Logic (2016)
Lecture 26: Quality, Modus, and the Four Species of Determination

Transcript
================================================================================

And our two greatest teachers are Augustine of Hippo, right, and Thomas Aquinas, right? And when the educated layman there asked Augustine to give kind of a, you know, compact summary, right, of Christian doctrine, right? St. Augustine wrote the great Enchiridion, right? Which means, I guess, in the hand, manual. In the hand, Enchiridion about what? Yeah. He didn't say the Enchiridion of reason and will, did he? Which would be natural abilities, right? And faith is in what? Reason. Reason and hope and charity are in the will, right? Someone asked Augustine one time, you know, he says, are faith and reason really compatible? And Augustine began by saying, well, you can't have faith unless you have reason. And, but notice, huh? Augustine is dealing with what? Virtues, theological virtues now, right? Which the philosophers didn't know. But he's divided the whole of sacred doctrine in a sense, right? For us, beginners in a sense, or for the layman, you might say, into what? Faith, hope, and charity, right? Which is not the way Thomas divided the, what, summa, right? And his summa contra gentiles is really divided into, what, three. If you consider God in himself, and then God is the, what, maker. And then God is the end, right? And insofar as these can be known by natural reason in the summa contra gentiles, and then in the fourth book, right, he does the same three things, insofar as they can be known only by, what, by faith, right? That's really profound stuff, you know, the summa contra gentiles, right? It's not, it's not for beginners. He used to joke about the summa theology, it's supposed to be for beginners. Thomas says, but it's not a beginner in the sense of, of what, a grade school kid, right, huh? Now, St. Thomas, towards the end of his life, he came back to, what, Naples, right, now, beautiful place. Have you ever been to Naples? That's really beautiful there, wasn't it? You been there? I never really know. Was it your brother right there? I came close. I went down to the... Pompeii? I've been down to Pompeii before, but it's getting close. Well, they say to see Naples and die, that's what they say. Oh, yeah, right. So your brother, I think, went down to Pompeii. And he said, I saw it, and I, you know, I understand it differently. They've been that way once, but now... Okay, so Thomas Key is, what, catechetical instructions, right, huh? For the common man, you know, and so on. And for the people of, what, Naples, right? It's a very well-received, right? But how does it divide it? In the same way that Augustine divides it, right? Well, why is that, right, huh? It's kind of more known in a sense, but it's proximate to our, what? Our end, right, huh? So, under faith, we teach, what, the creed, right? And we teach the kid, read the Apostles' Creed first, and then we expand it with the Nicene Creed, and so on. At Assumption College, this kid was new in the theology department. And he comes, and he was introduced to me as some social function there, you know, a new kind of theology. So, our first question was, are you orthodox? He said, what do you mean? I said, do you accept the Nicene Creed? He said, yes, okay, good. So, we got a lot of good. But then, under the, what, hope, he teaches the Our Father, right, huh? And then, in a charity, the Two Commandments of Love and the Ten Commandments, right? Maybe, you know, some risks, and so on. And that's kind of a place to begin, isn't it, right? Teach kids that first, right? You don't give them the Summa Contra Gentiles in that one. Teach them what to believe, what to hope for, right? Pray for. And what to love, right? Right? That's the way to begin. So, you put that together, and then, as a natural manner, or a natural philosopher, philosopher, you say, hey, virtue is the way to happiness, right? Happiness is really activity in accordance with virtue, right? And in the highest virtue, right, which, eventually, Aristotle would say is wisdom, right? And advice is tied up with unhappiness, right? So, the end is what's most important. So, I mean, that's why he puts it first. I don't know. Thomas, as I say, mentioned something similar to that, that you're well-disposed, right? Or badly disposed by your habits, right? Okay? So, if you have the ability to feel hunger or thirst and so on, you're well-disposed towards your nature or badly disposed, right? Well, if you eat and drink too much, right, not too good for your nature. It's not good for your body nature, but maybe not even for your soul, right? You know, so, kind of priority, right? Why he puts it maybe first, right? Okay? But some of those first two qualities or species of quality are more greater, right, than the later ones, right? You understand the undergoing qualities and the shape, right, huh? Okay? So, we're on page, what, three of this or what? Yeah. These are getting things a little bit more metaphysical, right, than appropriate for our commentators are rightly puzzled by Aristotle's second statement in this chapter, that quality is among those things said in many ways, huh? In the fifth book of wisdom, he distinguishes four senses. How can three species of quality be three meanings of how? The species of quality seem distinguished more like the senses of a word than by opposites, as in the division of a, what? Genus, right? This seems contrary to species which have one meaning in their, what? Genus, huh? Now, I notice in the text that Aristotle will sometimes call these species of quality, what? Genus, right, huh? Okay. Now, you know, of course, that the same thing can be a species and a, what? Genus, right, huh? So, discrete quantity, for example, is both a species and a genus, right? But it seems to be more apt to call these qualities genre, right, huh? As if it's a more expansive, shall we say, right? Or more spread out, right? It doesn't seem to be as, what, narrow as, what, quantity, right, huh? So there's something about it, right, huh? And people sometimes wonder as to whether there could be another species that is not, you know? They don't kind of wonder that thing about quantity, right, huh? Now, Henri Dulac, Father Henri Dulac, who was my logic teacher, you know, he was open to the mind with another species we had, you know? And Aristotle, even in the chapter, doesn't he say that, right? Might be something, right? So this way of speaking, you know, different senses of the word, right, kind of implies that maybe, you know, there's as much unity, right, as quantity seems to have, huh? You notice how tied up, you know, when Aristotle explains, I was talking to a student there, I was saying, how many fingers? Okay? And I also have three children, and there are three persons in the Blessed Trinity, right? Now, does three mean the same thing when I say three fingers and three persons in the Blessed Trinity? And he said, yeah, things do mean the same thing, right? Got three of them, right? One to three. There you go. Yeah, yeah. Same thing, right? You can count, right? At least on camera. Yeah. Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, yeah. You can count them on these same three fingers, right? What would you say? Is the three that we have, that we say there are three persons in God, right? Is that three in the genus of quantity under what? Discrete quantity? Yeah. And when we study more deeply the number, right, it's in the genus of quantity, we see that plurality, that multitude, right, arises from the, what, division of the, what, continuous. And remember the old definition, it's given natural philosophy of the continuous, right? In logic, the definition of continuous quantity is a quantity whose parts meet at a, what, common boundary, right, huh? So the parts of the line meet at a point and the parts of the semicircles, right, say, meet at a line, right, huh? And parts of a body meet at a surface, huh? And discrete quantity is a quantity which, whose parts do not meet at a common, what, boundary, right? But number, that is a species there in quantity, arises from the division of the continuous. And the other definition of continuous is that which is divisible, what, forever, right? Aristotle has a beautiful way of showing that continuous things like line, the motion down the line, right, time it takes to go down the line, right, that they're all divisible forever, right? And sometimes he argues each one separately, sometimes he really, you know, kills two birds with one stone, you know, huh? He says, you know, some bodies move faster than other bodies and some bodies move slower, you know that? Is that in your experience? Okay. So the faster guy goes the same distance in, what? Less time. Now you're dividing the time, right? Yeah. But that lesser time, the slower guy goes less distance. And that lesser distance, the faster guy will go in even less time. And just to be alternating those two, you can see that they can divide distance and time forever, right? So that's why numbers go on forever, right? Well, sometimes people have another kind of strange notion of number, huh? Because they make it a, what, a merely mental multiplication, right? So is Socrates, Socrates, yes or no? What would you say? Socrates is Socrates, right? And in my mind now, Socrates is both the subject and the predicate of that. And I get two Socrates, right? Now is the statement Socrates is Socrates, the statement Socrates is Socrates? Yeah. Now I've got four Socrates, right? You can always come back and say something is itself, right? So the statement Socrates is Socrates is Socrates is Socrates. Is the statement Socrates is Socrates? Yeah. So I could go on forever, right? But this is not really what my friend Euclid is teaching us in the 70s and 9, right? This Greek quantity arises from the division of the, what, continuous, right? So they talk about, you know, how the mind can come back upon itself, right? I know what a triangle is, and I know that I know what a triangle is, and I know that I know that I know what a triangle is, and I know that I know that I know that I know You can go on forever, right? You know, that's kind of a kind of a empty one, right? Now, how do you get this three in the Trinity, right? Is that by division of the continuous? There's no quantity in God, right? You know? And he had parts, right? He wouldn't be able to get it simple, right? And quantity, of course, comes because you have matter, right? And God's not material, right? So when you speak of these three fingers you see here, right? And the three persons of God, the number three is not being used univocally. It doesn't have the same meaning, right? There's some likeness there, I would say, you know, right? But likeness is the cause of deception, right, huh? You can't see the distinction between these things, huh? That's why the imagination is the cause of deception, huh? Because it delights in the likeness of things, huh? It doesn't see distinctions in these things, huh? The great great atheist says, you know, there's two categories in God's substance and relation, right, huh? But strictly speaking, is God in either genus? Is he in this predicament? That we are in, right? I mentioned how I might teach you a deconic, you know, like the English word predicament, right? It seems to be borrowed from the fact that the Latin word for what category was predicament, huh? Predicamenta, right? The predicamentis. And what's a predicament, right? Well, it's a situation that's hard to get out of. What do you do, you know? You're going to be in trouble or something. And this is something like the category, right? Because you can't get out of it, right? So a quantity, I mean, a substance cannot be a quality, and a quality cannot be a substance, right? And the relation cannot be a quantity, and a quantity cannot be a relation, and so on. You're confined, right, huh? But there seems to be a certain likeness in God, right, to substance, right? Because substance, you know, is what a thing is, right, huh? And God has what it is, right? And when Thomas gets through, you know, in the beginning of the Summa Theologiae, and he shows it, he argues that God exists, right, first, right? And then he takes up the fact that God is, what, simple and unchanging and infinite, right, huh? And so on. Takes about five things of God, right, huh? Okay. He's unchanging, right? He's simple. He's perfect. Therefore good. And so on. And then he says, he goes on now to talk about, what, the operations of God, right, huh? He says, now, having considered the substance of God, right, what God is, right, huh? Pretty simple, right? Universally perfect, huh? Unchanging, right? Infinite. And he's one, huh? He's puzzling over the set of alls, right, huh? It's kind of interesting. One of the objections there, I guess, they have an appropriation of the, uh, set of alls to God and the Trinity. He says, yeah, that's kind of interesting. So, uh, being one, true and good, right? Being is a divine substance, right? One, the Father, true, or truth, the Son, and what? Good, good Holy Spirit, yeah. Yeah. Say, say, never remember reading that before. It's kind of interesting. But anyway, Thomas did say, you know, having considered the substance of God, right, now we're going to go into the operations of God, right? It's understanding in this world, right? So there's kind of likeness of substance there, okay? And then when you get into the Father and the Son, this reminds me of, uh, well, I have a Father and a Son, right, huh? I guess people, you know, who had a bad father, you know, and it's hard for them to, you know, accept the name of Father, right, huh? Or you see somebody like, uh, um, I remember reading in one of her works there, St. Twizel to Sue, you know? She's so, you know, how nice it is to call him Father God, you know? But she had a very good relation with her father, right? You know, I mean, I guess he's on the way to kind of station, is he? The Archon has already, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, I mean, she had a very good, you know, and most of them didn't have a good relation with her father, but there's somebody who had a horrible time with their father, you know, so I don't know why, but there's some likeness then between Father and Son. At the time when, uh, when, uh, St. John is going to introduce this thing, he says, He says, you know, we're the children of God, right? We're called the children of God. No, we are. We are. So there's some lightness there, right? Call him Father, right? I guess Father sometimes can mean God, right? Sometimes, you know? Yeah. It's a question to say, which is Father? Mean Father first, you know? That's the similarity between the two, right? Similarity, yeah. You know, why does Aristotle say that the word quality has many senses, right? How, right? It's kind of a hard word to get a hold of, but in Latin, you know, the concrete word Aristotle uses for this category would be what? Qualis, eh? Qualer. Well, then we used to always puzzle, you know, when we're studying the Isogogi, right? In the Latin edition. And there in Elber and so on. Um, when you talk about difference, right, huh? Well, difference is said in what? Jesus is said in regard to quid, right? What it is, right? But what does difference signify? Well, qualiquid, right? That same word quali that you have for the category of quality, right? Well, Aristotle would distinguish in the fifth book of wisdom that sense of qualis, right? Kind of the essential quality, right? From the quality that is an accident and isn't to be the species making difference, right? You can see I can puzzle people, right, huh? So the species making difference is not necessarily a quality, right, in the sense of the genus, right? But use that same word, how, right, huh? Not that you take simpler things that are more of my capacity to understand here, you know, like, you say, what is a square, right? Well, you could answer this by giving the genus a square. It's a quadrilateral. What's a quadrilateral? Give the genus of that, huh? Or a teleno plane figure, right? But how is it a teleno plane figure? Well, it's the one that's got four, four sides. Four, you know. Triangle's only got three, huh? Pentagon's got five, I guess. Sometimes they call the triangle trilateral, right? Because of why they use the angles, right? Pentagon, you know, that sort of thing. Okay. That makes sense, right? But how is it that the square is a quadrilateral? How is it quadrilateral? Well, the four sides are all the same length. Yeah. And they meet at, what? At right angles, right? That's how it is a quadrilateral, right? Yeah. But those are really the species making differences of square, right? What's a difference, right? Well, my teacher Porphyry says, a difference is what the species has in addition to the genus. It's what separates different species under the same genus, right? Oh, yeah. Okay, that makes sense. But the differences will be in the genus of which they are a, what? Difference, huh? From the rest of the example there, you know, that we might distinguish the animals by two-footed and four-footed, but we wouldn't distinguish the sciences by some are two-footed and some are four-footed. So the differences fit the genus, right, huh? So I realize the differences could be found in what? Any genus, it seems to me, right, huh? Well, you've got species, right? If you have a genus, right, genus is defined as a name said with one meaning. It's a name said with one meaning, right? Said of many things, right? Other in kind or species, right? Signifying what it is, right? So we always have, you know, species under a genus, right? And the difference is what the species has in addition to the genus, but as he taught in the antipragments, right, the difference is fit the, what, genus, yeah? How is your anger four-sided, or what side, how many sides is it? You wouldn't have seen it. Right angle. So is God confined in the genus of substance, then? Well, sometimes in the argument that God is in the genus of substance, they say, well, substance means per se ends, right? You know, a thing that exists but not in another, right? That's not a fit God, right, huh? You know, Thomas there in the Summa Cana Gentilas, he says, substance, genus substance means is a, what? A thing to which it belongs to be, not in another. What's he saying? A thing to which it belongs to be, that's something other than the thing, right? Yeah. That's what it is, right? A thing to which it belongs to be, not in another. But in God, right, his substance and his to be, his being, are the same, right? And this is why he can say my name is who I am, right? So God is not in the genus of substance, is he? But nevertheless, there's a certain likeness to it, right, huh? So what we've learned about the category of substance, the category of relation is useful in talking about God, right, huh? But you have to realize that these things are, what, equivocal, by reason, yeah. Quoted Charles de Kahnig, he said one day in class, you know, every respectable word in philosophy is equivocal, by reason, right? So in this text here from the metaphysics here, he's talking about the, what, substantial difference, right? And that's where you find that word quali, right, in Latin, you know? But you can use the word how, right, huh? Talking about differences, right? How is a square, a, what, quadrilateral, right? Well, how are those four sides, right? They're all equal, and what angles do they meet, right? Okay, that's getting to how, right, huh? What about this? In similitaire numere de quinter qualis, huh? Taking the Latin down there, huh? Did you ever encounter a square number? By the square there, the fourth species of quality, right? And then there even are cube numbers, right? What's the first number that is both a square number and a cube number? Can a square number be a cube number? Three, six is, the square is six, but is it a cube number? I'm just a eucaly, you guys. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's eight times eight, and then four times four is 16, and four times 16 is 64, right? So 64. When I was a little boy, they used to have this program on TV, and you get the $64 question, you know? I don't know why they decided that, but there was some significance, it seemed to me, you know, that there was supposed to be the number 64, I don't know. That's both a square number and a cube number, right? That seems to be more closer to the howness of what? You know, a difference, right? You know, a species-making difference than the quality, the category of quality, right? So this number is square, and this number, you know, but there's a certain likeness there, right? Interesting, though. And I guess, you know, I think in the Greek they use a term, you know, they don't use a term, we have factors or something, you know? They'll call these sides, right? What are the sides of six, two, and three, right? It's more appropriate for wise men to make that distinction out, but you have to find out, the people, you know? Because I confuse sometimes, right, huh? I would imagine the average man would think that three, instead of the three persons, and three of the fingers is the same, right? One, two, three. I can count them on my fingers, right? I don't believe in that too much, huh? Okay, let's spend more time on that right now. I'm also just puzzled by the term, you know. In Latin, when they talk about quantity and quality, they say quantus and qualis, right, huh? But in English, we have to say almost, what, how much and how many, right? To be concrete and quantity, we don't have one way of saying it, right? Now, my friend Warren Murray says that in French, you can use the same word, right? And I said the only way I can think of using the same word is to use the word size, right, huh? You can speak of the size of the room, which is a continuous quantity, the size of the desk or the table here, right? And you can speak of the size of a crowd, right, huh? The size of a family, right, huh? And that's a discrete quantity you're talking about there, right? I think it makes some sense, you know, call that second highest genus size, right? If you want to use it, you know, in an adverbial sense, you say how much or how many it seems, right? How many for, or for discrete and how much for continuous, right, huh? But you've got the word how in there again, right, huh? So I went to get my license renewed, you know. I got to fill out this thing. What's my height? Is that five foot ten or five foot eight? I think I said, you know, the doctor just, I don't know, we've done, we've done five, we've done five foot ten. So I got up there, you know, for the final thing, you know, under, you know, lying, you know, it's, ah! Hard grief. So the woman says, you're no longer five foot eight? Oh, yes, I am that, yeah. Okay, she was changing and just initialization. But anyway, let's say I'm five foot eight, right? Now someone asked me, you know, how are you today, Dwayne? Would I say five foot eight? Would you say that? I'd say, how are you today? Would you give me your height? But that's how tall you are, right? Or I just say, how, you know, period, right? Then you're going to give me, what? I'm sick today, right? You know, I'm depressed. He's not my friend. Yeah, yeah. How are you today? I'm angry. I guess CNN was saying, we're not going to invite Kellyanne anymore, right? She answers the question so well, and everybody's impressed with her, you know? And I was listening, you know, when I leave here, as I turn the radio, and Levy's on, the former mayor, you know, so. I'll be there. Huh? He's talking about Kellyanne, you know? He says, she's the most remarkable person I've ever seen, you know? People are impressed, you know? And Rose and I would love to hear her talk, too, you know? Who was Kellyanne? Kellyanne? She's the one who actually was the, she's given the title of the first woman to plan the campaign. Oh, yeah, she was the campaign manager. Yeah, yeah. Kellyanne sometimes. Kellyanne Conway. Yeah, first name is kind of funny. Kellyanne is like one name, you know? Kellyanne Conway. She's a Catholic, too. Oh, she's a pro-life Catholic. Yeah, yeah. I mean, she answers the questions so well, you know? And she answers the right, and people really, really like her, you know, and so and so. So, the CNN is like, we can't invite her anymore to speak to this people. Because, you know. She can embarrass her. Yeah, yeah, yeah. This, this, a scoundrel is on this. The presocratics, they wanted to kick the guy out because he made everybody look bad. What was the emphasis? The presocratics, who was it? They didn't want somebody to be a part of the tech because he stood out. I don't know. I knew if he was so virtuous. He was so virtuous. They said, we don't want him in our system. Oh, that was in the, yeah. Yeah, the guy was, the athlete was there, right? Yeah, or wherever. Yeah, that he was always being praised for his virtue. We don't want, we want to be equal. Yeah, yeah. It wouldn't be elsewhere, you know? We had a good time. Yeah, right. Herocles was talking about that, huh? Because this guy, the old guy, they wanted to kick him out because he was so superior to everybody. So, nothing new. Okay. Yeah, most of the time it says here on page six now. If you look at the Latin here, I don't know what the English is here. The modus, however, do you see that in the middle of that passage in the Prima Secundae, right? The modus civi determinatio of a subject, according to essae accidentale, can be taken either in order to the very nature of the subject, that's the thing I was mentioning about before, something like that, or according to an action or passion which follow the principles of nature, which are matter and form, or according to quantity. If we take in the mode or determination of the subject according to quantity, then it is the fourth species of what quality, right? And because quantity, according to its notion, is without motion, and without the notion of good or what? Bad, right, huh? And therefore, if for the fourth species of quality does not pertain, that something be bene ve male, right, huh? Cito ve tardi transiens, huh? Quickly or slowly, what? Changing, right, huh? Now, the mode or determination of the subject, according to action and passion, is attended in the second and the third species of quality, huh? Is Thomas giving another division here into three? And therefore, in both is considered that something is dead. easily or done difficultly that it's quickly what passing over or long lasting there's not ever considering these things something pertaining to the notion of good or what bad right because motion passion do not have the notion of what in but good and bad instead of respect to the end but the mode and determination subject in order to the nature of the thing pertains to the first species of quality right it's a big part of the reason why it's first right which is the habit and disposition and the philosopher says in the seventh book of natural hearing the so-called physics speaking about the habits of the soul and body that there are dispositions of the perfect to the best right now that's pretty important i say over perfect what is disposed according to its what nature right now i must have talked about the dog huh it's not advice to the dog to be ferocious right yeah a little dog across the street from me and they put a mouse on this in the front thing because the form and nature of the thing is the end and that for the cause of which something comes to be therefore the first species is considered good and what evil right and also easily and more difficultly to be what moved right according as some nature is the end of generation in motion quince in the fifth book of the wisdom fifth book after the books of natural philosophy it says here the philosopher defines habit that is disposition according to which someone is disposed well or what badly right and the second book of the ethics he says that habits are that according to which we're disposed towards the passions beneath or molly right okay so it's very much tied up with the good and bad right now for species huh when it is a mode suitable to the nature of the thing then it has the notion of something good whenever it does not fit the nature then it has a notion of something what bad huh and because nature is that which is first considered in a thing and therefore habit is laid down as the first species of quality one time this is arguing about the um processions here the of the sun and the holy spirit right now he says the sun proceeds um from the father uh per modem naturae right that's why he's called the sun that's nature right right the holy spirit proceeds by way of love and therefore by way of the will but he says the uh procession that is natural naturally comes before the procession of the will right so the procession of the you know there's an order there the procession of the son from the father and it comes before the procession of the holy spirit from them it's kind of interesting what he says there huh that kind of reminds me of this one saying here right now for a different reason because nature is that which is first considered a thing therefore the habit is laid down as the first species of what quality right because it's relational being what well redisposed towards your nature why does thomas use modus to distinguish the species of quality if modus means measure and he's always quoting augustine into that effect and the species of quantity are distinguished by measure why should thomas use the word modus to lead into the distinction species of quality right but it can also have the sense of boundary or what limit perhaps we have to understand modus in this way when trying to understand the species of quality in the above text thomas uses the word modus and determinatio as what synonyms to be measurable a quantity must also be limited as shakespeare says of mother earth in timon of athens right common mother thou who's womb immeasurable right an infinite breast teams and feeds all okay you know i was looking at the uh is this the uh fourth lateran council the one that thomas gave his life there but they use the word immensely right for infinite right immensely right but what does that mean uh immenses yeah yeah that's what they say here common mother thou whose room immeasurable and infinite breast the room in the west spoken of as being immeasurable and infinite you know shakespeare is pretty smart guy there you know one time i was having a discussion with warren about who's greater homer or shakespeare or shakespeare right and uh warren was maintaining that shakespeare was greater right and i was meeting uh maintaining that it was presumptuous of him to judge between these two great ones and then uh warren said uh well i'm not saying that shakespeare was naturally a better poet than homer right but uh the church came between homer and shakespeare right and so one of the plays there the character says he's studying that part of philosophy that tweets of happiness by virtue especially to be achieved that's about a concisive statement of what the nickel magnetics is about right it's about happiness to be achieved especially by virtue that's what's about right that's that's precise right but i mean homer is before right but when homer talks about reason huh he talks about in terms of what looking before and behind yourself is that as good as before and after it's not quite as as movable the words huh as before and after are right you know one of the great critics there of shakespeare you know when the editor calls shakespeare's phrase you know looking before and after almost homeric phrase right they're two great poets you know in harmony you know joshua i was reading uh homer now in greek you know you know at the university now and he's kind of enthusiastic about it right yeah i was showing him my my copy of the uh the bull's heart trio you know you know you know them but he was talking you know when he came and played his violin on my birthday there you know i mean his the viola i mean yeah cello cello yeah and uh he was saying you had to be a part of a quartet you know just these things and i said well uh here you got to really all you need is a guy to play the piano a guy to play the violin and then the cello right and so and the guy was really impressive guy he has a child beer and everything you know so so i'm showing you the picture that they had in that thing after listening to those things so notice the infinite or unlimited is immeasurable right now okay that reminds me as they say of the vatican comps i mean the uh ladder and the other fourth one thing it is where they where they used to speak of christ i mean of god as being immensely right huh that's kind of a way of saying you know it's the the uh he's unlimited right he's infinite right now that's the way of saying that okay okay you know for fred huh and shakespeare's using immeasurable here in infinite almost the same right huh kind of synonymous right to see that the womb is immeasurable and the breast is infinite is saying the same thing really about them right but now this here from the winter's tale With thoughts so qualified as your charities shall best instruct you, measure me. And in one edition, the note gives qualified, that is, moderated, right? Get the word mode in qualities, right? And in King John, this inundation of mistempered humor rests by you only to be qualified. Modus also has a sense of way, right? Both words can be nouns corresponding to the word how, right? The mode or way of doing something is how you do it, huh? The mode or way of knowing is how you know, right? Thomas used it all the time, right? There was one guy, I came back there, he talked about thesis on the word mode. He got awfully tired of thinking about mode, I would think, before he got through with it. He talked about thesis. But Thomas used it all the time, right? Modus predicandi, right? You know, all these kinds of things, he said it. When, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when When, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when. When, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when. When, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when When, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when When, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when When, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when When, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when. When, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when, when.