Earlier this year, we were invited to participate in a synchronicity summit at Yale University’s Divinity School.
It sounded interesting, but ultimately we chose not to attend for a couple of reasons. First, we were told it would be closed to the public and there would be no book signing event associated with the symposium. Not a good sign. We were also told that it would consist of 12 hours sitting around a table with academics talking about synchronicity over the weekend event. Sorry, but YUCK!
We’re not from the academic world, and we didn’t really fit in the professorial crowd–although Rob would’ve been happy to lead the group in a yoga class and group meditation–no talking, no thinking! Actually, though, we are happiest sitting at home writing our books, blogging, and going to the gym where we covertly keep an eye out for a Bruce Springsteen appearance.
So now an article has been published about the October synchro summit, and it sounds as if it was a quite a success. A documentary is being made and they are even developing an iPhone synchro app – whatever that is. Dr. Lesley Roy, who is the powerhouse behind the event, has also created an interesting website. We like the home page title, a quote about synchronicity by Carl Jung: “surpasses our power of comprehension…” and wish Lesley and the others well in their endeavors exploring the synchro world.
We're not anti-intellectuals, as you assume, James. We're just willing to point out that traditional science is well behind the curve related to studies of higher consciousness.
Just look at the recent kerfuffle about the publication of minor precognitive abilities in a journal. It's pathetic.
As Dean Radin put it: "The moment theory is allowed to trump observations, science will collapse into a dogmatic religion."
https://deanradin.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-comments-on-alcocks-comments-on-bems.html
James – thanks for identifying yourself and setting that part of the record straight. But you didn't answer any of my questions!
– Trish
The post about the Synchro Project was not from Lesley, but from James Clement van Pelt. Lesley was not involved in the writing.
No more name-calling or defensiveness. Onward.
Leslie, you say on your web site that you want to collect synchronicities ‘as they happen.’ What do you think we’re doing with this blog? We’re not waiting around for science to tell us it’s okay to explore synchronicity and to write about it. We’re doing it.
It seems that you’ve read a lot into this post that isn’t there, so just to set the record straight:
First – you contacted us shortly after our book was published and we agreed to set up a time for a phone conversation. You told us about the synchro summit and asked if we would be interested. We were. After our phone conversation, we never heard from you again until we wrote you asking if the summit was still on. It was and you said you had forgotten to get back to us. You finally sent an invitation – about two weeks before the summit was to begin. From the description, we realized the summit was not for us. ”No book signing” had nothing to do with our reason for not attending. We were being polite. We had no paper to present. We’re storytellers, it’s how we have made our living for nearly 30 years.
We’re interested in how synchronicity impacts people’s lives, how their lives are changed. We’re not agnostics about this topic; we know it exists. During the two years we’ve had this blog, we’ve posted nearly 900 synchros, many of them drawn from the comments on the posts and from emails we receive from readers. There are thousands of comments, anecdotes, and stories from people in more than 160 countries who have experienced synchronicity, who know it’s real, that it exists.
We know that it happens, that it alters lives, saves lives, provides comfort and guidance and warning. We’re not threatened by an academic view. But your academic approach calls for agnosticism until sufficient data is in. What does that mean, exactly? Are you going to place synchronicity under the microscopic lens of a lab setting? Are you going to attempt to conjure synchronicity through some sort of psychological test? Stories and anecdotes are sufficient evidence. The fact that you’ve got an iPhone app suggests that you already know that. Stories reveal patterns and patterns are the basis for synchronicity.
You referred to Jung as “a therapist, not a philosopher.” While he was certainly a therapist, many of Jung’s writings – particularly his autobiography – reveal a profound philosophical mind. You refer to his ideas about synchronicity as “preliminary.” In what sense? Is it preliminary because it wasn’t subjected to academic scrutiny? The beauty of the phenomenon is that it is evolving, expanding, and is not the exclusive domain of any one discipline. It doesn’t belong to academia or science or the arts or the humanities. It belongs to all of them and none of them. It is experienced by ordinary people regardless of cultural, educational, ethnic or religious differences. You might say that synchronicity is equal opportunity, there for all to experience, decipher, understand.
Thanks for coming down from the Ivory Tower and dirtying your hands among the unwashed masses with their magical thinking, Leslie. Trish will follow with a more cogent response.
I'm glad for the opportunity to respond to these comments.
First, the intensity of American anti-intellectualism shown here is breathtaking. It is clear from the beginning of the posts that being intellectual (especially if professionally so) is a dreadfully boring thing that cannot possibly yield anything but "sound and fury signifying nothing."
The fact that some of the great minds alive today focused on the phenomenon of synchronicity gathered together for the first time to exchange views and cross-fertilize each others' perspectives is completely lost, just as that opportunity was lost on the MacGregors because there would be no book-signing, i.e. they would not sell any books. I wonder how many they sold by not coming? (The bookstore just outside the hall stocked books of every author who attended, selling many.)
We find that there are essentially three groups when it comes to synchronicity. There is the group represented here that believes with certainty whatever it cares to about this mysterious phenomenon, and is apparently threatened by anyone who challenges what scientists call their "magical thinking". Then there are the opposite who know with certainty that any meaning in synchronicity must be imagined because there can be no such thing as a meaningful coincidence. This group is threatened by any challenge to their faith that nothing meaningful can come out of randomness, which is central to the construction of an extraordinary coincidence.
Finally there are those in between who have experienced the significance and meaningfulness of synchronicity yet are willing to consider any of the plausible hypotheses: that it is meaningless; that it is communication from the Deity; that it is evidence of a causal frame we cannot perceive, occluded to us yet affecting the connections and relationships that create meaning.
What to do if one is in that “in between” group? One response is to begin a long-term project to explore the phenomenon within the scientific method, remaining "agnostic" about the end result until sufficient data has been developed to support this or that hypothesis, or perhaps one entirely unforeseen.
We began that project with a presentation at the April conference in Tucson called Toward a Science of Consciousness. That began to gather interested parties. We then invited as many of the great minds focused on this subject to gather and share. The interchange enabled us to clarify in some detail the various takes on synchronicity, beginning with Jung's (who coined the term). (Jung’s ideas about synchronicity are very preliminary; he was a therapist, not a philosopher.)
This was a Divinity School project because every religion is in some major way based on faith that extraordinary events have revealed the deep truth around which the religion coalesced. But if "coincidence" must be synonymous with "meaningless", all those events are meaningless, because all of them happen in a synchronistic way, i.e. without human intention or natural causes (as we now understand nature).
We hope to continue by collecting data in a more systematic way, enabling people to record their synchros as they happen; we've started that with a beta version of an iPhone app called Synchro ($2.99–not a moneymaker). We also hope to help form a synchro community that will no doubt overlap with and complement existing communities. As data is collected and anecdotes accumulate, we hope academic publications will result that can challenge the dismissal of synchronicity.
My final point is that the people willing to really consider this phenomenon in a serious way are probably not helping their cause by attacking one another, especially in as snide and disrespectful a way as what appears above. Why aren't we all on the same team? Is the transient pleasure of pulling down intellectuals (smart people–yuck!) worth foregoing the opportunity to support one another and progress toward a deeper understanding that can illuminate the whole world?
did anyone notice anything at all amiss over at the participant bio section of the synchro summit project site? and someone from YALE did the site?????
Rob/Trish,
I especially like this quote from the article you point to in the link;
"Many of us look to synchronicities for inner guidance. Lesley ponders the likelihood of a “synchronistic system” that operates without our conscious involvement, much like the immune system does. Think of it as a sixth or seventh sense. If we could develop this system, it’s entirely possible that humans could evolve into more tolerant, empathetic, and compassionate beings."
"It’s beautiful and meaningful to consider that we’re all connected, especially during the Season of Light. Lesley believes, “The Synchro experience answers the question of our connectivity—vividly, surprisingly, wonderfully, and definitively—making the case for true meaning, for sacred truth. Through such direct spontaneous and highly personal experiences, one acquires skills and hones the insight required to heal self and others".
I think a group hug may be in order…come on Connie,Gypsy,Sansego,lets put all that misunderstanding from 2 posts ago behind us.
Happy Holidays and
Peace /Daz
WV = unallit (I'm sure there is a message in there for all of us.-)
I feel like academia and science are now trying to play catch up to a world in rapid evolution. I laughed at NASA wanting to make a big deal about bacteria possibly opening the door to life on other planets, just as UFO's are being seen, and photographed, daily throughout the world. In the case of synchronicity – you not only explained Jung's phenomenon, but also gave ways of using it in everyday life, and they are just now TALKING about it? Please.
I noticed the article said these folks coined the term 'synchro,' a short-cut that we've used for years. But maybe that means that it's acceptable now in the academic world – though I doubt that synchronicity is widely accepted beyond the hallowed halls of Yale Divinity School.
WV: whoncod – who coined??
I know what you mean about it being tedious sometimes (does sound like a rather ponderous conference) but for me, "Academia" is really just another language, one I've found useful in my own field.
All roads lead to God/dess ,creator, All That Is .
I am thrilled it(synchronicity) is out there being recognised, being discussed etc .I can't help but feel relieved and excited about the way things are going. Even if the Stuffed Shirts are a little behind us hippies. *wink*.
It took a whole weekend for the academics to develop a vocabulary and consider "…the presence of synchronicities in our lives just may show that life has an incredible sense of meaning and purpose.” {Gee, you think? :D)
"…They also wholeheartedly agreed that the study of synchros was a groundbreaking idea whose time had come, one best studied through a multidisciplinary approach."
T&R, you made the right choice to continue to live with synchronicity instead of listening to academics analyze this newly discovered concept that Jung defined 50 years ago.
Good point in the comment above! We all have to do what feels right though. Looks like they have an interesting website.
i was just thinking that all those reasons for not going [which i totally understand] might be the very same reasons to go – to give those boys and girls a little balance in their [professional] lives as only you two could! 😉
will check out the website now!