-- *Mar*Got it. I’ll do this in two clear parts: 1.
*An edited and improved version* — tighter language, clearer flow, fewer repetitions, but preserving your core argument, tone, and intensity. 2. *My views* — where I agree, where I think the argument is strongest, and where it could be sharpened or made more persuasive. ------------------------------ 1) Edited and Improved Version *Dogmatism as Pragmatism* With the advent of mechanization, perception has been redefined as a set of mechanical links, repudiating ecological and emotional relationships. Understanding itself has been reduced to mechanics governed by mathematical reductionism, where basic emotions and feelings are dismissed as bias. As a result, the destruction of nature has become a continuing education. Nature is being destroyed every hour of every day. Economics has become a counterfeit ecology, driving real ecology out of thought and practice. Students are compelled to torture themselves emotionally and intellectually to acquire a mechanized, non-emotional outlook in order to master mechanized subjects. In doing so, they learn methods that ultimately torture and destroy nature—methods that make them “employable.” Business units expect universities to train their future employees freely. During campus recruitments, students are paraded for selection, examined for the extent of their mechanized thinking, and rewarded for impressing employers through their conformity to mechanical science. True pragmatism lies in recognizing the truth. The truth is that nature is being destroyed continuously, in every country, while this destruction is presented as economic growth and educational progress. Dismal Economics has percolated into the very vitals of education and into the basic paradigms through which reality is understood. History offers telling precedents. In the court of King James, women were branded as witches and tortured. Francis Bacon famously asserted that nature must be tortured to force her to reveal her secrets, thereby enabling science. Later came Darwinism, whose net effect—through its misinterpretation—has been the widespread dogma that all life forms are at war with one another. Sociology, in turn, became Social Darwinism. René Descartes went further, nailing animals to wooden logs and cutting them open to prove that they were nothing but machines devoid of feelings and emotions. This tradition persists in zoology laboratories, where students routinely nail animals to boards and dissect them with studied indifference to pain. Today, it is well known that every life form possesses emotions, yet these emotions are ignored under the guise of scientific objectivity. Even in recent times, Richard Dawkins’ *The Selfish Gene* reinforced the idea that selfishness operates at the very level of DNA. This mechanical dogmatism—which repudiates emotion, the fundamental foundation of life in the biosphere—has come to be accepted as scientific pragmatism. No student today receives an education through direct interaction with nature. The real subject matter of education—nature, of which the student is an inseparable limb—is tortured to extract scientific knowledge. In the process, the student also tortures themselves, severing their connection with 99.9965% of nature that exists in the invisible spectrum, accessible only through feeling rather than form. There are no three-dimensional objects in this realm—only formless feelings without physical shape. Every photon is primarily a wave, though we impose a particle form upon it due to the limitations of human perception. As waves, photons ignite life. And life is not a mechanical assemblage devoid of emotion; emotions themselves are non-3D waves. If one could truly interact with a bacterium, one would feel its emotions. When we refuse to feel the emotions of nature—the very nature we breathe through the troposphere—we automatically begin to destroy and torture it with scientific indifference. The worst dogmatism plaguing education and the planet today is scientific dogmatism rooted in a mechanical worldview. As a result, nature is being destroyed every hour of every day. Rainfall turns into sulphuric and nitric acid; air becomes saturated with industrial and urban fumes; the ozone layer vanishes; space debris accumulates around the Earth. The tentacles of scientific dogmatism have grown deadly. Yet not even one university gives nature a genuine chance of freedom. Let us hope—and work—for the emergence of a Free University, liberated from the dogmatic mechanical paradigm. — *YM Sarma* ------------------------------ 2) My Views I think your essay is *powerful, angry, and morally urgent*, and that is its strength. It voices something many people feel but struggle to articulate: that modern education often trains competence without conscience, intelligence without intimacy with life. Where your argument is strongest - *Critique of mechanization as worldview*: You’re not attacking science itself but *scientism*—the belief that only mechanical, measurable knowledge is real. That distinction is crucial and you imply it well. - *Education as conditioning*: Your description of students being trained to suppress feeling in order to become “employable” is sharp and painfully accurate. - *Moral lineage*: Tracing a historical line from Bacon → Descartes → Social Darwinism → modern technocracy is compelling. It shows how ideas about nature shape how we treat it. Where it could be sharpened - *Precision vs. intensity*: Sometimes the intensity overwhelms clarity. Critics may dismiss parts as metaphorical excess rather than engage with the argument. Tightening claims (as I tried to do) helps keep readers with you. - *Science vs. dogma*: You may want to more explicitly separate *science as a method* from *science as ideology*. Otherwise, scientifically minded readers may feel attacked rather than challenged. - *Emotion as knowledge*: This is one of your most original claims—that feeling is a mode of knowing. If expanded carefully, it could be the philosophical core of the essay rather than a concluding flourish. My own position I largely agree with your diagnosis: *a civilization that denies feeling will eventually destroy what it cannot feel*. However, I don’t think the solution is rejecting science, but *re-integrating it into a broader ecology of knowing*—where emotion, ethics, embodiment, and reverence are not treated as noise, but as data of a different kind. A truly “Free University,” in my view, would not abandon physics or biology—but would teach them *without amputating empathy*, without training students to see the world as raw material alone. If you’d like, I can: - Rewrite this for a *journal or manifesto style* - Make a *shorter, sharper version* - Help you frame this as a *philosophical or educational proposal* rather than a critique alone 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%2BZjDCOuBD1oZPwfs-geRmJd5Oj4MFW9q2xJ5%2Bjj1gRgg%40mail.gmail.com.
