Mark,

better write this down now. The members of all sets of classical quality
are predicates, ie. p(x). The problem with expressing the members of the
set of romantic quality is, that even though these members are
(according to me) static quality, they are not formal predicates. They
are the x in predicate p(x), when x is, for example, an emotion.

Now, look at the x. This here: x. It's not an emotion. It's a
black-and-white blotch. Or a symbol of the alphabet. If x denotes
"happiness", it still isn't the same thing as happiness, because you
don't necessarily experience happiness by looking at the x.

That's a manifestation of how romantic quality isn't formal, and how it
cannot be fully captured in a serious, theoretical philosophical text.

One purpose of speaking about romantic quality in the first place is the
following:

The lowest pattern of subjective quality may have predicate p(a), and
the highest pattern of objective quality may have predicate q(a). Note
that both predicates have the same extension, "a". But in this case, "a"
may not be the extension of a predicate in any other subjective or
objective pattern.

If accuracy is 4, this rule also applies for the following pattern pairs:

second lowest subjective level - second highest objective level
second highest subjective level - second lowest objective level
highest subjective level - lowest subjective level

Speaking about romantic quality is important for illustrating the
differences and similarities between the subjective and the objective.

-Tuukka
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html