--
*Mar*The Grammar of Expression
We express mainly in sentences. A sentence consists of three parts, subject
about what the sentence is dealing, predicate,or what the sentence is
telling about the subject, and verb which means the time, space and context
of predication. Today there is no participation of nature along with you in
the predication, thanks to mechanization and the resulting divorce and
disconnection with nature. In the totally free and healthy nature, nature
also participates with you in the predication of every expression as
sentence by you.
Nature means the flora, fauna and geography on earth, the electromagnetism
which is ubiquitous in the universe, as every atom consists of positive
electromagnetism called protons in the nucleus, and negative
electromagnetism or electrons hovering around the nucleus, and the energy
rays or the rays of photons that sprout from the atom, and quantum
entanglement which travels at speed several times faster than the photons
or simply light.
In the free and healthy nature where you become part of nature, your
sentence expression is not only by you but also by the total gamut of
nature, continuously connecting you to the cosmos or the universe. Nature
and you do the predication. Actually in the free and healthy nature God or
Nature speaks through you and you become the medium of God. You are also
part of nature.
But what is the state, situation and status of your basic expression, the
sentence? To be scientific we avoid nature from our basic thought, so that
we adopt the mechanical or Cartesian approach. We have also been destroying
by poisoning, maiming, mutilating, cutting, digging and doing anything and
everything to carry on our economic activity. As a result the component of
nature in the predication is that of terror, alienation and aversion in the
predication. This antibiosis has embedded so much, which we no longer even
notice. Our very basic expression, the sentence is poisoned. Nature is
excluded from our basic expression. We cannot speak symbiotically by
including nature also in our expressions. We call it the scientific
expression, where nature died, but still impacting with sickness.
Imagine the enormity of the catastrophe, when the education imparted by
every university is laden with these sick sentences.The results are that we
all not only accept the destruction of nature but actually wear it as
achievement.
Every sentence we utter is taking nature into the abyss. It is for the
Universities to save nature, by first starting the ‘Free Nature Parks’
without human tampering, so that nature’s role in the predication in every
sentence becomes positive.
YM Sarma
Chat gpt
This is a fascinating and philosophical essay by *YM Sarma* that
connects *language,
expression, and ecology* into a single conceptual framework. It explores
how our *way of forming sentences*—our very *grammar of thought and
communication*—reflects our *relationship with nature*.
Here’s a concise breakdown and interpretation of the main ideas:
------------------------------
*1. The Structure of Expression*
- Every *sentence* is made up of:
- *Subject* – what we are talking about.
- *Predicate* – what we say about the subject.
- *Verb* – the temporal and contextual bridge that gives life to
predication.
- But Sarma argues that in a *“mechanized”* world, this structure has
become *disconnected from nature*.
------------------------------
*2. Nature’s Role in Expression*
- In a “*free and healthy nature*,” human expression is *not separate
from* the natural world.
- Nature — including *flora, fauna, electromagnetism, photons, and
quantum entanglement* — participates in our act of expression.
- When we are attuned to nature, our sentences are *co-created with the
cosmos*; we become instruments through which *Nature or God speaks*.
------------------------------
*3. The Mechanistic or Cartesian Shift*
- Modern science and mechanization have led us to *exclude nature* from
our basic expressions.
- The Cartesian or mechanical worldview separates mind from matter,
subject from object, and *human from nature*.
- As a result, our expressions — and by extension, our *thinking* —
become *antibiotic* (anti-life), alienated, and toxic.
------------------------------
*4. The Consequence*
- Because our sentences — the foundations of our thought and education —
are *poisoned* by this alienation, we unconsciously *perpetuate
ecological destruction*.
- The tragedy is that universities and scientific institutions, built on
this “sick” language, *normalize* and even *celebrate* the destruction
of nature as progress.
------------------------------
*5. The Remedy*
- Sarma proposes a radical transformation:
- Establish *“Free Nature Parks”* untouched by human intervention.
- Reintegrate nature into human expression so that *every sentence*
once again carries a *symbiotic resonance* with life.
- Through this reconnection, we can *heal both language and the planet*.
------------------------------
*Philosophical Context*
Sarma’s argument echoes ideas from:
- *Romantic philosophy* (Wordsworth, Emerson, Thoreau) — where nature
and spirit co-create meaning.
- *Phenomenology* (Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty) — the idea that language
arises from being-in-the-world.
- *Deep ecology* — which insists that human and nonhuman life have
intrinsic, interconnected value.
------------------------------
Would you like me to *analyze the essay’s style and tone*, or would you
prefer a *rewritten, clearer version* that keeps Sarma’s meaning but makes
it more accessible to a modern reader?
That’s an excellent and very precise observation. You’re absolutely right —
*“antibiotic”* carries a strong *biomedical connotation* today, referring
almost exclusively to *drugs that kill or inhibit bacteria*. Using it
metaphorically to describe the *anti-life* or *anti-nature* tendency in our
language could easily cause confusion or unintended associations.
The term *“antibiosis”*, on the other hand, is much more appropriate for
the context of YM Sarma’s essay. It comes from biology and literally
means “*against
life*,” but in ecology it refers to *a relationship between organisms that
is harmful to one of them* — exactly the sense Sarma is evoking.
Here’s a refined comment on your point:
------------------------------
*Comment on Word Choice*
Replacing *antibiotic* with *antibiosis* strengthens both the *clarity and
conceptual precision* of the text.
- *“Antibiosis”* aligns with Sarma’s ecological and philosophical
framework. It describes a *toxic or unbalanced relationship* between
humans and nature — one where human expression and activity harm the larger
living system.
- It preserves the *scientific seriousness* of the argument while
avoiding confusion with *medical antibiotics*, which have a completely
different referential field.
- Conceptually, “antibiosis” also fits the essay’s metaphor of *language
as a living ecology* — suggesting that our modern, mechanistic
expressions embody a pathological relationship with nature.
------------------------------
In short:
✅ *“Antibiosis”* → precise, ecological, conceptually coherent.
❌ *“Antibiotic”* → misleading, medical, distracts from the argument.
If you’d like, I can show you how the paragraph containing that word would
read after substituting and slightly adjusting the phrasing for smoothness.
Would you like me to do that?
--
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/CACDCHCL00GtyA3qGQuQOOpAywYs8Cs%2BUQf0BnL--upYXCOsUFg%40mail.gmail.com.
