Have you read John Gray "Two faces of Liberalism"? One of the two faces corresponds pretty exactly to your point on classical liberalism. (The other does not.) It is an interesting book. (Need to re-read it myself, now that this brings it up.)
“I now believe, strongly, that materialism cannot be true.” This is SO huge!! I am just a lay person, was a huge skeptical atheist - over the past 10years I researched a lot about regen agriculture and found my way to some Rupert sheldrake (don’t ask). Most recently I watched an interview of Frederico Faggin discussing his theory of consciousness using quantum/classical ideas and declaring we are not machines. That was prob the nail in my mechanistic coffin. There is a lot of “woo-woo” and just plain old experience mechanistic science and ways of thinking cannot explain - and frankly gaslights.
The one thing I would emphasize is that the monist, nondualist view here is actually metaphysically simpler than materialism. You actually have to explain a lot less to get from there to our conception of physics.
I’m going to keep mentioning Robert Pirsig until you give him his due. In one book, Lila (or two, if you include Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance), he lays out - accessibly, this is crucial - the Metaphysics of Quality, which is nearly if not exactly the same as what you’re describing here. It’s a vindication of a non-materialist, albeit still empirical, metaphysics, whose simplicity makes it useful to a democratic political project because it does not scare off those who have not done extensive reading in philosophy but still have certain anti-materialist instincts and perceptions that have prepared them to receive its argument. The refusal of materialism and “God” you’re going for here is right there in plain view.
You’re just trapped in a Cartesian theater created by evolution like the rest of us. Materialism is true on purely thermodynamic grounds, but it is just a lot weirder than the simplified version we get through our evolved senses. See Donald Hoffman.
Have you read John Gray "Two faces of Liberalism"? One of the two faces corresponds pretty exactly to your point on classical liberalism. (The other does not.) It is an interesting book. (Need to re-read it myself, now that this brings it up.)
Of course!
Spot on!
Mike, every post informs and enriches my understanding of this moment in time. Thank you
“I now believe, strongly, that materialism cannot be true.” This is SO huge!! I am just a lay person, was a huge skeptical atheist - over the past 10years I researched a lot about regen agriculture and found my way to some Rupert sheldrake (don’t ask). Most recently I watched an interview of Frederico Faggin discussing his theory of consciousness using quantum/classical ideas and declaring we are not machines. That was prob the nail in my mechanistic coffin. There is a lot of “woo-woo” and just plain old experience mechanistic science and ways of thinking cannot explain - and frankly gaslights.
I don't think anything I said is "woo"
Nothing you said was “woo”. But from a materialistic POV, any idea that considers anything else to be a possibility is considered “woo”.
The one thing I would emphasize is that the monist, nondualist view here is actually metaphysically simpler than materialism. You actually have to explain a lot less to get from there to our conception of physics.
All distance is one in the mind of the Buddha, man.
I’m going to keep mentioning Robert Pirsig until you give him his due. In one book, Lila (or two, if you include Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance), he lays out - accessibly, this is crucial - the Metaphysics of Quality, which is nearly if not exactly the same as what you’re describing here. It’s a vindication of a non-materialist, albeit still empirical, metaphysics, whose simplicity makes it useful to a democratic political project because it does not scare off those who have not done extensive reading in philosophy but still have certain anti-materialist instincts and perceptions that have prepared them to receive its argument. The refusal of materialism and “God” you’re going for here is right there in plain view.
You’re just trapped in a Cartesian theater created by evolution like the rest of us. Materialism is true on purely thermodynamic grounds, but it is just a lot weirder than the simplified version we get through our evolved senses. See Donald Hoffman.
I'm too lazy to respond in a novel way, so I am going to ask AI to summarize what my argument against Cartesianism is. You can see what it said here: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/b873dd9a-c702-43b2-af80-01fb7d83acd5
I’m too lazy to read ai slop sorry