Hello David: I think you have all the pieces--but only need to take them apart again, and put them together, of course, while relating them to your own experience. I hope I can help by developing the last part of your note from my own understanding of what Lonergan's meant (at CK below).
First you say: "I can see that self-appropriation must be of what is first 'given,' . . . ."
CK: Yes--we experience, understand, and judge--this triad of activities is given to us just by being human. And, as a part of that triad, we desire to know, we wonder and we raise questions, have insights, . . . and all the activities that you probably are aware of from having studied the theory (general empirical method).
Then you say: " . . . but I thought the process of self-appropriation was the application of experiencing, understanding and judging to experiencing understanding and judging" . . .
CK: Yes, it is. Though the nuances and expressions above differ, the meaning is the same. That is, the application (as used above) OF experiencing/understanding/judging TO the triad of experiencing/understanding/judging means the same as turning your attention to your experiencing (first), so that you become aware of what you have been doing all along qua experiencing. Applying starts by paying attention to (in this case, our experiencing). We have been experiencing all along (as given). Now, in turning our attention to our experiencing, we are applying, or bringing that experiencing into the X of our "what is it" kind of questions. Now we can become aware of our experiencing as we reflect on it. But further, we can self-identify as we are now in fact experiencing our own experiencing.
CK: Similarly, when we apply the understanding process to that same process, we pay attention to, raise questions about, and then (aha!) have an insight about our understanding process--the one that has been in-process in us all along (as given). But though we may understand, we don't know yet. So we can apply the judging part of the process to that same process. Do we judge? And does that judgment end our questions about truth/reality, at least about the question at hand? That is, we can check the process as active in ourselves again and again if we want; and qua Lonergan, we can check the evidence (in our own critical reflections) against the theory until we are ready, or even compelled by our own inner dynamism of that same given process, to make a judgment--in this case, about the whole process, including judging about whether we judge or not.
Then you say: "-- and that self-appropriation culminated in the judgment that 'I am a knower,"
CK: Yes--I am a knower because (a) I have understood the whole process towards knowing as it happens (the given) and then (b) I have reflected on it and then verified it (passed judgment) for myself in my own critical reflections. That is, I now can know what knowing means (I have understood it) and I can judge it to be so, and that, indeed, I am an knower. I am a knower because (a) I have experienced my experiencing/understanding/knowing, (b) understood those, and now (c) I have judged those as they are, in their giveness, and thus can know those and my knowing.
Then you say: "not in the mere presence of a given, even if that consists of the operations of knowing.."
CK: If I understand you correctly, you are right--becoming aware of the "mere presence as given" is only the paying-attention-to, wondering, having insights about part of the process and its application, but not all. To know myself as a knower is also to (1) have reflectively understood (checked it thoroughly and to my satisfaction) and (2) have passed judgment (yes/no) on it.
CK: Though human consciousness is developmental, we are basically reflective beings in process aimed at knowing (and more). To self-appropriate (understand my conscious operations) and to self-affirm (to reflectively understand/pass judgment on what I have understood about those operations) is to place my given operations into the light of my reflective abilities which are, in fact, a working (but not always best-used) aspect of those operations. When we do, we not only raise questions about and identify (objectify-X) those operations and understand them as actual (yes, they are so), but we can identify-with them consciously while they are in performance. In doing the later, we raise the level of our awareness (Lonergan's "heightening") so that self-awareness/knowledge becomes the new and open operating-foundation for my experiencing, understanding, and knowing anything else.
CK: Many people have said the above in many different ways since Lonergan walked around on the earth. And I haven't covered all of the actual nuances above. However, I hope I have hit on the right language to help you in your own understanding. But of course the judgment is yours to do and no one else's.
Keep going--it's worth the effort.
Regards,
Catherine B. King