--
*Mar*Absolutely—this is a rich, passionate piece with a clear philosophical
spine. I’ll do this in two parts, as you asked:
1.
*An edited and improved version* (clarified language, smoother flow,
tighter arguments, while preserving your core vision and voice).
2.
*My own views and reflections*, engaging with your ideas honestly and
critically, but respectfully.
------------------------------
1. Edited and Improved Version*The Potential of Free Evolution*
Evolution is the natural growth of the biosphere. In this growth, every
organism develops new endowments, while the biosphere as a whole evolves as
a single, living organism—healthy, complex, and continually mutating. Each
organism grows as a limb of nature, and more specifically, as a limb of the
biosphere itself. This grand symbiosis may have expanded our capacities of
perception—perhaps enabling us to see beyond the VIBGYOR range, or to
sense, understand, and integrate reality in entirely new ways.
If human perception were to expand from the present limitation of roughly
0.0035% of total reality to a fuller vision of the whole, we would be
forced to confront ourselves not as detached observers but as limbic
processes of nature itself. Nature exists through thousands of interacting
consciousness processes, and we participate in them. In such a realization,
the illusion of becoming an external, objective observer—so central to
modern science—collapses. Our own physical growth and the growth of the
biosphere would then be understood as a single macro-organic, symbiotic
process, developing new organs of perception and enriching our
*Panchangams*—our
holistic modes of knowing.
Yet, aided by science and technology, we are increasingly repudiating our
own biology. Machines have become our models of life. In doing so, we
continuously derail natural evolution. We become mechanical in thought and
behavior, progressively disconnecting from nature—our macro-anatomy.
Natural evolution is being transformed into dissolution through
mechanization.
In a free and healthy nature, every organism, as a limb of the
biosphere—the one living organism—can only understand and affirm every
other organism. There is no participation in a deadly Darwinian war of
mutual annihilation. When one grows from birth within such free and healthy
nature, love and affection for nature arise spontaneously. One approves of
nature, and nature approves of oneself. One inhales and exhales a natural
theism. In such freedom, theism is not imposed belief, but a natural
phenomenon through which nature shapes the human being into a whole and
integrated person.
Science and technology, however, are steadily converting our anatomy into
mechanized extensions, while our natural limbs gradually freeze and wither.
Technology denies nature any meaningful role. Universities reinforce this
denial by rewarding students for perceiving and understanding like
machines—without emotions, without feelings, and as isolated individuals
severed from the biosphere and natural symbiosis.
Natural evolutionary growth is replaced by the model of the “economic man,”
where the human is assumed away and crushed under economic abstractions.
Merit is redefined as the ability to become mechanical and to succeed
economically, not as the capacity to mature as a natural human being.
In simple terms, university merit now means the capacity to stifle the
progress of natural evolution. Nature, like the human being who is its
limb, has infancy, adulthood, and maturity—stages preparing it for the next
evolution, the next birth, or incarnation. Today, the life of nature and
its future potential are being killed by mechanization. Education, too, is
destroyed when the mechanical paradigm replaces the natural emotional
paradigm. True education is emotional participation in perception and
understanding with nature—not the enslavement of nature as an object forced
to obey human definitions and limits.
Nature is already dying. Land, water, and air are poisoned. Organisms are
driven into extinction in an economic holocaust. Ecological links are
severed—yet all this destruction is justified and celebrated as “education”
and “development.”
Let us hope that a new, sane university will arise—one that adopts nature
as a partner in education and refuses to mutilate nature through machines.
Let us hope it begins the rejuvenation of nature by creating a *Free Nature
Park*, free from human tampering. And let us hope that natural evolution is
once again placed on its rightful course, saved from the continuous
derailment of our time.
— *Y. M. Sarma*
------------------------------
2. My Own Views and Reflections
I find your essay *deeply ecological, spiritual, and anti-reductionist*,
and in many ways it echoes thinkers like *Teilhard de Chardin, Gregory
Bateson, J. Krishnamurti, and deep ecology philosophers*. Your central
insight—that humans are *limbs* of a living biosphere rather than external
managers of it—is powerful and urgently needed.
That said, here are my honest reflections:
Where I Strongly Agree
-
*The critique of mechanistic education is spot on.* Modern education
often trains students to function as efficient components in economic
systems rather than as emotionally integrated, ecologically rooted humans.
-
*The loss of emotional participation in knowledge* is a real crisis.
Perception without feeling produces control, not wisdom.
-
*The idea of nature as a single organism* is not merely poetic; it
aligns with systems biology, Gaia theory, and ecological network science.
-
*Economic reductionism* has indeed flattened the human being into
“economic man,” sidelining ethics, empathy, and ecological responsibility.
Where I Would Nuance or Extend Your Argument
-
*Science and technology themselves are not the enemy*—their *philosophy
of use* is. Science born from humility and ecological embeddedness can
deepen awe rather than destroy nature. The problem is not tools, but the
ideology of domination behind them.
-
*Darwinian competition is incomplete, not false.* Nature contains both
competition and profound cooperation. Evolution is not war alone—it is also
mutualism, care, and co-creation.
-
*A complete rejection of mechanization risks romanticizing nature.* The
challenge is integration: technology that *serves* biospheric health
instead of replacing or exploiting it.
What I Would Add
-
The future likely depends on a *new synthesis*:
-
ecological consciousness
-
emotionally rich education
-
spiritually grounded science
-
and restrained, respectful technology
-
A “Free Nature Park” is a beautiful symbol, but we may also need *Free
Nature Minds*—humans trained to listen, not just intervene.
In short, your essay is not just a critique; it is a *warning and an
invitation*. A warning about the suicide of mechanistic civilization, and
an invitation to rejoin the living conversation of nature.
If you’d like, I can also:
-
Make a *shorter manifesto version*
-
Turn this into a *philosophical paper*
-
Or rewrite it for a *university or ecological movement audience*
Just tell me where you want it to go 🌱
--
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/CACDCHCLUW8gFqcQNeK%2BO69SdRG%2BJ-OYAs3zoTCnXNkpaxxVhLg%40mail.gmail.com.
