You might fruitfully use a distinction between paradox and contradiction. In a paradox (like the Tao sign), opposites viably co-exist and complement each other. I call paradoxical thinking dialectical. Dialectical thinking is sensitivity to the sense in which a sentence may be true in one sense, false in another. A contradiction, on the other hand, is self-defeating, nonsensical, absurd. Contradictions often result from rigidly dualistic, either/or thinking. Dialectical thinking is more flexible (as required in quantum physics, for example). For me, there is no authentic understanding of Buddhism without dialectic (as a necessary upaya). Here's my most famous (or infamous!) dialectical assertion (which, I feel, captures the inherent flavor of Buddhism) .... "Unity has primacy over separateness, but diversity is the spice of life."
Thanks for your stimulating thoughts. Meanwhile .... 1) Bertrand Russell is not the best interpreter of Western philosophy, as his remarks are permeated with his empiricist bias. 2) Have you heard of Lilayana? I just came across the term. I like the term, but am not familiar with its philosophy gist. 3) I believe that most of what Buddhism points to is better expressed by Seth in SETH SPEAKS ("by" Jane Roberts), and is more vividly conveyed in the (tantric) Toltec shamanism of the Carlos Castaneda books. 4) You might find my introductory essay on Buddhism modestly edifying. Here's the link ... https://www.politicalanimalmagazine.com/2016/04/21/buddhas-political-philosophy/
You might fruitfully use a distinction between paradox and contradiction. In a paradox (like the Tao sign), opposites viably co-exist and complement each other. I call paradoxical thinking dialectical. Dialectical thinking is sensitivity to the sense in which a sentence may be true in one sense, false in another. A contradiction, on the other hand, is self-defeating, nonsensical, absurd. Contradictions often result from rigidly dualistic, either/or thinking. Dialectical thinking is more flexible (as required in quantum physics, for example). For me, there is no authentic understanding of Buddhism without dialectic (as a necessary upaya). Here's my most famous (or infamous!) dialectical assertion (which, I feel, captures the inherent flavor of Buddhism) .... "Unity has primacy over separateness, but diversity is the spice of life."
Thanks for your stimulating thoughts. Meanwhile .... 1) Bertrand Russell is not the best interpreter of Western philosophy, as his remarks are permeated with his empiricist bias. 2) Have you heard of Lilayana? I just came across the term. I like the term, but am not familiar with its philosophy gist. 3) I believe that most of what Buddhism points to is better expressed by Seth in SETH SPEAKS ("by" Jane Roberts), and is more vividly conveyed in the (tantric) Toltec shamanism of the Carlos Castaneda books. 4) You might find my introductory essay on Buddhism modestly edifying. Here's the link ... https://www.politicalanimalmagazine.com/2016/04/21/buddhas-political-philosophy/