This is a response to Bruce’s post, and to a question he asked in it. Bruce wrote:<\/p>\n
We discussed on the call today how the field communique is invisible, in essence; it cannot be seen or operated on directly, and so instead we inquire into the nature of the objects \u00e2\u20ac\u0153communicated\u00e2\u20ac\u009d to us within the context of the communique.\u00c2\u00a0 . . . over time, is it fair to say that the field communique at one point in time (the unconscious <\/em>telling<\/em> of a given \u00e2\u20ac\u0153stage\u00e2\u20ac\u009d) may eventually become \u00e2\u20ac\u0153object\u00e2\u20ac\u009d or \u00e2\u20ac\u0153content\u00e2\u20ac\u009d for us at a later time?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
My sense is that we can look back on previous versions of the communique as ‘objects’, as you suggest. In fact, we might even be presented with an objective version of our own current field (or at least aspects of it) and correctly identify it as ours, without really being able to access it as a communicated field (Think, for instance, of acknowledging an addiction but stay in its grip.)<\/p>\n
The idea that we can never get hold of a field holds at a certain level of the TSK vision. I think that ‘deeper levels’ of knowledge are no longer in the grip of the field.<\/p>\n
By the way, I notice that I resist always writing ‘field communique.’ Sometimes it seems more accurate simply to speak of the field (that is being communicated).<\/p>\n
Jack<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This is a response to Bruce’s post, and to a question he asked in it. Bruce wrote: We discussed on the call today how the field communique is invisible, in essence; it cannot be seen or operated on directly, and … Continue reading