Cerber wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:16 am
That was the only time I saw my self in the mirror. And since I always out there in "first person", can't say for sure how do I look like, usually seeing only my own limbs at most. But from the limbs alone, at least my own form, can vary. Seems like it not entirely up to us, but at least to some extent it can depend on the location, environment, and even some factors slightly beyond the level of my awareness. My shape and even number of limbs can wary. On wings, I remember I did "pull them out" once, only to show off, but since we don't need those to fly, and eventually we learned we don't even need to fly to move around, I never spread them again, nor I "woke up" anywhere with wings already spread out. More often I "wake up" in some place wearing something looking like "sci-fi exoskeleton" than any of the more traditional accents, like wings and/or horns and tails. Mostly very human just with some "upgrades", and only for some special occasions I run around on four legs. I'm not very scary monster
I think form is pretty arbitrary. Seems kinda like choosing an outfit which expresses something, rather than really being definitive.
I have once in a while joked that astrally I'm the Kitty of 1000 Paws, hehe. Which is really just a nod to a nickname of mine, and my penchant for japanese nekomimi. but also subtly seasoned with the kitsune thing. And "mostly" really a reference to Guan Yin.
I do tend towards bilateral symmetry. call it an fauna-organic reflex. flora seems less into that.
I try not to be real large though. largeness is kind of "grandstanding", and it lacks in effect if the "oomf" of the energy body is not at least as large in scope. Conversely, seeming smaller than one's ineffable sense of "oomf" is kinda like the opposite of grandstanding. Humility? eh... not quite the right word, but hmm... lets go with "modest".
Cerber wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:16 am
And then there occasions of some kind "empathic..smth", I'd be just casually walking down the street, and just glance wrong way at some random person passing by, maybe even few hundred meters away, and I'd be randomly hit not just by what that person feels, but what it actually feels to be that person, while I could not read the minds, but I could feel their thoughts in some abstract sense. Well never tried to confirm anything of such in any way, so that one I can easily write off as just my own mind playing tricks on me, if I really wanted.
A field in my back yard here.
Mind reading is definitely possible. Done it many, many, many times. In some cases on obscure topics wildly unrelated to a conversation.
Unlike deja vu, i'd call it "somewhat controllable", depending on how much you work on it. Although if the other party is aware that you're probing their mind, they tend to mostly be thinking about trying to be read successfully, blocking being read successfully, or doubt. Even if they have ostensibly chosen something to think about, in reality the vast majority of their thoughts are on one of those 3 themes. People have very uh, "disorganized minds", so reading what people think they're thinking, and reading what people 'are' thinking, is not necessarily the same thing. So what people believe is focused thinking, is really kind of a mess. "Spontaneity of Thought" comes through much MUCH clearer. Also thoughts don't quite 'last' in the way that people tend to think they do. You have a thought, then it's done. You can remember having the thought for however long, but that's not the same as the initial cogitation of it.
Also thoughts and emotions have a very similar uh... substance to them. But they are structured differently. Emotions you might compare to an odor, not literally, but having the same sort of lingering characteristics. Emotions permeate an area relative to a person's physical position, and their mental/spiritual focal point (which isn't spatially limited).
Thoughts on the other hand are more complex structures, and surprisingly they "pop" into being, like a sudden flash. Much more rapidly than an internal dialog interprets them into some structure... the 'raw thought' is near instantaneous. Concept A plus subject matter B = concept C, all at once, as a spark. It's definitely a situation of "blink and you'll miss it". They feel like they're made of the same raw material as emotions, but pushed into a complex pattern, and occurring in a flash rather than a lingering cloud. Clouds & Lightning might make a fair analogy. Especially since thoughts actually occur non-sequentially (unlike speech, or moving visuals) so a lightning flash of complex pattern & shape, is actually a pretty good metaphor. Now, one thought can lead to another thought, sequentially, but each "conceptual component" occurs in a flash unto itself. I'd tend to say each 'flash of cognition' is roughly equivalent in content to one sentence of spoken or written thought (assuming it deals with ideas which don't need deep elaboration to explain).
"rehearsing a thought" is not the same as initially thinking it. big difference in whether it's readable. the latter 'radiates' in a flash, the former is more an internal abstraction, and very muddled since it's kind of a mixture of thinking about how to think about something.
This isn't just referring to how it 'feels' perceptually, but how thought actually occurs at the source. Thoughts (raw thoughts) precede the internal dialog (regardless of whether the internal dialog is lingual or visual, etc). In a way the internal dialogue is a filtered down, slowed down, selection of highlights from the raw thought. Raw thought includes preconscious and subconscious thoughts, and can be kinda free associative.
Some people are "loud thinkers". Which may not be quite the right term. More like, they have a kinda focused spontaneity in their thought generation. Which makes them easier to read clearly. They're somewhat less "thinking 10 things at once". This doesn't seem to be linked to intelligence level, just a habitual style of focus in thinking.
Mostly I have full time empathy, unless i'm squinting (shutting it out). This works all the time. Even if you tell the subject you're empathically reading them. Whether they're guarded, incredulous, curious, etc. that comes through clearly. The only caveat is that if you tell them you're doing it, they'll be focused on that, and their emotive state will be relative to their feelings on that idea. Unless they're in a state of very strong emotion so they're not really distracted from their previous emotive state.
I have examples of explicitly detailed, off-topic, thoughts read. Although, depending on a person's thinking style, that may not occur frequently. It's much easier to miss a thought than an emotion.
The very easiest form of thought to read is what I'd call "a clarification". And I notice it in real-time internet chat more often than anywhere else. Sometimes people will type something, and the meaning of their words isn't obvious. So I reply with some form of question which goes along the lines of "what do you mean?". And then, right before their answer appears, you can feel the thought which clarifies what they meant. This is almost always a fairly simple thought, spontaneous, and timely. If your chat program allows you to see when they are typing, you can see that the timing for reading the thought is always just as they enter the "person is typing" state. Even if they were distracted and did not reply for a couple minutes. As long as you're focused on them, expecting the reply (when the thought flashes), and they are focused on you, not terribly distracted, then it's actually pretty easy to read.
This sort of thought reading is not very useful for "proving" things. Since it's topically related, and one could argue that you simply eventually figured out what they meant. But looking at the timing in programs which let you see the other party's activity, and considering the nature of that type of thought, I feel pretty solid about this being a form of mind reading (if a form which will never impress anybody).
It's much harder if I'm emotionally involved with the person. Cuz then there's lots of interference from what I want to perceive, what I worry about perceiving, etc. Lots of second guessing, triple guessing, quadruple guessing.
Also, crazy people seem very believable to me. If they believe what they're saying, I can tell. And I reflexively label it as someone telling the truth. And it tends to draw me into their narrative somewhat. Mind you crazy people lie too. And I can tell when they're doing that, just as easily as anyone else. But when they're speaking honestly of something they're just wrong about, I tend to give too much credence.
Sometimes people want to believe something so thoroughly that it can be hard to differentiate from them really believing it. If it's more superficial though, the "wires" holding up that puppet show are fairly noticeable. But even if someone is trying very hard to believe something, the way they "flinch" emotionally when their belief is inspected is pretty tell-tale.
Passive-aggressive people are kind of annoying. You don't really have to say anything to them though, just stop and give them a slightly prolonged eye contact when they do it. They'll eventually stop. To be fair, this is helpful to them as well. Often people are not intentionally passive aggressive on a fully conscious level, but it can become a pattern behavior for them. Subtly reminding them that they're doing it, can help them break the habit.
Bullies tend to be drawn to naturally very empathic people (as targets). If you detect that 'vibe', it's very helpful if you throw up a brick wall right away, and not enter into a pattern of behavior with them which will only worsen over time. In extreme cases you may want to be outright bluntly aggressive towards them. This may shock others, if they aren't picking up on the subtle interplay. Sometimes it's just an alpha-type person, feeling out the turf, you don't have to be aggressive with them, just a little 'hey don't step on me'. Humor is a good social lubricant. But there are a few people out there who are primarily plugged in to their inner predator or sadist. And you want to give them crystal clear boundaries.
You can kinda aggressively probe another consciousness. Potentially very deeply. You can make this seem pleasant or unpleasant. You can also 'push' on a mind. Potentially very forcefully. You can also cycle energy through a mind, which can be rather 'enthralling'. That also could be made to feel pleasant or unpleasant. I would strongly advise against doing any of this in your personal life though, or making a habit of it in general. Although a naturally very empathic person will reflexively probe others to an extent, so... don't limit yourself to the point of trying to be something you're not. Just be aware it can be taken into places which are not healthy for anyone involved really.
"uncontrolled" empathy is actually a pain in the ass. It tends to make you avoid eye contact, touching, personal space, and social interaction. you just get overloaded very easily. and you feel helpless vs. the effects of the emotions or thoughts of others washing over you. It may be projection, but I think it's the basis for a large amount of social anxiety cases. On the other hand if it's very adeptly controlled, that social anxiety melts away. It tends to make you a little more 'genuine', because when others are disingenuous, it seems obvious, so why would you voluntarily come across like that to others? It might, for a while, make a person feel uh... differentiated from others. But I don't think that would last too long because ultimately everyone has very similar brains, so there's a lot of familiarity and looking in a mirror when you perceive others' minds. So after a while you tend to take people misrepresenting themselves (to others, or even to themselves) with a grain of salt.
Observing how others cogitate on something can be informative for working on your own cognitive obstacles. You can be like "wow that person really isn't admitting 'thing' to themself" and then a little light bulb over your head... "wait, this vibe feels familiar... oh, Ohhhhhh.. damn." as you realize there's something in your own head going pretty much the same way hehe.
It also tends to make the field of psychology immediately intuitive. Although the 101 and even much of the 201 level courses on psyche really are mostly about the warped framing which famous psychologists viewed cognition through. Which says more about them than human psychology a lot of the time.
Animals seem to have an easier time groking this stuff. Since they lack outgoing spoken language for the most part, they're just very keyed in to this system. In a way, I'd kinda say that NOT having empathy or mind reading is almost a byproduct of human abstraction/distraction. Although my current cat has a kinda amazing vocabulary. She's much more into abstract reasoning than any other animal I've been close to.
or something like that.
this is kinda what I was referring to earlier when I said that instead of 'divining' information people are concerned about, I find generally all the answers are already somewhere inside their head. But for various reasons, withheld from their conscious thinking or their emotional acceptance. So divining for others to me seems more like figuring out a way to sugar coat what people already know in a way they can consciously accept. This doesn't mean I don't believe in precognitive perceptions, I do. Just that the topics people want to know about, are amazingly often things they really know the answer to deep down.