[MD] WHY MoQ IS PARALYzED

[MarshaV]

At 09:10 AM 4/30/2008, you wrote:

> > Joe (It is Joe, also, correct?):
> > > I have difficulty with the word ³abstract² used
> > for
> > > DQ!
> >
> > SA previously:  Yes, I don't agree with this detail
>of what Ron
> > said either for if we're talking about abstract
> > thoughts/intellect, well, that's an intellectual
> > pattern.  When it comes to labeling dynamic quality
> > in any way that is taboo.
>
>Ron:
>This is the whole argument in a nutshell right here
>"labeling dynamic quality in any way that is taboo."
>Is a fallacy.
>
>There I said it! And I stand by it.
>
>Dynamic Quality is meant to operate
>As an abstract descriptor. We can describe a dynamic
>Experience but we can not define Quality absolutely
>As a noun because it holds dual meaning, and of
>Course the real Quality is experience itself.
>
>I think if we can agree on this point we can start
>Discussing things in an MoQ. Context!
>
>This eliminates the need for Bo's SOL.
>
>Occam never had a closer shave.
>
>

Hi Ron,

I cannot even imagine Quality or DQ as a noun.

Not this.  Not that.

Marsha




Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...