Mmm that’s interesting @Vineeto . I did think sensuousness referred to something ‘I’ do, a way of ‘me’ experiencing the world, which leads to apperception – at which point, while apperceptive, there is an actual sensuousness that is intrinsic, but the ‘me’ being sensuous is what allows ‘me’ to allow that PCE to happen.
Reading the whole article I can see now how it could be referring to just something that occurs in apperception.
Can you clarify for the record which it is? You did write (emphasis added):
VINEETO: It is expanding one’s awareness and wondrous attention beyond one’s favourite “visually appealing things” from which self-less awareness – apperceptiveness – can occur.
The specific point is this: If sensousness is something from which apperception / apperceptiveness can occur, then it is something which occurs before apperception, i.e. outside of a PCE.
And if it’s outside of a PCE – it is, necessarily, something ‘I’ do. Or, at the very least, something ‘I’ allow to happen (analogous to allowing pure intent to increase in its potency for action).
If sensuousness only occurs inside a PCE, then it does not make sense that it is something from which a PCE can occur, since it already would be occurring.
What I was attempting to convey in the initial quote is it’s something ‘I’ do, but not for the purpose of furthering ‘myself’ (i.e. tilting away from actuality), but rather something ‘I’ do for the purpose of tilting towards actuality, i.e. of allowing pure intent, allowing ‘myself’ to marvel at this wonder of being alive, which naive felicity readily lends itself to an EE (if one is not already occurring) and thence to a PCE.
Let me know if that clarifies anything. As I write this now it seems to make sense to think of sensuousness as more analogous to pure intent, i.e. something ‘I’ allow to happen but not something ‘I’ do – and when a PCE is happening it is automatic. That does seem to track much better with my experience.
Cheers,
Claudiu