u/Difficult_Cow9414

“On the Despisers of the Body” from Thus Spoke Zarathustra is great for this purpose. It’s all about the body as the great reason.

What else?

Map each infinitely divided moment of time onto the uncountably infinite list of real numbers between 0 and 2. Each of the infinite moments in time is assigned a random unique irrational number.

I have a ball. For every instance of time where the irrational number that represents that instance is greater than 1, every particle in the ball exists in my house with such a quality that the resulting ball sits on my table. For each instance where the representative is less than one, every particle of the ball exists in such a quality that the resulting ball is having been thrown in the street.

In each infinitely divided instance of time, every particle is in one place or the other. Over a period of perhaps 10 seconds, each moment is 50/50 in the house or not in the house. But we cannot discern time at an infinitely divided size--I should like to see someone posit a mind that can. For us, the ball is both in the house and not in the house, during that stretch of time. What's more, this belief is true. A=B & A=~B, when the situation is addressed in time.

What's even more, if you understood the above system and held this contradiction in belief, then you wouldn't even be averse to it in the expressivist sense. You could self-reflect, conclude that A=B & A=~B, and avoid saying "ew to believing a contradiction" in the way that one might say "ew to [ew to killing & ~[ew to killing simon blackburn]]," to use the contemporary example.

In most other cases this is pretty obvious, except that usually we can parse it to be more useful. Perhaps the ball was inside today and on the street yesterday: over the past 2 day, the ball was in the house and not in the house. This makes sense, so long as we assume that sometimes it was in the house and sometimes it wasn't. But the above theory suggests that this sentiment continues past the realm of discernible timeframe, and thus that, in human contexts at the very least, the law of noncontradiction is more of an empirical suggestion than a hard and fast rule. This notion becomes more and more obvious as the time frame is expanded. Smaller moments follow more simple rules, but in terms of the life we live, there are no built-in laws about a thing both having a quality and not having a quality.