First, my apologies for not being very active last week. I am on a tight deadline which ends tomorrow.
At several points in the discussion and the reading, we have noted the difference between subject (which stands against object) and self (which stands against (but also within) world. It can be artificial to insist on this distinction, but we should try to be clear about it, because we often fail to acknowledge the self by confusing it with the subject.
The short reading for this week suggests that the self is at home in time, while objects occupy space. Then what about the subject? Does it occupy space rather than time? The short and oversimplified answer is ‘yes’. But what is the significance of this point?
The self is always busy constructing its world: assigning meanings and telling stories. But none of this works if the self is not somehow in charge of reality. It is like a potter who uses clay to make pots. Suppose that somehow the clay was his own flesh. Everything would change. This sounds like a nightmare, but this may be because we are so busy insisting that we (as selves) have our own independent position. If we let go of the strong subject-object distinction, the world might construct itself, or might just be there. Doesn’t that sound relaxing?
I refer in the title of this post to desire because it seems to me a good focus for Ex. 30, even though it is not discussed there. The object with which we practice reversal is also a desired (or hated, or neutral) object, and some of the energy bound up in those emotions can fuel the reversal. At that point, is it the self that reverses its relation to the world? I don’t necessarily suggest trying to do the exercise that way, but you could have this possibility in mind.
So I come back to the first point: It is possible and helpful to signal out the subject in relation to the object, but it is good to do this against the background of self and world.
Chris speaks of openness in doing these exercises, and that seems to me a good direction to look. Peter writes of different forms of confusion. This would be a good ‘feeling’ on which to practice subject-object reversal. This would naturally bring self and subject together.
Jack
Thank you.
This is in response to Peter’s question about my referring to his confusion. I think, if I remember correctly, that I was responding to this statement:
“The analysis in chapter 14 is like a cloud for me. I hear, I follow the dance of the arguments (sometimes I don´t understand all arguments) but they don´t touch me.”
Let me comment more specifically on this sentence. Ideas in themselves never touch us. But sometimes they “hit home;” they activate something that then is meaningful, and in this sense, we have been touched. Sometimes this happens immediately. Sometimes it happens if we work with an idea and let it stay open in our minds. Gradually new knowledge, immediately experienced knowledge, arises.
Christopher, please, can you tell a little bit more about your experience?
This is a very helpful post and reading, about desire. It adds a very graspable, experiential dimension as to why desire never gets fulfilled. Great stuff. Thanks.
Another question:
You say:”Peter writes of different forms of confusion.” On what Post (paragraph) /comment you are refering to? (in german: auf welche meiner Aussagen beziehst Du Dich?) I did´n´t feel much confusion in the way I use the word “confusion. It´s easier for me to think about/work on it, when I know on what of my different experiences you give this feed back.(Nevertheless I often feel “confusion”.)
Yes, I’m confused too. According to the revised schedule we’re doing LOK Ex. 30 – Observing Hearing. Unless I’m missing a very important point, which may well be. :–)
David
A question:
Week Five:
LOK Ex.30 (Touching the Limits, according with the assignments) or TSK Ex. 30 (A Subjekct-Object Reversal, according your advice) ?
Peter.