Au début du nouveau millénaire, aujourd’hui même, nous entendons sans cesse de part en part des clameurs sur la lutte entre les philosophies et entre la science et la philosophie, et des nouvelles de la fin de la philosophie au pireC’est pourquoi nous devons rechercher une Science radicale et universelle sans hiérarchie, ni primauté sur les autres. Or, dans les philosophies de la Différence contemporaines, l’autorité de la Différe(a)nce comme l’invariant philosophique s’installe subrepticement dans l’immanence qui retombe dans la transcendance métaphysique. Le cercle vicieux de la dualité transcendante y continue au nom du retour éternel, de la répétition, du chiasme du logos, et puis du Vide. Il semble que l’errance de la pensée contemporaine nous ramène à l’absurdité aporétique. En occurrence, Laruelle F. nous démontre une pensée du Milieu apaisant la dépression et le tourbillonnement de la pensée contemporaine. La non-philosophie dont le Milieu immanental parvient à la Science générique plus universelle comme avant-première. Du coup, cette Science générique forgée de la non-philosophie est sobre, mais libre à la force de l’immanence de l’Un ou/et de la Vision-en-Un. Par ailleurs, par les recherches et les expérimentations de la pensée du Milieu en Asie : le Vide (空性 Gongxing, śūnyatā) dans la théorie de Chungguan (中觀 Madhyamaka) comme la Vision-en-Milieu de Nāgārjuna, le Zhenru (眞如 tathatā) de Weishi (唯識 vijñāna–mātráta) comme l’Un et la Vision-en-UN, et puis le Yixin ermen (一心二門) comme la Dualité unilatérale dans Daichengqixin lun, nous pensons plus profondément au Milieu immanent et transcendantal comme Milieu-en-Un. Si bien que nous pouvons atteindre une Science du Milieu rigoureuse en vertu de la rencontre de la Science générique et des pensées du Milieu en Asie. Par conséquent, nous pratiquerons la Science du Milieu universelle à travers la Détermination de l’Homme en-dernière-instance ou de l’Homme-en-personne. La Détermination-en-dernière-instance consiste dans le Milieu-en-Un, la Dualité unilatérale de la Vision-en-Milieu et de la Vision-en-Un, ou de la Vision-en-Milieu-en-Un. / As the new millennium dawns, there is a growing debate about the conflict between philosophies and between science and philosophy, and even about the end of philosophy itself. For this reason, we must seek out a radical and universal science that does not claim hierarchical importance or primacy over the others. Yet in the contemporary philosophies of Difference, the overriding importance of Difference as the philosophical invariant finds its place in the theory of immanence and, in juxtaposition, metaphysical transcendence. The vicious circle of the transcendent duality persists here in the name of the eternal recurrence, repetition, the chiasmus of the logos, and Emptiness. It would appear that the meanderings of contemporary thinking about these matters is leading us towards aporetic absurdity. In this regard, F. Laruelle demonstrates one thought of the Middle, which alleviates the depression and chaos of contemporary thinking. (Non-) philosophy, such as the immanental Middle, manages to make Generic science more universal as an avant-première. Generic science carved out from non-philosophy is sober, but free from the power of immanence of One or immanence of the Vision-in-One. Besides, through the research and experimentation of the thinking of the Middle in Asia – Emptiness (空性 Gongxing, śūnyatā) in the theory of Chungguan (中觀 Madhyamaka), the Vision-in-Middle of Nāgārjuna, Zhenru (眞如 tathatā) of Weishi (唯識 vijñāna–mātráta), such as the One or the Vision-in-One, Yixin ermen (一心二門) and the Unilateral Duality in Daichengqixin lun – we now consider more clearly the immanent and transcendental Middle as the Middle-in-One. This enables us to attain a rigorous science of the Middle thanks to the coming together of Generic Science and the thinking of the Middle in Asia. As a result, we will be able to practice the universal Science of the Middle through the Determination of the man in-the-last-instance or the Man-in-person. The Determination-in-the-last-instance takes on board the notions of the Middle-in-One, the Unilateral Duality of the Vision-in-Middle and of the Vision-in-One, or of the Vision-in-Middle-in-One.

This PhD dissertation is about legal fictions in private law. A legal fiction, broadly, is a false assumption knowingly relied upon by the courts. The main aim of the dissertation is to formulate a test for which fictions should be accepted and which rejected. Subsidiary aims include a better understanding of the fiction as a device and of certain individual fictions, past and present. This research is undertaken, primarily, to establish a rigorous system for the treatment of fictions in English law - which is lacking. Secondarily, it is intended to settle some intractable disputes, which have plagued the scholarship. These theoretical debates have hindered progress on the practical matters which affect litigants in the real world. The dissertation is divided into four chapters. The first chapter is a historical study of common-law fictions. The conclusions drawn thereform are the foundation of the acceptance test for fictions. The second chapter deals with the theoretical problems surrounding the fiction. Chiefly, it seeks precisely to define 'legal fiction', a recurrent problem in the literature. A solution, in the form of a two-pronged definition, is proposed, adding an important element to the acceptance test. The third chapter analyses modern-day fictions and recommends retention or abolition for each fiction. In the fourth chapter, the findings hitherto are synthesised into a general acceptance test for fictions. This test, which is the thesis of this work, is presented as a flowchart. It is the author's hope that this project will raise awareness as to the merits and demerits of legal fictions, de-mystify the debate and bring about reform.