Core Skeleton (v1)

Definition 0 — Appearance / Awareness (A)

Awareness = the fact that anything appears at all. It’s not a substance; it’s the condition under which statements, observations, and theories can occur.

Axiom 1 — Occurrence

Every statement, theory, perception, or proof occurs within awareness (A). There are no “free-floating” claims outside appearance.

Definition 1 — Indication Frame (F)

A frame is a local context that fixes: (i) eligible tokens and their use, (ii) rules of inference/assessment, (iii) an adjudicator (what settles disputes: experiment, proof, convention, coherence), and (iv) scope/boundary.

Axiom 2 — Frame Dependence

Every expression is authenticated within some frame F. Outside a frame, words don’t have settled use.

Definition 2 — Expression & Authentication

An expression lives in the language of a frame, L(F). Authentication is the frame’s verdict: approve / reject / suspend.

Definition 3 — Adjudicator Token (t₍F₎)

A frame’s adjudicator often has a token (e.g., true, provable, heap, paradoxical). It belongs to the level that evaluates expressions of L(F).

Axiom 3 — No Absolute Frame

No frame can legitimately adjudicate all frames “from nowhere.” Cross-frame claims must index their scope.

Definition 4 — Indexing / Meta-frame (F′)

Using an adjudicator about expressions of F from a higher level is indexing (e.g., true@F said in F′).

Axiom 4 — Separation Requirement

Stable evaluation requires a level distinction: the adjudicator token for F is not used as an ordinary token within L(F) unless explicitly re-indexed.

Lemma 1 — Reference Constraint (awareness talk)

Words about awareness can only index aspects the hearer can already re-instantiate. Language can’t import experiences a person has never had; it can only point to them via shared structure.

Sketch: By Axiom 2, meaning needs a frame; by Axiom 1, all frames are within awareness. If a listener lacks the experiential resources that make a token eligible in their frame, indexing fails.

Lemma 2 — No Transparent Self-Adjudication

If an expression in L(F) tries to use the adjudicator token t₍F₎ on itself without indexing a meta-frame, authentication cannot stabilize (it is ineligible or oscillatory).

Sketch: Violates Axiom 4 (level distinction). Either the frame refuses the move (inadmissible) or evaluation cycles.

Theorem 1 — Frame-Flattening Theorem (Paradox)

Apparent paradox arises exactly when an adjudicator token is reused inside its own frame without indexing.
Repair = (i) lift to F′ (stratify), or (ii) retokenize/ban the move (grammar repair).

Sketch: Lemma 2 gives instability; Axiom 4 specifies why (level collapse). Lifting or retokenizing restores separation, so oscillation vanishes.

Corollary 1 — Liar Case (plain) “This sentence is false.” In a classical truth frame, either (a) it’s inadmissible (expression-level repair), or (b) it is true-at-meta as a diagnosis of object-level failure (frame-level repair). No contradiction remains.

Corollary 2 — Sorites (heap) Treating heap as if one crisp rule applied across shifting micro-frames flattens context. Repair by indexing (context/fuzzy) or by dual tokens (everyday-heap vs. technical-HEAP).

Definition 5 — Viability

A stabilization (belief, model, practice) is viable iff it: (i) stays stable under modest noise, (ii) recovers after perturbation, (iii) fits overlaps with neighboring frames (consonance), and (iv) generates further coherent structure.

Axiom 5 — Viability Constraint

What endures in discourse/practice is what is viable under ongoing feedback. Non-viable stabilizations collapse or get confined.

Lemma 3 — Truth as Post-Repair Durability

Relative to an indexed frame, “true” tracks durability under contact after necessary frame repairs (stratification/retokenization) are in place.

Sketch: Apply Axiom 5 inside a properly separated setup (Axiom 4); “true” names the stabilized outcome.

Theorem 2 — No “Absolute Metaphysics” from Inside a Frame

Any claim that legislates an ultimate, frame-independent picture of reality from within a language/frame is a case of frame-flattening. It reduces, on analysis, to either (i) indexed program (declared scope) or (ii) paradox-style collapse.

Sketch: Uses Axiom 3 (no absolute frame) + Theorem 1 (flattening ⇒ paradox). Indexing rescues scope-limited “metaphysics” as program/design, not doctrine.

Corollary 3 — Why Starting from Awareness Isn’t Metaphysics By Axiom 1, every frame already presupposes awareness; by Theorem 2, trying to justify awareness from outside is incoherent. So we start from awareness not as a substance claim, but as minimal bookkeeping about where any saying happens.

Definition 6 — Tokens (private/shared/system)

Tokens = reproducible cues that re-instantiate stabilizations (private habits → shared words → system symbols).

Lemma 4 — Drift

As tokens travel across frames, their operative links shift (semantic drift). Successful systems track the drift (retokenize/index/update rules) rather than deny it.

Theorem 3 — Communication Success Criterion

Communication succeeds when enough of the frame is shared to re-instantiate the intended stabilization; failure indicates frame mismatch, not necessarily bad faith or nonsense.

Theorem 4 — Conceptual Homeostasis

Within awareness, stability of meaning requires ongoing adjustment of frames to preserve coherence under feedback.
Because philosophy’s subject-matter is conceptual structure itself, its proper function is the maintenance of viable conceptual equilibrium — conceptual homeostasis.

Sketch:
From Axiom 5 (viability) and Lemma 3 (truth as durability), stability = feedback-resistant coherence.
Theorem 1 (frame-flattening) shows collapse occurs when distinctions blur; repair restores equilibrium.
Therefore, sustained understanding depends on continuous balancing rather than on fixed foundations.

Corollary — The Task of Philosophy
Philosophy’s goal is not to find immutable truths but to keep the network of meanings viable —
to diagnose breakdowns of coherence and restore balance with minimal distortion.

Theorem 5 — The Pseudo-Problem Principle

Every enduring philosophical “problem” results from frame-flattening—the unacknowledged reuse of adjudicative distinctions across incompatible frames.

Let an expression E₁, valid within frame F₁, be used to judge E₂ within F₂ as though F₁ and F₂ shared a common adjudicator.
Then contradiction or impasse follows.
When the frames are re-differentiated (acknowledging distinct criteria of authentication), the apparent contradiction dissolves.

Corollary — Philosophy as Diagnosis Philosophy’s task is not to resolve such pseudo-problems by further theorizing within a collapsed frame,
but to restore frame differentiation—to show where language has mistaken its own limits for the limits of reality.

Example:

  • Mind–body dualism: “mental” and “physical” are not competing substances but complementary frames of stabilization.
  • The Is–Ought problem: normativity cannot be derived from description because it belongs to a distinct adjudicative frame.
  • Skepticism: asking for a justification of knowledge “from outside knowledge” repeats frame-flattening.