If a syncategorematic expression such as "nothing is nothing" is to mean something deep, the first "nothing" has to be analogous to a "no" of the "no" when "no way" is "be". Whenever two universal negative signs are placed together in some expression, the first is equivalent to its contrary, the second to its contradiction

Concerning myself is what "nothing" is "nothing" if we refer to the rule above. We get "something is nothing" and that's plainly false so "nothing is nothing" is ? true. Because the first "nothing" means anything you please. Because the first "nothing" means anything you please

This closely follows the method of sane and solid mingling the nominal with the quantificational. If we are rigorous and logically normal, the conclusions we reach will be sensational