When "I" see someone sad or happy, there's no thought that occurs. Nothing needs to be verbalized in the mind for "me" to know that person is sad or happy. It's just known. I'm being honest here. Why does thought need to rise to know something? If "I" see someone crying, I do not need to verbalize thought "oh, she must be sad". Right away without thinking, one knows what the other is experiencing through empathy (or even instinct, intuition).Without thought, how could it possibly be known what the “initial impression of the image” is?
Seeing. Movement of images or shapes.What is the actual experience of facial emotions?
Not in its individual faculty, but collectively the experience is known. It's like the elephant with the blind men, each knowing one part but not knowing the whole until it's put together. Like the elephant to the blind man, is the experience to the individual sense faculties.Does color know anything about facial emotions?
Does taste know anything about facial emotions?
Does smell know anything g about facial emotions?
Does sensation know anything about facial emotions?
Does sound know anything about facial emotions?
Does thought know anything about facial emotions?
A new-born baby doesn't know anything let alone a face. But as a child develops, the child begins to recognize mom versus dad. If AI can perform facial recognition or voice recognition, a child can without being taught. From direct experience, neither of us, truly know what a new born knows.Does a new-born baby know anything about what a face is?
This was what I was trying to imply. It didn't fit any of the descriptions of the sense faculties. As mentioned in the example above, when we see someone sad, it doesn't require thought to know. Neither verbalized mental word nor thought arises upon initial impression. Seeing those soccer girls smile, I didn't have to think to myself and say "oh they're happy". So I don't know how to categorize what this is.Can you see that the word "however" is the beginning of a story and all stories are thought content. The only place where 'knowing' happens is in thought. Are you referring to some other sensing like smelling or tasting? The phrase, "there's a sense of knowing," is itself nothing more than thought content. "Beyond thought" is theory - thought content.
What exactly is it that has a “sense of knowing”?
Sometimes we describe this sense of knowing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ is sensing something. But the question is, can a feeling ‘sense’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘sense’?
Struggling with this because there's no story told or thought that arises. Many times throughout the day, "I" gaze at pedestrians without judging or labeling, yet "I" understand raw emotion when "I" see it. No thought arises to know.Direct Experience happens in the moment. There are no conclusions drawn. Direct experience is just direct experience. "Things just known" is a story - thought content.
Agreed.The label ‘excitement’ is the DE of thought and not the DE of excitement
The sensation labelled ‘excitement’ is the DE of sensation and not the DE of excitement
Agreed. The collective sensations labeled "excitement" arising. No person being excited.The thoughts about what excitement is and what is excited (content of thought) is AE of thought and not the AE of a person or of excitement.
Thought points to the collective sensations and labels it "excitement". Although the label is not necessary. It is only needed when creating a self-story or to communicate it to another. The collective sensations of excitement are still known via direct experience without the actual "label" but through it's unique combination of physical sensations.So what is actually appearing as DE is label + sensation + colour + thoughts about excitement. But in DE is excitement actually known? Or does thought point to the sensation and label it ‘excitement’?
As mentioned above, the collective sensations create the expression of what we label "exited or excitement". But the label nor thought is needed. The experience itself is complete without thought.Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is ‘excited/excitement’?
Physical sensations.Now have a look at “increased heart rate”, “tenseness in muscles”, “shortness of breath” and tell me what they are in DE.
No, not quite there yet. "I've" experienced numerous cases of experience without thought nor thought content. In times of heightened emotional states, thoughts aren't even present. Just raw emotional or sensate experience. These intense situations, thoughts simply aren't there. This occurs in "flow" states as well.Information that cannot be experienced directly is content of thought. Do you see this?
It doesn't require an "I" to know. It's just part of experience. When an image is seen, emotions and physical sensations arise with that image simultaneously. There's no "I" thought here.Have you actually seen there is no “I” or are you just saying it because this answer doesn’t correspond with any or your other answers that all point to an “I” called Peter?
Quite similar to excitement but with slight variations with physical sensations,When an actual feeling is felt, for example, fear, can you describe that feeling in precise detail to me? I don’t want to know what fear is, I want you to describe the sensation labelled as ‘fear’.
-Tenseness, nervousness, sweaty palms, butterflies in stomach, immobilized, mind going blank, dry mouth, heat rising up the neck, heat rising around the body