Some acausal parallelism is going on here. Four hours ago I was at work messing around and swinging a drywall sanding pole like a Kwan tou at four of my coworkers.
You have that hiking stick there, or whatever it is, doing the same thing.
Skeptics will tell you to remember to count the misses… how many times things don’t coincide or synchronize. But I’ll be damned if the few times it does happen, it is something that doesn’t seem like something that was/is likely to happen. You know what I mean?
The extent of a synchronicity’s uniqueness and meaningfulness is proportionate to the person’s ability to find a possible connection. That is to say people who have less knowledge have a more limited ability to believe in the meaningfulness of a synchronicity because they cannot envisage some significance in it.
But if an imagined significance it given to a perceived synchronicity which is in fact incidental, the person’s powers of conceptualization expand. Off of an imagined connection, new dendrites (rhizomes) extend and create more, potential synchronicity in the events to follow… and this is so because one has increased the number of ways in which a conceptual relation can be actualized among a continuum of ideas.
I mean synchronicity also in the sense of philosophy when ideas are treated in combination because they are believed to be extensions of each other, related, compatible, composite. In these ideas were not, there wouldn’t be any less affectation occurring in thought.
There can never be a clear distinction made between a purely real thing and an invented thing when concerning the belief in the meaning or significance of a thing. ‘Things’ don’t matter. What we think of the things, does. (…it is not the things but the opinions of things that have so affected, etc.- FN)
If the meaningfulness of the things we think of require some kind of epistemological connection to something else, the manner in which it is recognized as a connection has everything to do with the intellectual capacity to make a connection… not ‘find’ it or ‘observe’ it neutrally, externally.
But what more could this coincidence mean than the simple fact that we both swung a stick around today. How could someone give relevance to the Jungian conception of synchronicity. By attributing a kind of unfolding of teleology over a topographical plane of immanence and making it meaningful and symbolic, by giving it poiesis, by making it paranormal. Or, super-normal, maybe.
I’d like to reverse the skeptical excuse; there are synchronicities everywhere all the time, and only rarely can we count the hits.