Lifeform : I : Language

I assert that I exist and offer my assertion as proof of my existence.

Keywords: philosophy, foundationalism, survival and fitness, civilization.

Gentle, curious, and thoughtful Ones,

I wish to communicate with specific philosopher spirits. I can specify those sought by defining an imaginary level 1 philosopher. This being accepts the following set of axioms as true and indisputable.


	Level 1 Axioms

	I exist. The universe exists. You exist. Thoughts exist. Symbols exist. Information exists. Language exists. Communication exists.

This arrangement of symbols establishes a firm and absolute symbolic center upon which intellects can communicate. These symbols recursively refute the mindless assertion that "Nothing is absolute". They absolutely exist and they are absolutely true facts.

Within the context of self aware life, existence is an undeniable fact by virtue of the interlocking relationships of words, definitions, and the lifeform that host these objects. Within a symbolic thought system these axioms are evolutionarily distilled into necesary being.

If one asserts one's existence, "I exist." then one necessarily implies the existence of a set of symbols of which "I" is a member and through which assertion is realized. This is the "lifeform : i : language" portal, intersection, or link through which intelligent life asserts ifself.

The self witnessing the self and the "self". "Words exists.", is absolutely true since to declare it proves it. The lifeform must have evolved to the state where its symbolic system is self-aware and then "self"-aware.

The fact that the language-mind inspects itself is proof of existence. Descrates was right! This is why I will not debate the validity of these axioms. They are a spherical sanity shield against irrational and non-productive thinking.

For example, prove to me that I don't exist. Any reply from you belies your arguments since your response prove my existence and yours. To whom have you replied? Who elicited the response? These lines of argumentation are fruitless.

If you can relate to the essense of this statement; if you can get pass the style and form; then email a clue about what would logically follow as level 2 thinking.

Steve