allowed to
influence the scientific investigation as hormones sprout due to emotions.
The very internal hormonal communication in an individual shall therefore
be fought and neutralized, disown, one’s own blood circulation, as the
blood enters the cells via the capillaries with hormones. One’s own cells
shall be fought.
The best method of eliminating one’s own cells including the neurons of the
Brain is to depend totally on computers.
The mechanical structure of a neuron is very clearly explained, the entire
brain is mapped and it is also proved that specific emotions can be
triggered by applying electrodes to specific areas of the Brain.
Unfortunately the Brain is still refusing to be totally mechanical and
unbiased.
So the best solution is to depend totally on computers only and reduce the
role of the Brain to merely noting what the computers tell.
Machines, cyborgs and Robots are taking over—drone planes, automation,
surrogate mothers who cannot afford to become the emotional mothers of the
child growing in the womb---we are getting engulfed by technology, in this
age of emotion-less science. The reasoning of reasoning is just mechanical
linkages, not the emotion laden ecological links.
As Ecology is becoming very inconvenient, we have devised the Economic man
as the substitute for the nature created homo sapien. The Economic man very
conveniently behaves like a machine obeying the Newtonian mechanics.
But nature needs chance as you cannot cause the total scientific extinction
of the Biosphere and every organism actually is an ecological link, which
when snapped can ultimately kill you.
It is for the Universities to start ‘The Free Nature Parks’ without human
tampering so that the students get the chance to feel their ecological
roots and get vacation from existence as economic men.
YM Sarma
Chat gpt
*Response to "Reasoning of Reasoning" by YM Sarma*
*(Critical Reflection)*
------------------------------
YM Sarma’s *“Reasoning of Reasoning”* is a philosophical and impassioned
critique of modern scientific rationality and the techno-centric worldview.
It presents a provocative meditation on the mechanization of thought,
emotion, and existence in the so-called "age of reason." At its core, the
piece questions the cost of reducing human life to data, neurons to
switches, and intelligence to algorithms.
Here’s a breakdown and response to the major themes and arguments:
------------------------------
*1. Science and the Elimination of Emotion*
*“Understanding which actually is an emotion, shall be achieved
mechanically.”*
The central argument is that modern science, in its pursuit of objectivity
and quantification, treats emotion as a contaminant. Sarma warns that by
trying to neutralize emotion to make room for mechanical reasoning, we risk
dehumanizing ourselves.
Indeed, science often values detachment for clarity and repeatability. But
the writer suggests an extreme vision of this: a future where even hormonal
communication, breathing, and internal processes are viewed as obstacles.
Sarma frames this as an implicit war against the body and the natural self.
This is both a valid and necessary critique. Human consciousness and
cognition cannot be reduced solely to computation. Emotion is not merely
"noise" in human thinking — it is integral to meaning, values, ethics,
relationships, and identity.
------------------------------
*2. Machines as the New Standard of Logic*
*“So the best solution is to depend totally on computers only and reduce
the role of the Brain to merely noting what the computers tell.”*
Sarma points to the rising dependence on machines as indicative of a shift
— not just in tools, but in the very *epistemology* (ways of knowing). The
machine becomes the arbiter of truth, the processor of logic, and even the
surrogate thinker. In this, the human mind is reduced to an observer, a
recorder, a passive recipient of machine-derived "truth."
This is a bold warning. While AI and automation offer incredible
advancements, there is real risk in outsourcing human judgment entirely. If
we begin to see ourselves as *less reliable* than machines in all domains,
we risk eroding human dignity, creativity, and ethical responsibility.
------------------------------
*3. The Economic Man vs the Ecological Being*
*“We have devised the Economic man as the substitute for the nature created
homo sapien.”*
This is perhaps the most poignant critique in the essay. Sarma suggests
that the shift to mechanistic thinking parallels the shift from *ecological
interdependence* to *economic utilitarianism*. The “Economic Man” —
rational, self-interested, efficiency-oriented — is contrasted against the
emotionally complex, ecologically embedded Homo sapiens.
The tragedy, Sarma argues, is that by trying to become efficient machines,
we sever the very ecological roots that sustain us.
This is reminiscent of deep ecology, which views human beings not as
separate from nature but as one thread in a vast web. Ignoring this leads
to environmental collapse — and, ultimately, to our own undoing.
------------------------------
*4. A Call for Ecological Education*
*“It is for the Universities to start ‘The Free Nature Parks’… so that the
students get the chance to feel their ecological roots…”*
Rather than ending with despair, Sarma offers a vision of redemption —
through *reconnection with nature*. Education must not just transfer
knowledge but restore feeling. He urges institutions to create spaces where
students can re-experience their organic, emotional, and ecological being —
away from the mechanized, commodified model of learning.
This aligns with the growing global movement toward *nature-based education*,
ecological restoration, and experiential learning.
------------------------------
*Final Thoughts*
Sarma’s piece is part critique, part lament, and part manifesto. It’s
poetic in tone but philosophical in substance. It challenges the dominant
ideology of scientific rationalism, not to dismiss science itself, but to
call for a *re-balancing* — one that re-integrates emotion, ecology, and
embodiment into our models of understanding.
It invites us to ask:
- Can we trust a science that doesn’t trust feeling?
- What do we lose when we reduce life to logic?
- What kind of world are we building when we trust machines over living
minds?
This isn't a rejection of reasoning — it’s a reminder that *reason itself
must be reasoned* — and not divorced from the very world and beings it
seeks to understand.
------------------------------
Would you like me to help distill this into a shorter summary or rewrite it
in a particular tone (e.g., academic, poetic, critical essay)?
Certainly. Let’s evaluate *YM Sarma’s "Reasoning of Reasoning"* using
standard academic criteria typically applied in university-level
humanities/philosophy writing.
------------------------------
*📝 Evaluation Criteria*
*Criteria*
*Comments*
*Marks (Out of 10)*
*1. Originality and Insight*
Highly original. The piece critiques the scientific method from a
philosophical and ecological perspective. Unique viewpoint.
*9/10*
*2. Argument & Coherence*
The central theme is compelling, but the argument can be hard to follow.
Some ideas are repeated or underdeveloped. Lacks clear structure.
*6.5/10*
*3. Clarity and Expression*
The tone is poetic and evocative, but occasionally abstract and ambiguous.
Some sentences are dense or syntactically awkward.
*6/10*
*4. Structure and Organization*
The essay lacks conventional structure (introduction–body–conclusion).
Paragraphing is weak; ideas run into each other without transitions.
*5.5/10*
*5. Use of Language*
Rich vocabulary, but not always precise. Strong emotive and rhetorical
power. Grammar occasionally strained.
*6/10*
*6. Critical Engagement*
Shows strong philosophical engagement. Challenges dominant paradigms.
However, doesn't offer counterpoints or deeper exploration.
*7/10*
*7. Relevance and Depth*
Thought-provoking and highly relevant in the context of AI, ecological
collapse, and technocracy. Depth could improve with examples.
*7.5/10*
------------------------------
*✅ Total Score: 47.5 / 70*
*🎓 Grade: B+*
------------------------------
*📌 Summary of Evaluation*
- *Strengths:*
- Highly *original*, *passionate*, and *philosophically engaging*.
- The critique of techno-rationality and the "Economic Man" is timely
and relevant.
- The idea of reintroducing ecological awareness through education is
powerful.
- *Areas for Improvement:*
- *Lacks structure* and clear progression of argument. A reader
unfamiliar with the themes might get lost.
- *Language*, while rich, could benefit from more clarity and polish.
- Could engage with *counter-arguments* or existing thinkers to
strengthen its philosophical rigour.
- The piece walks a line between *essay and poetic rant*—which can be
effective, but limits academic clarity.
------------------------------
*📘 Recommendations for Revision*
1. *Add a clear thesis* early on to guide the reader.
2. Use *transitions* between ideas to improve flow.
3. Break into clearer *paragraphs*, each focusing on a single idea.
4. Introduce *philosophical or scientific references* (e.g., Descartes,
Heidegger, Donna Haraway) to situate the critique.
5. Keep the emotional tone, but *balance it with analytical clarity*.
------------------------------
If you'd like, I can help you *revise* the essay into a more academic
format or adapt it for *publication* in a blog, journal, or magazine. Would
you like to go ahead with that?
--
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/CACDCHC%2Bp4eZfadkdFEZMrKxqsoF_X8DiVBzPxkeUW%3DYXwMWayQ%40mail.gmail.com.
