Quote:I do associate colors with particular pheromones however. Not so much the pheromone itself, but the vibe/feeling that the pheromone elicits. I sometimes ask others to associate a color and they don't always match, but it gives me an idea of what tone/type of vibe they are feeling.
That is what I've always chalked my experience up as, however when going of the following classification my experience is in line with the first four points:
1. Synesthesia is involuntary and automatic.
2. Synesthetic perceptions are spatially extended, meaning they often have a sense of "location." For example, synesthetes speak of "looking at" or "going to" a particular place to attend to the experience.
3. Synesthetic percepts are consistent and generic (i.e., simple rather than pictorial).
4. Synesthesia is highly memorable.
5. Synesthesia is laden with affect.
The most notable point to me is the involuntary and automatic one. I often - like when I first tried p74 - get a colour straight away upon application, before I even consciously know how the pheromone makes me feel. I'm talking about first time experiences with new pheromones that I have no idea what they do. So if I am assigning a colour to a pheromone by associating it with the mood it evokes in me, I am doing so subconsciously and at incredible speed. I guess if this proves anything it is just how quick the brain can process and interoperate pheromones.
Quote:I have a tendency to class Pheromones in terms of brightness, with TAA probably the brightest and None the darkest but I can't say I go beyond that.
I too mentally class pheromones on a lightness/darkness scale (more in terms of mood than light), but the 'Synesthesia' I experience is separate entirely from that as the concept of categorising the colours on a spectrum feels alien and odd. Hard to explain.
Quote:Quantum Physics states that all matter (even numbers) are made of energy that vibrates at different frequencies that the human mind picks up and translates into matter. We all read these frequencies basically the same or within a certain range so when you see a dog its a dog to pretty much everyone. Think of your brain as a radio dial. 101.3 may be the call number for your favorite station but if you dial in at 100.8 you can still hear it. Its just not as sharp or clear. Same thing if you dial in at 102.0. You can hear it but not so clearly or it comes in and out. Perhaps people who have Synesthesia are just closer to 101.3. They see more clearly and more sharply then others. They pick up the energy force behind matter and all energy forces have a color. I think science has it opposite. What they call a "condition" is actually the gift of clairvoyance, clairsentience or clairaudient on different levels. Most all people have it on some level. I haven't read the book you mentioned but I assume they are saying that the man who mistook his wife for a hat had Synesthsia. I say he was dialing so far from the correct frequency he translated the vibration wrong. He has the condition but not those with Synesthsia.
I think if I'm understanding what you are saying correctly we are on the same 'wavelength' lol. I totally agree that everything that exists is vibrating. Nothing can ever not vibrate, because if it did it would cease to exist. The lowest temperature in the entire universe is -273.15 degrees Celsius, nothing can ever go below that because energy generates heat (heat
is energy) and what is energy but the vibration of particles. If it was possible to go below that temperature (it isn't, it's impossible) matter would simply stop vibrating and vanish. Energy can't be created or destroyed though, that is fundamental.
When we sense our environment - our reality - with our senses we are indeed just looking at various manifestations of matter, determined by different vibrational frequencies. True reality is the landscape prior to any labelling. We may detect various forms within our environment and say "that is a dog" or whatever, but atomically there can be no distinction between the mass of vibrating energy which makes up a dog and the energy which makes up the environment surrounding the dog. There is not any singular atom, or any
part of energy, separate from any other atom. I guess this is how the law of attraction works. There is no individual entity that makes a dog, or a cat, or a human, a tree, etc. It is all the same interconnected vibrating matter. Parts only exist as a mental perception, there is only really the whole.
It is easy to see why we then mentally chop up the whole and label it. The mind instinctively looks for patterns and assigns labels where it finds them. This makes sense evolutionary speaking as it is beneficial to be able to label what wants to eat us, what we want to eat, what is safe, what isn't, etc.
I think present day science is a little dated (although I think it is in the process of readdressing itself - there does seems to be a lot of forward momentum) in that it views matter as inanimate, i.e; dead and lifeless. If all existence is but vibrations how can it be treated as dead, unintelligent matter simply governed by some universal laws that were brought about accidentally and blindly by the conditions which happened to happen.
vibrant (derived from vibrating) is very rarely a word used to describe the dead. The universe is an incredibly alive place, and science seems to slowly acknowledging that.
But then how does conciousness (the very thing which perceives everything) fit into all this? This has been discussed for hundreds of years as the subject-object problem. May sound far-fetched to a lot of people but I believe that matter is the manifestation of conciousness, which itself in omnipresent. This isn't just a belief I chose to believe, it is something which can be directly realised and known through spiritual meditation. Non-dualism was the base behind every major religion that has ever existed (although those religions have long since gone of track and become dogma), it now seems more and more, bit by bit, that science itself is getting closer to a non-dual model of reality.
I think a lot of 'conditions' like Synesthesia are caused by different subject-object perceptions, be it caused by differences chemically, neurologically, psychically, etc. I too think they are great gifts as oppose to 'conditions'. I find it all very interesting.
The man who mistook his wife for a hat is a great little book (very easy to read and understand - no big neurological terms, which was a "phew" because I don't know any lol) about all different kind of these 'conditions' and phenomena. The twins being the most interesting case study in my opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who..._for_a_Hat Quote:Many people know I am clairvoyant and a empath which is clairsentient. From my stand point when I think about what occurs when I "see" or I "feel" I do associate vibrational color to it. Aura readers do much the same. I can see the aura of some objects and sometimes some people if its strong enough and much more frequently with pheromones. I have always seen this way so I rarely think about it. When I was real little I thought everyone saw this way until my grandmother explained to me they didnt. What I find really interesting is that I associate the same colors you do to almost all of the ones you listed.
wow being able to see auras must be an incredible skill to posses. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you being an empath and being able to see auras are two sides of the same coin. Both would bring about a certain degree of telepathy. You're a superhero TishaÂ
EDIT: I apologise in advance if I sounded patronising (and I know I'm not the best at describing what I've just tried to desribe - Ken Wilber is) I just can't resist decisions about the "bigger picture" and all that - it intrigues me too much. I couldn't help go off topic a bit.
Post
Thanks given by