Map-Making

"Writing" [the verb or gerund] doesn't exist - least of all - that is - the ACT of writing doesn't exist - though the disposition of ink on a page to form letters, or the marks chiselled in stone, or the pixels on a screen exist, and we call those physical  manifestations "writing" [a noun.]

Geography doesn't exist - though geographical maps and treatises certainly exist - but geography doesn't exist anymore than love exists - just the geographers exist and some of those are no doubt lovers. The map-maker exists in a series of modalities of certain complicated and circumscribed actions, which we call: “map-making” to spare us English speakers time.  It saves us repeating a detailed account of every finicky process and particular course of action, which the map-maker intends in order to achieve the result of that which is represented by the word "map."

It is very convenient to use the word "map-making" every time we wish to refer to, or describe, or comment upon a map-maker’s bodily and mental functions, but we must always be aware that it is the ACTORS that exist and not the ACTIONS, which are actually no more than the WAYS in which the actor - the person who acts and gets things done is doing these particular actions necessary to make a map. The men and women for whom one of the manners of their behaviour is to indulge in map-making, or love making certainly exist, as do any entities which they utilise or which are involved in the process of map-making - pens - ink - paper etc., and …well I'll leave the entities involved in love-making to your imagination…

Yes, all those entities living or non-living exist - but the bodily movements and mental acts that they DO (in the case of the humans) and the things that are DONE to them (in the case of the drawing instruments and paper etc.,) by the human geographers do not exist, but are a manifestation of the actions of the humans in combination with their instruments.There is no other existing "thing" that exists," other than the mapmakers and the instruments before the map can be said to exist. The intention or the need to create a map in the mind of the cartographer does not exist, but is a modality of the actions and dispositions of the neurons in his or her brain. The map-maker can exist without making a map – he can brush the streets for a living if he so desires, but the "map-making" cannot take place [the event cannot happen] without the presence of a human map-maker. 

At which point following the actions of the mapmaker and the instruments upon the paper that the map can be said to be a "map" is arguable, and I suppose it is best left to the mapmaker to decide when a sketched outline map, or an " incomplete map" becomes worthy of the name "map." But I don't wish to explore that avenue just now, and it is a discussion of the precise nature of an existent anyway, so it doesn't bear upon the present matter under discussion.

I don't "dislike" gerunds. I am very cautious when dealing with them that is certainly true. The reason I am cautious is because of the way they are abused and employed rhetorically. Very few people can agree upon the meaning of a gerund anyway. Some examples:

"Drinking! Drinking! Are you accusing me of drinking? Why I've only had a half of lager, and that had lemonade in it!"

Substitute any random gerund you like into that sentence and alter the predicate accordingly and you will get my drift.

"Map-making! Map-making! Do you call that map-making? Why you couldn't find your way out of a paper-bag with a disgraceful piece of child’s scribble like that!"

Most adjectives are OK, for they are usually employed simply to describe an entity or the action of an entity with a word that expresses a human attribute to something about the way it appears [to a human.]. When I employ the word "existential" I am using it to refer to the way something exists with respect to its main attributes. I am not using the adjective as a gerundial (an adjectival noun) [He disappeared into the blue) but as a plain adjective.

I HAVE to use those grammatical category of words in my discourse in order that you may understand what I am saying.

My point has always been that it is perfectly satisfactory to employ these words to be understood, as long as one is not lulled into the self deception that what the terms represent ACTUALLY EXISTS out there in the real world as separate elements.

 "Love will NOT find a way!" Only the lovers will find a way, and it is not "map-making" which puts the maps on the shelves of your gas stations, it is the map-makers, and the men and women who make the pens and the paper, and the ink and the chairs the map-makers sit upon, and the driver who delivers the finished maps, and the assistant that stacks the shelves blah, blah, blah.