I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122d like to field some of my\u00c2\u00a0uncertainty from the tail end of this flattening space section, specifically questioning the text on page 48 (DTS) that I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m having reservation about understanding within the TSK perspective.<\/p>\n
My initial confusion begins with the 2nd<\/sup> paragraphs last sentence \u00e2\u20ac\u201c \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The dynamic that we have imagined the self to activate remains insubstantial.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d\u00c2\u00a0 My question here stems from:<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00b7\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 is it the self that activates this dynamic (as suggested) or that the self is this dynamic (my connection)?\u00c2\u00a0 So does the self actually have a choice,\u00c2\u00a0or is it\u00c2\u00a0our mind who is the\u00c2\u00a0decision maker?<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00b7\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 And as I can\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t get my head round the suggested idea of the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153imagined\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, because in denying our self the substantiality of a dynamic, are we not suppressing \/ circumventing against the self\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s natural instinct (leading to more problems than it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s going to resolve) by trying to fundamentally alter the self\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s natural impulses?<\/p>\n Given the 3rd<\/sup> paragraph then progresses to affirm the 2nd<\/sup>; my sense (of self? (combination of communiqu\u00c3\u00a9 and mind) suggest that rather than denying an \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcexpression\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 <\/em>being there, if in questioning our understanding of \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcexpressions\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 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.\u00c2\u00a0 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\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re not allowing our mind to be deceived by our self’s trickery?\u00c2\u00a0 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 (3rd<\/sup> paragraph)?<\/p>\n 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\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6..<\/p>\n Louise.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122d like to field some of my\u00c2\u00a0uncertainty from the tail end of this flattening space section, specifically questioning the text on page 48 (DTS) that I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m having reservation about understanding within the TSK perspective. My initial confusion begins with the … Continue reading