The solution to both is in the East.

I think, btw, that Palamas is as Thomistic as Tom, himself: just in an apophatic way.

On the other hand, I long ago realized that Orthodoxy does participate in a cultural mindset that is shaped looking down the silk road (as you put it) rather than down the Roman highways. But, I consider this a good thing. The comment about Romanism and Constantinopolianism being the two lungs is both accurate and points us to the necessity of different cultural orientations in order to achieve the breadth of vision necessary for the Church to be the Church.

Because the two lungs are separated, it has the unfortunate effect of allowing each “lung” to travel down independent roads. This means that cultural tendencies can flourish without the counterbalance of the opposing cultural tendency. And it can lead to the danger of an overemphasis on your cultural viewpoint that can actually twist Christianity into a shape other than what it ought to be. So, at one end you have Dutch hyper-Calvinism, one of the most rigorously logical systems of Christian thought in existence. It is only too bad that the Holy Spirit could not break into that theology if He wanted to. At the other end, you have the extreme Palamites, who would deny any knowledge of God whatsoever despite Jesus’ repeated assertions that we can know God by knowing Him.

The Great Schism had many tragic results. Your article actually points to one of those tragic results, even though that was not your original intent.