Is the self all that can be known to exist?

[Angrboda]

"This statement is false." and "This statement is not true." are not equivalent statements. The first may simply be neither false nor true, which is what you've been arguing, that the meaning is indeterminate. The latter statement, known as the strengthened liar is true even if the statement is incomplete, unless you are now arguing that incomplete statements have determinate meaning and are thus "true" which is opposite of everything you've claimed. If the latter statement is incomplete, then it's definitely "not true" despite your assertion of a deflationary theory of truth.

"This statement is not true." has the same structure as "This sentence has five words." One would not deny that the second sentence has meaning. The only reason you object to the first is because you can't make it fit cleanly in your scheme of things. That's an absurd reason to reject its meaning. You're all over the map, first with a deflationary theory of truth, then with a correspondence theory of truth, then some elements of Tarski thrown in for good measure. Logic is not existence. Nor is it a theory of language. You've asserted a great many things under multiple frameworks. What you haven't done is show good reason why your assumptions should be our assumptions. Logics are a lot like mathematical systems, what assumptions you accept in some sense determine where they will lead you. You haven't given us much if any reason to want to go where you're leading.