at least tangentially P-related: Class of all classes

[Michael Bailey]

The phrase keeps showing up...
"the class of all classes which do not include themselves"

It seems to me, that any class which DOES include itself,
is a class of classes.
That is, a collection of pennies, stars on a map, talking ducks,
any collection of actual Things would not be able to have itself
as a member.
Whereas any set which did have itself as a member would
have to be a set of sets, or at least a set with a membership
rule that includes sets...

So is, in a literary sense, the phrase "the class of all classes
which do not include themselves" a way of saying, "raw data",
"uninterpreted experience"?