[svnt]

The human concept of materialism appears to have been produced by historical humans who were also conscious, which at least sets an order. To call this into question is to render logical debate incoherent.

Materialism is a theory, not a reality, but its adherents can't tell the difference.

[fc417fc802]

> To call this into question is to render logical debate incoherent.

Unfortunately there are quite a few things of that nature. In no case does it justify blindly picking one of the options and then following up with bold claims based on an arbitrary assumption.

[svnt]

Where did I make the case that it does?

[AndrewKemendo]

So your epistemology is historicism?

[svnt]

Did you recently discover the idea of epistemology or does your line of questioning have a purpose?

[AndrewKemendo]

The OP suggested “The engineering-focused materialist way of looking at stuff like this makes my head and heart hurt.”

Therefore excluding “materialist way of looking at stuff” from the question of social theory

I have still yet to hear any elucidation with any type of philosophical rigor of why about the questions of humanity should exclude materialist lenses

Further, at no point was there a epistemological foundation laid for the claim that consciousness is the foundation apriori from materialism

[unicorn_cowboy]

Here's a starter pack of resources:

https://www.harpercollins.com/products/the-holographic-unive...

https://www.essentiafoundation.org/

https://curtjaimungal.substack.com/

Be advised this is not something that can be understood through intellectualization. At some point you have to put down the books and seek out the experience.

[svnt]

I read it as an expression of personal experience, not a declaration of anything.

"Be not arrogant because of your knowledge, but confer with the ignorant man as with the learned, for the limits of skill are not attainable."