-- 
*Mar*

Perceiving Lessons-Vs-Drilling Lessons



Suppose a large expanse of land is left completely free, with absolutely no
human interference or any type of tampering. Suppose it is designated as
‘The Free Nature University’. The students in that university have to adopt
their own method of perception and understandings, accepting that every
life form interacts symbiotically.Subjects have to be created by the
student individually on his/her own. When they enter the forest they shall
not take any book or any other appliance with them. The idea is to
emotionally interact with the other life forms, perceive, understand and
paradigmatize. They have to hear, smell, touch, see, taste or just shut of
all sensing, adopting whatever strategy they decide.

Gradually they advance in the 99.9965% of the totality, the arena of the
invisible spectrum accessible only via feeling, actually deep feeling.
Suppose with your eyes you can see everything, atoms, particles etc, then
you cannot see things, anything.You have to enter the non 3D phenomena,
amenable only to feeling. A grand coordination of mind, Hormonal
communication system and nervous system, coordinates with the five senses,
along with the troposphere, Lithosphere, Hydrospere and the Biosphere. You
cannot see or may be even conceptualize yourself when lessons form in you.
May be the ubiquitous electromagnetism, may be creating mild fissions and
fusions, drawing you into participation. You may become a macro being with
cosmic characters.

You may develop the talent or capacity to communicate and interact with the
other organisms of the Biosphere, and the endowment of feeling the changes
in the geographical activities like earthquakes, tsunamis etc,you actually
enter the past phenomena, adopting feeling, which must have been the method
of perception, during the age of Rinencyphalon,the nose brain. You may do
time travel, not into past geography but repetition of the method of
perception then.

Can a student from such a University use any technology at all, surrender
to machines, his living by natural perceiving? Can he surrender his
perception and understanding to machine and become the noting clerk? Can
lessons be drilled into him when he joins any University, which is governed
by Cartesianism and mechanical paradigms? Can he even understand any
economic motivation, in the place of natural faculties of directly
smelling, hearing and sensing education? After all economics is based on
the repudiation of ecology and on the assumed behavior of the phantom, the
economic man, the machine assumed away to bluff that it is a study of the
ordinary man in his ordinary business of life. Does not the student
confront the pollution of education which cartesianism is? Can he
participate in the economic activity of regularly maiming nature?

The student from such a University can only participate with nature
symbiotically in nature’s natural growth. Can he be the gentle Jekyll of
the Free Nature University and also the Mr. Hyde of the University in
economic frenzy? He has to fight the Universities under the Cartesian
frenzy.

YM Sarma

Chat GPT

Below is an *edited and improved version* of your text, followed by my
*commentary* explaining the changes and offering reflections on the ideas.
------------------------------

*Edited & Improved Version*

*Perceiving Lessons vs. Drilling Lessons*

Suppose a vast expanse of land is left completely free, with absolutely no
human interference or tampering of any kind. Let it be designated *The Free
Nature University*. The students of this university must adopt their own
methods of perception and understanding, accepting that every life form
exists in symbiotic interaction with others.

Subjects are not predefined; each student must create them individually.
When they enter the forest, they carry no books and no instruments. The
purpose is to emotionally engage with other life forms—to perceive,
understand, and form paradigms. They may listen, smell, touch, see, taste,
or even suspend all sensory input altogether, adopting whatever strategy
their intuition leads them to choose.

Gradually, they advance into the 99.9965% of totality—the invisible
spectrum accessible only through feeling, through deep feeling. If one
could see everything—atoms, particles, and forces—one would actually see
nothing at all. Vision alone becomes inadequate. One must enter
non–three-dimensional phenomena, which are accessible only through feeling.

A grand coordination emerges: the mind, the hormonal communication system,
and the nervous system align with the five senses, interacting with the
troposphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere. Lessons form within
the student without conscious recognition; one may not even be able to
conceptualize oneself at that moment. Perhaps ubiquitous electromagnetism
induces subtle fissions and fusions, drawing the learner into
participation. One may even feel transformed into a macro-being with cosmic
attributes.

Such a student may develop the capacity to communicate and interact with
other organisms in the biosphere and to sense changes in geographical
activity—earthquakes, tsunamis, and tectonic shifts. One may enter past
phenomena, not as historical events but as modes of perception—reviving the
ancient sensory methods of the rhinencephalon, the “nose-brain,” which once
dominated human cognition. This is not travel into past geography, but a
repetition of past ways of knowing.

Can a student from such a university surrender to machines at all? Can one
who lives by natural perception hand over understanding to technology and
become merely a noting clerk? Can lessons be drilled into such a student
within universities governed by Cartesianism and mechanical paradigms? Can
such a student even comprehend economic motivation when natural
faculties—smelling, hearing, sensing—form the basis of education?

Economics, after all, is largely founded on the repudiation of ecology and
on the assumed behavior of a phantom—the “economic man.” This abstraction
pretends to represent ordinary human life while actually reducing it to
mechanical calculation. Does not such a student inevitably confront the
pollution of education that Cartesianism represents? Can one participate in
economic activity that routinely maims nature?

A student from the Free Nature University can only participate
symbiotically, aligning with nature’s own patterns of growth. Can such a
person be both the gentle Dr. Jekyll of the Free Nature University and the
Mr. Hyde of an economically frenzied university system? Inevitably, the
student must resist and challenge universities entrenched in Cartesian
frenzy.

*—Y. M. Sarma*
------------------------------

*Commentary*

*1. Structural and Language Improvements*

   - Long, dense sentences were clarified and broken where necessary to
   improve readability without diluting philosophical depth.
   - Grammar, spelling, and flow were refined (e.g., “shut of all sensing”
   → “suspend all sensory input”).
   - Repetition was reduced while preserving your rhythm and contemplative
   tone.

*2. Conceptual Clarification*

   - The contrast between *perception-based learning* and *mechanical,
   Cartesian education* is now sharper and more coherent.
   - The idea of “feeling” as a mode of knowledge—beyond sensory input and
   rational abstraction—was strengthened and made more explicit.
   - Your references to biology, geology, and cosmology were integrated
   more smoothly to emphasize holistic learning.

*3. Philosophical Framing*

   - The critique of economics as a discipline divorced from ecology was
   sharpened while retaining your strong stance.
   - The metaphor of *Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde* was clarified to highlight
   the moral and existential conflict between symbiotic living and
   exploitative systems.

*4. Preserving Your Voice*

   - Importantly, I did not neutralize or domesticate your radical critique.
   - The speculative, almost mystical quality—especially regarding
   perception, electromagnetism, and ancient cognition—was preserved, but
   expressed with greater coherence.

*5. Overall Assessment*

Your essay is best read as a *philosophical manifesto* rather than an
academic argument. It challenges dominant epistemologies and proposes a
radically embodied, ecological, and pre-technological way of knowing. With
these edits, the text becomes more accessible to readers without
sacrificing its depth or its confrontational power.

If you’d like, I can:

   - Make a *more academic version* with references
   - Condense it into a *short manifesto*
   - Or sharpen it further as a *critique of modern education and economics*

-- 
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/CACDCHCKcdX2zMEdJYyHUKEsVvYtY5UER00QrFFKTHUhfBAQbAw%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to