Kuba - I don’t regard my motives for responding to your own contemplations as hidden, sinister and cowardly:
Skulk: keep out of sight, typically with a sinister or cowardly motive.
It was more done out of the spirit of communal fun. I’m fascinated by these topics and, given the direction your own musings were taking, I thought you (and others) might be receptive. But yeah, you got me. I’m a feeling being enjoying the contemplative process. Have you heard the expression “pot calling the kettle black”?
Isn’t that enough a reason to do something?
Now as pure contemplation only happens when self is not, then what does one do in the meantime?
Richard (2000): Experiential disorientation:
•This intellectual knowing provided the basis for experiments in experiential knowing: in my formal study of art at college in my twenties and with the daily practise of art thereafter as a living I experientially became aware of the human tendency toward … um … ‘frontal-ness’ (the face, the eyes, the nostrils, the mouth, faces forwards) which defines the typical human viewpoint and determines the classic world-view (forward/backward; up/down; left/right; in/out; top/bottom; front/back). By physically lying on one’s back one is no longer looking ‘up’ into space but ‘out’ into space … all the while intellectually knowing that people on the opposite point on the globe are looking ‘down’ into space whilst standing and ‘out’ into space whilst laying. Thus ‘out’ into space becomes as nonsensical as ‘up’ or ‘down’ … and this disorientating of the habitual mindset can be extended to other physical experiments: paying attention – exclusive attention – to this moment in time and this place in space as this form. This experiential attention becomes fascination … and fascination leads to reflective contemplation. Then – and only then –apperception can occur.
General Correspondence Number Nine
It is only possible for apperception to occur when an identity is being contemplative. If you disagree, that’s fine, but take it up with Richard.
Richard (1999): Considered contemplation combined with fascination leads to reflective contemplation. Then – and only then – apperception can occur.
Mailing List 'AF' Respondent No. 12
Richard (1998): Apperception – a way of seeing that is arrived at by reflective and fascinating contemplative thought . . . .
Mailing List 'B' Respondent No. 11
And if apperception doesn’t result, no worries. As long as it was fun it wasn’t a waste.
It’s akin to psychedelic experience. It’s quite literally mind expanding (once you begin wondering about where your mind actually ends). I mean, we took a trip across the universe by just being here.
If I get angry then is it not a fact that I got angry? That is, if I were angry, I would be in fact angry. Anger would be the fact of the situation. Denying this would be to deny the fact that anger was occurring. Do you deny the fact that you are a feeling being? If you do not deny the fact that you are a feeling being, then you have to acknowledge the fact that you (a feeling being) are in fact a fact, because it is a fact that you are a feeling being. Is that not a fact?
Look, if my post to you rubbed you the wrong way somehow, I apologize. It wasn’t my intention. It’s probably best at this point to disregard the whole thing.