You are beating straw dogs!
***Yes, the possibility of error exists, however there is greater possibility when there appears to be a misunderstanding or miscomprehension of the message.***
Misunderstanding of a message is an error! And should be thought of as included in the category I specified. Furthermore the fact that a message was misunderstood and that perhaps we have a new interpretation which makes more sense needs to be thought of as nothing special; it is no more than additional information obtained from the net communication.
***We never know for sure, but we seek to have a pragmatic justification for believing that a message was properly received.***
I have no problem with that at all. All I am looking to do is set down a way of cataloging the messages so that, were I to find an error (or inconsistency) which required adjustment of something I thought I understood, I would have a straight forward method of determining the consequences of that adjustment on all the messages my current conclusions were derived from.
***[[[I wish to consider the nature of the fundamental problem which confronts us.]]]
This is where I am somewhat skeptical.***
Skeptical of what? That any such effort is worth the trouble? Of course you are skeptical of that! If anyone with any intelligence had even looked at the issue, what I have discovered would have been seen a hundred years ago. The entire scientific community believes what I am looking at is a complete waste of time. But you know, it is possible they are wrong. Consider the central issue here for a moment: do you really believe it is possible to prove that nothing can come from examining a problem? You are just presuming nothing can come of it because no one has examined it. That in itself is an intellectually very dangerous position to take.
****If communication (either with sender/receiver, or individual/Universe) is by appearance, then how can we avoid but addressing only the appearance as it appears to our sense impressions (i.e., the method used by science)? To focus on any other means but appearances seems to me to be a doomed effort. ****
It seems to everyone to be a doomed effort! That is why no one looks at it! They cannot even comprehend the idea of *including* everything they know in a specific well defined representation. They have not figured out a way to do it ERGO it can not be done!
***[[[With regard to that problem, there exist two very different aspects of what I will present. First, there is the aspect of how I want to catalog and examine that communication. This I claim to be a totally free issue: i.e., I can catalog and analyze it in any way I choose. You may argue that I am wasting my time but there exists no issue of right or wrong here with one single very specific exception. That single exception is the possibility that there exists some communication or part of a communication which cannot be cataloged or analyzed by the procedure which I will propose.]]]
If communication (either between sender/receiver or individual/Universe) is by appearances, any cataloging of the 'facts' is also dependent on appearances. As you say, what if a great deal of the 'facts' are misleading, then it follows your cataloging will be false.****
Harv, you really cannot allude to errors in a procedure when you do not even know what the procedure is. After all, the scientific journals are in reality little more than a cataloging procedure for keeping track of what the scientists have discovered. Would you say that the journals should be thrown away as "misleading" because they contain errors? At least look through my telescope before telling me I can not possibly be seeing anything worth looking at.
>>>If your abstract concepts are based on thought about what you knew when you started, then what separates your attempt from Thales who was one of the pioneers in ancient Greece of categorizing substances? >Maybe you are mistaken in your assignments.