On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Nikolai S. Rozov wrote:
> Dear Bruce,
> I almost agree,but...
>
> Bruce McFarling <ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au>:
>
> >In part, it is the difference between the
> > thesis "unusual and historically important things happened in Europe" and
> > "Europe is unique because of the unusual and historically important things
> > that happened there". The first is true -- but it is also true of other
> > regions of the globe, which is why the second is false.
>
> no objections here but what about such argument:
>
> "Europe is unique because no other civilization managed to assimilate
> achievements of almost all other living world civilizations, and no other
> civilization except the Western one (based on Europe) managed to disseminate
> so widely and deeply its (original or deeply assimilated) social, cultural,
> and technological patterns in all over the world"
Then West Asia would be unique, *if* none of the previous
instances of this type of explosion were not also the instances with the
widest and deepest impact up to *that* time -- a question for you
historians on the list to address. In other words, why isn't that just
the exponential improvement of technological capability, that antedates
West Asia's temporary dominance by millenia, plus the fact that the West
Asian explosion is the most recent?
Virtually,
Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW
ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au