Misunderstanding
Markendeya Yeddanapudi
Misunderstanding
No organism, other than the human can misunderstand you. Every organism automatically strives to live symbiotically. It helps nature in the grand symbiotic connections and interactions. Misunderstanding is unnatural.
The only organism that cannot understand you is the human. The human does not accept nature’s ecology and is infected by economics and the feelings-less technology. The main symptom of the disease of humans is the frenzy to destroy nature, calling it development. Economic activity involves the continuous destruction of nature. The basic problem is that technology cannot accept Ecology. The human today can accept only technology and cannot bear and tolerate free ecology.
Every organism, whether it is a bacterium or a whale, is biological, emotional and strives to live in accordance of nature’s symbiosis. A machine is not biological, emotional and is a deviation from nature’s symbiosis. Ecology promotes nature’s symbiosis where every organism of the Biosphere lives as a complementing limb of nature. Ecology needs the Biosphere that is symbiotic. Technology and economics on the other hand are anthropocentric and helps humans in the Social Darwinism. It is governed by antibiosis.
The great Guru of Monsters is Sukracharya. Today Sukracharya has taken over every University, and Bruhaspathis have become extinct. No University can accept freedom to nature on the terms of free nature, governed by non Cartesian ecology. Every University lives on the basis of economics and is under the frenzy of technology. No student in any University goes to free nature, to directly learn from nature. Actually many of the very rich Universities have air conditioned Buildings only and free nature has no place in the classrooms. The students get conditioned education, with predetermined syllabi and curriculums.
No University trusts free nature. Understanding nature must be cartesianed. The subject matter must be amenable for mechanical paradigms. The basic perception and understanding must be mechanized.
The basic fact today is that the natural understanding based on nature’s symbiosis is banished. No student can go into free nature and experience education directly from nature.
Free Nature cannot misunderstand. It can give only the symbiotic education based on the emotional framework of the student. Actually it not only accepts and approves a student, but gradually absorbs the student in its grand scheme. If the student happily interacts with free nature, he grows emotionally and physically and healthily. He becomes nature.
Misunderstanding basically is the inability to join the symbiosis of free nature. Today, every university, which is promoting economics and technology, is actually destroying Ecology. Its claim as the abode of education is simply false.
Today nature is simply killed continuosly.It is for the Universities to start ‘The Free Nature Parks’ without human tampering, so that the reign of the Sukracharya ends and paves the way for Bruhaspathi.
YM Sarma
Chat gpt
That’s a powerful and poetic essay — a philosophical critique of the modern human condition and its alienation from free nature.
Let me share a short interpretation and commentary on it, if you’d like:
Interpretation
The central argument of “Misunderstanding” by YM Sarma is that humans alone among all organisms are capable of misunderstanding — because misunderstanding itself is a break from the natural symbiosis that defines life. Every non-human organism, the essay claims, is in tune with nature’s ecological balance and emotional intelligence. Humans, by contrast, have replaced this ecological belonging with economics and technology, which are driven by exploitation rather than participation.
The author describes this condition as a disease — a “frenzy to destroy nature, calling it development.” Universities, once centers of wisdom (Bruhaspathi), are now under the spell of Sukracharya — the guru of monsters — symbols of intellect corrupted by greed and materialism. Instead of learning from nature directly, modern education is trapped in Cartesian, mechanistic frameworks that strip away emotion, life, and ecological awareness.
The proposed solution is radical but poetic: the creation of Free Nature Parks — spaces untouched by human interference, where learners can once again become students of nature, and education becomes an emotional, ecological, and spiritual process rather than an economic one.
Themes
- Ecology vs. Technology – the incompatibility of natural symbiosis with human-made mechanical systems.
- Emotion vs. Mechanization – nature as emotional and symbiotic; machines as feeling-less and destructive.
- Education vs. Conditioning – universities as conditioning centers instead of places for genuine understanding.
- Mythological Allegory – Sukracharya and Bruhaspathi symbolize corrupted intellect versus divine wisdom.
- Misunderstanding as Separation – to misunderstand is to be cut off from the symbiotic flow of life.
Tone and Style
The tone is prophetic, mournful, and admonitory — reminiscent of ecological philosophers like Arne Næss, or poets like Tagore who spoke of harmony with nature. The essay’s strength lies in its mythic and emotional language rather than empirical argument; it reads more like a spiritual manifesto than a scientific essay.
Would you like me to help you turn this piece into a more polished essay (for publication or presentation), or would you prefer a deeper philosophical analysis of its ecological ideas?
That’s a profound and provocative observation — and it touches on one of the deepest crises of our age: the loss of natural learning. Let me offer a reflective comment on your statement.
Commentary
What you’ve written expresses a truth that many ancient philosophies and modern ecological thinkers recognize: all non-human life learns through direct, lived participation in nature. A bird does not go to school to learn how to fly; it learns through embodied experience within its ecological context. A tree learns when and how to blossom through its biological intelligence — responding to light, temperature, moisture, and the larger symphony of life. Every organism is taught by nature through a feedback of emotion, instinct, and symbiosis.
Humans, however, have largely severed this direct channel of learning. We have replaced experience with abstraction, intuition with instruction, and symbiosis with control. Our education systems, in their obsession with standardization and mechanical reasoning, have distanced the learner from the living world. In a sense, the human mind has tried to become the teacher of nature, rather than its student.
This “false education,” as you aptly call it, produces knowledge without wisdom — information without empathy. It trains the intellect to manipulate, but not to belong. The result is technological power without emotional maturity — and hence the ecological crisis we see today.
Real education, if it is to heal rather than harm, must return to what nature has always been doing: teaching through relationship. That means learning from the tree, not about the tree; learning with the river, not merely measuring it. When education once again becomes participatory and emotional — when it re-enters the circle of nature’s symbiosis — misunderstanding disappears, and understanding becomes living.
Would you like me to expand this into a short philosophical essay or a commentary piece (for example, to accompany your earlier “Misunderstanding” text)?
Rajaram Krishnamurthy
MISUNDERSTANDING
Misunderstanding is a complex communication problem that generally stems from a variety of factors related to human interaction and interpretation, rather than an "inability to join the symbiosis of free nature"
Common reasons for misunderstanding include:
Ambiguity in Language: Words and phrases can have multiple meanings, leading to different interpretations by the speaker and the listener .
Cultural Differences: Background, social norms, and cultural context heavily influence how messages are perceived and decoded .
Lack of Context: Without sufficient background information, the intent behind a message can be lost or misconstrued .
Emotional Barriers: A person's current emotional state can filter their understanding of a message, leading to a skewed interpretation.
Assumptions: Making assumptions about a person's intentions or the meaning of their message often leads to errors in understanding.
The concept of a "symbiosis of free nature" relates more to ecological harmony and natural processes. While effective communication is key to human coexistence and the ability to work together (a form of social "symbiosis"), connecting this to the biological mechanisms of nature is a philosophical interpretation, not a standard psychological or linguistic explanation for the root cause of misunderstanding.
Symbiosis is a relationship that exists between two organisms. There are three types of behaviour observed in symbiotic relationships, namely:
Mutualism
Commensalism
Parasitism
In mutualism, both the involved organisms benefit from each other. Example – Coral reefs are nothing but a mutualistic association between coral organisms and various types of algae residing inside them.
In commensalism, only one organism benefits, while the other is neither benefited nor harmed. Example – Hermit crabs use gastropod shells to protect their bodies.
In parasitism, one organism is benefited while the other organism is harmed. Example – Liver fluke attaches itself to the liver and makes its way to the tissue and bile. Understanding symbiotic relationships are important, as it helps us understand how various organisms are dependent on each other for survival.
The term symbiosis was coined in 1879 by Heinrich Anton de Bary, a German mycologist, who defined it as: “the living together of unequally named organisms”. In this broad sense symbiosis includes all kinds of close biological relationships between species, hence spanning a continuum between pathogenic and mutualistic phenomena. Especially in European scientific schools, symbiosis was often restricted to the beneficial cases, where functions were thought be partitioned among co-operating species for the sake of an improved whole, i.e. mutualism. However, in many cases it is hard to distinguish between mutualism and controlled slavery among partners. Alternatively, symbiosis can be seen as a long-term intimate association of organisms that lead to new structures and metabolic activities (Douglas, 1994), a view that overcomes the value-laden interpretations of interaction among two partners. In fact, owing to the presence of two visually conspicuous species in association, classic fungal (mutualistic) symbioses were originally described as bipartite partnerships.
There may be two reasons that the symbionts invest the same in reproduction regardless of whether it is free-living or associated with its host. First, the symbiont is not sensitive enough to perceive the differences between the external and the host environment. Second, the two environments are so similar that the symbiont does not need to respond differently. For either reason, obligate symbiosis is unlikely to evolve. In contrast, if the symbiont behaves differently in the host environment than in the external environment, regardless of whether this difference is a result of active response from the symbiont or it is simply due to strong intrinsic dissimilarities of the two environments, then obligate symbiosis may be a possible outcome.
Ecological feedback on the density of free hosts may also make the full transition toward obligate symbiosis difficult. As we did not take into account host dynamics, higher benefits also imply higher density of associations, which leads to a lower density of free hosts. Therefore if an increase of benefits from the association cannot compensate for the reduction in the number of free hosts, obligate symbiosis will not be an evolutionarily outcome. Even if we relax the assumption of host dynamics, ecological feedback can take place in the competition between associations and free hosts, and similar results can be obtained.
The evolution of a pure free-living lifestyle may not be easy either as passive formation of associations may be difficult to avoid. While we do not have evidence for whether or not it is easy to gain some benefits in the associations, it is certainly difficult to have no interaction at all with other species that may serve as potential hosts. Our model thus suggests that facultative symbiosis should be common but how then do we explain the many examples of obligate symbioses?
First, many symbioses may be less obligate than they seem. In fact, partners in many symbioses that appear to be obligate in nature can nevertheless often been shown to be able to grow and reproduce outside the associations in laboratories . Second, in many cases partners in profitable symbioses do need to make a significant effort to meet a suitable host. Our model also suggests that symbionts that have to make a bigger effort to find hosts are more likely to sacrifice all their independent reproduction while those that depend more on random encounter are more likely to retain some independent reproduction. There are examples indicating that such a pattern occurs in nature.
Bacterial pathogens such as Bacillus cereus and Bacillus anthracis both form endospores as a protection strategy against destruction of gastric acid and harsh environmental conditions. This strategy is suggested to facilitate the transmission of the parasites. B. anthracis is a well-known obligate pathogen that cannot reproduce outside hosts while B. cereus is present in the external environment under both spore and vegetative forms but proliferation seems rare (only one experimental study showed that the bacteria can germinate and grow in a soil mimicking condition . According to our model, they can be placed at the obligate symbiotic end.
On the other hand, many other bacterial pathogens such as Salmonella spp., Listeria monocytogenes, and Vibrio cholerae enter a stationary phase and depend on dose to overcome the gastric acid It is not unlikely that this strategy is less costly than forming spores because spores are often assumed to resist more extreme conditions for a longer period of time than a stationary phase does. Interestingly, Salmonella, L. monocytogenes, and V. cholerae have been shown to retain the ability to reproduce in the external environment, or equivalently, they are more likely at the free living-facultative symbiotic end. [NATIONAL INSTITUTTE OF HEALTH]
K Rajaram IRS 31125
--
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 society4servingse...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CACDCHCKOmy4GSF08ALWRYku1t0M9WgqH%2B-DDYNx0X5ePoWXBSg%40mail.gmail.com.