[MD] MoQ as religion

[kgt83dr at yahoo.com]

Hello David,
  
Dynamic Quality, apart from the Metaphysics of Quality, is meaningless
because Dynamic Quality gets its defintion from the Metaphysics of Quality.
  
Reminds me of a Q&A several weeks ago on MF.
  
Marsha (hi Marsha) asked "Define the smell of a fish?"  I responded, "[...] the
smell of a fish is how a fish smells." and "[...] the question is meaningless for
people who don't know what a fish is.  It would be like saying, Define the
smell of usampdgfwz."
   
  
Kevin Perez
  
> Kevin said:
>
> "But DQ is meaningless apart from the MoQ."
>
> How do you know this? Can you prove it? Show me that DQ is meaningless
> without the MOQ.  If you think for long enough I'm sure you'll discover that
> you cannot and that your actually making the mistake of claiming DQ to be
> something it is not.
>
> The mistake in this case is a subtle one.  You've actually used the logical
> rule of negation on DQ which can't be done because DQ is not 'something'
> to be negated.   You've said "DQ IS NOT XYZ" and thus defined Dynamic
> Quality.
>
> Cheers,
>
> David.
   

		
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.