It's more that you seem to deplore modernity, see it as a step backwards somehow — Janus

Generally not, except in this specific regard. The solution surely comprises recognizing it. At least that is a starting point.

the physical is not merely mechanical and mindless as has been assumed by the scientific orthodoxy. — Janus

My point exactly!

The problem, though, is always going to be finding clear evidence for such a thing, and being able to develop a clear model of just what might be going on — "Janus

Evidence and models are again appeals to empiricism, don’t you see? Not all philosophical analyses can be expressed in those terms.

As for whether there is a ‘crisis of meaning’ I think it’s axiomatic, but I wouldn’t want try and persuade those who don’t agree.

As it is the basic argument of this thread has a clear provenance in the sources quoted.

the physical is not merely mechanical and mindless as has been assumed by the scientific orthodoxy. — Janus


My point exactly! — Wayfarer

Actually on second thought "scientific orthodoxy" seems a bit strong. "Popular image of the scientific view" seems more apt. What individual scientists believe would not be so easy to discover. Also science has done very well with mechanical models so the methodology is useful, even though it comes up against limits in some areas.

Evidence and models are again appeals to empiricism, don’t you see? Not all philosophical analyses can be expressed in those terms.

As for whether there is a ‘crisis of meaning’ I think it’s axiomatic, but I wouldn’t want try and persuade those who don’t agree.

As it is the basic argument of this thread has a clear provenance in the sources quoted. — Wayfarer

It is scientific evidence which is motivating Levin's work, and he constantly says that mere speculation won't do for definitive views. On the other hand we all have our own inventive beliefs about the nature of things. The difference between you and me seems to be that I don't take my own intuitive convictions to be reasons for anyone else to believe as I do.

When you say you think the crisis of meaning is axiomatic I think you misuse the term. What is axiomatic is what is self-evident to anyone, and that others disagree shows that the belief in a meaning crisis is not axiomatic. Also the belief in the meaning crisis is a conclusion you have reached on the basis of what you take to be evidence and is hence a conclusion, not an axiom.

What you claim as a "provenance" is just a compendium of others' intuitive convictions that trot out regularly apparently because you find them copacetic, chosen simply because they align with your intutions. Why would you expect that to count as convincing evidence to the unbiased?

You need to understand that the search for meaning is far more open today than it has been in the past. — Janus

How so??

Realistically, how many paths to meaning can a particular person explore? I think the openness you speak of is illusory at best, for most people. Because most people, even in first-world countries, simply don't have the social and economic means to explore different paths to meaning without this having an adverse effect on their ability to earn a living.

You say we cannot return to a traditional mindset, and of course I would agree that we cannot, but would add that even if we could it would not be desirable. — Janus

But we'll have to, or we'll be miserable.

The "predicament of modernity", the "modern crisis of meaning" is, in my view, the consequence of too many people too readily embracing socialist, liberal, humanist, democratic views, and then realizing the hard way that they can't live holding those views without also becoming miserable, and, more importabntly, without failing in life. It's a case of cruel optimism. It's not necessarily that socialist, liberal, etc. views are wrong per se; it's that if a person doesn't have a sufficiently comfortable socio-economic status, holding those views and trying to act in accordance with them will become a source of said person's misery and downfall.

In the spirit of normalizing social and economic austerity, we'll have to go back to the type of mentality people (probably) had in feudalist times, and see ourselves as fully defined by our current socio-economic status and the precarity that comes with it.

explore different paths to meaning without this having an adverse effect on their ability to earn a living. — baker

Many people find their meaning in earning a living―that is, in their profession.

But we'll have to (return to a traditional mindset) or we'll be miserable. — baker

You are speaking, and can speak, only for yourself.

The "predicament of modernity", the "modern crisis of meaning" is, in my view, the consequence of too many people too readily embracing socialist, liberal, humanist, democratic views, and then realizing the hard way that they can't live holding those views without also becoming miserable, and, more importabntly, without failing in life. — baker

As compared to - what? Traditionalist, conservative, undemocratic, illiberal? I would rather hope that authentic values can be realised without that.

The point of the argument in the original post is an analysis of how philosophical and scientific materialism came to be such a dominant force in globalised Western culture, and it's consequences for the 'meaning crisis'. I'm trying to articulate a very specific process initiated by Descartes' dualism of 'mind and body' and Galileo's separation of 'primary and secondary' qualities. This leads to the self-contradictory conception of the mind as a 'thinking substance', which, when rejected, leaves only the 'extended substance' of matter/energy as the causal basis of manifest reality.

You're correct in saying that all of this is intrinsically bound up with the emergence of liberalism in politics and economics. But this whole complex of views is also now being called into question by many currents and movements within Western liberal democracies themselves. Accordingly the dominance of materialism can no longer be assumed. People are exploring or re-exploring all manner of philosophical ideas and value systems outside the bounds of Western liberal democracy without however having to literally overthrow it.

I happened upon a sceptical analysis of Michael Levin on Medium - i think you can access it, it opens OK for me in a clean browser. The author says he is PhD, complex systems, physics, CS, maths and philosophy. Interestingly, the critique was developed as a dialogue with Google Gemini. Where I think it's relevant, is in identifying the kind of push back Levin's Platonist ideas will get from other philosophers of biology.

https://medium.com/@AIchats/michael-levins-platonic-biology-fcadcb67c3bf