[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

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