Ken says: If we are going to answer the question why, we first need to
answer the question how. Science does answer the question why, just a little
further back in the chain.
I say: Whoa there! If you've figured out the answer ultimate why, then
please, enlighten me. Wasn't that the purpose of Pirsig's writing? to answer
the question why? I agree that The statement that science only answers the
question how, and not the question why is only partly true. Example:
science answers the question "Why do humans need to breathe," with "because
the cells in the human body need an oxygen atom to act as a final electron
acceptor during the electron transport system" Science has given a very
specific answer to a "why" question. The problem is that "further back in
the chain" science can't answer the question "why". If it could then we'd
have a clear metaphysics that explained everything. I joined this forum
because I like the "why" answers that Pirsig has come up with and that each
of the members of this list have expounded upon. After all, isn't that why
we're all here to answer that question why, with the answers that Pirsig has
provided? If science has already done that then I, and I don't think any one
else, would be here.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:40 BST