I do not redefine existence at all - I reject the reified concept of existence totally out of hand. I do not except the existence of existence nor any modality of that which exists as existing. In simple terms- I reject the idea that ACTION of any kind whatsoever exists anywhere in the cosmos.

For me only active matergy (matereo-energy or energised material) exists. In other words there is no duality of any sort, between an object and the useful fictive tokens attributed by humans

states, acts, properties, essences, behaviours, processes, mechanisms, conduct, deportment, doings, hopes, fears, animation or non-animation, beliefs, emotions, mind, etc.

All the above abstractions are descriptive tokens, though vitally useful in the field of abstractive human communication for purposes of distinguishing one from another by the process of thingification they do NOT exist in the world as transcendental dualities, nor do they exist as permanent or temporary features, dimensions or characteristics of objects - such as: size, weight, texture, colour, taste, etc.

Descriptions do not exist - size, weight, texture, colour, taste, etc. cannot be found in the world - only the objects featured and described and their human descriptors actually exist.

Every object exists as it is - as that object. The actual denotata of such attributes as assigned predicationally by humans does not exist. Only the existing object exists and the physics of that changing object include the actual, real world physical version of what the perceptively limited, attributive human object tokenises as a property.

Thus (for example) madness, malignancy, excitement, sadness, haste, movement, qualia, mind, emotion, consciousness, does not exist, though for those people such as phsychologists and pyschiatrists for whom such tokens form a part of their occupation or interest it is understandable that they hotly maintain the contrary:

A typical internalised response to the claim that many of the conditions believed to be diseases, including what used to be called madness, do not not exist would be:

Yes, of course - don't be silly - of course there are such things as: madness, malignancy, excitement, sadness, haste, speed, movement, qualia, mind, emotion, irrationality, fear, consciousness - I deal with them every day in my mental clinic..

For most medical workers to deny mental problems as being real would be to deny the linguistic foundations of the rule-dependant ontological committments of the formalised doctrine they sweated and studied for years in their efforts to pass the necessary exams. A rejection of the idea that psychopathy really exists in one of their exam papers would be considered to be a rejection of the accepted symbols of the serious, vitally useful compendium of mutually accepted rule-tokens which doctors employ for the benefit of their patients, etc

A more comprehensive answer to the exam question would include the information that whilst the student rejected the existence of the reification psychopathy, he or she did accept that their are patients who present with symtomatic behaviour typical of severe mental disorder in which contact with reality is lost or highly distorted, and that such people exist as psychotic men or women .

They could add that such psychotic men or women are NOT afflicted with psychosis - because psychosis does not exist to afflict anybody, and that if there are still doctors who believe in the existence of psychosis then their behaviour is typical of a severe mental disorder in which contact with reality is lost or is highly distorted and they are not suitable to be engaged either in the care of patients or in the marking of exam papers.

Now to claim that madness (or any of its current euphemisms) and malignancy does not exist will make you reach for your pen and paper or keyboard immediately, so let me hasten to add that by saying malignancy does not exist, I mean that malignancy in the sense of the token (or abstraction) cannot be found in the world. What we can find in the world are humans and animals who exist with certain types of cells that no longer exist to the benefit of the extingencies of the holism, and that being so are (naturally) characterised as being malignant. But the cells are NOT malignant in the sense of being dangerous to health - for of course health does not actually exist either- only the healthy or unhealthy human or animal exists in such a way that certain cells have changed to the overall advantage or disadvantage of the organism.

"You are just playing with words!"

What's that you say?

"Whatever you decide to call it - cancer is cancer and it can be dangerous."

True, but the point I am making here is one which concerns the actual existence or non-existence of ideal objects or useful fictions - not whether there is a condition called cancer, for a condition is not something that exists - only the conditioned human or animal exists - there is no Cartesian dualistic style condition that is present like a mind or a soul, whether such a Seventeenth century fantasy object exists in tandem with the human embrained body and is located in the pineal gland, is secreted in the rectum, or lurks beneath the toenails of the left foot.

In other words some forms of reification are extremely useful and some forms are extremely dangerous to human kind. Part of my agenda (with Dr. Antonio Rossin) is to differentiate between what might be called (harmful) malo-reificative hypostatisation, aka reifico-toxic thingification, and (useful) reifico-utile, aka reifico-beneficent hypostatisation.

Existential confusion can be further explained. But first - I do not usually indulge in let's pretend or counterfactual scenarios, but as is the case with logic, the domains which I am about to refer to are cognitive territories which include lots of very useful let's pretend, tokens, and there is no other way in which I can provide a simple explanation of the fact that whilst a mathematician can agree that an even prime number does not actually exist, he can also hotly insist that there is an even prime number, and whilst a physicist or cosmologist can agree that unoccupied space and time do not actually exist, they can also hotly insist that there are such things as space and time.

If someone decides to go into the business of computer game design they create a series of tokens (icons) marked in various ways and used for playing games. They need to decide on a set of rules as to the value of these iconic symbols and include a copy of the rules in the box when the game is retailed. If no rules are supplied the game would be unplayable, unless that is, the purchasers, in the absence of any rules or meanings for the symbols being provided , decide to make up their own mutually agreed rules in order to play.

A similar situation has arisen in the past when archeologists have come across aan ancient game-board and pieces during an excavation of some ancient civilisation. They puzzle over the significance of the pieces and the strange markings on the board in a similar way to the way they attempt to decypher the marks incised upon the exposed surface of some half-buried stone if some strange hieroglyphs are suddenly discovered. If our game was such that it appeared to lack a trump card or a joker, we can imagine a purchaser complaining about this perceived omission and one of us replying: but yes, there is - the green wizard and the white knight both act as trump cards. The green wizard has the power to change all the serfs into fully accoutred armed footsoldiers and the white night can freeze an enemy cavalry whilst they are in full charge and turn them around to gallop right over a cliff or into a swamp.

Now I am sure that on the basis of these rules and the mutual agreement of the players as to the value of the tokens, neither you nor I would believe that there actually exist any real-world denotata (actual objects referred to by the pictorial expressions) with these occult powers as referred to by the pictures of the green wizard and the white knight and that they actually exist in the material sense. We would both agree I am sure that they are but examples of tokens which are necessary IN ORDER TO PLAY THE GAME and that for the purposes of the intensional context of game-playing disbelief must be temporally suspended for the duration of the game.

This instrumental or utile acceptance of tokens which I describe above is illustrative of ALL human communication, including language itself, and with the exception of deictic finger-pointing at actual objects, its variations only occur in as much as they accord with the actual domain in which the communication takes place and nature of that connection which facilitates such access between the communicants.

Serious Games. In the above game scenario, the temporary suspension of disbelief and acceptance of quasi-objective tokens is made for purposes of pleasure and entertainment. In predicational logic the acceptance of the truth values of arbitrary created tokens is made for serious exercises of the mind aimed at teaching us to access real-world problems with greater clarity. In mathematics the numerical tokens are accepted as forming elements of an abstractive representational system used in the study of numbers, shapes, structure and change and the relationships between these concepts. In physics and cosmology, broadly speaking, it is using tokens for the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the world and universe behave.

Thus it is understandable that the participants in such pursuits - whether they be games for children or adults, or serious occupations involving scientific investigations and research which have provided humanity with a benison of improvements in the spheres of medicine, architecture, industry, education, science, travel, etc. hotly insist that THERE ARE such things as the tokens or abstract tools of the trade, many of which are no more than fictive bookmarks for as yet unknown real objects. The majority of the scientifically minded users of such useful fiction do not seriously mean that THERE ARE actual matergic objects corresponding to those convenient working tokens.

The sickness in modern society follows from the intensity and reifying socialising ubiquity by which the perverted transcendentalist version of reality insinuates itself into the brainwashed members of the community. The origin of reifico-toxicant thingification can be found in the predictable effects of a family hierarchy dominated by a antecedally infected father and mediated by a similarly contaminated mother, both whom who unknowingly pass on the toxic transcendentalist tokens during the first two or three years of the child's life. Added corruptive conditioning is supplied by peer groups pressures and s/he is further indoctrinated with reified language and internalises the basic structure in to what will become a permanent reality-disconnect.

The internalisation is further reinforced and receives added strength via the child's exposure to corrupt educational ontological conditioning, a degenerate media and the dissolute religious structures of the organised churches. Maturity brings further brainwashing at the hands of pseudo-psychologists, radio- evangelic con-men and moralising money-grabbers and political carpet baggers.

Most of these craven creatures are just plain ignorant, but alas, there is also a large contingent of crazed object-action dualists who DO BELIEVE that there exist actual matergic objects corresponding to the tokens of the reifico-toxicant type . They are the cultists, the occultists, the transcendentalists, the Japanese harakiri fanatics, the fundamentalists, the intelligent design freaks, the destroyers of the Twin Towers, the religious fanatics who convince their community of naive, brainless followers to drink parquat, and others who strap explosives to their chests and blow themselves and others into scattered gobbets of steaming human meat.

My prime focus is on the actual nature of the physicality of material or matergic objects or force-fields (call them what you will) and the way we humans think and talk about such entities, and not such much with a review of the historical compendium of the tokenhood of the various abstractives employed in the pursuit of various occupations.

Of course like anybody else, I cannot escape from the paradigmatic linguistic tokens of my own inherited language by which I am trapped into using for the task of my own research into the primitive human habits of object-action discrimination and the threat to modern society manifested by reifico-toxic hypostatisation and ontology manque.

Fortunately English is a language I love and an analysis of its etymologies, its syntax and semantics helps clear away the damage it has undergone and continues to suffer at the hands of transcendentalists.