if the sceptic is right and we don't know
what would be the difference if we did?
or for that matter if the sceptic is wrong
and the epistemic right?
where is the rub?
the physical world is not altered either way
will people act differently?
well it might be suggested that they would or could -
but finally how to know?
is one understanding ultimately any different to
another?
you can change your view of a situation but what
is this to say -
knowledge or its absence is not a big player here
not even a player?
different coloured chips - on the roulette table?
it all has more to do with colour than content
with artistry - rather than substances
it's how we paint on the canvas
what we paint on it
how we approach it - the changes made -
and remade - the activity
its irresistibility - focus
the canvas comes already - processed - cut - in form
the work begins
does it alter the canvas?
yes - something is changed - something remains
unchanged
the idea of an original state is pure illusion
there never was one
(when does the begine begin?)
you cannot even imagine it (though some may
think they can)
logic suggests it
that is all
(and logic here is only a process - an activity
that is 'in canvas')
ultimately what is painted - created is a phantasm
we imagine it is the work - the canvas that is
the point
this is the driving observation
the fact is - it's the wall
but who cannot be surprised
disbelieving of this?
