Vineeto to Syd: Now this may not be the situation in your case but your recent reposting (link) of a quote from Claudiu seems to be an example of a misunderstanding I like to straighten out – (snipped quotes)
Claudiu: 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.
Hi Claudiu,
I have no problem with your writing, and of course for a feeling being there is always in identity operating so the scare quotes are often purely academic. But when Syd singled out this single paragraph for reposting I wanted to avoid a misunderstanding in his mind so as to not emphasise ‘my’ action in the experiencing of a general sensuousness, as in ‘look at me I am being sensuous here’ because that would be counterproductive.
It turned out that he needed this nudge in order to recognize that being sensuous is not “dry” at all, like in the spiritual/buddhistic practice, but can be full of joie de vivre and delight –
Richard: If one minimises the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and activates the felicitous/ innocuous feelings – happiness, delight, appreciation, joie de vivre/ bonhomie, friendliness, amiability and so on – in conjunction with sensuousness – then the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperceptiveness. (Richard, List B, No. 19e, 26 Dec 2000)
Claudiu: Reading the whole article I can see now how it could be referring to just something that occurs in apperception.
The article is about how attentiveness and sensuousness can lead to apperceptiveness.
Claudiu: Can you clarify for the record which it is? You did write (emphasis added):
Vineeto to Syd: It is expanding one’s awareness and wondrous attention beyond one’s favourite “visually appealing things” from which self-less awareness – apperceptiveness – can occur.
Claudiu: The specific point is this: If sensuousness 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.
I was simply going by what Richard wrote, for instance here –
Richard: To enable apperceptiveness to haply occur it is essential to allow a reflective attention – attentiveness – to one’s psychological and psychic world. (Richard, Articles, Attentiveness, Sensuousness, Apperceptiveness).
If you analytically take apart the words and try to fit them into a logical concept you will always get into trouble with actualism – it is experiential and the words are describing the experiential event. For instance, when Richard wrote in the 1st paragraph of the 2nd section “When one first becomes aware of something there is a fleeting instant of pure perception of sensum” apperceptiveness occurs a split second “before one affectively identifies with all the feeling memories (…) and also before one cognitively recognises the percept”. So you might say there is a logical contradiction because sequentially it more often occurs when one has allowed attentiveness first.
What is your own recollection when you experience sensuousness? Does it only occur in a PCE? Or can you delight in sensual and sensuous experiencing when feeling happy or feeling excellent?
Claudiu: 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.
As I said at the beginning, I have no problem with your writing to Adam-B. Of course for a feeling being there is always an identity operating so the scare quotes are often purely academic. I wanted to alert Syd not to emphasize ‘me’ unnecessarily in the experience of being aware, and delighting in, senses operating as they do.
Claudiu: 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 (link)
It’s curious that you now say you “think of sensuousness as more analogous to pure intent” whereas in the beginning of this post you wrote “I did think sensuousness referred to something ‘I’ do”. In either case, pure intent is not something ‘you’ do.
You may find my post to Syd of today informative –
Vineeto to Syd: Whilst you only focus on the words “allow to” I also saw the word “analogous”, (i.e. not exactly, comparable, similar, related) – and so the watering-down process happens. Your analytical, singling-out process does not do you any service when it comes to understanding pure intent, which is always outside of ‘me’. Nothing an identity can experience is in any way comparable to the actual world. It is a different paradigm. A feeling being can only ever lean into the direction of imitating actuality, being well aware that, except in a PCE, it is never the same to the feeling being’s experience. Hence my suggestion below to start by living the sincere intent to become harmless (and thus genuinely happy). (link)
Sensuousness can be analogous to pure intent but you would know that it is not pure intent per se. Otherwise I fully agree and it is delightful how easy fully enjoyed and appreciated sensual and sensuous experiencing can lead to excellence experience and PCE.
Cheers Vineeto