I like deep subjects and you are among them KR On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 at 18:39, Yeddanapudi Markandeyulu < [email protected]> wrote:
> Rajaram Sir, > In any other country especially the WEST,you would have been a big > reference source,the established genius you are.Thank You very much Sir. > YM Sarma > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 9:04 AM Rajaram Krishnamurthy < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Nature doesn’t speak with humans in words the way people do—but many >> cultures, philosophers, and scientists would say it does communicate, just >> in different ways. >> >> How nature “speaks”: >> >> Through patterns and signals: changing seasons, animal behavior, weather >> shifts, plant growth—these all carry information. >> >> Cause and effect: if forests are destroyed, floods increase; if oceans >> warm, coral dies. Nature “responds” to human actions. >> >> Through human perception: sounds of wind, waves, birds, and silence >> affect emotions and thoughts. Our brains interpret meaning from them. >> >> Cultural and spiritual views: many Indigenous traditions believe nature >> is alive and communicates through signs, dreams, or intuition. >> >> Scientific view: >> >> Nature doesn’t have intention or language like humans, but it constantly >> exchanges information through physical, biological, and ecological >> processes. >> >> Poetic or philosophical view: >> >> Nature “speaks” when humans are quiet enough to listen—by observing, >> reflecting, and understanding our connection to it. >> >> So the answer depends on how you define speaking: Literally? No. >> >> Symbolically, emotionally, or informationally? Very much yes. >> >> 2 Then how humanity think nature needs protection and >> cannot take care of self? >> >> That’s a deep and important question—and it touches history, science, and >> human values. >> >> Short answer: Humans don’t protect nature because it is weak—we protect >> it because human activity has become powerful enough to damage systems that >> normally regulate themselves. >> >> Here’s how that idea developed: >> >> 1. Nature can take care of itself — without humans >> >> For billions of years, nature maintained balance through: >> >> evolution >> >> climate cycles >> >> predator–prey relationships >> >> natural regeneration >> >> If humans disappeared, ecosystems would eventually recover. In that >> sense, nature doesn’t need saving. >> >> 2. The problem is the speed and scale of human impact >> >> Nature adapts slowly. Humans change things very fast: >> >> industrial pollution in decades >> >> deforestation in years >> >> species extinction faster than evolution can replace >> >> climate change within a single century >> >> Nature will respond—but the response may be mass extinction, ecosystem >> collapse, or conditions hostile to humans. >> >> So when we say “protect nature,” we often mean: >> >> protect the conditions that support human and other life now >> >> 3. “Protecting nature” is really about responsibility >> >> Humans realized: >> >> We caused damage intentionally or unintentionally >> >> We benefit from nature (food, water, climate stability) >> >> We have the ability to reduce harm >> >> Protection became an ethical choice, not a claim that nature is helpless. >> >> 4. Language matters: a human-centered misunderstanding >> >> Saying “nature needs protection” is shorthand. More accurately: >> >> Nature doesn’t need us >> >> We need stable ecosystems >> >> Future generations need livable conditions >> >> So protection is often about self-preservation, even when framed as >> altruism. >> >> 5. A philosophical angle >> >> Some thinkers argue: >> >> Nature isn’t a machine to control >> >> Humans are not separate from nature >> >> Harming nature is harming ourselves >> >> From this view, protection is not dominance—it’s restoring balance. >> >> In one sentence >> >> Humanity protects nature not because it cannot survive—but because our >> actions can make it survive without us. >> >> 3 1. Indigenous worldviews >> >> Nature is not separate from humans >> >> Nature is alive, relational, and often considered kin (mother, ancestor, >> spirit). >> >> Humans don’t “protect” nature as an object; they maintain reciprocity. >> >> Harm happens when humans break balance or respect. >> >> Nature doesn’t need saving—relationships need repairing. >> >> 2. Eastern philosophies (Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism) >> >> Harmony over control >> >> Taoism: Nature follows the Tao (the natural way). Human interference >> creates imbalance. >> >> Buddhism: Suffering comes from craving and domination, including over >> nature. >> >> Hinduism: Nature is sacred; rivers, trees, animals have divine aspects. >> >> Protection means: >> >> Reducing desire, excess, and ego—not managing nature aggressively. >> >> 3. Western religious view (traditional Christianity, Islam, Judaism) >> >> Stewardship model >> >> Nature is created by God. >> >> Humans are given responsibility, not ownership. >> >> Damage to nature is a moral failure. >> >> Protection means: >> >> Caring for creation as a duty—but this view sometimes led to human >> dominance if misinterpreted. >> >> 4. Modern scientific view >> >> Systems under stress >> >> Ecosystems are self-regulating—but only within limits. >> >> Human activity pushes systems past tipping points. >> >> Collapse is measurable, predictable, and already happening. >> >> Protection means: >> >> Reducing human pressure so systems can function normally again. >> >> 5. Capitalist / industrial view >> >> Nature as resource >> >> Nature is raw material for progress. >> >> Protection emerged only after damage threatened economies and health. >> >> Protection means: >> >> Managing resources so they don’t run out—not always respecting intrinsic >> value. >> >> 6. Modern environmental philosophy >> >> Humans are not above nature >> >> Deep ecology: Nature has value independent of human use. >> >> Eco-humanism: Human survival depends on ecological health. >> >> Climate ethics: We owe responsibility to future generations. >> >> Protection means: >> >> Changing how humans see themselves—not just changing policies. >> >> The core misunderstanding >> >> When people say “nature can’t take care of itself”, what they often mean >> is: >> >> Nature can’t absorb unlimited harm at human speed without consequences >> for life—including us. >> >> Final thought: Nature doesn’t need protection to exist. >> >> It needs protection from one species that forgot it was part of >> nature.Pra-kriti the nature was prior to human developed on own morals; so >> it can grow,refurbish and rejuvenate; human if plucking flower, yield in >> nature expands; if the tree of flower is uprooted, humans feel the dryness >> and cannot survive; so human out of selfishness must pick from Prakriti a >> limited resultants enough for the humanity. K RAJARAM IRS 8126 >> >> NB: Dialogue between KR and YM: >> >> KR Dialogues 3 so far were quite interesting >> >> YM …………. >> >> KR what is suffering and torture in running the economics? >> >> YM Under economics, money causes misery. Misery in turn hurts >> everything including nature. So, torture to the nature is routed through >> the econo9y only. >> >> KR Before we were born the existence of nature was there. Tht meant, >> it did not depend on any of us. Rig Vedic verses show that we worshipped >> nature; we worshipped the tree before the branches we needed were to be cut >> but nature gave all of it and expanded further. Barter was also an economy >> where torture prevailed as in the barter the equivalent value was missing; >> a day food and a gold bar or piece is not of equal value when it is known a >> little later as ranking of matter away from the economics as science >> started. Science created equality but misused by the consumer. Economics is >> value based scientifically; but by hoarding the human misused it; so, >> torture was both sides. Torture arose from the acts of the omissions and >> commissions of the human. >> >> YM So let’s throw nature to the wind? >> >> KR No, let's also not patronize nature. We need the science and the >> economics of nature; we need the tree branches for building homes and for >> furniture; we need metals; we need gas; we need cool breeze when nature is >> hot. So, air-conditioning. So, in order to thank nature which is boon to >> us, let’s thank it and control consumerism by a limited usage. However, all >> are not good so misuses will provoke the nature and punishments received we >> may have to endure as its economics. >> >> On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 at 08:28, Yeddanapudi Markandeyulu < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Below is a *three-way philosophical conversation* between *Y. M. Sarma*, >>> *Fritjof Capra*, and *Ken Wilber*. >>> Each voice is kept distinct: >>> >>> - >>> >>> *Sarma*: ethical, accusatory, life-centered, uncompromising about >>> cruelty >>> - >>> >>> *Capra*: systems thinker, ecological scientist, bridge-builder >>> - >>> >>> *Wilber*: integral theorist, developmental, synthesizing multiple >>> levels >>> >>> The dialogue explores *mechanization, emotion, ecology, consciousness, >>> and education*, and also reveals *where Sarma agrees and where he >>> sharply diverges* from both Capra and Wilber. >>> ------------------------------ >>> A Conversation on Life, Knowledge, and the Future of Education >>> >>> *Y. M. Sarma – Fritjof Capra – Ken Wilber* >>> >>> *Capra:* >>> Modern science has reached a turning point. Systems theory, complexity, >>> and ecology show us that life is not mechanical but relational. The >>> mechanistic worldview is simply outdated. >>> >>> *Sarma:* >>> Outdated, yes—but still ruling. That is the danger. A dead paradigm >>> continues to govern living institutions, and in doing so, it commits daily >>> violence against the biosphere. >>> >>> *Wilber:* >>> I would say the mechanistic worldview represents a particular stage of >>> consciousness—what I call the *orange* or modern-rational stage. It was >>> necessary, but it must now be transcended and included. >>> >>> *Sarma:* >>> Included? Cruelty cannot be included; it must be abandoned. A stage that >>> survives by destroying life has forfeited its legitimacy. >>> >>> *Capra:* >>> I sympathize with that moral urgency. My work shows that ecological >>> crises arise because institutions have not integrated systems thinking. >>> They still operate linearly. >>> >>> *Sarma:* >>> Systems thinking without feeling is still abstraction. One can model >>> ecosystems perfectly and still destroy them efficiently. >>> >>> *Wilber:* >>> That is why I emphasize interior dimensions—consciousness, values, >>> meaning—alongside exterior systems. >>> >>> *Sarma:* >>> Yet your framework still places nature as an object within quadrants. >>> Life becomes something to be mapped, not something to be respected. >>> >>> *Wilber:* >>> Mapping is not reduction. It is orientation. >>> >>> *Sarma:* >>> Orientation without reverence is domination with better language. >>> >>> *Capra:* >>> Let me intervene. I agree that emotional and ethical dimensions are >>> indispensable. In living systems, cognition itself is embodied and >>> emotional, as Maturana and Varela showed. >>> >>> *Sarma:* >>> Yes. That is close to what I call *emotional intelligence of life*. But >>> tell me, Fritjof—why does education still worship economics if systems >>> science has already disproved mechanistic thinking? >>> >>> *Capra:* >>> Because economic power structures lag behind scientific understanding. >>> Economics is not a science of life; it is a tool of control. >>> >>> *Wilber:* >>> Economics reflects a level of collective development. You cannot simply >>> remove it; you must evolve beyond it. >>> >>> *Sarma:* >>> Evolution that tolerates extinction is not evolution—it is pathology. >>> Education trains young minds to accept destruction as normal. That must >>> stop now, not after theoretical integration. >>> >>> *Capra:* >>> This is where I agree strongly with you. Education must be reoriented >>> toward ecological literacy—understanding principles of living systems. >>> >>> *Sarma:* >>> Ecological literacy must begin with *emotional belonging*. Without >>> that, literacy becomes management. >>> >>> *Wilber:* >>> But emotional belonging itself develops in stages. A tribal >>> consciousness feels belonging, but lacks universality. >>> >>> *Sarma:* >>> You confuse emotional intelligence with tribalism. Animals feel >>> belonging without tribal ideology. Emotional ecology is pre-ideological. >>> >>> *Capra:* >>> That is an important distinction. In ecosystems, there is no >>> ideology—only relationship. >>> >>> *Wilber:* >>> Still, humans must integrate pre-rational, rational, and trans-rational >>> dimensions. Regression is not the answer. >>> >>> *Sarma:* >>> Nor is transcendence that floats above suffering. A theory that can >>> explain everything but stop nothing is insufficient. >>> >>> *Capra:* >>> Ken, Sarma is pointing to an ethical asymmetry. We cannot afford neutral >>> frameworks anymore. >>> >>> *Wilber (after a pause):* >>> I accept that critique. Integral theory has sometimes been more >>> descriptive than prescriptive. >>> >>> *Sarma:* >>> Life demands prescription now: *Do not harm*. That is the first >>> principle of education. >>> >>> *Capra:* >>> Then perhaps the synthesis is this: >>> >>> - >>> >>> Systems thinking gives us structure >>> - >>> >>> Integral consciousness gives us interior depth >>> - >>> >>> Emotional ecology gives us ethical grounding >>> >>> *Sarma:* >>> Only if emotional ecology is primary, not appended. >>> >>> *Wilber:* >>> Primary in value, perhaps—but integrated in practice. >>> >>> *Sarma:* >>> Integration must not dilute urgency. Forests do not have time for >>> frameworks. >>> >>> *Capra:* >>> Then the task before us is clear: to redesign education so that it >>> teaches not control, not abstraction, but *participation in living >>> systems*. >>> >>> *Wilber:* >>> And to cultivate consciousness that can feel that participation as >>> sacred. >>> >>> *Sarma:* >>> Not sacred in words—but sacred in restraint. >>> >>> *(Silence)* >>> >>> *Capra:* >>> That silence may be the beginning of a new curriculum. >>> ------------------------------ >>> Closing InterpretationAgreements >>> >>> - >>> >>> All three reject *mechanistic reductionism* >>> - >>> >>> All affirm *interconnectedness* >>> - >>> >>> All see education as central to civilizational survival >>> >>> Key Differences >>> >>> - >>> >>> *Capra* emphasizes systems and ecology >>> - >>> >>> *Wilber* emphasizes developmental integration >>> - >>> >>> *Sarma* insists on *ethical primacy and immediacy* >>> >>> Sarma’s position is the *moral anchor*—refusing to let theory outrun >>> responsibility. >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> If you wish next, I can: >>> >>> - >>> >>> Write this as a *stage dialogue or radio conversation* >>> - >>> >>> Create a *fourth voice* (an economist or university administrator) >>> - >>> >>> Or extract from this a *new educational charter* >>> >>> Just tell me how you want to continue. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "societyforservingseniors" 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/society4servingseniors/CAPYPc16XvKz1WEoqQY1CktCmUZMje%2B2D2FkdMaL4uigHVQDLjg%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CAPYPc16XvKz1WEoqQY1CktCmUZMje%2B2D2FkdMaL4uigHVQDLjg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- 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/CAL5XZopTJovRwt1LtmuHJyd-GT4mRfPzz-TB-8axB99jkqfG%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.
