Hi everyone,

As official co-list owner <g>, I would just like to take this opportunity
to welcome this new member ("Soft Fluffy Cloud") to the list and to say
that I for one look forward to very many more of his/her posts in the
future.  :-)

With that said, it occurred to me that the "infamous 'three qualities'
proposal" might be interestingly applied to the phenomenon of "soft fluffy
clouds."  Since it's a rainy weekend here in my historically contingent
situatedness (which is NY state, although I note with some sheepishness
today that the year is in fact "2000" and not "2001," as I earlier
reported.  Not quite sure what was "up with that" . . . . <s>).  Perhaps I
was transempirically transported to the future and just didn't know it.

Anyhow . . . (and Chris Lees, you really *don't* have to worry about me
<g>), let's see if clouds can be comprehended within the terms laid out by
the "infamous three qualities proposal."

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 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.

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?

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.

Now, it further occurs to me that it might be very interesting to apply the
concept "ecosystem" to the occurence of clouds in the atmosphere.  Does a
cloud "system" constitute an ecosystem?  Why or why not?  How do cloud
ecosystems compare with terrestrial ecosystems, or aquatic ecosystems, or
bonsai ecosystems?  Do clouds have boundaries, or is that notion an
oxymoron?  I have neither the time nor the inclination to develop these
speculative ruminations any further at the moment, but perhaps our other
new member, Mr. Softly Chuckling, would like to make a comment or two on
these admittedly mystical musings of mine.  :-)

[snip]
>The term sere is still valid in forest ecology. I am not sure what you mean
>by saying that it is no valid anymore.

It is my understanding that "sere" (eye rhymes with "dare") refers to that
aesthetic (tertiary) quality of being "dried and withered," as in sere
leaves on trees in autumn.  Perhaps it is still valid in *that* forest
ecological sense? or is there another non-community succession ecological
meaning of the term I'm not aware of?  <grin>

>
>Much of the rest of the commentary is 'plausible' but ecosystems do have
>objects which they correspond to (knowledge is only valid as long as there
>is no contradiction between the knowledge and it's object - Aristotle on the
>principle of non-contradiction). How those ecosystems are defined or
>delimited is another matter. We are not ready to throw that concept out too,
>are we?
>
>softly chuckling
>
>>
>"In Arizona I remember soft fluffy clouds catching colors reflected
>everywhere. Long narrow clouds trailing off into the horizons."


Anyway, back to the aesthetics of soft fluffy clouds.  Sorry to keep
springing dictionary definitions on people this week, but in this case the
dictionary helps me out once more.  In Merriam Webster's 10th Collegiate,
the definitions progress *roughly* in order from what we have discussed
here as "primary quality" characteristics, all the way down through
secondary and tertiary (metaphorical) qualities.  Very interesting to think
about . . .  so here it is:

"cloud . . . n. often attrib [ME, rock, cloud, fr. OE *clud*; perhaps akin
to Gk. *gloutos* buttock] . . .  1 : a visible mass of particles of
condensed vapor (as water or ice) suspended in the atmosphere of a planet
(as the earth) or moon  2 : something resembling or suggesting a cloud: as
a) : a light filmy, puffy, or billowy mass seeming to float in the air . .
. b) (1) : a usually visible mass of minute particles suspended in the air
or a gas (2) : an aggregation of usually obscuring matter especially in
interstellar space (3) : an aggregate of charged particles (as electrons)
c) : a great crowd or multitude : SWARM . . .  3 : something that has a
dark, lowering, or threatening aspect . . .  4 : something that obscures or
blemishes <a cloud of ambiguity>  5 : a dark or opaque vein or spot (as in
marble or a precious stone)"

Well, Mr. Cloud (thanks again to Chris L. for providing a snappy moniker
<g>), I should say that your new name is certainly well chosen, and seems
to fit any number of these various qualities or definitions of the word.
Steve V. will probably admire the qualities of definition number 3 above
(dark, lowering aspect) as in keeping with your presently holding the torch
of . . . (well, you know Who).  I on the other hand, feel that your new
identity is *perfectly* expressed by the meaning inherent in definition
number 4: "something that obscures . . . [as in] a cloud of ambiguity."
<big grin>

Of course, you might prefer to think of yourself simply as a number 2
("something resembling or suggesting a cloud") . . .  or are you *really* a
number 3 ("an aggregate of charged particles")?????

Only a philosophical realist can know for sure.  :-)

best,

Jim Tantillo
Mr.  "Hey, you, get off of my cloud"


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