PLEASE TELL I AM NOT CRAZY. . . . . . . SURELY TO GOODNESS, I CANNOT BE THE ONLY ONE, . . . CAN I.??

I would like to tentatively wonder if empathy plays a subtle but intrinsic role here.

I know there has historically been the belief that NDs are not empathic but I have always believed this to be entirely and completely wrong. I have always believed that NDs are incredibly empathic, more so perhaps than the general population, but that they may not be able to easily identify this ability in themselves in the same way that NTs can.

And so I wonder; if you had a partner and deeply cared about them, if they were in pain, would it not be possible to empathise so effectively with their suffering that you could vividly imagine (see) where their pain is and how they are feeling, to such a degree that this level of deeply empathising could easily feel as if it were actually a psychic or ‘special’ ability?

Angel Dust said:

I would like to tentatively wonder if empathy plays a subtle but intrinsic role here.

Very simply yes, although subtle is not always the case.

Angel Dust said:

I know there has historically been the belief that NDs are not empathic but I have always believed this to be entirely and completely wrong. I have always believed that NDs are incredibly empathic, more so perhaps than the general population, but that they may not be able to easily identify this ability in themselves in the same way that NTs can.

Yes that is the case also.

Angel Dust said:

And so I wonder; if you had a partner and deeply cared about them, if they were in pain, would it not be possible to empathise so effectively with their suffering that you could vividly imagine (see) where their pain is and how they are feeling, to such a degree that this level of deeply empathising could easily feel as if it were actually a psychic or ‘special’ ability?

Being able to sense someone else's energetic anatomy or auric embodiments can be presented to the mind and represented 'as-is' in terms of being luminescent or coloured fields, or as confabulations derived from memory - such as anatomical pictures as being 'artistic-impressions' that map with the persons body three-dimensionally. Obviously the more psychic a person is the closer their visual representation will be to the other person's actual energetic embodiments, i.e. 'X-Ray-Vision' sort of thing. We can refer to this type of visualisation as being presentation-strong, whereas the empathic representation can be presentation weak, i.e. a confabulation strong, but is none the less just as as much a psychical ability. 

Thank you DeepThought, I think (but I am not sure) I understood some of what you said. I understood you to mean that, for some, empathic responses can be visual and ‘show’ themselves as colours (which they may then choose to call Auras) or even anatomical maps? This seems highly plausible and makes sense to me.

I was wondering about the empathy and/or psychic correlation because I believe that empathy is currently understood to be a very ‘real’ (essential to our survival) and natural phenomenological activity which takes place in intersubjective relationship between self, other and/or the ‘world.’

However, to acknowledge you are empathising is to be aware that what you are currently feeling (or visualising) is a very ‘real’ and natural response which occurs within an intersubjective relationship with another. A phenomenon which naturally occurs between you and another, but not solely originating from within you as an individual ‘alone’ as such; but instead it is alleged to take place in a shared ‘third’ space between you and ‘other.’

I am therefore purely wondering; due to the ‘relational’ differences which can be common with neurodiversity, I wonder therefore if NDs differentiate in this same way; if they may experience this empathic response to be originating ‘solely’ from themselves only instead?

If this were the case, this might suggest (feel,) to the individual themselves, as if they are indeed performing acts of ‘psychic’ or special ability ‘on their own’ so to speak? When it may be that they are instead experiencing the empathic responses which may very naturally occur through the experience of an ‘attuned’ intersubjective relationship with another, be those responses visual or otherwise? A very natural ability which NTs and NDs alike all possess to varying degrees but may not be consciously aware of experiencing or reacting to in their everyday lives?

I am very comfortable when considering such occurrences as very natural (and interesting) ways of communicating with ourselves and one another and are therefore a natural part of experiencing empathic responses in relationship with one another,  as, for me, this process suggests humility, connectivity, and a shared consciousness on some level. However I feel very unreceptive when considering these same phenomena in terms of ‘psychic ability’ as, for me, individuals who profess to have (or claim these empathic skills to be) ‘psychic’ abilities can often tend to use this to claim power or superiority over (often vulnerable) others. Therefore I find I have much time for empathy and its many varied presentations, and extraordinarily little positive regard for ‘psychics.’

AngleDust said:

Excellent point, thank you, I had rather hoped that I had expressed that I feel the same way in my previous post when I referred to an 'overlap' between the world of psychology and what some may choose to refer to as 'psychic' phenomena. As I understand it, both fields may, at times, simply be using different words or names to describe the same interesting phenomena, however, I still think differentiating between words and names can be important too.

I am myself more into differentiating what words go with what states of affairs and what names go with what objects ~ in the concrete experiential sense, such as from knowing psychics that are less functional as are most people, more functional as are some people, and completely functional as are a few people. How though different specialists fields refer to psychic phenomena definitely depends upon their 'dialect' and 'language' base, and this is in much the same sense that some say 'poe-tay-toes', others say 'spuds', and others 'apples-of-the-earth', and so on and so fourth.

AngelDust said:

Third space enquiry; In response to your question as to what I was referring to: I think the answer is yes, I believe I am. The space between self and object, self and other, self and society, in relationship; within which change (and/or phenomena if you will) can take place. I particularly like Kohut and his Self-Psychology (object and part object relating) theories.

I really identified with Spinoza (a theosophy type) when I was about eleven regarding object relations, i.e. the inadequacy of the ego-states to relate to or with whole objects and the embodiment of all objects by the absolute whole. Plato's cave analogy went really well with this stuff for me as well.

AngelDust said:

I only have a very basic understanding of TA; I attended a weekend workshop on this approach several years ago. I found it interesting but it did not 'float my boat' at the time, so I may revisit it again in light of your recommendation. I am however, very familiar (formally educated) in post modern and contemporary Freudian and Jungian theories. Adler not so much, I attended an Adlerian 12 week 'processing' group once- it was extremely interesting in terms of regressing and projecting upon the group our old familial (childhood) hierarchies.

During my formal education in psychology ~ Adler did not get so much as a mention, and it was some fifteen years later that I found about him and his work on the 'Will To Power' ~ which I had to pay close attention to most particularly from school age and which in my thirties I referred to it as 'Striving To Govern', due to my Aspergian objective bias. So when I did read Adler's take on it all it just made so much sense regarding intentional states and subjective objectives in socio-competitive-hierarchical terms, and in terms of my experiential studies it really did tie everything together for me very neatly as a comprehensive whole.

From the Freudian perspective his 'Interpretation Of Dreams' work was what I most identified with due to his model of personality and the structure of dream patterns (although his sexual obsession and superego stuff really did not make much sense as he later published on), but the vast majority of Jung's work that I have read really got my attention, what with all the archetypal symbolic and mystical-initiatic stuff involved.

AngelDust said:

Did you have a look at Schores work which I previously mentioned?

Yes I did, I found some abstracts about and practitioners mentions of Allan Schore's work, and watched a few hours of Youtube stuff featuring him, but its has so far been more introductory and patchy than contextually detailed regarding the model, so Affect Regulation And The Origin Of The Self is on the to get book list ~ to start with possibly.

AngelDust said:

I thought you might be interested in it as it seems to (clinically) evidence that 'third space' empathic responses (within a suitably sympathetic and attuned relationship) actively create synaptic (neurobiological) pathways in the brain between the Hippocampus and the Pre-frontal Cortex.

Forgetting not the Limbic system which consists of the Amygdala, the Hippocampus (a.k.a. the cingulate gyrus), and the Hypothalamus and Thalamus, along with the remainder of the cerebral brain as being an operational part of the human form as a whole.

What occurs in the cerebral brain is a reflection of what occurs in the intestinal brain, and vice-versa on account of the cardial brain's activity. This involves the receptive, protective and projective capacities of the rational, sentimental, communicational, emotional, reproductional and sensational embodiments of conscious experience, as altogether operate in parallel as simultaneous phase interactions that produce experiential awarenesses of the internal and external environment.

[If you find this stuff hard to grasp, maybe www.noeticsi.com/thinking-from-the-heart-heart-brain-science/ will be amenable as an introduction to this experiential perspective.]

AngelDust said:

Thus may be intrinsic (and critical) in the development of affect regulation between 'sentient self' and cognitive (conscious) awareness. Which you may appreciate as you said you are coming from a psychology and anatomical perspective.

Experiential awareness of consciousness involves in most cases the psychic self to begin with developmentally through affect 'modulation', whereas affect 'regulation' and cognitive (experiential) awareness involves intellectual programming from others in terms of children learning to identify with instructions, and the relevance of verbal injunctions and physical interventions.

This is all so very interesting, I will offer my thought's as soon as my life situation allows me to.

Hi Deepthought,

Deepthought said:

I am not a cynic really any more myself concerning people's choice of words, as I am generally more interested in finding out what they are actually referring to, especially if it is life affirming and of particular interest to or concern for them.  

Excellent point, thank you, I had rather hoped that I had expressed that I feel the same way in my previous post when I referred to an 'overlap' between the world of psychology and what some may choose to refer to as 'psychic' phenomena. As I understand it, both fields may, at times, simply be using different words or names to describe the same interesting phenomena, however, I still think differentiating between words and names can be important too.

Third space enquiry; In response to your question as to what I was referring to: I think the answer is yes, I believe I am. The space between self and object, self and other, self and society, in relationship; within which change (and/or phenomena if you will) can take place. I particularly like Kohut and his Self-Psychology (object and part object relating) theories.

I only have a very basic understanding of TA; I attended a weekend workshop on this approach several years ago. I found it interesting but it did not 'float my boat' at the time, so I may revisit it again in light of your recommendation. I am however, very familiar (formally educated) in post modern and contemporary Freudian and Jungian theories. Adler not so much, I attended an Adlerian 12 week 'processing' group once- it was extremely interesting in terms of regressing and projecting upon the group our old familial (childhood) hierarchies.

Did you have a look at Schores work which I previously mentioned? I thought you might be interested in it as it seems to (clinically) evidence that 'third space' empathic responses (within a suitably sympathetic and attuned relationship) actively create synaptic (neurobiological) pathways in the brain between the Hippocampus and the Pre-frontal Cortex. Thus may be intrinsic (and critical) in the development of affect regulation between 'sentient self' and cognitive (conscious) awareness. Which you may appreciate as you said you are coming from a psychology and anatomical perspective.

Angle Dust said:

Thank you Deepthought, I really appreciate you taking the time to help me understand these things from a different perspective.

Well I rather appreciate different perspectives, so thank you also too. 

Angel Dust said:

I am an absolute cynic when it comes to anything associated with or labelled ‘Psychic;’~

I am not a cynic really any more myself concerning people's choice of words, as I am generally more interested in finding out what they are actually referring to, especially if it is life affirming and of particular interest to or concern for them.  

Angel Dust said:

~however I have long been very interested in what could be deemed ‘third space’ phenomena from a Neurobiological and Psychology perspective.

Are you referring to the psychic or cellular vitalisations of a person's mentally and physically developing relationship with the objects and states of affairs in the material environment; when you state 'third space' phenomena?

I come more from the Anatomical and Psychological perspectives.   

Angel Dust said:

I am particularly interested in Allan Schores work on ‘right brain to right brain mirroring’ (empathic response) in the development of the infantile brain and in the lifelong regulation of affect.

I have been particular engrossed with Berne's Transactional Analysis, and Freudian, Adlerian and Jungian Psychoanalysis. In terms of Physiology I am anatomically oriented.

Angel Dust said:

And, having read the information you have kindly provided, I now recognise that it may be possible that there may be some ‘overlapping’ taking place in the worlds of Psychology and ‘Psychic’ phenomena in some specific instances. I must therefore perhaps learn to suspend my initial prejudice to some reasonable (but still informed) degree when it comes to anything labelled ‘psychic’ in the future.

I have always found that prejudice makes hard work of things, whilst healthy scepticism allows more comparative understandings and comprehensions to develop.  

Thank you so much AngelDust. I have wondered about these things before and not really come up with an answer. The range of discussions hasn't yet ceased to surprise me and I enjoy "listening " to the different conversations. 

Hi Misfit61,

I don't believe that I understand everything being said here either.

And I have seen and appreciated some of your other posts and therefore I don't believe it possible you could ever lower any intellectual discussions that are taking place.

Sadly, without providing reference to accountable and peer reviewed research, its really hard for me to fully appreciate whether what is being discussed (or offered) in this general discussion at times is actual science (physics)  or pseudoscience.

In response to your questions though: yes, I have generally heard of the twin phenomena too and I don't have any answers here. Personally, I admit my first thoughts about it are that it may have a lot to do with coincidence; We may have many fleeting thoughts in a day about loved ones, and these may include worries and concerns and, if these thoughts are then proved to be only fleeting worries then we likely don't remember them or ever think of them again. However, if we then find that a loved one has been harmed for example, we may then vividly recall our passing thoughts about them that day and, (in light of our realising some upsetting news about them,) perhaps we may recall and then latch on to those thoughts much harder, believing them instead to have therefore been premonitions?

I think the perception of the 'floating self' you mentioned is entirely possible, however I don't personally attribute anything 'psychic' to this phenomena but think it may likely be a very ordinary capacity that all individuals may 'adopt' or perceive in times of stress or altered states, such as half asleep, meditative or similar?

What I do know is that the mind is a very 'magical' thing, capable of amazing tricks and fantastic antics.  

And as for animals, I do believe they are capable of empathising and picking up on our feelings in the way you described; pets in particular are in close relationship with us after all, and therefore, part of being in a relationship must surely be the capacity to know each other so well that we can seem to 'mind read' one another at times? I personally have a cat who knows me better than I dare to know myself.  

Hi Misfit61,

I don't believe that I understand everything being said here either.

And I have seen and appreciated some of your other posts and therefore I don't believe it possible you could ever lower any intellectual discussions that are taking place.

Sadly, without providing reference to accountable and peer reviewed research, its really hard for me to fully appreciate whether what is being discussed (or offered) in this general discussion at times is actual science (physics)  or pseudoscience.

In response to your questions though: yes, I have generally heard of the twin phenomena too and I don't have any answers here. Personally, I admit my first thoughts about it are that it may have a lot to do with coincidence; We may have many fleeting thoughts in a day about loved ones, and these may include worries and concerns and, if these thoughts are then proved to be only fleeting worries then we likely don't remember them or ever think of them again. However, if we then find that a loved one has been harmed for example, we may then vividly recall our passing thoughts about them that day and, (in light of our realising some upsetting news about them,) perhaps we may recall and then latch on to those thoughts much harder, believing them instead to have therefore been premonitions?

I think the perception of the 'floating self' you mentioned is entirely possible, however I don't personally attribute anything 'psychic' to this phenomena but think it may likely be a very ordinary capacity that all individuals may 'adopt' or perceive in times of stress or altered states, such as half asleep, meditative or similar?

What I do know is that the mind is a very 'magical' thing, capable of amazing tricks and fantastic antics.  

And as for animals, I do believe they are capable of empathising and picking up on our feelings in the way you described; pets in particular are in close relationship with us after all, and therefore, part of being in a relationship must surely be the capacity to know each other so well that we can seem to 'mind read' one another at times? I personally have a cat who knows me better than I dare to know myself.  

This is all so very interesting, I will offer my thought's as soon as my life situation allows me to.

Thank you so much AngelDust. I have wondered about these things before and not really come up with an answer. The range of discussions hasn't yet ceased to surprise me and I enjoy "listening " to the different conversations.