This is in fact exactly what I am attempting with this paper, if only the reviewers would see my proposal in this light. It is in fact the general principles of reification, perceptual modeling, and field theory that I am advancing in this paper, rather than the specifics of the dynamic model. However the implications of the idea of reification are both wide-ranging, influencing our concepts of lightness, brightness, illuminance, spatial perception, amodal perception, perception outside the visual field, and multistability; and the idea of reification is sufficiently unfamiliar and counter-intuitive to the current zeitgeist that a presentation of the concept must discuss each of these topics in some depth, because an exposition of the principle alone in the abstract would not suggest to the modern reader how the principle would influence those diverse fields. In other words, a complete exposition of the principle requires a discussion of its implications in these diverse areas. Furthermore, a presentation of the principle must also address the arguments commonly raised against the concepts of perceptual modeling and isomorphism, otherwise the reader would reject the thesis out of hand. For example the modern reader can be expected to object that the illusory contours in the Kanizsa figure are a higher- level cognitive inference calculated downstream of primary processing; that consciousness is an illusion whose corresponding neural representation is far simpler than the subjective experience of it; that it is invalid to model computationally something as vague as a subjective percept; that reification might be applied to variables like lightness and brightness, but surely not to something as abstract and etherial as the perception of illumination; that spatial reification must refer to some partial 2¹/₂-D sketch, surely not to a fully spatial reified space. Indeed it is these very objections, which are woven into the fabric of conventional thought on perception, that have prevented people from even considering the fully reified spatial mechanism even as a theoretical possibility. There is plenty of evidence to support this theory (as you will find in the Evidence section of the new draft), but up to this point, people have not known how to interpret this evidence in the absence of a theoretical framework with which that evidence is consistent. Such evidence has therefore been considered as simply mysterious. Like the perceptual gestalt that emerges from a confluence of complementary sensations, these diverse clues all suport a single view of perception that is quite different from that generally accepted in our field. What I am attempting is a simultaneous consideration of all of these diverse phenomena as manifestations of a central Gestalt theme. For that reason they must all be considered together, and their unfamiliarity to the contemporary readership requires that each be expounded in explicit modern terms.