certain words don't provide adequate
ontological modes,
they provide ontological medians
or means, but not modes,
for example, a good comparison would be
to compare two words, only two words:
a. atheism              and b. apathy.
dissect the words during a syllable
cut as a meaningful prefix, in both
examples that's a-,
what do you get?
a- (without) god (/ theology), contradictory
given that atheism is a type of theology,
a logic to disprove the existence of something,
but it's still a theology of some sort,
now the second example:
a- (without) pathology (/ailments of
range whether phobias or their antonyms,
psychological constructs that are stressed
more prominently than serious pains
that leave everyone psychologically paralysed
by that parasite of pain).
in terms of ontology, in simpler terms simply qua,
which is more important in human affairs?
qua apathetic or qua atheistic?
personally? i think the former - there are more
obstructions in the former's rubric of obstructions
than in the latter's, given that it's a rarity
to be suddenly struck down with plagues
and prophetic ailments of ill fate...
i don't care how cool it looks, to be an atheist,
you could only be a true atheist if you
were illiterate and couldn't use the alphabet
(that old chestnut from the book of genesis,
in the beginning there was word, and the word
was god), or if you were part of that
famous experiment done by frederick ii
hohenstaufen where a bunch of children
were raised in a phonetic celibacy by nuns,
just to prove what language was spoken first;
well the experiment conclusively
produced a bunch of mutes...
i guess extending the experiment's parameters
to animals would never work:
try forcing a cat to bark, as many vanities
of "proven reasons" died when kublai khan
moved the horde east without due respect
for peace-loving mongolians.