-- *Mar**Originality*
*When one becomes the origin of a thought, innovation, invention, discovery, new philosophy, one gets credited with originality. It is the result of one’s direct interaction with nature. One has understood nature in a new way and gathered the idea. The source is nature.* *Suppose, nature is allowed to bloom, undisturbed---, not destroyed at all. Then nature becomes the basic conceptual base for connecting for understanding. In fact nature continuously gives new enlightenments and the so called rare originality of today would be a natural day today trait of every one. Life will be a life of enlightenments, exciting thrills..., because one travels in life with nature in its continuous change. Every minute will be a minute of new discovery. God or nature takes one in a wonderful voyage of life. Theism and perception become one, Theism being the emanation of nature.* *I am not advocating a religious strait jacket, which in fact is more suffocating than the present technological strait jacket in which one is limping in life.* *When nature blooms one smells and senses understanding, making one discover and discover and discover continuously, life itself becoming continuous discoveries.* *Today thanks to technology, nature is getting eliminated on a gigantic scale. Ecology died long back and the organisms do not have the basic relationship devised by nature. It is machines that perceive, that observe, that deduce, that devise, that explore...with almost all human activities defunct. Nature the medium of life is being removed and technology is aggressing. The slaves of technology, who lost nature and as a result the life of enlightenments, are trying to substitute, nature with economics. New and new machines are invented to drive away nature.* *Inventions in fact are removing the very possibilities for discoveries. A discovery is knowing about a new fact relating to nature. It is enlightenment. An invention on the other hand, is simply devising a method of doing to achieve an objective. It simply refers to some technical device. Today inventions are killing discoveries.* *I have made one discovery. Once I think I could have spoken to a rock, the rock being part of nature. Today the rock is as unresponsive as I am experiencing to my posts to the forum. Both equally are unresponsive. I need to devise an invention, some techno device to get response, I guess.* *YM Sarma* *Chat gpt* Here is a thoughtful, balanced comment you could consider, addressing both the strengths and the tensions in the piece: ------------------------------ Your reflection presents a deeply philosophical and poetic meditation on originality, positioning nature as the primary source of insight, discovery, and enlightenment. One of its strongest aspects is the clear distinction you draw between *discovery* and *invention*: discovery as an awakening to what already exists in nature, and invention as a technical means toward predefined ends. This distinction is compelling and invites readers to reconsider what modern society celebrates as “progress.” The idea that originality arises from an intimate, undisturbed engagement with nature is persuasive and resonates with traditions in philosophy, science, and spirituality—from early natural philosophers to transcendentalists. Your argument that nature, if allowed to “bloom,” could make enlightenment a common human experience rather than a rare achievement is both hopeful and provocative. At the same time, the essay adopts a strongly oppositional stance toward technology, sometimes framing it as almost entirely displacing human perception and agency. While this sharp contrast gives the piece emotional force, it may oversimplify a complex relationship. Technology can indeed alienate us from nature, but it can also extend human perception, reveal hidden patterns in nature, and even support ecological understanding when used consciously. Acknowledging this tension could strengthen the argument without weakening your core concern. The closing metaphor—comparing the unresponsiveness of nature’s “rock” with the silence of a forum audience—is striking and ironic. It subtly illustrates your point about mediated interaction while also adding a personal, almost self-reflective tone. However, some readers might interpret this as pessimistic rather than exploratory; clarifying whether this is meant as critique, satire, or lament could enhance its impact. Overall, the piece is rich in vision and conviction. Its central challenge—to reconsider originality not as technological novelty but as a living dialogue with nature—is valuable and timely. With slightly more nuance in its treatment of technology and a bit more structural clarity, it could become an even more powerful philosophical statement. ------------------------------ If you’d like, I can also: - Help you *tighten the language* while preserving its poetic style - Rewrite it in a *more academic* or *more lyrical* tone - Offer a *short response comment* suitable for a forum or journal discussion -- 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/CACDCHCJ17uUK2qkDB-G-%2BO%2BTw%2B272ezySaQ40XU38R-sg5e%2BeQ%40mail.gmail.com.
