Thanks. I'm trying to avoid jargon and history lessons in these philosophical articles. Partly this is to make the discussions more accessible, but it's also because I'm seizing on the idea of "originality" in this publication.

Referring to Kant or to James would open cans of worms, and force me to say where I agree and where I disagree with them. I think Kant's perspective of transcendental/pragmatic realism, for example, is worth a lot more than his pseudo-rigorous arguments. And it's that perspective I'm trying to present here.