This paradox in all it forms relies on the convention that a part can stand for the whole, which concept is itself trivially false (or merely conventional.) Th

This paradox in all it forms relies on the convention that a part can stand for the whole, which concept is itself trivially false (or merely conventional.) The only case where the "paradox" is not symbolic mummery is in the case of "yourself", when a human makes a statement regarding that human's essential identity. (E.g. "I am" or just "I", is the simplest form.) In that case the Buddhists and others have determined experientially that there is no essential self, it is an illusion, if "you" go searching for it there is nothing there. This leaves us with the "mystery" of subjective awareness. Fortunately there is nothing meaningful to say about subjective awareness (including "this" statement) whatsoever, so it offers no challenge to the logician or semanticist.