“After rereading the original essay, I have concluded that my interpretation and understanding of the main ideas are spot on.”
You are of course entitled to your perspective as I am entitled to mine. My intent is to engage in conversation, to record my perspective, to expose myself to the perspectives of others, and to test the durability of my own perspectives in the face of opposition.
The solidest ideas are those that have been forged in the crucible of adversarial debate.
I am not aiming to convince you that my perspective is correct and yours is in error. I never anticipated that you would have a sudden epiphany and come around to my way of thinking.
However…..
…..having planted a seed of thought in the fertile soil of a curious mind…
… I can walk away having faith that it will grow…
…even if I am not there to see it.
=======================================
“… you don’t really have a cohesive argument.”
Where did I go wrong?
Are you claiming that cultures are intentionally designed? That they are artificially imposed? Would you assert that the environment inhabited by a population has no influence on the form in which their culture develops?
“It appears you confuse biological determinism with enculturation (gender norms)…”
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
I am not the least bit confused. I do have a perspective that may conflict with yours; sorry if that confuses you. I have discovered some ways in which the development of cultural systems in human populations is connected with a natural order. Are you suggesting that cultureless populations can exist?
“Sounds like you are promoting a very specific viewpoint that appeals to how you want to see the world instead of relying on a variety of sources.”
Sounds like you are dismissing a very specific viewpoint that challenges how you want to see the world, instead of including it as part of a variety of sources.
I have, in fact, read a substantial amount of material that challenges and conflicts with the ideas that are contained in Professor Morris’s work and with the ideas that I have presented in our conversation. When I read any material I don’t just consider what it says, I also consider what it doesn’t say. Filling in the gaps left by what is not said is how I have arrived at the ideas presented in this conversation. I arrived at my conclusions independently after studying many different, and sometimes conflicting perspectives. I did not learn them from Professor Morris.
When I first read Professor Morris’s book, “Why the West Rules — for Now,” I was surprised to discover that he had arrived at some of the same conclusions that I had. It was encouraging to learn that a professional anthropologist had arrived at conclusions similar to my own.
The book itself is 645 pages and within that volume of material you would not be surprised to learn that there are many ideas that I, myself, find questionable. In addition to the particular excerpts that I cited, it comprehensively covers both eastern (Chinese) and western (European and Middle Eastern) history.
During a previous discussion on Medium I explained that the ideas contained in the volume are indeed controversial. Professor Morris himself discussed other historians’ and anthropologists’ theories that conflict with the ones he presented in his work.
“Might be time to ditch Morris.”
You are free to do so if that is your wish.
In the interests of considering a variety of perspectives I will continue to give consideration to Morris’s as well as others.
“Science uses multiple lines of evidence to support a theory.”
I am not “science;” I am an individual observer with an individual perspective.
I wish you the best of success in establishing your vision of an ideal society.
