**The Contradiction Principle demands that all derivations meet its conditions of consistency. But what then is the defending criterion for this celebrated Principle itself?**

**In Aristotle’s words: ‘***The beginning of demonstration cannot [itself] be demonstrated..those who insist on being refuted by argument seek the impossible; for in insisting that they be proven to be self-contradictory, they already contradict themselves*..’.

**The Principle of Contradiction, the criterion for Logico-Mathematical ‘Proof’, itself has no proof, cannot be proven in a rational framework.**

**If ‘All things are False’-so is the claim: ‘All things are False!’ If ‘Nothing is True’- so is the declaration: ‘Nothing is True!**

**But hold on just a second. To say; ‘Nothing is True!’ is not a lie. In fact, I have no idea what it is. For I am firmly in the grip of the Self-Loop.**

**The principal defense of the Principal Principle, Aristotle’s ‘Self-Destroying Argument’ is contained in a Self-Eating Expression.**

**Why should you not violate the Principle of Contradiction?**

**You should not violate the Principle of Contradiction because if you violate the Principle of Contradiction you thereby contradict yourself and thereby violate the Principle of Contradiction.**

**Never-Never Land.**

**The Contradiction Principle is intimately related to the assumption of an ‘Independent and Separate Subject’ and from it to the ‘Subject-Object Divide’. The way, the only way to get to its root is to** **begin at the first presumption of Inquiry, work through the ‘Backward Step’ and wake-up to ***Śūnyathā*.

**There is nothing ‘Wrong’ with the Contradiction Principle. But it is good to see it’s modeled basis, it’s root origin. I don’t want to meet a road-sign which says ‘Paris’ with two arrows each pointing in the opposite direction.**

### Like this:

Like Loading...