[MD] Distinguishing Levels

[Ham Priday]

Case --


> I was a frequent flyer in these discussions during the last half
> of last year. Unfortunately my user had to get a real job. So
> between Real Life and the commitments I have in my native
> land of Norrath I have very little time. As many have noted
> these discussions are highly addictive. Rather than unsubscribing
> I have managed to remain a lurker and just chime in occasionally.

The land of Norrath would seem to be equally addictive.  Several Qualityland
folks have asked me why a non-Pirsigian like me hangs on here.  I suspect my
reasons are the same as yours,  and my philosophy might also be viewed by
some as solipsistic.  However, judging from the information you have
provided, I doubt very much that either of us is a solipsist in the
traditional sense.

> But I do not see any logical way to prove that anything exists
> outside of my own awareness. I reject solipsism purely as a
> matter of faith.

Unless you hold to some religious doctrine, your rejection of solipsism is a
matter of reason, not faith.  (I'm not going to let you off the hook with
that answer. )

> I accept a form of SOM in that I believe I am the only subject
> in the universe and that everything outside of my skin is object.
> On faith I grant your existence but you are mere object as far as
> I am concerned. I further acknowledge that you are entitled to
> the same view. Thus for me in SOM S is always singular.
> Subjects do not exist. Further, Objectivity is always a matter of
> intersubjectivity. But this is not the kind of SOM Pirsig rails against.

What kind of SOM doesn't Pirsig rail against?  To me, the whole multi-level
heirarchy is an attempt to sweep away the notion of duality, thereby
achieving the Holy Grail of Philosophy: Monism.  Essentialism also accepts
the subject/object dichotomy, with emphasis on the singular "subject" -- but
as the actualized mode of a primary Source.  I've been trying to point out
that Quality is a valuistic judgment by the subjective awareness
experiencing being as its relational object.

Do you believe in a first cause or primary essence?  Or do you hold to the
view that existence arises out of nothingness?  As a free-thinker, do you
consider yourself an atheist, an agnostic, or a logical positivist like
Russell whom you seem to admire?

Depending on how you answer these questions, you may be an essentialist
without realizing it. If you've not already read my thesis, it may benefit
you to sacrifice an hour of your Norrath time to visit
www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm.  I think it will reveal my reason for
"lurking" on the MD, as well as providing a perspective that you may well
find compatible with your own.

In any case, let me know what you think.

Thanks for your candor in responding to my questions, Case.  I look foward
to the possibility that we'll be exchanging views in the near future.

Essentially yours,
Ham