In order for neoism to be meaningful, it should at least be able to characterize its own existence-in other words, you should be able to meaningfully ask the question:
"Is there ever anywhere something called neoism?"However, since the posing of the question presupposes "neoism", the question and the answer to question can never mean anything-they are nonsense. (The fact that no neoism can characterize itself or explain its own existence ruins the claim of description in neoism, as well as preventing the possibility of a division between neoism and metaneoism).
The trap can be reformulated without "neoism" to annul all knowledge; asking the question "Is there a realm beyond my immediate experience?" which suffers from the same short circuit as "Is There neoism?" at the level of the interpretation of experience (flattening all experience into an uninterpretable paradox).