But I protest!!! Ever since James Clerk Maxwell, and through DeBroglie, the classical idea of matter has had to be "substantially" modified. If (as you say) I am using the terms "materialist" and "materialism" with perjorative intent it is only because, historically at least, these terms have referred to people and theories that are driven by the idea of "matter," not only in its classical sense, but also in its sense of being the "real" polar opposite of a fictitious "something" that does not/cannot exist: that is, the soul (psyche, that complex of consciousness, mind, will).
I don't think my use of the term in the context I gave was/is "ignorant."
I would never think of you and the word ignorant in the same mental breath. There are, however, posters who use materalism as a pejorative.
I maintain that there is no reason to assume a need for dualism. Matter, as it has been understood for the past hundred years, is complex enough to account for the mental world as well as the physical. We certainly don't have a detailed understanding of how this works, but we make steady progress. No brick walls have jumped in the path.
I firmly believe the body is required for the existence of the mind. This is my opinion, not a fact. Of course I grew up being taught the resurection of the body, and have on numerous occasions, sung an anthem with the words "I, in my body, will see God".
I believe material existence to be infinitely deep and complex, and completely seamless with all of existence.