Tony le Mesma: What we all do, we are all channellers. We channel from within to without.
Alan Partridge: I’m going to pin you down here. Can you be more specific?
Tony le Mesma: I am a man who harnesses the harmony that is within us all.
Alan Partridge: That’s more vague…I want you to be more specific.
Tony le Mesma: We have within us a consciousness which is only partially realised.
Alan Partridge: I think I know what you’re saying. Are you saying that if I, Alan Partridge, harnessed the harmony or spirits within me. And somehow channelled the energy up some kind of conduit of consciousness. A cloud…of…I’m sorry, I’ve absolutely no idea what I’m talking about. I’m completely lost.
- From Knowing Me, Knowing You, with Alan Partridge
Can two competing conceptual schemes (CSs) both be true? Is truth defined internally to each particular CS?
“Here we have two competing conceptual schemes, a phenomenalistic one and a physicalist one. Which should prevail? Each has its own advantages…Each, I suggest, deserves to be developed. Each may be said, indeed, to be more fundamental, though in different senses: the one is epistemologically, the other physically, fundamental.”
“…many different world-versions are of independent interest and importance, without any requirement or presumption of reducibility to a single base. The pluralist, far from being anti-scientific, accepts the sciences at full value. His typical adversary is the monopolistic materialist or physicalist who maintains that one system, physics, is pre-eminent and all-inclusive, such that every other version must eventually be reduced to it or rejected as false or meaningless…The pluralists’ acceptance of versions other than physics implies no relaxation of rigor but a recognition that standards different from yet no less exacting than those plied in science are appropriate for appraising what is conveyed in perceptual or pictorial or literary versions.” 
On my view (derived from Wittgenstein), which is wide, coherent and consistent, cats are made of cheese.
“…what is in one sense the ‘same’ world…can be described as consisting of ‘tables and chairs’…in one version and as consisting of space-time regions, particles and fields, etc. in other versions.” 
“Consider…the statement ‘The sun always moves’ and ‘The sun never moves’ which, though equally true, are at odds with each other…Rather, we are inclined to regard the two strings of words not as complete statements with truth-values of their own but as elliptical for some such statements as ‘Under frame of reference A, the sun always moves’ and ‘Under frame of reference B, the sun never moves’ – statements that may both be true of the same world.
“…If I ask about the world, you can offer to tell me how it is under one or more frames of reference; but if I insist that you tell me how it is apart from all frames, what can you say?…” 
“The ontologies of different language-games do not all fit into any single scheme. There is no place in physical space for minds, sense-data, or God. Agency cannot be located in the interstices of the physiological causal network.” 
Putnam, Hilary. (1987) 'Pragmatic Realism', in his The Many Faces of Realism.
Quine, W.V.O. (1948) 'On What There Is'.