Why do we exist?

Fresco: "Arguments about "existence of things", including self are rendered vacuous when a relational definition of "existence" is adopted."
Was it Ding an Sich who said that "Things do not exist in relation to me [because that would be solipsistic]?
No it isn't. As I understand Fresco ontological interdependence implies that you both exist in relation to everything else and everything else exists in relation to you (and everything else).

Correct. Solipsism = only self "exists".....clearly problematic to anyone who has acquired language !

My position is more specifically ..a succession of "self states" coexist and are co-extensive with a succession of "non-self states".

...maybe you just mean a non like previous self state, otherwise what would you mean at all with a "non self state" ? That X is not X ?

No. I am talking "figure-ground" as in the "candlestick-faces" picture from psychology. Neither "exists" without the other.
http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGGE_en-gbGB396GB396&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=cand%3Bestick+faces+picture

I very much embrace Holistic perspectives...still X is X ! (Change requires Sameness)
It is not that something can change without first being something...
(you must identify what it is in order to identify the change)

Change is always relative,never absolute. That relativity is measured with respect to nested levels of discourse (observation). Thus the "observer" who describes "candlestick/faces" is transcendent of the naive realist observer who is "the candlestick" and who only describes "the faces" (external reality). At the lower level changes in "the faces" are significant, whereas at the higher level "candlestick/faces"".. is "candlestick-faces"... is "candlestick/ faces"...

1 - ...curious, that is actually my point...relative of course...relative to WHAT ? in between WHAT and WHAT ? because the way you explain it, its relative to nothing...no targets in sight...

2 - ...you must really transcend that idea of external and internal...it makes no much sense in interacting systems... less alone in holistic approaches...that it is not to say that things are absolute, if not that all perspectives are, in an ensemble of relations, all true and valid provided sufficient explanation can clarify their context...their relative value, or "extension" of meaning, in an absolute set...what they can affect, the layer of reality which they target...

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

You are avoiding two key words... "nested" and "discourse". "With respect to the first "internal change" has significance (1) as that which is ignored by a naive realist, yet (2)that which is axiomatic with respect to its ontological partner "external change" at a more holistic level. Thus there is discourse at the naive realistic level which is different from discourse at a secondary level. Yet at a tertiary level there is NO discourse....there is No change....there are is NO time in which change can have meaning....and there are NO separate communicators engaged in discourse.

Correct...discourse is perspective building which is only valid at a phenomenological level...all elements are in fact at a stop...but then there is an axis, a sequence or an order to information...and from it perspective becomes legitimate...wherever "you" ( a string with X extension) are in the axis, you build from there a unique perspective towards the "world" around you...any other point string, will have also a specific comprehension of your "value" at a given position in relation to itself (relative distance) or towards the world at large from where it "seats"...it gets more complex if you ad to it Time as another simulated axis where movement arises...its is not there in fact...but as a big chunk of "your" string repeats itself along the way, with a small amount of information variation adding to "your extension" as one goes forward in the "reading" of "your sentence" in the text/"program", then the relation or perspective that you build towards other strings also changes, again, as they also change their perspective upon you as movement becomes simulated.
...you seam to forget that "language " is in nature itself and not alone in words or "minds"...Systems of Information as means of description suffices to justify the entire world as pure Language in relation...and its all true !