It's not my special theory, it's just just one idea of many theories and observations going back to Taoism and Vedanta, and it's similar to contemporary theories like David Bohm's Implicate Order, Ken Wilber's Integral Psychology, etc.
You take a 2000 year old religion (Taoism), which like every religion is based on nonsense, connect it to a pseudo-scientist (Wilber) that translated the religion into new-age stuff, which makes it not anything more truthful and then say there is a relation with a real scientist (Bohm) to give it credibility, with just your own added ingredient of non-science. That is a strange mixture of ‘tradition’, ‘authority’, and ‘revelation’
. It shows that you are clever. Not that what you say holds any merit at all.
The idea that the contemporary scientific worldview in it's current form is inadequate to explain subjectivity is by no means limited to myself, and may, if you count religious people, be an overwhelming majority of the world.
Are your sure that, on this specific forum, you want to claim that your 'theory' is supported because many people believe something similar? Moreover, you don't say in any way why a scientific world view is inadequate, even though you throw in 'contemporary' and 'current form' to hide behind vagueness.
Is this guy a crank? If so, then sure, please call me a crank too.
No, he is not. He is a scientist. Quantum mechanical theory is supported by countless evidence. Your 'theory' is not. Comparing yourself to a scientist is nice, but it doesn't mean your ideas are not 'cranky'.
My theory is no more senseless and unfalsifiable than a Quantum Mechanical worldview which conceives of a universal vacuum filled with intangible, invisible particle-wave, probability events which only make sense if the observer is factored in somehow.
But the big difference is, again, that it is supported by evidence. You can do the simple experiments yourself and verify that the theories predictions come true every time. So quantum mechanics is not unfalsifiable. At all.
Your theory is. What predictions do you make that we could verify and isn't explainable by any other scientific theory?
I've known pseudoskeptics before, and discussions about any topic other than reaffirmations of conventional wisdom are typically frustrating and amusing.
It's ironic that you are smart enough to see this trait in others, but not enough to see it in yourself.