I like the way you break it down. I've done similarly and continue to do so in my travels. I've found deconstruction that doesn't take into consideration any target's synergy is no longer evaluating the target.
Here are some thoughts on your evaluations and conclusions...
The allegory of the cave has many meanings.
Agreed!
You do not observe the world around you with a primary sense. Everything you experience is secondary.
Everything? Can one never, ever, have a primary experience of anything based upon your model?
IE you do not see the brown table. The table has properties that reflects light in such a way that your eyes capture it. Your eyes have rods and cones that transmit the image to your brain which is then converted into something for you to build the world around you.
Isn't that what we call "seeing"?
Hence you see the shadow of everything and not the actual thing.
Are we seeing shadows or are we "seeing" a visual representation of what our eyes sense?
We can never "look out" at something.
Primary logical fallacy. Are you not redefining terms and then, based upon your new definition, exerting a leading premise to support your conclusions.
We can only see what is given to us.
But you already, by your definitions, claimed "We can never 'look out' at something." How can we then "see what is given to us"?
Hence seeing the shadow of figures and not the actual figures.
And based upon your model, we cannot even see the shadows of these figures since shadows are something we cannot "see".
Even if you could see behind the veil, you'd be seeing the light reflected off the figures, not the figures themselves.
The problems one faces with applying deconstructionism is the method never recognizes, acknowledges and accounts for the synergism of the evaluated systems.
It never addresses the question: At what point does one's deconstruction efforts leave the synergistic reality created by the system and moves into a straw man reality where what is being discussed has nothing to do with the primary system being evaluated?
Case in point: The Zeno Paradoxes are only paradoxes because of the Trivial methods used to evaluate what is offered. All these paradoxes go away once the Quadrivium is applied. It was used by Zeno to evaluate his students to see if they had mastered the skills developed by Quadrivium studies.