. . .

—“Curt can you point us in the direction of where we could find proofs or research for this?”–Rob McMullan

RE: <“Different cultures do rely on different methods of argument, semantic relations, and definitions of truth. West is uniquely empirical: externally correspondent. All others rely on some version of wisdom literature.”>

Um. I draw from so many disciplines and try to provide commensurability across them. And while there exist works on comparative religion, comparative mythology, comparative law, comparative literature, comparative linguistics, I do not know of anyone who has reduced the analysis to the dimensions of reality, the dimensions of argument, and provided comparative definitions of truth (other than perhaps the work by Fukuyama), or of argument in those dimensions, nor comparative definitions of methods of argument other than law. (Even if it is law that determines the method of argument of each people.) THis is why science has evolved into the universal language: that truth and argument are also possible to state in universally commensurable terms regardless of the methods of argument in different civilizations.

So, aside from Fukuyama and Huntington, I don’t know who else to recommend.

I mean, the idea of competing or comparative ‘sciences’ is kind of nonsense, really. Measurements are either universally commensurable or they aren’t measurements.

All other authors are comparing differences, and some are explaining why those historical differences evolved.

I’m explaining why ALL those differences exist and what those differences are capable of producing.

And that by continuing the pursuit of truth we discover that the reason for western advancement in the ancient in modern world is purely scientific. (real).

Truth. Markets. Eugenics.