Sarma,Capra and Wilber
Yeddanapudi Markandeyulu
Below is a three-way philosophical conversation between Y. M. Sarma, Fritjof Capra, and Ken Wilber.
Each voice is kept distinct:
Sarma: ethical, accusatory, life-centered, uncompromising about cruelty
Capra: systems thinker, ecological scientist, bridge-builder
Wilber: integral theorist, developmental, synthesizing multiple levels
The dialogue explores mechanization, emotion, ecology, consciousness, and education, and also reveals where Sarma agrees and where he sharply diverges from both Capra and Wilber.
A Conversation on Life, Knowledge, and the Future of Education
Y. M. Sarma – Fritjof Capra – Ken Wilber
Capra:
Modern science has reached a turning point. Systems theory, complexity, and ecology show us that life is not mechanical but relational. The mechanistic worldview is simply outdated.
Sarma:
Outdated, yes—but still ruling. That is the danger. A dead paradigm continues to govern living institutions, and in doing so, it commits daily violence against the biosphere.
Wilber:
I would say the mechanistic worldview represents a particular stage of consciousness—what I call the orange or modern-rational stage. It was necessary, but it must now be transcended and included.
Sarma:
Included? Cruelty cannot be included; it must be abandoned. A stage that survives by destroying life has forfeited its legitimacy.
Capra:
I sympathize with that moral urgency. My work shows that ecological crises arise because institutions have not integrated systems thinking. They still operate linearly.
Sarma:
Systems thinking without feeling is still abstraction. One can model ecosystems perfectly and still destroy them efficiently.
Wilber:
That is why I emphasize interior dimensions—consciousness, values, meaning—alongside exterior systems.
Sarma:
Yet your framework still places nature as an object within quadrants. Life becomes something to be mapped, not something to be respected.
Wilber:
Mapping is not reduction. It is orientation.
Sarma:
Orientation without reverence is domination with better language.
Capra:
Let me intervene. I agree that emotional and ethical dimensions are indispensable. In living systems, cognition itself is embodied and emotional, as Maturana and Varela showed.
Sarma:
Yes. That is close to what I call emotional intelligence of life. But tell me, Fritjof—why does education still worship economics if systems science has already disproved mechanistic thinking?
Capra:
Because economic power structures lag behind scientific understanding. Economics is not a science of life; it is a tool of control.
Wilber:
Economics reflects a level of collective development. You cannot simply remove it; you must evolve beyond it.
Sarma:
Evolution that tolerates extinction is not evolution—it is pathology. Education trains young minds to accept destruction as normal. That must stop now, not after theoretical integration.
Capra:
This is where I agree strongly with you. Education must be reoriented toward ecological literacy—understanding principles of living systems.
Sarma:
Ecological literacy must begin with emotional belonging. Without that, literacy becomes management.
Wilber:
But emotional belonging itself develops in stages. A tribal consciousness feels belonging, but lacks universality.
Sarma:
You confuse emotional intelligence with tribalism. Animals feel belonging without tribal ideology. Emotional ecology is pre-ideological.
Capra:
That is an important distinction. In ecosystems, there is no ideology—only relationship.
Wilber:
Still, humans must integrate pre-rational, rational, and trans-rational dimensions. Regression is not the answer.
Sarma:
Nor is transcendence that floats above suffering. A theory that can explain everything but stop nothing is insufficient.
Capra:
Ken, Sarma is pointing to an ethical asymmetry. We cannot afford neutral frameworks anymore.
Wilber (after a pause):
I accept that critique. Integral theory has sometimes been more descriptive than prescriptive.
Sarma:
Life demands prescription now: Do not harm. That is the first principle of education.
Capra:
Then perhaps the synthesis is this:
Systems thinking gives us structure
Integral consciousness gives us interior depth
Emotional ecology gives us ethical grounding
Sarma:
Only if emotional ecology is primary, not appended.
Wilber:
Primary in value, perhaps—but integrated in practice.
Sarma:
Integration must not dilute urgency. Forests do not have time for frameworks.
Capra:
Then the task before us is clear: to redesign education so that it teaches not control, not abstraction, but participation in living systems.
Wilber:
And to cultivate consciousness that can feel that participation as sacred.
Sarma:
Not sacred in words—but sacred in restraint.
(Silence)
Capra:
That silence may be the beginning of a new curriculum.
Closing Interpretation
Agreements
All three reject mechanistic reductionism
All affirm interconnectedness
All see education as central to civilizational survival
Key Differences
Capra emphasizes systems and ecology
Wilber emphasizes developmental integration
Sarma insists on ethical primacy and immediacy
Sarma’s position is the moral anchor—refusing to let theory outrun responsibility.
If you wish next, I can:
Write this as a stage dialogue or radio conversation
Create a fourth voice (an economist or university administrator)
Or extract from this a new educational charter
Just tell me how you want to continue.
Rajaram Krishnamurthy
Nature doesn’t speak with humans in words the way people do—but many cultures, philosophers, and scientists would say it does communicate, just in different ways.
How nature “speaks”:
Through patterns and signals: changing seasons, animal behavior, weather shifts, plant growth—these all carry information.
Cause and effect: if forests are destroyed, floods increase; if oceans warm, coral dies. Nature “responds” to human actions.
Through human perception: sounds of wind, waves, birds, and silence affect emotions and thoughts. Our brains interpret meaning from them.
Cultural and spiritual views: many Indigenous traditions believe nature is alive and communicates through signs, dreams, or intuition.
Scientific view:
Nature doesn’t have intention or language like humans, but it constantly exchanges information through physical, biological, and ecological processes.
Poetic or philosophical view:
Nature “speaks” when humans are quiet enough to listen—by observing, reflecting, and understanding our connection to it.
So the answer depends on how you define speaking: Literally? No.
Symbolically, emotionally, or informationally? Very much yes.
2 Then how humanity think nature needs protection and cannot take care of self?
That’s a deep and important question—and it touches history, science, and human values.
Short answer: Humans don’t protect nature because it is weak—we protect it because human activity has become powerful enough to damage systems that normally regulate themselves.
Here’s how that idea developed:
1. Nature can take care of itself — without humans
For billions of years, nature maintained balance through:
evolution
climate cycles
predator–prey relationships
natural regeneration
If humans disappeared, ecosystems would eventually recover. In that sense, nature doesn’t need saving.
2. The problem is the speed and scale of human impact
Nature adapts slowly. Humans change things very fast:
industrial pollution in decades
deforestation in years
species extinction faster than evolution can replace
climate change within a single century
Nature will respond—but the response may be mass extinction, ecosystem collapse, or conditions hostile to humans.
So when we say “protect nature,” we often mean:
protect the conditions that support human and other life now
3. “Protecting nature” is really about responsibility
Humans realized:
We caused damage intentionally or unintentionally
We benefit from nature (food, water, climate stability)
We have the ability to reduce harm
Protection became an ethical choice, not a claim that nature is helpless.
4. Language matters: a human-centered misunderstanding
Saying “nature needs protection” is shorthand. More accurately:
Nature doesn’t need us
We need stable ecosystems
Future generations need livable conditions
So protection is often about self-preservation, even when framed as altruism.
5. A philosophical angle
Some thinkers argue:
Nature isn’t a machine to control
Humans are not separate from nature
Harming nature is harming ourselves
From this view, protection is not dominance—it’s restoring balance.
In one sentence
Humanity protects nature not because it cannot survive—but because our actions can make it survive without us.
3 1. Indigenous worldviews
Nature is not separate from humans
Nature is alive, relational, and often considered kin (mother, ancestor, spirit).
Humans don’t “protect” nature as an object; they maintain reciprocity.
Harm happens when humans break balance or respect.
Nature doesn’t need saving—relationships need repairing.
2. Eastern philosophies (Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism)
Harmony over control
Taoism: Nature follows the Tao (the natural way). Human interference creates imbalance.
Buddhism: Suffering comes from craving and domination, including over nature.
Hinduism: Nature is sacred; rivers, trees, animals have divine aspects.
Protection means:
Reducing desire, excess, and ego—not managing nature aggressively.
3. Western religious view (traditional Christianity, Islam, Judaism)
Stewardship model
Nature is created by God.
Humans are given responsibility, not ownership.
Damage to nature is a moral failure.
Protection means:
Caring for creation as a duty—but this view sometimes led to human dominance if misinterpreted.
4. Modern scientific view
Systems under stress
Ecosystems are self-regulating—but only within limits.
Human activity pushes systems past tipping points.
Collapse is measurable, predictable, and already happening.
Protection means:
Reducing human pressure so systems can function normally again.
5. Capitalist / industrial view
Nature as resource
Nature is raw material for progress.
Protection emerged only after damage threatened economies and health.
Protection means:
Managing resources so they don’t run out—not always respecting intrinsic value.
6. Modern environmental philosophy
Humans are not above nature
Deep ecology: Nature has value independent of human use.
Eco-humanism: Human survival depends on ecological health.
Climate ethics: We owe responsibility to future generations.
Protection means:
Changing how humans see themselves—not just changing policies.
The core misunderstanding
When people say “nature can’t take care of itself”, what they often mean is:
Nature can’t absorb unlimited harm at human speed without consequences for life—including us.
Final thought: Nature doesn’t need protection to exist.
It needs protection from one species that forgot it was part of nature.Pra-kriti the nature was prior to human developed on own morals; so it can grow,refurbish and rejuvenate; human if plucking flower, yield in nature expands; if the tree of flower is uprooted, humans feel the dryness and cannot survive; so human out of selfishness must pick from Prakriti a limited resultants enough for the humanity. K RAJARAM IRS 8126
NB: Dialogue between KR and YM:
KR Dialogues 3 so far were quite interesting
YM ………….
KR what is suffering and torture in running the economics?
YM Under economics, money causes misery. Misery in turn hurts everything including nature. So, torture to the nature is routed through the econo9y only.
KR Before we were born the existence of nature was there. Tht meant, it did not depend on any of us. Rig Vedic verses show that we worshipped nature; we worshipped the tree before the branches we needed were to be cut but nature gave all of it and expanded further. Barter was also an economy where torture prevailed as in the barter the equivalent value was missing; a day food and a gold bar or piece is not of equal value when it is known a little later as ranking of matter away from the economics as science started. Science created equality but misused by the consumer. Economics is value based scientifically; but by hoarding the human misused it; so, torture was both sides. Torture arose from the acts of the omissions and commissions of the human.
YM So let’s throw nature to the wind?
KR No, let's also not patronize nature. We need the science and the economics of nature; we need the tree branches for building homes and for furniture; we need metals; we need gas; we need cool breeze when nature is hot. So, air-conditioning. So, in order to thank nature which is boon to us, let’s thank it and control consumerism by a limited usage. However, all are not good so misuses will provoke the nature and punishments received we may have to endure as its economics.
--
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/CAPYPc16XvKz1WEoqQY1CktCmUZMje%2B2D2FkdMaL4uigHVQDLjg%40mail.gmail.com.