VALUATIVE LANGUAGE OF CATEGORIC ENTITIES DRAFT ABSTRACT: I seek to provide the foundational proof that all words can be evaluated by a metaphorical quantification, at least in one system. ----------------------------------------------------------- I have attempted on numerous occasions to assess categorical statements, including the individual elements of categorical sentences, in value terms. Philosophically speaking, that is, within my own knowledge-generation system, categories may be called entities when they consist of only one category, and not some greater degree of coherence created by a corroboration of multiple categories such as through opposition and extension. These categories may be called entities even if they consist of multiple words, because the system simply accounts of coherency through the use of opposites for every word chosen. Thus every opposition resembles a kind of axis of opposition, whether or not such axes imply more than two categories. There are also other cases, where ‘entity’ can represent specifically an organism, a social organization, or a conscious system. These complexities can largely be ignored in the case of a language study. It may be premised that for every word there is some opposite. In some ways this is a non-premise, because all that is necessary for an opposite is a variety or a relative variety, which consists of at least two subject terms and at least two context terms which are relatively non-opposite for the subject. That is all that is necessary to reach a conclusion which is considered to be true, because the requirement is not one of precision concerning categories which refer to any quantity or value, but rather for the practical use of statements, to tend to suggest something that is true. If it is false in some case, and someone argues that it is not an ambiguous falsification, we can still say, it’s opposite is less true than it might be, if the statement holds. Or we might say, the opposite is entirely true, in which case, by the principle of opposition, there is some way in which the original condition no longer applies. What is a statement that can be considered strictly valuative? I had been considering this, and although there are many cases which are examples of opposites (neutrals being harder to predict, but nonetheless also possessing opposites), it might be helpful to produce key examples which demonstrate the mode of evaluation. One case which presents such a value is the expression ‘in the extreme,’ although I will argue that this expression is in fact miscellaneous in character. It points to SOME evaluation, but does not indicate where the evaluation is pointing. The same goes for mitigating concepts like ‘paucity’ and ‘dearth.’ It is easy to see how these things are mere representations of quantification, unless an emotional quality is added to them. That is not to say that these concepts are not themselves opposable, and thus could themselves be put into the system of categories. Indeed, they could. For example, ‘In the extreme’ could be opposed by a complete translation such as ‘Out of all necessity’ or ‘Out of mediocrity.’ I avoid words like ‘un-extreme’ in formatting this opposite, because un-extreme is actually not an opposite for extreme, but instead an evaluation of extremism as it approaches the center of the diagram. So what is a concept which is not an evaluation? I will ask instead, what is a concept that is not a valuation. For although any term has an opposite, and may thus pose a context for evaluation, there may be some terms which do not present evaluations in quantitative terms. Notably, a connection can be made that any opposite expresses an evaluation in similar terms to opposite numbers, because they still present opposite comparisons. In other words, oppositeness is a valid means to extend the quantitative metaphor. The conclusion is that any given word entity which has an opposite---I argue that all do, including strings---is a valid context for the quantitative metaphor. But only when such terms are conceived as opposites. In other words, the proof-theoretical bailiwick that such a system of oppositions functions with metaphorical quantities depends on the idea that conclusions can be drawn in the first place. Fortunately, the proof-theoretic framework does not require very many additional assumptions, as the entire truth of such a system is one of oppositeness and correspondence, two concepts which I believe are not difficult to accommodate. Nathan Coppedge, SCSU 11/02/2013