Dear Mary, (Sorry I am a little late in replying to your post) I can't tell you what a debt of gratitude I owe you for researching this. It means more to me than you will ever know. Many here have been able to build fruitful, productive lives in spite of not understanding their synesthesia. I have not been able to do that. Accomplishing goals have been extremely difficult for me, yet I have painfully pushed on anyway. Too many details to bore you with, but a lot of uncertainty about "who," and "why" I am. It feels good to know that I am not a "mistake" or an "accident." The rational mind tries to know better, but does not always succeed.
It may seem like a little thing, but your action has planted such a good seed in my life and I thank you. Love, Sherelle In a message dated 12/15/2001 12:05:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 17:17:03 EST > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: synesthesia (njc) > > hi Sherelle, > > I was struck by your comment that "I am thrilled to know that I wasn't > nuts!" > re: synesthesia. I was reading the info on the link I sent to the list and > > I was interested to see this: > > 9. The Rejection Of Direct Experience > > 9.1 My usual response to those who ask if synesthesia is "real" is, "Real > to > whom? To you, or to those who experience it?" Questioning its reality > without > first having some technological confirmation shows how ready we are to > reject > any first-hand experience. We are addicted to the external and the > rational. > Our insistence on a third-person, "objective" understanding of the world > has > just about swept aside all other forms of knowledge. > > 9.2 In the course of studying MW, for example, we came to a point of using > invasive and rather sophisticated technology when he became frightened, not > > that we might uncover some medical abnormality, but because a machine might > > prove that his synesthesia wasn't real. MW was ready to accept the > judgement > of a machine over his lifetime of first-hand experience. This is a > remarkable > commentary. > > 9.3 When we think of our brains, we usually think of a computer, a > reasoning > machine in our heads that runs things. This is consistent with the > hierarchical model. But emotion - which word I use to include irrational, > a-rational, and non-verbal knowledge and cognition - is what actually > directs > our thoughts and actions. Like the Wizard of Oz, it is our a-rational inner > > life that pulls the levers behind the curtain. Our inner knowledge behind > the > curtain is largely inaccessible to introspective language, which means that > > what we feel about something is more valid than what we think or say about > that something. > > 9.4 Reason is just the endless paperwork of the mind. The heart of our > creativity is our direct experience and the salience that our limbic brain > gives it. Allowing it to be that does not stop us from overlaying rational > considerations on it - after which we can talk, recount, explain, > interpret, > and analyze to our heart's content. > > from http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-10-cytowic.html > > I think those of us on this list can see beyond "the external and the > rational". I hope I can anyway. I mean, that stuff is great and truly > essential, but I don't think it's everything. > > Mary
