[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[118]

Hi Tuukka,
I understand your presentation.  When a photon is expressed as some
wave form, the photon is not that wave form, it doesn't exist as such.
 The wave form is just one presentation (in static terminology) of
what it is.  So, I understand that when you put down "x", that is not
an apparition of romantic quality, you need not preface your
explanation on this inadvertent (by some) confusion of the static
representation for the dynamic essence of something.

When we speak of a "tree", such speach is not the actual tree, for a
tree is not the static quality with which it is presented.  The actual
tree is not definable.  We use static presentations for the purposes
of sharing the dynamic quality underlying them.  It is important not
to get stuck only in the static.  Many seem to claim that by talking
about something we make that something static.  This is impossible.
Everything is not a matter of patterns, that is just, but one, static
representation.  DQ does not exist as patterns, it comes before we
create such things.

I like what you present below.

Cheers,
Mark

On 3/6/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> 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
>