Fields like cultures, several religions , theories, scientific views can be very opac and secluded like closed rooms.
What opens them, makes them permeable , translucent, interconnected?
I remember the “Giant Body” Exercise : When I “go” from one “level” to the other (the whole body, organs, cells, molecules….), what are the differences between “fields”, “levels”, “systems”? (I remember in the psychological area the process from communication to metacommunication, which opens up the rules of communication.)
Peter
Peter,
I would like to comment your question. It is not an answer, but the way I understand it this moment.
The field is all inclusive. It includes even the bystander or observer. It includes levels, systems and subsystems. The flield is allways shiffting, and each shift is a movement to another level or system.
KTS 178 – ” Space establishes the setting, allows the factors in terms of which the investigation will proceed, and determines such fundamental structures as ‘here’ and ‘there’ and the distance ‘between’.
We can challenge these limits by considering the world of conventional space, ‘within’ which the ‘‘bystander’ observes ‘outsiders’, as the shifting exhibition of a ‘field’. The various aspects of ‘locatedness’, including the attitudes of the observer, the positions taken by a self, the ways that objects take form, and space as the ‘domain’ for ‘locatedness’, would all be given together by the ‘field’.”
Thank you, Eliana.
But there is a “but”:
Why using the word “field”, which is used in an another area (social sciences from KURT LEWIN: “fieldtheory” – in German: “Feldtheorie in den Sozialwissenschaften, Bern 1963”)