if we regard the object of knowledge as unknown
the question then is how to give it character
so initial metaphysical definition
i.e. - existence
existence as a description of the full range of what
is in question
then to further characterization -
i.e. - God - as a name of existence -
we impose an image
(we make images - this is what we do - as much as
walk and run)
an image which is loaded up - with the attributes
we believe to be essential
(it's meta pioneering - loading up the wagon -
staking out the claim - building the cabin)
the ontological argument as put by Anselem is a mistake
in the sense that - to think existence is - that which
is described -
when in fact it is the description - of that which -
needs to be formulated - described -
that which is unknown - not known -
my point is that there is no existence but the concept of
which is description of the unknown -
if the description is adopted - and it is
we can then speak of - not the unknown - but existence
a small advance really -
that necessitates further characterization -
strictly speaking - in a logical sense - there is nothing
to begin with
so - to make an existential statement
is to characterize
it is always to describe
the existential statement simply brings the flux - to order
it is the maestro's tap to the orchestra's cacophony
the ontological statement creates a platform on which to build
below is the unknown
God - the concept is such a description
existential concepts describe
and any creation here - is descriptive
this is all to speak analytically -
we operate with an enormous treasure chest of concepts
and description
we are really just creating the art work - as we go -
we place ourselves - in the picture - on the canvas -
and begin to paint - and we never stop - or leave
