Logical consistency (and
even logical inconsistency) seem rather to be always grounded in a field of meanings and of meaning - relationships,
Not exact matches
Incoherence and coherence are here clearly distinguished in concept from the contradictoriness or freedom from it which belong to
logical inconsistency and consistency,
even though an essential relationship of mutual conditionality governs both senses.
The appearance given by such amusing, blatant
logical inconsistency is that you haven't
even decided on your narrative yet; you seem to be making it up as you go along.
Of course there is room for disagreement but it is possible to step outside the boundaries of what can be substantiated, and it is possible to get known facts wrong (
even if about opinions or fuzzy knowledge, one can get facts about those things wrong or ignore salient facts; one can also run into
logical inconsistencies where at least one part must be wrong), and it is possible to refuse to correct one's self over and over.)