First act of intellect

Until now I have treated unemphasized contexts explicitly as applying to propositional calculus. Let's use lowercase letters for propositions and uppercase letters for terms. Thus [pq], (pq) and 〈pq〉 are interpreted accordingly as "p or q is true", "both p and q are true" and "if p is true, q is true". But unemphasized contexts appear also inside term logic categorical expressions, e.g. [-S+(P+Q)] -- All S is P and Q (or [‹S›(PQ)] or 〈S(PQ)〉). So far I haven't dealt explicitly with expressions like [SP], (SP) etc., except in case of set algebra, where uppercase letters were interpreted as sets. But can unemphasized contexts be meaningfully interpreted as outer contexts in term logic? Of course they can. As outer contexts they may be used to construct complex terms, not propositions as in case of emphasized contexts. E.g., given bindings M=man and D=dead, (MD) may be read as "man that is dead", or "dead man", without asserting propositionally that "man is dead". Latter is expressed by (MD). For an other example, consider e.g. 〈MW〉, where M=men and W=went to war, reading it as "all men that went to war", contrasted to 〈MW〉, read as "all men went to war".

In this way unemphasized contexts may be used just to select terms without asserting anything about them. As such they are just complex terms and do not have truth-value. Nevertheless, they have characteristics of consistency and inconsistency, e.g. (A‹A›) is inconsistent term while [A‹A›] is trivial term. This enables us to treat the intellect's first act explicitly.

(Hmm. What about single terms?)