there is a fundamental reality

To look up words like codification.

I could but what I'm interested in is your meaning

Spoken like a true theist !

ehhh....

My usage is the conventional one you'll find in the dictionary. Please don't make me look it up for you when you can do that yourself. To "codify" is to reduce meaning to the form of a code. That's more or less, I suppose, the conventional meaning.

fine , codify ;

to reduce to a code ;

systemize , classify

still don't get what your trying to say ?

It's called "resistance."

By the way, back to the OP. Can we not say that all experiences of "reality" are of "fundamental reality"? Should we stratify "reality" into degrees or levels of fundamentality?

yes




my point of the OP , is point out , that the elements ( periodic table ) and space are fundamental to our existence , our reality

I don't know what you mean by " stratify " degrees or levels of fundamentality ?

I had in mind the differences we refer to between, say, the taste of an ice cream sunday, the process of conception both mental and biological, a dream state, the motions of atomic particles, then those of sub-atomic particles, the nova of a star, etc. etc. Are they all equally "real" (albeit different) or do they represent degrees of reality from superficial to basic (i.e., fundamental)? Personally, I think of them as equally real; all is fundamental.
Perhaps the most shocking way I can put it is that my shadow and I are equally "real."

the process ?

Process: conceiving a model of something or a sperm connecting with an ovum.

where would the model of something come from ?

All those phenomena that you refer to, "the taste of an ice cream sunday, the process of conception both mental and biological, a dream state, the motions of atomic particles, then those of sub-atomic particles, the nova of a star, etc. etc." occur or appear in the fundamental or "radical" reality that is "My Life," our life, the individual life of each one of us. As my favorite philosopher, Ortega y Gasset says:

"The new fact, the new radical reality, is 'our life', the life of everyone of us. Let anyone try to talk of another reality as being free from doubt, more primary than this, and you will see that such a thing is impossible. Even thinking is not anterior to living--because thinking is found to be a piece of my life, a particular act in that life. This seeking for an indubitable reality is something that I do because I live, and inasmuch as I live--that is to say, it is not isolated and done for its own sake. I seek reality because I am now busying myself with philosophy, and I do this as a first act in philosophizing. And philosophizing it is, in turn, a particular form of living, which assumes this living--for if I work with philosophy it is because of what I feel as a desire of my life which is restless about itself, and perhaps finds itself lost in itself. In short, whatever reality we set up as primary, we find that it assumes our life to be a fact; the act of giving it place is in itself a vital act, is 'living'."
[From 'What is Philosophy?' by Jose Ortega y Gasset. Translated by Mildred Adams. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company, 1960.]

For more on Ortega y Gasset's Philosophy of Human Life, see: http://www.webspawner.com/users/ortegainus/ortegaygassetsp2.html

Hardly does the concept of "my life" brings any novelty to philosophy other then the novelty of being enthusiastically presented as such...equally nor does one see how the concept is not itself imbued in the same cultural entanglement any other we strive to uncover has, given on close inspection there´s nothing particular or particularly interesting to it that makes the meaning of "self" any more clarified then the meaning of "Being"...
Nature here abstractly and roughly defined as the prime condition of what we usually call "our living experience" is onto itself not subjected to any revision as whatever is the case to be real is true in its very beingness..."mine" or "not mine", as "possession of impressions" of any understanding upon the phenomenology of "being there", ends up as "poor" explanation for fact and does n 't at all clarify the legitimacy of such impression any better, then any other interpretation when judged by the token of its very own pretence critic ...

According to Ortega, for the Ancients reality consists of "things," "res," the physical objects of the world. This position was later called "Realism."

With the Moderns, starting with Descartes, reality consists of "ideas." This position is called "Idealism."

The novelty of Ortega was to overcome "Idealism" by recognizing that both "things" and "ideas" are "happenings" that coexist within the radical reality that is "My Life." [See: "José Ortega y Gasset's Metaphysical Innovation: A Critique and Overcoming of Idealism," by Antonio Rodríguez Huéscar. Translated by Jorge García Gómez (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1995).]

In his famous formula, Ortega states: "I am I and my circumstance," which he later explained as follows: The first "I" refers to "My Life" the fundamental or "Radical Reality." The second "I" refers to "My Self" the individual person that I am. "My circumstance" refers to everything other than "My Self," all the phenomena that occur to "My Self" within the "radical reality that is "My Life." Thus Ortega's statement can be reformulated as "My Life consists of My Self coexisting with My Circumstance."

If they all are equally real…then the fundamental REALITY is that all that stuff is equally real. If they are not equally real…then the fundamental REALITY is that all that stuff is not equally real.

But whatever it is…it IS.

There just seems to be no getting away from it…THERE HAS TO BE A FUNDAMENTAL REALITY. And whatever it is…IT IS.

First there were the four elements air, earth, fire and water and that was the fundamental reality ......
......Then there was the periodic table, and that was the fundamental reality.......
....Then there were protons, neutrons and electrons, and that was the fundamental reality.....
....Then there were bosons, fermions and hadrons and that was the fundamental reality.....
Then there will be.....................
and then.....and then...and then...

Once again, the failure of descriptions of an objective reality do not constitute evidence that there is no absolute reality.

Here's your statement again. I've swapped out "objective reality" with "god".

Once again, the failure of descriptions of god do not constitute evidence that there is no god.

Sounds like what we hear all the time from religious believers. My point is that "objective reality" is a concept in the same category as god. Why assume it exists? By definition "objective reality" will always be inaccessible to us.