Hello Rali,
That’s quite the bundle of question, excuse me I took some time to be sure that i thoroughly answer them, this is a lenghty message. I aplogize for the delay I needed quite some time to be able to ponder and write a proper response
**NB!!! Please do not answer in bulk! All these questions are pointers and answering them gives me idea what is seen and what is not. Answer them individually, using the quote function, please.**
Noted. I’ll be sure to answer separately.
Where exactly is the “head” ? How is the "head" experienced? Do sensations have a location? Or location is a label for sensations?
Since we are talking about the body you seems to be asking a lot about the notion of space. when you ask “where” I look and I don’t find a definite answer in direct experience.
The only certainty is that there are sensations, mostly subtle ones, there is also the feeling of the head being the center of attention. When the focus stays on those for quite some time there can be a feeling as if it was big or small ? well as if I was small in a big space or if I myself was big in a small space ? But that’s when trying to label the sensations, the sensations itself just is.
The other way of speaking about space and location is in the regular sense of the term, the head relative to the hand, but once again it’s just a label put onto the sensation relative on the the other. Nothing in the primal level of sensation do have a location. Space is for me, mostly either a label, a dimension of the sensation used to describe it or also a label used to differentiate between multiple sensations in direct experience ?
but it brings the fact that the separation of different sensations is in itself not trivial. It is mostly just as space is, emergent label put onto sensations in a reflexive manner after the sensation arising ?
But isn’t this question about space also true for every single word that differrentiate sensations ?
Either you use a bunch of words and try to differentiate sensations using space, colors, movement, time and different words to bring some nuance or you just use one word, sensation or wathever. A sensation in itself is just a sensation, we’re just trying to bring meaning to all the sensation-space, both in a conscious or unconscious manner ? But i think were coming back to the fact that aside from the experience just is’ing all else is labelling ? labelling being a tought, the word “thought” being a label in itself. Language is just labelling given form
I’m not sure about that tho because when I see a tree I see a tree i don’t really see it for what it is, maybe when I was a child I saw it the first time without any label.
i’m sorry I digress, i’ll try to be more succint in the next questions.
I feel some kind of feeling of gravity pushing me into the chair, but with all those concepts I can infer I have a weight, but in just the experience I don't think height or weight exist as that ?There is a shape in some sense, the sum total of sensations are happening in a specific space, but it's all deducted, I'm not sure the shape in itself is in the experience. It's as weight and height deduced, it's a concept a label. Thoughts about the experience but not really in the experience of the body feelings.
There is some truth here. Now dig deeper. Is there such a shape, outline, space? If there is, there should be characteristics describing it.
When I pause and look at sensations they arise in a successive manner one after the other, the dynamic nature of these sensations create the illusion of space from my labelled point of view but in fact the sensation changing is what give a sense of space or even time, if sensation was just static then this would be the absence of sensations, but also the absence of space and also time (or more accurately the presence of only one static sensation ?).
Maybe that’s why our sense of time vary depending on situations, maybe it varies depending on the unified/nonunified nature of sensations ?
Also, what is “feeling of gravity pushing me into the chair”? Think of the cup of coffee example…
feeling of pressure on the bottom, simply = sensations (feeling)
feeling of tension to support the body upright = sensations (feeling)
as for other senses they are not that noticeable, maybe if I was to experience the absence of gravity I would be able to accurately tell something something, simply = smell (smelling), but as of now, all sights, all smells, all sounds are applicable, I just don’t have toughts to accurately pinpoint what is gravity to these senses.
Where exactly is “somewhere in reality”? Thought?
There is a suble sense of space that is infered subconsciously, or it must be ? I am not able to perceive any other justification for space than the varied and dynamic nature of direct experience. Maybe it’s an automatic learned mechanism of the brain ? There is the sense of space but it’s just a very subtle labelling and maybe if I was born in a culture where we have more words to describe sensations in this manner I would have a totally different labelling experience moment to moment ?
A bit like the innuit that have a very rich language of colors, texture, smell, feelings etc. around snow.
Maybe it’s tought, but i’m not conscious or it’s too fast, like the tree is seen then space is infered relative to all the trees I ever saw, the other objects that are labelled and identified in the sight, etc.
Do you call that a tought ? I don’t know what to call it as I’m posturing, nothing in direct experience is brought in with a space component, it’s a reflexive labelling done by the brain or wathever is hapenning to sensations as they are processed ?
When the body isn't in contact anymore with the chair I don't feel the chair, so there is some kind of boundary ?
Where? If it’s there it should be observable. Otherwise it is imaginary/assumption. You are talking about the body as it is a unit of something, but the body is just a label pointing to sensations (as you stated), colours, smells, and tastes :). So can one sensation get in contact with another? Isn’t that what the actual sensation is (without the thought content)?
The only thing that can be found in direct experience is sensations, as i understand it, i might still be wrong. but i only see sensations. That’s all there is, so what is the body ? A label put onto a cluster of sensations, but as I said before, I think space and time are also labels to try and differentiate sensations, emergent labels arising from the dynamic and varied nature of sensations.
So how is that there is a ‘I’ currently investigating sensations right now ?
even senses are label, we put sensations in box, it’s a label less removed from direct experience than some other but still a label. So there is/are only a sea of sensation and all recursive toughts about sensations are just labelling, part of sensation trying to categorize itself ?
How is that ‘I’ am able to sense the chair at all, or any other sensation, and why the chair on specific circumstances ? So maybe it’s not a sea (labelling once again) of sensation but something with some kind of order. It must be or else we wouldn’t be able to build a whole world of labelling on top of direct experience, the foundation must have some form of order for it creation to have some order too, as labels are following some kind of order, they rest upon sensation then sensation must be somehow ordered.
It is a mystery..
As for sensation getting in contact with one another I guess that’s the only answer, my bottom is in itself just a concept to some sensation present in the body that is in itself just sensations so yes sensation get in contact with one another. In fact the only truth in direct experience is that sensation, all else is labelling ? truth being a label but well all the word i’m using are labels, it’s just that I can’t convey sensations directly so i’m using these words.
Can a sensation get in contact with colour (seeing) labelled “chair”?
I am not sure I understand the question, if the body is only sensations, then sight is only a sensation, and coming into contact with light from different objects (label, no objects as object to be found in DE). So i’m redoing my sentence : there is a sensation, of seeing that give rise to sight upon coming into contact with another sensation (I assume could be labelled light ?)
> There is no "my body", it's a body In which I can feel the experience, I don't sense in other body what I do in the one I feel, so yes in a sense it's a specific body from the point of view of my experience, it is the center of my sphere of sensations.
How is it known that there are others (experiencers) who experience bodies/sensations (or is assumed)? All that you can experience is see, feel, hear, taste, smell, and think. Whatever is not in the first 5 is a thought. How are others/their bodies experienced (cup of coffee example)?
I see a human, simply = colors ( seeing)
I smell the passenger of the train, simply) = smell (smelling)
I taste the coffee of this morning mixed with the freshness of the toothpaste, simply = taste (tasting)
Through the music in my headphones, I’m hearing the gentle hum of the train moving, simply = sound (hearing)
I was quite distracted by the exercise and forgot to make it relative to other/ their body, but it’s just that in terms of sensation there is a very strong similarity between sensations like that :
I touch my arm, feel the texture and the heartbeat, simply = sensation (feeling)
I hear my voice speaking, simply = sound (hearing)
I smell under my armpit, simply = smell (smelling)
And those :
I touch someone else arm, feel the texture and the heartbeat, simply = sensation (feeling)
a voice speaking, simply = sound (hearing)
I smell under someone’s armpit, simply = smell (smelling)
From DE I saw that my body is only a cluster of sensations, with some pattern that get labelled with the static ‘body’ label, but in fact even though there is some form of order and patterns (labels) to the sensation cluster known as body, it can change massively over time and sensations will change completely but the label is the same.
Anyway From what I can perceive through senses mostly see, hear, smell, feel the sensations give the clue that there are other sensations clusters in the wide sensation space around me, of course it’s all labelling due to the relative similarity of smells, sights, sounds, sensations. For taste and toughts I’ll have to admit that I don’t do mind reading and don’t taste my fellow sensation cluster so i’m not really sure their experience would be similar in that sense. Maybe but that’s just posturing based on what is sensed with the other senses.
Also, is there experiencer of the “body”? Are there separate experiencer/feeler experiencing/feeling sensations? Or to put it in your words, is there anything in the experience but the experienced?
There is nothing to be found aside from the experienced, but why is that The chair is only experienced when specific conditions are met (in label space : when I sit on it or see it or smell it, think about it, not sure about the veracity of thoughts in this context.)
Maybe the experiencer is just a very stabe and subtle sensation cluster giving nuance to all sensations that it comes into contact with, creating the illusion of experiencer when In fact it’s just one or multiple subtle sensations coming into contact with others ? Honestly that is a guess i’m venturing into because I can’t find anything to experience beside the experienced
> The body is a label for the zone in which experience come into being, so in a sense yes it's doing things, sensations arise. All the time
By doing, I mean can the body lift up a ball?
If you label it that way yes but the ball is just many coherent sensations, there is the sight, the smell (maybe ? ), the feeling when touching the ball, the sound made by the lifting, and somehow all these sensations are giving rise to the sense of space and time because they change overt time. So, i don’t know what give rise to the lifting of a ball. I wouldn’t say it’s the body (cluster of sensations) doing. More like many other sensations, toughts etc coming together to lift the ball ?
When I said doing things, i meant sensations such as Itching, pains, pleasure etc. arise in this “space” on their own (own = own causality, not solely because of the experiencer observation or anything) but if experiencer (whatever it means) try to lift the arm then sensation of arm lifted are experienced and in human labelled space we could say that yes, the arm was lifted.
i’m confused I feel like language had been abstracted to describe sensations, or maybe i’m doing this but in reverse, there is the feeling that language is limiting and very inacurate so i’m creating some really twisted sentences. but i don’t really have an alternative to the moment ?
So what you are saying is that sensations do sensations? Can sensations do anything – see, hear, feel…? Does this "zone" have limits - outside, inside, etc
The only limit is the sensations sensed. But it’s an abstract limit because whennever I look I only see sensations morphing into some other sensation (just changing over time). In deep sleep as far as I’m aware there are no sensations. But i could just be wrong and not perceiving very suble sensations.
> But saying that it's the body doing things I don't think, it is not one thing it is many thing working together, the result of these inner working are felt. That's all
>
What causes what to appear? How is it seen? Or is it assumed?
It is assumed, what I meant is, if I drink very cold water there is a feeling of cold water, it’s easy to link the sensations together, but it’s also the case that sometimes the body yawn, it’s not conscious and must be the result of some inner workings, sensations chain leading to yawning I am not sure I can feel entirely ?
Here is an even deeper investigation of the body. Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time. Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen. Repeat the exercise several times.
Stand in front of a bigger mirror.
1. First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labelled ‘body’.
2. Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations. Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror? Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?
3. While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?
4. Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’? Or only thoughts suggest it?
5. Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror. Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’? Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all? Or are there only colours and shapes?
6. Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen. Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?
7. Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts). Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?
8. Start to walk slowly.
Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?
9. Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?
2 : Wihtout movement nothing is linking them together beside the toughts that this is the reflection of my body
3 :The only connections is that they simultaneously arise, both the sight and sensation of movement, giving rise to the feeling that this is indeed my hand, but maybe that’s just a subtle thought. I can’t find Time in DE so it might be a subtle thought ?
4 : I don’t see any changes between the movement in the mirror and in the hand, aside from the fact that the sight is different (reversed, colours and shapes reversed)
5: only colours and shapes
6: Isn’t it true for the head too ? I could ran the hand along the entirety of the body and feel both the hand and the body, in doing so I would know that there is maybe mroe to the sensation cluster than i’m seeing but yes this is at the tought level (mental images aren’t in the tought category ?)
7: only sensations, that’s why i’m referring to the body as sensation cluster
8 : only evershifting sensations and the toughts and mental images related to this sensation-cluster pattern
9 : Space is a tought or subtle mental construct (subtle sensation) reflexively arising in order to caracterize the sensation due to the dynamic and varied nature of all sensations, if there only was one flavour of sensation at a time morphing into another contually then there only would be the concept of time : example with sight with the color hue evershifting. But there are multiple colors so they are organized in space (colors and shapes). If i’m in a train and the train is moving the there will be a shifting dynamic nature to the sight giving a sense of space ?
**Please don’t forget your daily activities examples – at least one should be included in each answer**
Finally here is the daily activity :
I see a herd of cows, mountains in the back and a flock of bird circling above in the sky, simply = color (seeing)
I feel the train movements throught my feets and body, simply = sensations (feeling)
I smell the rotting odor of the lake, simply = smell (smelling)
I think about closing the windows, simply = thinking (toughts)
I hear the train moving throught the headphones and the music, simply = sound (hearing)
I have a sweet taste, simply = taste, (tasting)
I feel a slight pain in my tooth, simply = sensation (feeling)
Thinking about taking an appointment with the dentist office, simply = thought (thinking)
That was very long, but I felt like I should write a proper answer to all those questions, my process is I read the post when I receive the notification and let the content sink into the mind, after pondering it lightly throught the day I sit and take the time to contemplate the question more deeply and write a direct, honest and quite raw answer.
Best,
Tom