Metaphysics like any other endeavor can make for strange bedfellows.  So imagine my consternation at having to eliminate color, a la the functionalism of love.  Why not just allow color to exist gratuitously?  I am not sure that question is answerable before the fact of unity.  In subsuming color to love, one will elaborate the notion of the latter.

First consider taste.  Taste is the original means of recognizing the other as belonging either within or without.  If you taste bad I spit you out, unless I have other motives.  Taste is variegated according to the necessary complexity of our diets, we being high on the food chain.  But why don’t peaches taste like apples and vice versa?  Somehow that does not seem like a proper question.  If there were ‘apples’ that did not taste like apples, we would not be calling them ‘apples.’  We might call them ‘Snapples®.’

I am suggesting that qualities are not gratuitous.  They are functional and thereby structural.  That is a bit of a stretch, but it should motivate mathematicians to expand their imaginations.  There must be a transcendental topology of love and color.  This is neither reductive nor eliminative; it is merely illuminative.  Ultimately topology will pass the taste test.  As dialecticians we can worry how quality and quantity are interchangeable.  Music might provide a proving ground.
 
 Ooops!  To eliminate or not to eliminate?  Subsumption is the operative term.  We want Occam’s razor and not his scalpel.  A cosmos is a fairly tight ship, without a lot of unnecessary baggage.  Necessity implies function implies structure.  But can we or should we calculate love?  No, but we must communicate it and so illuminate it with all our intellectual and spiritual power.