Carl Jung and Synchronicity

[bubba]

The subject of Dreams recently posted here started working hard on me.The numerous instances posted of similar experiences forced me to open up Jung and delve a bit further into his concept of Synchronicity.There are some curves but stick with me.

Jung defined Synchronicity as temporally coincident occurences of acausal events.He also described what he referred to as an "acausal connecting principal". That really is lofty jargon-speak for a description of the phenomena of coincidence that defies logic or liklihood and suggests the existence of a larger framework or principal at work.

A large role in Jung's development of his concept of Synchronicity actually developed in intense conversations he had with Albert Einstein when they spent time together from 1909 to 1913.Their discussions lead to a mutual belief that time exists as a dimension and only our conscious mind percieves it's movement. This mutual belief had a profound effect on both Jung and Einstein in their latter works.

Einstein, in a collaborative effort with others, postulated in 1935 the existence of a causal effect propagating at superluminal speeds,which ultimately could explain certain inconsistencies at the time in Physics.This was a major step out of Quantum Mechanics.Einstein had already proved that in a purely material universe,nothing could travel faster than light.Einstein,of course,had also postulated the existence of Black Holes around 1905 but held back on proffering that concept to the general public given the swirl created by his recent theory of Relativity.Black Holes were ultimately proven in 2005 and by Hubble and a Chap who won the Nobel.It may be assumed Sir Albert was a bit ahead of his time.

Fast forward to more recent time with an experiment conducted by theoretical physicist,Dr.Alain Aspect.In this experiment,an atom emitted two quanta of light-called photons-that traveled in opposite directions as they left the atom.These photons were then found to instantaneously exert an influence on each other's behavior even at a distance.These two subatomic objects affected each other instantaneously in space and time-which means"something"would have to travel faster than the speed of light to account for the interaction.One could say the existence of superlumiinality was proven and by inference the existence of "something" outside of the material world.

Could this "something"that that influenced the interaction between the photons be consciousness itself-a conciousness that belongs to a domain of reality that operates beyond the laws that govern time and space?I think coincidence and the occurence of events that defy logic or liklihood are that which is described in the Post on dreams.

So we travel back to a Jungian favorite,"Through the Looking Glass" by Lewis Carroll.Jung's favorite quote is when the White Queen says to Alice: "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards".Could our own conciousness that travels at superluminal speeds be responsible for these apparent coincidences? Or is it even possible that no coincidences exist in this larger theatre,of which we only see glimpses.I believe Einstein and Jung saw the same vision.One advanced it in Physics and the other in Psychology.Both,nothwithstanding their ardent empirical backgrounds,recognized the mystical that trancends.

It is the universal that trancends and ties us all together.All in one row boat.

[Ken Johnson]

Wow Bub you got me goin there. Thanks for the explanation.

Will there be another instalment? Perhaps another topic? I love the lit stuff you post. Gets me looking on Wiki's every time.

BTW My boat has a motor but I never run with the mainstream.

[John in Andalucia]

Great stuff, bubba. I was but an hour ago looking at a photo, thinking, "What about synchronicity?" then here you are talking about it. The photo was of 4 locquat windfalls. What are the odds that they fall off the tree and rest in perfect linear alignment 20 feet apart? The reality of the "acausal connecting principal" is often too much to bear for the creative mind.

[Rusty on Pine Is.]

Hi Bubba, and interesting topic

I have been involved in this for many years and I thought I would offer some comments. I began to to wonder about the mix of events during life, and came to wonder if in fact there were no accidental events, and that the following points were worth further observation::

1. Events are connected

2. The connection of events is directly influenced by our involvement in them.

3. We can therefore influence events, and thus our connection to them.

4. It is our perception of synchronicity that is required for it's effects to occur.

5. The more synchronicity is recognized, the more frequently it occurs.

6. It is not the description of a thing that makes it real......it is the experience of the thing that makes it real, and gave it life in the first place.

Measurement, I believe, is the primary impediment to understanding synchronicity.

And, additionally, I now believe that synchronicity is not a thing unto itself. I am convinced, after all these years, that the connection between people and events is part of a larger flow of what we call existence.

There are those who would use science as a bridge between matter and the mind, but it may be that no bridge between the two is needed….matter and the mind may one and the same, and I would go further to say that matter is merely one of many constructs of the mind, try though we will to relegate the mind to mere synapse and gelatinous goo, and only a product of what we see as it's epicenter, the brain.

I would opine that the brain is a product of the mind, not the other way around.

Of course, Synchronicity has been around for a long time, even before Jung sought his understanding of the connections of events to no similar causal agents.

It is only now that we have a way to quantify it with science do people give it a second look…but it is the very act of observation that makes descriptions of connections by non physical stimuli a fallacy …….the non measurable observation of existence is something that a linear thought process cannot fathom, but it is the non linear aspect of existence that comprises and creates synchronicity in the first place.

It is the stuff of the non physical, and more to the point, the non three dimensional, that lies at the core of synchronicity, and thus the dissolution of three dimensional understandings of our existence is necessary before the interconnectedness of events can be understood.

.Many critics ( I will term them Dimensionalists, since anything beyond their dimension, and thus beyond their understanding does not exist) believe that any evidence for synchronicity is due to confirmation bias, and very little else.

I would suggest that there is also a non-conformational bias as well.

.....hmmmmm, chalk up the ramble to a double scotch this afternoon.......

BTW David Peat wrote a pretty interesting book on this subject.

Rusty

[Ken Johnson]

Wow Rust, I will never go on a PRA with you and Bub. You guys may end up on a sofa in a garden and never get up to look at the palms!

[BS Man about Palms]

The closest I can come to following this is a "senior quote" I was trying to come up with for high school, a couple years before graduation.

"When Man can be as powerful as his imagination or

Travel as fast as his memories, then may he become Master of his universe" (more or less, I'd have to dig up the paper I wrote)

What I settled on was : "Life is too serious to take seriously, and too short not to."

Both penned over 25 years ago, closer to 30... maybe I was onto something.

[John Case]

The fact that we can rmeember the past and not remember the future is merley an aspect of the 'arrow of time'. The memory of events that take place instantaneously do not make them supraluminar but merely a reflection of events and not a recreation of them. This is consistent with theory that a body cannot be in two places at the same time or that it can exist in multiple copies simultaneously. Additionallym as spece is continually moving, the recreation of an event with regard tp spetiality is unlikley as the earth (or any other place in the universe, has moved since the original event occurred. Therefore, any event that is recreated must also recreate the universe simultaneously.....in a physical sense at least.

This is fun stuff....but when will spring arrive?

[bubba]

The real theme is that science has proved the mystical.That is the existence of other dimensions beyond what we believe to be that TV set in front of our nose.Ironically,almost all the great physicists arrived at this point at the end of their careers or even earlier in some cases(Einstein).The fact that the most empirical and physically exacting of all sciences did this should open sleeping eyes.

Einstein always played his cards beyond the empirical very close to his vest.It was said that the most perplexing issue to him was the fact we existed and contemplated at all.The deeper he and all other physicists got into the perfect structure of the subatomic realm proved to him and others the absolute impossibility of the lack of something beyond our limited understanding at work.It was simply too perfect.

We have been trained well by our societies to know that the table is hard,that our riches determine our self image and advertising is the truth.This is cruelty at it's highest order when subatomically our bodies and all other matter are 99.9% space.Even that organ the brain has been shown as a vessel through which consciousness enters and not through which it is derived.We have been well trained to see ourselves as something our own science has proven incorrect.

Our science has proved that we are far different in nature than what our advertising tells us.The struggle for purchase is a game that we are encouraged to play but that is truly a game of a lower order.Socrates was correct and Aristotle was wrong. Go figure!

[palmmermaid]

Not sure if this next bit of information is connected to this thread but I think it certainly shows how interlinked everything and everyone is. How things we do today can have very longlasting consequences.

This is the opening paragraph from the cover story in February's National Geographic:

"Just two weeks before he died, Charles Darwin wrote a short paper about a tiny clam found clamped to the leg of a water beetle in a pond in the English Midlands. It was his last publication. The man who sent him the beetle was a young shoemaker and amateur naturalist named Walter Drawbridge Crick. The shoemaker eventually married and had a son named Harry, who himself had a son named Francis. In 1953, Francis Crick, together with a young American named James Watson, would make a discovery that has led inexorably to the triumphant vindication of almost everything Darwin deduced about evolution."

I found this very interesting.

[Jerry@TreeZoo]

I'm sorry, but my brain cells have been doing too much heavy lifting lately and my doctored has ordered them to have complete bed rest. You see I am just on auto pilot drifting aimlessly from thread to thread.

Jerry

[John Case]

Maybe the unification theory will be the merging of physics and philosophy, rather than gravity, Strong and Weak nuclear force, and electromagnetism...

[bubba]

Einstein's dream-The proof of unification.To prove Hermes statement: "As above,so below."

[Jonathan]

  bubba said:

So we travel back to a Jungian favorite,"Through the Looking Glass" by Lewis Carroll.Jung's favorite quote is when the White Queen says to Alice: "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards".Could our own conciousness that travels at superluminal speeds be responsible for these apparent coincidences? Or is it even possible that no coincidences exist in this larger theatre,of which we only see glimpses.I believe Einstein and Jung saw the same vision.One advanced it in Physics and the other in Psychology.Both,nothwithstanding their ardent empirical backgrounds,recognized the mystical that trancends.

It is the universal that trancends and ties us all together.All in one row boat.

People see what they want to see generally, and I doubt whether even our old genius Jung was immune....

I wonder if what the White Queen was really getting at was that memory should have a causal effect, that influences the future and informs our moral code...or am I just seeing what I want to see?

I'm a boring realist and a cynical atheist unfortunately....no transcendental fun at all!

Interesting stuff Bubba.

Cheers,

Jonathan

[bubba]

Jonathan, Is the glass half empty or full?

[MattyB]

Great discussion guys. I'm almost done with "Einstein, his life and universe". I'm not smart enough to comment or postulate on Einstein's postulates, but I found it interesting that he had a strong belief in God and his science/theorums sitting in a harmonious coexistance, laying in an interwoven fabric of truth, not being mutually exlcusive like many scientists pride themselves in believing today. I belive it's not one or the other, but both, at the same time....or space....or space-time.

[Jonathan]

  bubba said:

Jonathan, Is the glass half empty or full?

Always empty.....but thats cause I drink too much

[_Keith]

  Jonathan said:

  bubba said:

Jonathan, Is the glass half empty or full?

Always empty.....but thats cause I drink too much

Same here, but my career involves disaster preparation, i.e. the glass may be empty but there always several full bottles in reserve. lol.

[Jonathan]

  Palmarati said:

  Jonathan said:

  bubba said:

Jonathan, Is the glass half empty or full?

Always empty.....but thats cause I drink too much

Same here, but my career involves disaster preparation, i.e. the glass may be empty but there always several full bottles in reserve. lol.

Mine involves disaster prevention too....should see some of the houses people want me to draw for them!

And that reminds me - must put some beer in the fridge....

J.

[bubba]

Matty, Socrates questioned every "smart" person he could find and surmised that they were nothing more than self-absorbed.He took great pleasure in taking those people that were assumed to be "average" and leading them to fantastic insights.The mere fact that you would endeavor to dig into such a book shows you are alot further down the trail than most ,in my opinion.

Every so often, our planet is graced with humans of such extraordinary quality, wisdom and intelligence that their acompolishments cannot be ignored.Einstein was one.Although famous for the theroy that created the Atomic bomb, his other insights deraigned from his empirical studies of the symetry of the subatomic structure of matter led him inexorably to mysticism.The absolute perfection in structure at the subatomic and the mere existence of "man" as a being capable of independent reason were too much in the way of coincidence to be ignored from his point of view. The majority never seems to even question the liklihood of our own existence.They miss the forest for the trees.This is my opinion.

Einstein surmised Blackholes and superluminality well before either was proven.If I were picking players for high level thought process,he would be the first off the bench.To overlook his close to the vest conclusions together with his scientific proofs would be asleep at the wheel.This is my opinion.

Sadly to me,the majority of mankind stumbles slowly in no particular direction and with the only apparent motivation of whatever creates the least pain or the most pleasure.Pavlov incarnate.Perhaps this sounds way too high-handed, pompitous and ego-manical but it is just the opposite that I mean.

Jonathan,You and I disagree but I respect your position.Jung was as scientific in his approach as Einstein and I find it personally more than a coincidence that they both wound up in the Mystical weeds.

[_Keith]

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see" -

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/arthur_schopenhauer/Arthur Schopenhauer

[DoomsDave]

Ow, my brain is sore!

[_Keith]

  Dave from So-Cal said:

Ow, my brain is sore!

Is that from hitting the target no one else can hit, hitting the target no one else can see, or just from hitting yourself. lol.

[Jonathan]

  bubba said:

Jonathan,You and I disagree but I respect your position.Jung was as scientific in his approach as Einstein and I find it personally more than a coincidence that they both wound up in the Mystical weeds.

Bubba - I'm glad we can disagree happily on this one....because I'm sure we would agree on a lot of other things! I always enjoy your posts.

I'm not suggesting that Jung was not scientific in his methods - I'm sure he was very thorough - and I have to say I'm not particularly familiar with the finer details of his work. I think what I was getting at (without wanting to turn this into a theological debate) is that even the most brilliant minds can reach the limits of their understanding....and where can you go from there?

The traditional fallback position is the mystical, or god, or whatever other name people have given it over the years - ie. "I can no longer explain beyond this point, so therefore its in the lap of the gods".

Even Einstein, probably the greatest mind of our age, could not get past this point - even he ran out of explanations, so ultimately he looked to his lifelong faith for a solution.

It's totally understandable, and its interesting to note how many other great scientific minds have come to the same kind of conclusion.

One I read about recently was the great mid-20th century English ornithologist David Lack, who revolutionised the study of avian evolution by pointing out that Darwin had suggested that natural selection works on individuals within a species and not on the species itself (as was the theory of the day)....that the survival of the species is a useful by-product of the survival of each individual bird. It dosn't sound like much, but it resulted in a greater understanding of bird behaviour, what makes them tick, and particularly their often bizarre breeding habits. Now Lack was a fervent, even aggressive, Darwinist but, and I quote, "he simply could not imagine that our ethical or moral values could have evolved through natural selection and accordingly considered them a divine gift".

Whats this got do do with Jung and Einstein? - nothing individually, but everything at a generic level, because it's a perfect example of flawed process in scientific thinking....and its ironic that Lack also stated that he thought there were large parts of the puzzle missing. I suspect that Jung and Einstein also knew there were bits missing, but ultimately their ego would not allow them to reveal the shortcomings in their knowledge....so they let it slip into the mystic. Thats my take on it.

Sorry about the monologue!

Cheers,

Jonathan

[bubba]

Jonathan,This is what this Board is all about! If there is disagreement,it is happy disagreement.When I can discuss anything with a Gentleman in Tasmania, I am a happy camper.I understand your point of view better than you would imagine. As you guy's say,Cheers!

[palmmermaid]

I always see the glass as half full. Does that mean I am not a realist? No, I am a realist and often a cynical one. But i still see the glass half full.

I have always found it interesting - and often ignored by some folks - that Eiinstein had no problem with believing in God and in science. I think the more you understand science, the more you are lead to believe in a higher power - call it what you will. One does not negate the other. But many - creationists for example - think that if you believe in God, then Darwin's theory of evolution can't be true.

I agree with Bubba - the average person can never understand Einstein or some of the other great thinkers from the past. But for the ones who try - MattyB - they should be encouraged. We need thinkers and not sheep in this world. Granted slogging through some of the writings is tough but worth it. Read and become enlightened.

[Rusty on Pine Is.]

  Jonathan said:

  bubba said:

So we travel back to a Jungian favorite,"Through the Looking Glass" by Lewis Carroll.Jung's favorite quote is when the White Queen says to Alice: "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards".Could our own conciousness that travels at superluminal speeds be responsible for these apparent coincidences? Or is it even possible that no coincidences exist in this larger theatre,of which we only see glimpses.I believe Einstein and Jung saw the same vision.One advanced it in Physics and the other in Psychology.Both,nothwithstanding their ardent empirical backgrounds,recognized the mystical that trancends.

It is the universal that trancends and ties us all together.All in one row boat.

People see what they want to see generally, and I doubt whether even our old genius Jung was immune....

I wonder if what the White Queen was really getting at was that memory should have a causal effect, that influences the future and informs our moral code...or am I just seeing what I want to see?

I'm a boring realist and a cynical atheist unfortunately....no transcendental fun at all!

Interesting stuff Bubba.

Cheers,

Jonathan

Jonathan, enjoyed reading all of your comments.......and there's nothing boring about your realism....

....but i have always questioned the usual reality paradigm, since it assumes that there is only one reality, and i happen to be one that thinks reality is a sole construct of perception.....

Reality sat upon his throne

And thought that he was all alone

He looked not up

He looked not down

Tho there were other perceptions

All around

He heard no sounds

He smelled no scents

Or what new worlds

They represent

He looked straight ahead

An unwavering view

So his straight ahead world

Was all that he knew

So Reality sat upon his throne,

thinking that he was all alone.....

his straight ahead view, and straight ahead sounds

were all that he saw, and all that he heard

unaware

of a much larger world.

Rusty

[bubba]

Rusty, That is poignant and quite outstanding!Hats off!

[Jonathan]

  bubba said:

Jonathan,This is what this Board is all about! If there is disagreement,it is happy disagreement.When I can discuss anything with a Gentleman in Tasmania, I am a happy camper.I understand your point of view better than you would imagine. As you guy's say,Cheers!

Bubba, I concur!

That is what makes this a special space.

Maybe one day we can share a half full glass of something cold!

Cheers, as we say,

Jonathan

[bubba]

Jonathan, Nothing better than that and perhaps two or three more!