Mike's assessment notwithstanding, I think your communication skills are greatly improving. Either that or by hearing you say the same things in many different ways, they become more and more clear. To those who haven't spent as much time as I have listening to, or reading, what you have to say, it is very understandable that your ideas go over their heads.
In particular your analogy of a pipeline with our conscious awareness located at the spigot end is especially revealing. I think that if people want to understand your discovery, thinking hard about that analogy would be time well spent.
There is, however, one thing I would like to point out to you (again). You said:
"At this point, I would like to make a side point. As Harv quite often makes quite clear, my deductions are based on logic which is of course directly dependent upon my own subconscious solution to the problem of creating a mental image; however, my position is that the deductions themselves rely only on that logic itself and not at all on the particular solution my subconscious has achieved. Logic itself is perhaps the only issue upon which almost the entirety of the human race agree: i.e., it appears to be one of the thing which everyone's mental image contains (if not, we do not categorize them as rational but rather tend to lock them up in the funny farm)."
I would like to point out that, "deductions themselves [which] rely only on ... logic itself and not at all on the particular solution [one's] subconscious has achieved", is an accurate description of the body of mathematics. After all, mathematics "is perhaps the only issue upon which almost the entirety of the human race agree".
I become ever more convinced that your discovery belongs in the body of mathematics as a new theorem. And I think the philosophical implications greatly exceed those of, for example, Goedel's Theorem or Bell's Theorem. But, I've said that before and nobody listens. I'm still waiting for some argument that will change my mind.