In the beginning was the word and the word was God.

What a coincidence - or is it fate? Within ten days, I've got presented and came to realize about the final piece of the puzzle that denotes my philosophy of normative concepts based on the assumption of subjective realism. I'm talking about that final piece that would mark the final frontier of my theory, the very basic theorem below which even my principle of having principle would lose sense.
Let me recapitulate: Reckoning that every theory, every philosophy and every religion, in short every belief, is ultimately based on completely deliberate premises which can refer to no more basic universal true and right fact, you come to realize that our whole world, everything we have explained and accepted, is an invention, or better put an "enacted reality". That doesn't mean that it's completely subjective, but rather inter-subjective between members of that same belief. Past that, there's no way of communication or argumentation. In fact, as those beliefs get consciously and unconsciously passed on to future generations, the community, for example the modern society, gets less and less aware of them. The result is a process of socialisation that lacks system-extrinsic views and criticism. The belief becomes a self-explanatory system, its principles (or theorems) norms (or normative concepts). Whenever such a belief becomes dominant and drives all other systems and their concepts out, the system-intrinsicism tends to become absolute and there's no other competitive belief that could shake the fundaments of the new-born paradigm. I feel like we're currently living in paradigms in many fields of our lives: The totalitarian national state in politics, neo-liberalism in economics, romanticism in relationships, etc. Now, what I try to do is to shake the grounds of those current normative concepts. My goal isn't to make people abjure their beliefs but to come to realize that those are "only" beliefs, an enacted reality and not the truth and righteousness.
This is where my new concept of a world view without any principles but the principle to have no principles comes in. Actually, such a principle is pretty to the basic theorem of (social) sciences that things cannot get confirmed but only proven wrong. However, in contrast to science, my theory doesn't allow to construct a reality but only to destroy one. Therefore, it's something like a final step past deconstructivism, one may reckon. However, there is a tendency to start building new idols - and the idol of my concept as been revealed as the human being as the final truth which means that we can only take for sure that there are other people out there. This again completely relates to humanism which is a forerunner of modern sciences.
However, the final frontier, the very last concept that would allow criticism on other concepts in the first place, missing.
Actually, that piece was right in front of my eyes all the time. Ironically - or maybe rather logically (on an unconscious level), that was nothing else but the other big topic in my constant pondering: language. All my system-extrinsic criticism can only be valid and effective if I actually presume that I've understood the terms of those beliefs in the right away. That problem became apparent when I was talking to a woman who conceived "norms" not as social, inter-subjective standards but personal, subjective guidelines. On this point, my whole argumentation head a dead end.
It was just yesterday when someone made a so simple but so accurate reference to the initial words of the bible: "In the beginning was the word and the word was God." Take it literally and it means that the way you define your concepts defines the ways of your belief.
This also goes along with my theories about the determinant character of language in our way of thinking: As she defined terms in another way, she was thinking of the denoted aspects in a completely different way. I reached the same problem like below the basic principles where beliefs cannot communicate between each other anymore as there's simply no code of conduct.
Therefore, the basic presumption in my concept is that I'm criticising with the same language the belief's communicated in.
Personally, I feel that as a very low-level, commonly accepted presumption: Language is the basic carrier of communication in the first place. There's no use to consider it as subjective instead of inter-subjective as otherwise, it's simply got no use. But of course, misunderstandings happen as the definition of its semantics and syntax requires ongoing synchronisation between all partners.
Nevertheless, it's a presumption and whereever someone says that I didn't understand his words, my argumentation fails.
It's at this point where my concept becomes constructive of its own as it tries to promote and establish an understanding of language as the most basic principle of all beliefs. Language as the final zealotry? I can imagine more ignorant doctrines.