[Buddha-l] Eckhart Tolle

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 07:21 -0500, Tom Troughton wrote:

> Popper argues that scientific theories can be evaluated by how much
> possible reality they state is impossible, because they can be
> invalidated through a process of inter-subjective verifying. Scientific
> theories do not present universal truths but contingent descriptions of
> what should not (ontologically) be. Your description of science
> contains no aspect which seems to require verification, and no method
> for falsifying truth.

No I did not mention that in this particular post, but I have mentioned
it in numerous other posts over the years. Popper follows Peirce in his
insistence that no hypothesis is scientific unless built in to the
hypothesis is a criterion by which one would recognize it as false. It
is the absence of this criterion that disqualifies Intelligent Design as
a scientific hypothesis. No one (that I know about) has announced "If I
were to see such an such results from an experiment, or if I were to
find such and such data out in the field, then I would know that
Intelligent Design is false." But scientists do that sort of thing all
the time. They state that if something is found, they'll have to abandon
the hypothesis. And most of the time (except when they're being human,
all too human) they practice what they preach. And that's why scientific
theory is constantly being revised.

> How is your description of science different from a description of theology?

> >That is almost an accurate way of characterizing my agenda as a
> >secularist. I would be quite happy to see religion disappear altogether
> >from the public square and promoted only in homes and churches. The only
> >legitimate approach to knowledge in the public sphere, I would argue, is
> >science. I don't think science is an effort to reduce the symbolic
> >horizon of religion. I think science qua science just ignores religion
> >and conducts inquiries into nature as if religion did not exist at all.
> 
> Where is the public square, what are some other things in it at this
> time, and which of those things would you like to see removed (besides
> religion of course)? How is science different from those things?

What concerns me most is the public school system and educational
facilities that are funded by governments that are bound by a
constitutional amendment that says there shall be no established
religion. (That is not the case in Canada, but it is the case in my home
and native land.) What I oppose in the public educational institutions
funded by government money in the United States of America is all
prayers and all teaching of religion that is done in a confessional, as
opposed to historical or sociological, manner. I strongly oppose the
teaching of creationism, creation science, or Intelligent Design
ideology in the public schools, except perhaps in philosophy or history
courses designed to examine them impartially. How confessional
instruction differs from science is that the former is designed to
promote faith, while the latter is designed to promote critical
thinking. 

> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:44:48 -0700, Richard P. Hayes wrote:
> 
> >Nothing qualifies anyone to teach aside from having the ability to
> >attract students. If people listen to you, you're a teacher. Period. If
> >people don't find what you say useful, they'll stop listening. If no one
> >listens to you, you're no longer a teacher. Pretty simple, eh?
> 
> This suggests that whatever charismatic teachers teach as science is
> science.

No, that does not follow at all. All I have said is that a person is a
teacher if and only if she has students. I am not committed to any claim
that whatever the students believe is ipso facto the truth, nor to any
claim that whatever a teacher describes himself as teaching is an
accurate description of what is being taught.

> This could seem consistent with the essenceless of all things taught in the MMK.  

I don't think the MMK teaches that things don't have essences. It
teaches that things have the essences they have because they are
conditioned by other things. So my claim is quite consistent with the
MMK, because it says a person is a teacher only if certain conditions
are fulfilled and only so long as those conditions are fulfilled. So I
am a teacher when people are listening to me. When I am driving a car
and listening to Amy Goodman on the car radio, I am a driver and a
listener who gets so goddamn mad at the Republicans who are ruining this
country and the whole world that I feel like running tractor trailers,
and anyone else to voluntarily listens to Brooks and Dunne or any
country singers other than the Dixie Chicks, off the road. When I'm
walking my dog, I'm a dog walker, and when I'm writing on buddha-l I'm
an asshole. You get the idea.

> Does madhyamaka essenceless leave only discourse as a way identify things?

Sure. You identify things by the conditions that make it possible to
notice them at all.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico