Being "about" x stops it being x.

So far so good. But we can apply SRH here to see a problem. If we universalise and expand the scope to include itself, we can presume that Cicero the writer gained some pleasure from writing it, and we some pleasure from reading it, else why would we do it under the theory. And that suggests that all there is to this text is pleasure. It serves the same purpose as a nonsense poem, or a work of fiction where we follow the hero through perilous quests. All just for pleasure. Yet Cicero is not doing this for pleasure, he is talking "about" pleasure and that means the text cannot be applied to itself without running into SRH.

Generally:

Take some theory t about x.

If x can expanded to include t then it is a theory about itself.

Now suppose the theory states that "we do things for pleasure." Then we must do t for pleasure."

But why self reference then?

Why would you say that we do t for pleasure, if we do t for pleasure.

Is it pleasurable to refer to itself?

(just replace pleasure with any property p)

I'm suggesting that applying a theory broad enough to include itself is a meta theory, and that must be about things. And being about things is not an accident.

To be about things is truth?

So can you can say its p, when it truth about p?

==

this is unclear so far...

But broadly when it becomes about p rather than just p it stops being p.

If x is pleasurable that is fine. But if x expands to include p then it can't be pleasurable anymore.

That is there is pleasure in the pleasure of x. So having pleasure is one thing, but apparently having more pleasure because of the pleasure is now in trouble. This seems a necessity, it is SRH, but why?

Unclear exactly why but this is SRH in action.