wrote:
Most human languages recognize this equivalence at a fundamental level
in some fashion or another; some go further an explictly equate the
concepts. For instance, in Japanese, the term for to "be at", to "go
to" or to "come from" are all represented by the same word -- whose
meaning is simply that of continuation of existence.

Er, "be at" would be ...ni aru (inanimate) or ...ni iru (animate); "go to"
would be ...e iku; "come from" would be ...kara kuru. Yes, there's also
....ni irassharu, ...e irassharu, ...kara irassharu, but irassharu is a
special-purpose verb; it doesn't reflect the basic notion of coming and
going and being in Japanese.

And even if your claim were true, as it undoubtedly is of some languages,
why does it matter? If you were arguing for Cartesian dualism, would it make
sense to cite the iru/aru distinction? All that it would demonstrate is that
people are psychologically predisposed to a dualistic view of the world,
which would if anything weaken your argument.

-- Ben