did you not take introductory classes in your undergrad? or did you skip directly to gupta's classical mechanics and jackson's e&m? if you haven't then trust you can learn a great deal from intro classes that have very little calculus. if you have do you not remember how little calc they had in them? we're not talking about solving laplace's equation here. we're talking about a general concept like gauss's law in integral form.The point I'm trying to make (admittedly very indirectly) is that there is little point in trying to learn physics without calculus. Of the three general physics texts listed on the Baez page, the only one I am directly familiar with is the Feynman lectures, which I am taking to be representative of the other two as well. The Feynman lectures are admittedly great for developing conceptual understanding, but they still require at least some calculus background, and they are devoid of problems, which is where the physics learning actually takes place. Assuming the other two books are at roughly the same level, I still maintain that one would be best served reading layman-oriented physics books to develop/maintain interest in the subject while trying to develop sufficient mathematical background to learn physics properly.
proper physics learning probably doesn't take place until you get to grad school anyway.