29
dilemma must be accepted as true for each to be taken seriously. Only then will one embrace
both lines of evidence. Gradually, the evidence causes the metasystemic mind to develop mental
structures that permit the cognitive dissonance created by formal logic to give way to a
metasystemic "resolution," in which both members of the pair of concurrence are accepted and
"given a place" within one's belief system. As each perspective is elaborated, a "region of
discourse" or "local logic" may develop within which a coherent understanding is formed that
conforms to its body of evidence, without necessarily resolving how these different "regions"
logically relate to each other (at least for now).
However, another constructive option is also available. Upon recognizing the paradox,
one can pursue a formal logical solution to the apparent contradiction (as logicians and thinkers
continue to do in many fields, e.g. physicists who try to harmonize the wave/particle dual nature
of light or Christian philosophers who seek to demonstrate the logical consistency of the trinity
or the incarnation using formal calculus). This task involves documenting the logical links
between the two different regions of discourse.
Harmonizing the LONC and Metasystemic Thought Through Reason
Obviously, the initial metasystemic move is risky, for the LONC is essential for
understanding. But in some very important cases, a hasty application of the LONC may
automatically rule out certain sectors of evidence. Part of reasoning skill, then, involves being
able to identify those intellectual contexts/topics that require metasystemic thought: when the
evidence demands it, and so, where reason decides on the basis of rational considerations that it
is warranted. Therefore, a more mature reason uses both formal logic (including the LONC) and
metasystemic reasoning.
91
This more mature reason, trained through learning about complex