[MD] Distinguishing Levels

[Case]

[Case]
> 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.

[Ham]
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. )

[Case]
Faith is a tough to define but I do not think it requires religious
conviction. Gödel showed that mathematic is not provable logically yet I
retain faith in its power. Quantum mechanics demonstrates uncertainty at the
most basic level of matter yet I retain faith in tomorrow's sunrise. My
faith in the existence of others is on the same order.

[Ham]
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.

[Case]
I am a pretty orthodox Taoist in that I have listened to the Tao Te Ching
perhaps 50 times and always find it to be a source of inspiration. It is
monistic and yet accounts for the 10,000 things. (I am an auditory learner
and listen to lots of audiobooks).
I have read your expositions on this "primary source" in the past and found
them rather theological if not supernatural. Perhaps I have misunderstood.
As for Pirsig's levels, when I read Lila I see them as "what ifs" not
absolutes. (As in: "what if we look at things this way?")  I attach little
significance to them frankly and do not find them to be nearly as important
to the MoQ as most everyone else here. I certainly do not see them as
discrete as I attempted to point out in a post a couple of days ago. 

[Ham]
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?

[Case]
I am an agnostic and have given up speculating on things I have no hope of
resolving satisfactorily. What Russell said that I found particularly to the
point was that, while the mystic may be correct, if his correctness has no
consequence and can not be communicated then I have no need to bother with
it. Intersubjectivity requires some criteria for multiple observers to agree
upon. At this point I am content with scientific cosmology.