3 Primers> Language Logic Treatise < 6 FREE SITES > 12 COURT CASES: LOGIC defeating LANGUAGE & RHETORIC loses <<<

ALL Shakespeare-Free.

Shakespeare’s Concordance

Silva - Rhetorica Rhetoric - Forest

Force of Destiny

Over 2000 FREE books, click Picure above

Logic Law

Contradiction & Species   Anacoluthon    Hysteron Proteron    Anthypophora    Heterogenium

Fallacies of logic  

The Science  of  Logic

 Thames Water & Similar disparity template letters

See A short dissertation on what to look for in the LANGUAGE of other cases here.

What do you look for in the language and behaviour of the person that belies the use of persuasion, or belief in unsupported facts, straightforward lying or concealment of truth?

An immediate wide classification is that between the Literal Indicative Mood – Fact forms & the Subjunctive Mood, Thought forms, clarified by H. Sweet  Bookmark §306  hyper-link here. The boundary is breached when fact form language is used knowingly for thought forms that are unsupported evidentially, & that is where the laws or rules of equity may be invoked.

An example of the contemptible abuse of fact forms & presuppositions is in a court claim – originating from Sainsbury Bank, joined with others, defended here by Winter at their loss of costs as well as their claim.

A presupposition is, OED:1. The action or an act of presupposing something; the assumption of the existence or truth of something, as a preliminary to action, argument, etc. In this case two were immediately apprehended on sight from: ‘The Claimant is an assignee of the following debts.’  

Two presuppositions! ‘debts’ was only ONE, and it missed the adjective alleged which Winter knew had a history in line 10 of the Index, to be disclosed later in that preamble. The 2nd was NO deed of assignment was ever received from either party, despite many requests to the Claimant & legal parties.. The pre-supposition debts is usually believed  by the alleged creditor, but requires substantive proof in court. If believed then proof is bypassed & taken for granted as accepted.

This case fell on the absence of the ‘deed’ which was the easiest part to fulfil if there had been one, but its absence disclosed a fact form without the fact which was enough. But when Winter combined that with one other document, the Judge was appalled.

The procedure they followed was an abuse of CPR & Court process, characterised by fact form beliefs in fiction in which the objective was to hold fast to their unsubstantiated fact form language & avoid a hearing, by hopefully being settled beforehand, because the presentation of two, of twenty, facts forms supported by evidence & in self-contradiction with facts – sworn [contrary to CPR] as beliefs – left the Honourable Judge appalled at their conduct. Line 10 of the index was most likely the cause of their self contradiction, hoping that Winter’s computer records were flimsy at best.

Further distinction in each of the above are a function of degrees of circularity and evidential proof for validity in determining whether their  truth values are highly or less probable, where for example a circular statement like “It is what it is.” must be true in virtue of its form, simply by the law of non-contradiction where it cannot be the case that a thing is and is not at the same time, Aristotle’s 3 laws of thought here.

The next distinction of focus here is that of species of the fact form, which distinguish between those forms that are perfomative & those which shift performance towards types of inaction – shifting observed by H. Sweet. These are Perlocutionary & Illocutionary, from J. L. Austin here. This is important in exchanges where benefits or detriments are conferred as a result of either, and their immediacy.

Austin proposed that uttering a sentence includes actually doing things. He made a distinction between constative and perfomative: The former is an utterance-as-description view and the latter is an utterance-as-doing view.

  Sweet, Henry. A New English Grammar: Logical and Historical. vol. 1, Clarendon Press, 1891, lolala.uk/language/neg.pdf.

The Perlocutionary forms often tend to be polite forms of verbosity, where for example in disputes between Winter & TfL, Winter told TfL staff that he would test their 2nd claim for a penalty in court, they replied, saying “But we apologised for the previous incident.” Winter simply forwarded them a copy of their text showing they had stated “We would like to apologise for the incident”, explaining to them that they wrote what they would like to have done, but he was still waiting for them to do it!  The 2nd incident was cancelled in silence. To apologise as a perfomative is substantially simpler, just state “I apologise.”

 Of course for believers, namely those who are prepared to take for granted matter that determine their lives, without substantive evidence in support, then they are far more easily persuaded about beliefs when they are presented as if they be facts by simply using the literal indicative fact form.

 Such polite forms are common in legal & government texts, speeches, mission statements & manifestos, where parties declare such things as “We want to improve the social care services” rather than saying of elected we will or shall improve these services. The first form is often extended to: “We will set up a committee to hear ways of improving the social care services.” Both phrases have an infinitive or similar such form where ‘to improve’ & ‘to hear’ meaning they are not tensed and have no past, present or future action being performed. What occurs here, is identified by H. Sweet as shifting, where the logical centre is shifted from the infinitive to the perfomative verb. Thus being Perlocutionary inclines one to observe the stem Per is from persuasion.

The primary function is in the art of suppressio veri & suggestio falsi  which manifests itself in a variety of ways, especially in the choice of words to express thoughts.

1. Words that show the use of a class noun, a genus, for which a metaphor may be, hiding among the crowd, a natural instinct of animals in the face of a predator, or seeking refuge in numbers to increase the difficulty of an enquiring mind to  articulate the right question to get at the truth – the truth, the whole truth & nothing but – that is. Often this process is managed unconsciously, but in some cases it has to be managed by complicity to mislead or falsify.

1. Not just truth, selectively where you are left to distinguish those parts that are significant truths from those that are significant which falsify the genus.  The age old taxonomy of genus et differentia is the classification system, where truth is usually associated with the resolving power of species, namely the more one approaches unique specifics, the greater the distinction between truth & falsity. Generality arises from language which refers to more than one object, and in such cases focuses upon the common features which are significant to the genus of that species.

2. Winter V BCM Ltd,  is such a case: see the case details here, and then compare it for the inconsistency / impossibility of excepting one from being a member of a class, the exception to the rule, where the exception falsifies that rule, the method is Class Immediate Inference – theory here – & how to formulate the key question with a result which usually breaks the former trust being presented by a lawyer & his party which is also observed in the language before & after the question is raised.

3. The statement sworn for truth for the court was simply: “The board was unaware that Winter had any electricity problem.” the suppressio veri in this text was simply the absence of a logical separator between board members: namely “The [ rest of the } board was unaware that Winter had any electricity problem.”

4. The question that separated the legal team from the defendant was: How is it possible for the board to be unaware, when the CEO OF THE BOARD WAS AWARE by service of two court orders served on him by the claimant?”