The previous post shows the problem that arose with the perspective of marxism due to its birth in the wake of the Hegelian movement. The result was the aggressive materialism in opposition to idealism that was also the context of much nineteenth century positivism. The confusion is still with us in current science.
But at this point a general movement on the left, one that must appeal to a very large and diverse set of cultural groups, needs to appeal to a vast universe of discourse. Here the macro model of WHEE can solve the problem very easily because it creates a universal matrix that encompasses all possible views from all sectors and periods of world history. That doesn’t mean it accepts all of those, but it does enforce a dialectical view of a totality. The model of the modern transition thus includes all the major blocks of that period: the Reformation, the rise of science, the Enlightenment, The Romantic Movement, The Revolutionary phases: reformation, English Civil War, abolitionism, French/American Revolution, etc, and very importantly the source against which materialism reacted: German Classical Philosophy, from Kant to Hegel and Schopenhauer. Marxists adopted the dialectic but were unable to really use it and were unable to see that the ‘dialectic’ behind materialism and idealism’ cautioned against to facile and one sided materialism.
In an ironic outcome, this problem gestated a solution in the figure of J.G.Bennett who picked up a rightist New Age strategy to outdo the left’s materialism with a Samkhya materialism. Bennett’s The Dramatic Universe demonstrates despite its flaws a simple way to be done with the materialism debate by adopting a different form of universal materialism like that of the ancient Samkhya, and this was a revolutionary/radical version of the ancient dharma that was appropriated unsuccessfully by certain rights.
The comedy here is that there is a universal materialism allowing the universalization of all subject, religious, secular etc…