Rejection based on halachic territory

For example, respect for parents. There are two types of rejection:
Logical: Since occupying parents is an expression of respecting the place, therefore when there is no respect for the place, there will be no respect for parents.
Normative: There is respect for parents. But there is also another twist. Now we need to consider which one is better.
 
And you added a third type of rejection: rejection due to considerations of halakhic territory. And you wrote, in the book La'at Mitzvach, page 228, that this is not the same nature as logical rejection, "There is a logical consideration that says that where there is no root, there will be no branch. In contrast, the consideration of halakhic territory is not the result of a logical dependence of the duties on each other, but the result of a consideration of value preference. The duty to honor parents has no priority over the right to self-realization of the son. […] In other words, the duty to honor parents is in the category of 'permission' and not in the category of 'rejected,' but the reason is not logical dependence but a relationship between values."
 
I didn't understand. It seems to me that this is really a kind of logical rejection and not a value preference. When the self-realization of the son conflicts with respect for parents, it is not that both values ​​are valid, but that one of them prevails, but rather the duty to respect parents here does not exist at all because this is not their territory! This is indeed the result of the logical dependence of the duties on each other: the duty to respect parents depends on whether they are in their territory or not.
I disagree with your last sentence. It seems to me that the reason is not a relationship between values, but a logical dependency! Because the value of honoring parents here does not exist at all, since they command something that is not in their territory!
 
I would appreciate clarification, please, on where the rejection of halachic territory stands.