Mr. Laymen

Thank you for the link, it was a good read. Especially the modal and negative squares parts. But ultimately it describes that it's uncertain if there are valid exceptions to the rules or not. In section 5 it discusses the Buddhist interpretation as being aligned with the "squares", intentionally to express something not of reality, intentionally. The only reasoning to reject this stance was described as determination. So the concept of, "no true contradictions except for...(variable)" is still on the table it seems. So I wouldn't jump to saying contradiction is a deal breaker without understanding the variables involved better. Would that be illogical still? I very likely have misinterpreted or failed to understand some things. I also feel like this is off topic and don't want to derail. I think I'll start a new thread on this topic, or look for an existing one. But not right now... I gotta run.

Why is a contradiction a deal breaker, are there no explainable contradictions observed to still be logically sound, for reasonable comparison? Sorry, if its a dumb question, or too off topic.