{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.040549378678875085, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007194244604316547, 'mean_word_length': 4.406360424028269, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Karl Marx's Theory of History: a Defence By G. A. Cohen Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978, xvi + 369 pp., £10.50

Some will say against Biperspectivism that the duality, that needs to be explained, has merely been shifted from one grammatical category to another. I disagree. Having no determinate concept of explanation that would apply to the duality in whatsoever grammatical category it was presented, I have no basis for saying that it needs to be explained. There I may be agreeing with Wilson. Unfortunately, that does not help me to find a fact that Biperspectivism, or any other form of the Identity Theory, does explain. Nor do I, in spite of Wilson and Armstrong and others, yet see any other way of being assertible, that the IT has. Like many people, when I feel like being physicalist, I stick with an old familiar stance that comprises just two acts. They are (i) the act of asserting that for every 'mental' fact there is a physical explanation-or-account that could be given if we knew enough, but not vice versa, and (ii) the act of simply withholding one's assent from 'two'-ism: 'two'-ism says that in every such case there are two 'references' or designabilia, the one accounted for and the one that accounts for it. Unless act (i) is metaphysical, the two-act stance is neither metaphysical sense nor what the psychologist Boring is said by Wilson to have called the IT, 'metaphysical nonsense'. I dare say Boring had no view as to the number of designabilia or references involved: it is certainly my own case.