This claim is false. (linguistic justification of value-ontology)

"This claim is false."

Why is that possible?

The answer is remarkably simple: Because language did not originate in logic, but in differentiation.
Logic therefore can not be perfected in the form of language. It can only pertain to language perfectly.
It has proven to be a matter of locating the term that denotes the meaning of language itself. The case was so extraordinarily fortunate that this same term also refers to the basic primordial instinct-to-be, which now is understood inclusively as the inherent mechanism of self-valuing and the outwardly projected valuing in terms of this inherently perpetuating self-value.

Even now after clarity's dawn it is only a relation to language that the "path" or truth" is found - the most pertinent value in each instance of conceptualization. Language is much of man but it is not all - but it has guided man since instinct had become madness and madness eventually mind [the birth of mind - the most terrible path nature could possibly have taken] became reason, and reason habit and custom and a path out of hell.

And here we are at the exit of this - cave soiled by million gods - there is light beyond these walls - the paintings are our memory - primordial past. The times when "Our truth" was possible, the place where the writing was on the wall, and not up in the air in song and 'self-valuing geometry' and different from every perspective as a clous of summerbirds as heat collects in the air and the pregnant darkness sets in.

The question on my mind is: is the cloud a self-valuing? No - there is only one self-valuing int he cycle of charge and discharge - that is the principle of lightning itself. This keeps itself in motion by being the cataclysm of two forces it values in terms of it's self-valuing. But this principle re-incarnates from place to place in the same context and is 'embodied' by nature, and 'brought to life' with a consequence that cracks open "reality" for a moment and makes one aware of the central mechanism - the circuit of energy collection and discharge. This is "looped" in a lifeform, feeding back on itself. A combustion engine, even a wheel, certainly fire, is repreoduction a a part of the self-valuing circuit. All great inventions, from television to tea-making to proton colliders, all tap into the 'genius of the cyclus', which is "being".

To become a whole cyclus - or better, for each day, or each moon, or year to become a complete cyclus of self-valuing - of arrival fulfillment commencement of 'greater things' which is always the impetus - the mirroring back of oneself as 'potentially greater' is essential to the expansion of matter into its various forms. Valuing in terms of self-valuing circuitry is 'the illusion whereby power is attained'. The power attained by it is expelled into force in all 'natural phenomena' - technology taps into that root, but brings forth different things because it has, instead of the air, sunlight, water and soil of the earth, the mind of man as its ground, and this mind is also the 'air' in which it grows, and from man the budding idea receives attention like a creature receives sunlight, and in the end it must be seen to be believed - except to this flower itself and that which brought it forth - a flower is the consequence - what kind cause can we see to a flower, beyond, at the end of, it's chain of evolution from the first atoms?

This is a common "problem" cited in analytic philosophy, the whole "this sentence is false" thing. I was writing about this in my topic about the idiocy of analytic philosophy; the Crete paradox, which isn't a paradox at all, of "All Cretans are liars" when the speaker is himself of Crete. What it shows is that humans operate linguistically in a kind of gray area ambiguity of not understanding what they are doing or why. Language affords this gray middle space of partial unknown, a kind of surrogate and externalized partial unconsciousness. This is a good feature of language that it allows for this, and the analytics think of it only as an error and problem because these analytic thinkers are idolizing computer robot consciousness, they are all trying very hard not to be human. So naturally "human vagueness" is a problem for them, even though the vagueness in this and many other cases is a productive and healthful one.

Real problem: you are nature, so how do you get a species of somewhat becoming-self-conscious apes to externalize their unconsciousness? If it is externalized directly it is simply non-conscious instinct as all animals already have, but if it becomes more conscious then it becomes not-unconscious.

Answer: nature decides to invent a higher form of language. Humans evolved the capacity not only for very dexterous tongues, mouths, lips and vocal chords but also the key ability in the brain matter to emulate the position of all those parts an instant before they arrive at that position. This allowed these human apes to really diversify and solidify a large number of very specific morphemes of speech-utterances, the vowel and consonant sounds that we call the alphabet. This introduces an intermediary between the instinctive unconscious excess-force and the utterance itself; now this utterance is able to distance itself (differentiate as you said Fixed) from the unconsciousness excess energy of psyche and body from which the utterances actually are always coming. Every vocal utterance is (and this is still true today of humans) a kind of pressure-release of some inner unconscious and instinctive excess. Speech deep down is the mouthpiece of the unconscious. But with this middle-space now mediating the end result formation of the utterances there naturally arises a backward pressure upon the unconscious which pressure begins to retroactively organize that unconscious from which an utterance came. Hence humans learned about what we call reason.

Examples like "this sentence is false" are categorical errors of falsely conflating one thing with another. "All Cretans are liars, I am a Cretan, therefore I am a liar, therefore when I said all Cretans are liars I must have been lying, therefore all Cretans are not liars, therefore whati said is true, therefore all Cretans are liars..." this sort of thing is idiotic. It's like a human mind degenerating into a little closed loop in a programming code. We don't work like that, neither does language, neither does Reason, neither does meaning, neither does the unconscious. These examples only illustrate that philosophers don't yet understand what language is and what it means when we use language to communicate something. Each of these "paradoxes" that false philosophers use to mystify college students in Phil 101 courses while stealing those kids money in the process, each such "paradox" breaks down completely upon closer examination.

Analytic philosophy is the enemy.