An interesting book to read. There are however some points in the publically available excerpt which show a superficial, or rather incomplete, understanding of Ancient Greece.

I'm currently in the middle of reading this book. What do you think a more complete picture of ancient greek thought should include?

I'm sure if his idea of Greek thought is superficial, his understanding of Chinese thought has to be even worse.

Well, I've only read the publically available excerpt so far. For example the statement "Tyrannies were not common in Greece and" is just wrong. The statement:

"The word "ethnocentric" is of Greek origin. The term resulted from the Greeks' recognition that their belief that their way of life was superior to that of the Persians might be based on mere prejudice. They decided it was not."

is also wrong. "ethnocentric" may be based on Greek words, but the Ancient Greeks did not have a word "ethnocentric". The statement:

"Human relations and ethical conduct were important to the Greeks but did not have the consuming interest that they did for the Chinese."

is also wrong. I mean, "ethical conduct" and "human relations" are precisely what most Greek philosophers were concerned with. There's not a single philosopher that did not deal with these matters. The statement:

"Looking at a piece of wood, the Chinese philosopher saw a seamless whole composed of a single substance, or perhaps of interpenetrating substances of several kinds. The Greek philosopher would have seen an object composed of particles."

would be true if by Greek philosophy one only means atomism. In fact, most other schools (especially Stoicism) had no trouble in dealing with "interpenetrating substances". The statement:

"The Chinese counterpart to Greek agency was harmony"

is slightly ridiculous, since "harmony" is a Greek word (and concept) that was heavily used in Greek philosophy. Perhaps the Chinese focused on harmony, but the Greeks hardly focused on agency at the expense of "harmony".

Also, I suspect from what I've read so far that the focus will again be on Plato and Aristotle, who are the most widely known Greek philosophers even though they are hardly typical of how most Greek philosophers, let alone Greeks thought.

In short, the part that I've read so far shows a superficial understanding of Greek thought, probably making a "story" from the secondary sources that has a very loose relationship with what the Greeks actually thought.

PS: Judging from what I've read on the Greeks so far, I'll take his statements on the Chinese (which I can't judge) with a grain of salt. I am however sympathetic to the idea of West and East thinking differently.