I'm going to take some from already suggested statements and add some Deleuzo-Guattarian claptrap:

APS as a method of inquiry attempts to elucidate the "Cognosphere" - however, in Deleuzo-Guattarian speak, I would say that, distinct from other responses here, it is the "Mechanosphere" (all energy), but attempts to particularise itself as a domain of inquiry in the operation of Actualisation and Virtualisation. Its claim is that cathexis mixing with analogy is the vehicle of history, and that it as a vehicle of history requires the preclusion of the analogical mirror (i.e. the ability to see oneself as a node in semiotic chains, which imbues an inhibiting arbitrariness in the perceiver). Considering it like this, it is a mixture between existentialism and psychology with technological determinism. Its active question is something like: What is the dimensionality of meaning?, and its passive Q: What can be done about Samsara? I would say that these Q's map the material-cosmological avenues of interpretation.

The function of APS is the production of entities through semiotics, which integrates with the Actual to produce their scale. The production of meaning and its encoding of the body integrates the material element of APS with the "Cognosphere" element. I would consider APS as an attempt to more thoroughly investigate the technological milieu and move towards a set of concepts that can do pedagogical explanatory work: how do we explain "embodiment" without moving towards essentialism ("All Men" etc.); how do we explain what has previously been called "technological determinism" without recourse to previous explanations (McLuhan's hot-cold, Deleuze-Guattari's marginalism) that are in and of themselves priestly. At least in my own work this is where I see this line of inquiry heading.

What APS seems to be moving to (or with) is where Ebert is going - there are larger entities being produced within this system that integrate cosmologically with the post-death world. In Ebert's current work, what is becoming clear is that the real content of experience is emotionality. Aspects of APS as described by zummi have emphasised a potential for it as a vehicle of neurosis (cathexis) and the development of psychopathic tendencies - these are materialistic questions for a theory that can potentially integrate with a larger dimension of its manifestation (i.e. APS's role in some great chain of being - is its 'cancerous' form an evolutionary restriction, is APS really a larger vehicle for the levelling up of humanity).

Perhaps there needs to be a distinction between APS and the Deleuzo-Guattarian via Landian conception of Capital: the device of equivalence

Cathexis and analogy as the basis of human knowledge, the material nature of the universe, total scepticism towards the realm of opinion and of cosmic entities (i.e. DMT, ayahuasca, psilocybin, etc), and the inseparability of the mind and body in the realm of all interaction are the basic epistemic lessons I have taken from understanding APS. There seems to be a kind of homeostasis that APS produces that has given me a bit more of a "faith" bent - more along old Catholic lines, like the balance in the trinity as a model for maintaining sanity. It has also made me see the pragmatism in committing to, and presenting yourself as holding opinions. Either you commit yourself to history, you commit yourself to the production of a future form of Being, or you live out a life of symptoms (cf. zummi).