i still don't understand why people keep nagging about subjectivity, given that subjectivity allows for time to exist in a one dimensional frame, a unit equivalent to the existent person, and doesn't have the necessary rigidity of being the speed of light, in the dimensional square, that hardly represents the cubic parameters.

but that's besides the point,
i don't even know what the point is right now,
i just started contemplating time,
and how little space i occupy -
and then i thought...
  isn't philosophy the impetus / libido to
attain the maxim that's simply:
ad abstractum?
     toward abstraction?
     is that not the most "satanic" revelation -
does not man toil with less poetics of
a god via a spider through to a spiderweb
when he begins to abstract his existence,
nullifying it, extracting paradoxes from it?
i care to forget that there are menial tasks
at hand,
some of us ease sweat from our brows
(working), while others ease sweat
from our (arm)pits - thinking...
    as much morality enters the thinking
realm, as enters the action within crime...
fascinating how philosophy is simply
an attache of a "dead" language -
ad abstratum...
     which obviously precipitated into
the counter-existentialist movement,
the counter-scientific *ad absurdum
movement...
  nonetheless, the task at hand is how
can time become a dimensionally "orientated"
medium ...
      space, i am well aware deserves the
algebraic posits of x, y & z...
    but time, besides history?
does it really deserve the subjectivity of
an individual, with a past, future & present?
it's only a question as to why
time, i.e. the speed of light, had to become
"necessarily" squared,
   and what the cubic considerations are
to the equation...
         to provide the linear invitation
to imitating light...
      what has to be cubed, and what has
to be squared, or whatever,
in order to make the speed of light equate
to a linear projection...
   finally with the hydrogen bomb we've
found the atom, but now to find
the wheel inside the atom...
         i'm not satisfied, esp. given the contrast...
philosophy has always been
an ad abstractum methodology...
which always begins an
pro abstractum schism-era of "waiting",
until the wait turns into a political
agitation...
                which is why i don't understand
the current zeitgeist defamation of
subjectivity, and the ardent jubilation of
the communism within capitalism of
celebrating objectivity...
           it's un-comprehensible -
and that's a mild choice of words...
    subjectively time has no dimension other
than the one, given, in unitary form...
      time is one dimensional,
       space, on the other hand, apart
for the quest for heaven or hell has three dimensions...
      it cannot be said that the time ref.
of light can be propelled by retaining
the squared canvas of einstein's equation...
what has to invoke the cubic answer,
and what has to gain the linear aspired to
propeller of near-miss trajectory of
an object in imitating the near impossible...
surely, first of all, language has to attain
the necessary complexity, for such an imagination
to spawn a solution, of the guardian's secret;
running around like dogs chasing their own
tails with trivia, arithmetic quests on repeat,
mistaking knowledge with questionnaire
assumptions will not solve the ****** question...
only rigour, and perhaps some hard
drinking along the way, will make the mistakes
and failures, matter.