 |
Okay, Richard. I’ll take the bait. I’ve looked up the word ‘apperception’, but what it
means to you is what counts. Tell me about this philosophy, who it helps, why is it the best choice, will it bring peace – but if you do,
be prepared for honest debate.  |
|
Very interesting. Okay, so much for the theory. Give me some nuts and bolts. How do I do this
[apperception] while eating a hamburger? |
|
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. |
|
I’m one of those who try to figure out what actualism really is and most of all what real
living means. What I’ve found until now it’s a lack of practical ‘things’ one must/must not do in order to become free from the
human Condition-ing and let’s say some actual methods. Also about the so-called apperception (Richard) I want some details. I suppose
it’s something in which you’re both aware of yourself and the outside world ...?? |
|
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’. I do not see how you got from the first dictionary meaning ‘The mind’s perception of itself’ to ‘without the filter
of identity’. |
|
You claim ‘awareness’. You called it ‘bare’ awareness. ‘To be the senses as a
bare awareness’ you said. What does that mean? At what point do those electrical impulses travelling up your olfactory nerves turn
into ‘bare awareness’? What precisely does awareness mean in this sense? Are you conscious ? What do you call the mental process
underlying this perception? So, leaving trivial semantics aside, what do you mean when you say ‘to be’ these sensations. What does
it mean, then, to be aware without the ‘I’? Are you aware of your body? |
