🚀 go-pugleaf

zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes (I believe in English):
>
>This is a bogus objection, Chris.  Once your theory identifies the said
>transformations, it is a short step indeed to characterize restricted
>versions thereof, which will be bijections in extension.  Then you will
>want to talk about equivalence classes under the induced relation,
>thereby committing yourself to abstract propositions and concepts.
>
>In general, reification is unavoidable under any reasonable view of
>ontological commitment.  Even that classic would-be example of gratuitous
>reification of "sakes" from the use of locutions like "for the sake of
>X", or "for its own sake" is perfectly reasonable, nay, unavoidable, in
>any systematic discussion of teleological theory of value.

Please!  Try to resist the temptation to address topics, using highly
specialized terms, in newsgroups not likely to be familiar with them.
Perhaps it's just my inadequate education, but I (a sci.lang) reader
have absolutely no idea what the poster is saying....

-- 

   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
   goer@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer