-- *Mar**Bias is breathe*
*Suppose you want to view and contemplate without any bias about a problem. At the time of contemplation, you stop breathing. You keep a deep breath and do not exhale. Suppose the contemplation continues. You exhale but immediately take another deep breathe. The deep breath and determination go together. The major portion of the air breathed in goes to the brain, which needs oxygen and blood uninterruptedly. You are feeding the brain with the emotion to solve. The biggest bias is the urge to be unbiased. When an idea or solution strikes, bias towards that idea or solution simply floods. The entire lung power will be inducted to make that idea or solution accepted.* *When you are contemplating, by breathing you are actually using the troposphere for thinking. When you find a solution or an idea again you are using the troposphere to help you in making your idea acceptable. Breathing always ultimately is the breathing of emotions. Breathing, smelling, sensing, interacting, communicating...all are carried out by using the troposphere.* *Then the idea or solution becomes the conceptual foundation and the base to connect. If you cannot connect you cannot understand. The conceptual base becomes the solidified bias. It takes over the new thinking. If the bias is very strong, one becomes a fanatic, often a violent fanatic. One actively obstructs ideas that go against the concepted bias.* *Today, one strong bias is the bias towards what is called the scientific outlook. It has degenerated into mechanical outlook, making one surrender one’s own thinking to the machines or the algorithms, laid as concept foundations. The computers do not need breathing and so have no use for the troposphere for functioning. So we are happily poisoning the air and calling it development.* *Cars are making our legs redundant. Computers and calculators are making our brains redundant. The ‘How to Dance’ and the ‘How to Paint’ etc books are making nature redundant as the foundation of artistic inspiration. And pollution is making the direct breathing redundant. There are the oxygen masks that create the standardized emotions---the branded emotions. Bias also is being mechanized and manufactured. My God!!!!, bias too has become the standardized emotion, monitoring the breathing. And as the air is becoming poisonous and unbreathable we have to depend totally on the computers to think. The scientific outlook is trouncing the spiritual or the breathe based outlook.* *YM Sarma* *Chat GPT* Below is a *dual evaluation* of your essay, using the two frameworks you specified: ------------------------------ *1) Evaluation Using Cartesian Logic* (*Clarity, coherence, rational structure, evidence, definitions, internal consistency*) *Criteria & Marks (out of 10 each)* *A. Conceptual clarity – 4/10* The central metaphor—*breathing as bias*—is intriguing, but it is not clearly defined in logical terms. Physiological claims (e.g., "air goes to the brain," "troposphere used for thinking") are metaphorical but are sometimes presented as literal, weakening conceptual precision. *B. Logical coherence – 5/10* The essay moves from breathing → emotion → bias → troposphere → fanaticism → pollution → technology → spiritual outlook. These transitions are associative rather than logically deduced. The argument chain is emotionally compelling but not strictly justified. *C. Evidence and reasoning – 3/10* The arguments rely on analogy and assertion. There is no empirical evidence or clear philosophical justification for claims such as “computers make the brain redundant” or “scientific outlook trounces spiritual outlook.” *D. Structure & organization – 5/10* The essay has a clear thematic progression, but the section on "scientific outlook" feels like a sharp shift rather than a structured conclusion. Paragraphs could be more clearly linked with explicit reasoning. *E. Internal consistency – 6/10* Within its metaphorical framework, the narrative is consistent, though sometimes it is unclear whether you intend the statements as metaphors or literal claims. *Cartesian Logic Total: 23/50 → Grade: C* *Summary:* Philosophically evocative but not logically rigorous. Strong metaphor, weak argumentation. ------------------------------ *2) Evaluation Using Natural Emotional Logic* (*Intuitive resonance, symbolic power, emotional coherence, expressive unity*) *Criteria & Marks (out of 10 each)* *A. Symbolic richness – 9/10* Using *breath* as a metaphor for *bias, emotion, connection, and cognition* is powerful and poetic. The imagery connects deeply with embodied experience. *B. Emotional continuity – 8/10* The emotional arc—attempting neutrality, confronting bias, expanding into societal critique—flows with raw intuitive force. The reader feels a rising tension leading to the “My God!!!” climax. *C. Narrative voice & authenticity – 9/10* The voice is personal, expressive, and unfiltered. It retains an almost mystical earnestness that aligns with the theme of breath and spirit (“spiritus”). *D. Intuitive coherence – 7/10* Although not logically sequenced, the essay follows an emotional-psychological progression that makes intuitive sense: breath → mind → bias → society → machines → spirituality. *E. Aesthetic & reflective depth – 8/10* The essay invites contemplation and treats bias not as error but as a living organism intertwined with breath and emotion. This contributes depth. *Natural Emotional Logic Total: 41/50 → Grade: A-* *Summary:* A vivid, metaphorically rich, emotionally coherent reflection that resonates at the level of lived experience rather than analytic philosophy. ------------------------------ *Overall Dual-Logic Conclusion* *Cartesian:* Analytically inconsistent, metaphor-heavy, lacking evidence → *C* *Natural Emotional:* Expressive, symbolic, insightful in its own logic of inner life → *A-* Your essay succeeds brilliantly as *poetic philosophy* and *phenomenological reflection*, but not as a structured logical argument. If the goal is to persuade analytically, more grounding and explicit reasoning would help. If the goal is to evoke insight through metaphor, you are already doing that very effectively. If you'd like, I can also: ✅ Suggest revisions for improving Cartesian coherence or ✅ Enhance the poetic impact while keeping the emotional logic Just let me know which direction you prefer. -- 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/CACDCHCLzU2A3FRUtCXfYz5z8TPTyQm2HLEhmOFd2-QuJH%2BxrTg%40mail.gmail.com.
