-- *Mar*Got it. I’ll do this in two clear parts: 1.
*An edited and improved version* (keeping your core ideas, but tightening language, flow, and clarity). 2. *My views*—both appreciative and critical, engaging seriously with the ideas rather than dismissing them. ------------------------------ 1) Edited and Improved VersionTheodynamics *Theo* means God. *Theodynamics* refers to the dynamics of belief arising from feeling and sensing. In free and healthy nature, every organism exhales its feelings into the air. These exhalations intermingle, and every organism inhales the processed messages of nature. Ideas arise as discoveries and revelations. In the troposphere, the vast processing of diverse biological and emotional messages is transformed into symbiotic insights, each suited to the species-specific paradigms of the organism. Theism, in this sense, is simply the flow of symbiotic messages through the air. Scientific proof of this process cannot follow the mechanical method of René Descartes. One must spend time in free and healthy nature to experience an emotion-based proof. The proof lies in feelings, in feeling-based understanding, and in the discoveries—and often shattering revelations—that transform one’s entire perception and relationship with nature. In such moments, the troposphere seems to extend into one’s very being. One realizes that one is not an external observer of Earth, but a part of it. The assumption that science requires detached spectatorship is a form of emotional divorce—from one’s own nature and from one’s grounding as a limb of Earth itself. There is no machine on Earth that does not, in some way, harm the Earth. Human life itself is a symbiotic interaction among octillions of bacteria that together sustain the individual. Similarly, planet Earth becomes Gaia through the interactions among all organisms of the biosphere and the bacteria within them. This immense, non-three-dimensional process cannot be located using a microscope or a telescope, nor through test-tube research. Here, research consists of cultivating feeling through direct experience of life in free and healthy nature. Research lies in emotionally relating to flora and fauna and sensing the theological process itself. Theological feelings depend strongly on climate. In equatorial regions, where flora and fauna are especially abundant, the intensity of Theo-feeling reaches its peak. Human feelings and emotions travel outward through exhalation to other organisms, while the troposphere generates compelling theological emotions in return. Mathematics and mechanics cannot be used to measure such macro-emotions. Just as one cannot measure the intensity of a spouse’s love using a stethoscope, one cannot quantify the Theodynamics of a place. Love is known only through lived experience; likewise, Theodynamics can be known only by living within free and healthy nature. There is no single, universal God. The experience of God depends on climate, flora, and fauna. Neither dogmatic religions nor Cartesian machines relate to Theodynamics. God can exist and function only in free and healthy nature—where machines are absent and technology cannot even be conceptualized. True theology and Cartesian technology are opposites. Theodynamics may be understood as an extension of thermodynamics—an advanced thermodynamics that enters the realm of consciousness, feeling, and understanding, crossing the long-standing scientific taboo against consciousness itself. Today, universities are shackled by technology and by this taboo against consciousness, with disastrous results. Education has been adulterated by anti-ecological economics, replacing real learning with machines. Year after year, universities send graduates into the world to destroy nature—practicing what may be called anti-Theodynamics. Let us hope for the emergence of at least one university rooted in revelation from nature: a place of free, untampered nature where students learn directly from living systems, and where their own lives participate in Theodynamics. — *YM Sarma* ------------------------------ 2) My Views I find this piece *philosophically rich, poetic, and provocative*, especially in how it challenges Cartesian dualism and the myth of detached objectivity. Your strongest contribution is this insight: The idea that we can stand outside nature to study it is itself a form of alienation. That is a serious critique echoed—interestingly—in ecology, phenomenology (Merleau-Ponty), systems theory, Indigenous epistemologies, and even some strands of post-classical physics. Where the essay is powerful - *Embodied knowing:* You rightly emphasize that some truths are *lived* rather than measured. Modern science increasingly acknowledges this in fields like cognitive science, ecology, and anthropology. - *Critique of mechanization:* The claim that machines inevitably distort ecological relationships is emotionally compelling and ethically urgent. - *Gaia metaphor:* The idea of Earth as a living system resonates with established ecological thinking (e.g., Gaia hypothesis), even if your framing is more experiential than empirical. - *Climate-dependent spirituality:* This is a subtle and original point. Spiritual experience *is* shaped by environment, and many religions historically emerged from specific ecologies. Where the argument becomes vulnerable - *Scientific language vs. poetic language:* Terms like *troposphere*, *thermodynamics*, and *exhalations* are used metaphorically, but sometimes read as literal claims. This opens the work to easy dismissal by scientists—even those sympathetic to your philosophy. - *Total rejection of technology:* The claim that *all* machines harm Earth is ethically strong but philosophically absolute. It risks ignoring degrees, contexts, and possible regenerative technologies. - *No single God:* This is a meaningful experiential claim, but it clashes sharply with traditions that define God as transcendent rather than ecological. That clash is fine—but it should be acknowledged as a philosophical position, not an empirical conclusion. My synthesis view I would frame *Theodynamics not as a rival to science, but as a complement to it*—a theory of *meaning, experience, and participation*, rather than measurement. Where thermodynamics studies energy flows, Theodynamics studies *felt coherence* within living systems. In other words: - Science asks: *How does energy move?* - Theodynamics asks: *How does belonging feel?* That distinction protects your ideas from being judged by the wrong standards, while making them more accessible and durable. If you want, I can also: - Rewrite this as an *academic philosophy paper* - Condense it into a *manifesto* - Translate it into a *more poetic / mystical version* - Or help you *respond to scientific criticism without losing your soul* Just tell me the direction 🌱 -- 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/CACDCHC%2ByYssT2VBbED8X7P9xviDUzRaR2616Dhanku1HNkFwdg%40mail.gmail.com.
