← Back to Kinfonet

Sensation, _?, imagination, desire, action

After perceiving a sensation,
then observing the images and thoughts
that appear in response to the sensation,
and then awareness of the desire for pleasurable feelings,
and noticing the burst of energy
that moves my body/brain to fulfill
that imagined pleasure,
I ask myself;
is there a space between the sensation and the thought/image that can be perceived ?

We know intuitively that this space between “the sensation and the thought/image” is crucial to self-knowledge, and we know that its duration is too brief to be elucidating. Thus, people practice meditation to slow the whole cognitive process down and get a more comprehensive look at what’s actually going on.

There is no space/time between sensation and thought.

Then that sensation or thought becomes seed for desire to have that sensation again and again. Then game of comparing the sensations and cycle goes on to all experiences that are gathered using sensory organs.

Is there a possibility of having sensation without being stored in the memory hence no generation of thought.

Does every sensation must be stored inevitably in the memory? What is stored in memory produces thought.

Block-quote

I haven’t perceived either of those knowings. That’s why I posted the question. I’m attempting to see rather than know. The knowing comes after the seeing. Proposing that the duration “is too brief to be” elucidated, closes the door which I have suggested we might open.

I would consider the description of seeing “my” cognitive process in the post, to be what you have called meditation, and is what led to the question. However I am thinking that the missing gap between sensation and image exists and is perceivable. Categorical concepts don’t seem to shed light on more than the ideas. I don’t know if we can, in a conversation, elucidate the possibilities of perception itself.

What makes you say that when in the following you speak of a delay?

It is the image of the sensation and its response that is stored in memory. And my question about the delay of which you speak is; can the delay, or time between sensation and thought, be perceived? Or is it empty of content?

I have modified my post. Kindly review.

Thoughts and sensation are categorised in the same bag for some philosophies.

In which case the question becomes : is there a space between sensation and interpretation/reaction?

As I said elsewhere : Is it possible to be with sensation without the reaction of self : ie. good/bad, fear/desire?
Or at least not be completely submerged by intent/motive/avoidance of discomfort?

If you are sitting in meditation, and a mysterious itch appears… what next?

Can we stay focused on the movement of self that sensation seems to initiate, that often ends in conflicting and harmful actions.
The following is how I have seen the process unfold:

Sensation
?Unseen movement?
Thought/image
Sensation
Necessity
Desire
Action
Satisfaction or dissatisfaction
Sensation
Ad infinitum ………

The process of storing images in memory may be irrelevant after considering
“what is the seed from which thought/image sprouts”,
I am proposing that the energy that creates and informs thought/image doesn’t spring from sensation; there is another movement that goes by, unseen, because encoded in the seed is the fear that in the revelation of the creator of images is the death of the psychological self.

1 Like

Feel the itch
How it s around
How the intensity changes
And how the fabric of it keeps changing
That it it exists as a movement
Seeing the body’s intent to move to scratch it
Playing with how long I can bear it.
If it does not subside
Scratch it to end the conflict
As long as it won’t do harm
Or scratch your eyes out.

So once we feel the itch, either we scratch it due to the habitual, exigent need to “correct” discomfort; or if we are practising some kind of meditation, we create a conflict between the need to satisfy 2 opposing desires.

So scratching and trying not to scratch are both the reaction of self in its necessity to do good, avoid bad.
Are we stuck? The only outcome is the continued play of sensation and reaction?

Sorry, I just was playing with your meditation query.
That is an entertaining diversion which begs the original question, which if you are interested in probing together, might illuminate what is new and unknown to us, rather than we repeating concepts from our libraries. That has its place, but doesn’t apply to a question, the root of which we have not yet perceived.

We associate sensations with thought to register the sensation for further usage. Can sensation be without any association?

Rather than being an intellectual, theoretical process of speculation - the question can be investigated via practical observation and experimentation.

For example, via curiosity and interest of the phenomena at hand. By staying with it rather than trying to act upon it through the lens of self-centered motivation.
The question is : Is the process of sensation and reaction inevitable? (aka is fear inevitable?)
What would be curiosity in the case of the itchy meditator?

The meditator has an itch (sensation), they scratch (reaction), they feel guilty for scratching (sensation/reaction), they think about the pros and cons of scratching during meditation (reaction), they come to some tentative conclusion (conclusion/knowledge), another itch appears etc…
Or they have an itch, they struggle not to scratch etc…
So our question is : is it possible to stay with the sensation (the phenomenon we are calling : itch) without being drawn into, being completely submerged by any reaction/motivation regarding the itch? By for example, paying attention to the itch as if it was something unknown ? Before speculating about the question, it might be interesting to experiment with it practically in the real world.

We think we are watching an itch, but “itch” is just an idea (to which we can react), we are in fact faced with all of existence (aka the unknown)

Thought is also sensation. Pleasure ,fear ,anger and greed are all emotions . We call some emotions positive and some emotions negative. So we associate sensations with words.
Words have negative or positive connotations. We use words to measure. These are facts. Desire is sensation registered in the brain by thought.