I love the way you write about the “outrageously twinkling stars”!
I get a sense of what you are saying when you write that “thinking is perception itself with no parts to it” - but I personally would be disinclined to call that anymore thinking. It is simply perception, isn’t it?
Thinking obviously does have parts: it is a stream of interconnected but separate fragments - fragments of memory - that act and react all the time as we think. If I had not remembered the experience of drinking fresh orange juice yesterday, I would be unable to call it to mind or think about it today.
But perception itself has no parts (the senses are merely different doors into perception): perception is the quality with no parts in it. Perception takes in the sweep of the stars, or the wide blue sky and the tree tops - and it only fragments when I begin to think about what I see, or judge what I see, or inwardly narrate to myself about what I see. Otherwise it is just a perception with no parts.
And in that wide, spacious sweep of perception, our questions have more potency, more power - the question itself may simply be the verbalisation of that sweep of perception (as the wave of perception moves our thought, as it contacts our thinking mind - like corks floating on the tide).
Like ice-cubes in warm water, thinking dissolves in perception, wouldn’t you say Carl? It is the perception itself that gives rise to wonderment, amazement.