Personally I never did like the article 
It’s actually not clear to me from the article what precisely it is. I find it a lot less clear than other parts of the site.
Practically it helped me to think of sensuousness as something ‘I’ do, a way ‘I’ relate to experiencing being alive, and it being a way of relating which then allows me to allow apperception to happen.
I can see why you would say that in a PCE you are being sensuous in a ‘direct’ way as opposed to a ‘filtered’ way. I think that’s another way of saying that ‘me’ being sensuous is a feeling-imitation of the actual (which is not feeling-based). It’s analogous to saying how the method is the same pre and post actual freedom – it’s enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive – except that the enjoyment is affective pre-actual-freedom and actual post-actual-freedom. They are both enjoyment, it’s true, but the nature of the actual enjoyment is quite different…
But in any case the key for me was thinking of ‘me’ being sensuous as a feeling-based thing, it’s what ‘I’ do as a feeling being. Before I got that part, I was trying to ‘pay attention to the senses’ in order to imitate actuality, as I thought it had something to do with sensory perception. But it’s not that, it’s that it has to do with enjoyment and appreciation of the senses – so it’s something ‘I’ do not something the senses do. But I also came at it from a muddled affer/spiritual/buddhistic background which is probably why the distinction was important for me.