Jim in Neuvo York escriben:

>It seems to me that the primary qualities of clouds are water, humidity,
>moisture, etc., as well as some combination of organizing "forces" that
>makes all the water droplets "stick together" (as opposed to being
>diffused).  It may very well be the condition or quality of humidity that
>causes the existence of what we call a "cloud."  Perhaps the Soft Fluffy
>One will explicate. . . .

The essential definition of a cloud is that it is a phase of the molecule
H20 not in a pure state but dispersed atomically in the atmosphere
consisting of other gases. In fact a cloud consists no more than than
absolute humidity would permit before condensing into rain droplets. Only
virago is a cloudless form of atmospheric water in the liquid phase. Only
one cloudless phase exists which consists of water droplets that can be
described as rain. Rain and clouds are not the same. Virago is a rain
without clouds. The rain moreover in virago evaporates before it reaches the
earth. Water is not a quality because it has several phases: ice, liquid,
and vapour. So none of the qualities you describe are primary to water which
is essentially a molecule that cannot be seen with the naked eye. We only
have tactile and other tangible evidence to support the existence of water.
What you are referring to in the cloud thus are not essential to the entity
water, but properties (explanatory ones only) common to a number of phases
(in and out of phases). 

Other aqueous substance may also possess the qualities you mention but water
is an essence whereas humid, moist are impure in that these qualities may
define other phases of aquaeous substances such as liquid nitrogen and other
atmospheric gas phases. Ever seen a cloud from dry ice?
>
>The very perception of a cloud as a "cloud," then, seems to me to be on the
>order of a secondary property: subjective in the sense that the cloud needs
>to be *seen* or perceived in some sense, in order to constitute "being" a
>cloud.  There is no intrinsic "cloudness" in the biosphere: after all, we
>humans subjectively classify clouds depending on a variety of contextual
>and subjective factors, and the results can be variously interpreted as
>"fog," "mist," "clouds," "damp," or even more precisely classified as
>cirrus, cumulonimbus, stratus, and the like.

Intrinsic to the essential definition of a cloud is the notion of a body.
The concept of space to not apply to clouds since they only occupy some
place in a regional space, or cloudscape. A physical *definition* of space
is said to include the idea of limit, or finitude, but the idea of pure
space is unlimited in extantness. A body dennotes extension, whereas a cloud
is a metaphor for some ideal body expressed phenomenally. From the moon it
may be obserbed that portions of the earth are covered by singular clouds
and cannot be seperated from ice caps. So the idea of a cloud in essense is
a body without organs from a distance, but a body with organs up close. The
organs are simply the atmospheric functions since by definition a function
requires an activity or organ, as in organization, etc., which supplies an
operand. A body is the concrete realization of an idea regarding the
physical presence of a limit, boundary, etc. a cloud only has phenomenal
existence in that it requires a perception of an instrument or organ atuned
to it's phenomenal existence, a standing forth if you will. Included in the
definition is an ontological pre-requisite about en-principation, causes and
ultimately individuation (essential and other than essential). Remember the
categories of change include up to 12 categories, one being quality.)
Ontology is the science of changes, becoming, and Physics is the science of
kinesis (movement of bodies). 
>
>Now . . .  when it comes to calling clouds, "soft," and "fluffy," . . . .
>What are we to make of these subjective (although intersubjectively
>verifiable, since we all *know* what soft fluffy clouds look like)
>evaluative terms?  i.e. are these *aesthetic* subjective evaluative terms?

These are sensory conventions. Clouds are only soft in relation to something
harder than themselves. The principle invoked here is individuation, change,
and the meaning intended (value) is approximately true only apon reflection
(ideation) not exactly on the physical. It is wise not to confuse domains of
knowledge regarding objects of investigation, perhaps. So the term soft
fluffy is a predicate only, and perhaps a constituent of the essential
definition of clouds which may be comprised of elemental bodies such as
water, nitrogen, etc. They may compared to 'cotton' but they in fact are
never cotton except in terms of the imagination, which is intersubjective.
If I may say a predicate that is truely subjective has not way of being
communicated intersubjectively. 
>
>I submit that the qualities of "softness" and "fluffiness" can be well
>understood and even realistically and/or ontologically comprended within
>the "infamous 'three qualities' proposal" under the category "tertiary
>qualities."  Softness and fluffiness are *real* properties of clouds, and
>yet they are not constitutive *physical* properties of clouds.  Nor are
>they the kind of properties or qualities that lend themselves to
>understanding on a second-quality level (unless like John McDowell we see
>no need for any additional distinction between secondary and tertiary
>values).  For example, I am not sure that we can quite categorize the
>qualities of "soft" and "fluffy" in quite the same way that we can
>categorize (by form, function, and meteorological significance) the
>qualities of "cirrus," "stratus," and "cumulonimbus." But we can examine
>and discuss the value and reality of these qualities of softness and
>fluffiness in clouds just the same.  Therefore I think it makes sense to
>think of these qualities *in* clouds as tertiary qualities.

Clouds can be classified into categories based on their appearances,
however. The term soft and fluffy is more primordial in the experience of
clouds since it was quoted I remember when I was a child 'soft fluffy clouds
that catch the light and reflecting it everywhere' (Orb song). So the in the
metaphor is contained some approximately physical (in truth) properties
associated with the tangible scientific qualities. The mere terms denote
identical properties. Soft fluffy clouds are cumulus, stratus, but not
cirrus, not nimbo-cumulus clouds. The 'pre-archi originary' experience of
clouds is dependent on the childhood, pre-scientific 'perception' of clouds
possessing the 'quality' of cotton, soft and fluffy, etc. Therefore there is
no need to isolate the term fluffy from the idea of strato cumulus, not at
all since the term strato is also metaphorical and connotative in intent.
The term cumulus has other meanings as does stratus, but the classificatory
principle is contained in the 'eidos' or look of the formal appearance of
various types of clouds. The classification is much similar to the naive and
child or primitive/primordial metaphor. The terms are essentially 'similies'
in that soft and fluffy is really a simile to cotton perhaps whereas strato
cumulus is a simile of 'stacked pancakes' as in 'lenticular' clouds, which
may resemble 'lentils'....now ventricular clouds resemble a vent or column
that has a narrow apperature....oops may be a tornado from the term tornix
or tornevis (sic) french and spanish for screwdriver with a turing action. 

Reflection (Sur le reflexion en la Nubes) 
"In Arizona I remember soft fluffy clouds catching colors reflected
everywhere. Long narrow clouds trailing off into the horizons."



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%