russell's paradox says that you can't take a set of all sets because you would have to include that set in the set of all sets which puts you in an infinite recursive (procedural) loop of operations. Disregarding classes and other ways to avoid the paradox, it is a paradox because the 'set of all sets' includes the results of an iterative process. Each iteration satisfies it's mandate but needs to be included in following iterations. It is only a paradox if we consider the set of all sets to be outside the iterative process.No, there's nothing inherently paradoxical about self-referentiality. Nor am I seeing the infinite recursive procedural loop. Iterative processes can be useful in finding solutions to some problems, but there's nothing about self-referentiality that demands them.

Russell's Paradox is specifically about the set of all sets that lack the property of being an element of itself. The existence of

*that*set is self-contradictory. This has nothing to do with any "iterative processes". (And if we put suitable restrictions on what we consider to be a "set" (e.g. using ZF) then the paradox disappears.)