An ordered pair with Sheffer's stroke?

From: Tom (tom_bergson_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 12/09/04 

Date: 9 Dec 2004 08:01:59 -0800

Dear Mrs Knox,
(For some reason I am (temporarily) unable to make a direct response
to your post. The system answers: "Unable to retrieve message
cp805f$tga$1@lust.ihug.co.nz". I tried several different servers with
the same result. All I can do is post again with an identical subject
line. I am very sorry for this incovenience.)

Thank you very much indeed for writing. I am so happy to have someone
really competent to communicate my ideas to. I NEVER will contradict
you on anything, and if I somehow sound like it, it is because I am
unable to become unstuck from my misconceptions.

Mrs Knox, I am not hiding I am taken competely aback by your kind
post. It means I am completely wrong on everything. I gave it several
hours of a serious thought, and concluded - I must be completely
confused.

Hopefully, you will kindly reflect on the several lines below and
utter a line or two of criticism which could possibly give me a clear
sense of direction.
 
Imho, there exist only objects and concepts / thoughts /
configurations / relationships. An object is an absolute /
autoaffirmative / self-identical existence (Aristotle's first
substance) of which we know nothing apart from the fact that it exists
and that it enters into certain configurations with other objects. Two
objects differ if they may enter into different configurations.
The essence of an object is its ability to coexist or to be unable to
coexist (to enter configurations) with particular other objects.

A thought is (nothing but) a configuration of objects (i.e. it is a
proposition, a lingustic object). A proposition is an objectivized
concept / thought. A proposition speaks of its world through
isomorphism (it is the ONLY way).

The stroke is an objectivized pure thought which isomorphically speaks
of a configuration of two objects. It represents, through isomorphism,
a configuration, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the
existence of that configurations.

Imho, my mistake(s) must be due to naively interpreting TLP:

1. The world is everything that is [[[[*the case.
2. What is the case, the fact, is*]]]] the existence of atomic facts.
2.01 An atomic fact is a combination of objects (entities, things).
2.011 It is essential to a thing that it can be a constituent part of
an atomic fact.

2.1 We make to ourselves pictures of facts.
2.11 The picture presents the facts in logical space, the existence
and non-existence of atomic facts.
3. The logical picture of the facts is the thought.
3.2 In propositions thoughts can be so expressed that to the objects
of the thoughts correspond the elements of the propositional sign.

4. The thought is the significant proposition.
4.21 The simplest proposition, the elementary proposition, asserts the
existence of an atomic fact.
4.3 The truth-possibilities of the elementary propositions mean the
possibilities of the existence and non-existence of the atomic facts.

As for your other kind comments, Mrs Knox, I am unable to benefit from
them until I have completely grasped the basics (above).

Again, I am terribly sorry for any misconceptions and
misinterpretations.

Thank you very much indeed for writing.

Kindest regards,
Tom