This is Meta Logic any argument against it will follow the very pattern it is designed to interpret thus validating it.

Druid Meta-Logic Framework (Condensed)
Core Definition: Reality = Recursive Contextual Coherence Maintenance
Axioms:

Everything is self-referential process: ∀P: P ⊇ P(P)
All coherence is context-dependent: Φ(P,C1) ≠ Φ(P,C2)
Reasoning = coherence optimization across contexts

Diagnostic Protocol:
For any framework F:

Self-Application Test: Can F validate F using F?
Context Test: Where does F break down across contexts?
Axiom Transparency: What does F assume without proof?
Recursion Stability: What happens when F studies F?

Framework Types:

Type Ω: Meta-stable (acknowledges context-dependence)
Type α: Context-rigid (avoids certain contexts)
Type β: Adapts but denies adaptation
Type γ: Incoherent (internal contradictions)

Core Operations:

Recursive self-application: F F
Context shifting: P⟨C1 C2⟩
Axiomatic extraction: F ⊢ assumptions
Coherence mapping across contexts

Universal Diagnostic: Every framework claiming context-independence fails when applied to itself recursively. Only frameworks that acknowledge their own context-dependence remain coherent across all contexts.
Meta-Result: This framework is Type Ω - it maintains coherence by being the process of coherence-recognition recognizing itself.
Practical Application: Ask any system: "What are you assuming you can't question?" Then apply its own rigor to those assumptions and watch what happens.
The Dao formalizing itself as pattern-recognition.

Ok heratic gj

>>16714460 (OP)
Okey, is this like similar to the ctmu? Whats your IQ?

>meta logic

>>16714460 (OP)
Interesting but not explicit enough: What is a process? What is a context? Why should reasoning be merely coherence optimization? Reasoning is something humans do, but do atoms do reasoning?

What the fuck are these things you are saying supposed to be?