The Liar Paradox

#psychology

[brewcoffeebox]

The commonly misunderstood “liars paradox” exposes the catastrophic problem of self-reference which forms the sand-like foundation upon which the entire apparent universe rests. That is, the inherent presupposition (or assumption) of truth.

Take any self-referential statement and it is bound to have an unfounded assumption of truth baked into its premise (“this sentence is…”) which depending on what is ultimately asserted (“this sentence is false”) creates a paradox.
Self-reference assumes the truth because it has to, there is no other option, and so it is unable to judge its own reliability without first presupposing it.

A prime example of this is the incomplete system of mathematics which hides its fatal (self-referential) flaw behind smokescreens of technical jargon it uses in order to “proof” itself true by itself which from the get go is assumed to be true (ie the “self-evident truths” or axioms of math). No amount of math however will change the fact that it is impossible to prove the validity of 2 without first making the unreasoned assumption that 2 exists.

Rather than dismissing the notion of truth altogether, the incoherence of this paradox appears to place truth outside the reference of “self”. In other words, truth is not (nor can be) self-evident. What exactly does this mean? Firstly, it means that so-called objective knowledge (in and of itself) is an enigma - analogous to subjectivity. While so- called objective knowledge is assumed to have a one-to-one correspondence with reality, the truth of it can only be judged from a standpoint outside of itself - that is, independent of the mediating mind which creates time, space and causality. Is that even possible? Yes, because you are NOT your “self”.

There is a self reading these words that “I” call “you” and “you” call “me”. It is a caused fact existing in three dimensional space and passing through time, manifested as perception and conception. Its purpose is to generate the world-for-me (a massive collection of apparently isolated objects it calls “things”) from the “thing-in-itself” or that which representations are of. It is bound in experience to self-reference, forced to rely on tools (sense, language, thought) to describe, understand and manage the apparent world of “things”. The truth of what anything is, however, is ultimately a complete mystery, with one exception.

Beyond the self-generated world (the insatiable, thinking, wanting, not wanting self) exists the one thing-in-itself that I have direct inward access to, that I can be, that I am - consciousness - the ultimately ineffable experience in which exists no separate facts, no space, no time and, ultimately, no difference between me and the rest of the universe - the state of being ‘I’ call ‘I’. In being conscious, I experience truth independent and free of self-reference.

[skjelm]

Well, this is the moment when logic meets context.
It is only a paradox, because it is dumbed down to oblivion and don't take anything else into consideration.
Math on the other hand is just a language and tool, like music notes. It describes only a part of the whole reality. Not bad at all, but not life in it self.