Comment: The problem is that what

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You hit the nail... (see in situ)

The problem is that what

The problem is that what you're calling "fundamental reality" is just the absence of comprehension. You're substituting the phrase "ultimate reality" for what should be called the limit of or the absence of comprehension, and then extrapolating that human limit or absence of comprehensions to all possible states of being. You're straining at the leash.

You're saying "no matter what, there can be no possibility of comprehension." You're not willing to take the next step and say, "...for us." No possibility of comprehension, for us.

The absence of comprehension should not lead you to say there is no possibility of comprehension. Rather it should tell you, "SOMETHING IS GRAVELY WRONG." You're trapped, like all of us, inside the mind that tells you no such comprehension is possible. But why should it not be possible? Reality exists, it ought to make sense. If it does not make sense to us, that is not a flaw of reality, but a flaw of the mind. That was, after all, my whole point.

See the parable of Mario and Luigi:

In the parable, there is also an ultimate reality which was beyond explanation. Not because it was actually so, but simply because it beyond access to the seeker. In the deeper reality, it had a perfectly valid and different explanation, which was simply beyond access.

The analogy is incomplete, because if our logic itself is severely handicapped, and is where the limit is fixed, that is a different order of magnitude and a difference of kind, not degree.

But if our logic makes explanation of the "ultimate reality" impossible, it is more likely a flaw of our minds than an inherent feature of reality.