From a /logical/ point of view, there is no romantic quality. That is
because logical symbols cannot be /logically/ proven to correspond to
any kind of sensory experiences. Furthermore, any arbitrary argeements,
according to which they do, cannot be expressed by means of formal logic.
> How about you look at it this way. It is logic that creates the
> notion of a romantic quality. Therefore it is created and must exist.
> This is what logic is for, to be creative. Of course romantic
> quality does not exist as we create it with logic, but that is not the
> point of logic, in my opinion.
Well... I don't understand what that means for /formal/ logic to create
that. I mean, defining romantic quality as a set whose members may not
be expressed, but which is assumed nonempty, is all that we can do in
the field of formal logic. Clearly, that's not all there is to romantic
> Well, I suppose you can say that. In my intepretation of reality, the
> units of measure are the qualities of everything. Since that is all
> we can apprehend, it makes sense that the Mother of all these
> "qualities" is Quality.
Sure... but I am talking about units that can be used to measure
empirically observable things. This is, to my knowledge, the usual use
of the word "unit".
> Here's an idea I came up with when I was thinking about your math.
> Let us say that romantic quality is a good method for expanding a
> created understanding of MoQ, and not belabor that point until we see
> what it results in. It would seem to me that included in the
> variables, there must be some kind of "stabilizing principle". That
> is, RQ must have a propensity towards "homeostasis" or balancing. As
> a biochemist, I can point to all sorts of feedback signals that the
> body creates so as to remain somewhat consistent. For example, when
> an enzyme converts something into something else, that "something
> else" then goes back to the enzyme to tell it to stop making more. If
> it did not, the body would pretty much destroy itself with all the
> enzyme activity. This is an oversimplification but gives you an idea.
I'm not sure what you mean. Those enzymes and feedback signals are
objective quality. If I follow you right, objective quality and
subjective quality are the very "stabilizing principles" you are asking
for. In this case they are already present.
> If we have, say, four parameters, and each parameter affects the other
> parameters, then it is easy to see how a small perturbation with send
> the whole system completely out of control. So, there must be a
> method for keeping things somewhat stable, because that is how they
Yes. But bear in mind that although the approach of RP is not purely
formal, it resembles formal logic so much that these chaotic
perturbations are not temporal, as are the fluctuations of the stock
market. Instead, they are semantic or logical. Contemporary academic
philosophy is severely affected by such perturbances, as they try to
define multiple nonrelativizably used predicates in terms of each other.
From a logical point of view, this can result in total chaos, and it
seems to do something like that in practice, too. Philosophers don't
know what their statements mean.
The semantic stabilization of this system is, that questions like "where
does emergence begin", "where does it end" and "why does it go that way"
can be answered somehow.
The weak points of RP are that normative quality seems a bit out of
place perhaps. I'm not currently sure whether it is supposed to be a
part of the emergence cycle or something separate. But it doesn't seem
But if someone said: "Why can't subjective quality emerge from objective
quality, and normative quality emerges from subjective quality?" or "Why
can subjective and normative quality simultaneously emerge from
objective quality?", I wouldn't know what to answer. I don't know how to
formulate the theory in a way that would be more elegant and less
arbitrary, yet have the same functions.
Perhaps the top pattern should be seen as some sort of a pattern that
terminates the emergence process. I don't think the theory would lose
essential features even if the emergence were not circular. It would be
a shame, though. I like the graph I made. But I don't honestly know how...
...I really need to think about these things!...
...I guess the emergent product of the intellectual level cannot
...but maybe normative quality also corresponds to kinds of romantic
That would be maybe a wise way of going about it. It could be even
necessary. Otherwise RP would apparently preclude intuitive
understanding of logical phenomena.
It could actually simplify the theory if the strange "loops" or "bands"
extending from the normative patterns in the graph were grey and denoted
as forms of romantic quality.
An interesting thought.
I would also like to axiomatize the differences between subjective
quality and objective quality in a more detailed and formal fashion.
Sensory experiences are the end product of the subjective. Mental realms
are the end product of the objective. Does this entail, the subjective
is the end product of the normative? And that the normative is the end
product of the objective?
I guess any other option doesn't make sense. But if someone can argue
that another option does make sense, I'd love to hear it.