I understand and I don't want you to engage in something that you are not comfortable with. But simply put, is the set of all existing things anything other than Existence (that which exists everywhere by definition or that which is Omnipresent) Is It Itself not an existing thing? So isn't It Itself a member of Itself?RJG wrote: ↑March 9th, 2021, 7:45 amPhil, this phrase (above) is scattered throughout much of what you write, which raises a red flag to me. Maybe set theory allows this, but from a purely logical or mathematical perspective this is an impossibility. X can never be outside/inside itself, or before/after itself, or anything but itself, for X<X is a logical and mathematical impossibility. But since I am not familiar with set theory I can't really disagree with what you say here.philosopher19 wrote:..."is a member of itself" (...and "members of themselves").
Do you not think Existence to be Self-Sufficient and Self-Sustaining and Self-Contingent?
I would describe Existence as the true Self, or the true member of Itself. What do you make of the following:
I am in Existence and Existence Is in me
There's no end to the Existence in me when one focuses on the Infinitesimal. There's also no end to the Existence that is outside of me when one focuses on the Infinite. Since I am in Existence and Existence Is in me (as opposed to non-Existence being in me), does it not follow, that from my point of view, Existence Is In Existence?
Consider a list of all lists. Note that our focus has shifted here from existents, to lists. Is it not the case that a list of all lists actually lists itself? Existence Itself exists, only because It exists. All other existents exist because Existence Exists.
Consider the meaning of 'meaning'. The meaning of 'meaning' is just one meaning. All triangle are shapes. All triangles are members of the semantic of shape. Is it not the case that all meanings are meanings? Is it not the case that all meanings are members of the meaning of 'meaning'? As existents, all meanings are members of the existent Existence. As meanings, all meanings are members of the meaning of 'meaning'.
I don't want to force you into a discussion. I just want to offer you what may be of interest or benefit to you. If this is not a discussion you're comfortable with (because you say you are not familiar with set theory) or would like to have, then I understand. But you are aware of the semantic of 'set'. You are also aware of all other semantics. That is all you need. What Frege proposed was a theory that was true to the semantic of 'set'. He just couldn't explain it properly (as evidenced by his inability to respond to Russell's question) and then he thought his understanding of the semantic of 'set' was actually absurd (when it fact it wasn't).