Against Logical Consistency

Should I be concerned if someone points out a logical quibble with my statements? Or should I spend inordinate amounts of time establishing the internal coherence of every one of my propositions? It seems to me that if my statements are arising as genuine interpretations of my experience, these issues should not be first and foremost in my mind.

Let's say that I explain to you that I have seen a table which was completely red and completely blue. You, being the logician, simply tell me that I am speaking nonsense and dismiss my claim. Technically, you are correct; but who cares? Assuming that I am not merely making something up, I have expressed reality more meaningfully in my contradictory statement than you in your criticism. Granted, my statement may not be the most felicitous one. I may want to seek a better explanation, both to better understand my own experience (interpretations can always be improved) and to better communicate it to others; perhaps the table is purple, and so a mix of the colors. But it is both a logical contradiction and meaningful.

There may even be instances in which may statement is better than a coherent statement. Perhaps the table is simply covered in so much blue and so much red in such intricate patterns that they seem to completely interpenetrate, though nothing contradictory has happened. My expression that the table is completely blue and completely red better expresses the wonder and amazement at the phenomenon, and better communicates some of its phenomenology, than would the perfectly logical statement which lists the table's attributes.

Mystical experience would seem to be placed in a similar position; if you haven't had the experience, your logical quibbles are almost worthless. Maybe the mystic would be a better communicator bf being more precise and analytical, but she thought that being paradoxical was a perfectly good way of expressing her experience. Start from this point, and try to figure what she is expressing. No one who cares about truth will start from the logical transgression.

It might even be that language has a purely practical function, as a pointer to reality, and that logical consistency is more or less worthless. "But what you are saying is supposed to be true, and so therefore is not false. Otherwise, I couldn't understand what you are saying." What I'm saying isn't meant to be understood; it is meant to be used. Look, and stop analyzing. "But if you contradict the law of non-contradiction, then you affirm it." Only if you have initially presupposed it; I am rising above the dichotomy (which therefore means also using it at times), not taking the other side. I do not agree with the idea that the law must either always hold or never; I must look at the content in any given proclamation, at any given use of a sentence (and not the sentence itself!), and determine what to do from there. Yet again, look at where my words point, and shut up about the words themselves.