Start of Self-reference proof?

The hypothesis is that

No statement can be made whose locus of reference includes itself

It is a very powerful tool in argument and serves to puncture any statements that claim to encompass a "whole". All statements are thus to be understood as dialectical in nature and exist in opposition to others. This is also why notions of an "Absolute", "God", "Buddha" or "Noumenon", "Self" cannot be expressed because such expression would entail self-inclusion.

The only exception that I am aware of is this, "All rules have exceptions". This is unique because it allows for its own exception and so remains true for all rules!

The latest approach to prove this starts as follows:

Suppose we have a system with 4 states. It can occupy only these states. Analogously in logic there is a grammar which determines the form of wff.

This system may be so designed as to express a "null" state, or default state, or reference state, for example in electronics we set "ground" in maths there is the "0" in set theory the "{}" null set etc.

Any value is state "of" the system.

Now construct a meta system, a system whose states refer not to the elements in other systems, but to other systems themselves. Thus we may have a system whose elements are all the possible 4 state systems (the example above being one).

Now there is a difference between a system being at "null" and that system not existing. It may be a null and still can be referenced in the meta system, but if it doesn't exist then it can't be referenced in the meta system.

Consider hearing. Silence is an essential part of hearing. But if we are deaf then not hearing anything has no "suprisal" value, there is no information in not hearing anything, it is no longer silence. Silence has no meaning because the meta-system doesn't include the system of sound.

This is the classic distinction between being/not-being and nothingness. Not-being and nothingness are different.

But there is not just one level at which this happens. Consider music as a system within sound. In music silence is essential notated as rests. In C20th music which is often quite precussive it is as important as sound. But one would not describe the "silence" in the auditorium before the performance starts as part of the music.

The difference between meaning of these "nulls" reflects the deep issue of bi-levels between being inside and outside a system. [It has a name in semiotics - look this up]

What is interesting about "null" values is that they have no content so it highlights the play of this heirachical feature. Is this the same as Russell and Whitehead envisaged to escape paradoxes?