There are many approaches to the problem of odd, miraculous or merely psychotic beliefs. Very little changes this way. Of course, I am suggesting that such a taxonomy exists, perhaps in a rudimentary form today, but, once conceived, it must inevitably become as precise as the intuitive sense we all have of the nature of good, indifferent, and quite awful myths. All other results have degrees of degrees of lesser probability.
Subsets can, of course, be equal or impair.
I am using a convergent series here, because the largest number of arguments in logic come as variations in self-referential claims, as in a daily newspaper. The ends, of course, are utterly minimal. The above model is a suggestion. However, in its subdivisions, it comes very close to all our empirical knowlege of things in the common world. It accounts for every possible, imaginary argument, and allows for complete, comparative, commonsense praxis by any and all.