[MD] Tuukka's letter to Robert Pirsig

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[Tuukka]
> One such predicate would be "everything that exists". We might 
> define this predicate to have a certain property, such as that of being 
> physical. In this case we would have constructed an ontology known as 
> physicalism.

Tuukka,
In "everything that exists is physical"
(x)Px
(x) "everything that exists" is a quantifier & P "physical" is the predicate.

[Tuukka]
> Let's say a physicalist encounters an idealist, who asserts, that 
> "everything that exists" is mental, and speaks of mental objects. In 
> this case the physicalist would make a logical error, if he would speak 
> of mental objects, like the idealist, with the implicit assumption that 
> they are speaking of the same thing. In the language of SOQ, the 
> physicalist would be using nonrelativizably the concepts that refer to 
> the mental objects. He would detach them from their context.

So the physicalist is making a logical error in using a predicate nonrelativizably.
Do you have an example where using a predicates nonrelativizably is not a logical error?
Craig