Bonus nonsense:
Glittering Images by Camille Paglia
I stopped reading after this horrendous introduction. I would describe the prose as Redditor adjacent. The author identifies as a civil rights era liberal and atheist, while condemning black art and Piss Christ. There were some pretty pictures in the book tho. I don't know who this author lady is/was but she sucks. 2/10
E: if you look this lady up, as many in the comments have done already, turns out she's a racist, transphobic pedophile. classic anticommunist
Taken to it's ultimate conclusion this is the problem:
From the point of Dialectical materialism you are the complex result of your body's processes. From the point of metaphysics there's something like a "soul" in you, only limited by material conditions.
These are completely incompatible world views.
But also I honestly don't really like the word "Materialism" maybe it's because I had interest in physics, but in Physics Matter is something that has weights, volume and takes up space. Not everything takes up space and not everything has weight. But maybe that's the point, you're gonna have to have this conversation every single time you explain materialism to a layperson. They'll ask you: "So you don't believe in sound? You don't think heat exists? Maybe that's what a "soul" is - a non-material thing. What do you say to that Materialist?"
Materialism != Dialectical Materialism
That's kinda the whole point. The body and the mind (base/superstructure, cause/effect, whatever it is you want to call it) are linked through a dialectical relationship. What those things are doesn't matter, because it's their conflict that creates the Real.
The grounding factor of Dialectical Materialism is that the movement of the dialectic is observable in material reality and you can therefore infer things about the relationship between those concepts from that movement.
That's a metaphysical stance but not at all synonymous with metaphysics. What you're describing is dualism.
These are bad examples because they are just types of moving particles.
The other two are incorrect about diamat not being materialist though, it's just a version of materialism
that's usual materialism. dialectical materialism operates on society development level, and individual as an atom of that society. laws customs rituals appear out of development of material forces of production and exchange, the mind typical materialists accept quite readily, not for nothing they were imagining it as a series of gears or whatever. the materialists may think (and quite often do) that all that society structure is purely mind exercise, the gheist of the people or institutions or whatever, thus marxists call them idealists.
you may think quite easily disconnected from material reality (say, writing fantasy book), but you may not act in discordance with reality or, by extension, society (thus if you are reborn in slave holding society, unless you have readily made cavalry and cannons and good ideas about crops and crops themselves you are unlikely to progress anywhere from that)
That's a rather depressing way to look at it. If I was Isekai'd I'd still have all my accumulated knowledge. I could at least try to organize something.
The way I see it Idealists is rather simple, they lack just one thing: Direct experience. It's more or less what you've said, if I understand it correctly. I do find experience rather interesting, when I was a child I used to disconnect form my body quite a lot during stressful events or hunger, sometimes another voice would take over, sometimes I'd take a puppet and use that to serve as a vessel for the other voice, it'd be helpful to discuss things over, but over time as I grew older and accumulated more knowledge I had no more need for my childish ways and now it's just me experiencing the world as one. You think I'm the scared child or the puppet that took over? Perhaps neither.