The map can never include everything about the territory, so it is a kind of fantasy: it simplifies and is therefore inaccurate.

But there is another kind of fantasy that skeptical existentialism (so far as I understand it) tries to avoid: creating features on the map that do not correspond to the territory based solely on rumors and wishful thinking.

Take, for example, the Río Buenaventura, a mythical river rumored to run from the Rockies to the Pacific Ocean that was drawn on many maps until 1844 when John C. Fremont proved that it didn’t exist. The river would have been very convenient had it existed. It would have provided a waterway to avoid the perilous trip around Cape Horn. So rumors and wishful thinking put the river on the map.

Our experience of objective reality will always have an element of fantasy, but we can try to avoid flights of fantasy as much as possible.

The sense of objective reality that I’m talking about are the bare facts: “things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come”. These are the truths that we can only approach with our minds, the things that stimulate our minds to make their models.

We can improve our maps by consulting others’ maps, but they can never be made perfect. Our brains (or their replacements) can never comprehend the truth of all things. Only the sum total of all truth (i.e. objective reality, the whole megillah) contains all truth, not a finite part of that whole.

What are bare facts? What are things as they have been, are and will be? Are they something external or internal to subjectivity? To the extent we consider facts as external to subjectivity, we are nihilists.

There are two ways to approach truth: first, deconstruction; second, construction. While the former is useful, the latter is essential to escape nihilism. Discovering the stimulators of stimulators, parts of parts and causes of causes is not sufficient to explain that which we create.

We can improve our maps, pursuing an abstract completion, yet perhaps never attaining a concrete completion. Is there a sum of all truth, except in the abstract?

Without beginning, gods of gods discovered themselves creating worlds of worlds without end.

Existentialism essentially accepts the truth of nihilism but says that while there is no way to find objective meaning to life, meaning is a subjective, personal matter. We each create our own meaning. Existentialists embrace life despite its absurdity. They (with Nietzsche) say yes to life.

I don’t see how extending the reach of subjectivity can equal objectivity in the ideal sense.

Is there a sum of all truth, except in the abstract?

No more abstract that the existence of the universe. The universe (or perhaps multiverse for those so inclined) across all its dimensions is itself the sum of all truth. All truth is circumscribed within that reality (which may prove truly infinite).

The empiricist claims that knowledge of truth comes from experience. The radical empiricist claims that truth may not be and cannot be known to be more than experience. There may be no absolute behind truth, to which our minds must somehow correspond in order to know truth. Indeed, to “know” otherwise is to know nothing at all; if that is ideal objectivity then ideal objectivity is nihilism — internally contradictory and meaningless. Objectivity, if we are to aspire to it rationally, must be understood in a non-negation relation to subjectivity. We see this in science, which aggregates our experience into objectivity, a knowledge of truth; and it empowers us whether or not it corresponds to any hypothetical and definitionally unknowable absolute — something as queer as a supernatural immaterial God.

If the metaverse is infinite in any dimension (and who knows whether it is not infinite in all dimensions?) then there is no sum of all truth, except in that abstraction: metaverse.

I don’t follow.

While one may posit the meaning of life to be something merely personal (relativism) one may also posit the meaning of life to be something communal (objectivism), without resorting to appeals to anything beyond experience.

Yet the only basis for this communal position is individual subjective judgments. We may come to a consensus among ourselves, it is true. This represents only an alignment of subjective values. Being distributed among individuals, it is only a little less parochial. At its base, however, it is nothing new.

The empiricist claims that knowledge of truth comes from experience.

I am not aware of an example of any other kind of knowledge.

Objectivity, if we are to aspire to it rationally, must be understood in a non-negation relation to subjectivity. We see this in science, which aggregates our experience into objectivity, a knowledge of truth;

I think we agree on this point though we may be using the terms differently. However, I believe the scientific effort can never apprehend all truth. There will always be some truth beyond our grasp. What we perceive of the world will always be an illusion created by our minds.

If the metaverse is infinite in any dimension (and who knows whether it is not infinite in all dimensions?) then there is no sum of all truth, except in that abstraction: metaverse.

Surely you’re not saying that infinity is only an abstraction. Whatever exists when taken as a whole is the sum of all truth.

Let me address this definition of nihilism. As I understand it (perhaps I misunderstand), this is something of an absurd strawman. I don’t know that most nihilists would deny that objective truth exists, just that it is inaccessible (i.e. we have no perfect basis for knowledge).

As you point out, the basis for communal positions is individual positions. Even if it is only a little less parochial, it is all we have. Is science only a little less parochial than relativism? I hold science in higher esteem. It is not merely an illusion created by my mind; it is, at least, our experience. In such matters, the difference in attitude can make for important practical differences.

Infinity is not only an abstraction. It is at least an abstraction.

Perhaps. There are many parts of nihilism that one can believe without denying the existence of objective truth. If that’s not fully nihilist, then so be it. I’m satisfied with being only nihilistic.

To relate this with theology, I understand the atonement of Christ to be the eternal work of overcoming incongruence between individual wills, anatomical desires, communal laws and environmental laws. We participate in the atonement, joining Jesus as saviours, when we express our wills and desires while seeking expression of others’ wills and desires. Law is to the community as will is to the individual. Good is to the community as happiness is to the individual. Truth is to the community as knowledge is to the individual.