By tautology x = x means: x is itself, otherwise we cannot talk about x. Now we can ask if a teotology is also recursive, for example: x = x = x = ... If we do not get any new information by this recursion, then x = x is enough, which is like a one_step_recursion. So, Russel's paradox is like if by teotology we ask if x is not_x or x = not_x , which is a meaningless question trough an exluded-middle point of view. Because our one_step_recursion cannot be done, we have no product of tautology and we can conclude that the whole idea of Russel's paradox simply does not hold in an excluded-middle logical reasoning. By the way, in Russell's paradox x is not the set, but the word "contain". So I hope that you agree with me that the question: Is "contain" = "do_not_contain", is meaningless through an excluded-middle reasoning. The set of ALL_sets_that_contain_themselves, must contain itself as a member of itself, because this is its self identity. The set of ALL_sets_that_do_not_contain_themselves, must not contain itself as a member of itself, because this is its self identity. (remark: the existence of a set is not dependent on its content for example: The empty set exists as a framework which examines the abstract idea of "emptiness". In short, only the name of the set depends on its property, but not its own existence as a framework.) Therefore there is nothing here that can be found as a state of a paradox. What do you think?