axiomatic deduction vs. questioning being
December 9th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: The Collision of Facts and Axioms :: Tales From the Billabong of *Being* :: On Self-Refuting Philosophers :: Escape From the Quagmire of SIS
For those who know not what they are.
The meaning of BE has recently been traced the to Proto Indo- PL P?FA [the
? denotes that this morpheme remains unknown] It is the basis for the
well-represented PIE word *bheu-, which is now thought to mean: ‘be somewhere’,
from P?FA-FA, ‘be prominent-frequentative’ = ‘be customarily noticed at’
(previously reconstructed from PIE root as P?FE-FA, ‘(place of a) pair of feet’.
_http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/ProtoLanguage-Monosyllables.htm
#phallus_
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/28…)
On the basis of this you can now, confidently assume, as you ask in
perfectly formed English, that whatever you are, (in addition to an English
speaker)you are a creature of habit, you have a pair feet (which presumably are on
the end of a pair of legs) and that you exist somewhere and make regular
trips somewhere, where you have been frequently observed by other people.
Suggestion: If you STILL remain unaware of what you are - why not ask some
of the many people you bump in to who are used to your frequent appearances
at the venue where you are oftentimes seen, although, for some odd reason, you
cannot seem to remember the precise location?
Could it be - and this is only pure speculation - your local wine store? A
meeting of the ‘We Don’t Know What we Are Club?’ A psychiatric clinic? 
Regards,
Jud
Personal Website:
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac…)
A prescient rejection of the so-called chaos of the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle?
*The infinity of parts in the organized bodies of plants and animals
have too great a complexity and functional interdependence to be able
to arise from chaos.*
Malebranche.
