Unfortunately, not all constructivists or dialetheists (as proponents of paraconsistent logic are called) would agree with my viewpoint entirely.
I cannot form any idea of what your viewpoint is, although I’m familiar with most of the logical topics you referenced. You always stop short of stating it, all the way up to the last sentence of the last footnote.
More generally, and this is addressed to everyone writing on a complex subject to an audience of diverse and unknown backgrounds, try writing your material backwards. Start at the end, the conclusion, and work back from that to the reasons for the conclusion, and the reasons for the reasons, and so on. Stop before you think you should and continue clarification in the comments as the need is revealed by the questions.
I cannot form any idea of what your viewpoint is, although I’m familiar with most of the logical topics you referenced. You always stop short of stating it, all the way up to the last sentence of the last footnote.
More generally, and this is addressed to everyone writing on a complex subject to an audience of diverse and unknown backgrounds, try writing your material backwards. Start at the end, the conclusion, and work back from that to the reasons for the conclusion, and the reasons for the reasons, and so on. Stop before you think you should and continue clarification in the comments as the need is revealed by the questions.
I’ve added an addendum that I hope will make things clearer.