I’d like to field some of my uncertainty from the tail end of this flattening space section, specifically questioning the text on page 48 (DTS) that I’m having reservation about understanding within the TSK perspective.

My initial confusion begins with the 2^nd paragraphs last sentence – “The dynamic that we have imagined the self to activate remains insubstantial.”  My question here stems from:

·        is it the self that activates this dynamic (as suggested) or that the self is this dynamic (my connection)?  So does the self actually have a choice, or is it our mind who is the decision maker?

·        And as I can’t get my head round the suggested idea of the “imagined”, because in denying our self the substantiality of a dynamic, are we not suppressing / circumventing against the self’s natural instinct (leading to more problems than it’s going to resolve) by trying to fundamentally alter the self’s natural impulses?

Given the 3^rd paragraph then progresses to affirm the 2^nd; my sense (of self? (combination of communiqué and mind) suggest that rather than denying an ‘expression’ being there, if in questioning our understanding of ‘expressions’ it can then allow for a more open appreciation (e.g. pgs: 36 – 38 No Inward Occupation, & 45 – 47, Space Knowledge) between our self and (existence /) space, we’ll be all the more richer with that option.  For will not denying self of self not suppress space, and so cause appearance not to remain zeroless because through the process of acknowledging dimentionalization as an illusion we’re not allowing our mind to be deceived by our self’s trickery?  So rather than demoralizing our self, can we not empathize with it, not in agreement but in the course of reflection (as suggest through example pg 37 (3^rd paragraph)?

I may well be splitting hairs here, since so far everything else has made sense……. so would be glad to hear others thoughts on this………..

Louise.