No, I am not arguing for moral relativism.
How so?
Because there is Universal Truth.
The difference is principally semantic, and like with many language tools, that difference can make all the difference, enabling previous roadblocks to be moved out of the way with ease.
The difference borrows the thought structure of the mechanics of light - particles and waves, and time and space. Each of these pairs were originally regarded as their own entity, and were realized later to be the same entity expressed in different ways. I'm arguing that this is also the case for subjectivity and objectivity.
Quantum mechanics is the most proven scientific theory so far, as put by a number of scientists, and showable by watching Nova's Quantum Leap.
The importance of this is the principle of non-locality. Namely, and fundamentally, everything is One. This is where New Age theorists error, over-emphasizing this fact, and thereby extolling moral relativism, as opposed to sciences' cold, harsh, uncaring objectivity.
However, a singular entity cannot exist.
If there is just one thing and only one thing, interaction is, logically and empirically, impossible. A scientific axiom that is famously known, but rarely thought about in any depth, is "Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but merely changes form."
This is, in essence, the same idea as non-locality: everything is One, or, energy.
This is the basis of the universe, and it results in a paradox, described above, that is solved through creating an interference pattern, also known as observation, or experience. Energy, a singular entity, to experience anything, must go through amnesia of what it itself is, to create the illusion of it being something other than itself; now, this isn't sustainable, and so it creates a mirror image of itself. That means there are four parts in total: original self, original not-self, and mirror self, with mirror not-self. And there is a fifth self - the totality of all the selves, without which interaction would be impossible.
This is why the fundamental features of reality contain four parts, whether you are speaking about DNA, space and time, or light. Likewise, the fifth element involved is your irreducible consciousness. Much like how a fish doesn't notice water, your consciousness is the vessel by which you carry out your interactions.
It is not the cease that you create your reality.
You co-create reality. While quantum mechanics tells us about the jittery underworld, Newtonian physics tells us about the most frequented forms of the underworld, or, the ones that have historically and generally are most likely to manifest.
What is called "objective reality" is this bookmarked form of the consistently most-likely reality. However, just as when you question the Judaeo-Christian God in regard to being omni-this and omni-that, so too does the notion of objective reality fall apart under close scrutiny. When objective reality is spoken about, there are few places where it is not identical with materialism - the belief that this life is all there is, and a dependency on the 5 senses. It is surprisingly unscientific and closed off from evidence. The name for this ideology is scientism.
Objective reality does not exist the same way the Judaeo-Christian God does not exist: it has no ability for interaction, making existence impossible.
What exists is universal reality, which is the combined sum of subjective-objective and objective-subjective co-creative experiences and observations, lived as the most frequented and observed (recorded). The more that an observer tilts toward one or the other side, the more they embody non-existence. With scientists, this is expressed as the complete and total removal of themselves as the observer, to eliminate any and all bias. Likewise, there is a disregard for small chemical differences: it's all the same thing anyhow, making a parallel with New Age thought; this scientism is the result of corporatism. With New Agers, this is expressed as moral relativism and the total disregard of having a consistent morality -
"So what I'd the Muslim believes in beheading people? That's his right - his opinion - and it should be respected!"
Either way, denying that you are part of the universe, and that the universe is consistent, is the denial of your own existence and life.
So is there a spoon or not?
No, not without action
a. to manifest it thorough the recombination of materials,
b. to discover it in your house by looking through the utensil drawer, or
c. to trade for it with others.
Yes, the spoon you are looking at is there, an extension of your body, society, and consciousness.
Without this post, does your comment exist? Is there a comment or not?
You have interest in this topic, per the spin of your vibration, that compelled you here, to write and post that comment. Without that spin, for which reason I also posted my post, this interaction would not have occurred, nor been experienced.
I describe this vibration for myself as the intention, attempt, will, and vocalization of freedom, clarity, and coherent unity: anarchy, a society with consistently-applied rules, which necessarily means a conscious society.
You might not have these exact same words, yet the vibration bringing you here to make that comment has enough similarity to make such an interaction manifest into Newtonian observed reality and be recorded in a number of ways, including the anti-censorship system that steemit uses.
Thank you.
Hmmm... That's an interesting thought. There is no spoon in Hebrew or Chinese...
Yes, there is:
Chinese
Hebrew
However, it is true that for some languages, certain concepts do not exist. Alan Watts talks about this in reference to Chinese and English.
Likewise, for some languages, there are a good deal many of synonyms for a word, such as Snow in Eskimo.
Hahaha, "Use-mention error".
What I meant was, is there a "spoon" in Chinese...
No, no more than there is "勺子" in English.