Rabbi Epicurean

The question is also whether there is a distinction between halakha and meta-halakha.

This is an interesting question in my opinion.
If someone accepts the rulings of the Maimonides, can he therefore accept the second-order authority of a rabbi who is an apocryphal scholar for the Maimonides' definition?
It seems to me that it is possible. After all, it is in principle permissible to act like a rabbi and like a rabbi, so it is probably possible to accept a qualified authority.
So, if you decide that a certain rabbi-apocryphal scholar is right about this or that, accept only that from him, and do not hate words of "heresy" or halakha, accept the truth from the one who said it.

In my opinion, it's really not interesting. If you decide what makes sense and what to accept (and in my opinion, this is what should always be done, if you are the most bard), then you are the rabbi, not him. And that's the inside of the rabbi's shell. In any case, there is no question of what is forbidden and what is permitted here.

Isn't it a shame that one person acts like a voice and another like a voice without understanding the rulings? Isn't it a matter of substance, and it's easy when one decides to take a ruling from here and a ruling from there in an informed manner?

I didn't understand the question. A bar is not someone who makes decisions without understanding the halacha. Regardless of the kola or the humara. Even if he acts according to the humara of this and that.