Anyone else have a problem with Toynbee (this, and Vol II), re the very start of own blindness on the delusion of (misplaced, duh) stature of grandness coupled with a serious lack(ing) of definitions, categories, etc. which is mixed with a host of hidden assumptions that turn out to be the conclusions (surprise!) and their own proof ..? Yes it’s all as jumbled as that sentence.
Despite some interesting analysis, this all leads to a lot of meat pies in the skies.
But, then, as one reads on and consideres both the underdeveloped scietificity of the trade at time of writing (Is it still? Isn’t it Always, when looking back decades?) and the literary aspects, there’s quite some insights to be gaied from (re-)reading te full works. Would like your pointers to secondary literature in which the analyses are taken forward to be applied to our end-of-old- and start-of-new-millennium society/ies, and what follows.