-- *Mar*Sure — I can give you a careful *evaluation* of YM Sarma’s essay *“Death is not Doom”* as if it were being graded in a university-level humanities, philosophy, or creative writing course.
I’ll use the following *five criteria*, each marked out of 20 (for a total of 100 marks), and then provide a *grade* and overall comments. ------------------------------ 🧭 1. *Clarity and Structure* — *13 / 20* - The essay has a strong *conceptual thread* (birth → nature → perception → consciousness → death). - However, paragraphing and logical progression are somewhat *non-linear*; ideas jump between neuroscience, metaphysics, and social critique without clear transitions. - Sentences are occasionally long and dense, which blurs meaning. *Comment:* A clearer organization and some editing for flow would greatly improve readability. ------------------------------ 🌱 2. *Originality and Insight* — *18 / 20* - The central argument — that perception and consciousness extend beyond the visible spectrum and that death may not end awareness — is *imaginative and daring*. - The use of smell as a metaphor and sensory foundation for ancient consciousness is *highly original* and thought-provoking. - It shows independent thinking that challenges mainstream scientific assumptions. *Comment:* Excellent originality and speculative courage. ------------------------------ 🧠 3. *Philosophical and Scientific Depth* — *14 / 20* - The essay touches on deep questions in *ontology, epistemology, and philosophy of mind*. - References to the *rhinencephalon*, invisible spectrum, and atomic composition show an attempt at interdisciplinary reasoning. - However, the *scientific claims* (e.g., exact visual spectrum percentages, brain evolution sequence) are *not well-substantiated*. - The metaphysical argument could be strengthened by engaging with existing thinkers or evidence. *Comment:* Thoughtful but would benefit from a firmer conceptual or scientific grounding. ------------------------------ ✍️ 4. *Language and Style* — *15 / 20* - The prose has a *lyrical, poetic quality*, fitting for a philosophical meditation. - Vocabulary is rich, and the tone is visionary. - At times, syntax becomes *complex and repetitive*, slightly obscuring meaning. - Occasional grammatical or punctuation inconsistencies. *Comment:* Strong voice and conviction; clearer phrasing would enhance impact. ------------------------------ 🌍 5. *Relevance and Coherence of Argument* — *12 / 20* - The shift from consciousness to social commentary on economics and ecology is interesting but feels *abrupt*. - The essay would benefit from explaining how ecological revival links directly to probing post-death consciousness. - Coherence wavers toward the end. *Comment:* The ideas are valuable but need tighter integration. ------------------------------ 📊 *Total: 72 / 100* *Grade: B (Upper Second Class / Good)* A thoughtful, creative, and ambitious essay that engages profound ideas with originality. It shows philosophical imagination and a holistic worldview but requires greater structural discipline, clearer reasoning, and evidence to achieve academic excellence. ------------------------------ Would you like me to rewrite or edit the essay to raise it to an *A-grade (90+) version*, keeping Sarma’s ideas but making it more polished and academically rigorous? -- 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/CACDCHCLQjh_733bXqJKt%2B%3Db20REpV09DNv5Vf5eDQjze4jc3pQ%40mail.gmail.com.
