The Holy Dible, or simply, The Dible: The Completed Metaphysical System

Hon. Rev. Randolph Thompson Dible II, U.L.C., Sentinel, Tarati

Randolph Thompson Dible II, alias, The Incredible Credible Randy Dible

Forward

Eternal verities are true in all possible universes. They give us an ideal objectivity. There is a hierarchy
of them:

Ultimate Reality is the Absolute Infinite, and it is Pure Objectivity, objectivity without an object. It is
what would be pure and radical Nothingness, always already. It is the source of all valuational qualia.
Call it the Axiological Axiom, Profundity, Superjectivity, and Very Value, yet it is All This. Get used to
it.

Pen-ultimate Reality is Pure Self-Reference, Pure Subjectivity, the very oneness of the One. Call it the
Infinitesimal, Unity over Infinity. It is Being-in-Itself, Difference-in-Itself, the First Distinction. It is the
Self, the Same, the very Subject of Subjectivity. There can be only one.

The first extension of the First Distinction is the First Dimension. And so ensues the ontological
procession of dimensionality, requisite for the extensive continuum of any construct.

In taking existence for granted, we need to be reminded that every object requires a subject; every form is
the content of a frame. And all subjective forms come from pure subjectivity.

Randy Dible, May 18, 2009, New York

The Dible

Only the supra self-evident can truly be axiomatic. That is the axiological axiom. There is only one
'thing', so to speak, that it could be: ultimate reality is the source of all value, meaning, and significance,
just as pen-ultimate reality is the source of all finitude and form. For there is only one idea that could be
truly "supra-self", and it is the Beyond of Being, and only in its ultimacy is it "evident".

Axiology, the theory of value, needs a grounding axiom such that the 'overwhelming-ness', 'overflowing-
ness', so to speak, of profundity itself is the ultimate reality from which are derived values and all their
range of meanings. This ultimate reality is none other than the ultimate reality, 'Reality', so to speak, but
this Reality is beyond any construct, formless, dimensionless, and infinite, it is none other than the very
Absolute Infinite itself, of which can only be predicated its superlativeity, for it has not even Being! This
is because Being-in-Itself is penultimate reality, the very Negative of the superlativity which is the
condition of its (Being's) possibility. You see, in the purely abstract unmarked 'state' (so to speak*), there
cannot even be, ideally, a point of reference, much less a point of perspective. Any two possibilities in
that state would reduce to one, and that one would have to reduce to nothing at all. This ultimate
reduction (a key term now coined as a thought experiment: Ultimate Reduction) is what leads to knowing
that there indeed would be something like "Pure And Radical Nothingness" if there only could: Being
obviates, Nothing-ness obliterates, obliviates! It is not even imaginable, so not imaginary, for it is the
only "thing" nothing could be: Ultimate Reality. But for lack of a better conception, it is none other than
the Absolute Infinite. The Absolute Infinite is Ultimate Reality. This ultimate fact allows for what we
call Being; differences in value. All value is imaginary. A difference requires there to be an oscillation in
reference, and that requires, by the strict ontological principle, a logical contradiction. There will be more
on this lesson later, when we are ready to discuss the imaginary value in logic, and as the source of all this
technical and wide-ranging framework Professor Spencer-Brown points out, the metaphysical identity of
this so-called i is "the first time", or time itself, as extension of the frame of reference, to allow extensive
form or dimensional contents: it turns out that i is dimensionality.

Pen-ultimate reality is the principle of all principles, the 'center of the universe', 'on the ball', 'in the zone',
so to speak, but really the reality beyond these idioms, the very center and source, the ever-present origin:
the presence of the present, the self, the same, the first distinction.

Question your axioms. Like Descartes, you'll likely come to something like his conclusion, but here's
how he got it wrong!: (we have a better perspective now, and it is easier to see how to improve the
prototypes) it's not thinking of the self that is inescapable, but the fact of its immanence. The self we
refer to however, is abstract, the Self (the Spirit which animates us), so it is never absent (there is always
a perspective, a perspectivity), and is the horizon rather than the field, so never truly objectified

* "So to speak" is an idiom I must employ in the subject of matter of this book, as it is all abstract, and so
words fall short, and ultimately fail to signify what is really meant, but do indicate it, or refer to it. It is
only ostensibly that I can allow such psychic transference-- only by pointing, so don't mistake my
metaphorical finger with what I'm trying to indicate.
But allow me to restart, in case we are being too technical, too obscure.

The Absolute Infinite is Ultimate Reality. Oh dear, it’s hopeless. Hopefully, it will become clear, if, it
isn't.

The Absolute Infinite is Ultimate Reality.

The Infinitesimal is Penultimate Reality. But this notion of Infinitesimal connotes the wrong thing!
Leibnitz knew he was metaphysically wrong to say that there are infinitely many infinitesimals, which
appears evident, but he didn't realize how badly he'd mess up the identity of the Infinitesimal, Unity Over
Infinity, and the One. They are the same. In fact, they are One and the Same, but moron that later, so to
speak.

Let me get to my point, the point of it all is that there can be only one. There can be only one.

There can be only one.

My Point

The Infinitesimal is the One. The nature of this notion is such that any hypothetical other One would
have to 'reduce' to being the same one. Here's a thought experiment to clarify (I promise this time!):

In yogic meditation, there is only one true state of Samadhi, the very State of Being, Being Itself, so to
speak. But there is distinguished in Sanskrit two types: Samprajnata Samadhi, which means it is gotten
to with support, as it is conditional, and so dependent upon external means, and the other is Asamprajnata
Samadhi, which of course if independent or Real, True Samadhi. In so far as these are both Samadhi,
they are profound concentration, focus, but one is only imaginary, arguably less imaginary than the so-
called real world (the construct in which values are seen to differ), but imaginary still. The experiential
difference is that in one use is made of external centering devices, visual aids and the like (in the case of
mantra, it is the self-similarity of an auditory cue), such as yantras (geometric designs) and mandalas
(elaborate centered designs) which utilize the mind-satisfying patterns (food for thought) which lead by
harmonics to the center which is the real aid to Samadhi (if you can appreciate the harmonies, you can get
to the center, to meditation without the mediation), but you come to realize that the center is not truly a
physical entity, but an ideal state, and if you try to realize that, you find that you can't without completely
identifying with it. For the point of consciousness or perspective which imagines is ever-present to the
objects imagined.