Recently, I wandered into the skeptic’s dictionary out of curiosity to see what they had to say about synchronicity. Basically, folks, they’re telling those of us who accept and pursue meaningful coincidences in our lives that we’re deluded or crazy. Let me quote from the dictionary.
“What reasons are there for accepting synchronicity as an explanation for anything in the real world? What it explains is more simply and elegantly explained by the ability of the human mind to find meaning and significance where there is none (apophenia).
“Jung’s defense of acausal connections is so inane I hesitate to repeat it. He argues that “acausal phenomena must exist…since statistics are only possible anyway if there are also exceptions” (1973, Letters, 2:426).
“He asserts that “…improbable facts exist–otherwise there would be no statistical mean…” (ibid.: 2:374). Finally, he claims that “the premise of probability simultaneously postulates the existence of the improbable” (ibid. : 2:540). However, if you think of all the pairs of things that can happen in a person’s lifetime, and add to that our very versatile ability of finding meaningful connections between things, it then seems likely that most of us will experience many meaningful coincidences. The coincidences are predictable but we are the ones who give them meaning.”
***
I love that last line. Should someone else apply meaning or no meaning to our coincidences? Are we not worthy of making decisions about our own experiences? The message is that we should not trust our own thoughts or perceptions if we find meaning in coincidental or mysterious happenings in our lives. In other words, the proper and scientific thing to do is to ignore and dismiss coincidences. The inverse, of course, is that it’s okay to apply no meaning.
The writer continues:
“Even if there were a synchronicity between the mind and the world such that certain coincidences resonate with transcendental truth, there would still be the problem of figuring out those truths. What guide could one possibly use to determine the correctness of an interpretation? There is none except intuition and insight, the same guides that led Jung’s teacher, Sigmund Freud, in his interpretation of dreams. The concept of synchronicity is but an expression of apophenia.”
The Skeptic’s Dictionary concludes with a comment that Jung went through a period of mental illness when he was exploring these concepts. The implication: he was crazy and so are we!
Reading over the edited manuscript of Synchronicity and the Other Side, I came across a quote from William James that we included, one that seems to fit this post.
“There is no source of deception in the investigation of nature which can compare with a fixed belief that certain kinds of phenomenon are impossible.”
Well said, Clarity…with much clarity!
It is not about us vs. them. It is about finding the truth. But is there one single truth? And who has the proper tool to see it? The only truth there is is that we see reality through the filer called our perception. Dismissing intuition is like dismissing part of that filter. Calling science a perfect tool to see and describe reality is just as wrong. Science is not a perfect tool to describe reality. It has it's strengths and flaws. I was trained in science so I couldn't help noticing! Science accepts case stories and placebo effect but it doesn't accept the most incredible synchronicities. On the other hand, many things are labeled synchronicity that may not be so. But again ..why not be open and join hands and learn from eachother instead? The truth probably isn't science alone – or synchronicity alone – but a combination because these two are not separated. They are two ways of seeing what is out there (or in there actually). The question is how open we will allow ourselves to be and how willingly we will be to combine our common knowledge.
Last night, I bought "The Twelfth Insight", which is the fourth book in "The Celestine Prophecy" series. Although his writing style leaves a lot to be desired, I'm more interested in the spiritual insights. So far, it looks like this one is about how to stay in the synchronistic flow and increase your chances of having more meaningful coincidences. I'm excited to read this one!
wv: osimi (oh see me?)
All i know is what the world shows me and lately it's been showing me phenomenon~mystically connections and bliss….If "crazy" is what this is ~ I'll take it!! Crazy is fine as long as it doesn't hurt anyone right? 🙂
Sansego, well said. Great story about the atheist, who is told there was no life, it was her mind making it up. Wow! What a conundrum.
Alek, love your little trickster icon.
What a bunch of comments. The best way to check for yourself whether there is something behind those "signs" (if they look significant, like those "big" dreams) is to be really aware of them and skeptically ask: "Is there really a message behind them? No way!" If you are on some kind of transition, they will become increasingly bizarre. I would like to be a skeptic myself, but it's kind of too late. Sometimes I would like to stop "flying" (no one has forced me to read Jung's books), but I can't.
I'm glad you posted on this topic, as I've been "battling" with a friend of mine who is adamant about living life by pure scientific reason. He sounds like these skeptics and their dictionary. When I tell him that he does not have to accept anything that I say, that he can experiment in his own life and see what happens. When you open yourself up to the universe, amazing things happen!
I've had so many strange coincidences that the idea that my mind is filtering it to make meaning where none exists is a huge stretch. Its the whole idea of monkeys on a 100 typewriters eventually producing a Shakespeare play in full. If such an event were to happen, you can bet that it wasn't some fluke. There would be a trickster synchronicity behind such a phenomenon!
I once read about an atheist's Near Death Experience. The former atheist who had "died" did not experience the white light at the end of the tunnel or see loved ones in heaven or meet a beloved spiritual leader. This person was in a "void" and only heard voices saying that she never existed. That she made every thing up. That there was nothing. She kept arguing with the voice, including telling the voice that there was no way her mind could have created some of the people she loved in life or experienced some of the things she got to experience. When she came back, she realized that was her hell: non-existence.
Skeptics might think we're mentally ill, but I really think that a lot of people who are diagnosed "mentally ill" might actually not be. I think the schizophernics who hear voices might actually be hearing voices of earth-bound spirits, but unfortunately, they are treated by psychiatrists who dismiss any supernatural explanation in favour of the cold hard science, so they are institutionalized or stigmatized when they shouldn't be. All they need to understand is that just because they hear voices telling them to do something, they don't have to do it.
Like someone said above, I also feel sorry for die hard skeptics. To live life without any kind of faith in something, to require proof before you believe or act is the equivalent of jumping on the bandwagon when it becomes safe to do so. Life is about taking risks and spiritual risks are the best ones to take!
wv: prera
Friedrich Nietzsche…"The higher we soar, the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly."
wv = hoble
teehee.
You're back, Gypsy! Hope your computer pro0blems are straightened out!
without repetition, i can add but very little here – so – i will just say again, thank you macgregors, for another lesson in tolerance and patience and tolerance…..
and goodnight, friends –
To end my day, I leave with a few insightful quotes from the unequalled Dr. Albert Einstein:
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science."
"The process of scientific discovery, in effect, is a continual flight from wonder."
"Most people say it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong; it is Character."
And finally, "All religions, arts, and sciences are branches of the same tree."
Good night, everyone. Blessings.
Without science, we would be groping in the dark. And without the ability to wonder, to be mystified, to question and push against the parameters of science, we would groping in the dark, too.
Perfectly stated, lauren and butternut!
I just read all of that and now I feel very tired. I love science, but I am also enchanted by what it has yet to explain. Our ability to see connections is what compels us to question leads us to discovery.
Wow, this post sure got a lot of people going! Very interesting comments, and a thoughtful post. Thanks to the MacGregors and to all. I agree that this phenomena demonstrates the quontum idea – you see or experience what your paradigm permits you to experience. I notice lots of synchronicities because I'm tuned to noticing them, in fact, I experience them, as author Paolo Cohelho commented, as "signs" that lead me to a more meaningful life experience, just as dreams might do. But I've found it useless to try to argue synchronicities, or mystical experiences, with people whose minds are closed.
Nats, I was thinking the same thing after going over and reading that site. It was very informative.
You nailed it, Nat. And the time!
Synchro certainly. I read your comment, checked out the site and had to go out briefly. I just ducked down to the shops and a car pulled into my lane. It's number plate was BPD. Borderline Personality Disorder.
The time wa 11:11 a.m.
wv = wingsh
wings. Very pertinent to my email.
Right after reading Connie's last comment, I clicked one of the faces of our followers, then immediately click one the sites she follows.
Here's what came up. Kind of synchronous.
https://lifepsychologyandalotmore.blogspot.com/
wv: paste
(which i did)
I no longer consider Paul a skeptic or even a debunker. He doesn't fit the definition of either. I have nothing further to say on the subject of this person, or to this person. Ever.
WV: "impead:
Not-Dr. Paul makes more confusion by implying that science = skepticism.
The 2 are not the same. Skepticism negates until proven otherwise. Not all scientists are skeptics. He does science a great disservice. He's probably been confronted by scientists for doing so, which may be one reason why he has to keep his identity secret.
Well said, Brizdaz!!
Skeptics are like the people sitting around a swimming pool,watching the people they are skeptical about splash around and have a good time,while wondering if science can prove that they're actually having a good time,before they will ever think of getting involved.
I say,be your own Guinea Pig and prove it for yourself.If you jump in and find things aren't so good in the pool,you can always get out,but if you're going to wait for science to confirm that those people are having a good time,then you might never be one of them.
Treat life as your own experiment.
I don't mean to carry this on about Paul. But I think it's important to note that he denies his own experiences when he's confronted with them.
This could be why he has such a difficult time dealing with experience as a means to understanding reality, why he insists on 'proof,' why he keeps coming back to a place that is so alien to his perception of reality, where he will find no proof in his terms.
No doubt he'll go back to spamming us with skeptic sites and a hodgepodge of others, signing us up for anything and everything. He wants to show how 'dangerous' it is to reveal your e-mail to the 'other side.' Very strange behavior, especially since he has his logical,reasoning, supposedly well-meaning side.
Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust – we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.
~~Albert Einstein
Some of us just have a good ear for pipe music. 🙂
Dishonest transient?
Well, lucky me coming in after that!
Ummmmm……
I'm the same as DPage. INFJ, and I support scientific proof as well.Unfortunately, I am also a proponent of experiential evidence which sometimes can be a fleeting thing.
The problem as I see it is that 'science' is too busy looking for miniscule data repetition, and ignoring the fact that 'perception' is an area that they really can't quantify to their satisfaction. I think it is just a case of the scientific community haven't yet come to grips with the fact that psi phenomena is real, it can't be quantified by obsolete methods. This is where visionaries come in, without them we would all still be in a cave. No Da Vinci, no Einstein, no Brian Weiss, no Dean Radin et al. There has to be growth and evolution of your current mindset, before you guys will ever 'measure' it.
Before Paul goes back into his own whacky world, I must remind him yet again, and hope that this will not be deleted by the MacGregors, that you, yourself, Paul, on this forum last week, instructed everyone on this blog, listing our screen names in a vertical line in your comment instructions, beginning with Gypsy and ending with 3322mathaddict, to go to the skeptic sites and post our REAL names, our EMAIL ADDRESSES,and other personal information. You posted this demand not once but five times. Rob did precisely as YOU demanded that he do. He went to the skeptic sites with his real name, email address, the whole nine yeards as demanded by YOU. Now you return and chide him as being petty and childish for following YOUR instructions? Do you not see something wrong with this picture? I can't help but wonder if the well-published author and debunker, 90+year-old Paul Kurtz, would consider you one of his prize pupils and disciples and even namesakes, or simply a rabble-rouser and as you just admitted: confused? Good night, my name is Paul.
You're a liar and you're done here.
@MacGregors: I didn't write that.
And even if I did, what does it have to do with the present discussion? Why do you always change the subject when I disagree with you?
Can't we have a civil debate here? It's an interesting topic, why are you so unwilling to discuss it?
Oh, that's right. It wasn't an email. You hide that. So here's the full comment, just to jar your memory, paul. With your name signed to it. It's under the UFO post:
Well, well, well…I was surfing some of my favorite web sites tonight, and what do I find? It seems that a certain Rob MacGregor has been visiting a number of skeptic forums and posting nonsense there about aliens. Really, Rob, did you think it was a good idea to post there using your real name and contact information, and even link back here to your blog? Surely you must have known that some folks there wouldn't take kindly to such nonsense. And really, don't you think it's a bit petty and childish to behave like that?
Well, perhaps now you can understand why I prefer to stay anonymous when I visit sites where my views are so deeply in the minority, and where folks are clearly unwilling to accept differing points of view. I sure hope they didn't hurt your delicate feelings too badly, Rob. And you should be more careful about posting your email address like that. There are unscrupulous people out there who might misuse it.
Yours truly,
Paul
February 9, 2011 10:25 PM
@MacGregors: Ummm…Huh?
Confused.
Paul
Here's Paul playing the us vs. them card.
>>It seems that a certain Rob MacGregor has been visiting a number of skeptic forums and posting nonsense there about aliens. Really, Rob, did you think it was a good idea to post there using your real name and contact information, and even link back here to your blog? Surely you must have known that some folks there wouldn't take kindly to such nonsense. And really, don't you think it's a bit petty and childish to behave like that?
***
Time to put Paul back to bed. – R
Actually, you seem to know more about us versus them. When people don't agree with you or delete your comments you sign them up at sites they never visit…well, you know all this. Perhaps I should copy the vaguely threatening email you sent us, my name is paul. You know, have it out here in the pubic domain.
– Trish
@MacGregors: There's that "us vs them" mentality again. Science considered it "an old wive's tale" until it was proven. That doesn't mean science was wrong – it just means science didn't accept it without hard evidence. I would rephrase that Kary Mullis quote as "The history of science is that science worked its collective butt off to prove itself wrong, then got it right."
@3322mathaddict: I understand the point you're trying to make, but your analogy breaks down because it isn't the "experience" of H1N1 that confirms its existance – the data comes from verifiable testing for the virus RNA. Without that, you just have 600,000 people with symptoms of a bad cold.
But of course, the WHO did accept symptomatic reports as if they were confirmed H1N1 cases, which is why the outbreak was so vastly overestimated – which contributed to worldwide panic over a strain of influenza that really wasn't all that different from any other. If nothing else, that's a good example of how the use of unverified data has negative consequences.
Thank you, MacGregors.
Connie, thousands of meteorites strike Earth annually, but science considered the idea that rocks fall from the sky an old wife's tale until the mid-19th century.
As Kary Mullis, winner of the Nobel Prize in chemistry, noted, the history of science is that science is always wrong.
I highly recommend Mullis' book, Dancing Naked in the Mind Field.
Question: if 6000 people, or 600,000 people,in several world countries who "experience" H1N1influenza is not considered data, because an individual himself or herself has NOT experienced the strain of H1N1 influenza virus, does that one person's lack of experiencing it negate the experiences of the 600,000 persons who DO experience the virus? And if those 600,000 people who experience H1N1 do not create data, how does the WHO (World health Organization) determine and declare that an influenza outbreak is a pandemic? Just trying to comprehend the scientific mindset that is used to determine the existence of "data"? Do not mistake this question as an argument. It is a good and simple inquiry.
Without "faith", the human species would never have made the giant leaps in technology that it has made. Everything….Everything….that manifests in the material world, has first had its origin in the mind of an individual person, who then had the "faith" to follow through on his or her mental, invisible "vision" and bring it forth into the manifestation of matter.
Jung also worked with Pauli on the synchronicity model. As far as his "period of insanity": it fits the anthropological model of shamanic initiation.
Personally, I find some aspects modern science so materialistic, that it stifles the creative impulse in the more visionary types of people. During the Renaissance, Science and Art were inspiring each each other.
In my paranormal research group, we are unusual: we use scientific method for investigations: we look to the environment and the circumstances : weather, architecture, plumbing, electrical wiring, as well as the health of the persons involved. We rule all those things out before considering paranormal.
I am INFJ (Introverted Intuitive Feeling Judger) on the Keirsey Temperament Sorter, or the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ( the rarest of types). I find that the "Intuitive" function accesses a situation on a paranormal investigation allot faster than scientific method. I still follow through with the scientific method. Two different methods, same outcome.
Nancy is correct. Besides if intiuition is whack by what means will we make value judgements. Science has no soul,we do. We have a heart that can not be viewed only scientifically. Happy loving other humans day. The ego lives in purly scientific mindsets/materialist matrix. Shineforth brave souls
Fine, defend away. And really, no need for all that spam, my name is paul.
I always do. But I will defend myself if attacked.
keep it civil and we won't delete you, my name is paul.
I think it's kind of sad how people think in terms of "us vs them" when it comes to skeptical thinking (and this is true of both sides). Aren't we all in this world together? Shouldn't we be working to prove that which can be proven, rather than just blindly trashing each other's viewpoints? I'll happily believe in anything, as soon as you show me satisfactory evidence – but don't ask me to take anything on faith. One person's experience is not evidence, and 6000 experiences are not data. Science needs more than that. It's not about "us vs them", it's about doing the hard work of proving or disproving hypostheses.
Show me 6000 people who claim to have seen a blue elephant, and I won't believe them. Show me one research paper that plausibly shows how elephant DNA can be made to produce blue elephants, and then I will believe that blue elephants exist. It's not "us vs them," it's just science. It's that simple.
But kudos to you for at least looking into the area of critical thinking, even if it was just to gather ammo for "your side" of the "us vs them" debate.
I enjoy skeptics. They are so adamant in their message that there is no message about a greater purpose to living. I see them as a mass of contradictions to be so passionate about denying any value to even their own life purpose.
Whatever a skeptic dismisses I will happily consider then I will be more clear about why I will dismiss their point. 😀
You cannot argue the mechanistic mind. They will never see magic in their world. I feel sorry for them.
Jung began to develop his ideas about synchronicity during several years of many meetings with Dr. Einstein and the subject emerged between their brilliant genius minds. I suppose the skeptics, who are sooooo enlightened, consider Professor Einstein to also be a quack. I'm with DJan. Long siiggghhhhh. Such unmitigated lack of genuine knowledge of verfiable facts in the land of the skeptics.
Glad to see you're back, Mike! Hope your trip went well.
DJan – I'm with you 100%
Brought a smile to my face!
"What guide could one possibly use to determine the correctness of an interpretation?" But how can we tell if anything is correct or actually true? We can't – as there is only our own realisation as to how things are – therefore it's the same for synchros.
Sigh. To consider Jung to be anything other than a visionary automatically makes ME skeptical. Very interesting interpretation here, thanks for sharing it.