[Marshall Polk]

Thank you. I wonder if there might be another book that makes this argument stronger. Or perhaps it’s not that ultimately important.

Great question. Before I heard Ian talk I had never thought of civilization in this divided manor. I am no expert but it seems civilizations can be so diverse it becomes hard to accurately and meaningfully measure (depending on what you measure and how).

I also believe that cultures and civilization naturally change and die out over time as well as being “done in by” something/s. But yes it seems obvious we need both and that it is difficult to achieve any balance or calibrate society in this regard – (should we even possess this kind of thought control over large populations? It may be ultimately good we don’t).

I love Jung but I thought the alchemical marriage produced a third option that eventually emerged from holding the “two opposite poles” as it were or do I have it wrong? But I do believe that I like societies that put people not things first. Where human dignity is respected in everyone as a baseline of most if not all endeavors, and where culture helps people give meaning and perhaps purpose to their lives rather than working against these values. Ian seems to say that would be the result of RH dominance, so….again a dominate argument. I don’t know.

What do you think?