None of these contribute to the thesis that one should take as their way of understanding reality a schema that starts in contradiction.

I'm not sure where I suggested that, "One should take as their way of understanding reality a schema that starts in contradiction." What I actually said was, "a logical inconsistency doesn’t necessarily mean that a perspective should be dismissed."

This post asked "How do I tell whether a social theory concept is 'good' or not," and suggested that internal consistency was a good metric to use. I countered that there are cases where an idea may be worthy of consideration, even if it appears to contain a logical contradiction. You seem to have interpreted that as saying something like, abandon all logic and process everything through a lens of nonsense. It's a rather bizarre interpretation of my position. I'm saying, you shouldn't throw something away just because it's covered in mud because maybe you'll find something valuable beneath the mud, and you're interpreting it as if I said, "mud is valuable."

indicating substantial further work that needs to be done to produce a theory that does not create this contradiction. It is literally an example of what I am saying, that contradiction between basic principles is a demerit rather than indifferent.

I have no idea how you think that two principles creating a contradiction yet still having value is anything but the exact point that I'm making. Unless, again, you're taking my position to be "mud is valuable" as opposed to "mud can be washed off." Doing "substantial further work to produce a theory that does not create this contradiction" is exactly what I'm saying, as opposed to outright dismissing anything that creates a contradiction - washing the mud off instead of throwing the whole thing away.