"Hypersensitivity": getting out of the "cliché"
You are familiar with the term "hypersensitive", and perhaps you have an image of a susceptible, hyper-reactive and sentimental person who lets herself/himself be overwhelmed by her/his emotions. Hypersensitivity is thus often associated with the emotional.
The associations are sometimes hasty, the models current whereas the advanced characteristics do not allow to conclude to homogeneous profiles.
What follows does not serve as a postulate, but offers a reflection on what is today called "hypersensitivity".
In the adjective "hypersensitive", there is "sense". That means at least 5 entrance doors: touch, hearing, taste, smell, vision... (because there are many others, including those admitted by neurobiologists, such as thermoception -temperature detection- and nociception -pain detection-).
This leads to a perception of the world that can be experienced in an exacerbated way on these 5 inputs. We then speak about hyperesthesia: certain materials can be particular to the touch (e.g. peach skin), odors detected at a long distance, a taste amplified on flavors or textures in the mouth, a great acuity up to the possibility of even seeing in 3D, distant noises perceptible proximally. It should therefore be seen as a particular method of processing sensory data, which can also sometimes be painful for a person (like touch - ex: unbearable matter on the skin - or noise - ex: unbearable sounds, bordering on suffering). The processing of information via these senses is not always cumulative, that is to say that the amplifying phenomenon is not always valid on all the senses in the same individual, and not of the same intensity . Goodbye generalities.
The association of several sensory data processing is even possible (eg: associating odors with particular textures, the sounds with colors). This is called synesthesia, a neurological phenomenon by which two or more senses are associated in a lasting way. Thus, "hypersensitivity", if we simply refer to the word "sense", is not strictly emotional. Let's add, in addition to the five senses and all the others, the sixth sense!
The perception of the world of the subtle
It was given to me to notice, by the people that I accompanied discovering the capacities of mediumship, magnetism, etc. that senses very developed in "everyday life" also serve to perceive the "subtle". This particular treatment of information thus makes it possible to see what is invisible to others, or to hear what inaudible to the common person (was Joan of Arc a "hypersensitive"? 😏), or to feel what is others do not smell, either at the bodily level (ex: fresh drafts when all the windows are closed), or at the level of odors (ex: suddenly smelling an odor at home that is not ordinary and does not has nothing to do with his usual activities), etc ... If at the subtle level a person is qualified as "clairaudiante" (ex: she/he hears the voices of the deceased or of entities), her/his hearing is normally also very developed in "everyday life".
What if we spoke of RECEPTIVITY instead of sensitivity, to describe this faculty to be in interaction with the world, in all its forms, with all its senses including the 6th?
Because in our relationship with the world, we constantly exchange information flows, whatever their nature, with the outside world: we ALL receive and transmit. We are potential antennas. An emotion being the emanation of one of our parts which is expressed according to the information it receives from the world (or worlds!), via a transmitter housing our physiological senses (our body), would "hypersensitivity" simply be the result of a very fine understanding of the living, in ALL of its dimensions?
What is called "hypersensitivity" and described extreme through emotional responses, even behavioral, would thus only be the proof of an antenna of very good quality, jostled by a world more and more demanding, to the programs and the chains multiple, even cacophonous.
Let’s also think for a moment about the prefix HYPER, which denotes an intensity or a property higher than normal.
The use of "hyper" shows that the person is placed outside the common and "normal" frame of reference. Since she/he is qualified as "hyper", it is because compared to commonly accepted standards and often based on the majority, she/he comes out of the strata. While for many "hypersensitive" everything is inherently normal, it is the feedback and reaction of the environment, when they become recurrent, that point the gap. This environment, forming the majority, then becomes the frame of reference: compared to this "sample", the person is described, or experiences himself, as "hyper". If we see things upside down, we could simply ask ourselves if it is not the current society which is "hypo-sensitive" (or hypo-receptive), in paradoxical opposition to a hyper-noisy and hyper- invasive world... Or has the world become terribly noisy and intrusive to make itself heard and seen by people more and more deaf and blind??? 🤪
If all beings today qualified as hypersensitive were propelled into much older times, or even nowadays among certain peoples still connected with living things in the broad sense, perhaps they would be quite "normal" ". This thus refers to the notion of a common frame of reference accepted in a given time and / or place, addressed in particular in the book by Todd Rose "The tyranny of the norm": "we have all become practitioner of the average".
Have the sensitive taylorism standardized our way of perceiving the world, when we even create tests to measure the emotional quotient??? Let's allow us to quote a sentance from Peter Molenaar (developmental psychologist and mathematics, State University of Pennsylvania), taken from the same book by Todd Rose: "An individual is a multidimensional system which evolves according to the place and the time". So, "hyper", why not, but not all the time and not everywhere, and not with everyone!!! Question of perspective...
To resume: we could speak of receptivity instead of "sensitivity". We could also forget the "hyper" prefix which would no longer be associated with it. Each of us would thus have her/his own level of receptivity of information from the living with which she/he interacts, according to her/his own degree, and according to a sensory combination that would also be specific to her/him, according the situations (places, living organisms). Each individual would be, once again, to be understood according to her/his own frame of reference. Exit then the "cliché" and generalities surrounding the hypersensitive, "emotional softy" or "sensitive softy"...
A Soul that simply lives IN the World and WITH the worlds ...