A bit late but I made it back here.
Or maybe some just have it more than others?
I dont think we all have it potentially to a high level, for a few reasons. LIke all other skills, some seem 'naturals' to it and others hopeless at it.
That's my feeling too, probably, but it is simply a skill or is it skill plus something?
Writing is what I have most experience in, and while (some) non-writers think that's simply an inborn talent, writers know it's both - gift plus learnt skill, and the learnt part is why it is worth having creative writing courses. Technique can be taught; but there's also the "You've either got it or you haven't" part which can't be taught. Most writers (I mean those who have gone beyond dabbling, professional or with a professional attitude at least) agree on this. You could call it art vs. craft, if you like.
I suppose I'm wondering whether the same thing goes on with whatever we're naming this that I'm asking about. Now there's some tangled phrasing! lol
(Interesting that no one has picked up on what name we use for it; we don't need to, we all know the "it" that we're talking about.* One of my favourite things about AT is how we discuss, which is so Swords, things which are far more Cups and Fire, without tripping over these logistical things, it's down to the respect between people here I think.)
* and I really need to decide which term I shall adopt.
What's been said here about physiology, nutrition, EMF sensitivity etc - I'd include neurology too - is really interesting. It seems sensible to think the whole person, the physical as well as psyche etc, is part of what happens. We can't fully know what happens, IMHO. We do know that a lot more goes on within and between our bodies than we understand. A bit like mapping the ocean bed!
It can depend on one's makeup and receptivity to it and how one processes it. For example, I am fortunate in the this area with a Neptune chart ruler well aspected to Jupiter and Mercury. Some peoples psychic makeup dont allow it, cant process it or balance it.
I include this with other "givens" such as the physical influences. Then there's society's influence; if you grow up never hearing it referred to, never having the words for it or any acknowledgement that it exists, then you'll only be aware of it if you're at the exceptional end of the scale - but if you grow up where everyone takes it for granted and speaks about it as just another part of the world, like weather and sleep and hearing, then even the very poorly "gifted" will be in touch with their own feel for it.
... Looks like I'm tending towards there being the germ of it in everyone, but inborn to a greater degree in some than others - like any other gift, as you say - which then is affected by attitude. Nature + Nurture. Fifty-fifty or not, I wonder?
On the heredity question, I have no idea. But that's a bit like other traits such as, say, being useless with money (or good with finance), or appreciating art, or ending up in prison - the same child born into a different family would turn out differently.
Anyone know if twin studies have been done on this?
Some people don't realize that they do have 'it' though.
This is an important point. Some people take it for granted, not noticing that others don't do the same things (knowing who's on the phone, your example) - I have a friend who denies she has hypermobile joints because she's always been able to put her palms flat on the floor with knees straight etc (now well into her 50s) and takes it for granted ... others just assume they don't, that's something other people have, and so they never "ask themselves" ... when you think about it, people reach middle age, married with kids, before realising they're gay - hard to explain but we can all be totally unaware of what's "obvious" in ourselves! And surely, if you've never heard of being gay then it wouldn't occur to you? I'm thinking of Victorian wives here! My gran had three children without knowing how they were made. Trying not to digress
*wrenches self back on topic* - why wouldn't it happen the same with this? In fact I'm sure it does.
Which comes back to the "logical". I knew someone who was very dismissive of (for example) homeopathy - "No, I don't believe in any of that, I'm a scientist!" She had a degree in biochemistry. But she took my opinion seriously because I had a degree (albeit arts) from a better university, so she was astonished that I used homeopathy... but I said, having seen it work on animals and babies who can't possibly know what it's supposed to do, that's evidence enough for me. I'd have been disappointed that she switched her opinion instantly, nothing to do with converting to scientific method - the approach of requiring evidence etc - all to do with having pigeonholed me as knowing what I was talking about. That's the exact opposite of what I am, I'm constantly trying to work out what I'm talking about(!) but her way of thinking was unreasoning - 100% anti-scientific! - you can't hold a belief on a true/false question based on who thinks which opinion, but that's what she did. (Sadly, that's what most do but it was more visible the way she did it.)
What I'm coming round to is that I believe in this stuff because of logic, not despite it. Another word for logic is reason. The truly reasonable are open. I was about to quote Stephen Fry again, but caught myself just in time, realised I quoted him last week...
People have various reasons/excuses for not seeing that they and others have intuition, etc. Some of it must be down to not being provided with the language to think consciously about it. Some is the "scientist's" assumptions... some, like my grandmother for instance, would just name it within the framework they've been taught. I once went to a discussion about spirituality which ended up being all about church, and I sat people-watching, spotting the two or three of us who didn't think spirituality = Christianity... or organised religion of any kind... but most people aren't introduced to anything broader. Then my gran was also very frightened by it, and I'm sure it was strong within her. It frightened me too, when I was younger - not because it felt ungodly etc, but because another word for
awe is
fear and I think the feeling I had was awe, but what I noticed was the fear element.
I love that, "I don't know yet."
Because I do not know everyone else.
I myself have experienced something, but I don't even know what it is. Is it my angels or guides, or my unconscious? Or a multiplicity of things? (for me, I believe least some are guides, as I cannot explain it otherwise)
It has saved lives, and sometimes when I don't listen, I really pay afterwards.
It is not always there (at least consciously), but seems to be present when I REALLY need it.
I think, maybe, everyone has it and with the right trigger, often a life-or-death situation, or something traumatic, it comes to the fore. I don't think you meant life-or-death when you said "REALLY need it"
but bear with me. Say, everyone has it but some have a lower threshold that will let them know about it - some need to be falling off a cliff, others just need to be five years old and sensing tension between their parents and the in-laws.
I'm beginning to spark from one idea to another. The notion of trauma as trigger leads me to the shamanic thing of soul loss etc (or call it post-traumatic stress). Again, the trigger brings out the talent.
I believe that if you find multiple cultures and traditions claim the same thing, that lends weight to its being accurate.
Sorry this has come out disjointed, and I've probably repeated myself en route. I'm tired but I wanted to thrash this out - in my own mind. Just thinking aloud here, and watching the way my thinking goes.
One thing I do know, having started on the path of developing the skill (or whatever it is) and learning what to do with it, and not yet knowing how far it may reach, is bloomin' exciting.
Thanks for all this input, I'm a lot closer to knowing what my view is on this!
