All apparent logical contradictions between contextually valid statements are resolved in motion.
I’ve never read Logico-Tractatus Philosophicus, but I’ve always liked the geometric conceit of it. I’ve also of course spoken of my fondness for Descartes and Spinoza’s use of the concept of geometric proof. I’m slowly working my way there. I think this would be worth including.
I will add, that we need not “pass over in silence” (schweigen) such statements. They are arrows. We need to look at where they are pointing, the “that”. The “moon” is not the moon, but that doesn’t mean there is not a bright orb that brightens the sky on a regular basis. The only difference is in the materiality of the perceptual domain.
Confused? Ah, my work here is done.