[MD] keep on truckin

[118]

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 <valkyr at att.net> 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