This blog entry might be false.

The  l i a r p a r a d o x  says:

"This sentence is false."

(Haha! That's funny. Wait, is it true or is it false? What IS true? What IS false? OMG I'm dizzy.)

"This sentence is false."

     The ''is false'' part of the sentence is actually in a different language, so to speak, because a language can not validate its own truthfulness just like I can not lick my own elbow and neither can you. A language can not have words like "true" and "false" that are defined by itself. For this paradox to be resolved there must be a language B outside of the first language A to verify if A is true. Outside of B there must be a language C to validate B. And blah blah.

It looks like this:

Ad infinitum

Meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-metalanguage

Meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-metalanguage

Meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-metalanguage

Meta-meta-meta-meta-metalanguage

Meta-meta-meta-metalanguage

Meta-meta-metalanguage

Meta-metalanguage

Metalanguage

Language

My questions are:

     Why is the resolution to this paradox represented vertically? Is it a hierarchical system? Is each metalanguage "better" than the one below it? A professor told me 'yes'.

     Okay, so if it is a hierarchy then there must be a top, right? It would have to stop somewhere. Professor told me 'no'.
     Can it be thought of horizontally? It makes sense to me that all the languages could be on the same plane, each validating the one next to it- like a circle.
     Thinking of this in terms of vertical and horizontal might be kind of restrictive. I might just have flawed logik. This is where my thinking stops for tonight. I'm sleepy.

Currently listening: Miike Snow- Cult Logic
Currently reading: The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf