Hermeneutic systems and their elements

OK the problem "the God paradox" occur when we try to found the elements of our universal upon themselves. What we have in fact is a hermeeutic circle where the collection of elements taken as a whole defines the world in which we can justify - as consistent - our elements. God is both the elements of our word and the collection of our world. You cannot reduce to the elements and throw away the aggregates and you cannot take the whole and ignore the elements that come together to make that whole.

Democritus and Paremenides I understand put forward 2 hypotheses in ancient Greece... that the world was built up from atoms in the first ase and that the world was divided down from the universal. They are both parts of the hermeneutic circle. The whole system and its parts must be taken together as a dialectic.

In the system T = {T} we have an interesting system where the aggregate {T} is also the only element. This is the simplest hermeneutic system.

I am undecided whether it is to be shown that you cannot create such a system and it be hermeneutically part of another system, or to how that such a system is internally consistent.

In 1994 I had a thesis called "harmonic structuralism". The idea was that given competing systems, the system with the least contradictions and conflicts that was the largest also (i.e. the system which accounted for the most harmony) was the ethically better system. So while the Nazi system may have been internally consistent to some existent it had a huge fracture in it that maybe the democratic system does not.