Synchronicity: Difference between revisions
From Cibernética Americana
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
The astrology case shows the defined thing in its pure form, where meaning is produced in a manner similar to [[:en:pareidolia|<span style="background-color: white;">pareidolia</span>]] whereas the interpersonal communication in the Rhine experiments and Swendenborg's knowlege of the fire in Stockholm are actually evidence of some as yet unknown causal principle effecting the communication (imo). So these latter are only provisionally and without examination synchronistic in contrast to the type case of the astrology data. | The astrology case shows the defined thing in its pure form, where meaning is produced in a manner similar to [[:en:pareidolia|<span style="background-color: white;">pareidolia</span>]] whereas the interpersonal communication in the Rhine experiments and Swendenborg's knowlege of the fire in Stockholm are actually evidence of some as yet unknown causal principle effecting the communication (imo). So these latter are only provisionally and without examination synchronistic in contrast to the type case of the astrology data. | ||
In a long chapter on religion and eastern culture, Jung discusses the principle in relation to those ways of thinking to in the end reject them in favor of modern rationalism.<ref>''Synchronicity'', C.G.Jung, 3rd ¶ from end of Ch. 3:<blockquote>"The idea of synchronicity and of a self-subsistent meaning, which forms the basis of classical Chinese thinking and of the naïve views of the Middle Ages, seems to us an archaic assumption that ought at all costs to be avoided. Though the West has done everything possible to discard this antiquated hypothesis, it has not quite succeeded. ... It was modern psychology and parapsychology which proved that causality does not explain a certain class of events and that in this case we have to consider a format factor, namely synchronicity, as a principle of explanation."</blockquote></ref> | In a long chapter on religion and eastern culture, Jung discusses the principle in relation to those ways of thinking to in the end reject them in favor of modern rationalism.<ref>''Synchronicity'', C.G.Jung, 3rd ¶ from end of Ch. 3:<blockquote>"The idea of synchronicity and of a self-subsistent meaning, which forms the basis of classical Chinese thinking and of the naïve views of the Middle Ages, seems to us an archaic assumption that ought at all costs to be avoided. Though the West has done everything possible to discard this antiquated hypothesis, it has not quite succeeded. ... It was modern psychology and parapsychology which proved that causality does not explain a certain class of events and that in this case we have to consider a format factor, namely synchronicity, as a principle of explanation."</blockquote></ref> Elsewhere, Jung has made clear that he has introduced the principle partially in response to issues that are raised with respect to causality in physics which he had been able to discuss with figures of his time such as Einstein. | ||
