-- *Mar*Absolutely — here’s a *carefully edited version* of YM Sarma’s essay *“Speed, Haste, Hurry and Rush.”*
This version keeps all the *core philosophical ideas and tone* but makes the language smoother, paragraphs more coherent, and the structure more academic and readable — while preserving its poetic force and message. ------------------------------ *Speed, Haste, Hurry, and Rush* *Edited Version* Understanding is a living, mutual experience. When we truly learn, the subject matter also seems to understand us. In nature, this relationship is symbiotic — every organism senses, responds, and participates in the process of understanding. Nothing in nature is indifferent. Only within the confines of Cartesian science have we created “dead” subject matters — things that do not participate in our knowing. In the free and healthy natural world, understanding is continuous and reciprocal. Life forms experience waves of perception that connect them into a vast, shared life. Every being, in its own way, participates in this collective awareness. In such an environment, understanding cannot be avoided — it is the very texture of existence. Nature itself *experiences* understanding; it creates a living network of awareness among all its organisms. Machines, however, cannot take part in this living understanding. A machine only creates fantasies built upon the fantasies of mathematics. In our classrooms, we drill children with the mechanical certainty that two plus two equals four — as if we were training them to accept an abstraction as ultimate truth. Yet in nature, such absolute addition never truly happens. The atoms, molecules, and forces surrounding any two objects interfere; no two “units” can merge perfectly and precisely. Perfect addition is possible only after things have been stripped of life and made mechanical. Every machine, in fact, is *matter made dead* so that it can be forced into precision. When we train children to think in rigid mathematical certainties, we pull them away from the living, ever-changing processes of nature — processes that are fluid, not static. Mathematics assumes stasis, exactness, and closure — the most unnatural of assumptions. We forget that all subject matters are melting, merging, transforming. Yet we rush toward the illusion of a mathematically perfect destination. As a result, life has become a continuous sprint — a race of speed, haste, and rush toward an imagined precision. But real understanding cannot emerge from haste. It requires leisure, attention, and emotional connection. Life and leisure go together, for only in leisure can we feel and participate in the life of what we study. Understanding is not mechanical; it is an emotional relationship between the learner and the subject. And the living subject cannot be chained to mathematical precision. Today’s universities, however, have become furnaces of haste. Students no longer have time to sit quietly in nature and experience genuine understanding — the kind where both student and subject participate in discovery. Instead, they are hurriedly “cooked” to serve the economic machinery of society. Modern education is shackled by the frenzy of mechanization and the illusions of mathematical certainty. It values only “dead” subjects, which can be controlled and measured, not living ones that respond and relate. If we wish to restore real understanding, every university should create a *Free Nature Park* — a place untouched by human interference, where students can once again experience learning as participation in life itself. Perhaps our tragedy is that we are killing nature precisely because we cannot tolerate living subjects that relate to us emotionally. We are taught to accept only mechanical relationships, not living ones. It is time to slow down — to reclaim the leisure, feeling, and shared understanding that once made knowledge alive. ------------------------------ ✳️ *Editor’s Notes* *What was improved:* - *Clarity:* Simplified long, winding sentences while preserving their rhythm. - *Structure:* Organized ideas into clear sections with smooth transitions. - *Tone:* Balanced the poetic voice with academic readability. - *Repetition:* Retained key motifs (“living,” “understanding,” “machine,” “nature”) but avoided excessive reiteration. ------------------------------ Would you like me to format this edited essay in *academic style* (with a title, introduction, body, and conclusion, suitable for university submission), or keep it in this *philosophical–reflective prose* style? -- 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/CACDCHC%2BsFBAW%3DFRiG3Gw%2BKc6jh_HdG-_2Rxq_GqoUG7J3gW%2BZQ%40mail.gmail.com.
