Well it could go like this:
You claim there are some formal systems that are rich and consistent; and others that are not.
Those that are; might be found to be self-referent through and through; transparently constructed in pure consciousness.
Math numbering: while it looks like Zeno's Arrow; note even Zeno's Arrow scenario appears self-referent through and through.
Those formal systems that fail; may be lacking internal transparency; may contain fatal ambiguity; allowing self-anihilation of the building blocks as clashes occur?
When you play "musical chairs" (juggle patterns) and "join the dots" (link patterns together) you need to "know the difference" between juggling and linking. Or you get muddlement and potential double-booking (inconsistency)...................
Quote: "As I showed in terms of Euclid's fifth postulate, it is entirely possible to take two 'opposing' postulates and build rich and consistent formal systems from each."
If that is so; that seems likely due to a looseness in definition of the postulate that allows more than one story to be written.
Quote: "Reality is what/ who exists.
This just isn't an argument. You have to do better than this."
It is a definition consistent with English usage.
Example of two formal systems with opposing postulates:
One: A car turns left at an intersection.
Two: a car turns right at an intersection.
Of course you can build rich movie plots from each option.