|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Apperceptive Awareness versus Choiceless Awareness
RICHARD: 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.: [Dictionary Definition]: ‘apperception (n.): the mind’s perception of itself: apperceptive (adj.): of or pertaining to apperception: apperceptiveness (n.): the condition or quality of being apperceptive: ‘apperceptively’ (adv.): the experience of being apperceptive: ‘apperceptivity’: (n.): the capacity to be apperceptive’. [Fr. aperception or mod. L apperceptio(n-) (Liebniz), f. (non-productive) prefix ap- (assim. form of L ad-) + perception]. Abditorium,Apperception
Re: Log RESPONDENT: It’s strange that I can’t remember the times that I had fun. Can’t remember as in feel the same feeling now. I had a lot of fun tonight with friends. All we did was sit, talk, and joke around. It was fun. But once I got back home or started driving the less festive atmosphere started to set in. It feels as if I lost a part of my life because as much as I try to think back on tonight it’s like I just wasn’t there. It feels like life is passing me by and it is always a bit disconcerting to me. This particular sequence of events has happened to me before, but I usually find that the crash back into my less festive world is hard and heavy. I get lost in my cynical or glum thoughts that life isn’t always fun. But not so this time as when I realize this is happening I remember and pay attention to how I am experiencing this moment of being alive. And just the fact that this is the only moment of being alive is enough to dispel all of those thoughts as I realized at one point that to go anywhere else is to go into the world of imagination. Still I’m maintaining persistence in getting this thing running so that the momentum can build because there’s really nothing else that I want as much as this. I’m having incremental success in my application of the method. I find that the guide that Peter put on the website matches my experience so far. When I get lost in thoughts or feeling reality then I immediately pay attention to how I am experiencing this moment of being alive. I do find that the initial layer is the layer of ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’. I eventually get to a point where everything seems empty. I stick with it and try not to ‘move’ anywhere and eventually the fascination that it is this moment sets in and I am once more enjoying life. Still there is more work to be done though. There was something else I wanted to write but I can’t remember. Specifics....hmmm .. will have to come back to it. That’s all for now. (Subject: Re: Log, 30 Dec 2013) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• RESPONDENT: Yesterday I had some results that showed me that I was applying the method correctly. It was undoubtedly an experience of apperception. But it was brief. I was in the kitchen and my grandma told me to clean some stuff since she was too tired to do anything. So I reluctantly agreed (I do not like cleaning the kitchen). As I was wiping down the counter tops I remembered ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’. And I was then again struck by the fact that it was this moment. Then as I stuck with that seeing that it was this moment of being alive I was pulled towards it. The pull itself was exhilarating and thrilling. Suddenly I saw my kitchen counter top for the first time. In great detail I saw everything but I wasn’t focused on anything at all. I experienced the very curvature of my eyeballs and everything became alive and three dimensional. This was in contrast to the ‘flatness’ of the real world. I found that I was delighting in cleaning the kitchen because to simply be alive was delightful. ‘I’ couldn’t stay back for long though as all ‘I’ could feel and think was ‘WOW! this is amazing!’. To think that all these ordinary things could be so extraordinary is wonderful. What have I been doing my whole life? (Subject: Re: Log, 31 Dec 2013) RICHARD: G’day No. 44, Your initial email – reproduced here as #161xx further above – almost prompted me to write a comment, when you posted it, as it clearly pinpoints the difference between a caused/ conditional enjoyment (‘I had a lot of fun tonight with friends’/ ‘all we did was sit, talk, and joke around’) and an uncaused/ unconditional enjoyment (‘the fascination that it is this moment sets in’/ ‘I am once more enjoying life’). (A caused, or conditional, enjoyment and appreciation has a beginning and an end – it is dependent upon situations and circumstances – whereas an uncaused, or unconditional, enjoyment and appreciation is perpetual, aeonian (beginingless and endless) and occurs solely by virtue of being vitally alive – being dynamically here at this particular place in infinite space at this very moment in eternal time as a sensuous, reflective flesh-and-blood body only – and thus dependent upon no one, no thing, and no event). Your follow-up email – reproduced here as #161xx above – unambiguously indicates you are indeed [quote] ‘applying the
method correctly’ [endquote] and it quite remarkably reminded me of certain everyday experiences What the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ – which ‘he’ formulated back in early 1981 – meant to ‘him’ was ‘Why is that experience not happening at this very moment?’ or ‘What is preventing that way of being here occurring right now?’ or ‘How come that wondrous world is not currently apparent?’ (and so on and so forth). By thus being vitally interested – with that degree of fascinated attentiveness – in this moment being the only moment ‘he’ was ever alive it soon became a wordless approach, a non-verbal attitude towards life, each moment again, and ‘he’ readily developed the knack of allowing apperception to happen as it is never not this moment (as in ‘time has no duration’/ ‘time does not move’) in actuality. (The experiential knowledge that this moment is eternal – that it is never not this moment in actuality – is the key to more instances of apperceptive awareness taking place). Now that you indubitably know what apperception is Ain’t life grand! Regards, RESPONDENT: Would you take apperception as [non spiritual enlightenment of the body?]. RICHARD: Nope ... non-spiritual enlightenment (such as the ‘age of enlightenment’ of the 18th-19th century) which promotes reason over tradition, although helpful insofar as it goes to dispel belief, does not address life in this actual world. Even though it is plastered all over The Actual Freedom Trust web site that actualism is the third alternative to either materialism or spiritualism it is surprising the number of people who seek to understand it in either materialistic terms or spiritualistic terms ... or even a combination of the two. It is neither ... it is, as the name says, actual. RESPONDENT: Closely connected to this is what you name ‘apperception’ ... RICHARD: I found the word in the Oxford Dictionary in 1997, when I was assembling an ad hoc collection of articles into some semblance of being a book form so as to be suitable for publishing, which simply said (as the first of several meanings):
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. RESPONDENT: ... which also is a central term in western philosophical tradition. A quick look at the German Wikipedia tells one that its career began with St. Augustine as ‘attention’, came via Duns Scotus, Descartes to Leibniz who firstly baptizes the child ‘apperception’, than travels on to Kant, and in the Anglo-Saxon world most prominently to W. James and J. Dewey. However, you use the word ‘apperception’ quite differently, so it might be clarifying to relate to the classics and say what you reject, i.e. in what respects you deem them to be ‘tried and wrong’. (Just making it a little more explicit than it is anyway). RICHARD: 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). RESPONDENT: The newest thing in ‘apperception theory’ seems to be the (information) theoretical result that the capacity of the senses is a million times higher than the capacity of conscious perception. Now, to use this wild metaphor, if the ‘consciousness’ in the form of ‘ego’ is a social interface just as a computer has a graphical user interface where you also neither want nor need to see all that is going on underneath, if this interface disappears – then only direct connection to the senses is left, and then you have an information overkill quite enough for any PCE. A state of mind particularly enjoyable on a warm summer day with nice food in a beautiful setting. RICHARD: The word consciousness refers to a body being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) just as the word warmness refers to the state or condition of being warm ... the ego (aka the thinker), having arisen from the soul/spirit (the feeler) one is born being (per favour the instinctual passions), is but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to ‘being’ itself (which is ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being). Put succinctly: it is not consciousness per se which is the spanner in the works (aka the ghost in the machine) but identity, as a ‘presence’, hijacking the sensory experience and, whilst thus busily creating an ‘inner’ world, involuntarily imposing its reality over the physical actuality (this actual world) as a veneer (and thereby creating an ‘outer’ world) ... all the while yearning for, and thus seeking, union betwixt its two creations. In other words, both duality (‘self’ and ‘other’) and non-duality (‘oneness’) have no existence in actuality ...
any identity is forever locked-out of paradise (this actual world). RESPONDENT: You always are covering behind the word ‘apperceptively aware’. RICHARD: If that is how you see what I report then apparently nothing I can further say is going to alter that conclusion. RESPONDENT: How you know you are alive? RICHARD: Sensately ... ... I have written about this to you twice before. Here is an excerpt:
RESPONDENT: Do you have any other mean except thought to know it? RICHARD: Yes ... you will see, upon re-reading my response (above), that I clearly say the sense of being here, in space, as a body is not just because of sight (visual perception), sound (auditory perception), touch (cutaneous perception), smell (olfactory perception), and taste (gustatory perception) but proprioception as well. And sensory perception is what consciousness is at its most basic ... perception means consciousness (aka awareness). Viz.:
And consciousness means sentience. Viz.:
And sentience is direct, immediate (sensate perception is primary; affective perception is secondary; cognitive perception is
tertiary). RESPONDENT: This is a good example of what No. 16 speaks of as focusing on words rather than what they point to. You call it apperception and Krishnamurti called it at times seeing from wholeness. RICHARD: Goodness me, no ... we have discussed this before. The words point to a reality that is an unfragmented observer busily being the observed: ‘seeing from wholeness’ is also called ‘choiceless awareness’ . I explain the difference between ‘choiceless awareness’ and ‘apperceptive awareness’ thus:
RESPONDENT: To ask ‘who’ is seeing is to miss the point. There is no ‘who’. It may as easily be asked who is experiencing so-called apperception. RICHARD: It may be easily asked ... and it is just as easily answered. There is no ‘who’ in apperceptive awareness; 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, thinking through ‘my’ brain and feeling through ‘my’ feelings. Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated and lonely, for ‘I’ am cut off from the magnificence of the world as-it-is (the actual world) by ‘my’ very presence. Out of isolation, alienation and loneliness, ‘I’ shift ‘my’ identity from the cognitive to the affective and feel a ‘wholeness’, a ‘oneness’ ... a unitary perception. One is alone – not lonely – in the sense that ‘alone’ means ‘all one’. However, any identity whatsoever is a delusion. RESPONDENT: I am somewhat confused as far as the details of this self analysis go. There are several ways I have been approaching self analysis: 1. By paying attention to what happens inside me and outside me in ‘real time’ all the time. This stems from my former Vipassana meditations, I think. This state of alertness goes on sometimes for prolonged periods of time. It is difficult then to answer a question ‘what do I really want’ because the watching ‘I’ is satisfied by this watching activity. Everything happens in front of ‘me’. I am happy the way I am. Am I then in a dissociated state? RICHARD: Quite possibly ... but only you can know that for sure as I will only ever have your description to go by and would not presume to know your moment-to-moment experience. However, in view of your involvement with the Buddhist ‘Vipassana Bhavana’, if you had been successful in cultivating ‘Mindfulness’ properly, you would have been regularly attaining to the dissociated state ... else you have been wasting your time, effort and (maybe) fees. It is this simple: the word ‘mindfulness’ (which means more or less the same as ‘watchfulness’, ‘heedfulness’, ‘regardfulness’, ‘attentiveness’) has taken-on the Buddhist meaning of the word for most seekers (just like the word ‘meditation’ which used to mean ‘think over; ponder’), and no longer has the every-day meaning as per the dictionary. The Buddhist connotations come from the Pali ‘Bhavana’ (the English translation of the Pali ‘Vipassana Bhavana’ is ‘Insight Meditation’). ‘Bhavana’ means ‘to cultivate’, and, as the word is always used in reference to the mind, ‘Bhavana’ means ‘mental cultivation’. ‘Vipassana’ means ‘seeing’ or ‘perceiving’ something with meticulousness discernment, seeing each component as distinct and separate, and piercing all the way through so as to perceive the most fundamental reality of that thing and which leads to intuition into the basic reality of whatever is being inspected. Thus ‘Vipassana Bhavana’ means the cultivation of the mind, aimed at seeing in a special way that leads to intuitive discernment and to full understanding of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s basic precepts. In ‘Vipassana Bhavana’, Buddhists cultivate this special way of seeing life. They train themselves to see reality exactly as it is described by Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, and in the English-speaking world they call this special mode of perception: ‘mindfulness’. Consequently, when the Buddhist practitioner carefully cultivates ‘mindfulness’, it is a further withdrawal from this actual world than what ‘normal’ people currently experience in the illusionary ‘reality’ of their ‘real world’. All Buddhists (just like Mr. Gotama the Sakyan) do not want to be here at this place in space – now at this moment in time – as this flesh and blood form, walking and talking and eating and drinking and urinating and defecating and being the universes’ experience of its own infinitude as a reflective and sensate human being. They put immense effort into bringing ‘samsara’ (the Hindu endless round of birth and death and rebirth) to an end ... if they liked being here now they would welcome their rebirth and delight in being able to be here now again and again as a human being. They just don’t wanna be here (not only not being here now but never, ever again). Is it not so blatantly obvious that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan just did not like being here? Does one wonder why one never saw his anti-life stance before? How on earth can someone who dislikes being here so much ever be interested in bringing about peace-on-earth? In this respect he was just like all the Gurus and God-Men down through the ages ... the whole lot of them were/are anti-life to the core. For example:
It can be seen that he clearly and unambiguously states that he (Mr. Gotama the Sakyan) is ‘the eternally abiding,
unchanging, fine and mysterious essential body’ even to the point of repeating it twice (‘the Tathagata is eternally abiding without any
change’) and (‘the Tathagata eternally abides without any change’ ) so as to emphasise that ‘someone who is able to know that
the Tathagata is eternally abiding without any change ... shall be born into the Heavens above’. And to drive the point home as to just what
he means he emphasises that ‘the body that eats is not the essential body’ ... which ‘essential body’ can only be a
dissociated state by any description and by any definition. Whereas I am this body that eats ... and nothing other than this. RESPONDENT: Now I am also impressed that you remember or found out what I am on record as saying. I am not sure exactly what I said all those weeks ago – I am not even going to bother checking my records. What I know is that I love to learn, I am learning constantly. For example my contact with you has triggered my looking up the meaning of the word ‘Apperceive’. My Macquarie gives two (almost) distinct meanings: ‘To be conscious of perceiving; comprehend. To comprehend by assimilating (a new idea) with the mass of concepts, etc, already in the mind’. RICHARD: The word ‘apperception’ is seeing the world of people, things and events without the filter of identity ... and some people maintain that such a direct experience of actuality is not possible. Most people do not want to be here in this actual physical world and escape into the abstract metaphysical world ... as is evidenced in the phrase: ‘God, Truth, or Reality is the Unknown, and that which is known is not The Real’. Apperception has three meanings: Oxford Dictionary: from French ‘aperception’ or modern Latin ‘apperceptio’ (Leibniz) from ‘ap’ (towards) plus ‘perception’ (awareness or consciousness of something:
Apperceptive awareness – as distinct from perceptive awareness – is drawn from meaning (1) which indicates the brain being
aware of itself being conscious ... instead of ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious. That is, awareness happening of its own accord
without a ‘thinker’. Mostly peoples are of the borrowed opinion – a belief – that thought itself must stop for an unmediated awareness to
occur. This is because they blame only thought for creating the ‘thinker’ – which is ‘I’ as ego – as per standard Eastern Spiritual
Philosophy. Of course, when there is no identity in there messing up the works, there are many periods throughout the day wherein thought does not
operate at all ... but there is apperception whether there is thinking or not. RESPONDENT: But on the whole, life is just me, here, now, seeing, hearing, smelling (not so much, my nose seems a bit weak!), tasting and touching. And thinking. Except that’s possibly the wrong word because it gives the impression of mental effort. Your ‘reflection’ is a better word, or ‘meditate’ in the western sense of considered contemplation. RICHARD: Yes, considered contemplation combined with fascination leads to reflective contemplation. Then – and only
then – apperception can occur. Apperceptive awareness can be evoked by paying exclusive attention to being fully alive right now. This moment is
your only moment of being alive ... one is never alive at any other time than now. RESPONDENT: Now to my questions: As you have described your freedom stems from first the process and then something which is beyond that. Doesn’t this mean that I should try to attain or grow into the process first? For you seem to have needed it. RICHARD: The process is triggered by developing apperception wherever and whenever possible. Apperceptive awareness can
be evoked by paying exclusive attention to being alive now. This moment is your only moment of being alive ... one is never alive at any other time
than now. And, wherever you are, one is always here ... even if you start walking over to there, along the way to there you are always here ... and
when you arrive ‘there’, it too is here. Thus attention becomes a fascination with the fact that one is always here ... and it is already now.
Fascination leads to reflective contemplation. As one is already here, and it is always now ... then one has arrived before one starts. The potent
combination of attention, fascination, reflection and contemplation produces apperception, which happens when the mind becomes aware of itself.
Apperception is an awareness of consciousness. It is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious; it is the mind’s awareness of itself.
Apperception – a way of seeing that is arrived at by reflective and fascinating contemplative thought – is when ‘I’ cease thinking and
thinking takes place of its own accord. Such a mind, being free of the thinker and the feeler – ‘I’ as ego and soul – is capable of immense
clarity and purity. RESPONDENT: Since I meditate and sometimes experience actually what my reality is, be it for a brief moment, I am inclined to disregard those experiences altogether, for they are not beyond any enlightenment. RICHARD: No, indeed not, for meditation can produce only versions of reality – not actuality – and as everyday reality is a grim and glum business, one strives to attain to a loving and compassionate Greater Reality in order to ameliorate one’s situation. It is all due to the intuitive faculties – powered by passionate thought – that activates those psychic adumbrations so beloved of the metaphysical fraternity. The mind can be a fertile breeding-ground for hallucinations, for emotional and passionate thought begets the esoteric world, the suprasensory domain of apparitions and shadows. The mind, held hostage by humanity’s ‘wisdom’, is indeed a productive spawning-ground for fanciful flights of imagination, giving rise to the fantasies and phantasms so loved and revered – and feared – by humankind. One can easily become bewitched by the bizarre beings that populate the Supernatural Realms; one becomes beguiled and enchanted by intuition’s covenant with clairvoyant states of extrasensory perception. The closest approximation to the actual that ‘I’ can attain via prescient means can only ever be visionary states produced from utopian ideals that manifest themselves as hallucinatory chimeras. And it all has to do with the persistence of identity. So, instead of meditation, what about apperception? The Oxford dictionary defines apperception as being ‘the mind’s perception of itself’ . It is where ‘I’, the identity, cease to function as a perceiver and perception happens of itself. This PCE is a remarkably obvious peak experience wherein everything is seen to be already perfect – it always has been and always will be – and that ‘I’ have been standing in the way of the perfection being apparent. Apperception is a pure 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 bare 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’ are 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 forever seeking union. With apperception, 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 and the absolute is the relative ... here on earth and now in time. RICHARD: Apperception is another ball-game entirely. I take the Oxford Dictionary definition as an established ‘given’ (‘apperception: the mind’s perception of itself’). This means that there is not an ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious, but it is an un-mediated awareness of itself. Thinking may or may not occur ... and apperception happens regardless. Thought does not have to stop for apperception to happen ... it is that the ‘thinker’ disappears. As for feelings in apperception; not only does the ‘feeler’ disappear, but so too do feelings themself. Apperception is the direct – unmediated – apprehension of actuality ... the world as-it-is. RESPONDENT: This is similar to what I was saying to No. 20 but you use a different term, apperception. Do you understand apperception as different from choiceless awareness? RICHARD: Oh yes, most definitely ... which is why I choose to call this actual awareness that is my on-going experience ‘apperceptive awareness’. I lived ‘choiceless awareness’ for eleven years, and when I read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti in 1984-1985, I could relate to his use of that phrase. I have been wondering if we cannot come at explaining the difference between these two expressions using some different phraseology ... we have become bogged down in that run of what you have aptly called ‘never ending goodbye and best wishes message’ . Because what I am going to write is that ‘choiceless awareness’ is an affective and sensate apprehension of the world of people, things and events, whereas ‘apperceptive awareness’ is a sensate-only apprehension of the world of people, things and events. Both ‘choiceless awareness’ and ‘apperceptive awareness’ are only possible when there is no ‘I’ in the head as the ‘thinker’ ... the ego or self. But ‘choiceless awareness’ is where one experiences the world by feeling out its nature as a ‘me’ in the heart as the ‘feeler’ ... the soul or Self. One is the affective faculties – which is pure being – and there is an oceanic sense of oneness ... a ‘wholeness’. Whereas ‘apperceptive awareness’ can only occur when the affective is extinguished entirely ... which means that there is neither an ‘I’ in the head or a ‘me’ in the heart. No self or Self. No identity, no being at all ... no presence whatsoever. RESPONDENT: Apperception is awareness without any motive, it is immediate. RICHARD: I would not say ‘without motive’ ... but it is certainly immediate. It is immediate and direct,
unmediated by any feelings whatsoever. The bodily needs are what motivates will – and will is nothing more grand than the nerve-organising
data-correlating ability of the body – and it is will that is essential in order to operate and function ... not a self. Will is an organising
process, an activity of the brain that correlates all the information and data that streams through the bodily senses. Will is not a ‘thing’, a
subjectively substantial passionate ‘object’, like the self is. Will, freed of the encumbrance of fear and aggression and nurture and desire,
can operate smoothly, with actual sagacity. The operation of this freed will is called intelligence. This intelligence is the body’s native
intelligence ... and has naught to do with Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s disembodied ‘intelligence’. RICHARD: You see, if ‘you’ – as an identity – try to avoid extinction of ‘self’/‘Self’ by shifting identification from being an ‘I’ as ego and the ‘me’ as soul into being an ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ as this body ... then one is fooling oneself in a most insidious way. One must be scrupulously honest with oneself in order to be totally free of the Human Condition. There are three ‘worlds’ altogether ... but only one is actual. Thus I say, as you quoted me above, that: ‘The ‘everyday reality’ of the ‘real world’ is an illusion. The ‘Greater Reality’ of the ‘Mystical World’ is a delusion. There is an actual world that lies under one’s very nose ... I interact with the same kind of people, things and events that you do, yet it is as if I am in another dimension’. To put it bluntly: ‘you’ who are but an illusion, must die an illusory death commensurate to ‘your’ pernicious existence. The drama must be played out to the end ... there are no short-cuts here. The doorway to an actual freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. RESPONDENT: If ‘you’ are not, there is awareness that is a dimension or space not of thought and there are physical bodies. Is that what you mean ? RICHARD: Yes ... only thought does not have to stop for this – initially ‘other’ – dimension (or ‘space’ if you will) to be apparent. It is the ‘thinker’ that dies ... and the ‘feeler’ along with its feelings. Then thought – which is necessary to operate and function in this world of people, things and events – can think clearly and cleanly when appropriate ... uncorrupted by feelings. Such thought – apperceptive thought – is always pure ... this is innocence in action. RESPONDENT: Yes. I would not call it apperceptive thought. RICHARD: Why not? Thought sans ‘thinker’ is apperceptive thought. RESPONDENT: There is thought that is brain activity and there is intelligence or pure perception that is not a result of brain activity. RICHARD: You are confusing the ‘thinker’ with thought itself. Without the ‘thinker’ any brain activity is clear and clean and pure ... which includes thinking. RESPONDENT: The two can operate in harmony or in conflict. RICHARD: No ... the ‘thinker’ can only die. Any ‘harmony’ is but a sleight of hand (or should I say
sleight of mind) in order for the cunning identity to stay in existence. After all, it is charged by blind nature to survive. RESPONDENT: This insight has certainly increased my awareness. Is the key to actual freedom then living as the senses which is distinct from having them? RICHARD: Yes, sensuousness is the wondrous awareness of the marvel of being here now at this moment in time and this place in space – which awareness is combined with the fascination of contemplating that this moment is one’s only moment of being alive – and one is never alive at any other time than now. And, wherever one is ... now ... one is always here ... now ... even if one starts walking over to ‘there’ ... now ... along the way to ‘there’ ... now ... one is always here ... now ... and when one arrives ‘there’ ... now ... it too is here ... now. Thus awareness is an attraction to the fact that one is always here – and it is already now – and as one is already here and it is always now then one has arrived before one starts. Such delicious wonder fosters the innate condition of naiveté (which is the closest ‘I’ can get to innocence) the nourishing of which is essential if the charm of it all is to occur. The potent combination of awareness – fascinated reflective contemplation – and sensuousness produces apperception, which happens when the mind becomes aware of itself (‘I’ disappear). One is intimately aware that the physical space of this universe is infinite and its time is eternal ... thus the infinitude of this very material universe has no beginning and no ending and therefore no middle. There are no edges to this universe, which means that there is no centre, either. We are all coming from nowhere and are not going anywhere for there is nowhere to come from nor anywhere to go to. We are nowhere in particular ... which means we are anywhere at all. In the infinitude of the universe one finds oneself to be already here, and as it is always now, one can not get away from this place in space and this moment in time. By being here as-this-body one finds that this moment in time has no duration as in ‘now’ and ‘then’ – because the immediate is the ultimate – and that this place in space has no distance as in ‘here’ and ‘there’ – for the relative is the absolute. In other words: one is always here as it is already now. RICHARD: Apperceptive awareness can only happen when there is no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul to be aware. Awareness happens of itself (the word ‘undivided’ indicates a divided self now made into a whole self ... in a word: ‘wholeness’). Thus there is no identity ... therefore no identification is possible. Such an apperceptive awareness – which is the universe experiencing itself as a human being – is only possible when there is this physical body being alive and breathing. RESPONDENT: In fact the body and all other apparent objects in time are seen directly to be luminous and empty, lacking any true division. RICHARD: What you are describing here is a dream state wherein nothing is intrinsically genuine in itself ... all
objects are only apparently existing and this ‘wholeness’ is all there is. You have already used the word ‘timeless’ ... what about
‘spaceless’? Then the next step is ‘Unborn’ and ‘Undying’ ... and away you go down the slippery-slope of Eastern Mysticism like Mr.
Jiddu Krishnamurti. KONRAD: You said, that it is impossible for awareness to become aware of itself, because it leads to an infinite regress. And such a thing is clearly impossible, you said. RICHARD: An ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious can lead to infinite regress ... apperceptive awareness
(the mind’s perception of itself), however, is total, complete, consummate. RESPONDENT: What is known objectively is but a projection, image, an idea. RICHARD: Surely not ... one sits in front of the computer monitor reading this sentence; the eyes see these words and the hand may reach for the words and touch the glass that is but a scant few millimetres to the front of them. It is obvious that the physical eye-balls and the physical hand are this flesh and blood body ... and that the computer monitor is a glass and plastic object that stays on the desk when the body gets up and walks away. I am not speaking of ‘a projection, image, an idea’ when I say that these fingertips, as an object (form), touching the glass of this computer monitor, touch another object (form). Knowing what the words ‘computer monitor’ and ‘glass’ and ‘eye-balls’ and ‘hand’ refer to does require recognition from thoughts’ memory – this is not under dispute – which could lead to ‘a projection, image, an idea’, but the fingertips touching form require no ‘projection, image, idea’ – any conceptualisation – to verify that form exists as an actuality. No thought is required at all in this verification ... touch is immediate and direct and factual. RESPONDENT: Perception of form is learned. RICHARD: No ... recognition of the perceived form is learned. Perception is immediate and direct and factual. At that fleeting instant of pure perception of sensum, just before one affectively identifies with all the feeling memories associated with its qualia (the qualities pertaining to the properties of the form) and also before one cognitively recognises the percept (the mental product or result of perception), and this ‘raw sense-datum’ stage of sensational perception is a direct experience of the actual. Pure perception is at that instant where one converges one’s eyes or ears or nose or tongue or skin on the thing. It is that moment just before one focuses one’s feeling-memory on the object. It is the split-second just as one hedonically subjectifies it ... which is just prior to clamping down on it viscerally and segregating it from pure, conscious existence. Pure perception takes place sensitively just before one starts feeling the percept – and thus thinking about it affectively – which takes place just before one’s feeling-fed mind says: ‘It’s a man’ or: ‘It’s a woman’ or: ‘It’s a steak-burger’ or: ‘It’s a tofu-burger’ ... with all that is implied in this identification and the ramifications that stem from that. This fluid, soft-focused moment of bare awareness, which is not learned, has never been learned, and never will be learned. RESPONDENT: The apparent world of thought is structured through memory. RICHARD: Thought operating with memory is the ability to reflect, plan and implement considered activity (which other animals cannot do) in the environment about for beneficial reasons. And 6.0 billion people can do this, with varying degrees of effectiveness, because intelligence is a human phenomenon. When this intelligence is crippled by the emotional-mental ‘self’ born of the instinctual passions, what is otherwise known as ‘making sense’ of what is happening in the very physical world of people, things and events becomes problematic ... to the point of some denying its actual existence. The physical world is not an ‘apparent world’ (‘seemingly so’) at all ... it actually exists outside of ‘No 12 as Consciousness’ and underneath the ‘reality’ that ‘he’ pastes as a veneer over the actual. This verdant planet was here long before I was born in 1947 and will be here long after I am dead (unless something physical – like a humungous comet impacting or whatever – happens). RESPONDENT: That is one layer. Added to that are other more superficial layers of projection in which minds or identities are thought to be in time. Because what is structured in thought as me is image, it may fall away. Because what is structured in thought as physical reality is also image, it too may be seen as empty, without true division. RICHARD: Hmm ... being here now, as a flesh and blood body in the physical world, is not where salvation exists (for
you)? Because when someone uses words like ‘physical reality is an empty image’ and ‘without true division’ they mean, in
other words, the ‘dependent origination’ of Buddhism. RICHARD: Apperception is something that brings a facticity born out of a direct experience of the actual. RESPONDENT: If you would, Richard, please demonstrate the evidence that supports the implication that there is difference between ‘the actual’ and the ‘direct experience of the actual’. RICHARD: Sure ... ‘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 actual world – the world as-it-is – by ‘my’ very presence. Whereas, sans identity, 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. This is called ‘apperceptive awareness’ (not to be confused with ‘choiceless awareness’). Apperception is consciousness being aware of being consciousness ... and this is a ‘direct experience of the actual’. I am not a Pantheist: I do not identify with the objects of perception in an all-embracing oneness.
RESPONDENT: My ability to understand your claim seems to hinge on my understanding of the word apperception. You claim that the word apperception means ‘seeing the world of people, things and events without the filter of identity’ You wrote about this previously: [Richard]: ‘The word ‘apperception’ (awareness or consciousness of something) means: (1) ‘The mind’s perception of itself’. Apperceptive awareness – as distinct from perceptive awareness – is drawn from meaning (1) which indicates the brain being aware of itself being conscious ... instead of ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious. That is, awareness happening of its own accord without a ‘thinker’. Mostly peoples are of the borrowed opinion – a belief – that thought itself must stop for an unmediated awareness to occur. This is because they blame only thought for creating the ‘thinker’ – which is ‘I’ as ego – as per standard Eastern Spiritual Philosophy. Of course, when there is no identity in there messing up the works, there are many periods throughout the day wherein thought does not operate at all ... but there is apperception whether there is thinking or not’. [endquote]. I do not see how you got from the first dictionary meaning ‘The mind’s perception of itself’. to ‘without the filter of identity’. RICHARD: Fair enough ... for starters I do not subscribe to the theory that ‘mind’ is something other than ‘brain’. The mind is the brain in operation: being conscious as in awake (not asleep) and perceiving and thinking and being aware. This neuronal activity – consciousness – is what ‘mind’ is. So when I read the Oxford Dictionary definition I read ‘the brain’s perception of itself’ or ‘consciousness being aware of being conscious’ ... which is all very impersonal. Secondly, no one else – that I have been able to ascertain through eighteen years of scouring books and talking with people
– has been living what I live for twenty four hours a day. Therefore, I can only presume that whoever wrote that definition had knowledge of pure
consciousness experiences, for it is a very apt description, but no on-going experiencing as such that it has resulted in vast bodies of writing.
This is all very new in human experience. RESPONDENT: Not really. Call it apperceptive awareness, meditation, energy, intelligence – whatever we like. RICHARD: You may call it ‘whatever we like’ if you wish to continue to be vague ... but I prefer to be
specific. I call it apperceptive awareness because it only occurs when there is no sense of identity whatsoever ... then the mind – this physical
brain in action – can perceive itself. Not ‘I’ perceiving ‘me’ being aware, but awareness happening of its own accord ... unimpeded and
uncensored by the affective faculties. Thus it is very clearly not ‘meditation’ ; it is not ‘energy’ ... and it is most
certainly not ‘intelligence’ in the sense you use the word because they all are but products of the affective faculties. RESPONDENT: Now to my questions: As you have described your freedom stems from first the process and then something which is beyond that. Doesn’t this mean that I should try to attain or grow into the process first? For you seem to have needed it. RICHARD: The process is triggered by developing apperception wherever and whenever possible. Apperceptive awareness can
be evoked by paying exclusive attention to being alive now. This moment is your only moment of being alive ... one is never alive at any other time
than now. And, wherever you are, one is always here ... even if you start walking over to there, along the way to there you are always here ... and
when you arrive ‘there’, it too is here. Thus attention becomes a fascination with the fact that one is always here ... and it is already now.
Fascination leads to reflective contemplation. As one is already here, and it is always now ... then one has arrived before one starts. The potent
combination of attention, fascination, reflection and contemplation produces apperception, which happens when the mind becomes aware of itself.
Apperception is an awareness of consciousness. It is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious; it is the mind’s awareness of itself.
Apperception – a way of seeing that is arrived at by reflective and fascinating contemplative thought – is when ‘I’ cease thinking and
thinking takes place of its own accord. Such a mind, being free of the thinker and the feeler – ‘I’ as ego and soul – is capable of immense
clarity and purity. RICHARD: To be the senses as a bare awareness is apperception, a pure consciousness experience of the world as-it-is. Because there is no ‘I’ as an observer – a little person inside one’s head – to have sensations, I am the sensations. There is nothing except the series of sensations which happen ... not to ‘me’ but just happening ... moment by moment ... one after another. To be these sensations, as distinct from having them, engenders the most astonishing sense of freedom and release. Consequently, I am living in peace and tranquillity; a meaningful peace and tranquillity. RESPONDENT: Hello again, Richard, Nobody seems to want to talk about reality on this list, but maybe you will. OK ... take the nose. Your olfactory mucosa contains nerve endings that bind molecules in the air (odorants), which cause depolarisation of sensory neurones, producing electrical impulses that release neuro-transmitters onto inter-neurones, which project axons to other neurones in the brain which receive these electrical impulses. At the brain level, electrically excitable cells are stimulated by these inputs, which can, by various complex mechanisms, read the encoding of different odours so that the brain cells respond differentially to different odorant molecules. So far, there is no consciousness involved. There are reflexes linked to odour that can lead to behaviour without any consciousness. Pure non-conscious neurophysiology. At some level, in human beings, the electrical signals from the olfactory receptors interact with or become part of a mental process called consciousness, and we recognise the familiar perfume of Magnolia trees on a summer evening. Forget that it is a Magnolia tree or even that it is familiar, we are still consciously aware of the odour (it may or may not be pure biology that makes it pleasant as opposed to a stink). If you are aware of the odour, what does that mean? If there is no awareness, then you are like a plant, turning your leaves to the sun ... a purely non-conscious physiological process. You claim ‘awareness’. You called it ‘bare’ awareness. ‘To be the senses as a bare awareness’ you said. What does that mean? RICHARD: The term ‘bare awareness’ is used by those who study such things as this to refer to raw sensory data that is unmediated. Mr. Bertrand Russell coined the phrase ‘sensedatum’ but it never really took off. RESPONDENT: At what point do those electrical impulses travelling up your olfactory nerves turn into ‘bare awareness’? RICHARD: Scientists are unsure ... it depends upon which school one ascribes to. Some tests have shown electrical activity at the source of interchange itself. For example, with the eye, at the back of the eyeball itself. It is further enhanced upon reaching the brain. RESPONDENT: What precisely does awareness mean in this sense? Are you conscious ? RICHARD: This body is conscious – as distinct from unconscious – yes. RESPONDENT: Do you recognise the odour as being a particular odour? Do you sense it as coming from near or far? RICHARD: There is the ability to distinguish one odour from another and near from far if that is necessary. Mostly it does not matter as curiosity does not feature largely in my life. RESPONDENT: If you are conscious and you do recognise the odour (not name, just recognise), then what is the mental process going on? Whose mental process is it? Is the mental process going on a quality of your brain? RICHARD: There is no ‘who’ to have a mental process ... the body is eminently capable of conducting all requisite sensory operations of its own accord. The mental process going on is indeed a ‘quality of the brain’ ... and it does it a whole lot better without an ‘I’ in there interfering with all its petty needs, shoulds, wants and demands. The mental process is integral to the body ... it is an intrinsic operation just like the heart beating, the lungs breathing, the kidneys secreting and so on. RESPONDENT: Does the odour cause behaviour? Does your awareness of the odour cause intentional behaviour (eg., like going to find out the source of that wonderful perfume)? If so, whose intentionality is it? RICHARD: It looks as though you are asking if there are agreeable or disagreeable odours ... or likes and dislikes. Yes, this body has certain substances that it experiences as pleasant and unpleasant. Like the taste-buds, for example, which are grouped in a certain configuration which makes some foods ‘delicious’ and others not so pleasant to the point of downright repellent. In normal people, ‘I’ step in and say that ‘I’ like this and ‘I’ hate that ... but it is only the arrangement of the taste-buds themselves. There are four basic receptors – sweet, sour, bitter and salt – which give gustatory quality to the food eaten and are clearly an hereditary trait as taste-blindness is quite widespread. It all has nothing to do with an ‘I’ at all. RESPONDENT: What do you call the mental process underlying this perception? RICHARD: Apperception. I take the Oxford Dictionary definition as a starting point: ‘The mind’s perception of itself’. Not an ‘I’ in there perceiving itself operating, but the mind perceiving itself. Unmediated consciousness, in other words. RESPONDENT: What does it mean to ‘be’ these sensations? Do you ‘be’ a toothache? RICHARD: Yes, it is a way of describing to those who wish to move from normal everyday reality to the actuality that underlies all apparent phenomenon. Sensations are inherent, and instead of ‘I’ having the sensations, one is the experience of these sensations. Awareness, in other words. RESPONDENT: If I say I have a toothache, my use of the word ‘have’ is just folk jargon. RICHARD: If you say so, but I sincerely doubt it. Intellectually you may see the nonsense of there being someone inside the body to ‘have’ these sensations, but such a seeing does nothing to actually dislodge this remarkably persistent identity. That is because it is not just a cognitive entity (psychological) but it basically has an affective (psychic) ontology ... born out of the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire that blind nature endows all sentient beings with at birth. RESPONDENT: Of course, the ‘pain’, the perception of pain, is in the brain. There is no actual pain in the tooth, only the inflammatory physiological processes that lead to the neural process that generates electrical impulses in my brain, which manifest in a mental process that we, in English, label as pain. So, leaving trivial semantics aside, what do you mean when you say ‘to be’ these sensations. RICHARD: When one is asleep – in deep sleep anyway – one is virtually unconscious and there is no awareness of sensation ... which is why there is relief from the pain of an illness by sleeping. So, literally, what one is, is waking consciousness; that is, being conscious of the world of people, things and events. When one is the experience of being conscious – bereft of any identity whatsoever – then this is apperceptive awareness. RESPONDENT: Most normal people do have an awareness of their own body ... this is a natural consequence of our natural physiology (proprioception and such). But ... this is getting to be to much. RICHARD: Internal bodily impulses stream from all parts of the body to the brain in something to the order of 160,000 nerve pulses per second. Added to all the sensory data, there is a lot going on in being alive. One can examine all this stuff under a microscope until the cows come home ... yet still the ‘I’ persists. ‘My’ source lies in the brain-stem. RESPONDENT: OK ... so you got rid of your little inner dialoguing ‘I’. What does that mean? RICHARD: Peace and harmony due to the absence of animosity and anguish; happiness and harmlessness due to the absence of malice and sorrow; benevolence and benignity due to the absence of fear and aggression; blitheness and gaiety due to the absence of love and compassion ... and so on. It means quite a lot ... in a phrase: peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: What does it mean, then, to be aware without the ‘I’? Are you aware of your body? RICHARD: No, I am this flesh and blood body ... there is no ‘me’ to have an awareness of ‘my’ body. There is no ownership because the owner is dead ... extinct. RESPONDENT: Are you aware of your physical separation from the chair you’re sitting on? RICHARD: This body has a physical distinction from this chair just as this body is distinct from that body ... but there is no psychological distance betwixt an ‘I’ inside this body and the chair – or the ‘I’ inside that body – to cause separation. Here is a direct experience of the actuality of people, things and events. RESPONDENT: You speak of ‘the most astonishing sense of freedom and release’. That sounds like consciousness. You clearly perceive the ‘sense of freedom’. This is certainly awareness. It is not just generic awareness, it is your awareness. RICHARD: Actually it is the vast and utterly immeasurable awareness of this very material universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being. It is the most amazing and wondrous experience possible. I tend to use words like ‘ambrosial’ and ‘magical’ to convey the flavour of it. It is beyond anyone’s wildest dreams and fantasies ... it is impossible to conceive, believe or imagine. RESPONDENT: Furthermore, it is your awareness of your own sensations (emotions?). RICHARD: There are no emotions – or passions – extant in this body anywhere. Sensations are purely physical and are intrinsically delightful in all there pleasurable sensuality. This is awareness in itself ... not ‘my’ awareness. RESPONDENT: There you go ... self awareness. Pure neuro-biology. There’s nothing bad about it. Its natural. RICHARD: If you are talking of what is deemed ‘normal’ ... then, yes it is natural. Fear and aggression and nurture and desire are very natural. After all, blind nature bestowed these instincts upon us when we were born. Killing someone is natural ... therein lies the rub. What I have done is very, very unnatural. I have eliminated the instincts ... I pressed the ‘delete’ button, as it were, for instincts are a software package, not hardware. However, everyone tells me that you can’t change human nature ... so I must be lying. RESPONDENT: Self awareness need not imply inner deception. One can be self aware without mistakenly misperceiving one’s self in a dualistic mode. So what does it mean, really, to get rid of the ‘me’? RICHARD: To not have to be vigilant all the time. One is what is called virtuous without effort as one is automatically harmless ... there is no need for morals whatsoever. RESPONDENT: Is it really possible? RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: Is it compatible with mental health and social behaviour? RICHARD: Yes. Salubrity and sociability have not yet existed in human beings ... only a pale and pathetic imitation of the actual RESPONDENT: Or is it an illusion? RICHARD: No way. If it were an illusion, then it would not be working so impeccably for the twenty four hours of every day for the last five years ... it is impossible to live an illusion that consistently. If it is, then go for it ... it is an illusion well worth having! Can you begin to imagine what it is like to live in a world without fear, for example? It is the extinction of ‘me’ in ‘my’ entirety that results in a total and utter dissolution of fear itself. There is no fear here, in this actual world where I live. Not even disquietude, uneasiness, nervousness or apprehension, let alone anxiety, angst, fear, terror, horror or dread. There is no fear in a flower, a tree, an ashtray, an armchair, a rock ... only sentient beings experience fear. Fear is affective; it is an emotion, a passion, and as such is not actual. Fear is a feeling, not a fact. It is an eminently sensible way to live. KONRAD: Pure observation of the outside world without thought functioning is impossible. It is, because thought functions automatically by interpreting the sensual data. So if you think that pure observation of the outside world without thought functioning is possible, you are mistaken. Pure observation is possible. But only the contents of consciousness can be observed purely, not the outside world. It is exactly this distinction that makes that there is a distinction between the inside world and the outside world. In other words, the distinction between the inside world and the outside world is something that can be observed purely. The perception of the outside world, at least, cannot be done without thought functioning . RICHARD: Pure observation of what is commonly called the ‘outside world’ without thought functioning is indeed possible ... it is called apperceptive awareness. Apperception is only possible when ‘I’, in any way, shape or form, cease to exist ... then there is no ‘inner’ or ‘outer’ world. It is ‘I’, believing in ‘my’ reality, that creates an ‘inner’ and an ‘outer’ world. There is only the world as-it-is, here in actuality. Then it is entirely possible, throughout the vast majority of one’s time, for there to be no thoughts running at all ... none whatsoever. If thought is needed for a particular situation, it swings smoothly into action of its own accord and effortlessly does its thing without creating an identity. All the while there is an apperceptive awareness of being here ... of being alive at this moment in time and this place in space. In apperception, no words need occur in the brain – other than when necessary – for it is a wordless appreciation of being able to be here now. Consequently, one is always blithe and carefree, even if one is doing nothing. Doing something – and that includes thinking – is a bonus of happiness and pleasure on top of this on-going ambrosial experience of being alive and awake and here on this verdant planet now. Then there is no ‘contents of consciousness’ to observe – either purely or impurely – for such contents were
all calenture-based. RESPONDENT: Sorry Richard, mind cannot see itself. RICHARD: Indeed you may have cause to be sorry – although it is a wasted emotion – because the mind can see itself. Such seeing even has a name: apperception. (Oxford Dictionary: ‘apperception’: the mind’s perception of itself ). Is it not rather humorous, in an ironic sort of way, that the dictionary writers would know that the mind can see itself, whilst you as god do not know this? What price god-hood, eh? Must be all that ‘being still’ business that keeps you so narcissistically self-engrossed that it prevents such clarity as even an Oxford Don can muster, I guess. RESPONDENT: Be at peace. RICHARD: Your papal-like blessing comes too late to be tested for its efficacy. Just out of curiosity, how does it feel to be god going around dispensing peace with three little words? How long is it that you have been stemming misery and mayhem in such a simple way? Meanwhile, here where apperception is ... peace already always is. RESPONDENT: Earlier this afternoon, before it stormed here, I was outside watching a bird fly/flutter through a background of blue sky and the green leaves of trees and I was taken away by the utter fullness of it! Upon reflection of that brief glimpse of total attention, it seems thought is simply too one-dimensional to touch the multi-faceted fullness of that. I was stunned by thinking how rarely I stop and allow awareness to operate. RICHARD: How effective has being ‘stunned by thinking’ been for you? How many times since this afternoon have you consequently stopped and allowed awareness – the utter fullness of total attention – to operate so that you will be taken away by the multi-faceted fullness of that? In other words: has this stunning thinking, subsequent to the event, done the trick by enabling that which is talked about so often to happen? Just curious. RESPONDENT: Being stunned by thinking was just an expression expressing that the homeostasis of thought (aka: the psychological self – ‘Respondent’) was stopped for a moment. RICHARD: Oh? You would know best, of course, yet going by what you wrote at the time I would have considered that ‘being stunned by thinking’ was ‘just an expression’ of thinking how rarely ‘the homeostasis of thought (aka: the psychological self – ‘Respondent’) was stopped for a moment’ ... rather than that you were stopped. You certainly convinced your co-respondent what a stunning thought it was that it is such a rare occurrence, anyway. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Seeing how we seldom let the fullness be, and instead stay stuck in the rut of thought, is what is ‘stunning’ thought. Facing that absurdity is perhaps worthwhile, don’t you think? RICHARD: Goodness me no ... why procrastinate by busying yourself with ‘facing that absurdity’ (which is to keep on busying yourself with that stunning thought) when it is total attention that is the trigger for the utter fullness being made apparent? The only thing that is worthwhile is when ‘I stop and allow awareness to operate’ ... period. * RESPONDENT: Thought attempted to re-establish its dominance through reflecting on what was. I don’t think that has been effective at all in terms of allowing all of ‘one’s’ being to be given to the ‘multifaceted fullness of that’. RICHARD: Ahh ... then reflecting and being ‘stunned by thinking’ how rarely you stopped and allowed awareness – the utter fullness of total attention – to operate is of no use whatsoever, eh? Is this because ‘thought is simply too one-dimensional’ to produce anything other than a one-dimensional stunning of the thinker would you say? What does it take to produce a 3-D stunning of the thinker? RESPONDENT: Yes, that is the question. Looking seemed to be the trigger. Simple perception unadulterated by the presence of runaway thought. RICHARD: Yes ... though I would say ‘simple perception unadulterated by the presence of a thinker’ (unadulterated thought operates episodically as is required by the circumstances). * RESPONDENT: But I do think that the ‘glimpse’ which stunned thought has planted a seed. RICHARD: Are you sure? Is it not the glimpse of the utter fullness which total attention makes apparent that is the trigger for stunning the thinker ... does not thought need to operate episodically as is required by the circumstances? If one thinks ‘upon reflection’ that ‘it seems thought is simply too one-dimensional to touch the multi-faceted fullness of that’ then the thinker concludes that thought must stop for that to happen ... thus precluding a twenty-four-hour-a-day happening. RESPONDENT: Well, it seems to me that ‘preclusion’ is only occurring for the thinker divided from the fullness of that. RICHARD: Yes, the thinker is forever divided from ‘the fullness of that’ ... the thinker is false, an illusion. The only constructive thing the thinker can do is allow itself to be disappeared (‘I was taken away by the utter fullness of it!’ ). RESPONDENT: It is like thought casts a one dimensional shadow over the much fuller than 3-D actual universe. RICHARD: Yet when the thinker is not ... much fuller than 3-D thought is free to operate episodically as required by the circumstances. RESPONDENT: That ‘preclusion’ may have allowed man to develop a great deal of technological capacities, but it seems to have usurped its limited place and practically refuses to abate. RICHARD: It is the thinker that reduces thought to being ‘one-dimensional’. * RESPONDENT: But I do think that the ‘glimpse’ which stunned thought has planted a seed. RICHARD: Are you sure? Is it not the glimpse of the utter fullness which total attention makes apparent that is the trigger for stunning the thinker ... does not thought need to operate episodically as is required by the circumstances? If one thinks ‘upon reflection’ that ‘it seems thought is simply too one-dimensional to touch the multi-faceted fullness of that’ then the thinker concludes that thought must stop for that to happen ... thus precluding a twenty-four-hour-a-day happening. RESPONDENT: In fact, ‘it’ happened again today. But I am not experiencing it with continuity, if that is what you’re getting at. RICHARD: Nope ... what I am getting at is why praise ‘one-dimensional’ thought for its ability to stun its thinker (as in impressed by its own brilliance in thinking that thought) when it is the glimpse of the utter fullness which total attention makes apparent which is the trigger for the event. May I ask? What was instrumental in evoking ‘it’ again today? RESPONDENT: Of course, when ‘it’ happens, to stick with K’s vernacular for describing it, the self is not there to experience ‘it’. RICHARD: Aye ... you already made that clear where you wrote ‘I was taken away by the utter fullness of it!’ RESPONDENT: Would you be so kind as to share why you find this thread interesting enough to respond to, and what is it you are trying to point to or go into? RICHARD: I simply found it quaint that two correspondents – on a Mailing List that condemns thought in no uncertain terms – should be so much in agreement about being ‘stunned by thinking’ how rarely they stopped and allowed awareness – the utter fullness of total attention – to operate ... what with thought being so ‘one-dimensional’ and all. The best that this mutual back-slapping congratulatory fervour can produce is a vow, a resolution, a promise and so on. In other words: effort. What I am ‘trying to point to or go into’ is that it is wrong thinking – rather than thinking per se – subsequent to the event as being that which prevents the happening from occurring just here right now as you read these words. Thought cops so much blame ... thus the thinker gets off scot-free. * RESPONDENT: When thought is provided with the topic of the absurdity of it adulterating with one dimensional, dissonant noise over the harmonious fullness of ‘that’, thought is inclined to stop and allow that fullness to operate, unadulterated with noise. RICHARD: You say ‘inclined to’ ... but is it a fact? By which I mean: does it happen? Does it occur? Does it actually work? Has the fullness been able to operate because thought has faced that absurdity? I am curious. RESPONDENT: No, it doesn’t. It just gives the thinker something to turn its ongoing commentary to. RICHARD: Okay ... now, knowing this as the fact, one no longer invests in these commentary-type thoughts (such thoughts will continue for it is the nature of the thinker’s mind to provide a running commentary) thus freeing-up all of the mind’s passion to be able to be invested instead in that which is vitally important: the awareness known as total attention. RESPONDENT: The fullness comes in when the thinker is in order/gets out of the way. RICHARD: Yes ... and you now know (from direct experience and not just by reading about it) that the utter fullness ‘comes in’ when there is awareness – total attention – operating. Such total attention is all-embracing – for it exclusive of no one and no thing – thus it easily accommodates commentary-type thoughts without getting sucked into them. This is the beginning of order. * RESPONDENT: I feel some interest in seeking escape. There is a subtle fear of letting go. RICHARD: There is always a thrilling aspect to fear – though the terrifying part usually grabs most attention – thus if one can focus on the thrill then the energy previously fuelling terror is channelled into the thrill of meeting one’s destiny. It is all a matter of attention – total attention – plus a steadfast pure intent. RESPONDENT: By the way can you go slightly deeper into actualist attention and Buddhist mindfulness in detail please. It would be of great assistance to me. RICHARD: Presumably you are referring to this:
The focus of the buddhistic ‘sati’ – a Pali word referring to mindfulness, self-collectedness, powers of reference and
retention Which is why it is another ball-game entirely. RESPONDENT: Richard, from recent correspondence with you its been pointed out that I’ve misused the word apperception. Here is a dialog between me and another which raises some questions that I have no ready answer to.
It’s funny that I never really questioned the ‘mind being aware of mind’ thing much. RICHARD: You may find the following to be of interest:
There is nothing mystical about a mind perceiving itself – it is simply a matter of a living brain, sans identity in toto,
being conscious of being conscious/ being aware of being aware – that there need be any question whatsoever about what the nature is of that
which is aware of being aware/ that which is conscious of being conscious ... unless, of course, one is unable/ incapable or unwilling/ disinclined
to discern the difference between consciousness (the state or condition of a body being conscious) and identity (the genetically-inherited
instinctual passions in action). RESPONDENT No 84: The feeling of ‘being’ would not exist anywhere in the universe without these instinctual passions which are the body's biological inheritance. RESPONDENT: Without passions no feeling of ‘being an entity’ ... RICHARD: If I may interject, for the sake of clarification, before you go on? Your co-respondent was right on the nose again ... without passions there is no feeling of ‘being’, period. RESPONDENT: ... but this doesn’t mean that you are not ‘present to yourself’ (’conscious’) without these instinctual passions. RICHARD: A flesh and blood body, sans instinctual passions/identity in toto, when being conscious is not being conscious in a present-to-itself manner as such a body is being conscious apperceptively (aka apperceptive awareness) ... and the word apperception is utilised here, as in all actualism writings, to refer to direct (unmediated) perception. And what this means is that, as there is no mediator present, there is no presence to be present-to-itself. RESPONDENT: Richard is still present to himself. RICHARD: This (apperceptive) flesh and blood body is not only *not* still present-to-itself it never has been and never will be ... the affective ‘being’ however, who used to have residence all those years ago, was indeed present-to-itself (right up to the instant of oblivion) thus this flesh and blood body is well aware of the distinction, between such a presence being present-to-itself, and apperceptive consciousness. RESPONDENT: He states to be the mortal body. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body does indeed report being this mortal body ... but, more specifically on occasion, reports being this (mortal) flesh and blood body only. For example (just one instance among many):
RESPONDENT: Now in order to state something like that you have to be still present to yourself ... RICHARD: If I may interject again? In order to report something like that a (mortal) flesh and blood body only does not have to be present-to-itself (let alone ‘still’ that). RESPONDENT: ... and your present to yourself is independent from the instinctual passions ... RICHARD: If I may ask? What is [quote] ‘your present to yourself’ [endquote] ... did you mean to convey ‘and your present to yourself-ness (consciousness) is independent from being the instinctual passions, perchance? Be that what it may ... as you go on to say, further below in your e-mail, that the only thing you really know is that you are present to yourself (and that is the only real knowledge you have) and then ask why you should not remain present to yourself when the body is gone (and further go on to say, in effect, that even though human consciousness/flesh and blood body will be gone it does not change a thing about the metaphysical truth that ‘I’, the Mind, the Transcendent, Infinite and Etcetera, is your real nature and indestructible) it is patently clear that your comprehension of what this flesh and blood body is reporting/ describing/ explaining is so heavily handicapped by attempting to understand it in terms of a wide-ranging mish-mash of what you have extensively read, about religiosity, spirituality, mysticality, and metaphysicality, that you have resorted to steam-rolling over nearly anything anybody else has to say. RESPONDENT: ... otherwise Richard wouldn’t be able to state to be the mortal body. RICHARD: Hmm ... this may be an apt moment to point out that you are not dealing with a mere tyro, here, in these matters and, furthermore (just in case you have not noticed), that you are way, way out of your depth on this mailing list. What I would suggest is that you stop thrashing and flailing about and tread water for a while ... so as to catch your breath, so to speak, and be able to have a good look around. ‘Tis only a suggestion, mind you. RESPONDENT: Another example of what actual freedom calls apperception. [quote] ‘So from that one asks a question: can thought be aware of itself? This is a rather complex question, I hope - one hopes you don’t mind looking at the complexity of it. Can thought, the whole process of thinking, can that thinking be aware of itself, or there is a thinker who is aware of his thoughts? You understand the question? Is this becoming difficult for you? You are interested in all this? (J. Krishnamurti Ojai 1st Public Question & Answer Meeting 17th May 1983). RICHARD: Here is another example of how I describe apperception:
* RESPONDENT: Richard, can you tell me please if apperception, does not take place, then what is taking place? RICHARD: Oblivion ... such as, for example, being asleep, having fainted, under anaesthesia RESPONDENT: In other words, if you are not apperceptively aware, then in what state are you? RICHARD: None. * RESPONDENT: The base of actualism is apperception. Read everybody please very carefully this JK speech. Richard says can the mind be aware of itself. He took definitely this concept from JK and change the word, by calling it apperception to look more sophisticated and so he can always hide behind this word. JK was very familiar with this concept thought aware of itself, no you aware of thought but thought aware of its self. Please read carefully. Is nothing new for JK what Richard is saying. RICHARD: I have never said that apperception is ‘thought aware of itself, no you aware of thought but thought aware of its self’ ... that is what you make of it. Here is but one instance of how I describe what I mean by apperception:
RESPONDENT: Are you contradicting now your own words? [Richard]: ‘apperception: the mind’s perception of itself’. [endquote]. You have defined mind as brain in operation, that means thought. RICHARD: You have to be joking, right? The mind, the human brain in action in the human skull, is more than just thought. For example:
RESPONDENT: So the mind’s perception of itself = the thought’s perception of itself. Are you playing with words now? RICHARD: No, it would appear that you are. RESPONDENT: PCE = pure consciousness experience. Pure consciousness means that does not exist self right? RICHARD: Yes, neither ‘I’ (as ego) nor ‘me’ (as soul) are present where consciousness – the condition of being conscious – is a pure consciousness ... the word ‘pure’ in this context means the unadulterated condition of being conscious and the word ‘conscious’ means being alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and sensible, not insensible (comatose). RESPONDENT: Now by adding the word experience, the question that arises is who has the experience? RICHARD: Why does that question arise? To be conscious is to be experiencing (perceiving) as perceiving (experiencing) is what the very word means at is most basic. For example:
RESPONDENT: [... who has the experience?] The body? RICHARD: The body is not ‘who’ has the experience... the body is *what* has the experience (of being unadulteratedly conscious) as the condition of being conscious is a bodily condition. RESPONDENT: The body works with the senses. RICHARD: That is one way of putting it but as sentience means being sensorial it would be more helpful for comprehension of what experiencing means to say that the body works as the senses: for instance, of all the senses – cutaneous, ocular, aural, olfactory, gustatory, and proprioceptive – the cutaneal sense, being by far the largest of all senses (the skin covers the entire body) is what defines/delineates where the body stops and the rest of the world begins/where the rest of the world stops and the body begins ... the skin is the main demarcation line, so to speak, thus cutaneous experiencing is major experiencing by any definition. RESPONDENT: If we must attach to the body even the consciousness, then we can go very far. RICHARD: That just does not make sense: consciousness – the condition of a body being conscious – is indistinguishable from what a body is (when it is alive, awake, and sensible) ... to say that consciousness is something attached to the body is to imply that consciousness (the condition of being conscious) is a clip-on, a removable accessory, as it were. RESPONDENT: We may have any illusion and blame the body for that. RICHARD: Yea verily ... anything but put the ‘blame’ onto where it really lies (on the ‘being’ within
the body), eh? RESPONDENT: It appears that we are going to get nowhere in our original discussion of the distinction between qualities and properties (latest post being mine of 7/17), as we have become bogged down in the point of first and third person distinctions, which was raised chiefly to clarify the distinction of qualities and properties. RICHARD: A suggestion only: if, as you now say, you raised the point of first and third person distinctions chiefly to clarify the distinction of qualities and properties then it would have been helpful to have said so instead of saying [quote] ‘why is all this important?’ [endquote] and then proceeding to discuss standards of validity ... to the point of stating that you are not really interested in others’ expositions of their states because the truth or falsity of their claims were simply a non-issue to living inquiry and that it was barking up the wrong tree (with further comments about such discussions being ‘outright speculations’ or unable to be settled ‘in the third-person sense’). In other words: you set the agenda of the discussion (standards of validity) and I responded accordingly. RESPONDENT: The sub points about first vs. third party settleability, in, for example, someone’s claims of personal insight, etc., were only definitionally supporting and peripheral, and were not intended to go off on the tangent of standards of validity. Alas, this sideshow, so to speak, has become flypaper. Again, the main point, which you will not return to, was to clarify the distinction between qualities and properties ... RICHARD: So as to set the record straight I would like to point out that I made it quite clear what I would not ‘return to’ – discussing the apperceptive experience with a person who was not interested in such an exposition unless it could be settled by the ‘third person’ way – and not, as you say here, clarification of the distinction between qualities and properties ... as the following exchange shows:
As you have now made clarification of the distinction between qualities and properties the main point of that e-mail I can attend to that topic straight away: as I understand it qualities are the anthropocentric experiences of objects and are sourced in the properties; properties are the inherent characteristics of objects and exist irregardless of humans being present (palaeontology evidences that this planet existed long before humans appeared on the scene). Incidentally, I am using the word anthropocentric in its ‘regarding the world in terms of human experience’ meaning. RESPONDENT: ... which are, to me so far, simply conflated in your descriptions of apperception, in a way which simply dismisses by definition, without elucidating probative reasons, the qualitativeness of apperception, as if it were some kind of incompatibility, throwing us back into duality. This, I believe, may be only an artifact of your implicit assumption regarding or prior definition of qualitativeness qua qualitativeness. With clarification of what qualitativeness means (or better, how it is caused), it is not incompatible. RICHARD: Perhaps what gives you the impression that qualities and properties are conflated in my descriptions of apperception is because, as I said in an earlier e-mail, I do not go about seeing things in terms of their properties, qualities or values as such classifications never occur to me – I simply delight in the wonder of it all and marvel in the amazing display – and my descriptions reflect this experience. This is how I have explained such descriptions before to other respondents:
As to whether I dismiss the ‘qualitativeness of apperception’ or not depends upon what you mean by the word ‘qualitativeness’ as I have been unable to find it in either the Oxford or the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary (nor in the Encyclopaedia Britannica). The Oxford Dictionary describes ‘qualitative’ as meaning ‘relating to or concerned with quality or qualities’ and that is all it has to say ... it elsewhere says that the addition of the suffix ‘-ness’ indicates that a word is now ‘an instance of a state or a condition’. Until then I can say this much: I certainly do not dismiss the qualitative nature of apperception as apperception is quite obviously a human experience (apperception cannot exist irregardless of a human being present) ... I have already given two examples of this (splendour and brilliance) in an earlier e-mail. RESPONDENT: Since we are not moving in this subject, I agree it is time to start afresh, and I will follow your suggestion to look again at your website material. RICHARD: Okay ... but as you had already re-started the subject in this e-mail I took the opportunity to respond rather
than leave it all dangling.
SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE ON APPERCEPTION (Part Two) RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX 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 |
