There Are No Ideas, Only The Elements

We've got information, we had got information, we might be getting it later. Anyway, let's say that the information I is a set of all the possible information we might've gotten. How can we gather it? We can get at least two groups of data true/false proposition and exactly this set can be viewed as a sum of data from these propositions. One one hand, a proposition may be true or false, on the other hand a proposition is being constructed of some elements. Let's call these elements as just elements E. Which are those elements? - Different. It may be tables, chairs, trees, hairs, atoms, planets, humans, microbes, etc. We can name each element as e1, e2, ..., en. But each of these elements can perform something or be done by something. If an element e is doing something P, then we can type it with Px or Pe. In case of Px we mean that it doesn't matter which one element is doing that something P, and in a case of Pe we understand that the element e is the one which does P. If e is done by something y, then we can type is as Pye. Any relations as e does P to x we can type using Pxe. 
If e performs P at the moment M. We can type this in a different way, for instance, Pe=M or Pe>Re (e did P after having completed R). We can also add that P hasn't been finished by using some apostrophe `: P`e. If what e did for y at somewhere land L we can also add this using quite the same technique as for describing the time. 

Actually, we can extract many other information from any piece of evidence, a book, a report, a claim, or whatever. And this can be represented as a tablet:


It doesn't really matter what kind of a tablet is it, or which data in it, the more important that we can put some data about an element.

For us two things are important: 

____ 1) to name all the elements and their actions, the time, colors, temperature, ..., the other data
____ 2) to construct the propositions with those elements into sentences S.

If to construct a sentence with certain element we have to be sure, that a certain sentence S will be either true, or false. This is important criteria for it. Let's say that we've got these elements:

____ a teapot, a woman, pouring, sugar, yesterday

Then we have to combine it into a sentence:

____S1:  A woman poured sugar into a teapot yesterday.

If we had more data, let's say, there were more sugar, or the teapot was silver we could add it:

____S2: A woman poured two piece of sugar in a silver teapot yesterday.

If a sentence is broken, and it cannot be true or false, or the elements are confused, then the sense of the sentence is incomplete, and there will be no purpose to create it. 

Okay, what are the two main problems with all this?

____A. Which elements have to be taken as a primary?
____B. Which sentences have to be cominted together?
____C. Which of them are true, and which are false?
____D. Which interpretations of them true, or false?

If A, B, and C is gotten, what about D? The thing is that for any of such sets of elements and sentences there are also few theories of how to pick or take the elements, and which constructions to take or to accept. And to which categories we have to put those ones? 

It seems that there are some other categories of abstract things. But being a peripatetic, I cannot agree Plato's theories are okay. I think that we can create a theory only using some basic elements, or the net of some primary elements. This mean ,that there are no E condition by which we interpret the elements in a some abstract way. So, I guess that our interpretations occur only via the property of variaty, only because for any set of elements S₁, there is also a set of elements S₂, which is an addition to the one: S₁+S₂=U (where U is the universe of all possible interpretations).

And we are able to do this, because we can imagine elements with different sizes or proportions, or their combinations. So, actually, our view or memory of elements is primary, and there are no ideas; there are only the elements.