Yes, this was all very simplistic and trite. It's very easy to understand.

How do you get the 1/r^2 functional relationship? In detail? Please show your work! How do you get the relative strengths?

Nothing you say makes any sense except as an analogy so vague as to be useless. Why is gravity akin to the "family force" and not the "father force", for instance? If you can't explain that, what's the point of the analogy?

Of course you can list some number of things and have one somewhat different in character than the other! The number can be four. Or five! Carrot, beet, turnip, radish, potato. Or twenty! It doesn't matter.

How do you blend Maxwell's equations with GmM/r^2 to get a "gray force" or whatever? Or what do you start with at the vertices, and what is the functional analog of slicing to get parabolas that give formulas of gravitation (that one, Einstein's field equations, whatever)? If you can't do that, what's the point of the pyramid analogy?

If gravity is a "generic force", whatever that means, how do you even know it's attractive given the extremely vague statements you've made?

Scientists understand synergy just fine. Emergent properties, too. Yes, it takes a bit of work to figure them out, and sometimes they get overlooked for a bit, but that these things exist are very well known and when relevant people think about them. There is a bit of a bias towards non-integrative reductionism because it's simpler, but plenty of examples of the contrary (systems biology, statistical mechanics, etc. etc.). There's a general model of fields being mediated by exchange particles (c.f. "how a generic force is different from a specific force"), and scientists leave open the possibility of forces not mediated by exchange particles (e.g. why gravitons are hypothesized, not assumed to exist).

If you want to say something insightful, it helps to know a good deal about what you are trying to have the insight about.