We start with a nearly arbitrary standard classical first order "language" $C\sb{o},$ which is expanded to $C\sb{M,T}$ = "$C\sb{o}+M+T$", where for any variable x, M and T are unary formulas. We start also with a model ${\cal T}\sb{o},$ which together with $C\sb{o}$ represents a fixed non-problematic interpreted first order language. For each $\mu,\tau\subseteq U\sb{o},$ the universe of discourse for ${\cal T}\sb{o},$ the model ${\cal T}\sb{\mu,\tau}$ over $C\sb{M,T}$ is given so that its reduct to $C\sb{o}$ is just ${\cal T}\sb{o},$ and so (...) that for any $C\sb{M,T}$-variable x, the set-extensions of M and T are $\mu$ and $\tau$ respectively. For each $C\sb{M,T}$-expression e, $\vec e$ is its distinctly chosen representative in $U\sb{o},$ and $\lbrack\!\lbrack e\rbrack\!\rbrack$ is a constant $C\sb{o}$-term which names $\vec e.$ ;The goal is to find $\mu\sb*$ and $\tau\sb*,$ such that $\mu\sb*$ and $\tau\sb*$ plausibly and "self-referentially" approximate meaningfulness and truth respectively for any interpreted language represented by ${\cal T}\sb{\mu\sb*,\tau\sb*},$ by satisfying at least the following conditions. ; $\tau\sb*\subseteq\mu\sb*,$ and for each $C\sb{M,T}$-sentence $\sigma$ such that ${\cal T}\sb{\mu\sb*,\tau\sb*}\models M\lbrack\!\lbrack\sigma\rbrack\!\rbrack,$ $$\eqalign{&\ {\cal T}\sb{\mu\sb*,\tau\sb*} \models\sigma\Longleftrightarrow{\cal T}\sb{\mu\sb*,\tau\sb*}\models T\lbrack\!\lbrack\sigma\rbrack\!\rbrack,\ {\rm and}\cr&\ {\cal T}\sb{\mu\sb*,\tau\sb*}\models T\lbrack\!\lbrack\sigma\\leftrightarrow T\lbrack\!\lbrack\sigma\rbrack\!\rbrack\rbrack\!\rbrack.\cr}$$ ; There is a class of expression representatives $\mu\sp{D}\subseteq\mu\sb*$ containing every $C\sb{o}$-expression representative, such that the set $\tau\sp{D}=\mu\sp{D}\ \cap\ \tau\sb*$ itself satisfies the following properties. ;First, for each $\vec\sigma$ such that $\sigma$ is a $C\sb{M,T}$-sentence, if for all $\mu,\tau\subseteq U\sb{o}$ satisfying $\mu\supseteq\mu\sb*$ and $\tau\supseteq\tau\sp{D},$ it is the case that ${\cal T}\sb{\mu,\tau}\models\sigma,$ then $\vec\sigma\in\tau\sp{D}.$ ;Second, whenever $\vec\sigma\in\tau\sp{D},$ then also $\sp{\vec{\enspace}}\ \in\tau\sp{D}.$ ;Third, $\tau\sp{D}$ is "upwardly closed" with respect to the strong-Kleene rules for the truth-value evaluation of Boolean combinations of formulas. For example, for $C\sb{M,T}$-sentences $e\sb1$ and $e\sb2$: $$\eqalign{&\ \vec e\sb1\in\tau\sp{D}\Longleftrightarrow)\sp{\vec{\enspace}}\ \in\tau\sp{D}.\cr&\ {\rm If}\ \vec e\sb1\in\tau\sp{D}\ {\rm or}\ \vec e\sb2\in\tau\sp{D},\ {\rm then\ so\ is}\ \sp{\vec{\enspace}}\ \in\tau\sp{D}.\cr&\ {\rm If}\ \sp{\vec{\enspace}}\ \in\tau\sp{D}\ {\rm and}\ \sp{\vec{\enspace}}\ \in\tau\sp{D},\ {\rm then}\ )\sp{\vec{\enspace}}\ \in\tau\sp{D}.\cr}$$ ; For each $C\sb{M,T}$-expression e not involving T, ${\cal T}\sb{\mu\sb*,\tau\sb*}\models M\lbrack\!\lbrack e\rbrack\!\rbrack$; in particular, for any $C\sb{M,T}$-expression e whatsoever, ${\cal T}\sb{\mu\sb*,\tau\sb*}\models M\lbrack\!\lbrack\\neg M\lbrack\!\lbrack e\rbrack\!\rbrack\rbrack\!\rbrack.$ ; ;In this dissertation, it is shown for the first time that there are in fact $\mu\sb*$ and $\tau\sb*$ which simultaneously satisfy all three conditions , , and , even when the consequent of the Godel fixed point theorem must hold. (shrink)

We show how to construct certain L M, T -type interpreted languages, with each such language containing meaningfulness and truth predicates which apply to itself. These languages are comparable in expressive power to the L T -type, truth-theoretic languages first considered by Kripke, yet each of our L M, T -type languages possesses the additional advantage that, within it, the meaninglessness of any given meaningless expression can itself be meaningfully expressed. One therefore has, for example, the object level truth (and (...) meaningfulness) of the claim that the strengthened Liar is meaningless. (shrink)

We show how to construct certain " $[Unrepresented Character]_{M,T}$ -type" interpreted languages, with each such language containing meaningfulness and truth predicates which apply to itself. These languages are comparable in expressive power to the $[Unrepresented Character]_{T}$ -type, truth-theoretic languages first considered by. Kripke, yet each of our $[Unrepresented Character]_{M,T}$ -type languages possesses the additional advantage that, within it, the meaninglessness of any given meaningless expression can itself be meaningfully expressed. One therefore has, for example, the object level truth (and meaningfulness) (...) of the claim that the strengthened Liar is meaningless. (shrink)