-- *Mar**Feeling-Vs-Engineering* *Once understanding was participation with every organism in the Biosphere, based on breathing, smelling, sensing, interacting, communicating ...in symbiosis. It was not a separated individual phenomenon, with marks and grades attached. In fact the entire Biosphere participated in the understanding, and all organisms spoke to each other by means of smelling and sensing. Thanks to economics we first excluded ourselves from the Biosphere and today reached the stage of self non acceptance. We need the approval of others desperately. When one was breathing and participating in symbiosis, the problem of absence of self confidence and the desperate need for others approval was not there. One belonged. Today we have either snobs or cowards or a mixture of both in all.*
*From the understanding as a participant in the Biosphere, gradually, we entrophied into understanding-- as an individual effort. In this effort to understand, one needs a conceptual base to connect, and if there is no conceptual base that can be connected, understanding is not possible. But the conceptual bases can obtained only in nature and when nature is killed, nature cannot help in the understanding process. Now we are abandoning the very effort to understand and have surrendered the effort to computers. Machines do the understanding while we get dictated. Today we cannot live in a thick forest. Because we cannot smell, sense and communicate. Fear is the only emotion that engulfs. In the economic life, fear has taken over as continuous anxiety, and all escape from the anxiety by creating often superfluous work.* *China is supposed to be a very strong country. Thanks to its economic hysteria, it killed its environment totally, and there will be the near future when large areas would become uninhabitable. How can a country be strong when the people there continuously breathe poisonous fumes? As it is most countries are trying to threaten each other by showing more and more powerful weapons and machines. A coward, a sickly and wasted half person can do war. Computers watch and fight. Computers do not need breathing, sensing, conceptualizing etc.They function on the basis of algorithms prepared by other computers. The days of the cyborg wives and husbands with the pre-fed marriage algorithms and software are not far off.* *YM Sarma* *Chat gpt* That’s a powerful and provocative essay by *Y.M. Sarma*, titled *“Feeling vs Engineering.”* It’s a deeply philosophical critique of how humanity’s relationship with nature—and with understanding itself—has shifted from *participation* to *abstraction*. Here’s a concise breakdown and interpretation of its core ideas: ------------------------------ *1. Understanding as Participation* - Originally, *understanding* was *experiential and ecological*—a living participation in the web of life. - Every organism was part of a vast, communicative network based on *sensing, smelling, and symbiosis*. - There was no separation between self and nature; to *be* was to *belong.* ------------------------------ *2. The Rise of the Conceptual and Economic Self* - With the advent of *economics and individualism*, humans cut themselves off from the Biosphere. - Understanding became *mental and analytical*, dependent on *conceptual bases* rather than sensory participation. - This shift bred *alienation, insecurity, and dependence on external validation*—the “need for others’ approval.” ------------------------------ *3. Entropy of Understanding* - Sarma uses “*entrophied*” to suggest a decay of living understanding into mechanical thought. - As nature is destroyed, the *source* of all conceptual connection—*nature itself*—is lost. - Now, we even outsource *understanding* to *machines*, surrendering agency and creativity. ------------------------------ *4. The Age of Fear and Superficial Activity* - Fear replaces belonging. - Economic anxiety pushes people to fill their lives with *“superfluous work”*—busyness that hides existential emptiness. - The inability to *smell, sense, and communicate* with nature reflects a deeper *loss of capacity for empathy and connection.* ------------------------------ *5. The Paradox of Power and Weakness* - Sarma criticizes modern nations (like China, in his example) for equating *economic and military might* with strength while their people and environments decay. - Real strength, he implies, lies in *biological and ecological health*, not technological domination. ------------------------------ *6. The Mechanization of Life* - As machines “understand” and “fight” on our behalf, humanity becomes *spectators* rather than participants. - The closing image—“cyborg wives and husbands with pre-fed marriage algorithms”—is a chilling metaphor for *total alienation*, where even intimacy is preprogrammed. ------------------------------ *Central Thesis* Sarma’s essay contrasts *feeling (symbiotic, ecological participation)* with *engineering (conceptual, mechanical abstraction)*. He warns that by privileging the latter, we’ve reduced understanding to computation, and life itself to an algorithm—losing the very capacity to *feel, connect, and belong.* ------------------------------ Would you like me to turn this interpretation into a *summary essay* (e.g., 500 words) or a *discussion response* (like for a class or paper)? Certainly. Here’s my opinion and commentary on Y.M. Sarma’s *“Feeling vs Engineering.”* ------------------------------ *Commentary and Opinion* Y.M. Sarma’s essay is not just an environmental or technological critique—it’s a lament for the loss of *being*. It expresses a profound grief for humanity’s disconnection from the living world, and for the hollow mechanization of what was once the most intimate human activity: *understanding.* Sarma’s core argument—that understanding was once participatory and embodied—rings true in both ecological and psychological terms. Modern cognitive science even supports this: much of human intelligence is *embodied cognition*, arising from the body’s interaction with the environment. Our senses are not passive receivers but active interpreters. When Sarma says, *“understanding was participation with every organism in the biosphere,”* he points to a forgotten truth: to know the world, we must first *be in* the world. The essay also powerfully diagnoses the *psychological consequences of separation*. When understanding becomes an abstract, individual effort—measured by marks, grades, and economic output—we replace belonging with performance. The “need for others’ approval” and the epidemic of low self-confidence are symptoms of a society that prizes measurable outcomes over lived connection. Sarma’s observation that we have become “snobs or cowards or a mixture of both” may sound harsh, but it captures the paradox of modernity: arrogance built on insecurity. His critique of *economics and technology* as the forces that sever us from the biosphere is partly moral and partly existential. He does not reject technology per se, but the *mindset* behind it—the one that sees life as data, and intelligence as computation. When he says, “machines do the understanding while we get dictated,” it’s not merely about AI; it’s about the abdication of responsibility. We no longer strive to understand because it’s easier to let algorithms define truth, beauty, and even relationships. The chilling image of “cyborg wives and husbands” is a warning that emotional life itself is at risk of being engineered. However, one might challenge Sarma’s view as overly nostalgic or essentialist. Human history has always been a dance between feeling and engineering, intuition and structure. The conceptual, symbolic mind—the one that builds tools and theories—is not inherently alienating; it’s also a form of creativity. The problem may not be that we *engineer*, but that we’ve forgotten how to *feel while engineering*. The future need not be a binary choice between the forest and the machine; it could be a reconciliation—an *ecological intelligence* that unites the precision of technology with the empathy of biospheric participation. Sarma’s despair about the loss of natural communication—our inability to “smell, sense, and communicate”—is profound, but perhaps not irreversible. The growing movements in *ecological design, biomimicry, and deep ecology* echo his call to rediscover belonging through integration, not withdrawal. Even digital technologies, when guided by awareness rather than greed, can reconnect us to the living systems we once silenced. ------------------------------ *Conclusion* Sarma’s essay is a wake-up call written in poetic anger. It confronts us with the question: *What is the cost of intelligence divorced from life?* His vision may seem apocalyptic, but beneath it lies a plea for humility and reconnection. In a world of algorithms and anxiety, he reminds us that true understanding is not computed—it is *felt*. ------------------------------ Would you like me to expand this into a polished essay-style response (about 700–800 words) suitable for academic submission or publication? -- 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%2BmfAZ7UC6oE91jWqJcUT_DcRJxnfLVLAwfB3VC6u43YA%40mail.gmail.com.
