In my attempt to characterise the meta-coherence principle, the initial 'same logic, same response' slogan fell flat. I want to try another angle today, talking about logical integrity. Let's start with what I mean by meta-coherence. Frankly, and this is the purpose of these morning free writing sessions, I’m in the process of discovering what I want to say and how. These morning free writing sessions serve as a journey of discovery for me, both in articulating my thoughts and in shaping them.

Meta-coherence, taken literally, is coherence about coherence. Imagine a primary level of logical coherence - the coherence in beliefs, arguments, and theories. This is the focus of my book, "Logic in the Wild," where logic acts as the guardian of coherence. Moving up a notch, to meta-coherence, logic continues its role as a guardian, this time overseeing its own methods in maintaining coherence at the foundational level. This kind of meta-level oversight is familiar territory for logicians, often referred to as the meta-theory.

In the twentieth century, mathematicians (and philosophers) played a pivotal role as guardians of meta-coherence. The meta-theory that logicians employ ensures that logic's role in preserving argumentative coherence is itself upheld by mathematical practices. By anchoring logical theory in a mathematical framework, we provide it with robust foundations, similar to what is done in physics and other sciences, and attempted in economics and social sciences.

However, the pursuit of meta-coherence can lead to weird, paradoxical, and complex scenarios, reminiscent of the epic return of the Apollo 13 shuttle to Earth. Just like the 'mailbox' contraption, a hastily assembled air filtering system that saved the astronauts' lives, these scenarios are fraught with unexpected challenges. The astronauts survived, but the shuttle was never destined to return to space. This story, as narrated in 'Logic in the Wild,' serves as a powerful metaphor for the challenges of transcending coherence to safeguard meta-coherence. It's akin to taking a plane, designed for atmospheric flight, and propelling it to the Moon. The complexity multiplies.

Does meta-coherence inherently demand such complexity? Perhaps that's why I'm tempted towards a simplistic slogan that could gloss over problems and offer practical guidance. But maybe the theoretical climb to meta-coherence isn't the only path. What if we focus on the embodiment of these concepts instead? This could mean exploring how meta-coherence is experienced and applied in real-world contexts, rather than solely in theoretical abstraction.

This leads me to my next conceptual hypothesis: exploring how meta-coherence might be understood as a form of integrity. Specifically, as a disposition to recognise and apply logic uniformly across different contexts. I'm worried about this approach, however, as it risks attributing flaws in logic to personal character. We'll cross that bridge when we get there.