In the most basic categories, every function has, at minimum, three modalities of (non-)existence: the absolute, the negative, and the variance. We could call this, "The Is", "The Is-Not", and "The Could-be". If we were to give it a sign of sorts: A, Not-A, & A(V). Another label, the one most applicable, is that every modality can be labeled "True", "False", "Variance". One can note that every function operates out of this triadic operationality: A thing is, is-not, and can be. Another, more esoteric note one can make, is that every not-T is, conceivably, a form of variance, but an instance of Not-T is also one of modular certainty within any expression that recognizes T as certitude. Therefore, while a thing can be Is and Is-not, such as "This statement is false", a form outside of normative T, yet sharing F or also T, modifies itself towards variance. While it is a stretch to say every non-thing is therefore a variance, it can also be consistent with a modular expression that views every Not-Is as a state that is an extension of other conditions which would allow that state to exist in coherency given other situated vectors.
If we consider A to Z, one must conceive, most immediately, of -A, or Not-A. A is not B. So every B is a Not-A. C is not A. So every C is Not-A. While B & C exist as Not-A, they also exist as A-V. Thus, B-Z, on an individual relation, are Not-A, and on both individual and collective notions, A(V). Every expression must operate out of these three primary modes: A thing Is, Is-Not, Is-Type. Even if a thing Is and Is-Not or any mixture thereof, it is an Is-Type. To therefore contemplate any endeavor, one must consider that which one sees, that which one can envision, and that which one cannot see. Since every expression is a relational series of consequential conditional states, any action must be taken into consideration of these practicalities. Even if one commits irrationality to an action, there still exists a series of consequential relational conditions. The loss of logical constraints does not deter the existence of any function from having expression. Even the inexpressible has its function as that which expression is unable to pontificate.
Let us consider a box of laundry detergent with the name Laundo. Laundo is not laundry detergent; Lando is the nominative state includedPost too long. Click here to view the full text.