meta-definition

Feels like you're starting to argue in bad faith with the only purpose of rejecting the concept of "meta" as it's being presented.

If you'd like, you can think of "meta" as short for "meta-strategy", with the distinction between "meta-strategy" and "strategy" as similar to the distinction to "meta-physics" and "physics". People who claim that "meta-physics" is just "physics" would probably be regarded as "pedants".

Meta is the set of viable strategies GIVEN the strategies that your competitors commonly employ.

Here's a concrete example:

Soccer fundamentals: passing, dribbling, etc.

Soccer strategies: formation, player roles, etc.

Soccer meta: viable formations, player roles, etc.

No one is out there playing a 8-2-1 formation because it's not a viable strategy, i.e. it's not part of the current meta. The current meta in soccer is largely 4-4-2 and 4-4-3.

3 in the back is relatively rare, because it's weak to the player roles that we currently see being employed by competitors. It's not part of the meta because it's a weak strategy against the currently common strategies in the meta.