[MD] The difference between a Monet and a finger painting

[markhsmit]

On Jan 25, 2010, at 6:49:59 AM, "Arlo Bensinger" <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
[Mary]
The point he makes is that science is pretty good at figuring out the 
"how", but is clueless about figuring out the "why".

[Arlo]
I'm going to disagree with you, slightly, Mary. The MOQ, I hold, 
would say that "why" (as you're using it differentiated from "how") 
is a "mu" question. At BEST, what can only ever be offered in 
response to "why" is an analogy. Even the MOQ is an analogy, a 
"finger pointing at the moon". The MOQ can no more "figure out the 
why" than SOM, but it simply puts that question into a larger 
(Buddhistic) perspective.

In short, the MOQ does NOT answer the question "does a dog have a 
Buddha nature?", but it says that asking such a question itself is 
perhaps a fool's quest, one that will only diminish both the asker 
and the answerer.

I don't think the MOQ offers any better answer as to "why evolution 
occurs" than science, but I would say the MOQ understood properly 
treats such a question as "mu". Saying "it occurs because it was 
better to occur than not" is hardly a powerful, or even meaningful, 
answer. We know it occurred, science can fill in all the hows and the 
timeline. Theism may try to answer the "whys" but does so from a 
perspective that also misses the "mu". Theism is as "blind" to the 
Void as is "science".
[Mark]
Hi Arlo,
Yes, why? The answers given are non ending, they simply propose a cause
before but never ultimate.  The answer satisfies if only the preceding cause
is required.  Theism is as blind as science, especially when theism is dogmatic
as taught by a church which tries to explain why.  The difference as I see
it, is science is seen by the brain as SOM, where as true spirituality is not
logical but is felt by the heart and is Quality.  I am not pushing either of
these since it doesn't matter, it is just my opinion.  Maybe some day
I will get some theism.  One can only hope.