Actually, at one proposition which you like an apple for eating at breakfast or not, if we regard the stance as duality, its view could be regarded so unnecessary.

Duality could be used mainly at which you should opt at next election, Conservative party or Labor party, otherwise, Democratic or Republican.

Though, necessarily, a salesman could ask geographical circumstances around first visiting town for his job, and to one seen housekeeper middle aged woman at one relatively large extent highway roadside, he asked "Is there some road information center around these relatively near around this district?"

To that question, she could answer, "Yes.", at the moment, one proposition is complete.

But if she responded to him, saying, "No.", the salesman tries to next questioning, asking e.g. "Well,  is there a little bit further around next one?", the salesman could spend next card, though necessarily he could have two cards, and if he only thought at this questioning necessity, second question proceeding must mean one dualism readiness spending.

Meanwhile, if she responding the salesman's asking, said "Around this town, there's no road information center.", to the salesman, first, next of dualism procedure starts.

At the situation, if he asked to her saying, "Then, how can I ask the location I want to go now for my job, and for doing where should I head for now, for the present?", at the moment, first, not second, third step is readied for him.

One Question→complete ①

Or

One Question→incomplete,

Second subsequent Question→complete②

Or

One Question→incomplete,

Second subsequent Question→incomplete

Third subsequent Question③

After all, consequently, ①～②= dualism, ①～②, ②～③= triplism.

                                            ↓

For the present, there I'd like you all visitors of my site comprehend so.

With all those procedures, if you comprehended these logical mechanism, Russell's Paradox's structure could be interpretated by you like next.

At Part 27, I took (1, 1, 1), 1(1, 1, 1) and (1, 1, 1)→1(1, 1, 1).

Necessarily, to first (1, 1, 1), 1(1, 1, 1) is meta-cognition applicable equation.

And to last 1(1, 1, 1), [(1, 1, 1)→１(1, 1, 1) ]is meta-cognition applicable equation.

Though, necessarily, next equated structural mechanism is provided there.

                                    (1, 1, 1)   A

                                          ↓

                                   1(1, 1, 1)  B

                                          ↓

                           (1, 1, 1)→１(1, 1, 1) C

                                          ↓

                         1[(1, 1, 1)→ 1(1, 1, 1)] D

A=gathered members at each sequence.

B= to A, introspectively cognitive minded

C= to B, introspectively cognitive minded

And the last, wholly totally introspectively cognitive minded.

Though, necessarily, next is introduced.

    

   1[(1, 1, 1)→1(1, 1, 1)] 

                       

                    = 1[ 1(1, 1, 1)]

      

        D is deduced.

  (Irregularly to be continued)

June  ７th.  2022