[MD] lila's soliloquy

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Mark,
> Mark:
> Perhaps, as you say, set theory is not a useful mathematical
> metaphysics with which to present MoQ.

Tuukka:
I regret to inform you that you've gotten it wrong now. The MoQ cannot 
be adequately expressed by means of set theory. But that's not what I 
did. The MoQ can be expressed adequately by means of mathematics. All 
mathematics is not set theory, and our work on the concept of Dynamic 
Quality is not founded on set theory, but non-set-theoretic logic. We 
don't always use set theory. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't.

-Tuukka

> Mark:
>
> We cannot even talk about static quality, strictly speaking, for
> static quality cannot encompass itself.

Tuukka:
This is quite possible. I think I should talk with Timo about this. I 
would have already done so, but he didn't answer the phone. The question 
I should ask is "is 'relativizably used predicates' a relativizably used 
predicate"?

> Mark: Around and around we
> go then, saying that what one presents is static quality and dynamic
> quality cannot be approached.

Tuukka:
Another misconception. Dynamic Quality can be expressed by language, and 
that is actually frequently done. In poetry, this may result in a 
masterpiece. In philosophy, this tends to result in a problem. I'm not 
saying Dynamic Quality cannot be approached. I'm saying it makes to 
sense to perform the act of "approaching Dynamic Quality". I will try to 
elaborate further. Even if it were possible, the approach itself 
wouldn't make sense. Even if the approach WORKED, it wouldn't make sense 
in a definable way. Unless someone manages to define it, but then it 
would again become static.

> Mark:
>
> So let us get past this static quality paradox, and move on.  Let us
> say that the distinction between DQ and sq is useful, and can bring
> about enlightenment.

Tuukka:
Of course it's useful. From a set theoretic point of view, it's an 
appealing simplification. From your point of view, it may even be "how 
it is". You are free to think that it's a flaw of set theory - not a 
flaw of the MOQ - that all of MOQ can't be expressed by means of set theory.

I just solved a problem for you. You should be grateful. I'm not saying 
everyone should take some certain point of view to the MOQ. I'm saying 
that I'm now taking the set theoretic point of view, and within that 
viewpoint, that's the way how things are.

I value precision. I maybe don't understand why you want to use a 
viewpoint that I find vague. I have no objection to you taking that, so 
don't you object set theory either.

-Tuukka