[MD] [Tuukka] the object of philosophy

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Ron, Ant, all,

I read again what I wrote here:

>
> Tuukka:
> Yes. I am already aware of this, and require no reminders, but of 
> course it's good to check that I know the basics. I hope it is not 
> inappropriate that I cite my own work:
>
> "Formal language is classic quality, not romantic quality. It cannot 
> express the assumption, that a certain symbol corresponds to a certain 
> romantic quality, let alone provide a proof for a theorem, according 
> to which it does.
>
> [...]
>
> The assertion, that the SOQ is a metaphysical theory, is contingent — 
> that is, it can be either true or false. The SOQ cannot have 
> metaphysical content, if romantic quality is an empty set, because 
> that would mean its formalisms do not correspond with anything people 
> actually experience. The SOQ also has no metaphysical content, if 
> romantic quality cannot be divided to subsets, as that would mean 
> dividing romantic quality into patterns is just a theoretical 
> fabrication, which cannot actually happen. Consequently, the classic 
> levels would not correspond to actual experience in the way they are 
> intended to.
>
> Neither of these necessary conditions for the truth of the SOQ can be 
> proven or disproven, but both can be considred cogent. If romantic 
> quality were an empty set, we would, for example, be blind and have no 
> emotions. If romantic quality could not be divided to subsets, we 
> could not tell the difference between hearing and seeing, or needs and 
> emotions.
>
> However, humans are not necessarily able to perceive infinitely many 
> forms of romantic quality. Therefore, even though we can use the 
> formal SOQ to define a very high romantic pattern, humans are not 
> necessarily able to experience that pattern, but only process it as a 
> theoretical construct. It is possible that some organisms are already 
> unable to experience certain forms of romantic quality in the SOQ so 
> that (4,4)C*. For example, it seems difficult to argue that rabbits 
> would understand metaphysics, or that ants would understand mathematics."


This actually is not in line with Dynamic-static split being the primary 
division of SOQ. The SOQ would have content regarding Dynamic Quality 
even it the set of romantic quality were empty. Only the interpretations 
of static quality in SOQ would turn out devoid of meaning. I must fix 
this immediately.

Best wishes & thank you for working with me
Tuukka