Within the depth-psychology and somatic-clinical corpus, ‘Core’ operates across at least three distinct but interrelated registers. In Ogden’s sensorimotor framework, the term denotes the deep intrinsic musculature of the spine, pelvis, and abdomen — the physical substrate of psychological stability, self-regulation, and the capacity for interpersonal connection. A strong, mobile core supports the organized expression of impulse outward toward the periphery; a weak or rigid core produces compensatory surface tension and truncated action, correlating directly with beliefs of isolation, inexpressibility, and danger. The core-periphery axis thus becomes a somatic grammar of trauma and recovery. In Damasio’s neurobiological framework, ‘core’ names the most elementary stratum of consciousness — core consciousness — a momentary, here-and-now pulse of self-knowing that precedes and underlies all extended autobiographical awareness. For Heller and the NeuroAffective Relational Model, ‘core needs’ designates the biologically grounded developmental requirements whose frustration generates adaptive survival styles. In Scott’s DBT context, ‘Core Mindfulness’ is a foundational module anchoring all other skill acquisition. Across all registers, the term carries a common valence: that which is most foundational, most interior, and most generative — the condition of possibility for peripheral, relational, or extended function. The tension between somatic and neurological deployments of the term is productive rather than contradictory, and merits careful comparative attention.