The idea here is familiar, and it comes form Derrida. Ideas are a field of possibilities that has no center, and therefore considered by themselves and their conjunctive possibilities apart form the binding force of context, meaning becomes arbitrary, as arbitrary as the signifier, the phoneme, the "noise" associated with the concept, which Saussure, the structuralist, identified as such.Eodnhoj7
All propositions have binary meanings, thus one statement is interpreted according to the angle it is observed. This angle of awareness is progressive in nature. One word or symbol is given a proceeding value placement as a general that proceeds to a particular or particular that proceeds to a general.
These binary meanings are determined by the direction in which the statement is taken.
1. No-thing exists.
A. "No-thing" is an degree of existence as "existence" is a statement of negation.
B. Existence is negated as a thing.
2. The car is blue.
A. The car is a color.
B. Color is an object.
No statement can be interpreted the same way as each statement is determined by a subjective value placement. One sentence can have 2 or more meanings to 2 or more people.
The thing that rankles so many about Derrida (whom I am trying read these days. Reading about him is much easier than reading him, his Grammatology!) is he unglues language from the world. I am also reading Simon Critchley's Deconstruction and Pragmatism. The thinking I am coming away with from all this and others (see Rorty, e.g.) is that language takes one nowhere near some understanding ot the mysterious "presence" of the world and its things. In fact, such an idea is reduced to mere folly. As Rorty out it, I know no more about any thing in the world than a car fender "knows" about the offending guardrail.
Lots to say, but the real question lies in where this leaves us, confronting what can only be, though this too is problematic, pure metaphysics in all we see and hear. It's as if Derrida brought Kant's noumena into empirical reality: not what it is when perceptual systems are removed, but when they are present, perceiving the world right before your eyes; it's all one miraculous whole of metaphysics (metaphysics in a very specific sense! See Levinas. Difficult to read, as is Rosensweig's Star of Redemption, which I am slogging through. So worthy, though).
So to me, this you are doing is deconstruction: looking to the logical relations that are unsaid in the idea that make the idea "unstable". All ideas are like this.
BTW, if you are at all disposed to read something along these lines and care to talk about it, I am an open listener.