Challenging the claim that a substantial interior lies behind surface appearances, DTS seems to assign something else to play the role of an agency that operates invisibly in the background. \u00c2\u00a0Sometimes it’s the Field Communique and sometimes it’s Space, but appearance is still the surface of something more fundamental. \u00c2\u00a0Yet, neither the Field Communique nor Space claim to be entities that are substantial, abiding, or independent of our observation of them. \u00c2\u00a0As a communication, does the field communique need to deliver its message before it can be said to exist? \u00c2\u00a0Does space, as nothing at all, \u00c2\u00a0need appearance in order to be known? \u00c2\u00a0It seems that neither the communication of the Field nor the openness of space are substantial, because neither can be depicted except in terms of the appearances that dance them forth. \u00c2\u00a0Substance, on the other hand, claims to exist independent of any story or dance that might include them. \u00c2\u00a0–Michael<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Challenging the claim that a substantial interior lies behind surface appearances, DTS seems to assign something else to play the role of an agency that operates invisibly in the background. \u00c2\u00a0Sometimes it’s the Field Communique and sometimes it’s Space, but … Continue reading