Never the twain?

China is characterized by dependency. With a different physical, economic and political environment, the Chinese emphasized familial, rather than organizational, dependency. In the traditional Chinese world, says Hsu (1961), the individual had a secure position oriented to mutual dependence within the clan. There was no internal drive for change. The world of the individual was compartmentalized and principles depended on local circumstances. As early as 270 B.C. Hsún-tzu articulated the function of the ruler as providing a place for everyone and recommended that everyone perform well in his place.

People moving into Greece or the Indus Valley encountered different physical and economic environments. Each was different from that existing in South China. Our study of brain evolution (e.g. Striedter, 2005) suggests that mental capacities develop according to environmental needs. We know that neural connections are pruned and grow in response to individual experience. Thus, people in those three areas would see things differently, would pay attention to different things and would develop cultural habits and attitudes that differed.

The Greek way of thinking, as indicated by the writings of their philosophers (600-300 B.C.), certainly differed from that of the Confucians of about the same era. The Greek way, which became the Western way, is thought to have arisen from the isolated and independent social environment. Individualists flourished in small communities and argued for their own ideas. They saw events as isolated particulars and considered that they had a lot of control over events, as they did over their own lives. Prizing their own power of thought, they attempted to explain and order what they observed into systems that followed rules.
Arguing from particulars and a system of logic, one seeks to find a single exception, for that exception will destroy the opposing argument. Similarly, rationale may be exalted above the facts. The thinking is "either/or" and the "or" is exclusive. Experiments have shown that a weak contra-argument will strengthen a Westerner's opinion, but will have the opposite effect with an Easterner. Peng and Nisbett, (1999), Davis, et. al. (2000).

The foregoing is from the start of a section on Chinese thinking in MacLean's Mind and Ideology. More can be posted, if there is interest.

Nakamura also has a book (last edition 1999) called Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples.

My memory is hazy, but I believe that Wang Sit-Chin
had a similar book.

I'm not sure if it isn't a case of Anglo-Saxon is Anglo-Saxon and everything else is everything else.

Most of the questions posed at the end of lecture 2 certainly came from an Anglo-Saxon political/philosophical position. An underlying assumption that religion and 'Aristotle' should be kept out of the debate.

One could argue that the pinnacle of Western thinking on political-philosophy is very close, indeed almost indistinguishable, from 'Eastern' perspectives. I am thinking of Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Spirit' and the works of those who wrote under his influence: Nietzsche, Joyce, Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida and so on. What could be more Aristotelian than Hinduism? What more Hegelian than Buddhism?

But British moral philosophers are rarely interested in any of these discourses. This was all too apparent in the plenary of lecture 2.

As for morality and politics, the belief that one can make a distinction between them is the very root of the problems we face. As Aristotle said, what distinguishes humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom is that man is a political animal politikon zoon. As God said to Adam and Eve: who told you that you were naked? Furthermore, which institution is better positioned than the Christian Church to operate trans-nationally and locally at the same time?

This article might help :-

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070712135003.htm

This website has many research done on different cultures and should be very helpful in your research.

Hope this helps!

Q. Ho