[om-list] Re: rebuttal

[Mark Butler]

Tom wrote:

>     But I did not think I was putting words in anyone's mouth.  I was using
> mathetical terminology in describing FOPC; I didn't think that I was
> converting or warping anything on the semantic level.  Is that what you
> meant?

No.  Not intentionally, anyway.
 
>     On the metalinguistic level, the quantifiers and variables of FOPC *are*
> quantity and and quality.  They are analogous to quantities and qualities on
> the linguistic level.  This quality, represented by a variable, can
> represent just about anything else on the linguistic level, including other
> qualities and quantities or mixtures.  (And there's nothing else it could
> represent, according to mathesis: quantities, qualities, or mixtures.)  So,
> I don't think what I said was incorrect.

I don't have a problem with what you meant, it is just that what you said
implied something about FOPC terminology that is not correct.
 
>     I don't care that FOPC doesn't use the word "quality" in describing its
> variables.  It should come up with some construct or idea distingishing
> number and state.  Otherwise (according to mathesis and MW) it is missing
> something important.

I suspect that a math person would answer that the difference between quality
and quantity is an ontological issue outside of math's primary scope. That may
very well be a weakness, but now that FOPC has been around for more than a
century, it is unlikely that anyone, no matter how influential, can change
FOPC's terminology - instead he would have to persuade people to replace it
with a new theory with a new name.

Nonetheless, FOPC uses variables for both quantities (pure numbers) and
qualities (other objects / states).  Mathematicians use quantitifiers
primilarily to quantify quantities, not qualities.

I don't think that quality is a very good term for everything that is not a
quantity, mostly because in standard English, quality is used to describe
attributes or properties of something, not the thing itself.  However, I do
not have an alternative term, but to avoid confusion, perhaps you could refer
to it as the meta-linguistic quality.

I would be interested in any references to other authors who use quality and
quantity in the same sense you do, however.
 
>     I probably should "qualify" my statements by saying that I'm using the
> term "quality" from the context of methesis.  But ... I don't know.  I've
> assumed that, since it's me who is talking -- since these are my lips that
> are flapping -- that it is my context you should assume is being spoken in.
> Just as, if what I say is oppinionated, then you should assume that it is my
> oppinion being spoken from, not someone elses'.

I think that is a very poor assumption.  All true communication is for the
benefit of the audience, not the speaker.  The only way to speak effectively
is to speak according to the language and understanding of the audience.  

There is a difference between simply speaking your opinion and using words in
non-standard senses without warning.  Words are the currency of communication
- unless explicitly redefined, the audience has to assume that they have
standard meanings or communication is impossible. Continually using words in
non-standard senses without introduction grates upon the ears of the audience,
is impolite, and is guaranteed to produce unending confusion.

Opinion, on the other hand, is a statement about the way the world really is. 
As long as it is expressed in terms of symbols the audience already
understands, there is no confusion, no matter how much disagreement there
might be.

- Mark