You seem to be starting with the definition 'a text is something that can be analysed with the specific tools X, Y and Z'. You have then said 'Everything in the world can be analysed with the tools X, Y and Z' and hence you have made the conclusion 'therefore everything is a text'.
But the important fact is not that everything is text, it is that everything can be analysed with the tools X, Y and Z - that does not change the definition of 'text', it just shows that the original statement was not the accurate definition of 'text', but merely a fact about text. The proper definition of text is 'a text is something that can be analysed with tools X, Y and Z, but also has the defining properties L, M, and N.' So your next stage needs to be to find out what L, M and N are, otherwise you are left believing that everything in the world is a text, which is unlikely to be true. It might be true, nothing in the logic so far has disproved it, but it is unlikely.
no subject
You seem to be starting with the definition 'a text is something that can be analysed with the specific tools X, Y and Z'. You have then said 'Everything in the world can be analysed with the tools X, Y and Z' and hence you have made the conclusion 'therefore everything is a text'.
But the important fact is not that everything is text, it is that everything can be analysed with the tools X, Y and Z - that does not change the definition of 'text', it just shows that the original statement was not the accurate definition of 'text', but merely a fact about text. The proper definition of text is 'a text is something that can be analysed with tools X, Y and Z, but also has the defining properties L, M, and N.' So your next stage needs to be to find out what L, M and N are, otherwise you are left believing that everything in the world is a text, which is unlikely to be true. It might be true, nothing in the logic so far has disproved it, but it is unlikely.