Maybe Logic basically holds that there exists more than a simple IS/IS NOT duality in reality and it attempts to provide a model reflecting such.
Maybe Logic is built on several different points.
First, the concept that 'reality' experienced by an individual human is made up of translated data... signals, picked up by the neurological system and translated into symbols which make sense to us.
Second, that our neurological systems sometimes do a bang up job of translating and sometimes do a fuck all job of translating.
Third, that the human attached to said neurological system may not be able to distinguish between the "bang up" job and the "fuck all" job.
Fourth, that since we can only trust our neurological system about as far as we can throw it, and since this neurological system is the only piece of equipment available to measure reality with... maybe we should be a bit less sure about the data we are collecting.
There's more, but I think that gets the general idea across.
Thus, two-valued logic systems hold IS/IS Not, True/False, P or Not P, etc.
Maybe Logic on the other had provides for True, False and Maybe/Don't Know.
Maybe Logic is closely associated with Model Agnosticism, agnostic as to the model being used... or as RAW stated "Encouraging people to be agnostic about Everything, not just God or Dinosaurs". This isn't to be confused with the post-modern "We create our own Reality", rather it states that we create our own internal model of reality... and as humans it sometimes appears that we aren't the best model makers. Our models could be (and probably are in at least some sense) wrong.
I find, personally, that model agnosticism and maybe logic appear to me as far more brutally honest than the more popular forms of philosophical thought.
"The only thing I believe is that the Universe is far more complex than I will ever understand." - Robert Anton Wilson, Maybe Logic