Apperception/best of Lewis

[Guest guest]

kipalmazy wrote:

 

>

> Dear Lewis,

>

> There is no " Self " or " Supreme Reality. " There is no " we. " These are

> concepts, illusions.

>>L: *Indeed, and.....the absence of this absence

>

>

> How can " you " speak from " Self? " How can you describe the " witness

> that observes only? " If it is described, it is an " object, " a

> " perception " or " construct " or " concept. " All of these are empty

> pointers.

>

>

> * " Empty pointer " is an interesting term, Lewis.

 

An empty pointer is an expressive attempt to communicate to " ego " a

" what is concept " with another concept. The pointer and what it points

to, always a concept, are empty. Pointers and the pointed to are of

interest to ego. Otherwise, these are " lures, " " trickery, " " deception, "

" illusions, " " lies, " " temptations, " " steps " to ego futility and

dissolution.

 

> How does " we " a concept " automatically [we] become ourselves in the

> witness that observe only. " This is a concept becoming another

> concept

> Ego easily assumes the position of " witness that observes only " and

> is fully capable of saying " I Am that " by observing it's own mental

> creations and telling itself it is not any thing (neti, neti).

>

>

> *Yes, the ego is a tricky phenomenon. Is witnessing a spawn of the

> ego or viceversa? What do you think?

 

Witnessing is ego effort if neti, neti is employed and certainly if

there is a sense of " distance and " non-immersion, " or " watching. " There

is no need for an ego even for conventional communication or carrying on

in daily life. It can be said that the latter is a common justification

made in both discussion and in text for using " I " and " you " and " me " in

conversation as a mediator of some sort between that which is and the

phenomenal world. An " advanced " claim is simply that such pronouns are

empty and that there is no ego present. This claim is transparent, it is

dependence on concept, an ego addiction.

 

 

Are we talking

> about " apperception " , perhaps? This term coined by Leibniz and so

> often used by Wei Wu Wei?

 

No. It is not the mind's self-reflective awareness of its own thoughts

as Kant and Leibniz would say. Wei Wu Wei says something completely

different then the former two. What he says is below.

 

" ......Any attempt to cognise what is cognising - and is thereby

incognisable - forbids apperception of what-we-are. Such apperception is

not a function of split-mind. It can only be an im-mediate apperception

released by some sensorial stimulus - auditory, visual, tactile, or of

an unrecognisable origin.

 

The supreme obstacle to such apperception, in our space-time context of

consciousness, lies in attributing subjectivity to phenomenal objects,

and objectivity to what is subjective.

 

Mind cannot be reached by mind, as Huang Po stated. The attempt is

itself an obstacle. Awareness is no thing of which we (who are This) can

be aware.

 

Knowing this, understanding this, is not awareness of Awareness [This is

what Kant and Leibniz refer to; there is no conceptual equivalence].

Awareness is no kind of knowledge. All knowledge is conceptual, all

conceptuality inheres in the space-time continuum. There is a solution

of continuity between knowledge and Awareness.

 

If one were to say that auditory apprehension might reveal it - such

might be an indication of what is implied, but quite certainly not in

the sense of deliberately listening to music - nor of deliberately

looking at any object, touching any 'thing', or seizing any thought.

Why is that so? Because split-mind must be in abeyance, and 'we' must be

absent for Awareness to be present. "

 

>Does apperception generate concepts? I

> don't think so.

 

In Kant and Leibniz's sense - Yes

In Wei Wu Wei's - No

 

Lewis