Englishmen believed themselves and their modern west to be above the primitive Africans. However, humans in Africa enjoyed a rich and meaningful life; this was seen in their appreciation of nature and symbolism. And yes they believed in a "...flat world with the sun and planets going around it." What is wrong with this existence?
We are scientifically superior, that no one can deny. No, no, I'm not an etnocentrist, I believe they may have many factors where they are superior, such as knowing how to live without a ridiculously large opulency.

As for a rich, meaningful life...I don't know where the meaningful life is. Of course, I don't know what their activity was, but aren't you idealizing it a little bit? Maybe they were not so happy about their lifes, maybe htey depended too much on the fact they could not predict what nature would do, and thus being very vulnerable to the crops being awful that year, and producing illness and hunger. I don't know about African tribes, but in the islands of the south, Stevenson speaks about how illnesses developing in the forests have killed 80% of the population in a side of the island (I am refering to In the South Seas, I recommend that book). Then again, yes, people in Samoa did not have those problems, but they also knew more.

Investigation arround the nature of the cosmos is something natural in our culture, we wonder why this happens. Ortega and Gasset said that when the western saw a flower, he would pluck it out of the ground to observe it's roots and wonder why it grows, what is the arkhé of the things. An eastern will just stare at the flower in awe. I think both outlooks have positive things for development, but I'd rather have both.

It does not matter what tradition - but they all assert that this natural changing world is a reflection of the eternal non-changing world. This unchanging aspect may not literally exist as we know it... it is merely a mode of knowing it. Plato had the forms, Christianity has heaven and Taoism has the nameless Tao. All it this means is that for this world there exists another world. In order to study this other world we need messages from it, wether by inspiration or from the prophetic voices.
The Tao is something like the logos of everything, the eternal flow, the unchanging movement of nature, the arkhé. And the Tao that can be named is not the true Tao, or in other words, we are unable to fully understand the logos of everything. That I understand, and I agree with. Science is merely a strategy, a way of tying up truth, but mystery hides behind it. Yet this is a mystery that cannot be named or comprehended, as it trascends space and time. Science, however, is the useful rule, and yes, always bound to be denied, to be changed, but a way for us to attempt to understand at least a part of the everything. Rules we apply to nature to satisfy the question natural in our culture, and probably in the human race: Why?

Inspiration and prophetic voices? Inspiration through meditation? How do you know the words revealed through meditation are in fact revealing the mystery or if those are just interior revelations from yourself to yourself? Prophetic voices? How can I know I can trust the prophet, how do I know he's not an impostor?