Following up on a statement in Jack’s orientation notes:<\/p>\n
“It makes sense to say that every ‘thing’ that appears has it own kind of space.”<\/p>\n
This raises an interesting question. Can the possibility of different kinds of space coexist with the idea that space itself is unaffected by whatever arises within it: eternally unstained, infinitely accommodating and open, without bias, predisposition, or qualities of any kind?<\/p>\n
And straying even further: if psychological space is different in some way from the space in which objects appear, are there also different flavors of psychological space? \u00c2\u00a0For instance, in relationships, when one person wants to get closer, and the other wants more freedom (more space), could we say that the psychological spaces in which these psychological needs play out are different in that they invite different kinds of experience? \u00c2\u00a0 One psyche dreams of intimacy, connection, and seeks to nest in the local vicinity of their local system. \u00c2\u00a0The other dreams of breaking orbit, and launching out into the outer reaches of its known home base.<\/p>\n
I am drawn to the idea that space itself is influenced by the moods and outlooks of what arises within it. \u00c2\u00a0Even if Great Space is eternally available for everything precisely because it is uninfluenced by anything actual, it is a congenial idea that space also notices us, leaves a place for us and whatever we hope to realize. \u00c2\u00a0 Could it be that Great Space sends out different kinds of spaces wherever they are called for, and that these different spaces straddle the two realms of eternity and embodiment? \u00c2\u00a0— Michael<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Following up on a statement in Jack’s orientation notes: “It makes sense to say that every ‘thing’ that appears has it own kind of space.” This raises an interesting question. Can the possibility of different kinds of space coexist with … Continue reading