A - 1 Question, Contradictio in adiecto. – adjective
B - 1 Question
Contradictio De Partibus / terminis - parts / terms
The listbelow...underline ____ is from our old site, showing how the words Force, Destiny(the title of 2nd site),
And Logic, Law,True, False, (the title of 1st site) with Language as another term beginning the new site.
The main author for that section was Shakespeare.
THE NEW SITE focuses on argument forms, some substantively based on fact & reality with parallel properties used as metaphors,
using several authors of world repute, notably:
LANGUAGE: Aristotle, Heraclitus, Anselm, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Henry Sweet, Henry Fowler, and CGEL (Cambridge Grammar of English), & LOGIC: again Aristotle, Heraclitus, Leonhard Euler, John Venn, George Boole, Ambrose & Lazerowitz, & many others.
The focus here is how Language is used to control thought process's in many cases anti-logically, and the method of distinguishing between those rhetorical forms that produce fallacies, and in many cases contrarieties & contradictions, that are impossibilities in fact.
When those are presented in the dialectics of adversarial disputation, the logic can defeat the language, as I have managed in every case brought to court, even a court that was so called independent but not impartial – the latter term in the Human Rights Articles & Acts, usually dropped, as ‘WHOLE TRUTH’ is, in section 9 swears, by those whose focus is on misleading truths that are usually found in selective truths, a form of indirect lies – suppressio veri, outside the scope & fields of relevance: EG:
When a person is accused of say theft, murder, or fraud,
the lawyers often use the common denial form –
PERSON (X) DENIES ANY WRONG-DOING...
which obviously answers the question ADMIT or DENY your doing ANY WRONG which no person would ask in court instead of asking did you take cash in Exchange for Honours – which also is a poor formulation of any question in court, as it permits the person to use generalisations, & truths near, but not within, the field of relevance to mislead AS IF that were the question asked.
Such an item of rhetoric is well known as Anthypophora, & Ignoratio Elenchi - Ignorance of the nature of refutation. -,
( please look at the extensive index & click on this specific word anthypophora )
The more specific the denial using Anthypophora , usually is found to be the specifically outside the field of relevance.
The usage of such forms are often accomplished & performed unconsciously in the avoidance of cognitive dissonance – Leon Festinger – , which has some powerful parallels with Einstein's theories of relativity and the resultant production of the A & H bombs,where in effect the simple law of logic is seen to function, where a single atom cannot occupy the same point in space & time with another, the result is Fusion or Fission, the effect within the realms of thought produce stress, and its avoidance is frequently unconscious.
It is NOT possible for P & NOT P to be true together.
'We're All In This Together'
‘We do not have your files on our system.’
The first iw well known as PR, the second is from what was described by an uprightcaught: sorry court. What is wrong with the LOGICof this language? Crafted for delivery below the limen –- subliminally.
Rhetoric produces these forms which are impossible forms of fact & thought, produced by shading, glozing & veneer: where the forms are what you need to undertsand – in the abstract.
ISABELLA. O gracious duke,
Harp not on that, nor do not banish reason For inequality; but let your reason serve
To make the truth appearwhere it seems hid, And hide the false seems true.
SEE IT with the Language of LOGIC & prove Perjury with just one Law of thought. See the 1st or the12 COURT CASES
An important preamble, grounds of reasoning & use of logic in an early case.
Logic - & its language - provides a distinct advantage when entering adversarial proceedings in court. A primary reason is that with a logical contradiction - or species thereof like a contradictory adjective, contradictio in adiecto - the truth of one argument, in its disjunction or alternative, FALSIFIES the other. That may be a disbarrable offence for a Barrister, and if pursued can have custodial consequences.
That falsification discloses how the adverse party who uses it, conceals what
LIES behind whole-TRUTH in the ancient art of suppression of truth & suggestion of false - suppressio veri & suggestio falsi.
One of the simple laws of thought -- the law of NON contradiction ~ ( P & ~ P )
Is inviolable. In language substitute for P anything you choose, resulting in
It is NOTPOSSIBLE ( for a man and NOT a man) to be true at the same time & in the same respect. Aristotle some 2350 years ago
Some lawyers specialise in knowing the rules of their game to play the system, especially if they are unscrupulous in winning a case despite its truth value.
The adverse party who chooses to make such false representations of facts,
or conceal the traces of that which he has effected, usually does so consciously
or unconsciously by hiding his culpable act within its class, as one member of many. This modulates the meaning of a word in its specific or extended meaning, which spans the range of a fact discreetly hidden as a member of a class, or disclose in the full specific - sui generis - of the class itself.
One of my early cases, admittedly without having rationalised what I had done, under the pressure to articulate my single question, after a few moments of being lost for words, resulted in that question to which there was only one possible answer, a tacit admission of false representations in court, being contempt thereof CPR 32.14.
The result was an immediate dissociation between the barrister & his defendant - as it is disbar-able to suborn one's party's testimony -- such that the Barrister after recovering from the exposure turned to the Judge saying: I am instructed to say...
That explanatory introduction separated himself from the testimony just expressed as necessary & unambiguously FALSE.
That question with their request for costs, estimated as close to 5000, resulted in a derisive rejection by the judge,& the Defendant storming out of court, ending that case. W V BCM ltd. Around 1994.