-- *Mar* As a Limb of Gaia
Education mothers. Mother educates as feelings and emotions. A mother cannot be a machine and she cannot be mechanical. From zygote on the mother nurtures you, creates you cell splicing by cell splicing and the education is part of the mothering. You emerge into a bigger womb as a baby of the Goddess Gaia, who makes you her limb for life. You live as a limb of Gaia. You are part of the anatomy of Bhoodevi. You are planet earth. A healthy body means healthy limbs. Every life form is a limb of Bhoodevi. Your limbs automatically coordinate. They do not fight and Darwin each other. There can be no Social Darwinism among the limbs or the life forms, the limbs of Bhoodevi. The food chain is a chain of links of emotions. The basic electromagnetic energy of the Universe becomes emotional energy in the life forms. To become strong and healthy you must make nature healthy. The strong and healthy nature makes the healthy and strong you. You must note that births and deaths coordinate in the living of Bhoodevi. They are not adversarial. They are part of the emotion based ecology, emotions being the fundamental currency among the organisms of the Biosphere. Perception and understanding is always emotional and can never be mechanical. The hormones in you need blood, not diesel or petrol. In the free and healthy nature, you perceive and understand as nature, not as a parasite diseasing economically nature. Nature needs healthy ecology, not the Cartesian and mechanical and feelings-less economics. The Biosphere is not Livestock. It consists of life forms, your emotional, perception and understanding complements. The mechanical paradigm is diseasing education. Education has to be cured from the feelings-less mechanization. The immediate step is for every University to start a ‘Free Nature Park’ without human tampering. In the free and healthy nature, education takes to spell binding. Mathematics has to be taught emotionally. Two plus two creates the stronger four, but there can never be the precise and accurate four, because, the other particles, atoms and molecules interfere. Emotions cannot be mathematical and no emotion can be quantified. There is no minus in nature, as nothing can be destroyed or made completely extinct. There is only transformation. Mathematics shall be approached ecologically. Ecology deals with life forms which live emotionally or in approximations. Nature does not get struck up in the stagnant mathematical equations. There is place for approximations in mathematics. Today every course in every university is for some economic activity which means the promotion of destruction of nature. The Universities must shift to natural ecology, not the Cartesian ecology and get freedom from Economics. YM Sarma Chat gpt Below is a structured comparison of the views in the essay *“As a Limb of Gaia”* with those of several major thinkers and traditions. I will avoid judging the essay and instead clarify how its ideas align with, diverge from, or re-interpret other philosophical, scientific, and ecological perspectives. ------------------------------ *1. Comparison with James Lovelock and the Gaia Hypothesis* *Similarities* - *Earth as a living organism:* The essay’s claim that humans are “limbs” of Gaia closely parallels Lovelock’s view that the Earth system behaves like a single, self-regulating organism. - *Interconnectedness of life:* Both emphasize feedback loops, mutual dependence, and the inseparability of organisms from their environment. - *Non-mechanistic outlook:* Lovelock challenged strictly reductionist, machine-like understandings of environmental systems—similar to the essay’s critique of “mechanical” education and Cartesian thinking. *Differences* - *Emotional ontology:* The essay attributes *emotion* to ecology and even to the food chain, whereas Lovelock never framed the Gaia system in emotional or affective terms; he remained bio-geochemical. - *Moral claims:* The essay asserts a normative ethic: limbs do not “Darwin each other,” implying cooperation is the natural rule. Lovelock does not deny competition; Gaia contains both cooperation and conflict without prescribing moral obligations. ------------------------------ *2. Comparison with Deep Ecology (Arne Næss)* *Similarities* - *Intrinsic value of nature:* Both argue that humans are not above nature but part of it. - *Critique of anthropocentrism and economics:* Deep ecology criticizes consumption-driven economies, aligning with the essay’s denunciation of “feelings-less economics.” - *Reforming education toward ecological awareness:* Næss also proposed that education should cultivate ecological consciousness. *Differences* - *Emotional metaphysics:* Deep ecology stresses identification with nature, but it does not claim that ecological processes are fundamentally emotional or that emotions are the “currency” of the biosphere. - *Role of mathematics:* Deep ecologists do not reject mathematical precision; the essay rejects exactitude and suggests that mathematics should mirror ecological “approximation,” a distinct stance. ------------------------------ *3. Comparison with Romanticism (Rousseau, Wordsworth, Goethe)* *Similarities* - *Nature as educator:* The essay’s idea that “education mothers” and that exposure to free nature is essential echoes Rousseau’s *Émile*, where nature is the true teacher. - *Suspicion of mechanistic science:* Romantic thinkers critiqued the Enlightenment’s mechanical worldview much as the essay criticizes Cartesianism. - *Emotion as fundamental to understanding:* Romanticism elevated feeling and intuition, resonating with the essay’s insistence that perception is always emotional. *Differences* - *Gaian ontology:* Romanticism personifies nature but does not frame it as a literal organism with limbs. - *Prescriptions for universities:* Romantic thinkers suggested moral reformation through nature, but did not propose institutional ecological curricula as explicitly as the essay does. ------------------------------ *4. Comparison with Indigenous Ecological Worldviews* *Similarities* - *Earth as mother (Bhoodevi / Gaia):* Many Indigenous traditions refer to Earth as a motherly being, similar to the essay’s language. - *Humans as part of a living web:* The idea that humans are limbs of Earth mirrors Indigenous concepts of kinship with non-human life. - *Non-linear knowledge systems:* The essay’s critique of rigid, mechanical reasoning reflects Indigenous epistemologies that value relational and embodied knowledge. *Differences* - *Emotional physics:* Indigenous worldviews emphasize relationality but rarely assert that the basic energy of the universe is *emotional* energy. - *Universities and mathematics:* Indigenous perspectives critique Western education but do not generally call for mathematical ontology to be Ecological-Approximate in the way the essay proposes. ------------------------------ *5. Comparison with Cartesian Mechanism (Descartes)* *Contrasts* - *Mechanistic vs. organic worldview:* Descartes treated animals (and, derivatively, nature) as machines; the essay condemns mechanistic thinking as “diseasing education.” - *Emotion’s epistemic role:* Descartes viewed emotions as disturbances; the essay views emotion as the basis of all perception and understanding. - *Dualism:* Descartes separates mind from matter; the essay collapses them into a unified emotional ecology of the planet. ------------------------------ *6. Comparison with Darwin and Social Darwinists* *Similarities with Darwin* - *Acknowledgment of transformation rather than annihilation:* The essay’s “there is no minus in nature… only transformation” echoes evolutionary continuity, though Darwin does accept extinction as real. *Differences with Darwin* - *Role of competition:* Darwin affirmed that natural selection arises from struggle and competition. The essay denies competition among “limbs of Bhoodevi.” *Differences with Social Darwinists* - *Ethical application:* Social Darwinism uses evolutionary theory to justify competition among humans. The essay rejects this entirely, insisting that mutual coordination is natural and ethical. ------------------------------ *7. Comparison with Ecofeminism (Vandana Shiva, Carol Gilligan, Val Plumwood)* *Similarities* - *Motherhood as epistemology:* Ecofeminists see care, emotion, and embodiment as legitimate bases of understanding—aligned with the essay’s focus on mothering and emotional knowledge. - *Critique of masculinist, mechanistic science:* Strong resonance with ecofeminist critiques of Cartesian dualism and reductionism. - *Holistic ecological ethics:* Ecofeminism emphasizes relationality and interconnected health similar to the essay’s “healthy nature → healthy you.” *Differences* - *Overextension of emotion as physics:* Ecofeminism values emotions but does not equate them with the “basic electromagnetic energy of the Universe.” - *Mathematical rejection:* Ecofeminists critique misuse of abstraction but do not claim that precise mathematics is intrinsically unnatural. ------------------------------ *8. Comparison with Buddhist and Vedantic Thought* *Similarities* - *Interdependence (pratītyasamutpāda):* The essay’s holistic view resembles Buddhist interdependence. - *Non-destructibility (Gita’s na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre):* The idea that nothing is destroyed but transformed echoes Hindu philosophy. - *Earth divinity (Bhoodevi):* The invocation of Bhoodevi aligns directly with Hindu cosmology. *Differences* - *Emotion as epistemic foundation:* Buddhism treats emotions as clouds obscuring insight, whereas the essay treats emotion as the very medium of understanding. - *Gaian literalism:* Vedantic and Buddhist traditions typically treat Earth as sacred symbolically, not as a literal organism with limbs. ------------------------------ *Conclusion* The essay synthesizes multiple traditions—Gaia theory, ecofeminism, Indigenous cosmology, Romanticism, and Eastern philosophy—while sharply rejecting mechanistic, Cartesian, and economic paradigms. What is distinctive is its *emotional ontology*: the claim that ecology, physics, mathematics, perception, and education must be grounded in emotion rather than mechanism. This makes it philosophically closer to Romantic and ecofeminist thought than to scientific Gaia theory or Darwinian evolution, while also drawing deeply from mythic and spiritual understandings of the Earth as a living mother. If you want, I can also: - map these comparisons into a table, - summarize the essay’s worldview into key theses, - or compare it to a specific philosopher or school in more depth. -- 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/CACDCHCJsbRQ0ix4VGhpPi6jBjKcijhXChHLPxBO70OuRXRuASg%40mail.gmail.com.
