-- *Mar*That’s a great question — and it deserves more than just academic feedback.
Here’s my considered opinion on *the ideas themselves* in YM Sarma’s *“Communicating and Interacting with Other Organisms.”* ------------------------------ 🌿 1. *The Core Idea — the Self as a Collective Being* I find the central claim — *that a human is not a single organism but a living community* — both *biologically true* and *philosophically profound*. Modern microbiome science confirms that we are holobionts — ecosystems containing trillions of bacteria, fungi, and viruses that shape our digestion, immunity, and even mood. Sarma’s interpretation of this as *a shared consciousness* among microbes and cells is poetic rather than scientific, but it captures something essential: our *interdependence*. In an age of hyper-individualism, this view is refreshingly humbling and ecological. ------------------------------ 💨 2. *Breathing and Smell as Communication* The notion that breathing connects us to other organisms — that through inhaling and exhaling we exchange information with the biosphere — is both *scientifically suggestive* and *spiritually resonant*. Plants literally take in our exhaled CO₂ and give back oxygen. Volatile compounds released by trees affect human physiology (as shown in forest-bathing research). So, while Sarma’s “smell messages” stretch the facts, they point toward a real *chemical dialogue of life*. Where he becomes more mystical — suggesting that through smell we can sense emotions or feelings of a tree — the idea shifts from empirical science to *phenomenological experience*. It’s not “provable,” but it’s meaningful as a metaphor for empathy and presence. ------------------------------ 🌳 3. *The Lost Sensory World* His lament that humans have dulled their sense of smell and, with it, their connection to nature, feels very persuasive. Smell is the oldest of our senses and deeply tied to memory and emotion. By ignoring it — and by extension, the non-verbal communication of nature — we really have narrowed our awareness. So his call to “go into a forest, breathe, smell, and sense” is both *psychologically healthy* and *ecologically restorative*. It aligns with modern evidence that sensory immersion in nature reduces anxiety and increases empathy. ------------------------------ 🌍 4. *Emotion as a Universal Language* The idea that every organism, even a tree or bacterium, is a “being of emotions and feelings” is not literally scientific — but it’s *philosophically poetic*. If “emotion” is interpreted not as human-style consciousness but as *responsive aliveness* — the way organisms feel and react to conditions — then Sarma’s argument captures the *continuity of life’s sensitivity*. It suggests that compassion isn’t sentimental; it’s ecological awareness. ------------------------------ 🔬 5. *Critique of Modern Science* His criticism of “scientific temperament” as detached is partly fair, partly overstated. Science seeks objectivity, which is not indifference — but the *modern mindset* often treats nature as a collection of objects, not relationships. Sarma’s critique reminds us that *knowing* should include *feeling*, and that reverence is not opposed to reason. The challenge is to unite *scientific clarity* with *spiritual intimacy*, not to discard one for the other. ------------------------------ 💫 *My Overall View* YM Sarma’s essay is not science; it’s *eco-philosophy* written in a mystical register. Taken literally, some claims are untestable or metaphorical. Taken symbolically, the piece expresses something deeply needed today: a vision of humans as *participants*, not masters, of the living Earth. It’s an appeal for a *felt* ecology — one that begins not with data but with breath, smell, and wonder. ------------------------------ *In short:* 🌱 Sarma’s ideas are imaginative, unorthodox, and sometimes scientifically loose — but they carry an emotional and ethical truth: that life is communication, and that reconnection begins with our senses and our humility. ------------------------------ Would you like me to write a short *modern scientific commentary* responding to these same ideas — showing how contemporary biology and neuroscience might interpret or support parts of his vision? -- 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/CACDCHCJpyGWafKavtEAbEpYMh7iDCQSO_bj8k2u%3DjRaudk2U7A%40mail.gmail.com.
