Self-Asserted Self-Awareness is Self-Verifying
Joseph Polanik
self-aware. since nothing unreal is self-aware, it follows that I am
real (in some sense).
[Jud]: Having thought more about it, and having like most people
hitherto accepted it unquestioningly as a *given,* I have decided to
reject the grammatical or ontological *truth* that *I am the referent of
'I' whenever I say "I am".
[Jud]: Yes, it is a useful fiction, for the reification *I* is
dialogically convenient and makes sense grammatically for purposes of
clarity in discourse, but a silent finger pointing to the chest achieves
the same deictic point. We are linguistical or lexical beings - but
lexicality itself does not exist. Other than being in conversation with
another person, and unless someone is totally unhinged, it is completely
unnecessary to believe that one is really self-referentially addressing
*oneself* when one makes such statements as: I, I am, I myself, me or
any other self identifier.
[Jud]: Why? Because there is no Cartesian-like duality betwixt a
*self-referrer* and *the self referred.* (It's a Nobel Prize for anyone
who proves differently) There is a human entity which believes that it
is *thinking or talking to itself* when in fact the entity is *just
thinking or talking.*
[Joe (new)]:
Jud,
it takes character to rethink your position; congratulations.
however, it is your statement of your new position that leaves something
to be desired. are you willing to restate it in the first person?
as was previously discussed, a first-person claim of 'isness' or
'amness' is self-verifying; meaning, that any attempt to deny such a
claim exhibits performative failure --- is self-refuting.
thus, attempting to say 'it is not the case that I am' *demonstrates*
that I am --- because nothing unreal can deny that it is.
Joe
--
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. --- H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@