Definitions
The word ‘apperception’ literally means: consciousness being conscious of being consciousness ... as distinct from the normal ‘self’-conscious way of perception (‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious). Viz.:
__________ Some examples of usage of ‘apperception’ gleaned at random from the Internet: • Mr. David Rosenthal wrote, on August 9, 1997, that [quote]: ‘apperceptive awareness is traditionally thought of as direct ... because nothing seems intuitively to mediate between the [mental] states we are aware of and our apperceptive awareness of them. Such apperceptive awareness seems to us to be spontaneous, giving rise to the intuitive sense that it may even be intrinsic to the states apperceived. And directness of this sort implies nothing about the relevant scanning process, but only that we are unaware of any factors mediating between apperception and what is apperceived’. [endquote]. (http://web.gc.cuny.edu/cogsci/nelkin.htm). • Mr. Immanuel Kant wrote, in ‘Critique of Pure Reason’; I; Second Part; First Division; Book One; Chapter II; Section II; Observation SS 17: [quote]: ‘the unity of apperception; [is] a faculty, therefore, which cognises nothing per se, but only connects and arranges the material of cognition, the intuition, namely, which must be presented to it by means of the object. But to show reasons for this peculiar character of our understandings, that it produces unity of apperception a priori only by means of categories, and a certain kind and number thereof, is as impossible as to explain why we are endowed with precisely so many functions of judgement and no more, or why time and space are the only forms of our intuition’. [endquote]. (www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/classics/kant/kant039.htm). • Mr. Philip Rudisill wrote, on October 30, 1998, [quote]: ‘transcendental apperception [is] a formal unity (the form of which is the system of categories) which precedes all recognitions of objects in order that objects might arise through the spectres and/or appearances and/or Erscheinungen such that these spectres are found to be merely images and/or effects of these objects and not things on their own’. [endquote]. (www.pvv.unit.no/~torfer/filosofisenter/lister/Kant-L/Kant-L-Oct-1998/0056.html). • Mr. Immanuel Kant wrote, in ‘Critique of Pure Reason’; ‘Transcendental Logic’; Part II; Section 3: [quote]: ‘all necessity, without exception, is grounded in a transcendental condition ... this original and transcendental condition is no other than transcendental apperception ... to render such a transcendental presupposition valid, there must be a condition which precedes all experience, and which makes experience itself possible ... this pure original unchangeable consciousness I shall name transcendental apperception. That it deserves the name is clear from the fact that even the purest objective unity, namely, that of the a priori concepts (space and time), is only possible through relation of the intuitions to such unity of consciousness. The numerical unity of this apperception is thus the a priori ground of all concepts, just as the manifoldness of space and time is the a priori ground of the intuitions of sensibility’. [endquote]. (http://world.std.com/~awolpert/gtr77.html). 
I know precisely what apperception is as I termed it that
myself back in 1997, before going public with what had first become manifest, as a living actuality 24/7, five years
earlier (in 1992), in close consultation with my second wife, Devika, about the most apposite nomenclature for the
immediate, direct, unmediated perception she too had experiential comprehension/intimate knowledge of due to
numerous PCE’s both before she met me and whilst living together. Viz.:
• ‘apperception: the mind’s perception of itself’ (Oxford
Dictionary). It was that definition – as contrasted to the normal ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious type of
perception – which appealed and not any historical usage of the word. I have never looked-up the way other peoples
have used the word; I simply mean it as un-mediated perception (as in no identity whatsoever mediating the
perceptive process)’. In that brief scintillating instant of bare awareness, that twinkling sensorium-moment of consciousness being conscious of being consciousness, one apperceives a thing as a nothing-in-particular that is being naught but what-it-is coming from nowhen and going nowhere at all. Apperception is very much like what one sees with one’s peripheral vision as opposed to the intent focus of normal or central vision. This moment of soft, ungathered sensuosity – apperception – contains a vast understanding, an utter cognisance, that is lost as soon as one adjusts one’s mind to accommodate the feeling-tone and subverts the crystal-clear objectivity into an ontological ‘being’ ... a connotative ‘thing-in-itself’. In the process of ordinary perception, the apperception step is so fleeting as to be usually unobservable. One has developed the habit of squandering one’s attention on all the remaining steps: feeling the percept; emotionally recognising the qualia; zealously adopting the perception and getting involved in a long string of representative feeling-notions about it. When the original moment of apperception is rapidly passed over it is the purpose of ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ to accustom one to prolong that moment of apperception – a sensuous awareness bereft of feeling content – so that uninterrupted apperception can eventuate. Apperception is the clear and direct experiencing of being just here at this place in infinite space right
now at this moment in eternal time – sans identity and its feeling-fed realities – and it is a wordless appreciation of being
alive and awake on this verdant and azure planet. Apperception is where one is living in the already always existing
peace-on-earth and is where one is blithe and carefree, even if one is doing nothing: doing something – and that includes
thinking – is a bonus on top of the never-ending perfection of the infinitude which this material universe is. Apperception is
where one is the universe being stunningly aware of its own infinitude. RICHARD: So much for thought and feeling – there is this third alternative: Apperception Apperception, as I said, is the mind’s perception of itself – it is a bare awareness. Normally the mind perceives through the senses and sorts the data received according to its predilection; but the mind itself remains unperceived ... it is taken to be unknowable. Apperception happens when the ‘who’ inside abdicates its throne and a pure awareness occurs. The PCE is as if one has eyes in the back of one’s head; there is a three hundred and sixty degree awareness and all is self-evidently clear. This is knowing by direct experience, unmediated by any ‘who’ whatsoever. One is able to see that the ‘who’ of one has been standing in the way of the perfection and purity that is the essential nature of this moment of being here becoming apparent. Here a solid and irrefutable native intelligence can operate freely because the ‘thinker’ and the ‘feeler’ is extirpated. One is the universe’s experience of itself as a human being ... after all, the very stuff this body is made of is the very stuff of the universe. There is no ‘outside’ to the perfection of the universe to come from; one only thought and felt that one was a separate identity (ego, id, self, identity, persona, personality, lower ‘I am’, atman, soul, spirit, or whatever) forever seeking Union with ‘That’, by whatever name (Higher Self, True Self, Real Self, The All, Existence Itself, Consciousness, The Void, Suchness, Isness and so on). Then what one is (‘what’ not ‘who’) is these sense organs in operation: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me. Whereas ‘I’, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose, and thinking through ‘my’ brain. Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for ‘I’ am cut off from the magnificence of the world as-it-is – the actual world – by ‘my’ very presence. Any identity whatsoever is a delusion. Without ‘me’, the immediate is the ultimate. Awareness-Cum-Attentiveness; Aware-Cum-Attentive: This hyphenated neologism – a term which includes being affectively aware in combination with, and as felt necessary
thereby, being cognitively attentive (the Latin cum=with, together with, or along with, as in ‘a garage-cum-workshop’, for instance) – was
coined in order to more readily reference an adroit technique which involves a keenly discriminative affective monitoring of the quality of mood
plus the cognitive rectification of same, and as instigated responsively therefrom, so as to effect beneficial modification of one’s
day-by-day temperament which, in the longer-term, brings about a benefactive transformation of disposition and/or character as well. Any necessity
to be (cognitively) attentive only takes place on those occasions when/ where an otherwise ongoing (affective) enjoyment and appreciation
diminishes – which attentiveness is initiated by that diminution in the quality of (affectively) enjoying and appreciating being alive/ being
here, each moment again, come-what-may – and occurs less and less once one gets the knack of thus (affectively) monitoring one’s
moment-to-moment mood and temperament via the increasingly subtle variations in that quality. Exquisite Awareness-Cum-Attentiveness The word exquisite Any necessity to be (cognitively) attentive only takes place on those occasions when/ where an otherwise ongoing (affective) enjoyment and
appreciation diminishes – which attentiveness is initiated by that diminution in the quality of (affectively) enjoying and appreciating being
alive/ being here, each moment again, come-what-may – and occurs less and less once one gets the knack of thus (affectively) monitoring one’s
moment-to-moment mood and temperament via the increasingly subtle variations in that quality. RESPONDENT: In what way is consciousness related to intelligence? RICHARD: If you are indeed referring to self-consciousness, or self-awareness, it is an essential prerequisite for intelligence to arise: intelligence is not only the faculty of the human brain thinking, with all its understanding (intellect) and comprehension (sagacity), but includes its cognisance (awareness or consciousness) of being a body existing in the world of people, other animals, plants, things and events. Moreover, intelligence requires self-reference – which involves the issue of agency (intervening action towards an end; action personified; a source of action towards an end) and agency can be only self-referential – plus intelligence also requires self-interest: a self-referential organism is concerned about its existence, and by extension others’ existence, in that it is biased – it finds water appealing and acid unappealing for example – and being biased is what being self-interested means. However, if you are referring ‘consciousness’ as popularly meaning the (illusory) identity which is being conscious ... it is, of course, not related to intelligence at all. Its presence cripples intelligence, in fact. The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
