In the human perspective, ie, with words, reality is fundamentally not one, but two alternatives. It means that reality can’t be described both consistently and unambiguously.
If we acknowledge this fact (and thus also the two alternatives), then we’re ambiguous, whereas if we don’t acknowledge it, but instead confuse the two alternatives into one, then we’re paradoxically contradictory, because the alternatives are thus different and both are correct.
So, what’s the difference between acknowledging and not acknowledging this fact? Well, the theoretical difference is that acknowledging it is consistent, whereas not acknowledging it is inconsistent, but a practical difference only emerges if we also assume that that there is single truth to be found, ie, do practically not acknowledge the fact, in that acknowledging the fact will end in an ambiguity, whereas not acknowledging it will end in a paradox. The two alternative approaches to this fact are then just contradictory in two alternative ways, since the fact means that there isn’t any single truth to be found.
In summary, this reasoning boils down to the conclusion that reasoning can’t reach a consistent and unambiguous conclusion, except the conclusion that reasoning can’t reach a consistent and unambiguous conclusion.