Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:19, 20 July 2006

Attunement

While I think the first two sentences are correct, I think the remainder:

The process of becoming intuitively aware and harmonious with these forces is what Jung labelled "synchronicity." Jung purported that a person that reached this enlightened state could actually shape events around them through the enjoining of one's awareness with these universal forces.

Would be closer to correct if it read:

The process of becoming intuitively aware and acting harmoniously with these forces is what Jung labelled "individuation." Jung said that an individuated person would actually shape events around them through the communication of their consciousness with the collective unconscious.

In fact, I'm convinced enough I'll change it for now. -- Someone else 06:37 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)

While I see the reason for the dissatisfaction with the previous version, I don't feel satisfied with the update, particularly without references. 'The process of becoming intuitively aware and harmonious with these forces' is arguably the opposite of individuation. I would prefer 'attunement,' but whether 'Jung said' that is another matter altogether! Etaonsh 08:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Easy Definition

I'm a fairly smart guy, but as I read the definition of synchronicity I still can't tell what makes it different from coincidence. Can this article begin with a less technical definition, then expand on it using the big words?

The Example, though intriguing, also seems like coincidence; what makes it synchronicity instead?

ShawnVW 06:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

How's that? --Mjformica 12:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

As bad as before. If I meet M. Fontgibu while eating plum pudding, then M. Dumas while eating potatoes, then M. Dupont while not eating anything, that's not synchronicity because it's not meaningful, but it's not a coincidence either. (Or would you say, after M. Dupont enters the room, "Oh! What a coincidence!"? I wouldn't.) I guess there simply is no difference. --Hob Gadling 20:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Should Love be mentioned?

Of Course It Should...

For what is it we are really searching for? If not love then what? It is a question we need to ask more, I should think. For what are we truly capable of, when we are confident in the ones we love? Confident that they will be there for us no matter what. Even when all hope is lost, someone will always be there. Even when you think every possible force in this universe has left you, or turned against you or has just simply confused you, it will always be made clear to you how love is the most natural expression in the world. It is the expectation of nothing. The anticipation that something is always born. This is the true relevance of the world myth of a virgin birth.

Remember, friend that Jung's primary interest was what lay beyond the symbol, the force that animated it. That gave, what Jung called a numinousity. I hope my addition is not considered grafitti, or worse simple tom foolery. My intention was simply to add a reminder where one least expects it.

Causal or Acausal?

Did Jung say synchronicity was "a causal connecting principle" or an "acausal connecting principle"? Both versions are given at different points in the article. P Ingerson 17:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Acausal" it is. To me, the sentence

"Although not scientifically provable in the classical sense, a scientific basis for the phenomenon of synchronicity may be found in the principle of correlation, in so far as a more precise scientific term for Jung's expression 'a causal connecting principle' is 'correlation'"

does not make sense. As said in the next sentence, correlation does not imply causation, but neither does it exclude causation. So, correlation does not help defining synchronicity. I'm in favor of removing the whole correlation section, since all it does is confusing people. --Hob Gadling 19:22, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Correlation is a useful principle in illustrating another instance where acausality is scientifically studied, plus it describes well the subjective experience of synchronicity.

Isn't that an irrelevant analogy, like astrologers saying "tides are caused by the moon, so planets can influence humans"? "Correlation is not concerned with causes, so synchronicity doesn't have to be either"? Correlation is a more or less well-defined statistical term, but synchronicity is just "Aww - lookitthat!" No connection here. --Hob Gadling 14:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It isn't correct to define 'correlation' purely in statistical terms. Evidence correlates, its statistical aspect being just that, an aspect. Your belittling tone distinctly implies US swank 'debunking' school POV, and your reduction of 'correlation' to 'statistical correlation' indicates reductionism. Etaonsh 23:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So you have your own definition of "correlation" which contains more than statistics, and you claim that the standard definition is "not correct". But that is your own POV and does not belong into an encyclopedia. The things you detect in me are indeed there (if I ignore your POV wording of some of them), but I don't see anything wrong with either debunking bunk or reductionism. So, your problem with my deviation from your opinion does not belong into an encyclopedia either. --Hob Gadling 11:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not using my own definition of correlation, but the standard one. Correlation is the observed outcome of one or more causes acting upon more than one separate object, the use of statistics in said observation being a pedestrian, time-serving distraction which happens to dominate the 'Correlation' entry in wayward Wiki. The problem with debunking and reductionism is the familiar danger of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater.' If you genuinely weren't aware of any such dangers, the only immediate response which springs to mind is, 'Welcome to planet Earth.' --Etaonsh 11:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, so you are right and everyone else here is wrong about correlation. I can't say "welcome to planet Earth" back to you because you are obviously somewhere else.

So you think that my position contains dangers and your position does not? I am aware that every position, including the neutral one, threatens to color one's perception. I find it amusing that you are only aware of that in others, but not in yourself. Actually I think your anti-skeptic and anti-reductionism rhetorics is just a transparent trick that allows you to ignore what I say. --Hob Gadling 11:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's as simple as Etaonsh cuts it out to be. "Correlation" is no more a "scientific basis" for synchronicity than pirates cause global warming. In order for correlation to be put forward as a scientific explanation, a little more evidence is needed. It's not so much a matter of POV as definitions of words. Byrgenwulf 11:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was simple, but I am trying to point out that correlation is a long word for a very ordinary and mundane part of everyday life. When someone says, 'Everybody round here seems to be using marg these days - perhaps because it's on special offer at Tesco,' they are correlating - no statistics, no hocus-pocus, just part of everyday life. There is an acausal relationship - everybody round here using marg - with an underlying likely cause - a special offer. The difficulty arises when the underlying cause is unknown and/or hard to establish, as is often the case in these situations. --Etaonsh 12:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup. "Correlation can also be described as an 'acausal connecting principle' " is nonsense. Correlation does not connect things. Correlation is just an indicator that things may be connected. That whole paragraph is nothing but hot air. --Hob Gadling 12:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that paragraph should, perhaps, just be deleted. The knowing references it makes to quantum nonlocality/EPR stuff are meaningless: there is absolutely no reason to believe that nonlocal entanglement of the spin states of two photons can explain why my mother phones me just when I'm thinking about her. The paragraph, as it is, doesn't say anything: it reads like someone thinking out loud: "could it be this? no, it couldn't" and hence doesn't inform in any way. Byrgenwulf 12:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

"In the d20 Modern supplement Urban Arcana, there is a spell known as 'Synchronicity', which subtly alters the laws of reality to make the mundanities of life more convenient for the caster, such as altering bus and taxi schedules so that they always appear within a maximum of four minutes after the caster begins waiting for one, and subtly moving pedestrians on crowded streets out of the way of the caster." I think this part should at least mention the context of a role-playing game. I was quite confused when i read it after the other text. 82.139.89.146 23:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Rather than 'trivia,' I think your contribution has possible elucidatory value, if this isn't straying into original research. ESP is among the hypothetical possible explanations for synchronicitous phenomena. 23:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Etaonsh 06:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"awkward silence"

Is the "awkward silence" (i.e. several conversations in close proximity all finish at the same time, and as a result the whole room goes quiet" an example of synchronicity, or merely a bog-standard coincidence? Chris talk back 00:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I would move that this falls more under the auspices of orgiastic union, herd behavior, and/or mob psychology than synchronicity. Unless a survey of the conversations revealed that they had a relationship to one another that was significant to one or more persons involved. --Mjformica 12:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Those unfamiliar with astrology are likely unaware that it provides natural explanations for seemingly unrelated coincidences - i.e., a macrocosmic explanation of seemingly unconnected events in the microcosm. I think Jung was aware of astrology as an explanation of synchronicity, but I'm not sure whether he explained the connection as clearly as that(?). It would be unfortunate if clear explanations are ruled out of order on original research grounds, as I have no current plans to make clear explanations elsewhere(!). Etaonsh 23:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but astrology does not provide any explanations for anything, since it itself does not have any theoretical basis. It's like synchronicity in that respect - it claims connections but does not really explain them. Explanation means reducing to already known facts - it always contains an element of information compression. Before the explanation you have a lot of unconnected facts (say, 100 GB, zipped), afterwards, you have a few basic rules (say, 1 kB, zipped) from which you can derive all those facts. Astrology does not do this - it generates "rules" and "exceptions" from them every time an astrologer does "research". The rules and exceptions still have 100 GB, zipped. --Hob Gadling 11:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re Introductory Definition: 'Simultaneously'?

The definition seems faulty because, as examples on the page testify, events don't need to occur 'simultaneously' to constitute coincidence, meaningful or otherwise. I'll therefore alter to 'coincidentally.' Etaonsh 23:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternative explanations

I am not too certain that the wording in the paragraph about correlation is correct. I cannot see how correlation, judging from the explanation giving there, can account for synchronicity...what I mean is, I know the argument, but it isn't particularly well expressed in the article. Moreover, it is by no means certain that quantum non-locality a la EPR and Bell is merely a correlatory relationship; furthermore, I would like to see a (plausible) citation for how this can account for synchronicity...because while the spin-entanglement of two photons is amply described by these states, so far as I am aware there has been no rigorous study extending this concept to macroscopic "co-incidence".

So if someone with more knowledge of this specific field could provide citations, etc and clarify the wording, please? Byrgenwulf 06:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)