Adrian Selby

John, Socrates' 'its' refer to Primal's statement, for your clarification.

I'm interested in what you may have to say about the phenomenal nature of truth. I did read a solution to another purer version of the liar paradox that said there was a conflation of statement and metastatement, or that the way in which we talked about truth in relation to Socrates' statement as an entity and Socrates' view expressed by the statement were on different levels. Sorry I can't be more explicit, it was a Philosophy journal rather than a more rememberable book with a title

John Page

Yes, but why does the meta-statement approach work? Also, statements can be devised that throw the meta-statement approach into infinite regress, which seems unsatisfactory. (e.g. If this statement is true....)

Here's my stab at a definition of what truth is: “True is (a word that represents) an abstract value attained when two or more entities are deemed to be identical.”

It is one's mind that does the deeming based on experience. For examples think of the "odd man out" puzzles. "Identicalness" seems to be arrived at by comparing qualities of the objects of perception (literally, color, shape etc.). BTW this is not very helpful for understanding the LOI as represented by A=A.

Anyway, I need to get some sleep, hope this makes sense!

Cheers, John