I've never posted on here, or anywhere else for that matter, so bear with me per favore. (Disclaimer) I am somewhat discontent with words and our current understanding of how information flows, so I oftentimes use quotes around words because of that unreliability of what is sometimes considered concise lucidity. For this reason, I will refrain from any and all quotes, and state that this entire posting, and any others should I continue, be enveloped in those quotes. Also, I guess because of my transient, short-term memory handicapped nature, continually reiterating my thoughts, all of these statements I would put into the progressive tense, however this would seem awkward, again adding to my discontent with our understanding of efficacious communication. Please keep these points in mind. I wish to contrive a system, which I am assuredly not alone, that models life. In attempting such, as many of us are/have been, I have read relatively little in the ways of philosophy, and recently have been reading less and less physics aecause of, the apparent quality of self-reference of foundations of any logical system. Axioms, described by definition as given, have the circularity of 'This statement is true.' Many useful, successful systems are based upon axioms, and although in studying mathematics I have learned of systems that are not based upon axioms, I am thinking that this is just a shift of technical nomenclature, still utilizing something as foundations. These foundations inherently have this circularity (in one context, possibly owing to the nature of definition itself). The duality in the Subject Line refers to an inspection of whatever mechanism is behind this self-reference of those foundations, and in a more general sense, of any statement (logical ancestor or descendant regardless). What is this mechanism that allows for temporary belief or disbelief in a statement, including statements that link to others. For instance, say you have a statement, A (without complicating further, yet, our role in observing this statement in a more rigid fashion, I'll leave the member at just one). Consider, A is 'A is true.' Here, you may expound this into two branches, that you believe A, or disbelieve it. This may lead to A is true => A is true, or A is false => A is false. So either road you take (if you take either of these), you are internally consistent, and if you kept at it, you would get a self-similar concatenation of such statements. Now consider, A is 'A is false.', such as in an unprovable Gödelian statement. This may now lead to A is false => A is true, or A is true => A is false, depending on the observer's choice, temporary as it may be. So, either road you take this time, you get an apparent self-defeating circularity. (The application of this I may get to here just a little further, although possibly not tonight.) So the difference between the two processes seems to be one is self-reinforcing and the other self-defeating. But what is common of the two? Not exclusively speaking, both have an initial statement, subsequent statement(s), an observer, and the observer's choice of belief or disbelief. So what? What of the possibility of an ecological system of information (although these are technical terms mostly out of place, new terms would be needed) that deals with these statements not in terms of truth or untruth, but of transient existence? I need to split now, but perhaps if there are any replies, I can apply this line of thought towards those replies. If you made it this far, thanks for reading. If not, well ickfayishday (only kidding, if any of you actually decipher that, rationally or not).