Is the self all that can be known to exist?

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm generally opposed to anything being "true", to be honest.

The only things that are truly things are things truly.

So if anything it's the other way around. All things are true-things. A false-thing is a non-thing. Even something fake has to truly be fake. Again, when we say something is "not true" we mean that it is true to say that that very thing is not what it is said to be.

Again, "this statement is false" means "this statement is not true", but "not true" adds no meaning to "this statement is".

If I say "I am happy" it means the statement "I am happy" is true. If I say "I am not happy" it means the statement "I am not happy" is true.

By the same logic, if I say "this statement is" that would mean the statement "this statement is" is true, but that literally makes no sense. Again by the same logic, saying "this statement is not" would be saying the statement "this statement is not" is true. Which, again, literally makes no sense.

Continuing further by the same logic, to say "I am truly happy" is to say that the statement "it is true that I am happy" is true. Likewise, to say "I am not truly happy" is to say that the statement "It is not true that I am happy" is true.

Likewise, and finally, with the same logic:

To say "This statement is truly true" would just be a longer way of saying "this statement is true" which would be to say that the statement "this statement is true" is true, which would be to say that the statement "this statement is", is true. Which again, literally makes no sense. To say "This statement is not truly true" would just be a longer way of saying "this statement is not true", which would be to say that the statement "this statement is not true" is true, which would be to say that the statement "this statement is not", is true. Which again, literally makes no sense. It's an incomplete statement masked by "true" or "not true" or "false", which have no meanings when added to "this statement is". In fact the words "true" and "false" don't have any meaning beyond emphasising whether we are saying that something is or is not. "I am truly happy" or "I am not truly happy" or "It is true that I am happy" or "it is not true that I am happy" or "it is false that I am happy" are just all ways of saying either "I'm happy" or "I'm not happy".... so, you see, "this statement is true" or "this statement is false" doesn't mean anything more than "this statement is" or "this statement is not", it's an incomplete statement.

I really want my analysis to be appreciated.

So when you see "this statement is not true" you're basically looking at an incomplete statement, deciding whether to believe it or not before you even know what it means, and then you find yourself looking at the truth of a non-truth in isolation. This isn't really a mystery. The paradox develops because, as I have demonstrated, "not true" just means that it is true to say that something is "not true". There are no non-truths, only truths about something that represents reality and truths about something that doesn't represent reality. The paradox develops because we think we see a contradiction between a truth and a falsehood when really we're just looking at one truth.

This is also why you can't get an illogical contradiction. Even that which is contradictory to logic has to do it logically. There are no illogical things. When we say something is "Illogical" what we are saying is that it contradicts logic logically. "Illogical" is a funny word really. It's really just a short way of saying "logically contradictory." And then of course there's the entirely different meaning of it being unsound, unreasonable, against common sense, etc. But that's a completely different meaning of illogical, and once again, it would be an equivocation to say otherwise.