rFirst, let us think of my supposing the second propostion of logics as Law of Excluded Middle P ∨ ¬ P, necessarily originally that has been regarded the third and the last contradictory condition, but it could never be so in terms of more extended view holding stance of us.

In other words, Law of Excluded Middle P ∨ ¬ P must mean that if we bet e.g. tomorrow's weather must be sunny, and that case must result hit or so as presumptive expectation could be correct, that uncertainty but simultaneously the ones who expected not sunny day as any occasion is arbitrary, with rainy, snowy or so, that option is no problem.

Eventually if resulted one expectation was hit, another side was blanc, necessarily the contrary case could be possible as probability, in other words, the proposition must rely on alternative optional limtation from the beginning as setting proposition.
Then, necessarily the original Logics' the third propostion as my supposing the second it must be half certain and half uncertain by its nature. And necessarily that factual case could never be come under to the first two conditions as Identity P=P and No Contradiction －(P ∧ ¬ P). 

Then, next we should go onto my supposing the truly thought the third as originally regarded the forth is as －(P ∨ ¬ P) occasion. 
That necessarily makes us the result that we immediately could be noticed to have error at disacribing or displaying or so at any case.
Then, here, we first have a situation with very plainly identified analytical proposition as Identity P=P and No Contradiction －(P ∧ ¬ P) in nature which we could never change that truth, as just tautological truth as necessity and its applicable presumptive expectable data outputting as Law of Excluded Middle P ∨ ¬ P, then at this stage we could assume that the first two items as propositions could deduce my supposing the second Law of Excluded Middle, because principly these two plain identity forms must drive another occasion so necessarily. And it could be skeptic probability of case coming up to us.

However, if we completely neglect my supposing the last propostion as the forth －(P ∨ ¬ P) occasion, permanently we could never solve these serially contradictory paradox, but if we set another －(P ∨ ¬ P) occasion, we'd have for the present so assured certainty, because that must be sustainable element of propositional consistency regarding thinking circuit. 

The last one must be perfectly losing focusing target as outputted data, but that so definitely false or kind of being empty must sustain e.g. the position of the blanc result of Law of Excluded Middle P ∨ ¬ P.  And if we could not get the forth as my supposing truly meant the third －(P ∨ ¬ P) occasion, we'd never solve everlastingly methematics' really enigmatic paradox. Rather the presence must secure the third L.E.M's blanc's outputting trial as meant trial to sustain its trial's significance.

Consequently, all Logics' so contradictory in going around circles could take next certain step and enter into next phase so together with us all.

Dualism as Duality cognitive calculating usage must have produced so many legacy to us, but at this age in so contradictory situation caused from our civiizational issues, we should stop our practicing duration at any site of our integrally never forsaken items to our daily life.
For submitting to any site in which our sharing common tough issue must be dealt with, I continued to write this series, but more precise inspecting devise and effort are necessary at my doing and these hypotesis, then since the next chance to debate, these supposional suggestion's necessity needs me to output numerical expression as eqation. And toward Intuisionism and Formalism, this approach must be at necessitty to add these iterant more precision evidencing at this inspecting and inquiring site to me, then let me have more moratorium to reseach as the time occasion to get that work done so enough for a while. 
Probably at not so far future day, I'll be back again to this series site.

(to be continued)

Feb. 27th. 2021

✽Addtionally interpreting supplement around these debate

〇1st; A-pri-o-ri set premise →Necessity
⇓

〇2nd; Time running gives us all only each time's accidentality
This recognition means what we have personally subject on our own mind.
⇓

〇3rd; But what upper 2nd recognition that we must have meant that we are obliged to be at subjectivity, at our view to observe our thing as meta-cognition.

Upper is Part 20's summary description, and necessarily Ist means Identity P=P and No Contradiction －(P ∧ ¬ P) which could come under mutually, and serially 2nd means our predictable minded presuming, and expecting to the furure but so necessarily approaching to us must be correspoded at Law of Excluded Middle P ∨ ¬ P. However at adding them the last forth as my supposition in regarding truly the third one as－ (P ∨ ¬ P) occasion, we could be at meta-cognitive view so significantly.
Eventually, necessarily our truly signified future prospect gettable mind could be noticed with some kind of our very tiny mistake at own daily life, and that must come under our view to observe our thing as meta-cognition at being awoken to the third condition in own life, you know! 
Because our obliged reality noticed in our consciousness could be made of our effort or attentional care and notice on vigilance at excluding bug or so tiny incomplition at our doing everything.