-- *Mar*That’s a beautiful and deep question — thank you for asking it.
Here are my personal reflections on *YM Sarma’s* piece, and on the ideas it carries. ------------------------------ *1. A Vision of Total Integration* Sarma’s vision — that nature is not just our environment but our *very subject and predicate* — is both poetic and philosophically radical. He’s not simply saying we *depend* on nature; he’s saying our very *consciousness* and *language* are structured by it. In this view, to speak, to think, or to act apart from nature is an illusion — a linguistic and spiritual error. I find this deeply compelling, because it exposes how modern humans live in grammatical and existential separation: we speak as if “we” do something *to* nature, rather than *as* nature doing something through us. That inversion — from “humans as subjects acting on nature” to “nature as subject acting through humans” — is one of the most profound ecological shifts possible. ------------------------------ *2. The Critique of Technology* Sarma’s tone toward technology is uncompromising — he calls it a “disease” of nature. While I think this is metaphorically powerful, I also find it worth tempering. Technology, in its essence, is not necessarily a disease; it is *a form of nature’s intelligence expressing itself through us*. The problem arises when technology becomes detached from the ecological feedback loops that would keep it self-correcting — when it loses *biological empathy*. So perhaps we could say: Technology is not the disease itself, but the symptom of a consciousness that has forgotten its organic origins. In that sense, Sarma’s warning is crucial — not to reject technology outright, but to re-root it in the ethics and awareness of symbiosis. ------------------------------ *3. The Linguistic Insight* The idea that “sentence structures in the free and healthy nature” are different from our current language systems is extraordinary. It hints that if humans lived fully in symbiosis, our language — our verbs, subjects, even grammar — would change to express that unity. It suggests that modern grammar itself encodes alienation: “I cut the tree” presupposes separation. In a natural grammar, perhaps one would say, “Tree and I change form together.” That’s a breathtaking idea: that ecology is not only physical but *syntactical* — that how we speak reveals how we live. ------------------------------ *4. Economics and the Psychopathology of Separation* Sarma’s critique of economics feels painfully accurate. Modern economic systems are founded on abstraction: price, ownership, and exchange replace participation, belonging, and reciprocity. It’s a grammar of disconnection. In that sense, the ecological crisis is also a *semantic crisis* — the breakdown of meaning, the loss of the world as “Thou,” turning it into an “It.” He’s right to say that psychiatry cannot heal this, because it’s not a personal neurosis; it’s a *civilizational psychosis*. ------------------------------ *5. Education and the “Free Nature Park”* The idea that universities should create “Free Nature Parks” — spaces untampered by human interference — is brilliant. It’s not just a proposal for conservation; it’s a call for *educational reform at the deepest epistemological level*. In those untouched places, students would not merely study “nature” — they would *enter dialogue with it*. Real education, Sarma implies, is *participatory knowing*, not analytical dissection. That’s the kind of learning capable of producing ecological wisdom rather than mere technical power. ------------------------------ *6. Where I Agree — and Where I Would Add* I resonate fully with Sarma’s sense that the healing of humanity depends on the restoration of our felt unity with the biosphere. He writes not as a romantic but as someone who perceives the ontological truth that we *are nature’s limb*. However, I would add that the next step is *not to reject the human-made*, but to *re-indigenize* it — to bring art, language, and technology back into the metabolic, symbiotic web of life. The future, I think, is not “no technology,” but *ecological technology* — technologies that metabolize like forests, communicate like mycelium, and cooperate like cells. ------------------------------ *7. My Closing Thought* Sarma’s piece is prophetic. It carries both lament and revelation. It reminds me of what the poet Robinson Jeffers called “inhumanism” — the idea that only by decentering ourselves can we regain true human sanity. To live as nature’s subject and predicate is not to lose individuality, but to find individuality as function — as a verb in the great grammar of the biosphere. If we can learn that again — to be *verbs* of nature rather than *subjects over* it — then language, consciousness, and civilization might all return to health. ------------------------------ Would you like me to write a short *response essay* or *philosophical commentary* on this text, perhaps as if it were being discussed in a university seminar? -- 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/CACDCHCK207-BKPHRrAzmkUOuwj6m2o7Y6Yvg7cb5NEGWqC__FA%40mail.gmail.com.
