I'm finding it a bit hit and miss. I agree, the "shared myths" notion is very appealing. And I enjoy learning the facts that form the skeleton on which he pins his thinking. However, I can't help feeling that a professional thinker -- philosopher, whoever -- would debate his proposals. It seems to me that a collaboration with a second author would have leant robustness to his philosophy. As it stands, it comes across as an historian stepping outside of his expertise unchallenged. All well and good, but a bit flimsy.

I look forward to reading further books published in response by others.