[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Ham Priday]

Hi David --


> How is it that we find ourselves in the position
> to make choices?  Do we determine the laws of
> nature (NB: devil's advocate question)?

You could have stopped with "How is it that we find ourselves?"  The
"position" of "making choices" is the condition we find ourselves in, as
Sartre so verbosely theorized.

Unless you're willing to say that it's just coincidental, the fact that we
are all in such a position suggests an underlying reason.  That nature and
the cosmos are not chaotic but operate as an orderly system according to
intellectually definable laws suggests that there is a design implicit in
the system, and an implicit design logically presupposes a Designer.
Moreover, if we were designed by a Designer, it would seem logical that
there is a purpose to the design.

Now, before you start shouting "bloody theist" at me, let me assure you that
the Designer I have in mind is not an anthropomorphic deity.  (That would
demean the design and throw us back into chaos.)  What I'm referring to is
cosmic (i.e., absolute) in principle, such that if you were to put natural
law, proprietary awareness, and objective beingness back into the genie's
bottle as the essence of Oneness, there would be no further need for
discussion.  Unfortunately, we can't do this without destroying ourselves -- 
which is also part of the cosmic principle.

So, as a result of this condition we find ourselves in, we have to make
choices.  We can decide to dismiss the question as impractical and
meaningless, or we can come up with some plausible explanation, such as
Reality = Quality, and then try to define everything as a pattern or level
of Quality.  At about the time Mr. Pirisig was charting his levels, I was
working out another approach borrowed from the medieval gnostics and
pre-Christian visionaries.  It was based in large part on the autonomy of
the individual: specifically, 1) how the life-experience is designed to
separate the individual psyche from all those essential 'truths' that man
would need to make an informed decision, and 2) how the human individual is
uniquely equipped with the intellect and value sensibility to ask these very
questions.  There was a purpose in this design; it presupposed a primary
source that is immutable to change, yet capable of knowing itself as an
other.  I called this uncreated source Essence.

That's my cliff-hanger for this Sunday afternoon.  Further details are
available by request, or from my website at www.essentialism.net.

Thanks for playing devil's advocate for me, David, although I appreciate
that any sincere challenge could be so viewed.  However, I don't understand
the 'NB'.  Could it mean "no-brainer"?  Perhaps you'll post some follow-up
questions.

Best regards,
Ham