Please elaborate. And I’ll address your issues.

This is an older piece of writing, so I might end up scrapping it altogether.

Perception is the act of sensory contact with an Object. The senses are not “I” rather they are “my” immediate “Objects”. The senses are useful for capturing Ideas of Objects, yet they do not serve any functional use as instruments for surveying Objective Reality (that function is reserved for Reason).

Genetics is a science confined to the body not to the mind. Mind is something that can’t be adequately explained through biology, it is a species of science all it’s own (not so much psychology, as this field has been plagued by the Behaviorist and Cognitivist schools of thought). Our brain is a vessel for the Mind and is dominated by body’s capricious wants and brutish instincts, and survivalist tendencies.

It is the reflective and creative nature of Idea which I seek to explore. “A priori” concepts are manifestations of the Idea. The Idea is not solely built from experience, some of its many instances take on the form of abstractions and concrete objects.

Right on the money.

You’re right about the “a priori” knowledge. I should have made that more clear. I am not denying it’s existance, rather I am saying that such “a priori” concepts serve as mechanisms which interact with impressions to form the Idea.

We don't look around at a world of mere surfaces, and then infer mentally that these surfaces form part of greater three-dimensional objects — Inyenzi

The inference is entirely unconscious. Of course we don’t piece together objects consciously (unless if we try to deconstruct them in the mind). I am merely describing the unconscious process of retaining an Object in the mind. We do not have a pre-conceived “world of stuff” (which would fall into the realm of Idea). All of which we know consciously comes from Ideas built from impressions.