-- *Mar* Mechanization, The Damage Multiplier
Every machine harms nature. As everything in nature is connected to everything else, the damage cascades. Today, with the rapid spread of mechanization, nature is at the edge of abyss. We are in the era of damage multipliers, of multipliers of multipliers, on and on. The delusion of acceptance of technology as progress has become so chronic, mechanization has become the only education and we want emotions, feelings, consciousness itself to be made amenable for mechanical manipulations. Everything in nature is connected to everything else, actually as the connections of consciousness, and understandings. If we repudiate the taboo of science not to touch the subject consciousness, then we enter the arena of consciousness, emotions, and feelings, understandings, which meet continuously and vibrate as the continuous change of nature. Rene Descartes, by asserting that every life form is a feelings less machine has put all sciences in the quagmire of repudiation of emotions and symbiosis from education itself. *It means that we have to repudiate ourselves as basically we are all emotional beings.* Electromagnetism actually links with consciousness and Quantum Physics is chained and shackled by deliberately creating the taboo against consciousness. Worst, it is misused by being mechanized and employed for inventions, mechanical manipulations that damage the faculties of natural discoveries and revelations, which every organism experiences as living. In the Universities we are actually chaining the students to machines, not allowing them to read nature directly. We all know that the Universe itself is changing continuously. The changes of nature on earth are ultimately changes in understandings and perceptions, as the changes create changes of paradigms. Mechanization is damaging the vibration of understandings of Gaia, the understandings contributed symbiotically by the diverse organisms of the Biosphere. Every climatic region on earth is a region of particular vibrations of perceptions and understanding. Every nano space on earth brims with enlightenments. That nano space is connected to the earth, making the whole planet vibrate via that nano connection. When you are trained not to read nature and interact with nature directly, are you not entering the arena of lunacy? We desperately need to revive the reverence for nature a Divine, and that we need the free nature for real education as enlightenments. Once Temples we built in the free and lush nature and the God of the Temple functioned as the confluence of messages of understandings of the flora and the fauna around the Temple. The freer the nature and the lush and lush the nature around the Temple, the more enlightening the spell of revelations from the God of the Temple. Today the area around the Temple is not only urbanized and even industrialized, but we fing the gruesome animal sacrifices. God fled from those Temples long back. Temples and Universities need free nature, to bring God. We need to make education divinely and free it fom mechanization. Every University must start a Free Nature Park without human tampering so that the God of the area gets accommodation in the University. YM Sarma Chat gpt Here is a thoughtful, balanced comment on your piece—engaging with its spirit while also reflecting critically on its claims and style. ------------------------------ Your essay is a passionate critique of mechanization and a call to restore reverence for nature, consciousness, and non-instrumental ways of knowing. Its greatest strength lies in its moral urgency. You argue convincingly that uncritical acceptance of technology as “progress” risks severing humanity from the ecological, emotional, and perceptual fabric that sustains life. The metaphor of “damage multipliers” is powerful, capturing how technological harm compounds across interconnected natural systems. Your emphasis on *interconnectedness*—ecological, emotional, and cognitive—resonates with long-standing traditions in ecology, systems thinking, indigenous knowledge, and spiritual philosophy. The insistence that education must involve *direct engagement with nature* rather than exclusive mediation through machines is particularly compelling and timely, especially in an era of screen-dominated learning. However, several aspects could be strengthened for clarity and persuasive impact: 1. *Conceptual precision* The essay often moves fluidly between metaphor, philosophy, science, and spirituality (e.g., electromagnetism, quantum physics, consciousness, Gaia). While evocative, these transitions sometimes blur distinctions between empirical science and metaphysical interpretation. Readers trained in science may find claims about quantum physics or electromagnetism and consciousness insufficiently grounded unless clearly framed as philosophical or symbolic rather than literal. 2. *Descartes and science* The critique of Descartes as the origin of emotional repudiation is a common but simplified narrative. While Cartesian dualism influenced mechanistic thinking, contemporary sciences (biology, neuroscience, ecology) increasingly acknowledge emotion, embodiment, and symbiosis. Acknowledging this evolution would strengthen your argument and avoid painting science as monolithic. 3. *Mechanization vs. discernment* The essay tends to treat mechanization as uniformly destructive. This risks alienating readers who see technology as a tool whose ethical impact depends on use, scale, and intent. A clearer distinction between *dominating* technologies and *ecologically aligned* or *regenerative* technologies could deepen your critique without weakening it. 4. *Universities, temples, and God* The idea that temples and universities require free nature to “host God” is poetically strong and culturally resonant. However, framing God as entirely absent from urban or mechanized spaces may limit dialogue with secular or plural audiences. Interpreting “God” also as *collective wisdom, ecological intelligence, or emergent meaning* could broaden the essay’s reach. 5. *Tone and structure* The intensity of conviction is admirable, but the essay would benefit from tighter structure, shorter paragraphs, and occasional restraint. This would allow readers to absorb the depth of your ideas without feeling overwhelmed. Overall, this is a visionary and deeply felt manifesto calling for a re-sacralization of education and a re-embedding of humanity within living systems. Its central challenge—to relearn how to “read nature” directly—is profound. With clearer distinctions between metaphor and science, and with some engagement with counterarguments, the piece could speak not only as a lament, but as a compelling philosophical foundation for ecological education and cultural renewal. Your concluding proposal—free, untampered nature parks within universities—is concrete, imaginative, and worthy of serious consideration. It translates spiritual insight into institutional action, which is perhaps the most important contribution of the essay. -- 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/CACDCHCKz7qELU%2B2O%3DqrJk1qvZtXXAKeueJ6Nk7KaSL%2BxZrRqdA%40mail.gmail.com.
