Apparent Paradox

From Robo Culture Wiki

I Am System

I would like to begin by pointing out the irony of this idea. If, as systematicity suggests, we are really only a part of a whole then how is it possible to place the 'I' in this statement? The traditional notion of 'I' as a marker of individuality, or a core being separate from others, disappears if we suggest that what we are is in fact a larger system. 'I am system' is illogical, because there is no room for 'I' in systematicity.

One needs to consider this function of 'I' before going into the idea of 'I' as system. 'I' on a lingual level not only suggests that I exist but also that there is a you. Essentially, I presupposes you. It would be unnecessary and, in fact impossible, to even consider, let alone utter, the term 'I' if there is not someone else that it speaks to. There is no individual without individuals. The term 'I' even though seemingly to describe a personal existence leaves as the unheard and unwritten structural absence of others, and not others as a mass group but others as separate individuals. To reiterate, my corporeal body or my essence is not necessarily depended on the existence or presence of others but my naming of 'I' is predicated on a separation and distinction. And this separation is precisely that which I am not, as in I am not you or someone else.

Delving further into this, language would not exist if there was not someone to talk to. Not that it would cease to exist if the world was eradicated and there was only one individual left, but rather it would never have been created. Without a group, or otherwise a shared collection of users, language is unnecessary. Thus 'I' is not only a function of language but (along with language) actually describes a group as much as an individual.

So what does this have to do with systems? If we look at language as only a system, just a code for communicating and more precisely communicating thoughts and also organizing them, then, in many ways, thought cannot exist without language, at least at the cognizant level. If Descartes is right, then "I think therefore I am", really should be "The system of language allows me to think therefore I am". But also, "the system of language, which is predicated on a groups existence, allows me to think therefore I am". Herein lies the paradox because under this logic there is no "I am". The 'I' as purely a function of a system negates itself because it is predicated on a structural absence of a group of others, but not others as individuals, but instead others as a whole system.

What is my point here? not sure exactly, but what I do know is that "I am system" is illogical. Not that systematicity may not actually be the impetus behind Being but rather that there is no 'I' left in this equation.

I am You and You are I and We are part of it All (Kristen's rebuttal)