[MD] keep on truckin

[MarshaV]

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 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
___