When Education Becomes a Carrier of Corruption: Pros and Cons of a Flawed
Academic System
Education is meant to enlighten, liberate, and refine
human consciousness. Yet, when the very words and ideas taught in
universities become “sick sentences”—laden with bias, distortion, or moral
decay—the institution meant to cure ignorance instead spreads a deeper
intellectual disease. The statement invites us to imagine a catastrophic
scenario where corrupted thought is institutionalized. While such a vision
seems grim, exploring both its pros and cons helps us understand its
implications and the reforms required.
Pros (or Apparent Benefits)
Exposure to Harsh Realities
When flawed or morally questionable content seeps into education, it
sometimes forces students to confront real-world corruption, manipulation,
and deceit. This confrontation can awaken critical thinking and
skepticism—qualities that pure idealism may not foster.
Catalyst for Reform
A decaying educational culture can provoke resistance and inspire reform
movements. Many intellectual revolutions—such as the Renaissance or social
awakening in colonial India—were born from dissatisfaction with stagnant or
sick systems of knowledge.
Freedom of Expression, Even if Distorted
Allowing a range of ideas, even morally “sick” ones, reflects a form of
academic freedom. It opens the arena to debate and scrutiny. Suppressing
such ideas outright might create authoritarian control over knowledge.
Breaking Illusions of Perfection
Exposure to a flawed education system can help students recognize that
truth is not always served in polished language. This realization can make
them more self-reliant learners and seekers of authenticity.
Cons (The Catastrophe Itself)
Corruption of Thought and Morality
If universities normalize unethical reasoning, prejudice, or consumerist
ideology, they produce graduates who think brilliantly but act blindly.
Knowledge becomes a tool of manipulation rather than liberation.
Decay of Language and Clarity
“Sick sentences” symbolize the degeneration of language—where empty jargon
replaces honest expression. When language dies, thought decays. The student
learns not to think but to repeat.
Loss of Intellectual Integrity
Universities that prioritize market value over moral or cultural depth end
up creating technicians without wisdom. Degrees multiply, but depth
disappears.
Alienation from Truth and Humanity
When education feeds artificial values—competition without compassion,
profit without ethics—it alienates learners from life’s essence. The
catastrophe lies in the mass production of clever minds and hollow hearts.
Erosion of Public Trust
Once the public perceives education as manipulative or politicized, faith
in institutions collapses. This breeds cynicism and societal instability.
The image of a university filled with “sick sentences” is both metaphorical
and prophetic. It warns us that the real catastrophe is not in bombs or
earthquakes but in corrupted minds trained to rationalize wrong as right.
Yet, the same sickness can become a turning point—if society dares to
diagnose and heal it. The cure lies in restoring truth, humility, and moral
responsibility to learning.
K Rajaram IRS 161025
On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 at 10:49, Markendeya Yeddanapudi <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> --
> *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
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCL00GtyA3qGQuQOOpAywYs8Cs%2BUQf0BnL--upYXCOsUFg%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/CAL5XZoqCSiQ-ccHL0Ded5P5HuOsmeQzAyU%2BhFu56O0cxGAagaw%40mail.gmail.com.
