Would further writings on this be interesting and/or helpful?

[Jtownsend]

So about a year ago, I skipped a creative minds class to write this. Took it in to the class to explain my absence and the teacher flipped out a bit, and told me they would be contacting places like Stanford's department of the human mind (or some person studying the human mind, not entirely sure) about whether this would be worth continued study. Didn't hear anything back, as I was told they hadn't had time to get in contact with their colleague. What I wanted to ask was whether you think my musings on human thought, and how they interact within my mind might be useful, or at the least an interesting read? Also not sure if this is the right forum for this.

The writing is as follows:

 

 

Syneasthesia: thought patterns.

So I wanted to discuss the way I see things for a bit. If you'll stick through this it may be helpful–then again it may just be hogwash. We'll see, I guess.

These are just ideas–nothing solid other than this is just how my head works.

 

I've developed a system of thought (or I should say I've come upon realization of) that I use as a way to manage the constant barrage of information that I can't seem to turn off–that by creating layers of thought processes and letting them run in tandem with one another I can absorb much more information than others are seemingly able to. I can access one or multiple levels at once and at will depending on what information I'm in need of and depending on the recipient–the shyness takes a while to get ahold of in each situation though, so there are some inherent limitations I have yet to develop workarounds for–but I'm hopeful the paths will open up if I look deep enough. Just going to take time to map the needed channels of thought.

 

A basic example is that I have a level I paint on while I sleep. It doesn't matter how tired I am or how complex the piece is that I need to work on because the mind is able to work, at least in this state, at a pace not physically possible on this level (you could call it reality but I think of it as the median between physical stimuli and the ripple effects of their actions). Not just faster but much more efficient and daring as well. The ability to think in 3-D (as I do quite often think in) is much more solid and at the same time malleable when your body's functions are on autopilot, as they are when you're sleeping. I'm not saying that I don't dream, because I do, but as the dream plays (like a movie) I'm able to switch to a higher level of thought and paint in the space I've created through a variant of the system I'm using.

 

The idea is that there are multiple levels of thought going on at once, and through self study and testing I've developed a way to create, control, and relate new levels to those that are already in existence. I've also come up with a way to fix damaged thought processes or limiting factors that are also thought processes not usually seen, or at least acknowledged, by most people. Either they happen on a level too low to notice (subconscious I guess–I think of it as the inner workings of a person) or they are read so fast that they are experienced as only having one possible outcome, which I've found to be a rather limited way to think.

 

There are two main ways for me to explain this but I must say some things beforehand. First, please understand that I use my innate abilities to see into a person's layers of thought and emotion to help map such things (syneasthesia is the language I use to interpret the abstract values of a thought). Second, that I have no way of knowing if what I perceive to be true is actually a truth until discussion of said emotions/thoughts has commenced. After finding my perceptions to be true I now have the task to continue to do such things to see how continuously I can get worthy results back. I must find out how accurate I can be. I'm at the very least skeptical of my own abilities and yet hopeful that someone will find some use for them if they prove helpful in some manner.

Now I've got the job of explaining what I see/feel/taste/intuit and I must pick a way that makes it relatable.

 

One would be to explain that there is a depth to a person that most people can not or will not actively access. Yet, I must do this–constantly, or I risk losing touch with those I surround myself with. I find the small talk and obviousness of daily interaction on most levels that involve audio interpretation dull. I will admit that I also find it confusing on some level. People have a habit of not saying what they mean and expecting you to not understand that there is a difference, however subtle it may be, to what they are truly feeling. I have trouble not seeing the differences and as such find it hard as to which level to relate to. I will admit that the first time I started to relate to people's inner feelings instead of the feelings that they "wanted" me to perceive I was met with much resistance. Intrusive, I was called.

 

Then again, others have been receptive, and have even let me paint some of their levels to explain how they're shown in the world. I'm very thankful for those people.

 

This is where it becomes just thought, and not even I can truly define such a thing–I wouldn't dare to. What I can do is give a representation of what I "see".

 

Here we go:

 

A person's consciousness has a core–a malleable piece of clay that constantly skitters with raw thought. Eddies and flows pass over the core at such a speed that most people do not notice. If I want I can slow it down. Upon inspection I've found it to be made up of many varying elements and textures–those are used to define the morality and stability of a person. The basis for a person's whole development. There are layers to the core but I chose to not go much deeper than that because then I get into the formation of pure consciousness–which I can neither define nor if I could I wouldn't be able to give an accurate interpretation of such a thing. My hope is to one day paint it as I've been shown.

 

Above (surrounding) this core is an innumerable number of filters that the thought must pass through–call the filters emotions if you'd like, before it can be processed and (usually poorly) explained through the physical level. I've found that even the purest thought can be tarnished by a lack of suitable wording.

 

A thought never starts off sad, angry, happy, or anything other than a pure piece of consciousness. It is the filters–how they are arranged, developed through a person's life, the position relative to the thought's point of creation, and the interpretations of such things that define what we would commonly call a "thought" or even the vagueness of a "feeling".

 

What I'm able to see are these filters, the thought as it passes through each level, and the end result of such things.

 

I call these the "layers" to a person. I'm able to paint these things as I've developed a way to hold onto faint images and reflections, be it between 10-15% at the moment, and present them in a way that seems to make sense upon interpretation. One day I would love to sit and talk with a person and see if I can go further–but as of yet, people open to this idea have not come forward, very likely due to my own inabilities to ask haha.

 

Each layer has an inherent colour that an emotion is tied to. They change depending on the person, if only slight variations in saturation and contrast, they are indeed different for all people. The shaping of such things adds a whole other level of difference in the way they are interpreted. A point is never a curve is never a dip. What I have found is that the combination of shape, colour, position, and density must be read as one to make much sense to me–upon attempted dissection of a layer I've found the information to be too raw and, while still readable, not as helpful as I would like.

 

As the thought is never stopping it's constant movement to realization, neither are the filter's movements around the core. They must move and they must change, for the mind is always changing–there is no way to stop this forced growth that I can think of, but then again I relish watching the change and would horrify myself if I found a way to pause such a wondrous thing.

 

When you see someone who is "sad", what I'm seeing is a thought process locked behind a blue (and sometimes purple) filter. All thoughts for a period the length of the filter must go through it and as such they are reflected upon the physical world as predominantly "sad". It doesn't matter that there are other emotions that the thought went through or could go through as this one particular filter has much more density than the others. It doesn't overpower the other filters, it forces them aside to a section of consciousness I'm as of yet not able to access without work–a very dark place indeed. I would have to go to much lower levels to get through to that section, and after having done it myself to combat severe depression, I don't feel much like accessing it on a continued basis. If asked I can go there–but it costs me, sometimes dearly.

 

At this point my mind wanders, so I supposed I'm done for now. If you would like clarification or even continued discussion on this topic please feel free to ask. I'm starting to find the act of sharing my existence with others to be, while at times extremely tiring, a wonderful learning experience.

 

Thanks for reading,

 

JT.

 

-- People's thoughts look like this:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/61742_127228173995849_120832857968714_169225_3856868_n.jpg

 

I've got plenty of ideas of how people interact with one another and their effects, which I'm calling the Cascade, which I can write more on if interested. I've also got musings on how other things work, the senses and the like, but because I have no college education, and no background in anything like this, I'm wary of how such things may be viewed.

 

Any and all discussion and advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks.

 

[Rilx]

Hi JT,

 

Your story brought to my mind a book I've read, Daniel Tammet's "Embracing The Wide Sky". Tammet has a Savant Syndrome, he can remember extremely long numbers, for instance 22000 decimals of pi, calculate with very long numbers and learn fast new languages. His descriptions about how he performs those tasks resembles what you have told.

 

A general neuroplastical explanation is that brains don't always allocate functions in their ordinary physical locations. Your kind of synesthesia suggests that some of your non-visual thoughts possibly use brain's visual areas.

[charles brough]

Your ability to "paint as you sleep" is not something I have ever heard of before. I would consider it either a "gift" or an abnormality. That includes you ability to or pathology of associating individuals with certain colors. Do you believe you can tell the mood of an individual by the color you associate with him or is that color a permanent feature to you of the other individual?

 

My only personal experience with something like this is that if I play many free-cell games within eight hours of bedtime, getting to sleep is burdened by a vision of the cards when I close my eyes. I see a mass of black and red cards alligned indistinctly, almost chaotically, but I am somewhat self-propelled to try to match them up as in the game. However, they invariably defeat me by changing at the very time I move them!