The necessary truth of any truth

You confuse perception with conception.

A thing, in of itself, can never be true--nor false. True is the lack of difference between two things.

You have regressed into mysticism, such as exampled in the question,

What is the sound of one hand clapping?
A mystic can never answer that question, a rational man would say that the question violates the definition of clapping itself, and is thus non-sense.

A primer in first principles of grammar can be found in Language and Experience, on the internet archive. Downloads there are free. search johnclark8659

Sorry, it is not possible for me to understand that nothing (lack of difference) is a thing.

See both Plato and Aristotle on people who confuse "is" with "is not".

Plato--asleep.
Aristotles- a vegetable.
Scripture--dead.
Science--dysfunctional.
etc.,

The binary foundation of language, as has been pointed out since before Aristotle, you only have two choices, no difference and difference, true and false. Is and is not. Absolute and relative.

And since they are first principles, they cannot be predicated of, they are, in ancient terms of the Two-Element Metaphysics, Elements. As, as Euclide pointed out in the first definition in The Elements, all one can do is say that the one is not the other.

Consequently, the title of this post is gibberish. I was being nice.

Unlike the intellectuals of today, it was realized that there are three, and only three primitive categories of names, only one of which can be defined--names of things, the other two, the elements had to be abstracted, i.e. one has to participlate in the naming convention to understand the name and the associate abstraction (or Aristotle, induction.) If you are unable, due to lack of environment, or of intellect, to make the abstraction, you could never manipulate the word in accordance with the principles of grammar--unless you did so by rote.
Any one of intelligence should have figured this out since perception determines conception, conception determines will. In plain terms, we learn by experience, in mysticism the Father (perception), the Son (conception) and the Holy Spirit (will) are One.

Does it surprise you that you have no idea? Apparently, you don't even know the foundation of metaphor.

http://www.archive.org/details/Language_and_Experience

The two-element metaphysics that Plato and a few others were working with, a vestege survived as Set Theory. You would have to learn the foundation of grammar from scratch. Try this intro. Otherwise spend a great deal of time with Plato. And the exact sciences, specifically, Euclidean Geometry.

http://www.archive.org/details/Language_and_Experience

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=johnclark8659&sort=-publicdate

You should have known, that someone would finally figure out the foundation of language. After all, it is not that difficult.

However, if you find it too difficult, don't let it worry you. Going from understanding language by rote to craft is a big step.

I thought I said an element could not be defined. Reread my post.
Do you know what the difference is between a definition and a description?

One of them preserves a social convention, the other aids in its participation.

Plato.

The elements cannot be defined, all you can do is name them, for a name is all they have.

They must be abstracted, i.e. one must participate in the naming convention. Of the three categories of names, names of things, names of a things forms, and the names of a things material difference, only one can be defined, equating the name of a thing to the names of that things various forms and the material differences in those forms, the elements must be learned, as Aristotle pointed out, by induction, or in some Platonic introductions, sensory abstraction.

Descriptions are aids that will lead one to something from which an abstraction can be made. Thus, if one has the abililty, they can then participate in the naming convention. For example, the so called definition of a circle is no such thing, it is a description.

The Elements have been called, First Principles, even axioms--but I have found no writer who understood the Two-Element Metaphysics better than Plato. Save, whatever it was that had the Scripture written. Since the Book is about Judgment, it uses princples of Judgment to test the reader.

I have already referred you to
Language and Experience
On the internet Archive. I did not write it and make an audio book out of it to just to keep repeating it one on one.

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=johnclark8659&sort=-publicdate

Try a dictionary. What does True mean?
Then What is the state of being true?

Obviously you don't know the first thing about language.
Try some Plato. Cratylus.

Personally, I think when someone is trying to comprehend a simple binary situation and cannot grasp it, is too stupid to even try to converse with.

Yes, you are entirely correct. Because you cannot grasp meaning, I am stupid. I grant you this premise.