To my understanding, there are various ways for something to qualify as being a member of itself. Consider the following:
- A thing that encompasses itself as well as other things (like a list of all lists)
- A thing that physically contains itself as well as other things (like a physical folder of all folders)
I think you are focused exclusively on 2. 1 is not controversial at all, whereas I can see how 2 is. My focus here is on 1.
Right. With this being the case:
Is it not the case that there are many sets in Existence?
Is it not the case that all existing sets are in Existence?
Therefore, is it not the case that Existence is the set of all sets?
You recognise that Existence is a set. I will try to show you that Existence is also a meaning.
The semantic of ‘triangle’ is the same for all people, yet the English call it “triangle”, whilst the Persians call it “mosallas”. We cannot deny that ‘triangle’ is a semantic. Similarly, we cannot deny that ‘Existence’ is a semantic. Thus, ‘Existence’ is a member of the set of all semantics.
Existence is a meaningful set. This means that it is an existent, a meaning, and a set.
Would you deny that ‘triangle’ is a shape? Would you deny that ‘triangle’ is a meaning? Would you deny that ‘triangles’ is a set?
100% yes. This is crystal clear.
A set that is bigger than itself is also clearly absurd. It does not matter if x is a set, or a square, or Existence. It cannot be bigger/smaller than itself at the same time.