> the idea that we can equally “honor” conflicting
> ideas in an all encompassing vision is more likely
> to motivate armchair speculation than useful new
> scientific models.”
It’s too late, I have already seen that it does *in fact* produce a useful new scientific model.
This model is not a matter of deciding to honor conflicting approaches, it is a way of modeling the essential features of the conflicts themselves and transcending them.
Imagine that we had one eye in the front of our heads and one eye in the back, and that the whole of human history has been to debate over whether walking forward means that objects are moving toward you or whether it means that objects are moving away from you.
The MR model is to understand that these two views are not merely substance dual or property dual, they are involuted juxtapositions of each other. The difference between front and back is not merely irreconcilable, it is mutually exclusive by definition in experience. I am not throwing up my hands and saying ‘what the hell, lets mix the chocolate with the peanut butter’, I am positively asserting that this is only way that this relation can be understood and that no other model can succeed. It’s not a promise or a threat, it is a clear understanding of what time, space, matter, energy, entropy, significance, perception, and participation actually are and how they relate to each other.
The idea that the newly discovered view out of the eye on the back of our head is eventually going to explain the view out of the front is not scientific, it’s an ideological faith that I understand to be catastrophically flawed. The evidence is all around us, we have only to interpret it that way rather than to keep updating our description of reality to match our fundamental theory. The theory only works for the back view of the world…it says *nothing* useful about the front view. To the True Disbeliever, this is a sign that we need to double down on the back end view because it’s the best chance we have. The thinking is that any other position implies that we throw out the back end view entirely and go back to the dark ages of front end fanaticism. I am not suggesting a compromise, I propose a complete overhaul in which we start not from the front and move back or back and move front, but start from the split and see how it can be understood as double knot - a fold of folds.