The confusion arises because of language
"A is A" is an assumption that's made intrinsically when using language.
Language involves making distinctions in order to communicate to others
1. Language involves making distinctions
. If you are not making distinctions when using language, why are you speaking? Even if you say, "I agree," that, too, is a distinction. Because you are saying, "I am a person who agrees with you (which is distinguished
from those who may disagree with you)". If the listener already understands what you know, what is the function of language?
2. Language involves the assumption of self & other
. If you do not make this assumption, what is the function of language? If there is no such self\other distinction, when speaking this means either you are talking to yourself, somebody else is talking to themselves, or you are talking to nobody, or there is no communication going on at all because there are no selves and others to communicate.
3. Language involves the assumption that things endure for a given interval.
Specifically, the use of terms involves the assumption that these terms reflect things which endure. Otherwise, if everything is "total flux," as one person put it, what is the function of terms? Why are terms even being used if they don't reflect independently enduring realities?
This is the nature of language
; it is not necessarily the nature of reality
. It may be true in reality that the highest knowledge that can be attained through language is false, or at least not as true as the highest knowledge that can be attained by other means. And this is not something that can be understood only through using
language, because language is only capable of clarifying the logical relationships between pre-existing definitions. It does nothing to establish the validity of given terms and phrases, or the validity of their stated relationships.
Therefore, it may be true that in reality the most logical distinctions are actually false ones, and therefore: no self\other, universal impermanence, "total flux", etc.. These things can be extraordinarily intuitive, useful, and powerful objects of truth in the mind. But when it's put into words, it sounds like bad philosophy. But it's something we discover from right concentration and right mindfulness.
This is how the apparently exclusive frameworks of paramatha dhammas and "total flux" fit together. The paramatha dhammas are the clearest way of expressing ultimate knowledge (rationally) conventionally, while flux is an irrational term because it contradicts the law of identity and the paramatha-dhammas too, but being irrational doesn't make it wrong, as it is actually more
reflective of ultimate reality than the so-called paramatha-dhammas. But to call flux "paramatha," would render the entire expression inconsistent and would therefore not be conducive to others' liberation. It would not be conducive to others' liberation, because they would simply say, "That's bad philosophy," unless they have Mahayana-like minds, in which case it seems it could be useful.