Russell's Paradox's essence could be inspected with time abiding truth, what achievement can we have so credibly?

This series deals with only that definitive interpretation.

First, his Paradox's own meta-cognition based substantial truth must be so far the most important.

We usually, in front of presumptive viewing to future, only so uncertain meta-cognition. Because usually, toward future, we now as thinking moment present time have only past experienced data reference and actually, to future, only past factual data's enlargement could be possible.

However, to already done past facts, we can have never switchable facts and stably inspectable approaches, because, we easily can have genuinely objective view and inspection stance.

Meanwhile, to never coming and never done future anything could never attend any certain data.

In other words, if we have future things' picturing in mind, almost past data referring mimicking to past memorized objectivity.

Namely only to future prospect, we are obliged to have only notional picturing.

That thing is able to paraphrase that objectivity usually can be done at analyzing and investigating.

Though, basicly, we can have mutually perfectly symmetrical two typed meta-cognitions, one is very objectively recognizable inspection to past data and another is very only subjectively presumptive inspection to future picturing.

Because latter is absolutely reflected by future picturing one's subjective wish and hope.

Though, fundamentally, to future, we can never inspect as necessary and naturally as we can do to the past done matter's data.

Though, basically, meta-cognition must depend on only empirically measurable data and to future, we only can have expectable picturing and only hopeful imagination.

Though, Russell's Paradox indicative truth consists in mainly already given our presently attending assets at taking meta-cognition around set's belongings and set by itself's introspective cognition as extentional objectivity.

In other words, meta-cognition could be effectively done only at or gotten through empirically recollective matter we can convincingly articulate.

Generally what we can admit the phenemenal truth can be the only what we can infer and conjecture, and presume, expect and anticipate, otherwise, wish and pray.

Though, to us, intention and connotation we can usually have e.g. through extentional introspective conceptual comprehension must be done only dependent on our mind attending own past data referrable empirically cognitivd and confirmable, analyzable and evidential minimal objectivity.

These outlined truths for the present, at least at inspecting through probability abiding could be regarded, the most credible the minimal premise.

(Irregularly to be continued)

June.  9th.  2022