Rajaram Sir,
You are a mini big bang or a big flood of concepts.
YMS
On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 9:41 AM Rajaram Krishnamurthy <[email protected]>
wrote:
> NATURE IS NATURALLY FREE OR WE GIVE IT FREEDOM
>
>
>
> The question of whether nature is free by itself or if freedom is a
> concept bestowed upon it by humanity touches on profound philosophical,
> ecological, and ethical debates. At its core, this question asks us to
> distinguish between nature as an independent, self-regulating entity
> ("wildness") and nature as a concept defined within human consciousness.
> While humans often "give" nature a symbolic or legal freedom by protecting
> it, nature possesses an intrinsic, functional freedom that existed long
> before humanity and operates independently of it.
>
> Nature's Intrinsic Freedom (Self-Ordering)
>
> *Nature is inherently free in that it acts according to its own laws,
> creating, destroying, and regenerating without external authorization*.
> It is a self-regulating system—from forests regenerating after fire to
> ecosystems managing nutrient cycles. This "wildness" is the ultimate form
> of freedom: unhindered, chaotic, and creative, operating at its own pace.
>
> Philosophically, this can be viewed as "nature's freedom," a dynamic,
> unconscious productivity that exists for itself. Before human intervention,
> nature was not "under-regulated"; it was governed by the laws of physics
> and biology. Even when humans are gone, nature continues its, often
> chaotic, path.
>
> The Human Perspective: Assigning Freedom
>
> Humans tend to define freedom through the lens of agency and choice. When
> we "give" nature freedom, we are usually talking about:
>
> Protection: Creating national parks, conservation areas, or "rewilding"
> areas.
>
> Legal Rights: Assigning legal personhood to rivers or forests, as seen in
> some indigenous and legal systems.
>
> In this context, freedom is a human construct—a restriction placed on our
> own behavior (development, logging, pollution) to allow nature to follow
> its own path. This is not creating freedom for nature, but removing our
> inhibition of its existing freedom.
>
> The Conflict of Freedoms
>
> The issue arises when human freedom (the desire for development, energy,
> and consumption) clashes with nature’s freedom (its right to exist and
> evolve). Modern civilization often treats nature as a resource to be
> used, effectively enslaving it. However, the "freedom" we take for
> ourselves—such as expanding cities—destroys the freedom of ecosystems to
> thrive.
>
> Many, particularly in the environmental movement, argue that nature has
> "intrinsic value"—the right to exist, regardless of its usefulness to
> humans. In this sense, true freedom is a recognition of this intrinsic
> value rather than an act of human generosity.
>
> Nature is fundamentally free by itself, operating through its own,
> often harsh, laws. However, in our modern world, we often "give" nature a
> recognized freedom, which is really just an acknowledgment of its right to
> exist, and a conscious withdrawal of our encroachment. Ultimately, nature
> does not need human permission to be free; it is the ultimate expression of
> freedom, whereas human freedom is often a struggle to define itself within
> the limitations that nature sets.
>
> THEN WHY ALL THE HUBBUB? WHAT CAN WE DO TO NATURE?
>
> Philosophers often account for the difference between human beings
> and other animals in terms of a difference between norm-governed behavior
> and instinct-determined behavior. As human beings, we are socialized into a
> normative understanding of who to be–e.g., man or woman, black or white,
> working class or aristocrat–and we act in light of those social norms. In
> contrast, the behavior of all other animals is supposedly hardwired by
> their natural instincts. This way of describing the difference, however, is
> misleading for at least two reasons. First, an instinct is already
> expressive of a norm, since it specifies something that the animal ought to
> do and that it can fail to do (e.g., the seagull instinctually understands
> that it ought to eat fish and it can fail to find any fish to eat). Second,
> many animals can be socialized into forms of behavior that are not
> hardwired by their natural instincts. For example, there are cats that
> behave like dogs because they have been raised by huskies, and there are
> huskies that behave like cats because they have been raised by cats. Such
> behavior is clearly not hardwired by the nature of cats or dogs but
> acquired through a specific way in which they are raised.
>
> The difference between human beings and other animals, then, cannot
> simply be explained by the difference between instincts and norms. Rather,
> the decisive difference is the difference between natural and spiritual
> freedom. Even when a cat behaves like a husky, she does not call into
> question the husky way of life but treats it as the given framework for her
> actions. She is able to learn the husky norms but not able to understand
> them as norms that could be otherwise. The cat cannot understand her norms
> as something for which she is answerable and which can be challenged by
> others, since she cannot hold herself responsible for the principles that
> govern her actions. The cat is responsive to success and failure in her
> pursuits, but whether the norms that govern her pursuits are valid–whether
> she ought to behave like a cat or a husky–is not at issue for her.
>
> For human beings, by contrast, the validity of norms is always
> implicitly and potentially explicitly at issue. We act in light of a
> normative understanding of ourselves–of who we should be and what we should
> do–but we can also challenge and change our self-understanding. We are not
> merely governed by norms but answerable to one another for what we do and
> why we do it. Even when we are socialized into an identity as though it
> were a natural necessity–as when we are taken to belong naturally to a
> certain gender, race, or class–there remains the possibility of
> transforming, contesting, or critically overturning our understanding of
> who we are. Who we can be–as well as what we can do–is inseparable from how
> we acknowledge and treat one another. How we can change our
> self-understanding therefore depends on the social practices and
> institutions that shape the ability to lead our lives. Moreover, any
> ability to lead our lives can be impaired or lost by damages to our
> physical and psychological constitution. Yet as long as we have a
> self-relation–as long as we lead our lives in any way at all–the question
> of who we ought to be is alive for us, since it is at work in all our
> activities. In engaging the question “What should I do?” we are also
> engaging the question “Who should I be?”–and there is no final answer to
> that question. This is our spiritual freedom.
>
> The difference between natural and spiritual freedom is not a matter
> of metaphysical substance but a difference in the practical self-relation
> exhibited by human beings and other animals. Many kinds of animals exhibit
> forms of mourning, play, courage, deliberation, suffering, and joy. They
> may even in some cases (as studies of primates have shown) be able to
> experience a conflict of choice when certain instincts or loyalties are at
> odds with one another. Yet no other species we have encountered is capable
> of transforming its understanding of what it means to be that species.
> Changes in the environment can cause animal species–or certain members of
> species–to change patterns in their behavior, but the principles in light
> of which they act remain the same for as long as the species exist.
>
> In contrast, the understanding of what it means to be human–as
> manifested in the actual behavior of human beings–varies dramatically
> across history and across the world at any given moment of history. The
> difference between a monk who renounces filial bonds for an ascetic life in
> a monastery and a father who devotes his life to taking care of his
> children is not merely an individual difference in behavior. Rather, the
> two forms of life express radically different understandings of what it
> means to be human. The two men may not only have different degrees of
> courage, but what counts as courage for them is radically different. They
> may not only experience different degrees of grief and joy, but what counts
> as grief and joy for them is radically different. Even the experience of
> suffering is never merely a brute fact for us as human beings but an
> experience we understand and respond to in light of what matters to us.
> Such mattering is not reducible to our biological-physiological
> constitution; it depends on our commitments. We are certainly subject to
> biological constraints–and we cannot even in principle transcend all such
> constraints–but we can (and do) change our relation to these constraints.
> There is no natural way for us to be and no species requirements that can
> exhaustively determine the principles in light of which we act. Rather,
> what we do and who we take ourselves to be are inseparable from a
> historical-normative framework that must be upheld by us and may be
> transformed by us.
>
> Let me be clear about the status of my argument. I am not asserting
> that only human beings are spiritually free. It is possible that we may
> discover other species that are spiritually free or that we may create
> artificial forms of life that are capable of spiritual freedom. That is an
> empirical question, which I do not seek to answer. My aim is not to decide
> which species are spiritually free, but to clarify the conditions of
> spiritual freedom. Whether certain other animals are spiritually free–or
> whether we can come to engineer living beings who are spiritually free–is a
> separate and subordinate question, which in itself presupposes an answer to
> the question of what it means to be a free, spiritual being.
>
> Two clarifications are here in order. First, the distinction between
> natural and spiritual freedom is not a hierarchical distinction. That we
> are spiritually free does not make us inherently better than other animals,
> but it does mean that we are free in a qualitatively different sense.
> Because we can call into question the purposes of our own actions, we can
> hold ourselves to principles of justice, but we can also engage in forms of
> cruelty that go far beyond anything observed in other species. Second, the
> distinction between natural and spiritual freedom does not legitimize the
> exploitation of other animals. Many contemporary thinkers are critical of
> any distinction between humans and other animals since they fear that such
> a distinction will serve to justify sexism or racism, as well as buttress
> the mistreatment of other species and the willful extraction of natural
> resources. Yet such “post-humanism” rests on a conflation of historical
> facts and philosophical arguments. As a matter of historical fact, it is
> true that a human/animal distinction often has been employed to classify
> certain genders or races as “subhuman” and to legitimize ruthless
> exploitation of the nonhuman world. The critique of such politics is well
> taken, as is the reminder that we too are animals and dependent on the fate
> of our environment. However, it does not follow from these facts that any
> distinction between humans and other animals is illegitimate or politically
> pernicious. On the contrary, the pathos of post-humanist politics itself
> tacitly relies on a distinction between natural and spiritual freedom. When
> post-humanist thinkers take us to task for being sexist, racist, or too
> centered on our own species, they must assume that we are capable of
> calling into question the guiding principles of our actions. Otherwise it
> would make no sense to criticize our principles and enjoin us to adopt
> different ideals. Likewise, it is clear that no post-humanist thinker
> seriously believes that other animals are spiritually free. If they were,
> we should criticize not only humans but also other animals for being sexist
> and too centered on the well-being of their own species.
>
> To deny the distinction between natural and spiritual freedom is
> therefore an act of bad faith. Any political struggle for a better
> treatment of other animals–or for a more respectful relation to the natural
> environment–requires spiritual freedom. We have to be able to renounce our
> prior commitments and hold ourselves to a new ideal. No one is inclined to
> place the same demands on other animals because we implicitly understand
> the distinction between natural and spiritual freedom. It would be absurd
> to reproach the seagull for eating fish, but it can make sense for me to
> stop eating other animals, since I am capable of transforming my relation
> to the norms that structure my world. For a naturally free being like the
> seagull, there is a normative “ought” that guides its actions (e.g., to eat
> fish in order to survive), but it cannot call into question the norm–the
> ought–itself. Natural freedom has a single ought structure, since the agent
> cannot question its guiding principles and ask itself what it should do.
> Spiritual freedom, by contrast, is characterized by a double ought
> structure. As a spiritually free being, I can ask myself what I should do,
> since I am answerable not only for my actions but also for the normative
> principles that guide my actions. There are not only demands concerning
> what I ought to do; there is also the question if I ought to do what I
> supposedly ought to do. [yale review]
>
> Sita Upanishad Translated by Dr. A. G. Krishna Warrier
>
> Published by The Theosophical Publishing House, Chennai It is in Atharva
> veda where the nature spoken in Rig veda and Upanishads are treated as GODs
> and worshipped; this is required since bhakti alone can get along with the
> exiting freedom of the nature.
>
>
>
> Om! Gods! With ears let us hear what is good;
>
> Adorable ones! With eyes let us see what is good.
>
> With steady limbs, with bodies, praising,
>
> Let us enjoy the life allotted by the gods.
>
> May Indra, of wide renown, grant us well-being;
>
> May Pusan, and all-gods, grant us well-being.
>
> May Tarksya, of unhampered movement, grant us well-being.
>
> May Brihaspati grant us well-being.
>
> Om! Peace! Peace! Peace!
>
> 1. The gods, indeed, said to Prajapati: who is Sita? What is Her form?
> Then Prajapati replied: She is Sita:
>
> 2. Being the first cause Sita is known as
>
> Prakriti; of Pranava, too, She is cause
>
> And so is named Prakriti.
>
> 3. Maya in very essence,
>
> Is Sita, of three letters formed.
>
> Called Vishnu, the world-seed,
>
> And Maya, too, is the letter i.
>
> 4. The letter sa denotes truth immortal;
>
> Achievement; Siva with his consort.
>
> Ta denotes the Queen of Speech
>
> United with Brahman, the Deliverer.
>
> 5. The Goddess who is the great Illusion, whose form is un-manifest, and
> who is denoted by ‘i’ becomes manifest, beauteous as the moon, faultless of
> limb, decked with ornamental garlands, pearls and other adornments.
>
> 6. At first, at the time of Vedic studies, She is essentially the clear
> Vedic speech. Secondly, on earth, at the tip of the plough She springs up,
> who, as the bliss of Brahman-realization, is ever present. Thirdly, as
> denoted by ‘i’ She becomes un-manifest. So is She Sita. Thus they explain
> in the text of the Saunakas.
>
> 7. By Srirama’s (light of total liberation) presence enabled
>
> The universe She sustains;
>
> All embodied beings
>
> She brings forth, sustains and withdraws.
>
> 8. Sita must be known;
>
> She is the first cause;
>
> As Om is She that cause,
>
> Declare the Brahman-knowers.
>
> 9. Now, therefore, inquiry into Brahman.
>
> 10. She here is all the Vedas; all the gods; all the worlds; all renown;
> all virtue; all ground, effect and cause; the great Beauty of the Lord of
> gods. She has a form which is different and yet the same. She is the
> essence of the intelligent and the inert. She is all, from Brahma to stocks
> and stones. She is embodied, owing to distinctions of attributes and
> activities. She assumes the forms of gods, sages, men and Gandharvas; of
> demons, fiends, spirits, ghosts, goblins, etc.; and of the elements,
> sense-organs, mind and the vital breaths.
>
> 11. That divine Being is threefold through Her power, namely the power of
> desire, the power of action, and the power of knowledge.
>
> 12. The power of desire is threefold: Sri, Bhumi and Nila. Auspiciousness
> is the form (of Sri); the power (of holiness) is the form (of Bhumi); the
> sun, the moon, and the fire are the forms (of Nila).
>
> 13. As the moon (She) is the mistress of the herbs; She is the tree of
> plenty, flowers, fruits, creepers and bowers; the mistress of medicinal
> plants and physicians; She is the divine drought of immortality, yielding
> the fruit of massive splendour. She satisfies the gods with ambrosia and
> the animals with grass on which, respectively, the gods and the animals
> live.
>
> 14. She illumines all worlds, day and night, in the garb of the sun, etc.
> As determinations of time, such as the smallest moment, hour, day with its
> eight divisions, day of the week, and night, as also the fortnight, month,
> season, six months, and year and as the prescriber of the term of human
> life as a hundred years, She manifests herself and is known as Delay and
> Speed. Thus wheel-like, She revolves as the wheel of Time, the wheel of
> Universe, etc.; comprising (all dimensions of time) from the moment up to
> fifty years of Brahma’s life. All the luminous temporal divisions are the
> specific determinations of this very Time, the container of all.
>
> 15. As fire is the food and drink of living beings, their hunger and
> thirst. As regards the gods, She has the form of sacrifice. As regards the
> herbs in the forest, She is the coolness and the warmth. Both inside and
> outside the fuel She dwells, eternal and fleeting.
>
> 16. The Goddess Sri assumes a threefold form in conformity with the Lord’s
> will for the protection of the world. That She is styled Sri and Lakshmi is
> known.
>
> 17. The Goddess Bhu is the Earth comprising the seven islands and the
> seas; the container and the contents of the fourteen worlds such as bhu,
> etc.; and her essence is Pranava.
>
> 18. Nila is festooned with lightning. To nourish all herbs and living
> beings, She assumes all forms.
>
> 19. At the root of all the worlds, She assumes the form of Water, being
> known as ‘consisting of frogs’ and supporting the worlds.
>
> 20. The real form of the power of action (is as follows): From Hari’s
> mouth (proceeds) sound; from this sound ‘the drop’; thence, the syllable
> Om; from this syllable, distinctively proceeds the mount Rama, the abode of
> the Vaikhanasas. On that mount flourish manifold branches representing
> action and knowledge.
>
> 21. The primal science of
>
> Vedas three, reveals all sense;
>
> They are the ‘three’, comprising
>
> Ric, Yajus and Saman.
>
> 22. Based on a fact, fourfold, they are called
>
> The Ric, Yajus, Saman, Atharvan.
>
> 23. The ‘three’ are so famed as they
>
> Concern the four priests, form texts
>
> Of triple sense, lingas, and much else.
>
> The Atharvan is, in essence,
>
> Ric, Yajus and Saman, too.
>
> 24. Yet separated it is, being
>
> In the main, of magic sense.
>
> The Rig-Veda does flourish
>
> In branches twenty-one.
>
> 25. The Yajus is well known
>
> In nine and hundred various schools.
>
> Saman has a thousand branches;
>
> The Atharvan but forty.
>
> 26. The Vaikhanasa philosophy
>
> With intuition is concerned;
>
> With Vaikhanasa it is that
>
> Sages ever engage themselves.
>
> 27. Rituals, Grammar, Phonetics, Etymology, Astronomy and Metre are the
> six limbs.
>
> 28. The minor limbs are Vedanta
>
> And Mimamsa, the treatise on
>
> Nyaya and Puranas upheld
>
> By the knowers of the Law; so also
>
> Of meditation (upasana) the chapters;
>
> 29. Ethics, of the Vedic lore all branches,
>
> Tradition, Law upheld by Rishis great;
>
> History and legend – these the Upangas.
>
> 30. The five minor Vedas are
>
> Architecture and Archery,
>
> Music, Medicine and Occult Thought (daivika).
>
> 31. The Discipline, the Rites, the Gloss, the Lore,
>
> Conquest supreme of breath – these twenty-one
>
> Are renowned as self-evident.
>
> 32. The word of Vishnu at first sprang forth
>
> From Vaikhanasa as the Vedas three.
>
> 33. As of old from sage Vaikhanasa
>
> The ‘three’ sprang forth –
>
> Hear all from me.
>
> The eternal Brahmic form is power to act.
>
> 34. The manifest power is but the memory of the Lord; its essence is
> manifestation and evolution, restriction and promotion, subsidence and up
> flaring. It is the cause of the patent and the latent, possessing all feet,
> limbs, faces, colors. It is at once different and non-different (from the
> Lord); the unfailing consort of the Lord, perpetually dependent on Him. She
> becomes patent and latent, and is called the manifest power because She is
> competent to bring about, through the (mere) closing and opening (of Her
> eye) creation, sustenance and retraction, suppression and promotion.
>
> 35. The power of desire is threefold. At the time of retraction, for the
> sake of rest, when She rests on the right side of the Lord’s chest, in the
> shape of Srivatsa, She is the power of Yoga.
>
> 36. The form of the Power of enjoyment is enjoyment. Associated with the
> Tree of Plenty, the wish-granting Cow, the wish-fulfilling Gem, and the
> nine Treasures such as the (precious) Conch and Lotus, She is impelled by
> the devotion of the worshipper, whether sought or unsought (to yield
> enjoyments) as a result of rites, compulsory or optional, like the
> Agnihotra; or as a result of (the eight ‘limbs’ of Yoga practice, namely)
> restraint, discipline, posture, control of breath, withdrawal, attention,
> meditation and contemplation; or as a result of worship of the Lord’s image
> in pinnacled temples; or as a result of ceremonial baths, etc.; or of the
> worship of manes, etc.; or as a result of giving food, drink, etc., for
> pleasing the Lord. (All this) is done (through the Power of enjoyment).
>
> 37. Now the Power of heroism, four-armed, (is described). She indicates by
> her gestures fearlessness and (the granting of) boons; She bears the lotus;
> crowned and bedecked, She is surrounded by all the gods; is bathed, at the
> foot of the Tree of Plenty, by four elephants, in ambrosial waters from
> jeweled pots. All divinities, Brahma and others, render obeisance to Her.
> She is vested with the eight miraculous powers such as becoming atomic in
> proportion; She is lauded by the wish-granting cow who is before Her; she
> is extolled by the Vedas, the Shastras, etc. Celestial nymphs like Jaya
> wait upon Her. The luminaries – the sun and the moon – shed splendour on
> Her. Tumburu, Narada and others sing of Her glory. The full moon and new
> moon days hold an umbrella over Her; two delightful beings hold the whisks.
> Svaha and Svadha fan Her. Bhrigu and other supernatural beings adore Her.
> The Goddess Lakshmi is seated on a divine Lion-Throne in the lotus posture,
> effectuating all causes and effects. The steady (image of) the Lord’s idea
> of differentiation, She beautifies. With tranquil eyes, adored by all the
> gods, She is known as the Beauty of Heroism. This is the Secret.
>
> Om! Gods! With ears let us hear what is good;
>
> Adorable ones! With eyes let us see what is good.
>
> With steady limbs, with bodies, praising,
>
> Let us enjoy the life allotted by the gods.
>
> May Indra, of wide renown, grant us well-being;
>
> May Pusan, and all-gods, grant us well-being.
>
> May Tarksya, of unhampered movement, grant us well-being.
>
> May Brihaspati grant us well-being.
>
> Om! Peace! Peace! Peace!
>
> Here ends the Sita Upanishad, included in the Atharva-Veda.
>
> K Rajaram IRS 27226
>
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 at 06:57, Markendeya Yeddanapudi <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *MarThe Need for Freedom to Nature*
>> *The Guilt Merchants*
>>
>> *A Non-Cartesian, Holistic Expression*
>>
>> Before thought divides the world, there is participation.
>>
>> In the breathing forest, in the flowing river, in the wingbeat of a bird,
>> life moves without the burden of guilt. No tree apologizes for growing. No
>> deer carries shame for running. No river regrets its flood or its drought.
>> Life responds, adjusts, renews. It does not stand outside itself to judge
>> itself.
>>
>> Only the human mind steps back and says, “This is the world, and I am
>> separate from it.”
>>
>> This separation is the beginning of fragmentation.
>>
>> Nature does not function as isolated objects interacting mechanically. It
>> unfolds as communion. The soil is not beneath the tree; it is within it.
>> The air is not around the lung; it becomes the lung. The ocean is not
>> separate from the cloud; it rises as the cloud. Each being is a gesture of
>> the whole. Each organism is not merely in nature—it is nature in a
>> particular form.
>>
>> The biosphere breathes as a single, immeasurable body. Every species
>> participates in a living holarchy: wholes within wholes, movements within
>> movements. Nothing exists alone. Nothing is merely an object.
>>
>> When perception is whole, there is no need to conquer, dissect, or
>> dominate. Knowledge arises through intimacy, not distance. Understanding
>> comes through resonance, not control.
>>
>> The Cartesian habit of mind—placing the observer outside the
>> observed—creates the illusion that life can be cut into parts without
>> consequence. It trains us to divide endlessly: matter into particles,
>> knowledge into disciplines, society into competing interests, the self into
>> mind and body. In division without reunion, strength dissolves.
>>
>> But life does not grow by division alone. It grows by participation. The
>> universe expands not as a heap of fragments, but as a deepening
>> interweaving. Stars are born from shared gravity. Ecosystems flourish
>> through reciprocity. Cells cooperate to become bodies. Wholeness is the
>> deeper movement.
>>
>> To educate a child as if they are a limb of Earth would transform
>> learning. Biology would not be about specimens but about kinship. Physics
>> would not be about detached forces but about the dance of relation.
>> Economics would not measure extraction, but circulation. Knowledge would
>> not accumulate as data stored outside the self; it would ripen as
>> sensitivity within the self.
>>
>> When we add the world to ourselves—not by possession but by communion—our
>> identity expands. The more we feel, the more we belong. The more we belong,
>> the less we harm.
>>
>> Technology, when unconscious, can thicken the illusion of separation. A
>> machine may extend the hand, yet numb the sensing of the hand. When tools
>> replace participation rather than deepen it, we lose the subtle
>> conversation between body and world. But tools guided by awareness can also
>> serve life. The question is not machine versus nature; it is whether the
>> machine participates in the rhythm of the whole or accelerates
>> fragmentation.
>>
>> Universities today often sanctify analysis and call it knowledge. Yet
>> analysis without synthesis becomes dismemberment. What if learning began in
>> silence, in forests left untamed, in rivers not engineered? What if
>> students first learned to listen—to wind, to soil, to their own
>> breathing—before they learned to measure? Sensory awakening would precede
>> conceptual abstraction. Meditation would stand beside mathematics.
>> Participation would balance precision.
>>
>> Freedom for nature is not a political slogan. It is a shift in perception.
>>
>> When we cease to stand outside life as judges and engineers, when we
>> dissolve the rigid boundary between observer and observed, guilt loses its
>> grip. The “guilt merchants” thrive where separation reigns—where humans
>> feel alien to the living world and must be morally coerced into
>> responsibility. But when one experiences directly that harming the Earth is
>> self-harm, regulation becomes reverence. Law becomes love.
>>
>> Nature does not require our management as much as it requires our reunion.
>>
>> To free nature is to free perception from fragmentation.
>> To free perception is to remember that we are not spectators of the Earth.
>> We are a movement within it.
>>
>> And in that remembering, exploitation gives way to participation,
>> control gives way to communion,
>> and guilt gives way to belonging.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> If you would like, I can next:
>>
>> -
>>
>> Deepen this into a spiritual–ecological manifesto
>> -
>>
>> Connect it explicitly to contemporary ecological crises
>> -
>>
>> Or refine it into a publishable journal essay with philosophical
>> references
>>
>> --
>> 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/CACDCHC%2BZ1SzXpFjSVuLmb-JyePh-YYCWfbb3h%2BWUZGWAR0ooZw%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CACDCHC%2BZ1SzXpFjSVuLmb-JyePh-YYCWfbb3h%2BWUZGWAR0ooZw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
--
*Mar*
--
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/CACDCHCJvB%3DdrwMv9bYaBAjC3Hr3_XaLsjpewCk1AYRLYPPGTHQ%40mail.gmail.com.
