A quick comment on something from Andrew's [OPE-L:2782]:
> Michael: If you are merely pointing out that what has been established as a
> tendency at a high level (would 'degree' be less confusing?) of abstraction
> cannot, in a valid systematic
> presentation, be negated at a more concrete level.
> Andrew: No. But this is a really good point. One reason I'm so wary
> of talk of "levels of abstraction" is that so many who use it neglect
> this point entirely, and indeed use it to explain away contradictions
> in their account. One case I'm very familiar with is the claim that
> "transformation problem" solutions' results end up invalidating key
> conclusions of Vol. I *because* that Volume is "abstract" and at a
> more "concrete" level the results are "modified," i.e., negated. [...]
To say that conclusions and results are *modified* by further presentation
of the subject matter is different from saying that they are *negated*. In
the sentence above you seem to be using the two terms interchangeably
(with the use of "i.e.").
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Jerry