I thank all participants whether they understand the pragmatiscist's position or not.
I find it particularly offensive that you are arrogating the terms "pragmaticist" and "pragmaticism," which are traditionally associated with C.S. Peirce and his philosophy. Your "pragmaticism" is nothing at all like Peirce's. In fact, there's nothing at all pragmatic about your pragmaticism -- quite the opposite, actually.
Oh dear ! Can nobody understand that arguments about "reality" are futile ? The pragmaticist's position post-phenomenology is that dichotomies like materialism-idealism, subject-object, are analytical postures based on ontological assumptions that may never be substantiated. What matters is "what works" at various levels of prediction and control.
Can i ask you, are the workings of "prediction and control" elevated by nondualistic thinking? i.e. Are nondualistic approaches to data better able to predict and/or control events than rhetoric? How affective are they in comparison to the way statements are used in the scientific method?
i know that you've given your final word in this thread, and i respect that, but if you don't address this question in future posts i will view them (and i am aware that my view is probably without value for you) as pointless, ideological posturing.