In Beacon of Certainty (tr. Pettit), Mipham Rinpoche addresses key questions about how to practice based on Madhyamaka philosophy. The first question has to do with distinguishing absolute negation from implicative negation.
An affirming negative (or “implicative negation”) “expresses the absence of one predicate while implying some other.” (Pettit 109)
In short, this is not a good way to conceive how appearances are empty of any true and inherent existence: because the implied object has to somehow stand apart and have some kind of inherent existence that is immune from further analysis.
A non-affirming negative (or “absolute negation”) “simply excludes something, without implying anything else.” (Pettit 109)
This is a much more fruitful stance because it does not hold some kind of appearance as standing separate from emptiness; and therefore it can serve as a conceptual segue to meditative experience of the coalescence of emptiness and appearance.
I think this distinction is a very powerful tool in overcoming the tendency to take appearances as concrete realities that somehow have emptiness within them; and to understand how appearance and emptiness coalesce. Is there a similar distinction within Theravadin buddhism? It seems like this would be a useful distinction when exploring the 3 Dharma seals, particularly that of not-self (sabbe dhammā anattā). But I've never encountered such an analysis when reading in the Pali Canon or Theravadin commentaries.