[MD] What is Zen?

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Joe

On 2010-07-07 02:09, Joseph Maurer wrote:
> On 7/6/10 1:02 PM, "Magnus Berg"<McMagnus at home.se>  wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> "In this plain of understanding static, patterns of value are divided
>> into four systems: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social
>> patterns and intellectual pat­terns. They are exhaustive. That's all
>> there are. If you construct an encyclopedia of four topics - Inorganic,
>> Biological, Social and Intellectual - nothing is left out. No 'thing,'
>> that is. Only Dynamic Quality, which cannot be described in any
>> encyclopedia, is absent."
> <snip>
>
> Hi Magnus and all,
>
> I am curious!  Is it your interpretation of the paragraph cited that the
> levels which Persig proposed for evolutionary reality are the only levels
> possible?

No, I have a theory of my own about that. Last I counted, I got 7. :) 
See "the levels undressed" in the moq.org forum for more info.

> Given the DQ/SQ metaphysics, does DQ evolve in consciousness only
> beyond SQ?

Consciousness? Nah, not by itself. DQ by itself can't sustain some kind 
of steady state as consciousness does. I tend to see consciousness as it 
is described in "The quantum self", a quantum state known as a 
Bose-Einstein-Condensate. It behaves like a quantum particle with 
superstate positions and all that, but it can encompass larger volumes 
than a single particle. So the brain seems to be build in such a way 
that it supports such a condensate, but we still don't know how that's 
done with biological material. We can only make artificial B-E-C in 
extremely cold environments, near absolute 0 K.

> Is it illogical given DQ that evolution be only defined reality? Does Pirsig
> leave open the possibility that DQ evolves beyond SQ in heroes?  Is it
> illogical that DQ evolve to DQ only levels in the consciousness of heroes
> like Persig which would allow one to list further levels in DQ evolution
> only?  This proposal of further levels in consciousness only is found in the
> esoteric writings of Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Nicoll, Collins, Bennett etc.  In
> your opinion is this beyond the MOQ?

I don't see DQ as something like a level above the SQ levels. DQ is more 
like the catalyst driving forth new levels. When an old level has filled 
up its environment, like animals did in the primordial sea here on 
earth, DQ comes along and shows how to step up on dry land, and then how 
to fly. I'm of course not saying that land-living animals are of another 
level, but that's a pretty good analogy to how levels evolve.

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the writings you mention, but any 
higher level need of course be based on intellectual patterns, so the 
human brain is probably a good place to start looking for it.

After reading some on Wikipedia about the authors you mentioned, I think 
I realize what you're after. Some kind of supernatural senses, right? 
But still, DQ is probably not the answer to such endeavours. You need SQ 
to get some kind of stability, to get the same (or similar) result every 
time. I also doubt you really need a new level for it. You have to ask 
yourself if it's really *new*, or if it's just *more*.

	Magnus