Is the self all that can be known to exist?

[Edwardo Piet]

Some paradox may be illusions, but again, it's not really conceivable that all paradox is illusion.  Some may also be about the structure of our language. I'm glad to see that you aren't chanting "equivocation" like a mantra anymore.

I never started saying that it wasn't an equivocation. It is an equivocation. Either a statement is true or it is false. If you look at it from one perspective it's true, if you look at it at another it's false. To say it's both true and false at the same time is to equivocate in the same way as saying that a feather is necessarily both not heavy and bright because "light" means both.

All paradoxes that appear to violate the law of identity are illusions.

If the statement is true then the statement = A

If the statement is false then the statement = not A

It's either A or not A. You can't pretend it's both when you're only ever perceiving it one way or the other. Each perspective is a different statement and if you say it's not you're equivocating.

"All Cretans are liars."

"He's a Cretan so he must be lying... but that means he was telling the truth."

The statement is true.

"All Cretans are liars."

"He's telling the truth because he's a lying Cretan.... but he's a Cretan so he can't be telling the truth about his lying he must be lying about it."

The statement is false.

From one perspective and interpretation it's true, from another it's false. To say it's both true and false is to equivocate through a failure to recognize that different perspectives are being taken and different interpretations are being interpreted.

In any case, bringing it back round to the self.  There are, sometimes, issues with self referential truth statements.

I'm not a Solipsist because whatever is, is. With or without my existence that is true.