The Dimensionless Point Inside the Empirical Absolute

Imagine a series of concentric circles -- I want to say in three dimensions, which would make it a sphere, but I'm thinking rather of the two most important dimensions of all, "inner" and "outer"; or interior and exterior, subject and object, experience and experienced, I and It. 

Surely this bifurcation is the most important and consequential (and positively mysterious) in all of existence, and if your philosophy can't account for it, then it isn't one, precisely. Rather, it is either an anti- or non-philosophy, a misosophy or philodoxy (i.e., hatred of wisdom and love of opinion, respectively).  

I was thinking just this morning of how much I detest opinion, nor am I referring only to left wing opinion, since that is just hatred, envy, and perversion wrapped in ideology and indoctrination. 

Rather, I have no use for most conservative opinion, or speculation, or punditry, either. Facts and principles (including, of course, principles of morality). The rest is time wasted. 

Before proceeding any further, can the Great Indoors actually be regarded as a dimension? The word has a number of meanings, but Big Webster says that one of them is the quality, character, or moral or intellectual stature proper to or belonging to a person, and this will more than do for our purposes.

It is also the range over which or the degree to which something extends, so we're good to go, for something <---> someone is another instance of the Great Bifurcation alluded to in the first paragraph.

Back to the sphere. At its outer ring is the dual dimension of empirical reality and sense. On the one hand, there is no knowledge at the level of raw sensory perception, but on the other, what do the senses sense but the world? This is the dimension where empiricism is not only absolutely the case, but indeed the Empirical Absolute.

Now, the Empirical Absolute is obviously not the Absolute per se, unless you are so intellectually incurious as to be enshrouded in journalism or even plunged into tenure.

Not only is empiricism true on its own level and within its own proper dimension, but all science reduces to empirical reality, which, you might say, is what any scientific theory is "ultimately" cashed back into. Of course, the object of empiricism cannot literally be ultimate without falling into a performative contradiction, for we agree with the Aphorist that

Nearly every idea is an overdrawn check that circulates until it is presented for payment.

The pseudo-science of Climate Change, for example, bounces every check it writes, but is then provided an emergency loan on the basis of ideology. In realty, if a model fails to pass the test of empirical reality, then the model is just wrong. Here again, empirical reality is the Absolute Object of science. 

But the rubber checks pose no barrier to ideology, since it begins and ends in the head anyway. Like any conspiracy theory, it cannot be falsified. Note too that it covertly elevates the subject of ideology to the absolute, even while denying absoluteness. Pretty neat trick. For a f*cking retard.

The physicist is correct (or at least potentially so) vis-a-vis the object of physics, but the philosopher obviously cannot limit himself to that dimension without abandoning philosophy, for in so doing he overlooks (or better, underlooks) the proper object of philosophy, which is to say, being qua being, not one of its limited dimensions.

Let me get back to my full-dimensional sphere. Long story short, there is science and empirical reality at the periphery, then the circle of philosophy, then a circle of metaphysical principles, then one of theology. There is a dot in the middle, but it is a dimensionless point, so it is at once nothing and everything.

Focusing for a moment on the dimensionless point, there is a great deal we can say about it; indeed, we could spend our whole lives describing it and yet never exhaust it. 

Indeed, if we want to be perfectly kosher about it, most anything we affirm of it with manmode language must be simultaneously denied, meaning that this point is apophatic, such that any point is grounded in the Great Pointless (or dimensionless point), which, we might say, reveals the truth of nihilism.

What I mean is that vulgar nihilism actually does disclose a truth of things, only in an inverse and even perverse manner that essentially conflates "meaninglessness" with more meaning than we could ever exhaust or assimilate. The two can resemble one another from the standpoint of the f*cking retard.

I mentioned in a comment yesterday that I'm having some technical difficulties on my end, basically a broken computer screen and difficulty logging into blogspot on any other computer. So I'm going to end this post for now, and fill in the details of our Sphere later. Best I can do at the moment.