I think you can use axioms in new axioms..
They are all begging the question. The question how 'feel-good' was defined i answerred with that 'good'(or external ethic) was not defined either. The definition of consciousness talks about 'perceiving' without defining it. The Law of Identity does not state what a 'behavior' is (in first post plenty of synonyms though.) Neigh-every word we use in discussion has not been defined, so we assume that language makes sense anyway.
It seems to me that mathematical axioms do not have these issues, and perhaps axioms can be made to be similar to math. I do not think we are up to that though.
Despite these issues, i think the discussion is usefull anyway. So perhaps we should try focus what can be argued ignoring begging-the-question arguments and/or finding axioms that are interesting. How to rate an axiom interesting is still a problem by the way; simplicity is so far the closest to an requirement i think most of us will agree on. (but what is simple) 'Structures' build on axioms can be more complicated of course.
Also lets not focus too much be for or against axioms, and explore what axioms are there. In this vain, by the way, i will try to shut up about the feel-good-axioms. (unless asked, of course.)

@utabintarbo,SigmaX As discussed before, we are taking the bottom-up approach here, so please take your religious discussions to another thread plz (not that you cant mention religion, but it simply has to