Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

This reminds me,…of something.Paro, but I don’t really know exactly what.

The point being , in my mind, is that the syncronistc/ rationalist divide may be something of an early sense of a misguided divide, hence, a more progressive ground (literally -soil , per brought back to ground); may cyclically overcome the weighed down pressures caused by the power of deconstruction -decompositon - toward disintegration.

As power motives/processes interact , determening spatio-temporal varience, , it may not be surprising to hold that synchronistic effects could be generated from rationally fixed precepts that are long overdue for revision.

You keep comparing things that have 100% probability to things that have a limited calculated probability.

Every “particular complex” situation has 100% probability of existing somewhere in the infinite universe. That is a very different concern from whether 2 particular people on a particular planet will interact in any way. Perhaps the 2 people will interact - perhaps not - it depends on many things so a probability guess has to be made. But within an infinite universe EVERY complex situation will occur - SOMEWHERE.

Your consciousness had 100% probability of occurring - somewhere. If it didn’t happen here - you would be asking the same questions wherever it did occur and not know the difference - so wherever it was to occur - is necessarily wherever you are - “here”.

  • Just quantum fairy tales.

There are no “alternate universes” - except in the comics.

…that we know of, YET.

First there were no other planets.
Then there were no other solar systems.
Then there were no other galaxies.
and now there are no other universes.

In the future there will be no other multiverses…

If and when a different universe is discovered, orbiting the same central body that our universe orbits, which in total is called a multiverse, will you then admit you were talking crap?

But you won’t admit to talking crap until they find it, right?

  • :laughing:
    A flat-Earther who denies Relativity (doesn’t seem to even know what it is) really shouldn’t be criticizing.

Flat-Earther? Is that BS from the same book you learned how to count? What’s the name of it, “Mass, Distance, and Time For Dummies?”

A precept is a general rule for guiding behavior or thought. What is a precept have to do with synchronicity? I’m not sure if that’s a category error or just a malapropism.

Felix dakat wrote :

“A precept is a general rule for guiding behavior or thought. What is a precept have to do with synchronicity? I’m not sure if that’s a category error or just a malapropism.”

       >>>>>>>>>>>

Neither or both , but I thinking in terms of a conjunction, where the question needen’t be asked.
That is my precept, or perception of it, and reduced to it’s common denominator a retesting of hypothesis.

Hypothesis tend to confirm data whereas day a at times conforms hypothesis , if the belief that simple hunches can best sophisticated workeable criteria at times.

Sometimes a grain of truth in a menue of a complex set of events can upturn the whole gamut of predictable probable set of events. Case at hand : the two slit physics experiment frames the meta-event of uncertainty into 'real' parameters.

I don’t get it. How is the slit experiment related to synchronicity?

Jung did say that the psyche and matter are contained in one in the same world. They are in continuous contact with one another and ultimately rest on your representable transcendental factors. He thought it probable that psyche and matter are two at different aspects of one and the same thing–the dual aspect theory. Synchronicity then shows that the non psychic can behave like the psychic and vice versa without there being any causal connection between them.

He did work on the problem with the physicist Pauli. I’m not sure that anyone has gotten substantially further than noting amazing coincidences that remain unexplained. Kind of like the status of UFOs. People perceive them but nobody knows what they are.

Felix wrote:

"don’t get it. How is the slit experiment related to synchronicity?

Just a equabalance between quantum uncertainty and rational certainty, as like on moving each toward a frlcrun. The relational dependency of moving one toward, the other away from a fulcrum.

Or, leaving both ends whete they are, abd moving thr fulcrum toward one and away from the either.

The balance between uncertainty abd certainty is the same, metaphysically, but appears different phenemonologically.

Of course there is more to the relagionship, but that is probable relativitidtic mathematics.

The metaphysical aspect, is similarly related nh metaphoric llnks.

From wiki:

“Jung, in turn, received a schooling in quantum physics. He learnt how measuring the state of one particle can seem to influence the state of another instantly, a property called entanglement.”"

Before meeting Pauli, Jung had coined the term synchronicity to describe the principle of acausal connections.Aug 26, 2020

So Jung never learned the word “coincidence”?

More then likely he did, but the difference as far as probability goes between coincidence and syncronacity is far more nearer to certainty in the case of the later

That’s funny. But it’s also a good starting point. What if anything did Jung add to the common sense understanding of coincidences with his concept of synchronicity?

In his paper “On Synchronicity” he stated that the phenomena can be grouped into three categories:

1 “The coincidence of a psychic state in the observer with a simultaneous objective external event that corresponds to the psychic state or content where there is no evidence of a causal connection between the psychic State and the external state and where considering the psychic relativity of space and time such a connection is not even conceivable”

2 The coincidence of a psychic state with a corresponding more or less simultaneous external event taking place outside the observer’s field of perception i. e. at a distance and only verifiable afterwards.

.
3 The coincidence of a psychic state with a corresponding not yet existing future event that is distant and time and can likewise only be verified afterward.

Jung described extraordinary events that occurred in his psychotherapeutic practice that fell into these categories.

“Jung described extraordinary events that occurred in his psychotherapeutic practice that fell into these categories.”

Yes and the unreported #3 , is like an prophetic expectation of things hypothetically will most probably happen, as his subsequent work fold out toward a new trio of analysis, #4, #5, and #6, the "6 of which will morph into a newer yet, #7, #8 & # 9.

In other words, each part will conceivably break down into subsequent triads.

There is then a new configuration consisting in more and more synaptic cross ‘polinizaton’ where the hypothetical will adhere to more certainty

The ‘third circuit’ will for most practical purposes will deconstruct the last inditerminate variable into indiscernible units of measure.

Jung will ultimately be acknowledged, when #10, 11, &#12 complete the total resistence to patterns that invariably recur.

Just off the wall.

Until then, Ayer, Skinner , Ryle & Co. rules with an iron fist.

Elementary dear Watson

Or, not so :

As in a Freudian split with Jung ; if in fact that is an element, over magic and magical thinking.

Or was the split just over thinking? Or over overthinking?

probably beyond it. as evident by a more or less specific split between the good and evil discrepency, reduced all the way toward the redemptive effort to restrain an angry god from forcing an answer.

The answer to the most existential questions imaginable that children use to get back at their parents, by pushing them to The Wall.

Why did you create me in the first place?

Can You over think that, or, are we to acquiesce to speak, do or hear no evil?

All of that has to do with the currently , even now!, asked philosophical question : whether thought written or not is a ‘thing’, as much as all other descriptions are: and if not, or if they are, what relationship exists between them, ?

That relationship may factor in the ‘is-ought’ controversies as well as defining the mass movements’ tangency and borderING situations, whereby a lot of effects are determined .