This time Part3's indicating ✽our intuitive justice necessity is only questioned. That means  coordinate axis's reason to be present, as the questing around what for we use it.

It means that the ones who suffer from one so disadvantageous matter picked up as the analized subject  must never be able to have objective view, because for the ones who have stayed at one whereabout must never have objective judgement, because they have only subjective impression at the site in question.

Necessarily, their witnessing truth could be trustworthy, but because their view around the case really incidentally took place could never be objective at synthsizing all situational evidence. Because they as the ones who directly were concerned with the case could never have objective position not as well as the ordinary ones except the ones who were concerned with the case as whereabout the case took place.That absolute gap must have driven the order of diagram of which display is just at an order to regard any positioned thing could be regarded as even excluding any personal judgement with subjective view or con fused mind caused from witnessing the case e.g. murder as subjective emotion could impact 
the testimony content or misjudging to witnessed matter, as we regard the one's it in reason for skepticism about the authenticity of the testimony which necessarily arises.

That absolute gap must have driven the order of diagram of which display is just at an order to regard any positioned thing could be regarded as so even wxcluding any personal view guiding judgement with subjective emotion in empathy to the case's victim.

At the matter of fact, what we can have only subjective kind of fault or illusionistically misjudged view could ironically evidences that our presence as absolutely never nothing but being, in other words, we could never understand nor see the essence nor substance around only biased view, error at regarding to any substance. And this absolute truth sarcastically suggests that if only God could understand and see all essence of any presence, He must be very identical with nothing, because present thing must have own view, but only nothing could have no subjectivity because perfection to be objective means nothing but having no subjective view and impression. 
To some extent, these interpretations as views to really realized our wornd order's death angle could be possible to say presumptively.

We make sure create nothing so subconsiously, thus we invalidate not so well done process holding thing can create all sinister running presumable matters or appointment we usually have to any person. These our irresistible mind's dispositions could evidence that what we know nothing of nothing, then that truth might drive us to make nothing embedding our shortage at knowing nothing's essence, then human's creation of nothing must mean only invalidating present somewhat, because as long as we already must be present at being in universe, we have no way but taking method to delete, wipe out already set present thing as one of being e.g. socially meant infra-structure, mode, idea or so with anything.

And necessarily, what we could never have any perfection at being accompanied with the view excluded any subjective view either must evidence our inescapable nature to have own consciousness to love own beloved ones or only very subjective view to them and world itself.

Then, prrinciply, our nature to create nothing and our absolutely only having relative and subjective view to everything could have mutually very close relevance together., and its thing either must evidence that nothing could never be known top us essentially as long as we all just belong to being, unless we are either are nothing.
Then, eventually we only can grasp the essence of nothing only so expediently or so very notinally, but just regarding nothing as so rather must evidence either that nothing would have no very specific essence as nature nor substance. 
Then necessarily it could scarsely be expressed just like empty somewhat, or kind of blanc, or vain, but necvessarily these things as expression must mean only our subjective view, we could say either so. If we could say "it could be like hollow or so, somewhat we could never grip practically and materially or essentially." either that kind of expression must be just view from present conditioned things as us so subjectively, then it must never be the definition toward nothing. But that another issue suggestion could have another question, it could be what our definiton means to us. 

In other words, if we try to define nothing so definitely more and more, that degree's progress rather makes us fallen to the labyrinth of thought for us. Otherwise, the defenition to nothing in our trial could mean, however necessarily it could never be so mystical, fantastical, nor necessarily magical, wonderous nor miraculous (because these disciptions could be just so subjective), but simultaneously it probably must be very plain as what we from the beginning i ntuitivelty have known its essence, but just we could never these known tangible sensitivity could never be expressed with words discription, just only symmetrically to being, we could imagine so, but either it could be contradictory, because symmetry must be perceptive to compared objects only at the same dimenstion, but being and nothing could never be configurated to the base of comparison becuase these things are at diffrent dimensioned things, then ultimately these things contrarilly so sarcastically evidence that we are just subjective view holding presence by nature in terms of physivally, materially, or ethically or morally, and ewmotionally.

Then our regard to coordinate axis as applicallbe to time system as from past as left to future as right setting now at the center so consistently as the our factual truth could be seen to analyze my showing thinking logical process, and these deductive analysis could never be judged so false, I can think so.

Feb. 11, 16th. 2021

Memorandum; Eventually ultimately, nothing could be the object which anytime denies our trail to grip it, but it must never be neither just mysterious thing, that nature is so obvious at our subconsciousness, but its nature must never be suitable for discribing so defintely. In conclusion, its nature could never be expressed with any words nor obvious discription as long as we persist in only very daily definition, in other words, it could be neceesary only at so abstract indeification, I think so too. Then nothing could transcedes any discription nor expressing term, at the matter of fact, it must be ambivalence, in other words, what absolutely plain, nevertheless either absolutely empty is just only nothing, we could say so. 

This debating content could become first coordinate axis's identity with the reason to regard as so objective for us, but gradually nothing's aspect, modus ponens as presence, but originally it must never be presence, then after all we could get bakc the starting point of analysis, but we should never regard nothing as so mysterious, and we should never stop this analysis at least in terms of logics.

For the time being, once its proposition  could stop, but another chance to address with must be coming to our future.