“Field†in the Orginial TSK Book
      The word “field†does not appear in the index of the first TSK book, which seems fitting since the concept of a field suggests a presence  residing in the background of ordinary appearance. But in each of Jack’s references there are two other words close by that do appear in the index: “dimension†and “groundâ€.
The word “ground†is more comforting than either “dimension†or “fieldâ€, and points to the possibility of finding a place to stand. On the other hand, “dimension†and “field†suggest ways of looking at experience that require math or physics to make sense.
Yet the idea of a field as more fundamental than the consolidating tendency that manifests as solid entities, suggests that everything is actually fluid and vibrant.
The image of an underlying field also provides insight into my own studies of TSK. My efforts to consolidate an understanding of TSK never quite succeed. The several TSK books, Jack’s notes (in WIR and weekly orientations), comments and posts of fellow students, the provocative, unusual use of language, all keep me interested but on the edges of understanding. A long-established desire to be finished keeps getting pushed aside in favour of a persistent suggestion that there is more to learn.
This quality of suggestiveness is mysteriously its own reward—nourishing the mind without the benefit of firm conclusions or solid proofs.
Â
               –Michael Gray, 3/17/14
Dear Michael.
Perhaps we all wish “to consolidate an understanding of TSK”. Isn´t this our usual way of knowing? And perhaps the ongoing learning is developing its own momentum or dynamic without coming to an end. This seems to be an unusual way for me.
Karin