I distinguish between immediate experience and remote cognition.  The distinction between immediate experience (intuition, Erleben) and remote cognition (Wissen) is the basis of my understanding of myself and my world.  Instead of "Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung", ("The World as Will and Idea"), I posit "My World as Immediate Intuition and Remote Construction." This train of thought blends with the Western tradition which considers knowledge to be a progressive individual and social expansion of literal and mathematical skills. I consider this my mental exercise a parody of a Copernican Revolution not so much as by Copernicus himself, as by Immanuel Kant, his admirer and imitator. My own Copernican Reformation entails the implementation of Kierkegaard's claim that "subjectivity is truth." 

Traditionally, if my interpretion is correct, there was the effort to install the spirit, the inner spirit as Spiritum Sanctum, as the Holy Ghost, and as such to transform what is inward into an objective deity, a public spiritual utility, and thereby to relocate my inward spirit, the site of my knowledge and of my truth into an objective reality outside of my mind, and specifically outside of myself. But Kierkegaard and I insist that, on the contrary, the spirit, as the site of knowledge, truth and reality, is inward, within the immediate intuition of him who knows, in the instant case, within the immediate intuition of myself, and to be located in the limited extents of space and time pointed to by the words: "here" and "now". Here and now, I admit and claim, is a locality as transient and evanescent as my own awareness (consciousness).

Reaching back many centuries into the past, I take the liberty of comparing with each other, intuition (Erleben) and the apeiron, the unbounded that was promulgated by Anaximander. I interpret both terms, intuition and apeiron, as dialectical, and in themselves inherently contradictory. Apeiron is a play with the apparent paradox of purporting to limit the limitless. Intuition is a play on the duplicity of apperception, bridging as it does the chasm between what I perceive to be inside of me and outside of me.  Apeiron points to the circumstance that the boundary conjures up what is unbounded. Intuition points to the circumstance that defined immediate inward experience conjures up a multiplicity of undetermined and undeterminable potential outward experiences.

Fundamentally and more accurately, neither the outside nor the inside, neither without nor within, neither subjectivity nor objectivity are "truth" or "reality". What is true and real is the oscillation, the to and fro, the back and forth, the dialectic of outward and inward as basic to my experience, and ultimately compelling to me, as I experience and assert myself in my world.  The imperative of epistemology is the art of making this dialectic apparent, perhaps by discovering an enhanced linguistic apparatus, or by inventing a more encompassing language.  To this end, mathematics might serve as paradigm.  Poetically inclined as I happen to be, I explain to myself that even mathematics, and especially mathematics, is poetry in a language that is constricted in one dimension but extended in another dimension.

Just as the primitive concepts of place, extent, field, and region are converted and refined by formal geometry to point, line, plane and space, so concepts such as perception and action which bridge the gulf between the subjective and the objective, between inside and outside, between to and fro, require to be increased, enhanced and refined, if only in the course of understanding and as instruments with which we communicate.

I suggest to myself and to you, that arithmetic, algebra, differential and integral calculus, topology, set theory, quantum mechanics, relativity theories might be construed and interpreted as dialects, dialects that serve as gates, locked and then unlocked, to previously unexplored and in fact previously undiscovered region of intellect.  I admit, indeed, I assert, that understanding (in) each of these fields requires a closed community, a school, an academy.  I explain the indispensability, formerly more so than now, of the school, the university, the academy given the barriers to essential communication and understanding entailed in the geographic separation of teachers and students. Scholasticism, not only in antiquity and in the Middle Ages, but up to and including the present, I interpret as consequence and expression of the ineluctable dependence of human thought and human knowledge on community and society.  Admittedly the Internet with its broadcast emails, discussion groups and "social media" has altered the landscape of intellect with as yet indeterminate consequences. 

In my own case, in particular, I understand the limitations of my mathematical abilities as a line in the spectrum of autism disorders; an observation in the context of which I note that I consider the autism spectrum as far from consistently pathological (abnormal), but rather as a phenomenon of human nature, where the boundary between sickness and health, between physiology and pathology, is a movable line of infinitesimal width whose location in the bandwith between illness and health is a function not only of the individual concerned and of the society that envelops him, but of the quality of the thoughts and feelings to be concealed or revealed. Thus, for example, the autism spectrum concerning sexual issues is especially broad, while for example the autism spectrum in matters of sport is so narrow to be virtually absent.

The consequences of my personal efforts in the acquisition of knowledge fall into various categories.
a) my satisfaction or dissatisfaction with my intellectual activities and with my state of mind, and accordingly with myself.
b) my satisfaction or dissatisfaction with my intellectual environment, with my fellow students, with my teachers, with my pupils, and with the educational institution in which I have enrolled.
c) the social productivity or fruitlessness of my efforts to acquire knowledge.
d) the practical productivity or fruitlessness of my efforts to acquire knowledge. I ask myself: Of what am I capable today which would have been impossible yesterday?

The aggregate result of collective efforts to acquire knowledge is the integrity, the unity and the productivity of the human herd.  The life-sustaining or death-threatening achievements of humanity, especially in the modern age, the airplanes and automobiles, telephones and televisions, rockets and satellites, vaccines and nuclear weapons, solid state electronics and the Internet, the sprawling cities, and a government which both sponsors and suppresses freedom, are all of them inconceivable, absent common scientific efforts of the highest intensity.

Translated into theology, my thesis becomes an inquiry concerning the objectivity and material reality of the divine. I interpret the echo of the voice from the burning bush, I am that I am, or I am that I will be, as the transformation of that personal god who arranged to have himself worshiped, obeyed and disobeyed in the Garden of Eden into an invisible and intangible deity of which I have nothing more or less than an inward, subjective intuition. In this context, I note that neither Moses nor the Israelites succeeded in saving and securing the subjectivity of the divine.  Not only the people of Israel, but their priests as well, danced around the golden calf. How could a genuinely subjective, inward deity have found it possible to issue such myriad petty directives, for example of Leviticus?  Nonetheless, the subjectivity of Jahwe as the projection of individual spirituality, created a uniquely tenacious bond among members of the religious community.