I have just finished reading your most instructive and thought-provoking book, A Paradigm Theory of Existence.On p. 257, you write: "(We will have to consider whether our view also undercuts realism.)" However, I did not see any discussion of this issue in the rest of the book.On its face, the Paradigm Theory of Existence (PTE) seems to be close to Berkeley's position---the being of existents is grounded in the voluntary action/perception of a transcendent Mind (God/Paradigm Existent)---and yet if I understand you correctly, you wish to maintain that your theory is a version of "realism."I realize, of course, that these are crude characterizations, and that the problem of what constitutes "realism" is a difficult one. Still, there is an apparent tension in your book---indicated by the passage I quoted above, which constitutes an unredeemed promissory note.So, I was wondering:1. What I am missing?;2. Have you published anything else directly addressing how the PTE manages to avoid the charge of "idealism"?Any help you could give me in understanding your thoughts about the PTE and "realism" would be most appreciated.