Adam Blatner

Once again I have been reminded of the fact that we all live subjectively, and we select out and resonate to songs, nature, whatever in idiosyncratic ways. This is great fodder for the existentialists: No one can truly rise to absolutely complete  empathy with another, even if we try. While we may become truly close, yet the truth is that we live in different worlds. The miracle, the game, the celebration, is how well some of us do meet.

When the rapport is good, we can perhaps love each other, and we do, overcoming the essential strangeness of a few of our roles. When there’s compatibility, in my scheme, the ratio of compatible (C) to incompatible (I) is high. (High C/I). In situations in which loneliness and desperation are significant, people sometimes  settle for far less of a ratio. A high C/I ratio is a great blessing.

The complexity of the mind is far greater than anyone, even the greatest of professors, can begin to encompass. It involves innumerable permutations and cross-influences of temperament, interests, abilities, cultural influences, and so forth. Each of the aforementioned categories in turn have innumerable gradients and sub-types. There are people who can communicate with plants and sense what they need—folks who have a “green thumb.” Others do the same with animals, “horse whisperers”—and other animals. We have no sense so far over what subtypes of sensitivity there are. We hardly know that others are really different in ways that we can’t define, and often ways they can’t define, too.

It should be emphasized that in all likelihood a number of subtly psychic talents are also on this list, and the mainstream culture pooh-poohs this possibility. The point is that those who have been confirmed in “knowing” often cannot fully express how their knowing works.