Anantksundaram is already upset, and it seems I can't change that; I'm not justifying my usage, merely explaining...
1) I am not at all upset. Just calling out something that I think is offensive. I'll do the same if you used something similar to describe other cultures or groups. I'll admit that my style is a bit blunt.
2) When you use terms such as "fanciful," or "Maslow's hierarchy" (I doubt you have any clue what the notion of self-actualization means in the Indian culture or context -- that's something else you may wish to try and understand), "Apple's solutions seem out of touch," or "English sipping tea in Calcutta in 1850" (c'mon, tell me that wasn't sarcasm), you are clearly justifying, not explaining.
1) Why not just point out that the term is offensive instead of getting emotional about its usage when there are no indicators in his statement that he believes any Indians are in any way inferior? Or, as previously mentioned, state why you think it's offensive and then ask him to clarify his point. If he's being a bigot, he'll likely double-down on his reply.
2) I'd say that telling someone that they have no idea what self-actualization means is the most offensive comment anyone has made directly to another forum member on this thread.
1) For a guy whose prior post was about assessment of intent, you're being rather casual -- and self-contradictory -- aren't you? You have no frickin' basis for assessing my intent other than exactly what I said it was: "Just calling out something that I think is offensive. I'll do the same if you used something similar to describe other cultures or groups." Read that again. No less, no more. Also, it's a tad condescending, even arrogant, of you to presume that I (or anyone else) should adopt your method and manner of internet communication.
2) Give me break: stop cherry-picking what I wrote to grotesquely quote it out of context. That is inexcusable. I said "what the notion of self-actualization means in the Indian culture or context". One, he brought up Maslow's hierarchy of needs, where the top of the pyramid is "self actualization." Two, I am sure you'll agree that Indian culture, history, Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism as major religions that came out of the subcontinent, and various branches of rather substantive Eastern philosophies that have come from there over many millennia are replete with references to self-actualization as the ultimate goal of human existence, and paths to its achievement. (Happy to engage you in a detailed conversation on that offline, if you're interested.) Three, the OP admitted that the basis for his post was interactions that he had with a couple of Indians 25 years ago, which did not suggest a great deal of depth or thought, let alone any major understanding of India. Please explain the validity of your comment given these qualifiers.
I removed your comment about Indian culture because it comes across as elitist and self actualization is simply a desire for self-fulfillment which means it’s also unique for everyone. To restate so this is perfectly clear, there is no “every Indian feels exactly the same way” scenerio and this applies to everywhere and to everyone.
Anantksundaram is already upset, and it seems I can't change that; I'm not justifying my usage, merely explaining...
1) I am not at all upset. Just calling out something that I think is offensive. I'll do the same if you used something similar to describe other cultures or groups. I'll admit that my style is a bit blunt.
2) When you use terms such as "fanciful," or "Maslow's hierarchy" (I doubt you have any clue what the notion of self-actualization means in the Indian culture or context -- that's something else you may wish to try and understand), "Apple's solutions seem out of touch," or "English sipping tea in Calcutta in 1850" (c'mon, tell me that wasn't sarcasm), you are clearly justifying, not explaining.
1) Why not just point out that the term is offensive instead of getting emotional about its usage when there are no indicators in his statement that he believes any Indians are in any way inferior? Or, as previously mentioned, state why you think it's offensive and then ask him to clarify his point. If he's being a bigot, he'll likely double-down on his reply.
2) I'd say that telling someone that they have no idea what self-actualization means is the most offensive comment anyone has made directly to another forum member on this thread.
1) For a guy whose prior post was about assessment of intent, you're being rather casual -- and self-contradictory -- aren't you? You have no frickin' basis for assessing my intent other than exactly what I said it was: "Just calling out something that I think is offensive. I'll do the same if you used something similar to describe other cultures or groups." Read that again. No less, no more. Also, it's a tad condescending, even arrogant, of you to presume that I (or anyone else) should adopt your method and manner of internet communication.
2) Give me break: stop cherry-picking what I wrote to grotesquely quote it out of context. That is inexcusable. I said "what the notion of self-actualization means in the Indian culture or context". One, he brought up Maslow's hierarchy of needs, where the top of the pyramid is "self actualization." Two, I am sure you'll agree that Indian culture, history, Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism as major religions that came out of the subcontinent, and various branches of rather substantive Eastern philosophies that have come from there over many millennia are replete with references to self-actualization as the ultimate goal of human existence, and paths to its achievement. (Happy to engage you in a detailed conversation on that offline, if you're interested.) Three, the OP admitted that the basis for his post was interactions that he had with a couple of Indians 25 years ago, which did not suggest a great deal of depth or thought, let alone any major understanding of India. Please explain the validity of your comment given these qualifiers.
I removed your comment about Indian culture because it comes across as elitist and self actualization is simply a desire for self-fulfillment which means it’s also unique for everyone. To restate so this is perfectly clear, there is no “every Indian feels exactly the same way” scenerio and this applies to everywhere and to everyone.
I really don't follow: it sounds like self-serving blather.
Anantksundaram is already upset, and it seems I can't change that; I'm not justifying my usage, merely explaining...
1) I am not at all upset. Just calling out something that I think is offensive. I'll do the same if you used something similar to describe other cultures or groups. I'll admit that my style is a bit blunt.
2) When you use terms such as "fanciful," or "Maslow's hierarchy" (I doubt you have any clue what the notion of self-actualization means in the Indian culture or context -- that's something else you may wish to try and understand), "Apple's solutions seem out of touch," or "English sipping tea in Calcutta in 1850" (c'mon, tell me that wasn't sarcasm), you are clearly justifying, not explaining.
1) Why not just point out that the term is offensive instead of getting emotional about its usage when there are no indicators in his statement that he believes any Indians are in any way inferior? Or, as previously mentioned, state why you think it's offensive and then ask him to clarify his point. If he's being a bigot, he'll likely double-down on his reply.
2) I'd say that telling someone that they have no idea what self-actualization means is the most offensive comment anyone has made directly to another forum member on this thread.
1) For a guy whose prior post was about assessment of intent, you're being rather casual -- and self-contradictory -- aren't you? You have no frickin' basis for assessing my intent other than exactly what I said it was: "Just calling out something that I think is offensive. I'll do the same if you used something similar to describe other cultures or groups." Read that again. No less, no more. Also, it's a tad condescending, even arrogant, of you to presume that I (or anyone else) should adopt your method and manner of internet communication.
2) Give me break: stop cherry-picking what I wrote to grotesquely quote it out of context. That is inexcusable. I said "what the notion of self-actualization means in the Indian culture or context". One, he brought up Maslow's hierarchy of needs, where the top of the pyramid is "self actualization." Two, I am sure you'll agree that Indian culture, history, Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism as major religions that came out of the subcontinent, and various branches of rather substantive Eastern philosophies that have come from there over many millennia are replete with references to self-actualization as the ultimate goal of human existence, and paths to its achievement. (Happy to engage you in a detailed conversation on that offline, if you're interested.) Three, the OP admitted that the basis for his post was interactions that he had with a couple of Indians 25 years ago, which did not suggest a great deal of depth or thought, let alone any major understanding of India. Please explain the validity of your comment given these qualifiers.
I removed your comment about Indian culture because it comes across as elitist and self actualization is simply a desire for self-fulfillment which means it’s also unique for everyone. To restate so this is perfectly clear, there is no “every Indian feels exactly the same way” scenerio and this applies to everywhere and to everyone.
Actually, self-actualisation has a cultural component; it's very different between culture. Why wouldn't it be, since the POV of the individual regarding their life and what fullfills it is culturally dependent. Socio-economics of a person alone also limits the aspirations they may aspire to. Doesn't mean everyone in that situation is the same of course, we're talking about mass averages here.
That it also has a universal, pan-human component is a big duh; like a big non sequitur.
We're unique individuals yet we share more than 99% of our DNA; both are true. It is the same thing here.
Depending on culture, community, family, the individual aspect of self-actualization (how it differs from others), may be larger or smaller.
This may be seen as a limitation, or even a prison, by others not brought in that mindset.
Like in everything, within a culture, a family, a community, there will be outliers that don't share the POV and thus those will see the traditional options for actualisation in their community as limited or stiffing They will rebel, fight to change their environment so it gives them more options, or if they don't feel like fighting, move somewhere else if they can..
Anantksundaram is already upset, and it seems I can't change that; I'm not justifying my usage, merely explaining...
1) I am not at all upset. Just calling out something that I think is offensive. I'll do the same if you used something similar to describe other cultures or groups. I'll admit that my style is a bit blunt.
2) When you use terms such as "fanciful," or "Maslow's hierarchy" (I doubt you have any clue what the notion of self-actualization means in the Indian culture or context -- that's something else you may wish to try and understand), "Apple's solutions seem out of touch," or "English sipping tea in Calcutta in 1850" (c'mon, tell me that wasn't sarcasm), you are clearly justifying, not explaining.
1) Why not just point out that the term is offensive instead of getting emotional about its usage when there are no indicators in his statement that he believes any Indians are in any way inferior? Or, as previously mentioned, state why you think it's offensive and then ask him to clarify his point. If he's being a bigot, he'll likely double-down on his reply.
2) I'd say that telling someone that they have no idea what self-actualization means is the most offensive comment anyone has made directly to another forum member on this thread.
1) For a guy whose prior post was about assessment of intent, you're being rather casual -- and self-contradictory -- aren't you? You have no frickin' basis for assessing my intent other than exactly what I said it was: "Just calling out something that I think is offensive. I'll do the same if you used something similar to describe other cultures or groups." Read that again. No less, no more. Also, it's a tad condescending, even arrogant, of you to presume that I (or anyone else) should adopt your method and manner of internet communication.
2) Give me break: stop cherry-picking what I wrote to grotesquely quote it out of context. That is inexcusable. I said "what the notion of self-actualization means in the Indian culture or context". One, he brought up Maslow's hierarchy of needs, where the top of the pyramid is "self actualization." Two, I am sure you'll agree that Indian culture, history, Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism as major religions that came out of the subcontinent, and various branches of rather substantive Eastern philosophies that have come from there over many millennia are replete with references to self-actualization as the ultimate goal of human existence, and paths to its achievement. (Happy to engage you in a detailed conversation on that offline, if you're interested.) Three, the OP admitted that the basis for his post was interactions that he had with a couple of Indians 25 years ago, which did not suggest a great deal of depth or thought, let alone any major understanding of India. Please explain the validity of your comment given these qualifiers.
I removed your comment about Indian culture because it comes across as elitist and self actualization is simply a desire for self-fulfillment which means it’s also unique for everyone. To restate so this is perfectly clear, there is no “every Indian feels exactly the same way” scenerio and this applies to everywhere and to everyone.
Actually, self-actualisation has a cultural component.
Of course, which is a part of my everything statement.
Comments