o at it myself.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;I agree that the merged ontology makes liberal use of the 
&gt; ordinary notion of
&gt; &gt;a physical object,
&gt; 
&gt; The very fact that you find this 'ordinary notion' so central and 
&gt; clear is in itself some of the "light" I referred to below. Is the 
&gt; coffee in a half-full mug an ordinary physical object (OPO, to put 
&gt; one of Awbrey's mannerisms to work for a moment)? Is the thread in a 
&gt; piece of fabric an OPO? Is the paint on my car an OPO? Is a be