After all, deviation from the state of the speed of light has led to the
struggle to return to the speed of light, and that struggle is the struggle
of consciousness, called the conscious notice. But this taboo or
superstition against consciousness in science has become very costly.
KR: The statement suggests a novel, non-scientific theory
connecting the speed of light, consciousness, and a scientific taboo
against consciousness, but this concept is not supported by mainstream
scientific or philosophical thought. In science, consciousness is generally
understood through the hard problem of consciousness—explaining subjective
experience from physical processes—and isn't a struggle against the speed
of light. The idea of a "conscious notice" as a struggle to return to light
speed is a unique philosophical assertion outside established frameworks.
In physics, the speed of light in a vacuum is considered a universal
constant, not a state from which one can deviate and struggle to return.
Sri Aurobindo uses the term “reversal of consciousness” in
speaking about the evolution of consciousness. He states: “The principle of
the process of evolution is a foundation, from that foundation an ascent,
in that ascent a reversal of consciousness and, from the greater height and
wideness gained, an action of change and new integration of the whole
nature.” (Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, p. 724) By reversal of
consciousness Sri Aurobindo means a complete “turnover” of the
consciousness which takes place at each radical transition in the
evolutionary ascent of consciousness: the emergence of Life from Matter,
the emergence of Mind from Life, and the evolution of Overmined into Super
mind.
The Mother uses the term “reversal of consciousness” for another kind of
total and radical change of consciousness, the change from the normal or
ordinary consciousness in which one is ignorantly identified with the ego
into the consciousness in which one is identified with one's true self. She
describes the phenomenon as a revolution of the basic equilibrium, that is,
a total reversal of consciousness comparable with what happens to light
when it passes through a prism. Or it is as though you were turning a ball
inside out, which cannot be done except in the fourth dimension. One comes
out of the ordinary three-dimensional consciousness to enter the higher
four-dimensional consciousness, and into an infinite number of dimensions.
The Mother, Questions and Answers 1950-51 , p. 19 Speaking about the
phenomenon in less abstract terms, the Mother says:
...when the phenomenon occurs, it brings with it an inexpressible
something, so new and so definitive, that doubt and questioning are no
longer possible. It is truly, in the absolute sense of the phrase, a new
birth.
Research into photons and consciousness explores whether mental
activity can influence physical systems at the quantum level, such as in
experiments where focused attention on a double-slit experiment appears to
cause photon wave functions to collapse. Other avenues include examining
how entanglement of photons generated by the myelin sheath in the brain
might relate to neural synchronization and consciousness, with the idea
that brain structures could act as quantum environments. Some research
suggests a connection between consciousness and photon behavior. Studies
focusing attention on photons in a double-slit experiment observed a
psychophysical interaction, where conscious engagement seemingly collapses
the photons' wave function, changing their behavior from wave-like to
particle-like. These findings challenge the traditional view of physical
events exclusively affecting mental processes, suggesting instead that
mental activities can influence physical systems, particularly at the
quantum level. A significant area of research proposes that the myelin
sheath, the fatty covering around axons, generates entangled photons. This
entanglement within the brain's unique structures could be crucial for
neural synchronization and consciousness. This quantum activity is
theorized to affect neural synchronization and consciousness, and changes
in myelin thickness that influence photon entanglement could be linked to
cognitive decline and neurodegenerative diseases. Some theories suggest
that consciousness emerges from the electromagnetic fields within the
brain, where photons play a role in chemical interactions and the formation
of emergent physical structures. Theories of quantum resonance propose that
the brain might be capable of quantum entanglement, with virtual photons
acting as the basis for subjective experience within neuronal
networks. Neuroscience
has furnished evidence that neurons are fundamental to consciousness; at
the fine and gross scale, aspects of our conscious experience depend on
specific patterns of neural activity – in some way, the connectivity of
neurons computes the features of our experience.
This reliance on a “magical emergence” of consciousness
does not address the “objectively unreasonable” proposition that elements
that have no attributes or properties that can be said to relate to
consciousness somehow aggregate to produce it. Neuroscience has furnished
evidence that neurons are fundamental to consciousness; at the fine and
gross scale, aspects of our conscious experience depend on specific
patterns of neural activity – in some way, the connectivity of neurons
computes the features of our experience. So how do we get from knowing that
some specific configurations of cells produce consciousness to
understanding why this would be the case? Behind the voltages and currents
electrophysiologists measure is a staggeringly complex system of
electromagnetic fields – these are the fundamental physics of neurons and
glia in the brain. The brain is entirely made of electromagnetism (EM)
phenomena from the level of the atoms up. The EM field literally manifests
the computations, or signaling, or information processing/activities
performed by connected cellular ensembles that generate a 1st-person
perspective. An investigation into the EM field at the cellular scale
provides the possibility of identifying the outward signs of a mechanism in
fundamental terms (physics), as opposed to merely describing the correlates
of our mental abstractions of it.
Neuroscience research, led by the funding that supports it, is
dominated by research into disorders of the nervous system. The pursuit of
treatments and cures (and the research efforts into understanding the
normal function of the brain) builds on decades of discovery into all
levels of neural organization – seemingly none of it reliant on knowing
very much at all about consciousness. Studies of how consciousness is
generated, and why it has the characteristics it does, is nevertheless a
focus of considerable interest and effort. There is no consensus about how
it is generated, or how best to approach the question, but all
investigations start with the incontrovertible premise that consciousness
comes about from the action of the brain.
What is interesting is that a scientific account of
consciousness need form no explicit part of what motivated the cited
progress in neuroscience. Indeed, attention to consciousness has woven a
history of considerable scientific-cultural controversy into it.
Neuroscience is a relative late comer to the question of how consciousness
arises, and it is only in the last decades that this topic obtained a level
of legitimacy within neuroscience research. This transformation can
arguably be specifically dated to the 1990 work of Francis Crick (another
Nobel Laureate) and Kristoff Koch that gave birth to the (neurobiological)
“correlates-of-consciousness” empirical paradigm (Crick and Koch, 1990) and
its descendants. By organizing the science around isolation of
observational “correlates-of” consciousness, a physical science could
finally get permission to deal with consciousness without its related
funding application being tainted by a historically “career-limiting”
direct attack on what was then a taboo explanandum in the physical
sciences: the 1st-person perspective (1PP) (Wallace, 2000).
PRINCIPLES OF INCONGRUITY BY THE SAME SCIENCE: The idea
that consciousness arises from processing signals (of the now well-defined
and well-understood neuronal forms) would give rise to the phenomenon of a
1PP can be called “strong emergence” (or “magical emergence”) because there
is, currently, no reason to hold that such a phenomenon would, should, or
could follow from the known properties of the system’s constituents (Bedau,
1997; Chalmers, 2006; O’Connor, 2020). This gap in the explanatory sequence
has been discussed for as long as the nature of the mind has been
considered (Levine, 1983; Van Gulick, 2018), and has more recently been
characterized by David Chalmers as the “hard problem”: “Why should physical
processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively
unreasonable that it should, and yet it does” (Chalmers, 1995, 1996, 1997).
The computational view renders consciousness either a rather unimportant
feature of brain function or a causally inert epiphenomenon inhering in it.
If everything the nervous system does is computation, and thus computation
does everything, then there would seem to be no need for consciousness.
This disconnects the computational or symbolic representation of brain
operation from the physics of the system it represents (the EM physics of
nervous system signaling). In other science disciplines, digital models or
simulations are used to represent the known and hypothesized attributes and
relationships between the elements of a system. In brain sciences that
study consciousness within the paradigm of computation, there is no
perceived need to relate the model’s results to the actual physics of
brains and neurons. In the current neuroscience paradigm, the physics of
brain cells can be entirely ignored once we have sufficient data on
activations and connectivity to accurately mimic the signal processing
apparently performed by brain signaling physics. This “abstracting away” of
the underlying fundamental physics implies that consciousness will emerge
from the analogous (or informationally equivalent) simulation of a model of
the signal processing that happens in brains. One of the difficulties with
accepting this kind of strong emergence as an explanation for consciousness
is that it is unclear how to proceed from this position to a deeper
understanding of how this happens.
SCIENTISTS MAY STRUGGLE BUT CONSCIOUSNESS IS AN ABSTRACT ONLY
FELT AND SO MATHEMATICALLY IMMEASURABEALE: The way we do science (and I say
this as someone who has published many scientific papers) prevents us from
studying the intrinsic perspective of the thing that is conscious because
it operates from the outside in, that is, from the ‘extrinsic perspective’.
Geologists, cosmologists, chemists, particle physicists and bacteriologists
habitually treat the objects they study as mindless and lifeless matter,
not as systems having a sentient inner life. Even neuroscientists and
psychologists, in some cases, can be accused of treating their living
subjects in this way. As things stand, we have no scientific framework
within which to study the intrinsic perspectives of physical systems,
what’s going on from their point of view. And this is as true of brains as
anything else. In fact, in most areas of physical science it is just
assumed — without rationale or evidence — that physical systems like atoms,
molecules, cells, apples, mountains and planets have no intrinsic
perspective to study. [What Matter Feels: Consciousness, Energy and Physics
(How Science can Explain Minds) is a new book that sets out a scientific
framework for studying consciousness. It is available in eBook, paperback
and hardback formats from Amazon and other outlets.]
K RAJARAM IRS 24925
On Tue, 23 Sept 2025 at 20:19, Markendeya Yeddanapudi <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> --
> *Mar*Consciousness-the Taboo in Science
>
>
>
> Today, the scientific temperament, scientific approach, the Cartesian
> reasoning etc are championed by those that thumb their noses at
> Spiritualism. The topic consciousness is taboo, and every subject matter
> must be emotionless and feelings-less subject matter so that there will be
> no interference from it, in predication. The manner in which they tie
> themselves in knots to evade the subject or key factor, consciousness, from
> quantum mechanics( not quantum emotions), is very amusing. Most of them
> will be revolted by the very phrase quantum emotion. But Quantum Mechanics,
> in fact is Emotion Mechanics, and there is a vital need to remove the word
> mechanics from the phrase, so that the subject matter becomes studies of
> consciousness processes and emotional manifestations. Then Big bang will be
> the study of the start of consciousness, and one will be on the right lines
> in developing the TOE.
>
> After all, deviation from the state of the speed of light has led to the
> struggle to return to the speed of light, and that struggle is the struggle
> of consciousness, called the conscious notice. But this taboo or
> superstition against consciousness in science has become very costly. Let
> me elaborate.
>
> A tree has no Brain to do the Cartesian reasoning. It breathes, smells,
> senses and communicates creating emotional interaction as its communication
> or living. Now let us see what happens in summer. The heat from the Sun
> converts the tropics into the very hot low pressure belt, converting the
> water into steam continuously. The steam automatically moves up, becomes
> cool and becomes water from the state of steam, falling as rain. The rain
> becomes downpour. The high temperature and heavy rainfall will create very
> thick forests. If there is no human tampering, the thick equatorial
> evergreen forests will fill the earth’s surface from the tropic of
> Capricorn, cross the tropic of cancer right up to the Himalayas, converting
> every inch into some plant. The area will become the cool heaven.
>
> THE FOREST WILL DRAW YOU INTO THE GREAT OCEAN OF FEELINGS AND
> CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE TREES, AS THEY LIVE ONLY IN FEELINGS AND
> EMOTIONS.EMOTIONS ALWAYS EVOKE EMOTIONS AND THERE CAN NO SCOPE FOR THE
> CARTESIAN PERVERSION.
>
> The taboo in science against emotions cannot be continued as the emotions
> filled air fills all only with feelings. The evergreen equatorial forest
> will march, towards both north and south, converting earth into one huge
> forest. There can be forest variations due to latitude and topography;
> still forests will dominate, converting the planet earth into the emotional
> Bhoodevi or the angelic Gaia, clearly showing that the Cartesian logic is
> weird.
>
> Every tree, plant or blade of grass evokes only love and emotional
> bonding. Can we then do economics on them and murder all of them as
> economic activity?
>
> Today deserts are marching while forests are dying due to the routinized
> murder as economic activity. Please go under a tree and feel with the tree
> symbiotically.
>
> YM Sarma
>
> Chat gpt Thank you for sharing *YM Sarma’s* thought-provoking and
> emotionally rich essay, *“Consciousness—the Taboo in Science.”* It offers
> a powerful critique of modern scientific reductionism and its aversion to
> integrating *consciousness* and *emotion* into mainstream discourse,
> especially within physics and ecological understanding.
>
> Here's a breakdown and reflection on the key themes and arguments in this
> piece:
> ------------------------------
>
> *🔍 Core Themes & Arguments*
>
> *1. Consciousness as a Scientific Taboo*
>
> Sarma suggests that consciousness is systematically excluded from
> scientific inquiry, particularly by adherents of Cartesian logic, which
> emphasizes objectivity, detachment, and emotionless reasoning. The essay
> challenges this detachment, asserting that reality, especially at the
> quantum level, cannot be fully understood without accounting for *emotion*
> and *awareness*.
>
> *"Quantum Mechanics, in fact, is Emotion Mechanics."*
> This provocative claim challenges the mechanical metaphor of science.
> Sarma is asking: *Can you truly study the micro-foundations of the
> universe without engaging with the subjective experience?*
> ------------------------------
>
> *2. Cartesian Reasoning vs. Living Systems*
>
> Cartesian reasoning (from Descartes) separates mind and body, subject and
> object. Sarma critiques this split, especially when it is applied to *life
> forms like trees*, which *don’t “think”* in Cartesian terms but *feel,
> sense, and communicate* in deeply emotional ways.
>
> The *tree*, without a brain, still breathes, senses, and interacts. It’s
> a challenge to the idea that cognition or intelligence requires centralized
> reasoning or symbolic logic.
> ------------------------------
>
> *3. Emotional Ecology*
>
> The essay argues that *forests are emotional ecosystems*. They live and
> thrive through *feelings and symbiotic relationships*. There’s a poetic
> and spiritual tone in the way the forest is described:
>
> *"The forest will draw you into the great ocean of feelings and
> consciousness of the trees…"*
>
> It suggests a worldview where nature is not a passive background, but a
> *sentient* and *feeling-based presence*, echoing indigenous and animistic
> worldviews, as well as aspects of *Deep Ecology* and *Gaia theory*.
> ------------------------------
>
> *4. Critique of Economics as Murder*
>
> Sarma draws a *moral and emotional line* between economic systems and
> environmental destruction:
>
> *"Can we then do economics on them and murder all of them as economic
> activity?"*
>
> The critique is stark: the *utilitarian*, *quantitative*, and
> *exploitative* nature of modern economics is depleting the emotional and
> conscious essence of Earth (Bhoodevi/Gaia). This isn't just ecological
> degradation—it's a *spiritual and emotional loss*.
> ------------------------------
>
> *5. Vision of a Conscious Earth*
>
> The final vision is of an Earth transformed—not by machines, but by
> consciousness, emotions, and forests. An earth reborn through *empathy*,
> *love*, and *non-Cartesian logic*.
>
> The essay envisions a future where the Earth becomes an *“emotional
> Bhoodevi or the angelic Gaia.”*
> ------------------------------
>
> *💡 Philosophical Implications*
>
> - *Panpsychism*: The idea that consciousness is a fundamental property
> of matter, present at all scales—from atoms to ecosystems—resonates with
> the essay.
> - *Quantum Consciousness*: Although not a mainstream theory, some
> thinkers (like Penrose & Hameroff) have explored whether consciousness
> could be rooted in quantum processes.
> - *Ecopsychology*: The emotional connection between humans and nature
> is being studied as a way to heal both individual trauma and ecological
> damage.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *🧭 Closing Thoughts*
>
> Sarma’s essay is not a traditional scientific argument. It’s a *call to
> feel*, to abandon the cold detachment of Cartesian reasoning and embrace
> a *holistic, emotional, and consciousness-infused* understanding of life
> and the universe.
>
> It insists that *science without soul is blind*, and *economics without
> empathy is violent*.
>
> It invites us to sit beneath a tree—not just to observe it, but to *feel
> with it*, to be transformed by it.
> ------------------------------
>
> Would you like this essay adapted into a more formal article, a speech, or
> perhaps a philosophical dialogue? I’d be happy to help shape it further.
>
> Certainly. Let’s evaluate the original essay by *YM Sarma*,
> *“Consciousness—the
> Taboo in Science,”* using a structured rubric commonly applied in
> academic or critical writing, especially for philosophical or reflective
> essays.
> ------------------------------
>
> *📊 Evaluation Rubric (Total: 100 marks)*
>
> *1. Content & Originality (25 marks)*
>
> - *Score: 22 / 25*
> - *Comments:*
> The essay is highly original, offering a passionate and unconventional
> perspective on consciousness, science, and nature. It integrates ideas from
> quantum physics, ecology, spirituality, and philosophy in a creative way.
> The critique of Cartesian reasoning and the poetic vision of Earth as a
> conscious being are compelling and rich in insight, though at times,
> loosely structured.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *2. Clarity & Structure (20 marks)*
>
> - *Score: 13 / 20*
> - *Comments:*
> The essay lacks clear logical structure in places. Ideas flow in a
> stream-of-consciousness style, which may resonate emotionally but can
> confuse readers expecting academic or logical clarity. Paragraph
> transitions are sometimes abrupt, and key arguments are not always
> developed fully before moving on.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *3. Argumentation & Coherence (20 marks)*
>
> - *Score: 14 / 20*
> - *Comments:*
> The core argument—that science wrongly excludes consciousness and
> emotions—is provocative and important. However, the logical development of
> this argument could be more rigorous. For example, terms like *“quantum
> emotion”* are introduced without definition or empirical support,
> making the claim more poetic than persuasive from a scientific standpoint.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *4. Language & Expression (15 marks)*
>
> - *Score: 12 / 15*
> - *Comments:*
> The language is expressive and passionate. Phrases like “emotional
> Bhoodevi” and “ocean of feelings” show a poetic sensibility. However, there
> are minor grammatical lapses and occasional overuse of capital letters
> (e.g., “EMOTIONS ALWAYS EVOKE EMOTIONS”), which could be softened for a
> more polished tone.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *5. Relevance & Insightfulness (20 marks)*
>
> - *Score: 17 / 20*
> - *Comments:*
> The essay is highly relevant in a world grappling with environmental
> collapse, emotional alienation, and scientific reductionism. The idea of
> reevaluating science through the lens of consciousness and emotion offers
> fresh insight. It raises deep questions—even if not all are answered
> clearly.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *✅ Total Score: 78 / 100*
> ------------------------------
>
> *🎓 Grade: B+ (Upper Second Class / High Pass)*
>
> *★** Feedback Summary:*
>
> This is a *bold and emotionally resonant essay*, rich with philosophical
> depth and ecological concern. It succeeds in *provoking thought* and
> *challenging
> mainstream assumptions*, particularly about science and its detachment
> from emotion and consciousness. However, to move into the highest academic
> bracket (A or A+), it would need:
>
> - A clearer structure and logical progression of arguments
> - Defined terms and more conceptual clarity (especially around
> “quantum emotion”)
> - Less reliance on poetic tone and more on reasoned elaboration (while
> still preserving the emotional spirit)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> If you're planning to revise or publish this essay, I’d be happy to help
> tighten its structure while preserving its philosophical and emotional
> intensity.
>
> Certainly. Here's an *original short story* inspired by the themes in
> *"Consciousness—the
> Taboo in Science"*: the divide between scientific materialism and the
> living, emotional essence of nature—especially forests—and the overlooked
> role of *consciousness* in shaping reality.
> ------------------------------
>
> *🌿 “The Whispering Grove”*
>
> *An original short story inspired by the philosophy of YM Sarma*
> ------------------------------
>
> *Part I: The Forbidden Subject*
>
> Dr. Mira Sen was the youngest theoretical physicist ever to hold a chair
> at the prestigious Institute for Quantum Inquiry. A child prodigy raised on
> equations and logic puzzles, Mira believed that everything—absolutely
> everything—could be reduced to math, even love.
>
> Her colleagues revered her precision, her rigor. But Mira carried a secret.
>
> For months, a question had been stirring in the edges of her mind, a taboo
> no one at the Institute dared to touch:
>
> *What if consciousness wasn’t an epiphenomenon of the brain... but
> fundamental to the universe?*
>
> She’d whispered it once to an AI model trained on quantum theories. The
> model glitched. Then collapsed.
>
> “Stay within the boundary,” her mentor had warned. “Emotion is noise. We
> need clean signals.”
>
> But the signals weren’t clean. Not anymore.
>
> Her latest experiment—a quantum entanglement test in a vacuum-sealed
> chamber—had produced impossible results. Observers weren’t just collapsing
> wave functions.
>
> They were *changing* them.
>
> It was as if the particles could feel *who* was watching.
> ------------------------------
>
> *Part II: The Forest That Waits*
>
> Burned out and disillusioned, Mira took a sabbatical and escaped to a
> rainforest conservation center in the Western Ghats—an act totally unlike
> her. She told no one.
>
> The locals called the forest *Devi Vanam*—"The Forest of the Goddess."
> They believed the trees had moods, memories, and even favorites among the
> villagers.
>
> Mira scoffed—at first.
>
> But then the strange things began.
>
> At night, the forest hummed—not with wind or insects, but something
> deeper, like a *breath* beneath sound. Trees leaned toward her tent.
> Birds stopped mid-flight, hanging in the air just a fraction longer than
> gravity should allow.
>
> Then came the dreams.
>
> Each night, Mira walked through luminous groves that whispered in a
> language she didn’t know but somehow understood. Not with her brain, but
> her body.
>
> She began to *feel* the forest—its hunger, its sorrow, its joy at the
> first drop of monsoon.
>
> One morning, after a storm, she stood under an ancient fig tree. Something
> in her cracked open.
>
> She wept—not out of sadness, but recognition.
>
> “I see you,” she whispered to the tree. “And you... see me, don’t you?”
>
> Its branches rustled without wind.
>
> That night, she didn’t dream.
> She *listened*.
> ------------------------------
>
> *Part III: Return to the Institute*
>
> Months later, Mira returned to the Institute, changed.
>
> Her eyes were softer. Her papers were weirder. She published a thesis
> called *“Quantum Empathy: The Participatory Universe.”*
>
> She proposed that *emotion itself* might influence quantum states—that
> *feelings* were part of the fabric of reality, not distortions of it.
> That the observer effect wasn’t just mechanical; it was *relational*.
>
> They laughed. Her reputation crumbled. Funding vanished. She was quietly
> retired.
>
> But her paper was archived online.
> ------------------------------
>
> *Part IV: The Whisper that Spread*
>
> Years passed.
>
> Some dismissed Mira as a mystic lost in metaphor. Others read her quietly,
> then returned to forests and meadows to test her ideas with homemade
> instruments and open hearts.
>
> One day, an MIT team reran one of Mira’s early quantum field
> experiments—but this time, using observers trained in *deep meditation*
> and *emotional focus*.
>
> The results were... undeniable.
>
> Particles responded differently to different *emotional* states of the
> observer. Anger, fear, joy—each had a signature effect.
>
> Mira’s work resurfaced. Not as pseudoscience, but as the birth of a new
> science:
>
> *Consciousness Physics.*
>
> A fusion of feeling and function.
> Of tree and thought.
> Of emotion and equation.
> ------------------------------
>
> *Epilogue: Under the Tree*
>
> Mira never returned to the lecture halls. She lived out her years in a
> modest cabin at the edge of Devi Vanam, beneath the fig tree that had first
> spoken to her.
>
> When she died, villagers said the tree bloomed out of season.
>
> And for a moment, the entire forest leaned in,
> as if to say goodbye
> to one of their own.
> ------------------------------
>
> *🪶 *“The Earth has always been conscious,” she once wrote.*
>
> *“We simply lost the ability to feel her thinking.”*
> ------------------------------
>
> Would you like this story extended into a novella, or transformed into a
> screenplay, illustrated book, or audio script? I can help shape it further
> depending on your 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/CACDCHCLXEuxc9MbL0j_aer%3D4MpNYj3Ov_-iaOUhOzE6UY-d9uA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCLXEuxc9MbL0j_aer%3D4MpNYj3Ov_-iaOUhOzE6UY-d9uA%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/CAL5XZordh_x1bXqJiW4fVhewh34yCY6fHfEtuxa0hLRuoDFdTA%40mail.gmail.com.
