WHAT IS NATURE
Nature encompasses the physical world and all its phenomena, including
living organisms, ecosystems, and natural processes, that are not created
or influenced by humans. It's the realm of plants, animals, landscapes, and
the forces that shape our planet. Essentially, it's everything that exists
naturally, without human intervention. Nature is all the animals, plants,
and other things in the world that are not made by people, and all the
events and processes that are not caused by people.
The idea of ‘nature’ is at the very core of science, considered as its
flagship and deepest link with human societies. However, while nature
preservation has become a major social concern, the idea of nature remains
elusive. We examine here the origins, etymology, and historical semantics
of this word and its different meanings in contemporary European languages.
It appears that this word aggregated successively different and sometimes
conflicting meanings throughout its history. One of the main present
occidental meanings of “nature”, designating what is opposed to humans,
currently used in public policies, conservation science, or environmental
ethics, hence appears rare and recent, and contradictory with most other
visions of nature, including former European representations and
contemporary foreign ones. Nature preservation ought to take into account
this semantic diversity when proposing policies, integrating the relativity
and potential inaccuracy of the currently dominating occidental definition.
Since at least the 1970s, a wide scientific, political, and public
consensus has emerged about the crucial necessity of “protecting nature”
(Worster, 1994). Since early whistle-blowers such as John Muir or Rachel
Carson to the theorization of a whole scientific discipline coined as
“conservation biology” (Soulé, 1985), the conservation of nature has
reached both wide popular concern and scientific maturity. Intense debates,
significant thinkers and prominent scientific advances have made this field
one of the most important socially in contemporary science, having a strong
influence on national and international politics. However, the appealing
concept of “nature” has never been really theorized during all this time,
and has been used to name more and more diverse things, as well as their
opposite, at the risk of becoming another meaningless panchreston
(Simberloff, 2014). As scientific knowledge of nature is (and will always
remain) incomplete, scientists have to rely on mental representations and
theoretical concepts, but these must be identified as such, and clearly
defined (Demeritt, 2002). Many close and successful new technical words
have been born in the same lexical field, such as “ecosystem”,
“biodiversity”, “biosphere”, and even “Gaia”, but none of them ever really
supplanted “nature”, even in scientific literature, and it is still the
title of one of the most important scientific journals. However, “nature”
is not such an easy word, and it actually fits the definition of an
abstract concept, hence a mental construction rather than a concrete
notion, which is situated both historically and geographically, and needs
definition in context (Ellen, 1996), just like what has been done about
“wilderness” (Rolston III, 1997, Callicott & Nelson, 1998, Callicott,
2008a) or more recently about the idea of a “balance [of nature]”
(Simberloff, 2014).
Hence, studying the concept of “nature” itself and its relationship with
practical objects and social projects is crucial for conservation sciences
and derived policies: many linguists, philosophers, and historians have
already shown that its meaning is far from being unified or self-evident
(Larrère and Larrère, 2015), but such works have had little popularization
in biological sciences so far. Nevertheless, these works have already
stressed out that the word “nature” is very difficult to define, and has
gone through many changes of meaning during its history (Lenoble, 1969).
Moreover, some punctual studies showed that, as for “wilderness”
(Callicott, 2000), the word “nature” does not always have a translation in
other languages (Philippe Descola, 2005), or can embody different meanings
within a language.
West concept:
From: What does ‘nature’ mean?
Definition Opposed concept Close
philosophical traditiona
1 The whole of material reality, considered as independent of human
activity and history
Culture, artifice, rational intention
Post-romantic philosophy (Rousseau, Romanticism, Marx, transcendentalism,
Muir…), often attributed to Christian tradition, and formulated by Mill.
2 This definition is at the root of the “great divide” in Western
academics.
The whole universe, as it is the place, the source and the result of
material phenomena (including man or at least man’s body)
Supernatural, unreal
3 Stoicism, Atomism, Epicurism, Taoism, Descartes, Bacon, Spinoza.
Formulated by Aristotle and Mill.
The specific force at the core of life and change
4 Inertia, fixedness, entropy
Heraclitus, Hegel, Nietzsche, Darwin, vitalism.
The essence, inner quality and character, the whole of specific physical
properties of an object, live or inert
Transmutation, denaturation
Alternate definition with distinct grammatical use (“nature of…”), too
widespread to be assigned to specific traditions (see Aristotle and Mill)a
Related philosophical traditions are given as work examples, but their
assignments are not definitive as most authors can be placed in several
groups depending on the texts used as references (especially Aristotle or
Hegel).
The idea of “protecting nature” seldom uses the second definition,
as the universe itself is not under threat (and is beyond man’s
protection), and physical properties of material things are not changing.
This definition, already provided by Aristotle, is by far the most
inclusive, and hence supposed to be the least political one, as we cannot
act on it. However, this definition can be used in political controversies,
be it by people saying that “saving nature” is beyond our reach, or by
biotechnology advocates arguing that, in a Cartesian point of view, nothing
is “against nature” and it is “natural” to manipulate life, according to
its laws (such as synthetic genetics), as long as “everything which is
artificial is natural” (Mill, 1874). Regarding this definition, both these
claims are perfectly right (“arts is but the employment of the powers of
nature for an end” (Mill, 1874)), even if, given so, this constitutes a
non-information as nothing real at all can be against nature in this
meaning, losing any moral validity of such claim.
The idea of “protecting nature” dwells on the 3 other meanings, but entails
very different conceptions of this protection: in the first definition,
nature is a series of material things devoid of human influence that can be
conserved through preservation against such corruption. In the second one,
nature is a process of change, which can be conserved by a proper
understanding of its mechanisms, including eventually an active
participation in its dynamic. If a great divide was to be found in this
definition, it would be less between mankind and nature than between life
(including mankind) and the mineral world: the protection of deserts or
high mountains in the name of “nature” appears pointless in this regard.
The last one implies an idea of fundamental character, which is to protect
against any denaturation or distortion. These definitions hence imply very
different conservation policies, which can hardly be merged. For example,
when the aim is conserving nature as a non-human natural heritage, there is
need to limit as much as possible human intervention, such intervention
being done mostly in order to remove previous human disturbance
(restoration ecology). At the opposite, when the aim is conserving
processes, human intervention can be needed for ensuring their good
functioning (especially in a time of global change), including sometimes
affirmative action such as species translocations, or ecosystem engineering
: such ecosystem would be more “natural” in this meaning as it can shelter
and produce more “nature”. Last but not least, if the aim is to conserve
the fundamental character of a space, there is a theoretical idea of this
place to showcase, in spite of its actual material reality.
Indeed, if the concept of “nature” is more complex and abstract
than it seems, the ecological crisis remains a concrete and empirical
reality, now affecting everybody whatever be their vision of nature. Then,
encompassing the different visions of nature rather than conflicting them
appears as one of the seminal challenges to conservationists if they want
to bring together as much people as possible under their flag.
There have always been many different policies of nature, and the main
reason appears that there are many different conceptions of nature, which
do not entail the same priorities, objects, and methods. These conceptions
change with philosophical groundings, and are then deeply rooted in people.
Hence, science cannot (and must not) artificially standardize them, all the
more that science also experiences such philosophical discrepancies.
However, this diversity of conceptions of nature can also be seen as a
chance for conservation, as it can anchor inspiration for public action,
help defining accurate environmental policies and set objectives in
human–nature relationship, which are difficult to determine on a strictly
scientific point of view. Actually, public policies are probably more
inspired by cultural conceptions of nature than by scientific arguments: if
conservation gained so much success in the US at the beginning of the
twentieth century, it is probably mostly thanks to cultural and religious
reasons (Nash, 1967). Hence, a better comprehension of local visions of
nature is necessary for local protection of nature, both as a concept and
as a reality: semantic and ecological dynamics must converge in order to
build relevant scenarios for public policies. On the other hand, more than
just forcing different conceptions of nature to cohabit, there may also be
a need to engage them in a kind of dialogue. Once the different definitions
are clearly stated, each of them can be understood by everyone, and these
can be seen as complementary rather than conflicting, putting in light the
gray areas of each conception, and helping resolving each other’s issue.
INDIAN RIG VEDIC VIEW AS PART OF LIFE
Rig Veda -Nature of God
1 . In its earlier stages, Rig Veda mentions various gods and goddesses.
Mitra the Sun; Varuna the god of night and of the blue sky; Dyu and
Prithivi the Sky and the Earth; Agni or fire god and the friend of all;
Savitri the refulgent; Indra the master of the universe; Vishnu the
measurer of the three worlds and Aditi the mother of all other gods (the
Adityas) are some of them. The attempt is not to stack up a hierarchical
pile of gods, but to discover the Great One the source of all gods.
Gradually, a tendency to extol a God as the greatest and controlling all
other divine entities comes into play. This marks the progress of man’s
concept of God or the ultimate Reality from polytheism to monotheism,
ultimately leading to monism.
2. The seeds of Advaita are found in Rig Veda. Some of the most beautiful
verses that Sri Shankara interprets occur in the Samhita portion of the Rig
Veda. For example, the mantra- dva suparna sayuja sakhaya,samanam vriksham
praishasvajate — traditionally associated with the Mundaka Upanishad
(3.1.1) is found in the Rig Veda as well “Two birds that are ever
associated and have similar names cling to the same tree. Of these, one
eats the fruits of divergent tastes and the other looks on without eating”.
3. The tenth book of the Rig-Veda regards the highest conception of God as
both the Impersonal and the Personal: The Nasadiya Sukta states that the
Supreme Being is the Unmanifest and the Manifest, Existence as well as Non
existence. He is the Jagat_pati, the Lord of the Universe, of all beings.
He is the sustainer and the protector. The Purusha-Sukta (Rig Veda 5.10.90)
proclaims that this Universe is God. The Supreme Person the Purusha with an
infinite number of heads, eyes, hands and feet envelops the whole of his
creation in His Cosmic Body. He is the cause of the world. He encompasses
the whole cosmos and transcends it to infinity. He is the supreme and the
solitary divinity.
Nasadiya Suktha — translation of Prof. Juan Mascaro.
(In the beginning…)
There was neither existence nor non-existence. There was not then what is
not, what is not. There was neither sky nor any heaven beyond the sky. What
power was there? What stirred ? Where? Who was that power? Was there an
abyss of fathomless water?
There was neither death nor immortality then. No signs were there of night
or day. The One was breathing with its own power, in deep space, windless,
by its own impulse. Only the One was: And, Other than that , there was
nothing beyond.
The darkness was hidden in darkness, in the beginning; with no
distinguishing sign. And all this was water and formless. Therein, in the
void, by the fire of fervour arose One.
And in the One arose Desire . Desire the first seed of the mind . The truth
of this the sages found in their hearts: seeking in their hearts with
wisdom, found the bond of existence in non-existence.
Their cord was extended across. Was there below? Was there above ? There
was impulse beneath; there was giving-forth above. The sages found that
bond of union between being and non-being ; Between the manifest and the
un-manifest
Who really knows this truth? Who can tell when and how this universe arose?
The gods came after its creation. Whether this universe was created or
uncreated only the God who sees in the highest heaven
He only knows when this universe came — perhaps it formed itself, or
perhaps it did not — And, whether it was created or uncreated ; the one who
looks down on it , in the highest heaven . Only he knows — or perhaps, He
knows not?
4. Rig-Veda (10.129) uses the term Tad-Ekam (That or That One) to suggest a
Reality, though an abstract one, that is the source and support of all
manifest existence. Tad-Ekam is generally understood as a limitless,
indescribable, absolute principle that exists independently.. Tad-Ekam
exists in itself; all manifestation emanates from It and returns to It. It
is the Tapas the heat, the latent energy in the Unmanifest that brings
forth creation, the manifest world. The Rik thus promotes the concept of
all existence being a unity.
In Rig-Veda the terms such as: ‘Tad Ekam’ (That one), Param (beyond), Ekam
sat (one reality) signify the principle of “The one without a second” ,
which later developed into Para Brahman of the Upanishads.
5. The word Brahman or Brāhmaņa occurs more than a hundred times in the
Rig-Veda. In only one place, the Purusha Sūkta occurring in the tenth
mandala, a relatively late composition, it uses the term Brāhmaņa to
signify a caste. In all other places, Brāhmaņa has nothing to do with
caste. Again, Brahman of the Rig-Veda is not the Brahman, Para Brahman of
the Upanishads, the highest principle of Existence
Brahman is used in the Rig Veda as term for a high divinity or as another
name for Agni. “ He has come, chosen bearer, and is seated in man’s home,
Brahman, Agni, the Supporter, He whom both Heaven and Earth exalt and
strengthen whom, Giver of all boons, the Hotar worships”.
The term Brahman is also used to represent the spoken word. It is said,
“The development of Brahman into a word which designates formulated speech
more than it does an independent power is the most significant change from
the Family Books to the later Rig Veda
Brahman acquires the meaning of unchanging, infinite, immanent and
transcendent reality at a later stage in the Upanishads.
6. Rig Veda primarily follows Saguno_pasana. The Supreme Being in Rig Veda
is the abode of all auspicious qualities. The Ultimate supreme Reality is
described (though it is beyond description or definition) as
sat-chit-ananda. He is the one who created the world and sustained it. He
is the omniscient and the original cause of the world (tasyedu visva
bhuvanadhi murdhani). He manifests himself as the world (Visvarupah). Rig
Veda pursues a strategy later expounded by Bhakthi yoga, the path of
devotion. It calls upon the devotee to establish a relation ship with each
Deva as one would do with a son, a friend, a father, a mother etc. He is
omniscient, compassionate and easily accessible to devotees (Niyanta
sunrutanam). It firmly believes in grace of God and preaches that a
virtuous life in this world and the progression to Amrutatva, immortality
is possible only with complete surrender to God and with the grace of God.
The seeds of the Bhakthi moment and the attitude of complete surrender to
the divine will , are in Rig Veda.
7. It preaches strong faith in God and that one should have a pure mind to
realize God. It calls upon the devotee to establish a relationship with
each Deva, Agni, Indra and others as one would do with a son, a friend, a
father, a mother etc. The feeling of warmth and close relation with a god
is most conspicuous in the hymns addressed to Varuna ‘ the most impressive
deity among all the Vedic deities’.In these hymns Varuna , more than any
other Vedic god, appears as mighty and merciful : “Instill in us a
wholesome, happy mind, with goodwill and understanding. Then shall we ever
delight in your friendship like cows who gladly rejoice in meadows green.”
There is faith that the Devas would in turn communicate with the men and
women and fulfill their desires.
8. Though the term Bhakthi occurs in Rig Veda it is not used in the sense
with which we now familiar. The term derived from the root bhaj was
understood in the sense of sharing and enjoying an object, say such as
cattle, riches or even glory.
It was only later the term came to acquire the sense of emotional bonding
or an intense personal relation say as between father and son, teacher and
student, mother and child, lover and the beloved ; and as between a devotee
and his/her god. The idea of Bhakthi germinates in Svethasvatara Upanishad
was later developed in Bhagavad-Gita. In Svethasvatara Upanishad man is
called upon to have Bhakthi in the divine, to resort to him who is the
shelter to all. The concept of Bhakthi fully matures and is given full
exposition in Srimad Bhagavatha., here Bhakthi is termed as trayi-vidya the
wisdom of the three Vedas, as the highest good of man
Symbolism in Rig Veda
1. Rig-Veda is not a textbook or a manual. It is a collection of hymns, in
a free-flowing language that is universal and that requires no elaboration.
To make a connection with that ancient culture, we have to live the same
inner experience.
2. Rig Veda is often criticized as being a book of rituals. However, not a
single hymn in Rig Veda out of its 1017 hymns gives a description of a
ritual or a rite. For instance, Agni translated as fire in the altar, is
mentioned in several hundred verses, there is however no mention of a
priest lighting a fire.
[Rig Veda does not appears to be serious about the rituals . For instance ,
a hymn to the frogs compares the repetitions of the priests around the soma
bowl to the croaking of the frogs around a pond after the rains come.
(RigVeda VII:103)]
Agni is used symbolically to signify the subtle energy in all beings.
Sometimes, the fire principle is the same as the sun, which illumines the
universe; the same Reality underlies Ushas that makes everything effulgent.
3. Creation, preservation and destruction are not distinct occurrences. In
reality, the process of birth, growth and decay is ever present, ongoing
and twined into one another. There is no death in the universe. It is
transformation from one state to another. When we lose a desire, we
mistakenly think it is destroyed. No, it is now transformed into a larger
vision — the aspiration. Agni ignites aspiration. The cosmic god Agni is
the one who transforms little desires into great aspirations. Agni is the
fire of inner awakening. It illumines and elevates our consciousness. The
aspiration to attain super consciousness is the theme of the Rig Veda.
4. The elements of the outer sacrifice are symbolic of the inner sacrifice
and are representations of self-surrender. Behind these rituals and hymns
runs the thread of gradual evolution of the concept of spiritual life. Our
sacrifice is a journey towards super consciousness with Agni, the inner
flame, as the pathfinder. The sacrifice is an act of self-surrender to God.
That sacrifice is perpetual. That concept of life as a Yajna was later
enlarged in the Gita.
The high idealism of the Rig Veda poetry represents the soaring human
aspirations. It is the intense desire to grow out of the limited physical
confines and to reach out to the super consciousness that inspired the
Vedic rishis. Sri Aurobindo believed that the human being is at the crest,
on the threshold of evolving into super consciousness. He asserted that Rig
Veda encases that esoteric message and attainment of that super
consciousness was the vision of the Rig Veda.
K RAJARAM IRS 10825
On Sat, 9 Aug 2025 at 19:56, Markendeya Yeddanapudi <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> --
> *Mar*The Cyborged Homosapien
>
>
>
> Evolution is the ecologically linked mutation process of the organisms of
> the Biosphere. The change process keeps pace with the ever changing
> Universe. The changing mutations not only link the changing anatomical body
> structures but also the needed changes in paradigms to keep up with the
> changing symbiotic emotion based understanding.
>
> But deviating from the evolution, the Homosapien has shackled himself from
> participation with mechanization. Today mechanization has created the human
> which cannot live without machines. The logic of nature is being
> substituted by the logic of the machine, the techno-logic or technology.
>
> No other organism can adopt the techno-logic and the human alone has
> chosen the separate and lonely mechanized or scientific path of perception
> and understanding. He deviated himself from the symbiotic perception and
> understanding of all the organisms of the Biosphere. He no longer can smell
> and sense converse with any other organism. Fanatically trying to prove
> Rene Descartes as correct, the human has been changing into a functioning
> cyborg whose limbs can function only with the help of machines. No longer
> the human can happily climb trees or swim naturally or even hear without a
> cell phone the natural endowments from birth and smell and sense converse
> with the other organisms. He no longer can smell and sense the motivations
> of the other organisms. He cannot read nature directly by using his
> Panchangam synchronizing his Panchangam with the Panchangams of the other
> organisms.
>
> The cyborged Homosapien of today is the abortion of evolution. He has
> changed into antibiosis opposing the symbiosis that governs the Biosphere
> as the symbiotic single organism, with every organism as its body. The
> human is like a bacterium in the body of the Biosphere creating disease.
> Mechanization, industrialization, urbanization and commercialization have
> created the diseased Biosphere caused by the human bacterium, whose
> sickness has been increasing every day. The human addicted and shackled by
> technology can no longer join the symbiosis of nature. It cannot even
> tolerate the symbiosis in nature. It diseases and damages only, and calls
> it the economic and scientific progress.
>
> Unfortunately every University is under the frenzy of mechanization and
> has been creating different qualifications all of which disease and shackle
> nature continuously. Every University has divorced nature and has embraced
> mechanization. Its education promotes antibiosis only.
>
> The mechanical paradigm based scientific approach which shuns the natural
> emotional intelligence has been seeping and diseasifying every aspect of
> nature from the basic genetics of genomes to the particles of physics.
> Soils are killed and fertilizers or oil industry’s by products are employed
> as the soil bacteria’s substitutes. The ecological processes of eliminating
> the insects that destroy crops by the natural organisms like birds etc, are
> been destroyed by insecticides and pesticides that poison the insects and
> thus rob birds of their food. The birds are vital ecological links to the
> humans in the ecological chain.
>
> Today nature is being destroyed the Richter’s scale. Still no university
> has courses that revive nature’s ecology. Every University has abjectly
> surrendered to industrialists and business houses.
>
> It is for us the ordinary people to start our children’s education with
> ecology. The Universities too shall start the Free Nature Parks without
> human tampering, so that the original natural faculties, frozen now get
> revived.
>
> YM Sarma
>
> Chat gpt
>
> This essay, *“The Cyborged Homosapien”* by YM Sarma, is a passionate
> critique of modern humanity's increasing dependence on technology and
> mechanization, and how this has led to a fundamental disconnection from
> nature and natural evolution. Here’s a breakdown of the central ideas and
> key themes, followed by some observations on tone, structure, and possible
> implications:
> ------------------------------
>
> *🔍 Summary of Core Ideas*
>
> *1. Deviation from Natural Evolution*
>
> - Evolution is described as a symbiotic, emotionally intelligent
> process involving all organisms in the biosphere.
> - Humans have diverged from this path by embracing mechanization,
> effectively opting out of this ecological mutualism.
> - Instead of evolving naturally, humans are now dependent on machines,
> becoming "cyborged" — part human, part machine.
>
> *2. Loss of Natural Faculties*
>
> - Humans have lost innate abilities: climbing trees, swimming
> naturally, hearing and smelling the world without technological aid.
> - A central metaphor: humans can no longer “sense converse” with other
> organisms — a poetic way of saying we’ve lost our interspecies empathy and
> intuitive understanding.
>
> *3. Antibiosis vs. Symbiosis*
>
> - The essay frames humanity's trajectory as *antibiotic* — not just
> separate from nature, but actively harmful to it.
> - Mechanization, urbanization, and commercialization are seen as the
> tools of this destruction.
> - The comparison of humans to bacteria causing disease in the body of
> the biosphere is particularly stark.
>
> *4. Critique of Universities and Education*
>
> - Modern education is seen as complicit, promoting mechanistic and
> profit-driven thinking.
> - Universities are portrayed as institutions that have "divorced"
> nature in favor of industrial interests.
> - There's a call to action for grassroots ecological education,
> starting with children.
>
> *5. Call for Ecological Reconnection*
>
> - The essay advocates for *Free Nature Parks*, untouched by human
> interference, where natural faculties might be restored.
> - The author believes only direct, unmediated contact with nature can
> heal our collective alienation.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *🧠 Themes and Perspectives*
>
> *Theme*
>
> *Author’s Position*
>
> *Technology*
>
> Detrimental and addictive; has created a dependence that dehumanizes.
>
> *Nature*
>
> Sacred, interconnected, emotionally intelligent — the original
> evolutionary guide.
>
> *Human Identity*
>
> Now mechanized, unnatural; no longer part of the biosphere’s mutual
> evolution.
>
> *Education & Academia*
>
> Agents of industrialization; lost in techno-rationality, promoting
> antibiosis.
>
> *Hope for Change*
>
> In the hands of ordinary people and ecological re-education of children.
> ------------------------------
>
> *✍**️ Observations on Style & Tone*
>
> - *Tone:* Urgent, impassioned, even prophetic. There’s a strong moral
> and emotional weight.
> - *Language:* Poetic and metaphorical. Terms like *“cyborged,”
> “diseasified,” “sense converse,”* and *“Panchangam synchronization”*
> evoke a more holistic or spiritual worldview.
> - *Structure:* Loosely organized and rhetorical — more of a lament and
> a call-to-action than a formal argument.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *🧭 Possible Questions for Reflection or Discussion*
>
> 1. *Is technology inherently destructive, or is it our application of
> it that determines harm?*
> 2. *Can modern humans ever fully re-integrate into the biosphere’s
> symbiotic web?*
> 3. *What would an education system rooted in ecology actually look
> like?*
> 4. *Is it possible to retain the benefits of science while still
> honoring natural intelligence and emotion?*
> 5. *What does it mean to “sense converse” with nature — and can that
> be recovered?*
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *🌱 Closing Thought*
>
> YM Sarma’s message is deeply ecological, perhaps even biocentric — urging
> a fundamental reassessment of how we relate to nature, ourselves, and each
> other. The "cyborged homosapien" serves as both a warning and a metaphor
> for what we risk becoming if we continue to place machines over life.
>
> If you're interested, I can help you:
>
> - Develop this into a formal article or presentation.
> - Extract key quotes or create a visual summary.
> - Discuss counterpoints or complementary views (e.g. eco-technologists
> or deep ecologists).
>
> Let me know how you'd like to engage with this further.
>
> Here's an evaluation of *“The Cyborged Homosapien”* by YM Sarma using
> standard academic criteria. I’ll assess the essay on key components
> commonly used in evaluating reflective, critical, and philosophical
> writing, then provide a *mark* and *grade* based on a 100-point scale.
> ------------------------------
>
> *✅ Evaluation Criteria*
>
> *Criteria*
>
> *Comments*
>
> *Score (out of 20)*
>
> *1. Content & Originality*
>
> The essay explores a profound and urgent ecological critique with highly
> original metaphors and framing (e.g., "cyborged homosapien", "sense
> converse", "diseasifying"). The voice is distinctive and visionary.
>
> *18*
>
> *2. Argumentation & Clarity of Thought*
>
> The central argument — that mechanization has detached humans from nature
> — is clear. However, at times, the logic becomes emotionally driven and
> less systematically developed. The essay lacks structured progression.
>
> *14*
>
> *3. Coherence & Organization*
>
> The writing is somewhat unstructured. While ideas are powerful, they jump
> from one to another without clear transitions or flow. A stronger outline
> could help guide the reader through the argument.
>
> *13*
>
> *4. Language & Style*
>
> The language is vivid, poetic, and emotive, which enhances its impact.
> However, it can verge on the overly metaphorical or abstract, which may
> obscure meaning for some readers. Some terms (e.g., "Panchangam
> synchronization") are not explained well for a general audience.
>
> *16*
>
> *5. Relevance & Critical Depth*
>
> The essay reflects deep ecological awareness and critiques not just
> environmental issues but cultural, educational, and philosophical
> paradigms. There's strong conviction, but it could benefit from engaging
> with counterarguments or acknowledging complexity.
>
> *15*
> ------------------------------
>
> *📊 Total Score: 76 / 100*
> ------------------------------
>
> *🎓 Grade: B+*
>
> *Interpretation:*
>
> - *Strengths:* Powerful originality, emotional depth, bold ecological
> and philosophical perspective.
> - *Areas for Improvement:* Needs more structured argumentation,
> clearer transitions, and engagement with a broader audience through clarity
> and accessibility.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Would you like help refining this essay toward an *A-grade* version — for
> publishing, submitting, or presentation purposes? I’d be happy to assist
> with editing, restructuring, or expanding ideas.
>
> Certainly. Here's a poem inspired by the themes of *“The Cyborged
> Homosapien”*—a reflection on our disconnection from nature and a yearning
> to return:
> ------------------------------
>
> *The Song of the Last Wild Human*
>
> I was born with skin to touch the breeze,
> With eyes to read the silent trees,
> With feet to dance on forest floor,
> And hands that opened nature's door.
>
> But now I wake to metal skies,
> To pixel dreams and lullabies.
> My breath is piped through filtered air,
> And silence hums with software’s glare.
>
> I do not smell the coming rain,
> Or feel the forest pulse with pain.
> The bird once spoke—I heard its tune,
> Now all I hear is the cry of monsoon.
>
> My fingers type, but do not feel,
> The soil, the root, the grass so real.
> The trees are gone, the parks are planned,
> Where concrete mimics nature’s hand.
>
> They call it progress, call it gain—
> Yet every step just widens pain.
> Machines have made my body strong,
> But left my spirit feeling wrong.
>
> O Mother Earth, I hear your sigh,
> Beneath the towers scraping sky.
> You've held me close since time began—
> Now I forget I’m more than man.
>
> Yet still, beneath this armored skin,
> A voice, a flame, a drum within.
> It beats with rivers, sings with stone—
> A call to come, to come back home.
>
> So let me walk with barest feet,
> Where root and heartbeat gently meet.
> Unplug this soul, release this frame—
> Let me be wild, and whole again.
> ------------------------------
>
> Let me know if you'd like a version that’s more hopeful, darker, shorter,
> or written in a different style (e.g., haiku, sonnet, free verse).
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "societyforservingseniors" 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/society4servingseniors/CACDCHCJFZux0doSu4x8c7E6QOe4kDK79gAb%2BVE4CcgHfSUEeYg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CACDCHCJFZux0doSu4x8c7E6QOe4kDK79gAb%2BVE4CcgHfSUEeYg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
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/CAL5XZoqwRzG-sjDvzdVnEmV8BJGc2KiTLzkmZvmNyHcN90vsWQ%40mail.gmail.com.
