Are There Any Paradoxes?

Since by a default suggestion thoughts = words, and we use words to signify objects, abstractions, or other unseen connections between them, then how paradox may occur? - Only by our wishes. We must see paradoxes "in nature" or "between object", but how?

The words paradox refer to some logical situation, when it must be A, while it is not-A, and it contradicts to our expectations. That's why until paradoxes haven't defined beyond our heads no reason to expect it existing ontologically - is useless. There are no paradoxes 'outside our heads'.

And if there are not paradoxes outside, then where are they? In what or where? Can somebody point me to where should I go to find the paradoxes? Or maybe The Paradox is just a village somewhere on the Mexico border? Maybe it's just a drinking bar that works from the dusk till dawn? Where are the signs of it?

Let's say objects are: 'atom', 'bullet', 'cigarette', 'dust', 'employee', 'Frank', 'gravity', 'hexagon', 'I', 'jacket', 'kitchen', 'love', 'misery', 'night', 'oxygen'.

Let's say predicates are: 'Points to', 'Quantifies', 'Rotate', 'Says', 'Tortures', 'Unites', 'Verifies', 'Wheels'.

Let's say variables are: 'x', 'y', 'z'.

So, to be a formula here's the syntax:
1) if _{P, Q, R, S, T, U, W}_ is a predicate and _{a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o}_ are individuals or constants, and _{x, y, z}_ are variables, then _{Pab, Pax, Pay, Pxb, Pxc, Pyb, ..., Qab, Qax, ..., Wyz}_ are formulas
2) if A is a formula, then not-A is also a formula
3) if A, B are formulas, then (A and B), (A or B), (If A, then B), are also fomulas
4) if A is a formula, then (for all x, A), (there is x such that, A) are also formulas
5) there are no other formulas

Let's give some examples:

Pab = 'atoms points to bullet'; Qcd = 'cigarette quantifies dust'; Rex = 'employee rotates something', Red = 'employee rotates dust'; Wxi = 'something wheels me'; For all x, Vgx = 'gravity verifies everything'; There is y, such that Uly = 'there is something that love unites'; For all x there is y such that Tyx = 'for everyone there is a torturer y'; There is y such that for all x Tyx = 'there is someone who tortures everyone'; There is x such that Six and Vml = 'there is someone to whom I say and misery verify love'; If there is y such that Syi, then Pik = 'if there's someone who says me, then I point to a kitchen'.

We can add modality to it, we can add some punctuations, or so on, but there are no paradoxes occur, until we start guessing and figure it out new statements by our own. Let's bring a famous Bertrund Russell one:

Let's say Lxy means 'x loves y', and add a new operation called 'equivalence' that is '__if and only if__'. So, let's complete such a sentence as:

For all x, Lfx if and only if not-Lxx = 'Frank loves only those who doesn't love themselves'.

Then what will happen if we put Frank instead of that ones, or 'f' instead of 'x'? Let's see:

For all, Lxx if and only if not-Lxx = 'everyone loves everyone if and only if everyone doesn't love everyone'.

This doesn't sound correct, it sounds contradictory. But why this has happened? - Because of our interpretations, not because of the world, where no paradoxes are available.