I would say that psychology was the same, only social structure was changing, but I'm probably just splitting hairs. Anyway, I have the feeling that, during our dialogue about mysticism, I didn't make myself as clear as I'd like to.

So, in short — I think that both, mind-first as well as matter-first, approaches are wrong. Not only one cannot be separated from the other (i.e. mind and brain, or our human imitation of the same in the form of software and hardware), but also the seeming duality is just that — illusion (especially visible in the case of the latter example).

I think that the question “whether the source of reality is like us or whether we’re intrinsically alienated from that source” is missing a crucial point — no matter how you look at it, you are made from the same components (particles, forces, natural laws, etc.) that constitute and govern the rest of the universe. You may still argue the separation, but try to contemplate e.g. the sum total of oxygen or water. Where would the boundaries be?

I, personally, like to view creation as a sort of indifferent deterministic clockwork mechanism running as a causal stream of events due to forces with various degrees of freedom (will being one of them) relative to each other. Maybe that’s why Kierkegaard and Kafka were the heroes of my late adolescence and early adulthood.

There are, however, two things that make the whole affair more than that. First — the only absolute in the relative world of phenomena — death. And second — consciousness.

Now, if anything, it would be consciousness that would be the classical “what was first” candidate of mysticism. I, personally, am not so sure. All I can say about consciousness is that it is without any attributes whatsoever and that it is identical wherever we suppose it to be. Oh, and it is not directly observable. Obviously.

What I’m trying to say — consciousness may very well be emergent and linked to brain exactly as mind. But then the question arises, how can trillions of unique brains and neural ganglia produce something identical. You may of course argue that this is a bias, too, but the “status” of consciousness can be empirically verified, with the same validity with which you can verify temperature by looking at a thermometer, by looking at yourself.

Still, whatever the case, this universe is able to be conscious and aware (of itself). And that’s the only conclusion you can arrive at when you follow through with naturalism.

As for death, once you “know the unknowable” (aka consciousness which obviously cannot be directly known, hence “unknowable” in the conventional meaning of the word) it’s a moot point. Yet, death being the solitary absolute among phenomena, has the peculiar property of an anchor — it always reminds us that there are indeed absolutes even if the rest of creation is completely relative, most of the time unpredictable, and rather unstable and fickle.

Well, and when it comes to solipsism, I would say that all meanings are solipsistic. That’s why, although I liked existentialism, I also think it didn’t make the last step. It didn’t move past the lack of obvious (logical) reasons of existence to see the meanings inherent within the very fabric of creation. Then again, it would not be existentialism if it did :D