I am trying to create a formal system that is true and completely comprehensive. Since it is supposed to be able to talk about anything, it must be able to talk about itself. A fully self-contained formal system has never been achieved. The closest we’ve got are paracomplete, Kripkean, fixed-point construction systems. However, the fixed-point construction is necessarily external to the system, because internalizing it makes it impotent.

So, my system could be categorized as paracomplete but non-Kripkean.

Often, paracompleteness is thought to be incompatible with a realist/correspondence notion of truth. I believe that there is conflict there, but in its resolution, we find the answer.

My system is fundamentally an account of semiotics and ontology, from which logic and epistemology emerge. I classify antinomies as meaningless and I believe I am able to avoid the revenge paradoxes that often arise from such a classification.

To get any more specific than this would be to give massive spoilers, however. I am currently still in the philosophizing and formal implementation phase, with some stubborn problems to resolve. Once I do, I intend to publish two papers. One that gives an intuitive, semi-formal introduction to my system, and another that is fully formal and develops it from the ground up. But, I may find out that the system I am looking for is impossible, in which case I’ll do the next best thing: proving its impossibility.