I did not veto the possibility-to-actuality transformation. I guess you could say that logic vetoes it.
No, logic does not “veto” actuality here. If a category is defined by observable operations in a text, then observing those operations licenses the classification. In Galatians the text names rivals, contrasts messages, refutes them, and anathematizes alternatives; those are the constitutive operations of polemic. Once those operations are present, the polemical function is actual in the document. Invoking “logic” as a blanket veto adds nothing; to block the classification you would need a rule that the presence of emotion defeats polemical operations, and you have already denied such a rule exists.
Logically, emotion (viable emotive possibility) does not block identifying polemic possibility where the text exhibits it.
Given your claim of there being polemic actuality wherein that claim - by your own admission - does not take account of the viable emotive possibility, logically, the viable emotive possibility is sufficient logically to block the transformation of polemic possibility to polemic actuality.
You keep retreating to “possibility,” but the dispute is about actual function. Admitting that the text exhibits polemical features already concedes the point: those features are the public discriminators by which we classify the function as actual, not mere potential. Just as a courtroom exchange remains adversarial even if the lawyers are angry, and a scientific paper remains a rebuttal even if its tone is sharp, Galatians remains polemical when it performs polemical moves. Emotion doesn’t demote what is observed to “possibility.”
Possibility does conceptual work. The conceptual precedes the evidential, and the conceptual provides space for the evidential.
Since the viable emotive possibility (concept) precludes transformation from the polemic possibility (concept) to the polemic actuality (concept), there is no space for the evidence which would be sufficient for establishing the polemic possibility to do any transformative work between the possibly polemic and the actually polemic (or from the polemic possibility to the polemic actuality)
Concepts do frame inquiry, but in public analysis they don’t suspend it. Once a concept is fixed—here, “polemical” defined by observable operations such as naming rivals, refuting them, and directing an audience against them—evidence adjudicates whether those operations are present. In Galatians, they are present. That satisfies the concept’s own entry conditions. Invoking abstract “conceptual space” after the discriminators are observed does not erase the observed function.
The "when the discriminating markers are [actually sufficiently] present" is enough (sufficient) to establish polemic possibility. The viable emotive possibility in and of itself is not sufficient to "displace" that polemic possibility.
However, when you claim that the polemic is not merely a possibility but is, instead, an actuality, then the viable emotive possibility is sufficient for establishing that your actuality claim is false.
By your own admission, your "discriminating markers" do not include consideration of the viable emotive possibility. Yet, your claim is that the evidence/reasons you have taken into account are sufficient to establish polemic actuality. But the viable emotive possibility is sufficient to preclude your actuality claim and would have been sufficient reason - had you taken the viable emotive possibility into account - for you to withhold your actuality claim so as to avoid the logic error which you, in fact, did commit.
Proving your claim to be false (by virtue of your logic error) does not prove that there is no polemic possibility. This proving of your claim to be false only proves that you have not presented either sufficient reason or evidence to establish the actuality of the polemic.
You failed to take sufficient account of the relevant possibilities.
If the discriminating markers for P are sufficiently present, they do more than license “possibility”; they license classification. That’s how feature-based identification works in every public discipline. A legal brief remains a brief even when passionate; a rebuttal article remains a rebuttal even when sharply worded. The category is fixed by operations performed, not by the author’s affect.
False. To defeat an actuality claim based on observed features, you must show those features are misidentified or insufficient for the category, not merely that another compatible description is “viable.” Compatibility is not defeater. Your argument equivocates between “also true” and “instead of.” Emotion being also true does not make polemic not true.
That misstates my claim. I have repeatedly acknowledged the emotive register and have said explicitly it does not exclude polemic. The discriminators for polemic are positive textual operations; they do not need to negate emotion to count. Your “preclusion” assertion again assumes exclusivity you have elsewhere denied.
The sufficient reason is the text’s own operations: identification and censure of rivals, argument against their position, and boundary-setting curses on contrary “gospels.” Those are the standard, publicly checkable markers of polemical discourse. They are observed in the document; therefore the function is actual in the document. No “logic error” occurs in recognizing what the text demonstrably does.
Viable emotive possibility is not sufficient "to block" polemic possibility.
Agreed—and it also isn’t sufficient to block polemic actuality. “Emotive” and “polemical” are compatible predicates. If the text performs polemical operations—naming opponents, refuting their position, directing the audience against them—then polemic is instantiated, regardless of tone. Emotion can co-occur; it cannot negate acts already present in the document.
Viable emotive possibility ABSOLUTELY MOST DEFINITELY UNDERCUTS your claim for polemic actuality. Viable emotive possibility does NOT undercut a claim for polemic possibility.
That’s a contradiction in method. If emotion does not undercut identifying polemic as a live category in principle, it cannot undercut its actuality when the category’s defining operations are observed. To defeat an actuality claim you must show the operations are misidentified or insufficient for the category, not merely assert a parallel, compatible description. Compatibility is not a defeater.
The "publicly checkable" features which are sufficient for polemic possibility are NOT sufficient to establish polemic actuality given a context in which there is viable emotive possibility.
This relates to the fact that - by your own admission - your "discriminating markers" do not include consideration of the viable emotive possibility.
Consequently, your approach and your claim fail to have taken sufficient account of relevant possibilities.
Your claim is false by virtue of being immodestly expressed.
Publicly checkable features are exactly what fix actuality in historical classification. A legal brief remains a brief even if it’s heated; a refutation remains a refutation even if it’s anguished. In Galatians the text executes polemical moves: it names and denounces rival emissaries, argues their program should be rejected, and anathematizes contrary “gospels.” Those operations are present; therefore the polemical function is actual in the letter. Emotion does not erase those operations.
Correct, because emotion is orthogonal to the classification. Discriminators track what the text does, not how the author felt. “Emotive” is a tonal label; “polemical” is a functional label. The functional label is fixed by the operations performed, and those are publicly checkable in the text. Excluding tone from the polemic criteria is not an omission; it’s correct operationalization.
A possibility is “relevant” only if, were it true, it would change what we should expect to observe. Whether the author is upset does not change whether the document contains identification of rivals, arguments against them, audience direction, and curses on contrary preaching. Since those observations remain the same under “emotive” and “non-emotive” readings, emotion is not evidentially relevant to the polemic classification.
That is rhetoric, not a counterargument. The claim stands or falls on the text’s exhibited operations. Either those operations are there, or they are not; either they suffice for the category as defined, or they do not. In Galatians they are there and they do suffice. Reasserting that emotion is “viable” does not alter the publicly checkable facts already in the document.
NHC
nogreaterjoy.org
