Sorry for the short reply. First of all, certain things should not be discussed here, for many reasons. (In fact, I had to re-write my response, and, sorry, but much of the substantive I judged not to be discussed here.)

Among those reasons, that if you want to use Dirac as a manual for cooking, that may be even intellectually interesting, but if you want to use texts made with those other specific aims as the guidelines for a theory of logic, you are contributing in vilifying that content. ("The Personality was appointed to the Office of Critical Responsibilities, she wore organza mauve".) You already had paraconsistency, fuzzy logic, all of contemporary studies: no need to create confusion in something that is already confused, and "does not need" (as they say) further mess.

And if you treat one's statements as meant for syntactical analysis, you will not understand them. You have to read them with intelligence. It's call 'intelligence' (intus legere) because it gets much deeper: you have to pass the input through "the black box inside", and if you need to clarify the responses, still intelligence is needed. Syntactical analysis is just a tool.

<Intermission>

> Now, your statement does not assert the opposite or rule it out, I suspect it is likely a consequence of

Yes, it is perfectly normal that "A whitens B and A blackens B": it happens because terms are semantically loose.

> third parties reading conversations such as this may have their perception of reality distorted by not realizing such things

Misunderstanding may be descriptively normal, it is not deontically "normal". They should be educated, and they should know that participating in communication they are to understand it, not "live it like a bohemian". They are pretty much expected «[to] realiz[e] such things».

> A third party might read that sentence and form the conclusion

The third party is pretty much required to understand what was written vis-a-vis what was written.

</Intermission>

Now: if the original poster states that something that means that "beliefs hinder other beliefs", that may be correct, and is correct (it is immediately evident in the rough form of the idea and explored academically in the Belief Change Theory), but it cannot be applied to what is not a belief system. Of course. That excludes riding a bicycle, and many other context - those which are not belief systems.

> false dichotomy

You have not understood what I wrote: you are trying to read it with the wrong lenses. Is it possible that instead of "thinking outside the box" you have "created a new box inside the other box"? There is no mystery in what I wrote, it was plain and direct: if you want to understand, read without prejudice.

The first stanza are the first four lines of what you wrote in the 'code' form. Mental poison is the assumption of beliefs which are toxic in term of content or in term of function.

If I have reticence in making all terms explicit, it is that I really find it inappropriate to treat as an object something that should be respected.

And, if you read the text you proposed with similar analysis, let's say, instead of ___synthesis___ - the opposite -, do you think you could really understand it? Was that text conceived for analysis or for understanding? What was the intention of the author? What is superior, the intention of the author or a mental framework?

Now: you seem to have a keen interest in logic, and also in its psychological sides. If you also like a mathematical consideration, I suggest that you take a degree in that area: you will find the contemporary debate very interesting and also productive. Also, before incomodating Dirac for writing about cooking, consider first if Dirac would approve it.