Our discussion on reality is fundamentally ambiguous due to the simple fact that every class contains other classes. This ambiguity means that we can only be either ambiguous (ie, keeping classes and their subclasses consistently apart), called “nominalism”, or contradictory (ie, conflating some class with its subclasses), called “realism”, in our discussion on reality. We can thus only be ambiguous (ie, nominalism) or contradictory (ie, realism) in our discussion on reality.
If we choose to be contradictory (ie, realism), like cladists and particle physicists do, then we have to acknowledge contradiction as a reality, like The Tree of Life and Higgs particle, respectively, although contradictions are logically false. This may be tempting, especially for a theorist, since also contradictions are “true” in a theoretical sense, ie, that also contradictions “exist”, but the practical problem with this acknowledgement is that it collapses everything into an indefinite orthogonal loop wherein everything is contradictory. Acknowledging contradiction makes everything contradictory. This acknowledgement is actually an attempt to deconceptualize what we conceptualize, but fails by only considering similarity, not difference, and is instead doomed to rotate forever among contradictory words. If it should also consider difference, then it would be empty as an approach that only acknowledges tautologies.
There are no other possibilities in our discussion on reality. We can only be 1. consistent and thus ambiguous, or 2. inconsistent and either 2.a exclusive (ie, excluding diffence) or 2.b inclusive (ie, including difference). These are the only three ways we can play with words. Behind this play is the untouchable reality.