Selected Correspondence: Apperceptive Awareness versus Choiceless Awareness

Richard’s Selected Correspondence

On Apperceptive Awareness versus Choiceless Awareness

RESPONDENT: When mind is in this situation observing a sunrise, without the thinker operating, there’s only the sense of beauty without the sense of a feeler feeling it.

RICHARD: Rather, without the sense of a personal feeler feeling it: impersonal feeling. That is, pure feeling or pure being (sans the personal identity) is impersonal identity or impersonal ‘being’.

RESPONDENT: It seems that the sense of observer and feeler does not exist then, only exists apperceptive awareness as what is observed (the sunrise) and the feeling (‘beauty’) without a sense of a feeler feeling it.

RICHARD: I can easily agree that when the observer is the observed there is only observation as that ‘what is observed (the sunrise)’ ... except where there is ‘the feeling (‘beauty’) without a sense of a feeler feeling it’ (impersonal feeling) there is impersonal awareness ‘as what is observed (the sunrise)’ ... and not apperceptive awareness. Although I do not have the corner on the phrase ‘apperceptive awareness’, this impersonal awareness is best called ‘choiceless awareness’ here so as to avoid confusion of terms.

RESPONDENT: In this way, the thinker and the feeler seem to be the same again. Do you consider this observation correct?

RICHARD: If the observer is the observed (and there is only observation as that ‘what is observed (the sunrise)’ ) then, yes, this observation is correct. However, apperceptive awareness, in the way I am using the term, is when ‘the feeling (‘beauty’) without a sense of a feeler feeling it’ (impersonal feeling) is not. It is bodily awareness ... as the senses (and not through the senses).

RESPONDENT: I see, ‘personal’ and ‘impersonal’ feelings, I think I grasp what you are conveying here: when there’s not thinker remains yet a feeler (a being who can feel), and these feelings are impersonal (without an ego-thinker feeling it), and in this state there’s also impersonal (choiceless) awareness. Right until here, but you are going beyond and pointing that there’s an state where this impersonal feeler also fades away, and in this state there’s ‘apperceptive’ awareness, [‘bodily awareness ... as the senses (and not through the senses)’]. I cannot understand this because it seems to me that an ‘impersonal feeler’ is inherent to be alive, how can exist a being if there’s not an impersonal feeler?

RICHARD: It is the ontological ‘being’ which cannot exist if there is not an impersonal feeler ... not the flesh and blood body (a human being).

RESPONDENT: Without grasping the last, I can not understand what do you mean by ‘apperceptive awareness’ and why is it different of impersonal (choiceless awareness). Can you elaborate further on it?

RICHARD: Yes, ‘choiceless awareness’ is where the fragment (the ontological ‘being’) is the whole (an autological ‘being’ usually capitalised as ‘Being’) ... whereas ‘apperceptive awareness’ is where the fragment – and therefore the whole – has ceased to be (‘being’ and/or ‘Being’ itself is not).

RESPONDENT: And while I’m ‘reading you’ in your posts, I’ll comment some of the others, if you don’t mind. [Richard]: ‘Apperceptive thought is the wide and wondrous mechanism that enables one to be here – fully here – at this moment in time and this place in space’. [endquote]. My dictionary gives the meaning of apperception as: 1. ‘introspection or self consciousness’, and 2. ‘The process of understanding something perceived in terms of previous experience’. Apperception, according to my dictionary’s meaning, means merely that memory is in operation, and how can memory possibly understand the moment. It cannot. Memory, in fact, stands in place of the present moment.

RICHARD: Now herein is a prime example of the danger in ‘reading’ people – forming an image – and the silliness in so doing. Your dictionary is not the only dictionary in the world; there are others which are more comprehensive. For example, the Oxford Dictionary, out of which I drew this meaning of the word apperception: ‘the mind’s perception of itself’. This is the third meaning of the word ... the two you quoted above are also in the Oxford Dictionary. (I also use a Webster’s Merriam which, like yours, only gives the first two meanings). The general meaning of apperception is: ‘how things are represented in consciousness’. For those who can remember how thinking happened of its own accord during a PCE in a peak experience, the third meaning is at once obvious and evident. Apperceptive awareness – this body being conscious without an ‘I’ in any way, shape or form – has a global occurrence ... it is universal in its scope. It is just that most people either forget about their PCE – for there is no emotional ‘I’ present to record the moment on its affective ‘tape-recorder’ – or they interpret the experience according to their culture’s icons.

I have given the Oxford Dictionary definition of this third meaning two times in my recent posts. Vis:

1. [Richard]: To embark upon a search is to take a journey through the human psyche – which is what ‘my’ psyche is. ‘I’ am ‘humanity’ and ‘humanity’ is ‘me’. Both ‘I’ and ‘humanity’ are ideas – not freedom. An actual freedom, here on earth, in this life-time, as this body is not an idea – it is an actuality. This can be ascertained apperceptively via a pure consciousness experience (PCE) which can occur in a peak experience (apperception is ‘the mind’s perception of itself’ – Oxford Dictionary).
2. [Richard]: Then what one is – what not ‘who’ – is this flesh and blood body being aware. This awareness – not that spiritual awareness – is called apperception (apperception is ‘the mind’s perception of itself’ – Oxford Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: Which brings me to a question I have had arising for awhile. Richard, you claim to have no ego, and no ‘self’. How do you know that the situation is: there is no self in Richard; as distinct from the situation that Richard is not aware of Richard’s self?

RICHARD: Apperception.

RESPONDENT No. 22: Exposing is giving attention to the concepts as they occur. For example we can give attention to the notion of a ‘you’ that can be angry, an ‘I’ that can drop or hold beliefs. Awareness of those concepts as they arise, clarifies their conceptual nature and allows them to drop on their own.

RICHARD: But would you not wish to live a life wherein these concepts never arise? Therefore you never have to go about ‘clarifying their conceptual nature’ all the time? A life where all these things do not have to be constantly observed and clarified? And when they drop, they only drop until next time, anyway. What a laborious task it is to have to be ever-vigilant.

RESPONDENT: No, No, I would not wish that. Yes, Yes, I would like that. Yes, it is terribly laborious to watch, to remind oneself to watch, to be vigilant, wondering if one is doing it enough, should one be more vigilant constantly, and then watching the never being in the present moment. ‘It’ has been experienced only for a few minutes in the last twenty five years. Only once did the observer and the observed merge. Only a few times have I felt that Real compassion, forgiveness, Love. Only a couple of times have I had experience with the ‘other’ dimension.

RICHARD: 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. All the while there is an apperceptive awareness of being here ... of being alive at this moment in time and this place in space. No words 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.

When the psychological ego and psychic soul willingly relinquish their sovereignty and take their leave, the senses can act in the optimum manner. Just as when a normal person becomes blind and all their other senses are heightened, so too does the abdication result in a phenomenal increase in the pleasurable and luxurious sensitivity of being a corporeal body in this very physical world. The resultant benevolence produces easy good-will, kindness and altruism, for one is living in a friendly world ... made all the more amiable because of the innate munificence and magnanimity of the purity of the perfection of the infinitude of the universe as is evidenced only at this moment in time.

This is an actual freedom from animosity and anguish – as distinct from becoming enlightened and thus having merely transcended and smothered them over with a honeyed coating of Love Agapé and Divine Compassion – and I am inordinately pleased whenever someone can grasp the priceless character of what this means for peace on earth. It is one thing to bask in Ineffable Bliss, Ecstasy and Euphoria while perpetuating the status-quo ... and quite another to delightedly enjoy the ripples of pleasure that this body is patently capable of manifesting whilst actualising benignity and blitheness. These organic waves of sensational pleasure are usually constrained by the demands of the ego and soul for emotional and passionate feelings ... which are the synthetic compensations for the supposed indignity of ‘me’ having to be here at all in this despised body.

You see, what one is as this body is this material universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being. 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 too. 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: I am always here and it is already now.

RICHARD: Only apperceptive awareness will do the trick.

RESPONDENT: Of course, all of this conceptualising leads absolutely grievously nowhere. Krishnamurti says we must be constantly aware ... so far proven to be a virtual impossibility. Now you say apperceptive awareness will do the trick. Well, buddy, send me a couple of bottles of it, or better yet a life-time supply.

RICHARD: 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 that 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.

All this is born only out of pure intent. Pure intent is derived from the PCE experienced during a peak experience, which all humans have had at some stage in their life. A peak experience is when ‘I’ spontaneously cease to ‘be’, temporarily, and this moment is. Everything is seen to be perfect as-it-is. Diligent mindfulness paid to the peak experience gives rise to pure intent. With pure intent running as a ‘golden thread’ through one’s life, reflective contemplation rapidly becomes more and more fascinating. When one is totally fascinated, reflective contemplation becomes pure awareness ... and then apperception happens of itself. With apperception operating more or less continuously in ‘my’ day-to-day life, ‘I’ find it harder and harder to maintain credibility. ‘I’ am increasingly seen as the usurper, an alien entity inhabiting this body and taking on an identity of its own. Mercilessly exposed in the bright light of awareness – apperception casts no shadows – ‘I’ can no longer find ‘my’ position tenable. ‘I’ can only live in obscuration, where ‘I’ lurk about, creating all sorts of mischief. ‘My’ time is speedily coming to an end, ‘I’ can barely maintain ‘myself’ any longer.

RESPONDENT No. 12: Seeing is before duality and is a different view of what is that can not be understood in dualistic terms. It is non-rational. Richard’s explanation of apperception is as good as any In my opinion.

RESPONDENT: Richard’s account of apperception also involved thought despite his disclaimers.

RICHARD: Not so ... apperception is a self-less awareness that is on-going throughout the entire waking hours. Thought may or may not operate as required by the circumstances ... apperception goes on regardless. Apperception is the perennial pure consciousness experience of being alive; being awake – not asleep in bed – and being here now at this moment in time and this place in space.

RESPONDENT: The notion of an ego and soul also seem to be beliefs that cannot be found if life is carefully observed.

RICHARD: They can not be found if life is merely observed carefully ... if one is that calm, detached observer on the hilltop. Yet when one looks deeply into one’s psyche; when one plumbs the depths of one’s being; when there is profound and sincere intent ... then the ego and soul can be located. They can be seen ... and at that moment of seeing, one is no longer them.

Then what one is – what not ‘who’ – is this flesh and blood body being aware. This awareness – not that spiritual awareness – is called apperception. (Apperception is the mind’s perception of itself – Oxford Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: So, according to the apperceptive-brain model, all we perceive comes to us through the senses.

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: So what you call ‘space’ is in fact something that the brain processed through electrical impulses and interpreted it as ‘space’.

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: The same with ‘materiality’. Trough the sense inputs the brain is able to interpret that data, and in a indirect way, call it as ‘material’.

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: The sense organs themselves are interpretations of the brain in a very analogous manner – sense inputs, electrical impulses.

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: This leads us to say, according to this model, that the ‘real’ nature of things are unavailable to the brain, because it only deals with the senses.

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: Correct me if I am wrong ... so far.

RICHARD: You have misunderstood inasmuch as you are coming from the point of view that there is a ‘someone’, an identity (a psychological and/or psychic entity) inside the flesh and blood body to do the perceiving of what you say ‘comes to us through the senses’ ... and from this basic premise make all your following deductions.

RESPONDENT: No ... there is no inner entity.

RICHARD: If there is ‘no inner entity’ then in no way would the physical world of people things and events ever be experienced as being that which ‘comes to us through the senses’ and thus ‘through the sense inputs the brain is able to interpret that data, and in a indirect way, call it as ‘material’’ and that ‘space is in fact something that the brain processed through electrical impulses and interpreted it as ‘space’ or that ‘the ‘real’ nature of things are unavailable to the brain, because it only deals with the senses’ and so on. If there is ‘no inner entity’ then it would be outstandingly obvious that material sense-datum, being directly experienced as-it-is as an actual materiality, is not interpreted in an ‘indirect way as being material’. If there is ‘no inner entity’ then it would be outstandingly obvious that spatial sense-datum, being directly experienced as-it-is as an actual space is not interpreted as ‘electrical impulses called space’. If there is ‘no inner entity’ then it would be outstandingly obvious that actual nature of things sense-datum, being directly experienced as-it-is as an actual nature of things is always directly available to the brain because the sense organs are the brain itself ... the brain on stalks, as it were.

This type of perception is known as apperception and is epitomised by the marked absence of a ‘perceiver’ who normally does all this interpreting and indirect experiencing that you talk of.

RESPONDENT: So ... there is a flesh and blood brain. Mind is the function of this brain. This brain is aware of the world and is aware of itself being aware. So ... I must ask: is there any other means through which this brain gathers data, besides the senses?

RICHARD: Firstly, where there is no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul as an entity inside the flesh and blood body, there is no experience of the senses as being a ‘means through which this brain gathers data’ because one is the senses ... thus this is a direct experiencing of the world as-it-is (no ‘through’). Secondly, what data is there other than sensate data that would need ‘other means’ ... metaphysical data? Where there is no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (no psyche) there is no imaginative/intuitive faculty ... hence no metaphysicality.

It is all so simple here in this actual world.

RESPONDENT: Is the faculty of being aware of itself also a sensorial data input?

RICHARD: There are and have been people who are blind and deaf; people who have no smell and taste; people who have no touch (physical sensation) from the neck down ... but I have not come across or heard about anyone who is totally without sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch (not just ‘neck down’ ... no whole body physical sensation). I would have to be that corny ‘brain in a vat’ so beloved of epistemologists to ascertain experientially that apperceptive awareness is not sensate-oriented ... and then I would not be able to communicate the information you seek anyway. Speaking from a fully-functioning-senses experiencing, I always say – and definitively – that without the senses I would not know that I exist. Because I am the senses – which senses are the brain on stalks as it were – thus when I touch something I am that touching ... and that very touching is apperceptive awareness (in which there may be thinking as in remembering, considering and recognising or not). There is no ‘I’ in here touching ‘that’ out there ... no ‘inner’ and no ‘outer’ at all. As this body being apperceptively aware I am the direct experiencing of what is happening ... and it is this infinite and eternal universe that is happening everywhere and everywhen.

And what a happening it is!

RESPONDENT: Please, can you extend your meaning about ‘and thus promote a physical solution (extinction of instinctual ‘being’ itself)’. Please, what is your approximation, what do you mean by ‘a physical solution (extinction of instinctual ‘being’ itself) derived from my personal experience’. Feel free to express as you like, this is to much serious for me, ‘agree or disagree’ will be only my business but I will thanks a lot any personal approach on this point.

RICHARD: In my investigations I first started by examining thought, thoughts and thinking ... then very soon moved on to examining feelings (first the emotions and then the deeper feelings). When I dug down into these passions (into the core of ‘my’ being then into ‘being’ itself) I stumbled across the instincts ... and found the origin of not only the affective faculty but the psyche itself. I found ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’ ... which is the instinctual rudimentary animal self common to all sentient beings (otherwise mistakenly known as the ‘original face’ and is what gives rise to the feeling of ‘oneness’ with all other sentient beings). This is a very ancient genetic memory.

Being a ‘self’ is because the only way into this world of people, things and events is via the human spermatozoa fertilising the human ova ... thus every human being is endowed, by blind nature, with the basic instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire. These passions are the very energy source of the rudimentary animal self ... the base consciousness of ‘self’ and ‘other’ that all sentient beings have. The human animal – with its unique ability to be aware of its own death – transforms this ‘reptilian brain’ rudimentary animal ‘self’ into being a feeling ‘me’ (as soul in the heart) and from this core of ‘being’ the ‘feeler’ then infiltrates into thought to become the ‘thinker’ ... a thinking ‘I’ (as ego in the head). No other animal can do this. That this process is aided and abetted by the human beings who were already on this planet when one was born – which is conditioning and programming and is part and parcel of the socialising process – is but the tip of the ice-burg and not the main issue at all. There is much, much more to an investigation into the human condition than ‘the thinker is the thought’, because (to put it in the same lingo) the ‘feeler’ is the feelings ... and the feelings are, as the root of the psyche, ‘being’ itself.

The physical solution (extinction of instinctual ‘being’ itself) will not eventuate unless the physically inherited cause (a genetically inherited instinctual animal ‘self’) that created the problem of the human condition is intimately experienced. To proceed from a sound basis, one starts with facts: to be alive (not dead) and awake (not asleep) and conscious (not unconscious) and aware and perceiving (and maybe thinking, remembering, reflecting and proposing considered action) is the human mind that every human being is born with and, as such, is similar around the globe and through all generations. Intimate access to the activity of each mind is personal (as opposed to public) but the basic activities of the mind are not individual (‘individual’ as distinguished from others by qualities of its own). This neuronal activity – consciousness itself – is what the human mind is and thus, contrary to popular belief, consciousness is not its content (content as in conditioning) but the very neuronal activity itself.

Because, apart from awareness and perception and thought being what consciousness is, there is the affective feelings (emotions and passions and calentures) such as the instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire to consider. Are they not basic traits that every human being is born with and consequently also similar? Or are they the result of conditioning and therefore the ‘contents of consciousness’? What about malice and sorrow and any of derivatives of malice and sorrow – as a broad generalisation, ‘malice’ is what one does to others (resentment, anger, hatred, rage, sadism and so on) and ‘sorrow’ (sadness, loneliness, melancholy, grief, masochism and so on) is what one does to oneself – and the compensatory love and compassion and any of the derivatives of love and compassion that arise out of the basic instincts? Are they not latent traits that every human comes into ‘being’ with and thus are also similar because, whatever the emotion or passion or calenture may be, they all have a global incidence. Or are they the result of conditioning and therefore the ‘contents of consciousness’? What about such affectively-based activity as imagination, intuition, visualisation, conceptualisation, believing, trusting, hoping, having faith and so forth – giving rise to epiphenomenon like prescience, clairvoyance, telepathy, divination and other psychic effects – are they not embryonic traits that every human being comes into ‘being’ with and thus are similar as well? Or are they the result of conditioning and therefore the ‘contents of consciousness’?

Can it at least be clear that the obvious ‘contents of consciousness’ which are the result of conditioning, such as the gender, racial and era beliefs, truths, morals, ethics, principles, values, ideals, theories, customs, traditions, superstitions and all the other schemes and dreams, are what imposes a ‘collective mind’ imprint? Yet this imprinted ‘collective mind’ (all the gender, racial and era beliefs, truths, morals, ethics, principles, values, ideals, theories, customs, traditions, superstitions and all the other schemes and dreams) would not be able to have the tenacious hold that it has if the human brain was indeed the ‘Tabular Rasa’ brain that so many peoples believe they are born with. All the gender, racial and era beliefs, truths, morals, ethics, principles, values, ideals, theories, customs, traditions, superstitions and all the other schemes and dreams have such a persistent grip only because of the powerful energy of the genetically inherited instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire that stretch back to the dawn of the human species ... which passions have given rise to a rudimentary animal ‘self’ out of ‘being’ itself who is both savage (‘fear and aggression’) and tender (‘nurture and desire’).

Is it not obvious that all the animosity and anguish that has beset humankind throughout millennia comes from that which a lot deeper than ‘the thinker is the thought’ ... all the misery and mayhem stems from an animal energy which is much, much more powerful than thought, thoughts and thinking.

RESPONDENT: But I still don’t understand, with which faculty you perceive a blood and flesh brain ...

RICHARD: This flesh and blood brain apperceives itself ... it is amazing to not only be able to be consciousness being aware ... but to be consciousness being aware of being consciousness (without an ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious). In other words: as this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware, I am the experiencing of what is happening.

And it is this infinite and eternal universe that is happening ... its material infinitude is what is apperceived.

RESPONDENT: ... and deny the fact that a piece of flesh on the table is the result of photons hitting your blood and flesh retina.

RICHARD: Yet I do not deny light photons and the action of the retina ... you asked me: ‘through the sense inputs the brain is able to interpret that data, and in a indirect way, call it as ‘material’. The sense organs themselves are interpretations of the brain in a very analogous manner – sense inputs, electrical impulses. This leads us to say, according to this model, that the ‘real’ nature of things are unavailable to the brain, because it only deals with the senses’ ... to which I replied:

• [Richard]: ‘No. You have misunderstood inasmuch as you are coming from the point of view that there is a ‘someone’, an identity (a psychological and/or psychic entity) inside the flesh and blood body to do the perceiving of what you say ‘comes to us through the senses’ ... and from this basic premise make all your following deductions. But where the identity, the psychological ‘thinker’ (‘I’ as ego) and psychic ‘feeler’ (‘me’ as soul) is not extant then what one is (‘what’ not ‘who’) is these very 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 (or as you say ‘all we perceive comes to us through the senses’). 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. Unable as ‘I’ am to be the direct experiencing of actuality as-it-happens ‘I’ can only conclude ‘that the ‘real’ nature of things are unavailable to the brain, because it only deals with the senses’. Whereas I am the direct sensate experiencing of what is happening right here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time. Which is the experiencing of infinitude’.

Therefore, the activity that happens (photons stimulating the flesh and blood retina and the flesh and blood retina exciting the photons) is the experiencing which ‘this seeing is me’ describes.

RESPONDENT: Is not the vision of that piece of flesh a result of brain processing of electronic impulses?

RICHARD: Indeed ... and I am that process, I am that experiencing. This ‘processing of electronic impulses’ is the brain in action ... the mind, in other words. As the Oxford Dictionary states: apperception is the mind’s perception of itself.

RESPONDENT: Is not the perception of you own brain (in order to be apperceptive) another brain processing – according to your own model?

RICHARD: This brain, which is what I am (‘what’ not ‘who’) has this amazing ability to not only be able to be consciousness being aware but to simultaneously be consciousness being aware of being consciousness (without an ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious).

This actual world is truly wondrous ... no need for any imaginative/intuitive metaphysical mystique whatsoever.

RESPONDENT: Is this ‘freedom’ neurological? Apparently both capacities are related to neurological functioning with the latter involving a more totally involved cerebral activity like the whole brain were charged up, excited, and alive. Is this necessary information? No. But it does indicate the brain structure is involved in whatever ultimately ‘awareness’ is insofar as humans are involved in it. It seems to me that too often (not referring to you, Richard) people tend to think of the brain as only the seat of concepts and destructive behaviour whereas ‘spiritual awareness’ must come from some other place – perhaps ethereal space.

RICHARD: Too true ... yet ‘spiritual awareness’ does indeed come from an ethereal space. This ‘ethereal space’ is located in the human psyche, wherein all matters metaphysical originate ... both ‘good’ and ‘bad’. The human brain, super-charged with a veritable cocktail of chemicals, hormonally stimulated by the basic emotions of fear and aggression in the ‘reptilian brain’, creates the entire psychic realm wherein gods and demons forever play out their titanic battle betwixt good and evil. These super-entities are but a product of the self.

The self is what one is born with – it equates with being ‘Born in Sin’, or being ‘Born of Samsara’ – and can be dispensed with by a curious physiological occurrence in the brain-stem ... most probably in the Substantia Nigra, which is located within the Reticular System. This mutation, which eliminates the entire psyche, is triggered by an intense urge to evince and demonstrate what the universe was evidently capable of manifesting: the utter best in purity and perfection which all humans could have ever longed for. Blind nature, which endows all creatures with the instinct for survival, can be superseded, which paves the way for a truly edified species of fellow human beings to live together in complete peace and harmony.

There is no good or evil in this actual world.

RESPONDENT: First, I apologise, I’ve been pulling the trigger to fast. At this point, may I ask you the following: where in the universe is perception localised?

RICHARD: The only perception worthy of note is localised as the apperceptive brain in this flesh and blood human body waking and sleeping, eating and drinking, urinating and defecating, walking and talking and so on in the world of people, things and events here in space and now in time. As far as it is possible to ascertain, no other sentient being is capable of thinking and reflecting about its own existence.

Apperception is something that brings a facticity born out of a direct experience of the actual. (‘Oxford Dictionary’: ‘Apperception’: ‘The minds perception of itself’ ). Apperception is the mind’s perception of itself – it is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious – it is a bare awareness happening of its own accord. 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 ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul abdicates its throne and a clean and clear and pure awareness occurs. This is called a pure consciousness experience (PCE). The experience 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 ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul has been standing in the way of the perfection and purity, that is the essential character 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 along with the entire affective faculty. One is the universe’s experience of itself as a sensate and reflective 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, persona, personality, lower self, atman, soul, spirit, or whatever) forever seeking union with ‘That’, by whatever name (The Real Self, The Higher Self, The True Self, The Greater Reality, The Essence, The Truth, The Absolute, The Supreme, The Universal Mind, The Ground Of Being, The Tao, Cosmic Consciousness, Nirvana, Satori, Samadhi, Thatness, Suchness, Isness and so on).

Thus 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 actual world – the world as-it-is – by ‘my’ very presence. Apperception is consciousness being aware of being consciousness.

RESPONDENT: Why do you say: ‘the only perception worthy of note is localised as the apperceptive brain in this flesh and blood human body’? I wouldn’t say that there is more than one perception, worthy or not worthy of note. But we will clear that.

RICHARD: I beg to differ ... there is ‘more than one perception’ . One that immediately springs to mind that you would be familiar with is called ‘choiceless awareness’. There are many more that are similarly mystical.

RESPONDENT: Yes, man is of flesh and blood, eats, drinks, dies, etc. Would you agree calling all that man is, as the mind of mankind?

RICHARD: I would agree that for perhaps 6.0 billion human beings ‘all that a human is, is the mind of humankind’ , yes. However, it is possible to be free of the ‘mind of humankind’ and be an autonomous individual, standing on one’s own two feet and being beholden to no one. Such an autonomous individual would be living as this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware for the twenty four hours of every day ... for the remainder of one’s life.

RESPONDENT: I have been insisting in looking at things in this way, because I find that it would be possible to clear some aspects of existence. For example, it would be interesting to identify precisely what is this possibility of ego-centredness as an entirety, within the mind of mankind, also as an entirety?

RICHARD: It is very simple to identify it precisely ... it is called the survival instinct. All sentient beings have been charged by blind nature to survive at all costs ... and nature is blind inasmuch as it does not care two-hoots about you or me. It is only concerned with the survival of the species ... and any species will do as far as nature is concerned. Therefore, your mind is the species’ mind ... and the species’ mind is you. Or, as you put it: ‘ego-centredness as an entirety, within the mind of mankind, also as an entirety’

RESPONDENT: Or in other words, all sense of materiality is a quality of this mind of man. But I feel that one must consider the mind of mankind as a subtler counterpart of all that is embodied here, because the material part would be the brain/body and its functions.

RICHARD: No ... this that you now speak of is nothing but a software package of instincts. Like all software, once it becomes redundant it can be deleted. Then materiality, far from being a problem, is a joy and a delight.

RESPONDENT: I understand apperception. The word that comes to my mind right now is transparency. But before proceeding I want to know what you say.

RICHARD: The word ‘transparency’ indicates ‘lucidity’, ‘limpidness’, ‘sheerness’, ‘translucence’, ‘clearness’, ‘distinctness’ and so on ... which are highly valued qualities in the ‘real world’. But the ‘real world’s ‘transparency’ is not apperception. Apperception (consciousness being aware of being consciousness), only occurs when one steps out of the ‘real world’ into this actual world of sensuous delight ... leaving ‘myself’ behind in the Land of Lament where ‘I’ belong. This, then, is when apperception happens of its own accord.

One steps out of ‘humanity’.

RESPONDENT: Yes, I know. I said ‘the first word ...’ as something approximate, a pointer. Now, what is this that you call ‘real world’ as opposed to ‘actual world’. This is not a challenge but a request to clarify. These two words have been used several times here, with different meanings. For example, to me, real and actual point to the same. Words, words, words ... you know.

RICHARD: The enlightened people say that the world that 6.0 billion people live in is an illusion (and I agree) and those people who live there in that illusion (mostly called ‘normal’ people) mostly name their world ‘the real world’. They say things like: ‘It’s tough out there in the real world’ or ‘It’s dog eat dog in the real world’ or ‘You’ve gotta be tough to survive in the real world’ or ‘Stop fantasising and come back to the real world’ or ‘Life’s a bitch in the real world’ and so on and so on. In other words: ‘reality’.

Where I differ from the enlightened people is that the ‘Greater Reality’ that they escape into, being a ‘Timeless and Spaceless and Formless’ void, is nothing but a delusion born out of the illusion that they were trapped in like the 6.0 billion ‘normal’ people. They have become ‘abnormal’ (or ‘divine’) and live in the hallucination that they are The Real Self, The Higher Self, The True Self, The Greater Reality, The Essence, The Truth, The Absolute, The Supreme, The Universal Mind, The Ground Of Being, The Tao, Cosmic Consciousness, Nirvana, Satori, Samadhi, Thatness, Suchness, Isness and so on. In other words: God.

There is a third alternative: this actual world that the ‘real world’ is pasted over as a veneer.

RESPONDENT: Once that the self has been left behind, one is the mind of mankind. One is the humanity, but the possibility of self-centeredness is understood and ‘seen through’.

RICHARD: Aye ... and therein lies the rub. There is a vast distinction betwixt the ‘Tried and Failed’ solution of ‘leaving the self behind’ and this third alternative: the elimination of identity in its totality. That is: the difference between ‘transformation’ and ‘extinction’.

RESPONDENT: All that a man perceives in this situation is the mind of mankind, but now, something more emerges. I agree that one is not the average humanity, although average humanity is also here, now. My senses, brain, are and will be human till the day I die. Again, all that is perceptible, sensible, is the human mind as one. I’m a tri-dimensional flesh and blood man ... and more. What is the more that emerges? To see this one must be real or actual or factual. We are somewhere. This is the more. We are contained in something adimensional. Be careful here. We must not deal with concepts. This container (approximate word, don’t look it up in the dictionary), is the universal mind. All there is, is contained, or thought by this universal mind that moulded everything that is, was, will be, manifested, non-manifested ... etc. I’ll stop here for now.

RICHARD: Okay, no dictionary ... I will put this simply: the ‘Universal Mind’ is nothing but the ‘human mind’ sublimated and transcended.

RESPONDENT: No, Richard ... go slower. Let’s share. I’m not referring to a perception that may spring to somebody’s mind. That is thought or a concept.

RICHARD: I beg to differ ... ‘choiceless awareness’ is a state of being. Thought cannot successfully operate in a state of being.

RESPONDENT: I see. What you call perception is not what I mean. This words must be clarified otherwise we may find ourselves looking at different things (no dictionary, please). You seem to be equating awareness with perception, and maybe to consciousness to.

RICHARD: There has been a misunderstanding. Because you originally asked ‘where in the universe is perception localised?’ (and because it is obvious that ordinary perception is in the brain of any sensate being) I could only take it that you were referring to a mystical (bodiless) type of perception (given that you had asked me to ‘Please keep in mind that I have some difficulties with the language’ when we first started corresponding). No problem. Shall we begin again?

So, the place where, in the universe, that perception is, is in the brain of any sensate being. Until space exploration is such that carbon-based life-forms are discovered to have arisen elsewhere as well as on planet earth, then this is the only known place where perception is. And perception is not ‘localised’ in the universe in the brain of any sensate being ... the universe is not perceptive per se.

Only sentient beings are perceptive.

RICHARD: Apperception is different from choiceless awareness.

RESPONDENT: If choiceless awareness means being aware of all that is present unconditionally and all-inclusively, would that not include the mind ‘watching itself’?

RICHARD: If ‘choiceless awareness’ did include the ‘mind ‘watching itself’’ then that mind (the choicelessly aware mind) would observe that it is swamped by a transmogrified and vainglorious identity ... and then there would be action. As there is no action of this calibre in ‘choiceless awareness’ then, no, it obviously does not ‘include the mind ‘watching itself’’ at all.

RESPONDENT: What is the ‘more’ in apperception?

RICHARD: No, not ‘more’ but less ... in fact less to the point of nothing at all. Apperception only occurs when there is no identity whatsoever extant. Whereas ‘choiceless awareness’ occurs when the personal part of identity (‘I’ as ego) dissolves and expands like all get-out into being, not only everything (wholeness) but beyond time, space and form to where ‘that which is sacred and holy’ resides.

The word ‘choiceless’ is a code-word for the mystical word ‘surrender ... just as ‘what is’ is code for the Buddhist word ‘Isness’ and ‘stepping out of the stream’ is code for the Hindu phrase ‘getting off the wheel of Karma’ and so on. In other words: the ‘divine’ alternative to being ‘human’.

There is a third alternative.

RESPONDENT: The associations that happen in your understanding, are not meant by me. I have no religion, never had one, and in this small island in the southern Atlantic Ocean by the Brazilian cost, very few books are available. My friends talk of fishing ... mainly.

RICHARD: Even if you know ‘nothing of Buddhism, Hinduism, and very little of K’ and even if you ‘have no religion, never had one’ this what you write, for all your disclaiming, is mystical ... and ‘apperceptive awareness’ is not.

RESPONDENT: When I say ‘choiceless’ it means that is all-inclusive.

RICHARD: Whereas when I say ‘choiceless awareness’ I use Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s meaning ... and given that he made the phrase popular he ought to know best what it means. If you have given it another meaning than his – like ‘all-inclusive’ – but then write ‘all there is, is contained, or thought by this universal mind that moulded everything that is, was, will be, manifested, non-manifested’ then surely you must comprehend that you leave me no alternative but to understand that by ‘all-inclusive’ you are meaning the same-same thing as ‘wholeness’ or ‘unity’ and so on.

Apperceptive awareness is not an awareness that ‘all there is, is contained, or thought by this universal mind that moulded everything that is, was, will be, manifested, non-manifested’ because the ‘universal mind’ is the human mind (‘humanity’) writ large. Apperception is when one steps out of ‘humanity’ ... not when one ‘steps out of the stream’.

RICHARD: Apperception only occurs when there is no identity whatsoever extant. Whereas ‘choiceless awareness’ occurs when the personal part of identity (‘I’ as ego) dissolves and expands like all get-out into being, not only everything (wholeness) but beyond time, space and form to where ‘that which is sacred and holy’ resides.

RESPONDENT: Well, if it is an ‘ego’ doing anything, obviously is meaningless by definition. There is perception of events of an impersonal order, without the centred known observer.

RICHARD: Yes, the centred known observer is the ego. When the centred known observer is the observed (there is only observation) the ego is said to have dissolved (or died) and becoming has ceased and being is. This being is impersonal being. Are we together in this? If so, I will return then to what I wrote above ... if not we can proceed with this to see where it takes us.

RESPONDENT: It seems that we agree ... we shall see though. This impersonal being is not centred and not separate from the observed.

RICHARD: Good ... this ‘impersonal being’ (which you say is ‘not centred and not separate from the observed’ ) therefore is the observed. Now ‘the observed’ is another way of saying ‘everything’. Therefore, would another way of saying all this be: ‘I am everything and everything is Me’?

RESPONDENT: Everything perceived is ‘here’. To say Me, may have it’s inherent dangers. Me may sound a bit anthropomorphic.

RICHARD: Okay ... the observed ( ‘everything’ ) perceived by this impersonal centreless being is everything both manifest and unmanifest? And everything both manifest and unmanifest is ‘here’ , you say? Thus the perception of this impersonal being is all-seeing? And this all-seeing perception is called ‘choiceless awareness’?

RESPONDENT: When I say ‘choiceless’ it means that is all-inclusive.

RICHARD: Whereas when I say ‘choiceless awareness’ I use Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s meaning.

RESPONDENT: Which is what?

RICHARD: The word ‘choice-less’ means no choice ... as in no will or volition of one’s own. (Not my will but Thy Will, Oh Lord).

RESPONDENT: Ahh ... I see. No, when I say choiceless is absent of any relation to volition. All-inclusive, or non-exclusive, maybe would fit better.

RICHARD: So ‘choiceless’ does not mean what it says (‘choice-less’) to you? You still have the ability to choose ... you still have will, volition of your own? Even though ‘all-inclusive’ means that all there is, is thought by this universal mind that moulded everything that is, was, will be, manifested, non-manifested? Are you saying that you are then the ‘universal mind’ made manifest?

RICHARD: The stuff of this flesh and blood body is the very stuff of the universe ... the stuff of this flesh and blood body has been virtually everywhere and everything at everywhen. As this flesh and blood body only I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being ... as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. Now do you comprehend what ‘absolute’ means in actuality?

RESPONDENT: The universe aware of itself as an apperceptive human being is consciousness that includes but is not limited to the apperceptive human being.

RICHARD: No, it is a consciousness which only exists as an apperceptive human being (as far as space exploration has thus far discovered).

RESPONDENT: One of the hallmarks of awakening is an intuitive knowing that consciousness is not limited to what is of time. A different dimension is realized and becomes part of daily life. It is what gives life meaning because there is a direct energetic connection to all that is.

RICHARD: That is the experience of ‘awakening’, yes ... it is just that I was responding to your comment on an ‘apperceptive human being’ and not an awakened human being in this section of this e-mail.

RESPONDENT: What awakens is impersonal but operates in the particular.

RICHARD: Aye ... and when that which is ‘impersonal’ then sacrifices itself, for the benefit of the body and every body, an apperceptive human being becomes apparent.

RESPONDENT: The personal is biological or cultural conditioning.

RICHARD: So too is the ‘impersonal’ ... one needs to dig deeper than what the many and varied saints, sages and seers have done so far in human history.

RESPONDENT: Creative activity comes from outside the known as opposed to activity that is merely replication, imitation, invention, patterning, etc.

RICHARD: Whereas apperception lies beyond both the known and the unknown ... it lies in that area which is called ‘the unknowable’ (to use the religio-spiritual jargon).

RICHARD: The entire intuitive faculty is non-existent in an apperceptive human being ... and the actual meaning of life is apparent as an on-going experiencing.

RESPONDENT: You seem to assume that your way of experiencing is the same as the way others experience.

RICHARD: It is not an assumption ... this is something I have checked at length with many of my fellow human beings when discussing the characteristics of the pure consciousness experience (PCE).

RESPONDENT: But there is no reason to assume that any way of being is ‘right’ for anyone else or some kind of ideal for humanity to pattern itself after.

RICHARD: There is every reason in the world ... there is the on-going experiencing of the perfection of the purity of the already always existing peace-on-earth.

RESPONDENT: The psyche is established in the known.

RICHARD: Also in the unknown ... primarily in the unknown, in fact.

RESPONDENT: It is a certain kind of development.

RICHARD: Basically ‘the psyche’ is a state of being ... it is the source of ‘being’ itself.

RESPONDENT: If there is a highly developed intuition, that operates in an apperceptive human.

RICHARD: Again ... the entire intuitive faculty is non-existent in an apperceptive human being ( ‘the psyche’ itself disappears).

RESPONDENT: If there is a more highly developed analytical capacity, then that function will more naturally be employed.

RICHARD: The ability for analysis has nothing to do with ‘the psyche’ ... intellectual scrutiny is but one of the functions of human intelligence.

RESPONDENT: Centreless awareness is not bounded by anything, not contained within anything because the experiencer is the experience.

RICHARD: A disembodied ‘awareness’ , in other words, that a human being can be contacted by ... and then be (‘I am That’).

RESPONDENT: It is not experienced as disembodied awareness.

RICHARD: It is easy to check your experience for validity: does it die when the body dies?

RESPONDENT: Death only has meaning in the context of what is part of the movement of time.

RICHARD: Ahh ... then ‘centreless awareness’ is indeed a disembodied awareness after all.

RICHARD: ... Thus one is reliably rendered relatively innocent (and virtually happy and harmless) by the benefaction of the perfection and purity of this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe and therefore one is no longer alone in this monumental endeavour ... one has all the energy of infinitude at one’s disposal.

RESPONDENT: Could you please explain the last part a bit more [‘one has all the energy of infinitude at one’s disposal’] as it does sound somewhat metaphysical.

RICHARD: Not metaphysical, no. I am talking of the physical infinitude of this physical universe (‘this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe’) thus the energy of infinitude referred to is a physical energy ... specifically the calorific energy of an apperceptive consciousness.

I can explain it this way: the apperceptive brain in action in the human skull is a ‘self’-less consciousness (a consciousness not fettered by any identity whatsoever) and as such is an unlimited consciousness automatically conscious of the perfection and purity of the infinitude of the universe as an on-going awareness. For a person in the ‘real world’ such a consciousness exists in another dimension – in the infinite and eternal and perpetual actual world in fact – yet is mostly mistaken by peoples to be a god-like consciousness (a non-calorific energy in some timeless and spaceless and formless dimension).

Yet it is nothing more mysterious than the flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware.

One needs to contact, or have a connection with, this apperceptive awareness so as to no longer be alone in the monumental endeavour to end all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition. Hence the activation of one’s innate naiveté – the closest approximation to innocence one can have whilst being a ‘self’ – ensures that such a connection is sustained.

This connection I call pure intent.

RESPONDENT: ... the ordinary meaning of ‘aware’ is consistent with the split. And for this reason, I am considering a few new words such as holperception or holsight or holprehension, to convey the very special sense of the non-split in awareness. Do you think that a new word is needed?

RICHARD: A very descriptive and apt word already exists that neatly circumvents any ‘holism’ connotations (the ‘whole being greater than the sum of the parts’ nonsense). Vis.: apperception (n.): the mind’s perception of itself; also: apperceptive (adj.): of or pertaining to apperception. (Oxford Dictionary). Which literally means (sans ‘self’): consciousness being aware of being conscious ... as distinct from ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious (the normal ‘self’-conscious way of perception). However, because of the holistic associations concomitant to the term ‘choiceless awareness’ (a fragmented or split ‘self’ integrated or made whole) it is pertinent to note that the term ‘apperceptive awareness’ does not signify a metaphysical (non-material) awareness ... it simply describes the condition of the brain when the pesky ontological ‘being’ abdicates the throne and the ship steers itself. Although not detailed in the dictionary, it would correspond that ‘apperceptiveness’ (n.) is the condition or quality of being apperceptive, and ‘apperceptively’ (adv.) is the experience of being apperceptive, and ‘apperceptivity’ (n.) is the capacity to be apperceptive. Ain’t life grand!

RESPONDENT: Richard, thank you for your suggestion. I see that you also enjoy the study of words. Apperception means, according to my Webster’s, either: 1: introspective self-consciousness; 2: mental perception; especially: the process of understanding something perceived in terms of previous experience.

RICHARD: Yes, the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary I use does give only those two meanings ... the American Heritage Dictionary defines apperception as: 1: conscious perception with full awareness; 2: the process of understanding by which newly observed qualities of an object are related to past experience. The Concise Oxford Dictionary, however, provides three meanings: 1: the mind’s perception of itself; 2: mental perception, recognition; 3: the active mental process of assimilating an idea (especially one newly perceived) to a body of ideas already possessed, and thereby comprehending it.

RESPONDENT: You have defined it as: ‘Which literally means (sans ‘self’): consciousness being aware of being conscious ... as distinct from ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious (the normal ‘self’-conscious way of perception)’.

RICHARD: Yes, the Oxford Dictionary clearly gives the impersonal meaning (‘the mind’s perception of itself’) as its first meaning, whereas (2) and (3) can imply a personality.

RESPONDENT: But as we see above, my dictionary does define it in terms of self-consciousness, and so this can also be understood in terms of the split.

RICHARD: Indeed ... dictionaries give more than one sense for most words, leaving one free to choose the signification most apt to that which one wishes to convey. It must be remembered that dictionaries are not prescriptive (like scriptures are) but descriptive inasmuch as they record current treatment of words common to the period they arise in ... and any modifications to those words over eras.

Some examples of usage of ‘apperception’ gleaned at random from the Internet are at this link.

RESPONDENT: I wonder whether even the phrase ‘consciousness being aware of being conscious’, implies a split as well.

RICHARD: It depends upon what you mean by ‘split’; in my reading of your latter posts on this topic you did seem to be indicating the subject/object ‘split’ (‘me’ in here vis a vis ‘them’ out there) which is what prompted me to write. To most of the metaphysically-minded people on this Mailing List ‘split’ means ‘separated from source’ and they are thus seeking union (via ‘non-fragmentation’, ‘wholeness’, ‘unitary perception’ and so on) with what Mr. Paul Tillich called the ‘ground of being’ ... by whatever name.

RESPONDENT: This phrase uses the tricky term ‘aware’.

RICHARD: It could have just as easily been written ‘consciousness being conscious of being conscious’ ... but you had already indicated that that the two words were interchangeable. Vis.: [quote]: ‘being conscious has three related meanings. There is conscious in the sense of being awake. There is conscious as the compliment of subconscious or unconscious. And there is conscious in the sense of cognizant, or self-reflective. Consciousness covers all three of these related meanings. Awareness is normally used as a synonym for the third’ . [endquote]. Essentially, in this context, ‘aware’ is the same-same as ‘conscious’ (cognizant) ... but ‘awareness’ is not necessarily the same as what ‘consciousness’ can mean. Generally speaking, ‘consciousness’ is primary (embedded but seen as embodied) and ‘awareness’ is a quality of that ‘embedded consciousness’ somewhat similar to ‘perspicacity’... as in: ‘his/her consciousness has a high/low state of awareness/perspicacity’.

RESPONDENT: Is consciousness divided into the subjective and the objective?

RICHARD: No. There can be an illusion of division, however ... hence all the misery and mayhem that epitomises the human condition.

RESPONDENT: That is divided between consciousness and conscious-ness of that?

RICHARD: The use of ‘-ness’ after a word indicates it now being descriptive of a ‘state’ or a ‘condition’ which connotes quality or value ... and thus meaning (ultimately all meaning is intrinsic to the ‘condition’ itself – non-dependent on a cause – as there is no ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ in actuality). I take it, however, that you are meaning ‘divided between consciousness and [its cognisance] of that’? If so, you may comprehend why consciousness is, generally speaking, seen as being primary (embedded)?

RESPONDENT: You later go on to explain that the ship steers itself, which I take to mean that there is no longer that split.

RICHARD: Aye, the ‘split’ vanishes upon the end of ‘being’ and separation ceases to exist ... without the necessity for union.

RESPONDENT: So is there any longer a consciousness of consciousness?

RICHARD: Oh yes ... apperception is an on-going effortless awareness that happens of its own accord, provided the flesh and blood body is alive (not dead), awake (not asleep) and conscious (not unconscious) ... thinking may or may not be operating (depending upon the circumstance).

It (apperceptiveness) is/provides the meaning of life.

RESPONDENT: Isn’t there simply consciousness?

RICHARD: So the metaphysicalists would like to have us believe!

RESPONDENT: I’d like to ask you two questions: when you speak about non-material awareness, are you saying that awareness is the physical brain? In what way is it the brain?

RICHARD: Awareness is what a human mind (consciousness) does ... and a human mind is a human brain in action in a human skull. Ergo: it is all a material process ... and what a wonderful, delightful process it is!

SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE ON APPERCEPTION (Part Three)

RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

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.