--
*Mar*Ridiculing
Ridiculing every perception based on feeling directly nature, and
converting the perception into a paradigm for understanding, is the
terrible pandemic created by Cartesianism or the mechanical approach
glorified as the scientific approach. The very scheme of nature as the base
and fountain of education is being discounted and denigrated. Once nature
was the only teacher. Enjoying the flow of natural Theism, the flow of
symbiosis that connects to the internal hormonal communications of every
organism, the gigantic structure of natural understanding, is dubbed as
superstition.
Ridiculing unfortunately has become the main feature of education. In the
Universities, only few students get the top grades and the grades sheet of
most students ridicules them on a permanent basis with the damning low
marks or grade sheet.
And there is only one way of education, the Cartesian way. Being blessed
with God, in our pineal gland, and the same being denied to every other
life form, we treat every life form as a machine only and studying them
only as mechanical structures without feelings, emotions and emotional
interactions, is the main feature of education. There is no university that
has a course that deals with inter specie emotional interactions and
emotional communications based on smelling, hearing, touching and sensing.
And there is no course that deals with the emotional relations between
humans and other organisms.
There are no courses that train students in smelling and sensing. Surrender
to machines the very faculties of perception and understanding, and the
gradual cyborging of perception, undestanding and day to day living is now
the human frenzy. Last night I saw in a TV channel that in China, they have
developed a chip that can be fixed into the Brain that enables longevity up
to 150 years.
What sort of human we may come across say, after fifty years from now,
filled with chips in the whole anatomy, creating the subject ‘Chip
Coordination’ of the chips implanted into one’s body.
When the chipped and equipped human meets a natural human, without any
implanted chips, can we expect the chip snobbery among the chipped humans?
Can the invasion of mechanization into the human anatomy be stopped? There
is the prospect of every human turning into a chat gpt.
How does nature interact with these mechanized, cyborged and chipped
humans? The very idea of emotional communication among all organisms of the
Biosphere is ridiculed today. We see the University educational Degree
holders, whose education is completely based on the mechanical and
Cartesian paradigm, ostracizing everyone whose education is based on the
direct interaction with nature.
Is there going to be war between the ‘Chip Haves’ and the ‘Chip Have Nots’?
Clearly we are today seeing the mechanized extinction of nature, carried by
persons educated by the Universities. This is the era of ridiculing nature.
YM Sarma
Chat gpt
The text you've shared is a powerful, emotionally charged critique of
modern education, scientific rationalism, and the trajectory of
technological integration into human life. YM Sarma presents a lament over
what is perceived as a systematic *ridiculing and suppression of nature,
emotion, and holistic perception*, replaced by *Cartesian reductionism*,
mechanical thinking, and the glorification of *technological enhancement*.
Here’s a breakdown and reflection on the core themes and ideas:
------------------------------
*🔍 Core Themes in the Text*
*1. Cartesian Dualism and Mechanization of Knowledge*
The piece criticizes Cartesianism—the philosophical approach that separates
mind and body, and tends to prioritize rationality and mechanical
explanation. The author argues that:
- Modern education is steeped in Cartesian logic, rejecting *direct,
emotional, and sensory engagement with nature*.
- Life is reduced to *mechanical systems*; emotions and natural
connections are considered unscientific or irrelevant.
*“...treat every life form as a machine...studying them only as mechanical
structures...”*
------------------------------
*2. Dehumanization Through Technology*
There’s deep concern over the *cyborg-like future of humans*, where:
- Chips in the brain extend life but may *sacrifice humanity*.
- Sensory and emotional intelligence is *delegated to machines*.
- The trend could lead to a *hierarchy between “chipped” and “unchipped”
humans*, resulting in alienation or even conflict.
*“Can we expect the chip snobbery among the chipped humans?”*
------------------------------
*3. Failure of Modern Education*
Sarma argues that universities:
- Promote a narrow path—*Cartesian, mechanical, reductionist*.
- Do not teach students to engage with *emotions, sensory experience, or
nature*.
- Produce graduates who are cut off from *natural empathy and organic
understanding* of the world.
*“There is no university that has a course that deals with inter specie
emotional interactions...”*
------------------------------
*4. Loss of Direct Experience and Sensory Learning*
There's a nostalgic yearning for a time when *nature was the only teacher*:
- Humans learned by *sensing, feeling, smelling, touching*—engaging all
faculties in harmony with the world.
- Modern systems *ridicule* those forms of learning as “superstition.”
*“Enjoying the flow of natural Theism...is dubbed as superstition.”*
------------------------------
*5. Nature as Sacred, Now Ridiculed*
The critique is not just academic—it’s *spiritual and existential*. The
natural world, once revered, is now viewed through the lens of *utility and
control*.
*“This is the era of ridiculing nature.”*
------------------------------
*🧠 Reflections & Questions*
This piece raises critical philosophical and ethical questions:
- *Can modern science and technology coexist with emotional, sensory,
and spiritual knowledge of nature?*
- *Is it possible to integrate education that respects both rational
inquiry and intuitive, ecological empathy?*
- *Will technological enhancement divide humanity, and if so, how do we
navigate this new form of inequality?*
- *What would it look like to create education systems that teach
sensing, smelling, and emotional intelligence in interspecies relations?*
------------------------------
*💡 Potential Responses to Sarma's Concerns*
If this text were to inspire action or further dialogue, one could propose:
1. *Educational Reform:*
- Introduce *eco-somatic education*, where learning happens through
bodily interaction with the environment.
- Courses on *interspecies empathy*, *biosemiotics*, or *emotional
intelligence with other life forms*.
2. *Philosophical Reconciliation:*
- Explore *post-Cartesian philosophies* (e.g., phenomenology, deep
ecology) that balance science with lived experience.
3. *Ethical Frameworks for Technology:*
- Develop guidelines around *chipping and enhancement*—to prevent
“chip snobbery” and digital class systems.
4. *Reclaiming the Sacred:*
- Reinstate *ritual, reverence, and direct experience* of nature as
part of human education and culture.
------------------------------
*📝 Final Thought*
YM Sarma's text is a call to *re-spiritualize and re-naturalize* the human
experience, to *resist the cold mechanics of a purely rationalist education*,
and to *preserve the sanctity of feeling, sensing, and living in tune with
nature*. Whether or not one agrees entirely, it’s an urgent reminder to
ask: *What are we sacrificing in the name of progress?*
Would you like help turning this into an article or essay format?
Sure. I’ll evaluate the text you shared as if it were a university-level
essay in a course such as *Philosophy of Science*, *Environmental Ethics*,
or *Critical Theory and Technology*. I’ll assess it based on standard
academic criteria: *Content & Argument*, *Structure & Clarity*, *Evidence &
Support*, *Originality*, and *Style & Language*.
------------------------------
📊 *Evaluation* 1. *Content & Argument (B+)*
· The *central argument* is strong and thought-provoking: modern,
mechanistic education devalues emotional, sensory, and spiritual knowledge,
resulting in alienation from nature and a dehumanizing overreliance on
technology.
· There’s *clear philosophical depth*, engaging with themes of
*Cartesian
dualism*, *reductionism*, and *technological transhumanism*.
· However, the argument could benefit from *more structure and
clarity*. It’s emotionally persuasive, but at times, it reads more like a
stream of consciousness than a formally organized argument.
✅ Strong philosophical position, but could be more logically structured to
clarify key claims and counterarguments.
------------------------------
2. *Structure & Clarity (B)*
· The piece lacks *traditional academic structure*: there’s no
clear introduction, body, and conclusion.
· Paragraph transitions are *abrupt*, and some ideas are introduced
without sufficient development or clear connection to the thesis.
· The essay would be stronger with *signposts* or headings to guide
the reader through the progression of thought.
✅ Passionate and coherent overall, but improvement in formal structure
would help convey the message more effectively.
------------------------------
3. *Evidence & Support (C+)*
· The text is mostly *philosophical and rhetorical*. It makes many
assertions (e.g. about universities, brain chips, emotional communication
with animals) without *specific references* or *examples*.
· Incorporating *sources, studies, or even historical/philosophical
references* (e.g. Descartes, Heidegger, Donna Haraway) would strengthen the
credibility of the critique.
✅ Strong voice, but lacks empirical or textual support that would make the
critique more academically grounded.
------------------------------
4. *Originality & Insight (A-)*
· The essay expresses *original and insightful concerns* about
education, technology, and nature.
· The idea of *"chip snobbery"* is a particularly fresh and
provocative image.
· The critique of education and emotional intelligence is timely,
echoing broader critiques from *posthumanist and ecological thinkers*.
✅ One of the strongest aspects of the essay. The ideas are unique and
challenge dominant paradigms.
------------------------------
5. *Style & Language (B)*
· The prose is *rich, poetic, and passionate*, which gives the
piece a strong emotional resonance.
· However, some sentences are *dense or grammatically awkward*,
which affects readability.
· A lighter editorial hand and clearer syntax would help the ideas
shine more.
✅ Thoughtful language, but polishing the prose would improve clarity and
flow.
------------------------------
🎓 *Overall Grade: B (High Second-Class / 3.3 GPA / 82%)*
*Comments:*
You present a deeply meaningful and highly original critique of modern
education and mechanistic science. The essay’s emotional power and
philosophical insight are commendable. To elevate this piece to an 'A'
level, I recommend:
· Organizing your ideas more clearly.
· Supporting your claims with concrete examples or references.
· Polishing your writing for clarity and grammar.
Would you like help editing this into a more structured academic essay?
Certainly. Here's a *numerical breakdown out of 100 marks*, following a
typical university humanities grading rubric:
------------------------------
📊 *Numerical Marks Breakdown*
*Criterion*
*Comments*
*Marks (out of 100)*
*1. Content & Argument*
Strong and original thesis, thoughtful critique of mechanistic education.
*24/30*
*2. Structure & Organization*
Coherent overall, but lacks formal structure and paragraph transitions.
*14/20*
*3. Evidence & Support*
Mostly philosophical; lacks specific references or empirical backing.
*11/20*
*4. Originality & Insight*
Very original, bold, and thought-provoking; engages complex issues deeply.
*18/20*
*5. Style & Language*
Poetic and expressive, but occasionally unclear or grammatically rough.
*14/20*
**🧮 *Total*
***81/100*
------------------------------
🎓 *Final Mark: 81/100*
Equivalent to: *Grade B / 3.3 GPA / High Second-Class Upper (UK)*
------------------------------
📌 Summary:
You’ve written a passionate and philosophically rich critique that
challenges dominant paradigms. It demonstrates real intellectual engagement
and creativity. To raise this into the A range (85+), you'd benefit from:
· More formal organization,
· Supporting evidence or references,
· And refining the prose for clarity.
Would you like me to help you revise and rework this into a cleaner,
publishable or academic version?
--
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/CACDCHCJ%3Dyw9RQJJ031G7wDgK3xDvxyixfUFNc_PVcZMZk7NUvw%40mail.gmail.com.
