If the higher dimensions of the verse also use a painting analogy, and the 1-A transcendence is also argued from the same reasoning, does anyone not see the issue here? "Being completely beyond the reach of everything inside the painting while existing disconnected to it" can be equally applicable whether the transcendence is 1-B or 1-A, because 1-B transcendences in the verse also have similar description (More like the only description used for them)
Being the source of all concepts is good and all, but it would be good if someone can clear up what "being the source of dimensions" would mean in Shinza, and why it would include any arbitrary number of higher dimensions. Because Taiji is also said to be the source of concept of space, and the same reasoning is used to put Singularity at 1-A, but the word "space" is still used in Singularity's description.
I know I know metaphoric and all, but think about it, if the "concept of space" would have included all extensions based on the idea of space, would all forms of "space" not have fallen under it whether they are Metaphoric or not? That means these concepts would have a scope within the verse as well.
How can we know what the scope of these "concepts" is?