You're being disingenous. You are not really breaking the law of non-contradiction. At first I thought you at least had redefined the "not" or "and" operators, but you merely wrote a function which alternates between True and False with each invocation, using global state. You've written "true ^ !false == true", which of course violates no law. Hence: trickery. You're not expressing anything novel.

This can be done trivially in Haskell making the global param explicit, and I'm sure with some trickery like the State monad you can even hide this. Maybe the syntax will be less neat, but this is a good thing: "hiding" things like side effects is bad.

The expression problem relates to your assertion about adding getters/setters, and judging by your reply it seems you didn't understand this...

So you're dismissing Alan Kay with no good reason. Furthermore, getters/setters have nothing to do with either extensibility or expressiveness. Why should I pay attention to your opinion?