Concept-Expression-Reference

The Concept-Expression-Reference framework defines the minimal conditions for operational observability and systemic viability. It is a relational model in which each element (concept, expression and reference) plays a distinct but interdependent role. A concept provides the organizational structure for distinguishing and stabilizing observations. An expression makes the concept observable and communicable within cognitive, social, technical or formal systems. A reference directs the expression toward something beyond itself, ensuring that the concept has operational relevance within the system of observation.

The three elements cannot be understood in isolation. Every expression carries a reference and manifests a concept, while every concept requires at least one expression and reference to become operationally accessible. Likewise, reference exists only insofar as it mediates between expression and concept. This interdependence forms a triadic structure: each corner is necessary for the stability and usability of the others and the relational configuration is what enables observation, communication and operation to be meaningful and coherent.

Multiple expressions may realize the same concept and a single expression may carry multiple references depending on contextual embedding. Likewise, concepts can participate in numerous reference-expression pairings, producing a network of operationally viable relations. The framework is thus modular and dynamic, allowing systems to evolve while maintaining operational coherence.

By explicitly separating concept, expression and reference, the model clarifies that operational observability does not depend on pre-existing reality or inherent meaning. Instead, what is observable emerges from the relations among the three elements, which together constitute the minimal structure for constructivist cognition, communication and systemic interaction. This perspective aligns with radical constructivist principles, as articulated by Ernst von Glasersfeld and others, emphasizing that knowledge and observation are the result of viable constructions within an observer-dependent system rather than direct reflections of an independent reality.

Constrasting Realism

The Concept–Expression–Reference framework explicitly rejects the assumptions of realism. Unlike realist perspectives, it does not posit that concepts correspond to pre-existing, objective entities in the world. Observation is not treated as a transparent window onto reality; rather, it is always mediated through operational distinctions, expressions and reference. Concepts are not discovered in the world, but constructed and stabilized through repeated engagement in operational systems. Expressions do not reveal intrinsic properties, and references do not point to absolute entities. They function only within the relational and operational context of observation.

Realism assumes that meaning, truth, or correspondence exists independently of observers and their operations. In contrast, within this framework, these features emerge only through interaction between concept, expression and reference. Even so-called “objective facts” are treated as operationally viable constructs that gain relevance through observation and system interaction. This makes the framework compatible with radical and relational constructivism while avoiding solipsism: it recognizes the necessity of observable objects and interactions without requiring them to possess independent, pre-determined meaning.

In sum, the framework demonstrates that what realism presupposes as intrinsic properties of the world, fixed meaning, observable objects and inherent truth, is, from a constructivist standpoint, the result of operationally viable relations among concepts, expressions, and references.