Whereas we can analyze the existence of a particular thing, existence, in its generality, cannot be analyzed. It can only be acknowledged. This is so because general existence precedes everything, save itself. In other words, perception presupposes general existence.

Perception, following from all existence, including its own, therefore must needs be limited to saluting the extant universe with a hale and hearty “Hello.”

As to the special problem, ontology suffers the slings and arrows of an innate problem of design with respect to PERSPECTIVE which, as quantum mechanics tells us, holds foundational significance vis-à-vis existence.

When confronted with the question of the true nature of general existence, we are compelled by existential logic to first ask, What point of view?

Quantum mechanics has introduced us to some basics of the limits of objectivity. Let’s venture to go one step further by amplifying the focus on perspective. The philosopher, when commissioned with the task of analyzing the general nature of existence, cannot wholly detach the self from the thing examined because it predicates the examiner. This, dear reader, leads us to an apparently insoluble paradox.

If we imagine this configuration flipped around, wherein the examiner predicates the thing examined (which is the message of Logos in the Pentateuch), then said examiner can analyze all of the creations of the self, as it were, because the examining self is their source i.e., the creator of all things examinable (This is a foundational principal of quantum entanglement.).

The limit of Logos is general existence. It cannot be named (and thus the mystery of God’s name).

Here’s the paradox limiting analysis of general existence: the examiner, seeking to analyze general existence, en route to obtaining the necessary detachment for objective observation, must extricate the self from general existence. Since the examiner is subsumed inextricably therein, said self must become greater than itself, an existential impossibility.

Moreover, this existential impossibility seems to apply with equal force to the incorporeal deity, consequently suggesting all such deities inhabit God consciousness, a sub-division of human consciousness.

Here I seem to have arrived at the doorstep of atheism. There is, however, a side-door leading me out of this room. As it turns out, I can take recourse to my great ally, quantum mechanics.

Can the incorporeal Deity transcend the divine self? QM says, “yes” in the form of non-locality. If Deity can effect instantaneous-paradoxical shape-shifting that is multi-directional, so then can human, being designed in Deity’s image.

The human example, par excellence, of instantaneous-paradoxical shape-shifting that is multi-directional is the Trinitarianism of Holy-Father-Holy Ghost-Jesus.

It appears that Christianity has foreshadowed QM by centuries.

Here I seem to have contradicted myself. Well, yes, I have. With egg on my face, I take recourse to QM, which tells us that self-contradiction, known as super-position, gets a waiver, which is to say, “it’s allowed.”


Let’s briefly consider the innate problem of design with respect to perspective as it is put into application via a classical question of philosophy.

Question – Why is there not nothing?

The short answer to this question exemplifies the circular logic that haunts the much-troubled existence-perception relationship.

Answer – It’s because you ask the question.

Explanation – The ability of the questioner to ask the question presupposes perception which, in turn, presupposes existence.