'Eurocentrism' etc

[Guest guest]

Prof. Dr. Robert J. Zydenbos: You wrote: "You must realise that Europe

and the United States both are very large parts of the world with large

numbers of people, and that you cannot expect full uniformity in all matters

concerning intellectualinterests, educational and research policies etc. Even

some importantcultural attitudes may be different. Just as I have always

stressed thatIndia is a large segment of humanity with great cultural variety,

youmust accept that although we can speak about 'Europe' or 'the West' on

acertain level of abstraction, there is always the risk that in

ourgeneralisations we become inaccurate."

 

This is true; after living in Europe for 9 years, the difference between

Americans and Europeans was brought home to me when I read

the book of Prof Stuart Miller, himself a self-declared American

( Understanding Europeans, John Muir Publications,

1996).

"My book," he writes in the foreword, "assumes as a point

of departure the need for generalizing. To navigate in this life

generalizations and abstractions are required, though a certain

tentativeness always remains. Skeptical readers - attached to the

singularity of each person, nation and olive tree - will find a

more detailed discussion of the usefulness of such generalisations

in the "Aterwords" at the end of this book".

And what are his generalisations? "Mystery, chic, kindness,

manipulativeness, stand-offishness, and oceans of self-assurance.

These are some of the qualities Americans often think they see

in Europeans".

The point is that it is not generalisations per se that render them

accurate or inaccurate, just or unjust but the content and application

that go into the generalisations that make them so. Just as a Punjabi

and a Tamilian can have important differences in their cultural

attitudes but still be subsumed in a general Indianness that is wholly

accurate (depending on the quality of the generalisation) so also

the West can be an apt description of both the European and the

American (again depending on the insight and point-of-view inherent in the

generalisation).

 

Mr. Rajiv Malhotra: You wrote: "The latest rage is the field of 'consciousness sciences' -

much of it appropriated 2nd to 4th hand from India but never acknowledged!!!

That's areal shame in terms of academic ethics. Take one example of

many......."

When it reaches the 4th hand stage, I am not sure if the 4th hand is

fully aware of the Indic linkages that has led to the scholarly 'insight'

or if the 4th hand is overcome by the power of its own (borrowed) vision.

The Spirit of Science:From Experiment to Experience, Ed. David Lorimer,

Floris Books, 1998 is ostensibly a compendium of dialogues between Scientists and

Mystics (all from the Western world - yeah, both Europeans and Americans).

It is 90% Indic, 20% acknowledged and 70% not so. That is my

"business-school" generalisation ;whether it is accurate or inaccurate,

just or unjust, I leave to the judgement of the Indologists and scholars

in this list. And no ... I am not a secret salesman for the publishers.

 

M. S. Chandramouli