>>4421
> I don't know, Chapman has specifically called out this view as false and harmful.
https://meaningness.com/monism

True, although I'm not sure all the postrat (or still-rat or rat-adjacent) psychonaughts got the memo.

Advanced tentatively: Chapmanism is compatible with atheism and materialism but is perhaps in conflict with empiricism. It is an introspective, naval-gazing sort of philosophy; sure there's all sorts of emphasis on tantra and "play" and experiencing, but that isn't the sort of thing of which Karl Popper would approve: no repeatable, falsifiable knowledge is being produced, and even if it were, Chapman's hostility to quantifying anything would get in the way of adding the results to the sum of human knowledge anyway.

Come to think of it, that's kind of a common theme among the postrationalists: they accept the conclusions of science (unlike their fin-de-siècle/postmodernist/occultist/whatever predecessors), but their own epistemology prevents them from doing any science themselves (relevant: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/03/against-anton-wilsonism/)