Existence exists; God gods

See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

In what sense, if any, may it reasonably be suggested, generally, that "existence exists"?  (Or that Reality reals, or God gods?)  In what sense may it be "reasonable" for one generally to suggest that "existence exists" ... in recognition that it is reasonable to postulate that a particular thing exists ... in that, as understood or postulated, the thing has potential to be measured by, or otherwise to influence, a perspective of consciousness?

***********

Individualists (Objectivists, Libertarians, Anarchists) often prefer to try to model consciousness and morality as if they were derivative of only particular perspectives. Collectivists (Communists, Progressives, Islamists) often try to model consciousness and morality as if they were derivative of only an encompassing field. Regardless, this kind of “either-or” conceptualizing does not logically support all reasonable aspects of human interaction. Rather, there is a feedback dance, not entirely reducible to an "either-or" kind of logic or measure. To exist and persist, that which is holistic or objective has to dance and exchange information with that which is particular, subjective, or imperfect. Interaction among conscious perspectives entails regard for, and unfolding reconciliation with, such interpretations of acculturated, accumulated information as are projected via the avatar by which each identity effects its representations, each to all others.

“Either-Or” logic has its place: To model EMR, one may model light for some purposes as if light were comprised of expressions of particles; for other purposes, one may model as if light were comprised of expressions of waves. One does not exhaust modeling for how light functions merely by choosing either to model light as particles or as waves (or as “wavicles”). One does not completely model light via any one model or concept, or even by any collection of concepts. Axiom: A particular perspective of consciousness cannot completely model the whole of consciousness, because (1) the whole may flux or find expression beyond the sum of its parts; and (2) each particular representation of the whole, as a part, is limited to being circularly defined in respect of its common relation with all other parts. Once a part collapses apart from its field, its perspective for interpreting the field will be limited to the remainder of the field. A class of cows, as a class, is not itself cows; a whole of parts is not, as a whole, defined entirely by any sum of its parts.

Bivalent logic works well for conceptualizing how to manipulate those aspects of reality which seem indifferent to consciousness. But a different approach (trivalent logic?) is necessary to appreciate relations among those aspects of reality which are not indifferent to feedback with one’s consciousness. One needs to appreciate people as people, not as mere bundles of matter to be indifferently manipulated.

To the extent consciousness is not entirely and merely artifactual of relations among indifferent aspects of reality, it stands to reason that more than mere formalization and empiricism are needed to participate reasonably among perspectives of consciousness. Rather, one must dance with the accumulated and continuously changing organization of information that is represented by each other perspective of consciousness.

Axioms: Reality is not created, reality bites, change is continuous, targets of logic are always moving, particular experiences are effected via synchronization among consciously choosing agents within limits of parameter fields, a Field of consciousness avails such choices, and God really exists ... "godding" and dancing with us. Those aspects of reality may be considered as self-evident, intuitive, or empathetic. They are not derivative, so they cannot be derived, measured, quantified, or proven via mere logic. Aspects of such axioms may, however, be subjected to tests for mathematical consistency and empirical replicability

Regarding consciousness versus indifferent matter: Does a photon in any way accumulate or store information that could be translated as a representation or conceptualization that it is expressed in coordination with a field? Does any aspect of a photon effect representations by which to know it exists, or that it exists as an expression?