> I study Buddhist doctrine and philosophy... but I don't debate with Buddhists about its validity.
Ok got it.
> But you don't have to be a practicing Buddhist to understand or explain Buddhism. Perhaps this is where we disagree? I don't think experience leads to epistemology.
I guess to me experience is a source of knowledge. You can read whatever anybody says about something, but until you actually experience it yourself, it is just a story you have been told. I guess you then have to decide if the teller is believable or not.
> Actually, quarks didn't exist until someone invented the concept "quark."
Ok, I'm lost again. There was gold in the ground before people mined it. Jupiter orbited the sun before Gallileo observed it. How can something not exist until someone invents a term? Things exist before human beings name them.
> Existence is "for us" - that's what I learned from Hegel's philosophy of mind. If something doesn't exist "for us" then it doesn't exist.
Guess I just disagree. Seems to be an very selfish way to live. It is what Radical Christians do -- they believe homosexuality is a sin and homosexuals are perverts. We do not exist as human beings. Well, surprise we do exist as human beings. The more I learn about Hegel the less I like him LOL.
> Now... we can conceptually posit something as having existed all along... but we all know that's just a rationalisation for our own ignorance. : )
The gold in the ground did not just appear magically when someone dug in a certain spot. That is not a posit -- it is a fact.
> The accuracy of a frame is measured by its consistency, its persuasive power, its potential to explain similar or like phenomena, and its explanatory power relative to other analyses.
Gotcha. That makes sense. It allows for the possibility of a more persuasive frame coming along.
> "Buddhism is a religious tradition that worships the Christ" is a bad theory.
Not a theory -- a false statement of fact.
> And sure it is a moral question - but I wouldn't want to confuse morality with epistemology.
I do not think it is confusing morality with epsitemology. Queers have been defined all sorts of way, each way pretending to the fact of "homosexuality." But each presentation of the fact of "homosexuality" has a moral component.
> All facts are interpretations, see my remark about quarks above. There is this thing call the universality of hermeneutics (Gadamer, Truth and Method).
Well, the universality of hermeneutics may exist (see and I did not even know about it, yet it existed), but I don't have to agree to it LOL. I googled on it and I found that Habermas (I don't get him either) disagrees, so tell Gadamer it must not be so universal. LOL
> All interpretations can be reduced to claims which can be evaluated as "true" or "false" (and in principle subject to revision if new insights emerge).
I guess I would say a person talks/acts as if theories are true or false to make living easier, but always keeps in mind that they (theories) are open to revision if a better one comes along.
> Anyone who wants to be a judge can be the judge. Some judges are better than others. It is decided by the community. Ultimately I'd say the consensus of the community, although that won't be forthcoming real soon.
Nevertheless, claims are made such that all could potentially agree to them. That's the power of reason. I say in principle, this is clearly counter-factual. The criteria usually used is the force of the better denunciation rather than the force of the better argument.
Ok, I agree with that. Seems very William James and sensible. We act as if there is a future consensus that is achievable and not as if there is some sort of a priori truth that we can discover if only we are smart enough or listen to the right people or attend the right church.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister