so is richard garner essentially saying that ... ??for example... ??quantaloid modules always have adjoints?? or something like that??? ... if so then how does this relate to the discussion where todd warned me about confusion between "converse" and "adjoint" ??? ... or something...

i'm still having some trouble with certain level slip here... that i noticed quite a while ago but wasn't sure how badly it was confusing me...

categories enriched over truth values, vs categories enriched over complete semilattices... and so forth... ???.....