Is the self all that can be known to exist?

[Edwardo Piet]

You can respond any way you like, but it won't be a valid response to dialetheism.   Look, I understand that the notion of consistency is important to you.  But you cant respond to an inconsistency by stating that no inconsistency can exist because inconsistency can't exist.  Invoking the principle of noncontradiction in this manner is question begging -even if it's accurate.

When noncontradiction is the only possible premise it's not question begging.

I can respond any way I like but whether I respond or not A still =A.

I don't need a valid response to dialetheism besides "Dialetheism is based on an unsound premise and an equivocation between two different ways of looking at the same sentence."

A=A independently of conceptual nonsense like dialetheism. It's conceptual nonsense regardless of if I respond at all. It would be conceptual nonsense if I had never been born. "A can both be A and not A in the same way and in the same respects" is utter nonsense. The fact that it truly is utter nonsense doesn't make it not truly utter nonsense. Being truly nonsense =/= being true. That's called equvocating. Giving an example of a sentence being both true and false from different perspectives is exactly an example of equivocation. It all just further demonstrates A=A like everything else does and must.

It;s not about being right all the time ham, it's about getting it right for the right reasons.

That's still about being right.

Now, back to the self, and how dialetheism might be at play in any self referential statement -about- the self.  It may be true, that no self exists.  Flies in the face of the cogito, but we have no -reason- to accept the cogito.  We either do or we don't.

You have to start by defining "self" just like you have to start by defining what you mean by "this statement is not true". By itself "true" is meaningless. You may as well have said "this statement is not". And even if we granted that "this statement is not true" can have a meaning, it's still a case that it's only true or false from different perspectives at different times and not from the same perspective at the same time. This all just further demonstrates equivocation.