There are lots of philosophical points that could be made about the distance between subject and object, but that is probably not so helpful. The ‘common sense’ view described here is a kind of natural dualism: I am ‘in here’ and the object is ‘out there’. Even if I am experiencing an inner sensation like pain, this holds: ‘I here’ experience the pain ‘there’. The pain is very close to me, but I am not the pain.
 As the text says, it seems impossible ever to discover the ‘here’ that the I occupies, at least as long as we use the usal model, which depends on distance between the subject that knows and the object that is known.
The way out of this dilemma depends on the ‘feel’ of the field within which knowing takes place and the temporal momentum of the act of knowing (see bottom of p. 308). By working on this level, we challenge the ‘bystanding’ of the subject. We come close to the ‘hidden dimension’ referred to on p. 310. The concept of ’emerging together (p. 311) is another way of making this same point.
We have the chance to explore this through TSK Ex. 17 (which was already assigned in weeks 3 and 4) and TSK Ex. 30 (the one I mistakenly referred to a couple of weeks back.) Subject-object ‘reversal’ and the subject as the object’s glow are both ways to get at the quality of ’emerging together’, because if both subject and object emerge together, it seems arbitrary to focus completely on the subject pole of experience.
The challenge to our conventional model presented here makes good sense (it seems to me). But it will not do us any good if we don’t embody it. So I would encourage you to take these practices out into your daily life. Instead of relating to everything as a self or subject, try identifying more with the field of experience. Don’t forget about the part of the field that is behind you.
Have fun!
Jack
Thank you.