Ron,
Why don't you explain how you understand the contradiction. Marsha ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Well, for starters, this quote tends to say it all... "From a centrists perspective, ontological absolutism is based on the mental distortion known as reification." Meaning, that from a pragmatic point of view " As theory is not purely determined by some intrinsic nature of > reality, there is no one conceptual system that uniquely accounts for the >myriad > > of natural phenomena" you are taking a position of an ontological absolutism when you assert that the mental distortion known as reification IS the basis of all conception. This assertion demands that there is only one conceptual system that uniquely accounts for the myriad of natural phenomena contending that salvation from it is the subdueing or "killing" of it. Wallace talks about reification as a "tendancy". This is the difference I see between yours and Wallaces point of view regarding reification. -Ron .......................................................................................... Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
