Hi Marsha, Yes, so do I. I also love that the fundamental nature of DQ is sq. Mark
Sent from my iPhone On May 24, 2011, at 2:35 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 23, 2011, at 3:45 PM, 118 wrote: > > >> >> [Mark] >> Yes, I am aware of what you present. I didn't know it came from the >> text book. My only point was that MoQ presents a division into DQ and >> SQ for rhetorical purposes. Of course both are the same since both >> are Quality. However, once we know that we move forward into the >> explanation through a dichotomy. It doesn't make sense to me to point >> towards the begining again since we already know what Quality is. >> >> I would say that Quality is the fundamental nature of sq, not DQ. >> Otherwise the separation would not make much sense to me. >> >> Oh, is there an Oxford dvd too? >> >> The division of the rational and mystical is also provided as a >> presentation. They do not really exist as you know. But yes, like Dq >> and Sq they can be discussed as different. > > > > Hello Mark, > > I love that the fundamental nature of sq is DQ. > > > Marsha > > > > > > > > ___ > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
