Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Synchronicity, Carl Jung, and The I Ching: Nothing but Ordinary Coincidence

[[Some background information on Synchronicity and The I Ching.]]

C. G. Jung was impressed by the ability of the I Ching (The Chinese Book of Changes) to offer clear answers to important questions. Jung had previously coined the term synchronicity, a principle which he used to explain how the I Ching works, stating that “...whatever is born or done in this moment of time has the quality of this moment of time.”[1] Synchronicity deals with meaningful coincidences that are not connected in a cause and effect relationship, but are somehow more than mere chance. In relation to the I Ching, Jung says, “…synchronicity takes the coincidence of events in space and time as meaning more than mere chance, namely, a peculiar interdependence of objective events…as well as the subjective (psychic) states of the observer or observers.”[2]

Unfortunately, the only real proof that synchronicity is behind the appearance of two coincidental events is simply that one finds the occurrence of those events significant. The problem is that in life we’re exposed to so many events that the probability is quite high that some coincidences will seem dramatic.[3]

Even Jung himself is not clear about how synchronicity works. At one point he maintains that the outer event and the mental state are simultaneous.[4] Later he maintains that a mental state coincides with a “(more or less simultaneous) external event,” or with a “future event that is distant in time.”[5] The writer Arthur Koestler, a popularizer of much of Jung’s work, found Jung confusing on the matter of synchronicity, writing “One wonders why Jung created these unnecessary complications by coining a term which implies simultaneity, and then explaining that it does not mean what it means.”[6] As is often the hallmark of many pseudoscientific claims, Jung’s synchronicity principle is a “nonrefutable or irrefutable hypothesis.”[7]

----------
Notes:
1. Wilhelm, Richard. (1931, 1969). The Secret of the Golden Flower: A Chinese Book of Life, p. 142.
2. Jung. C. G. (1950, 1979). “Forward to the I Ching.” The I Ching or Book of Changes. Trans. from the Chinese by Richard Wilhelm. Trans. from the German by Cary F. Baynes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, p. xxiv.
3. Dean, Geoffrey; Loptson, Peter; Kelly, Ivan; et al. (2005). “Theories of Astrology: A Comprehensive Survey.” Correlation 1996, 15(1): 17-52, p.7.
4. Jung, C. G. The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, Volume 8: The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, p. 441 (paragraph 850).
5. Jung, C. G. The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, Volume 8: The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, p. 526 (paragraph 984).
6. Koestler, Arthur (1972, 1974). The Roots of Coincidence. London: Pan Books Ltd., p. 95.
7. McGowan, Don (1994). What Is Wrong with Jung. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, p. 137.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Jung was a twat. Mere coincidence exists, but so does synchronicity: www.actionsquad.org/crawlspace1.html ...

Charles Sullivan said...

No. Synchronicity is nothing but a feeling that's a subjective psychological reaction to dramatic coincidences.

Synchronicity is described as an acausal principle. What on earth is an acausal principle, anyway? What is its mechanism? How can it be distinguished from ordinary dramatic coincidence?

The Answer: Uh, it kinda feels more like synchronicity to me than other dramatic coincidences.

That answer won't get us very far, will it?

Anonymous said...

I said Jung was a twat didn't I? I don't think calling something acausal makes much sense. Who says it's not caused? How can one distinguish an acausal event from an event with causes we do not see, or are even beyond our ability to conceive? The universe is complex and interconnected enough to be indistinguishable from magic - don't be surprised if neat definitions or boundaries fail to make it all fit into your paradigm, and don't think such a failure indicates anything about the reality of coincidences that ain't quite 'mere.' It's a messy world, and there is infinitely more that we do not know that what we do. Gravity, light, life, consciousness - all basic phenomena that at the core, are mysteries to us, far more mysterious than the fairy tales of organized religion.

Charles Sullivan said...

So, synchronicity is causal in your view. And its causes may be beyond our ability to conceive.

That's really not a lot to go on.

But let me get this straight:

There are certain coincidences that might have a magical mysterious basis.

This magical mysterious basis may be inconceivable.

There are a lot of things we don't know about the universe.

So it follows that this causal phenomena called synchronicity exists yet is not "mere" coincidence.

And, the evidence for this is subjective psychological experiences that can't be tested or verified objectively.

You might as well throw in faeries, ghosts, hobgoblins, astral projection, auras, and remote viewing while you're at it. There's as much evidence for these things as there is for synchronicity.

Science is not as ignorant as you might think about gravity, light, life, and consciousness. There are many unanswered questions, to be sure, but any progress that has been made in understanding these phenomena have come from science, and not from wild speculative guesses based on nothing more than the feeling that there's some kind of magical mysterious force that can't be conceived of.

I could be wrong, but without any substantial affirmative evidence for synchronicity (other than anecdote), I think that a healthy skepticism is the most rational position to take on this matter.

Anonymous said...

"One would soon go mad if one took these kinds of coincidences too seriously. One might be led to suspect that there are all sorts of things going in in the Universe which he did not thoroughly understand." - Vonnegut

So I can understand your position, but I suspect your worldview is limiting you more than it is enlightening you, at least in this area. But whatever gets you through the life, it's alright ... it's alright ... :)

Charles Sullivan said...

Gullible woo-woo. That's how I see it. The desire to believe in the transcendental can be quite overpowering. If that's considered enlightening, you can have it.

Anonymous said...

TOO MANY IN MY LIFE TO DISCOUNT AS MERELY COINCIDENCE.POSSIBLY THERE IS AN OPPOSITE TO CAUSE AND EFFECT.EACH ACTION HAS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION....PERHAPS EACH INACTION HAS AN UNEQUAL BUT LIKE ACTION.....NATURE ABHORS A VACUUM SO SYNCHRONICITY FILLS IN THE BLANK BY ASSERTING ITSELF.ARCHETYPICAL POTENTIAL KIND OF DRAWS IN THE NEEDED IMAGE INTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY TO FILL THE VOID.RATIONAL SELDOM BOWS TO THE IRRATIONAL HOWEVER MANY TIMES THE LATTER LEADS TO AN UNSEEN FRUITON.I think it is a law of life that we don't fully understand.