[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Case]

[Ham]
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.

[Case]
Honest to God Ham, what in nature suggests to you that it is not
coincidence? Chaos is an idea of extraordinary power, simplicity and beauty.
Any child can see it at work and it explains everything from quantum
weirdness to hurricanes; from rock slides to bipedal ape descendant. A
chaotic system answers all of the questions you ask and more. It provides
for orderly laws that are intellectually discernable. It is not out in la la
land, it is growing in your backyard.

[Ham]
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.

[Case] 
Too late. So where did this cosmic principle come from and upon what
principle is it based? What are these three things anyway? How did they get
in the genie bottle to start with and how did they get out? Was that all
that was in the bottle? If there is a deity how would we relate to him
except through anthropomorphism? So in addition to Natural Law, proprietary
awareness and objective beingness we also have the principle that we can't
drink essence of Oneness without killing ourselves?

Was there anything else in the bottle you are not telling us about?

[Ham]
So, as a result of this condition we find ourselves in, we have to make 
choices.  

[Case]
Hold up; you reason like the Apostle Paul who loved to say stuff like, "This
that and the other thing, therefore... whatever."

You have not developed anything like a foundation upon which a conclusion
could stand. Which of the elements formerly wrapped in Absolute Oneness
forces us to make choices?

[Ham]
We can decide to dismiss the question as impractical and meaningless,

[Case]
I am liking this plan...

[Ham]
...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 

[Case]
Did this come from the medieval Christian or the pre-Christian visionaries?
which pre-Christian visionaries? Egyptians? Jews? Zoroastrians? 
Why would they be more inspirational than the scholastics or the Aztecs?
Wasn't Nostradomus a medieval Gnostic? Why would you ignore everything we
have learned over the past 1000 years and rely on these dudes for
inspiration? Who are these guys anyway?

[Ham]
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.  

[Case]
In what sense is any of this specific? If the source is "immutable to
change" how can all this stuff spring from it? I thought we were being
forced to ask questions. Are we now forced to accept this as the answer? It
would be nice to know: Why these questions?  Are these really supposed to be
answers? Are we going to be forced to accept them? 

[Ham]
I called this uncreated source Essence.

[Case]
First it was: "cosmic (i.e., absolute) in principle" then it was bottled as
" essence of Oneness", not this...

Is there going to be a test?

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

[Case]
I have to tell you that I have tried on four different occasions with the
best of intentions and with an open mind to make it through your thesis but
after about the third: "If we assume this to be true, then it follows..." or
maybe it's the fourth Pauline "therefore" it just becomes word salad and I
start thinking about Jeri Ryan and joining the collective.

Is the cliff-hanger going to include who shot J.R.? Because I missed that
one and my fingers are slipping. Falling into the chaotic abyss seems better
and better.

[Ham]
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.

[Case]
David is on his own but I have lots of questions... See above.