A vote for empiricism

Reality as the limitations of our empirical knowledge:

I am relatively an empiricist as far as philosophy goes. I find it to be the most fruitful perspective to approach logicizing reality from.

If I look at how I see a tree and a chair, and know they are made of wood, I can understand empiricism. I need to first make sure that I am not calling a chair a tree and vice versa by having appropriate names within the association context of the comprehended communication. Then we can see that the (here in this example) universal of wood is a pure abstraction, functioning in contrast to the changing perception of the properties of the sensory bodies (including one's own body), leading to the self-conscious I of the mind in thought. So we end up with some version of causality here, and the vague mind body ontological duality problem.

The point to stress in this outline of what we can know is that the empirically (or even intuitionistically known eg mathematics) known universal/pure abstraction that cannot be visualized is ever-present (in chair, tree, *&* wood; number, particle, "I"), alongside the perception of particulars (a number, an atom, the body). They all appear and exist in reality together, inseparably for this system of knowledge to function. This is why I say I am basically an empiricist looking at an unknowable in-itself reality. When we communicate, we get put into these empiricist boxes, but when we perceive subjectively we do not. So perhaps what is there can be described as more like the unity of emptiness and form.