Jack suggested we respond to some questions raised in When It Rains regarding whether the guided program we are following is subject to several of the limitations which the TSK vision examines. Does the WIR ‘structure’ itself limit the potential freedom of open inquiry? Are we making an effort to focus on direct experience in a way that is subject to the same limitation as meditative techniques which try to hold a single moment in the here and now. It was also recommended that we ask ourselves what we hope to accomplish in this program.
I find that the TSK vision does not require any heroic challenge to what is found in experience: no special states and no confrontations are proposed. The process seems more to look at the way things are—including the tendencies that we bring from the past—and to notice how these patterns limit the quality of our experience. The TSK vision encourages us to recognize how our limitations are a feature within a field of communicated knowledge in time and space.
I find that the ‘field communique’, as an alternative to the picture of a self struggling to find its place within a substantial world, does not automatically banish the polarities that govern my ordinary focal settings. I still feel myself looking out from a body, my eyes still guided by conditioned interests; time still seems to move inexorably, space still seems to be distributed over an extended realm, and knowledge still shows up as insufficient to bring me all that I care about.
‘Reality’ as the face of a communicated field–whatever I am tempted to say I own, whatever boundaries I keep drawing between regions of time and space—offers a refreshing alternative to the conviction that I inhabit a substantial world. Instead of a world of solid objects locked into place in a forced march through sequential time, old understandings come up for fresh review. Even as a rumour of another way of relating to experience, the notion that reality is a communicated presence shifts the way I engage my life, at least some days.
However many questions remain. If the field communique is a presentation of time, space and knowledge which interacts with human beings, does it have a being of its own? Is there a greater knowledge available in the field communique than I am able to recognise, appreciate and harness? Is the communicated presence of the field limited to what gets communicated to an individual mind–in terms of that mind’s interest and capacity to pay attention? Is the ‘field communique’ a potentiality that somehow waits until it is needed, like a battery from which electricity only flows when a circuit is opened? Is the ‘field communique” like a lightning strike, linking the sky to a single tree top, only present when that link is made?
Or am I trying to interpret a mystery through a subject/object form of knowing: employing a focal length that is inherently insufficient for comprehending a field of communicated knowledge? Am I trying to order take-out food when a delicious meal is right in front of me?