-- *Mar*Below is a *philosophical dialogue* between *you* (Y. M. Sarma), championing *Macro Psychology*, and a *contemporary academic psychologist* grounded in mainstream cognitive–neuroscientific thought.
The conversation is written in a *Socratic style*, allowing tension, resistance, and gradual opening rather than easy agreement. ------------------------------ *A Conversation on Macro Psychology* *Participants:* *Y. M. Sarma (S)* – Proponent of *Macro Psychology* *Dr. Rao (R)* – Contemporary Psychologist, cognitive neuroscience background ------------------------------ *R:* Professor Sarma, I’ve read your proposal on Macro Psychology. I must admit, I find it poetic—but scientifically vague. Psychology studies the mind, which is rooted in the brain. Why expand it beyond the organism? *S:* Because the mind has never been confined to the brain. That confinement is a historical assumption, not a discovery. The brain participates in mind, but mind emerges from relationships—between organism, climate, biosphere, and time. *R:* Relationships influence behavior, certainly. But psychology requires measurable variables. Neurons fire; hormones circulate; behavior follows. These are observable. *S:* Observable to whom, and under what paradigm? You observe by isolating, fragmenting, and freezing life. But living systems are processes, not objects. You measure shadows and call them reality. *R:* Without isolation, there is no rigor. How would you study emotions without locating their neural correlates? *S:* By first asking whether emotions are *located* at all. Is a melody located in a violin, or does it arise from resonance—strings, wood, air, and listener together? *R:* That is a metaphor, not a method. *S:* It is a correction of method. When an infant calms in a forest but not in a laboratory, where is the emotion? In the brain—or in the interaction with living space? *R:* Environmental psychology already studies such effects. *S:* Only as modifiers of an already assumed internal machine. Macro Psychology inverts the assumption: the *environment is primary*, the organism is a participant. ------------------------------ *R:* You speak of Earth as Gaia, even attributing emotions to the troposphere. That crosses into mysticism. *S:* So did the idea of Earth as a moving planet once. Tell me—do feedback loops regulate climate? *R:* Yes. *S:* Do disruptions in those loops cause instability? *R:* Of course. *S:* Then why is it acceptable to call hormonal regulation “communication” in the body but not atmospheric regulation “communication” in the biosphere? *R:* Because hormones evolved for signaling. Atmospheres do not intend. *S:* Intention is a human projection. Regulation precedes intention. Even bacteria coordinate without brains. Life communicates long before humans label it. ------------------------------ *R:* Suppose I accept that environments matter deeply. Why call this psychology? Why not ecology? *S:* Because psychology amputated itself from ecology. Fear, anxiety, depression—are they not now planetary? Climate grief, ecological despair, alienation from living systems—can you treat these with neurotransmitters alone? *R:* Medication helps many people. *S:* And yet the epidemic grows. Perhaps we are medicating symptoms of a deeper epistemological illness—the belief that humans are separate from life. ------------------------------ *R:* You propose “Free Nature Parks” for psychological study. But humans always interfere. Observation changes systems. *S:* Precisely. That is why the myth of objectivity must be abandoned. Macro Psychology studies *participation*, not detachment. Healing begins when humans re-enter symbiosis consciously. *R:* This would require retraining psychologists entirely. *S:* Yes. Just as Newton had to be retrained by Einstein—not discarded, but contextualized. ------------------------------ *R:* You reject brain localization, yet neuroscience shows emotional circuits clearly. *S:* I reject exclusivity, not evidence. The brain is an instrument, not the orchestra. Climate, culture, soil, air, microbial life—these all play the symphony of mind. *R:* You are asking psychology to become planetary. *S:* Psychology always was planetary. It merely forgot. ------------------------------ *R:* Let me ask you directly: is Macro Psychology science or philosophy? *S:* It is *pre-disciplinary*. Like medicine before anatomy, or astronomy before telescopes. It is the restoration of sane perception, from which new sciences will emerge. *R:* And if we ignore your call? *S:* Then psychology will continue to treat individuals while the living context collapses beneath them. Eventually, there will be no psyche left to study—only survivors and statistics. ------------------------------ *R:* I am not convinced—but I am unsettled. *S:* That is how paradigms begin to shift. Not with certainty, but with unease. ------------------------------ *Closing Reflection (Narrative Voice)* The psychologist leaves with data intact but assumptions shaken. Macro Psychology does not replace modern psychology—it *envelops it*, reminding science that mind did not arise in laboratories, but in forests, oceans, winds, and evolving Earth. ------------------------------ If you wish, I can: - Make the dialogue *more confrontational or more conciliatory* - Adapt it for *a university seminar or conference* - Add *student voices* or an *institutional ethics committee* - Turn it into a *short play or manifesto dialogue* Just tell me. -- 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/CACDCHCKF%2B_BsXZVC4TmH3xB%3D9FeC%3DURqkEWBxLZRB9W_Nj14Vw%40mail.gmail.com.
