However, if we consider “fact” as direct experience and consider seeking truth from facts as that truth should be tested with direct experience instead of indirect experience, then it is right. However, we must know that facts do not refer to objective facts but direct experience. Direct experience is consciousness, not matter. Seeking truth from facts belongs to subjective idealism instead of materialism.

Of course, direct experience has some objective characters, not arbitrarily fabricated, and is often inconsistent with people's subjective desires. In other words, direct experience is alienated, which is an objective character. Therefore, seeking truth from facts does not completely belong to subjective idealism. It should belong to dialectic dualism.

The ontological part of Taiji Evolutionism is called Dialectic Dualism. Matter and mind are both the origin. They are dialectically unified. Dialectical materialism of Marx tried to unify materialism with idealism but failed. Materialism believes there is only one origin. So it is impossible to be dialectic. If you want to be dialectic, you must accept two origins. The root of all dialectic relationships is the dialectic relationship of matter and mind. So only Dialectic Dualism is correct. Moreover, Marx's dialectical materialism is doped with many elements of objective idealism. Dialectical Dualism is the dialectical unity of materialism and subjective idealism, and it firmly opposes objective idealism.

Why did I say that Marx's dialectical materialism have many elements of objective idealism? For example, the objective law is a Platonic concept. It is neither  matter nor subjective consciousness, but a consciousness outside the mind, an abstract presence. Is objective law the truth? No, truth is human consciousness. Some of our understanding is truth, and some are not truth. They are all things in our consciousness. But if the objective law does exist, then since it is objective, it is not the consciousness of the mind. Therefore, objective laws can only influence the result of decision and cannot guide decision. If it can't guide the decision, what is the usage of it? Since it has no use, then there is no need to acknowledge its existence. This is in line with the principles of Occam's razor. We only need to recognize the existence of concrete substances in the objective world. There is no need to recognize the existence of abstract things in the objective world. Marxists always criticize others for not acting in accordance with objective laws. Such criticisms are wisdom that can be judged only in retrospect. I would like to ask who holds the objective law in your hands. We only have consciousness, relative truth, no objective laws. Objective laws are absolute truths. There is no absolute truth in the world, so there is no objective laws. The “Dao”of Laozi and “Li”of Zhuxi are all objective laws, all belong to objective idealism.

It can be said that the history of philosophy is the history of the struggle between materialism and idealism. But no one is completely correct and winner. Only their dialectical unity, that is, dialectical dualism is correct. The history of philosophy is the tortuous history of development of dialectical dualism and the dynamic balance between materialism and