Re: Synchronocity

indra · Apr 10, 2008

Re: Synchronocity

Hi,

This topic has intrigued me for quite some time and was wondering what other peoples views are on SYNCHRONOCITY & the belief that there is no such thing as coincidence?

Personally: I believe that we attach importance to these events when in fact they are just random, but if I did experience sychronocity uncannily or eerily maybe it would change my mind on this concept?

Regards,

luz · Apr 10, 2008

Hi Indra,

I think that this is very much a matter of personal preference..

You can see the world as completely random. When an extraordinary coincidence happens, you can see it as something that is bound to happen from time to time within this randomness.

Or, you can choose to see meaning in everything that happens around you. However, I've seen people overdo this, as in "isn't it really weird that he likes fish, just like me? we must be soul mates"

But, without overdoing it, you can choose to see everything around you as pregnant with meaning and that could lead you to a richer perception of the world. In my view, if you create more connections, you will find more connections. Your intuition wakes up, so to speak and, in this way, those events and perceptions become meaningful and give you a better understanding of things.

I personally like thinking that everything happens for a reason. From there, it follows that things are not so random and synchronicity exist. That is what I choose to believe. As for the bare, objective truth? I don't think anybody in this world can answer that question with certainty. Or they can. I just don't think that they are necessarily right.

Sparhawk · Apr 10, 2008

IMO, there is no pure randomness in the universe and 'chaos theory' tries to explain this. So, even the more random-like events, have a certain order to them. Re 'synchronicity', excuse the cliché， but the "meaningful coincidence" concept metaphor helps me understand it. So, if you are paying attention, synchronicity happens all around you, all the time.

meng · Apr 10, 2008

There's no doubt in me that creation is synchronized, and that this synchronization can be subjectively observed in every day events.

I also believe that because it's a continual work in progress, there's no completion, so far as we understand completion. That being so, there's no conclusion I can deduce from observation, other than the principles and natural laws, which are at work. I can not tell my future nor my fortune, I can not conclude there is or isn't a God, or whether there is any meaning to the universe at all, much less to me.

If I can learn to be at peace with that, I'll have mastered my life.

fkegan · Apr 10, 2008

SYNCHRONOCITY is another name for coincidence

Hi Indra,
Jung invented the word SYNCHRONOCITY to keep his Western scientific worldview intact although he found the oracle of the I Ching insightful. Technically, there is no difference between Random order or Divine Order-- in either case you don't know how it is ordered or what comes next. It is just a matter of personal belief and self-importance if your not knowing the order shows none exists (randomness) or only God knows (divine order).

Personally, I prefer the middle path--we don't know the order and that says more about us than the deep structure of the universe.

Or in the alternative, there are timing tides in the Solar System and the Galaxy going back to their origins together in the Big Bang. We tend not to notice them the same way that sailors develop 'sea legs' and no longer notice the waves and swells moving their ships up, down and about. So, it is useful to have a technique to visualize those timing tides--like casting the Oracle of the Yi where you can focus your mind upon the timing.

Frank

dobro p · Apr 10, 2008

The so-called meaningful connection between two simultaneous events might be accidental, or it might be part of the order of the universe. If you think of order as a web or net, then a synchronicity might be on one of the lines of the net (in other words, part of God's order, and therefore well and truly meaningful in its connectedness) or it might just be in one of the spaces between the meshes of the net of order - in other words, two events that happen at the same time, look like they're connected, but aren't. An example of the former might be two scientists who discover the same important thing at the same time in different parts of the world. An example of the latter would be if me and my wife go shopping for dinner separately, and each of us brings home a pumpkin in order to make pumpkin pie - something unusual and apparently meaningfully connected, but not actually.

fkegan · Apr 10, 2008

meng said:
There's no doubt in me that creation is synchronized, and that this synchronization can be subjectively observed in every day events.

I also believe that because it's a continual work in progress, there's no completion, so far as we understand completion. That being so, there's no conclusion I can deduce from observation, other than the principles and natural laws, which are at work. I can not tell my future nor my fortune, I can not conclude there is or isn't a God, or whether there is any meaning to the universe at all, much less to me.

If I can learn to be at peace with that, I'll have mastered my life.

Bold added

Meng,
You started out with an insight of Ibn Gabirol --- that creation is continuous like a living fountain, but then I lost you. Rivers have no completion, you can not step in the same river twice, the water there now flows to the sea but the river remains flowing tomorrow anyway. Creation is an eternal continual work and Ibn Gabirol came to the exact opposite conclusion from you, he found that continual Divine Creation an exciting demonstration of God's immanent presence in his life.

Or as Aquinas put it in his ST (2nd first Q 6--if I remember my college chemistry student era citation right): different persons view the same facts or miracle and yet come to different conclusions and faiths. Dawn is just an angular momentum differential equation demonstration; or the daily miracle of God's re-Creation of my world.

Dobro,
When I go out and get the same stuff for dinner as my wife, she thinks I am giving her a hard time and I think it is a "100th monkey" insight in the air phenomenon.

The web of connections you speak of is like the Tai Chi where both the strands and the interstitial open spaces are just different colors (material in Ibn Gabirol) of the same form and can and do turn into one another as time goes by-- from the eyes of causation to the swirls to the final form contained by the outer circumference.

Frank

meng · Apr 10, 2008

fkegan said:
Bold added

Meng,
You started out with an insight of Ibn Gabirol --- that creation is continuous like a living fountain, but then I lost you. Rivers have no completion, you can not step in the same river twice, the water there now flows to the sea but the river remains flowing tomorrow anyway. Creation is an eternal continual work and Ibn Gabirol came to the exact opposite conclusion from you, he found that continual Divine Creation an exciting demonstration of God's immanent presence in his life.

I simply make no such assumption that Creation is divine, apart from man's inspired imagination. Creation may be self evident, with no demonstration of anything. God may be likewise. How would I know?

Sparhawk · Apr 10, 2008

fkegan said:
Dobro,
When I go out and get the same stuff for dinner as my wife, she thinks I am giving her a hard time and I think it is a "100th monkey" insight in the air phenomenon.

Still? After all those years?? Geeze... You are not painting a nice picture for me, 21 years into my marriage... :rofl:

Trojina · Apr 11, 2008

So called 'synchronicity' has to be a matter of perspective i think. IOW the idea of synchronicity is dependant on the illusion of seperateness. If i had a very peculiar perspective about my own body, did not sense it as one whole, I might think it strange and 'synchronistic' that i reached for food when i was hungry and there it was.

I don't know if that makes sense but i know what i mean.

Hmm so if Dobro and his wife rather than being utterly seperate disparate individual consciousnesses are really way more part of one another - indeed are each other then it would be no surprise at all that they buy the same thing for dinner. They are vibrationally in tune with one another (hopefully) as they are married but sometimes we seem to be occupying the same wave band of those we think are strangers or events we think are strangers

I experience myself and life as a seperate individual but lots of things tend to point to this out to be a very robust illusion. I think these 'things' are what we call synchronistic events - events that reveal we're actually not completely unconnected cogs but all part of the same clock

:rofl:

I know what i mean anyhow

Sparhawk · Apr 11, 2008

trojan said:
I know what i mean anyhow

Good!! The alternative would be disturbing... :rofl:

BTW, it is Frank's wife giving him a hard time for being a copycat...

Women...

Trojina · Apr 11, 2008

sparhawk said:
BTW, it is Frank's wife giving him a hard time for being a copycat... Women...

Good, then she is doing her job ! It is a womans duty to give a man a hard time. It says so somewhere in the Yi Jing - can't think what line it is now

(BTW I was referring in the first post to Dobros pumpkin pie episode)

Sparhawk · Apr 11, 2008

trojan said:
It says so somewhere in the Yi Jing - can't think what line it is now

Just about every other yin line??

meng · Apr 11, 2008

trojan said:
Good, then she is doing her job ! It is a womans duty to give a man a hard time. It says so somewhere in the Yi Jing - can't think what line it is now

hmm, I think that's 44.7?

fkegan · Apr 11, 2008

What we see and what is there to be seen?

sparhawk said:
Still? After all those years?? Geeze... You are not painting a nice picture for me, 21 years into my marriage...

Well, Luis, though I am now 60, I'm only married a few more years than you (1985). As to the dinner menu magic, it is just another example that the same experience can have totally different reactions to it, not because the experience is different, but only that each person gets to draw their own conclusions.

My wife's reaction is more that I don't keep my cell phone on or even with me, and she would have preferred I called while I was at the store. And if I were thinking straight and responsibly I would, so I agree with her too. But the example still works. Yes, guys, you all picked up on that. Thanks.

As to women giving men a hard time, that is only in the Yi literally and that would be hex 39 or maximizing sexual desire but that is its own thread. What gets noticed as giving men a hard time as a duty is Yin as open space which attracts Yang eager to expand itself into every available corner which tends to lead to Yang's expectations getting bruised in the overextension with that extra bit of reality, that is what feels like a hard time and of course the bruised Yang tends to blame someone else about it, especially the woman in the background who is supporting his expanded self.

Trojan, I haven't heard that kind of 'upper level' discussion since I was in California in the '70's. Synchronicity is actually a term Jung made up to avoid facing the occult reality of divination. So, he invented a scientific sounding term for things connected in time (throwing coins at the same time you seek an answer to a question) as mechanical physics dealt with things connected in space by force (f=ma). He was a 19th century kind of guy with prejudice about Eastern stuff. He cast the Yi oracle, but he insisted on keeping it contained in Western notions lest he got too far out on the limb.

Meng,

I simply make no such assumption that Creation is divine, apart from man's inspired imagination. Creation may be self evident, with no demonstration of anything. God may be likewise. How would I know?

.

It is assumed that since creation in general is not human, it must be divine, otherwise there are powerful aliens about which is a scary thought. Creation and God not really 'know' stuff but feeling stuff. The idea is that those who feel major awe and such in a sunset or Creation call that feeling divine since it gives you a new and very powerful friend you can ask to help you out.

Frank

meng · Apr 11, 2008

fkegan said:
Meng,
.

It is assumed that since creation in general is not human, it must be divine, otherwise there are powerful aliens about which is a scary thought. Creation and God not really 'know' stuff but feeling stuff. The idea is that those who feel major awe and such in a sunset or Creation call that feeling divine since it gives you a new and very powerful friend you can ask to help you out.

Frank

It is "assumed that since creation is not human, it must be divine"? Where did you get this logic from? Assumed by whom? Not by me.

As for awe and inspiration, I entirely agree.

From an old ditty:

Last night I watched the sun set just for me,
although I know it sets for no one.
I had to cry out "Sun, I love you so!
I love you though you'll never know."

I don't claim to know, and I won't dare to assume.

Tohpol · Apr 11, 2008

meng said:
I don't claim to know, and I won't dare to assume.

Nice. Like it. Could be a good catchphrase....

Topal

fkegan · Apr 11, 2008

Conclusions come from the heart

meng said:
It is "assumed that since creation is not human, it must be divine"? Where did you get this logic from? Assumed by whom? Not by me.

As for awe and inspiration, I entirely agree.

From an old ditty:

Last night I watched the sun set just for me,
although I know it sets for no one.
I had to cry out "Sun, I love you so!
I love you though you'll never know."

I don't claim to know, and I won't dare to assume.

Assumptions aren't really all that daring.

They are generally considered essential to getting on with one's life as proven facts turn out to be not very real or much of facts either.

If you accept that the world exists (it is one of the smaller assumptions required to share reality); it all came from somewhere and if you won't dare to assume it is from the benevolent Divine then you must logically accept that it may all be a clever trap by a malevolent alien intelligence just about to get YOU.

Just too high maintenance for me.

However, if you want to just go with the "I don't claim to know" line then you get door number 2, the Buddhist origin of the universe. First there is ignorance, which we know nothing more about. Then there is human fear reacting to ignorance which causes defense mechanisms such as expectations and expected assumptions and even expectations that one can avoid assumptions by various forms of denial. Then each and all of these cause a life of suffering when reality goes bump in the night both scaring us and thwarting our expectations some more.

Imagine a gentle, Divine with a Father Sun that does know we love and appreciate it, and is a pretty good fellow all around. Then deal with the negative stuff that comes after you then as just an intrusion upon your peaceful life.

Just easier with a Taoist-type approach, assume what is convenient and enjoy the best scenario you can manage and be flexible about adjusting to inevitable necessities. Then you find all sorts of little syncronicities to entertain you or puzzle you or play with you and life is more fun.

Frank

Trojina · Apr 11, 2008

fkegan said:
.

Trojan, I haven't heard that kind of 'upper level' discussion since I was in California in the '70's. Synchronicity is actually a term Jung made up to avoid facing the occult reality of divination. So, he invented a scientific sounding term for things connected in time (throwing coins at the same time you seek an answer to a question) as mechanical physics dealt with things connected in space by force (f=ma). He was a 19th century kind of guy with prejudice about Eastern stuff. He cast the Yi oracle, but he insisted on keeping it contained in Western notions lest he got too far out on the limb.

Frank

What is an "upper level discussion" ? Somehow i doubt very much that I have uttered something that has not been heard anywhere, at least by you, since the 70s lol but if i have i want to know about it !

As for the Jung stuff, yes i know synchronicity is a term Jung invented to avoid (kind of) recognising the oracle as a specific intelligence, though it was probably a wise move on his part at the time if it stopped people dismissing the Yi out of hand. However just because someone invents a word doesn't stop that word gathering its own momentum and being used in everyday speech which i think the word 'synchronicity' has. IOW regardless of the origin of the word 'synchronicity' as a concept can now be discussed perfectly well without any reference to Jung or taking on board Jungs theories, just as we use Freudian terms like projection/denial all the time without having to take on board Freuds entire theoretical framework - and thank goodness for that.

martin · Apr 11, 2008

fkegan said:
Synchronicity is actually a term Jung made up to avoid facing the occult reality of divination. So, he invented a scientific sounding term for things connected in time (throwing coins at the same time you seek an answer to a question) as mechanical physics dealt with things connected in space by force (f=ma). He was a 19th century kind of guy with prejudice about Eastern stuff. He cast the Yi oracle, but he insisted on keeping it contained in Western notions lest he got too far out on the limb.

Where did you get that idea?

Jung indeed tried to be scientific in the Western sense but he had an open mind and was well aware of phenomena that traditional Western science cannot deal with. He had visions, he practiced astrology, etc.
As he became older his openness only increased.

Jung was a bridgebuilder, sort of, he tried to connect East and West, but that doesn't mean that he tried to 'contain' anything. I don't think he did, except perhaps when he was still quite young and a bit overwhelmed by all the odd things that he experienced.

Jung's 'official' work is perhaps somewhat misleading in this respect. You have to read his letters, the stories of his patients, what he told Aniela Jaffé (published in 'Memories, Dreams, Reflections') etc. to see what kind of man he really was and what he really thought. Behind the scientific mask.

Sparhawk · Apr 11, 2008

Throwing monkey wrenches at fate...

http://chaostheorymovie.warnerbros.com/

Tohpol · Apr 11, 2008

martin said:
Where did you get that idea? Jung indeed tried to be scientific in the Western sense but he had an open mind and was well aware of phenomena that traditional Western science cannot deal with. He had visions, he practiced astrology, etc.
As he became older his openness only increased.

Jung was a bridgebuilder, sort of, he tried to connect East and West, but that doesn't mean that he tried to 'contain' anything. I don't think he did, except perhaps when he was still quite young and a bit overwhelmed by all the odd things that he experienced.

Jung's 'official' work is perhaps somewhat misleading in this respect. You have to read his letters, the stories of his patients, what he told Aniela Jaffé (published in 'Memories, Dreams, Reflections') etc. to see what kind of man he really was and what he really thought. Behind the scientific mask.

I thought Jung was an absolute genius. A true blend of science and mysticism. He really tapped into some eternal truths - at least some truths which were and are digestible for our feeble minds at this level of perception.

Then again, that kind of genius can also be tainted with dollop of craziness. Didn't Jung think he was another virtual messiah? More than likely. Sometimes happens with such creative individuals, they can so easily slip into self-importance with all that knowledge....

As to synchronicity I think they run on an almost mathematical program - a fractal replication process that is responsive to our thoughts and actions, like little ripples coming back to us when we drop our thought forms in the quantum ocean. I think they can be pretty neutral but we imbue them with meaning. That's not to say we can't have synchronicities which have a neatly gift-wrapped "message" but more often than not I think they just exist in much the same way ripples exist in a pond.

I think we can also create them to fit our perceptual reality, to seemingly confirm something we desperately want and then to assume this "sign" is aligned to our wishes. "But then I saw her name on a box at that precise moment and I knew it meant I should call her!"

The number of times I had that experience and then realised it was absolutely the wrong decision. I think there is a good deal of evidence that benevolent "coincidences" have a gentle playful quality about them and the ones that come about from your own wish to force reality into a bottle seem to be somewhat cumbersome and hackneyed.

I once heard a song on the radio that precisely described the relationship problem I was having right down to my then girlfriend's name and nationality. This was after a phonecall discussion about whether or not I should move in with her and move to another country. I then proceeded to open a book only to find that I was staring at her name in the middle of the page.

So, of course, from those little "signs" I took that to be an affirmative. Yet the relationship was not successful in the end. But I did learn a great deal. Was it wrong to listen to those signs? Do synchronicities mean something rosy in store or just pointers for more learning in terms of what you need rather than what you want? Or can they be just a product of your desires? Probably all the above.

I'd quite like to hear about some notable synchs. if anyone cares to share....

Topal

meng · Apr 11, 2008

Frank, your logic is so twisted and biased, I'm not going to bother further with this.

Tohpol · Apr 11, 2008

fkegan said:
It is assumed that since creation in general is not human, it must be divine, otherwise there are powerful aliens about which is a scary thought. Creation and God not really 'know' stuff but feeling stuff. The idea is that those who feel major awe and such in a sunset or Creation call that feeling divine since it gives you a new and very powerful friend you can ask to help you out.

I think there's a distinct possibility there are indeed powerful "aliens." Sometimes the Divine is scary no?!

Topal

dobro p · Apr 11, 2008

meng said:
Frank, your logic is so twisted and biased, I'm not going to bother further with this.

So, Frank is comfortable enough with the idea of a divine universe to proceed as if it were so, and you're not comfortable enough with the idea of a divine universe to assume that's the way it is. Big deal. Whatever you think of his logic (and all attempts to reason out the existence of God are doomed to failure), his position is as common and ordinary as anything can be - lots of people believe in God.

One of my favorite stories is about what Thomas Aquinas had to say about all his philosophizing and all the books he'd written, after he'd had his opening up, his shift of consciousness, his mystical experience (I use 'mystical' in the technical sense of the word, not the modern degraded meaning) - he said that all those words about the divine were just noise compared to the EXPERIENCE of the divine. And if I'm not mistaken, he pretty much stopped writing books after that. To me, that story says something like: "Talk about it all you want, think about it, write about it, have disagreements and even wars about it, but when you actually TASTE it, you'll know. Until then, you know nothing."

meng · Apr 11, 2008

dobro said:
So, Frank is comfortable enough with the idea of a divine universe to proceed as if it were so, and you're not comfortable enough with the idea of a divine universe to assume that's the way it is. Big deal. Whatever you think of his logic (and all attempts to reason out the existence of God are doomed to failure), his position is as common and ordinary as anything can be - lots of people believe in God.

One of my favorite stories is about what Thomas Aquinas had to say about all his philosophizing and all the books he'd written, after he'd had his opening up, his shift of consciousness, his mystical experience (I use 'mystical' in the technical sense of the word, not the modern degraded meaning) - he said that all those words about the divine were just noise compared to the EXPERIENCE of the divine. And if I'm not mistaken, he pretty much stopped writing books after that. To me, that story says something like: "Talk about it all you want, think about it, write about it, have disagreements and even wars about it, but when you actually TASTE it, you'll know. Until then, you know nothing."

Big deal indeed. I haven't stated my beliefs, nor measured anyone according to their own. I happen to "believe" in divinity, God, bodhisattvas, miracles and magic. But I don't confuse my personal beliefs with the facts, of which I know little, if anything, about.

fkegan · Apr 11, 2008

Synchronicity and other things...

Dobro,
I agree, one's experience is all that matters. Once you accept that the world exists, then you are stuck dealing with its nature and origin, which requires assumptions based upon your experience and interests. Whether you see in that evil divinities, powerful aliens, empty silence, a playful Yi spirit or a father-figure divinity is all a matter of personal choice and taste. Getting hung up about it is also a clear indication of inner turmoil.

My favorite story of ole Thom was that a brother monk played a trick on him, going to the window and exclaiming, a donkey is flying through the clouds! Thom, a beefy man in life, jumped up and made his way to the window to see the sight. As he searched, all his brother monks laughed at him. He replied, "I prefer to believe an ass could fly, then my brother would lie."
I'm pretty sure the famous incident you cite was on his deathbed which was the only reason he didn't publish anything after that.

Martin,
What is a discussion of Synchronicity without comments on Jung? In his famous forward to the Wilhelm, Jung treats his Yi oracle as a Turing Test and judges the Wilhelm text to be the expression of a sane, humanoid intelligence.

My remarks came from the story I heard in Europe that personally Jung stated that a Westerner who went wholly into Eastern ways was like someone who climbed a very tall, strong Oak, sat upon one of its highest branches and sawed that branch off from the mighty trunk.

At the time, I noted that was a very Newtonian notion, that gravity ruled everything. In contrast the Taoist answer would be: OK, and having sawed free of that heavy anchor, he would be able to fly on his tree branch wherever he wished to soar, taking what he was comfortable of his Western traditions (his branch).
Even today, I love that interchange and its imagery.

Trojan,
Speaking of the old days, my reference Trojan, was to the general remarks that emerged then from clouds of hemp smoke with the realization of monad perspective rather than standard Western dualism. The philosophy involved is indeed ancient and eternal and discussed throughout the decades including last century, now and next century. One of the attributes of a Buddha is not to experience separation from others any more, and thus the suffering of humanity is felt as personal suffering. Hopefully, that experience doesn't require attaining Nirvana nowadays.

Frank

meng · Apr 11, 2008

If you really want to awaken a fresh sense of awe, try believing with all your heart and all your might your deepest and truest convictions, while you confess, that you really don't know a god damned thing. Then what comes is always a surprise.

fkegan · Apr 11, 2008

Is "It's a mystery" really the ultimate?

meng said:
If you really want to awaken a fresh sense of awe, try believing with all your heart and all your might your deepest and truest convictions, while you confess, that you really don't know a god damned thing. Then what comes is always a surprise. [and] But I don't confuse my personal beliefs with the facts, of which I know little, if anything, about.

I can appreciate much of your sentiment above, though I don't personally need that extra jolt of trying so hard to believe that everything is forever a surprise.

My quibble would be with the exalted status you give to "facts" which originally were just what actually had happened [and thus could not be changed or denied]. At least since 1984 (from 1950 for a first bit of fact warping), facts are just personal beliefs in official publications.

Remove that distinction between facts and personal beliefs and we are all in the same boat.

Frank

meng · Apr 11, 2008

fkegan said:
I can appreciate much of your sentiment above, though I don't personally need that extra jolt of trying so hard to believe that everything is forever a surprise.

Frank

"The idea is that those who feel major awe and such in a sunset or Creation call that feeling divine since it gives you a new and very powerful friend you can ask to help you out.

Frank"

Make up your mind, Frank.

Re: Synchronocity

visitor

visitor

One of those men your mother warned you about...

meng

Guest

(deceased)

visitor

(deceased)

meng

Guest

One of those men your mother warned you about...

Supporter

One of those men your mother warned you about...

Supporter

One of those men your mother warned you about...

meng

Guest

(deceased)

meng

Guest

Supporter

(deceased)

Supporter

(deceased)

One of those men your mother warned you about...

Supporter

meng

Guest

Supporter

visitor

meng

Guest

(deceased)

meng

Guest

(deceased)

meng

Guest