"Is there?" is the error existence (x)

The OP and this group are mostly about the x-relative point-i.

To be or not to be is the explanation existence, thus whether locally or universally something "is there" or not, whereby the world relative to it, or itself, has an outside and an inside with context and content. X is the fallacy in Russell's paradox and many related paradoxes "to do" with agency. The error (existence) is whether passive sets or dynamic opposites exist or not and then whether they or their worlds or parts are in all variations of existential incompleteness better mutually exclusive, complementary or adversarial.

The dog craze is the posthumanist humanification of man

https://bra.in/8jYZw2

The dog craze is deliberate subversion by brood parasitic twittery together, the metastatic fossilization of meaning as the intersubjective field in the posthumanistic humanification of man.

Humanification is the compounding of the error, "existence."

Is the aim of point-i for language to create worlds?

Soth de Witan

Pierre Rousseau please forgive me for speaking as if I exist. I don't know any other way. I realize my questions must be tedious and I will refrain from asking them if that is your wish, but if I am permitted to continue, I just wanted you to know that I am endlessly fascinated with point-i and your ideas of reality.

As usual, you have crammed so much meaning into a few short paragraphs. My mind is blown, to use a phrase!...... I don't claim to know or understand all the logical fallacies and I can see that I have much to learn on that score. However, I just wanted to know if I'm on the right track.

If nothing 'exists', then idea is the primary concern. Idea is meaning, which is expressed through language (word). It seems to me that almost all words suggest action/being/knowing which is the error existence. I understand that language is not in action, not doing anything, so is the error of man the belief that he is forever in action, with all the mayhem that entails? Is the aim of point-i to understand language in a way that it is no longer adversarial? It seems that all language 'creates worlds'. Is the idea to create worlds that are worth 'living in', or not create worlds at all?

Ans. Point-i is no compromise with "existence."