I thought is was a yes or no question.
This sentence "I don't think its wildly improbably that Mind should be the ultimate ultimate metaphysical reality, rather than matter, and even that there could be moral order or purpose to the world." doesn't fit in context with the sentence above it.
You go from "open to the possibility", to giving the reader no choice of realities that you claim to be open to. It does fit quit nicely though in context with your response below. Again only giving the reader a choice of a "fundamental metaphysical reality", which by the way, is a much more confident description than the "ultimate ultimate metaphysical reality" mentioned the first time.
What's wrong with just metaphysical reality? The hyperbole gives the impression that you're timid or embarrassed to admit you believe in the possibility of a reality that is metaphysical. But yet two response that only give the reader the choice of a ultimate ultimate fundamental metaphysical reality gives the impression, whether you know it or not, that you're choosing a reality that is metaphysical over reality. Hence, the question.
Perhaps you should have began the sentence with "If dualism is true than...", and if you would have left "fundamental metaphysical" out of your second response then there would have been no confusion and I would have come to a conclusion on your beliefs of reality. Mind based reality is metaphysical. Matter based reality is, well, real.
Do you see my confusion?
Also. What was your reasoning about that question to bring you to the conclusion that I need to be more skeptical? Isn't asking a question the manifestation of skepticism?
Thank you Ron for waking me up.