This non-classical logic statement can be applied across different domains. Apart from its application in logic, it is also a part of Buddhism. I find it to be of great value in philosophy and psychology as well. Especially when we hit antinomies.
It still doesn’t supply you with a definitive answer, it might feel like a dirty or cheap trick, it might feel like it could be applied anywhere and solve everything without the actual effort. But the key is to meditate on the paradoxical answers it does produce, and to understand that, epistemologically, you can never get an answer to the particular paradox/antinomy, or even if you could, after endless analytical calculations, the non-dual answer would still make more sense.
Take psychological issues as an example: when you try to assess if something is worth it or not. Analyzing such situations more and more leads to bigger problems most of the time. Such inquiries cannot be solved by over-analyzing. The key is to understand that using your current mental tools, context, and situation, you won’t be able to give a definitive answer. So it might be better for the issue/riddle/antinomy to resolve here and now, unfinished, as it is. And for the dilemma to be left as a nice shining gem of discovery, instead of fighting against the current. Maybe some of the answers that we are seeking lie in these boundaries.
However, we must keep in mind that in many cases we might need to sharpen our tools of logic and scientific understanding to go beyond the antinomies, instead of relying on paradoxical answers. The paradoxes that are important are of a different nature, orthogonal to logic and science. They have to do more with experiential qualities.