Evil Deeds

“the whole new age movement”

This statement implies an already existing bias.

“but I find the glorification of Tolle himself as some sort of modern enlightened guru a bit distracting”

Tolle would agree with you. He states that people often try to find their ego identity in others. He encourages people to focus on the words and not become identified with the teacher.

Actually I happen to believe that this topic is just too vague for us to be able to share pertinent opinions, we don't know everything. I believe in the power of science but I also believe in the power of spirituality. I was even tempted at some point to try online psychic readings and that proves that I am open to new insights from different perspectives. It's a great post indeed but it doesn't help me reach any conclusion...

Thanks for your your comments, and for clarifying Tolle's position on the "new consciousness." I agree with him that the term can be misleading. As for your comment that there is "no need to emphasize an "either/or" divide between psychotherapy and spiritual practices, as these are potentially complementary approaches to alleviating human suffering," I couldn't agree more. I don't assert such a division. Indeed, I conceptualize psychotherapy as, inherently, primarily a spiritual process, and strive in my own work and writing toward their integration. But I (and, yes, my "ego-in-action") would say that this process needs to be balanced by and grounded in depth psychology, whether it is psychotherapy or some other form of spiritual development.

You are welcome for those things you found interesting. But tell me/us: What is your take on this topic?

Yes, perhaps "optimistic" is too charitable of a word.
Synchronicity is the belief that there is an acausal agency
manipulating reality behind the scenes. People attribute too
much meaning to random events because it is a more optimal
survival strategy to be alert to a pattern (predator) sooner rather than later; it is better to err on the side of caution. It is well-known that the human perception of randomness is quite skewed when compared to the actual likelihood of of some chance occurrence, although perhaps this wasn't known in Jung's era.

Synchronicity is another outside of space and time assumption
similar to the doctrine of karma requiring that souls wait in limbo until there is a propitious moment to reincarnate The concept of synchronicity bends "chance favors the prepared mind" way out of proportion. What would be extremely odd is if no meaningful coincidences were to happen, because such are demanded by chance; what can happen, must eventually happen. If I find money on the way to the bank or a gambling casino, it isn't significant because people find money in all avenues of their pursuits; it would be very strange if some rule existed to exclude finding money when some human engaged in the practice of acquiring money. Drawing the conclusion that meaningful coincidences augurs some unseen agency in the background violates the knowledge that chance must produce such instances, and that the only way such "meaningful coincidences" could not occur, is if there were a rule operating in the background to prevent meaningful coincidences from happening.

This is the opposite of the conclusion that Jung drew and is an example of his magical thinking compounded by ignorance of how humans misconceive or misconstrue the likelihood of serendipitous events: into every life a little joy must fall.

www.usc.edu/CSSF/History/2006/Projects/J0305.pdf
http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~bigopp/randomness.html

"Psychologists have known for a long time that people seem to distrust streaks in random series. In fact, people often behave as though streaks are more likely to end than chance would dictate. This is called the gambler's fallacy.

Probability Matching
Imagine an unbalanced coin in which heads came up 60% of the time. If you were to try and predict the outcome of the coin, what percent of the time should you select heads to lead to optimal performance? The correct answer is 100%. However, most people probability match: they choose heads 60% of the time. Why is it that people use this non-optimal strategy?

One possibility is that people are looking for patterns in the data. That is, people may believe that randomness has a certain "look" that they can predict. One area of interest is investigating whether people are 1) looking for a particular "prototypical" set of outcomes and 2) Whether people are sensitive to deviations from true randomness, so as to be able to effectively pick up patterns."

I think Jung was looking for evidence of an unseen reality and didn't question the provenance of such evidence carefully. In other words he was subjectively biased, and not objective. Perhaps Dr. Diamond, you bought into Jung's theory of synchronicity (which sort of underpins the other ideas), because you wanted to find and accept evidence of the sublime.

You are completely correct in my view. It is also too optimistic to forget that these people are making millions off ideas that were snake-oil when the pyramids were being built. People want and have always wanted to be let off the hook of engaging with the difficulties of life; these gurus give them what they want and are paid nicely for it.

http://www.tiptoethruthemindfield.blogspot.com

"The Rupture of Time: Synchronicity and Jung's Critique of Modern Western Culture" by Roderick Main

"Properly appreciated, the existence of such ‘meaningful coincidences’ requires, in Jung’s view, a fundamental revision of the prevalent scientific, religious, and commonsense views of the world. For reasons that will become clearer as we proceed, synchronicity suggests that there are uncaused events, that matter has a psychic aspect, that the psyche can relativise time and space, and that there may be a dimension of objective meaning accessible to but not created by humans."

This is a fairly representative description. The next one is a not quite so common appreciation of the consequences of acausal Synchronicity.

"In his book Synchronicity & You, Frank Joseph, a journalist, provides an in-depth analysis of synchronicity and its role in the lives of humans. ... He was able to separate synchronous events into seventeen categories. These categories are: inanimate objects, numbers, environment and animals, premonition, dreams (precognitive and shared), telepathy, enigmas, origins, parallel lives, life and art, warnings, death, rescue, reincarnation, guidance, moira (a Greek term referring to one’s true calling in life), and transformational experiences..."

Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle by C.G. Jung

The Scientific Method covers what happens in the physical universe which is governed by space, time and causality, and is called natural. By definition, all other supposed events which happen outside of space, time and causality are called supernatural.

Dr. Diamond wrote: "But i very much like your description of synchronicity as a natural, rather than supernatural, state of being in which "chance favors the prepared mind."

TT: I didn't realize I meant that when I wrote, "The concept of synchronicity bends "chance favors the prepared mind" way out of proportion." If a person wants to find money it makes more sense to look on the ground rather than looking at trees where it is possible money might be lodged in the limbs: because of gravity. Synchronicity is quite similar to mathematical Platonism, which does not exist within space and time, is eternal and was never created, thus acausal.

The New Age book(s) "The Celestine Prophecy" pretty much mangled Jung's idea of synchronicity, because TCP had characters who took actions which predicted (they traveled to certain places) and attracted experiences meaningful for moving their spiritual growth along. I studied synchronicity when as a New Ager, I learned to interpret Tarot spreads, and I wanted to find a reason to believe that there was some truth in how the random shuffle and arrangements of the cards provided insights into the looming (numinous!) reality.

Now I think the only physical evidence for synchronicity could arise is if somebody had a precognitive dream, they could recognize its signature or characteristic, they wrote the dream down in detail, shared it with others for collaborative testimony, and then later encountered the same dream unfolding in reality, again with somebody else who could collaborate their interpretation of events in light of their previous written depiction.

That isn't such a demanding requirement when one considers that hundreds of thousands of people claim to have precognitive dreams.

Jung used the example of walking in the woods with a patient and the subject of a fox came up. Shortly later, a fox emerged from the woods and onto their path. It is hugely more likely that such an event would happen, than that such an event or similar would never happen. There is some likelihood that the wind will blow leaves and randomly shape ones initials, but that is a far cry from a destined 'message in a bottle' washing up on the shores of one's experience. Synchronicity is *outside* of causality but seems to make use of *destiny* intersecting subjective and objective realities.
I think those ideas are very hard to reconcile or believe in.
Ok, I have had my 50 cents worth of skepticism, I'll mosey on.

Dr. Diamond wrote and quoted me: but I would not define it as a belief in some [SH] "acausal reality manipulating reality behind the scenes."

INTJ responded: Well, synchronicity is certainly defined as acausal, so you must object to "manipulating reality". Behind the scenes-> "When this occurs one is taken out of one's small ego consciousness by experiencing contact with the larger meaning-whole of oneself" Surely one is not normally aware of the "arrangements" that the archetype intends to exhibit, so I think that qualifies as behind the scenes.

Manipulating does tend to have a pejorative connotation, however it also has a neurtal meaning as in the 'manipulation of utensils when eating'. So Jung used the term 'arranger' which seems to me to have the same amount of causal connotation as manipulate.

"Taoism and Jung: Synchronicity and the Self" by Harold Coward Page 481

"Like the Chinese doctrine of the interrelation of the individual with cosmos, Jung conceived of the archetype as interrelating the meaning content of the inner psyche with the meaning content of the external cosmos. When the two connected, an experience of *sychronicity* took place. The deeper meaning within one's psyche was experienced in relation to a corresponding meaning in the external reality. Jung said, the "archetype has a tendency to behave as though it were not localized in one person [1] but were active in the whole environment.(28) Or, as he put it in a letter dated August 1951, the archetype is an "arranger" of psychic forms inside and outside the psyche into meaningful patterns.(29)

When this occurs one is taken out of one's small ego consciousness by experiencing contact with the larger meaning-whole of oneself within the cosmos. As is the case in Chinese thought, this notion of Jung's is not allegorical or prelogical, but is based on the idea of an ordered universe into which everything fits harmoniously."

[1] This is probably where some writers get the impression of Hinduism->jiv-atman in personal unconcious communication with other personal unconscious (jiv-atmans) which are linked to the universal Atman (or collective unconscious), as the primary influence of Jung's development of the term synchronicity rather than the Tao and his I-Ching studies. Synchronicity serves as a basis to explain paranormal events.

I think Jung's writing is pretty clear that it is the unus mundus which is "behind the scenes". Organizing does not quite mean the same as deliberative which might entail an entity/being. So synchronicity is acausal, however, it is _not_ accidental, which perhaps is your impression. Jung called it an acausal connecting principle.

psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Jungian_archetypes
"He conceived archetypes to be the mediators of the unus mundus, organizing not only ideas in the psyche, but also the fundamental principles of matter and energy in the physical world."

http://books.google.com/books?id=usrGSaO7QosC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=%22Jun...

Page 160 (and 164) "Jung on synchronicity and the paranormal" By Carl Gustav Jung, Roderick Main
"(I have just lectured at Eranos on synchronicity.13 The paper will soon appear in the acts of the Institute.)14 This remarkable effect points to the 'psychoid'15 and essentially transcendental nature of the archetype as an 'arranger' of psychic forms inside and outside the psyche."
SH: Doesn't this mean the confluence described by synchronicity?

The term "arranger" is Jung's own term and appears more than once in his writing, so are you implying that he was mistaken? Neither he nor I said it was causally (but acausally) arranged, so "deliberative" is not quite the right word (nor is it random or by chance); it is more like the non-dual Tao (unus mundus) harmonizing its dual representations. Jung used the ancient term of unus mundus; to describe the unitary reality which he believed underlay all manifest phenomena.

www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Jungian-archetypes
Psychoid archetype

"Jung proposed that the archetype had a dual nature - it exists both in the psyche and in the world at large. He called this non-psychic aspect of the archetype, the 'psychoid' archetype.
He suggested that not only do the archetypal structures govern the behaviour of all living organisms, but that they were continuous with structures controlling the behaviour of organic matter as well. The archetype was not merely a psychic entity, but more fundamentally, a bridge to matter in general [6] Jung used the ancient term of unus mundus to describe the unitary reality which he believed underlay all manifest phenomenon. He conceived archetypes to be the mediators of the unus mundus - organising not only ideas in the psyche, but also the fundamental principles of matter and energy in the physical world."

I will admit that the use of "manipulate" really doesn't carry the meaning of a term like an, (impersonal) organizing principle, and I'm trying to keep that separate from some other idea like Intelligent Design.

Dr. Diamond: "But it seems the fundamental question is whether one believes in the power of this unified field to manifest itself in synchronistic outer or inner events or not."

For me the fundamental question is if there is a unified field, or a Tao, or a universal Brahma, the collective of our individual atmans. I mean some irrepresentable nexus which existed before humans came to exist who now then have the power to create and invent such abstract ideas, even the idea of an archetype. If there is such a pre-existing pattern, describable or not, then synchronicity "reasonably" emerges as a non-rational connective. I spent about 2 years on Jung, but about 20 years ago. In Hinduism, there is the idea of the ego being drawn to the Source through corrective (or expiating) karmic experiences, and in Buddhism the lesser and greater vehicles.

I'm not sure that idea appears in Taoism or in Jung, but it appears to me that there is an (impersonal) organizing principle contained in such descriptions as,

The archetypal representations (images and ideas) mediated to us by the unconscious should not be confused with the archetype as such. They are very varied structures which all point back to one essentially 'irrepresentable' basic form. The latter is characterized by certain formal elements and by certain fundamental meanings, although these can be grasped only approximately. The archetype as such is a psychoid factor that belongs, as it were, to the invisible, ultraviolet end of the psychic spectrum. It does not appear, in itself, to be capable of reaching consciousness. (CW 8, p. 417) or

As Jung sought to clarify the concept of archetype and its function in the psyche as organizer of images and ideas, he came to recognize a non-psychic aspect of the archetype which he called 'psychoid.' Jung explained the psychoid nature of the archetype by means of an analogy with the electromagnetic spectrum. [CW 8, "On the Nature of the Psyche," section 7] In Jung's analogy that portion of the spectrum that is visible light corresponds to those psychic processes capable of reaching consciousness. At the lower 'psychic infrared' end of the spectrum is found the biological, instinctual psyche, which 'gradually passes over into the physiology of the organism and thus merges with its chemical and physical conditions.' At the upper 'psychic ultraviolet' end, the realm of the spirit, the archetypes are present as dynamic organizers of ideas and images.

www.jgsparks.net/guides/aurora/Section_E.pdf
ARCHETYPES AND SYNCHRONICITY
In his investigation of synchronistic phenomena, Jung had discovered that archetypes consistently act as the mediating principle that accounts for the meaningfulness of the coincidental mental and physical events. By implication, then Jung conjectured that archetypes also act as the mediating principle in instances of general acausal orderedness. Thus, the psychoid nature of archetypes extended beyond a neurophysiological basis into the general dynamical patterns of all matter and energy.

SH: Why do humans experience synchronistic events if there is no purpose to them? I thought that Jung believed they happened to reconcile issues that separated the ego from the Self. In anthropology we learn that evolution is quite neutral in respect to achieving a goal of higher consciousness. My impression is that Jung did think there was a direction or spiritual purpose assigned to humans, a task described as individuation?

Dr. Diamond: "Which is why what happens in one affects the other."

Does that mean you believe all events have a synchronistic meaning if we have the wit to interpret them as such? I recall reading that Jung used to like his therapy sessions happen outside near the lake because he thought Nature was making a full commentary on the analysis. Sounds weird to me.
If some theory like the Big Bounce is true, there is no particular reason to believe that the universe needed such things as archetypes to evolve human consciousness. Archetypes are explainable as a social construct rather than dwellers of a Platonic realm. Campbell argues against the idea of social constructivism by pointing out the similarity of creation myths for peoples separated by space and time.

Thanks for spending time on my questions. I better not ask any more, I may be in peril of being billed for your time :-)

Dr. Diamond wrote: "But it seems the fundamental question is whether one believes in the power of this unified field to manifest itself in synchronistic outer or inner events or not."

It seems that synchronistic events provide the only empirical evidence of the existence of the unus mundus, so I agree that discerning whether any events are synchronistic is also a "fundamental" question as you asserted. The quotes below describe synchronicity as "sporadic" thus not all events are synchronistic, at least according to Jung. Thus the question devolves to how does one tell them apart from ordinary coincidences that correspond to some topic we have considered earlier in our mental lives. For instance I was trying to remember which performance of "Must be the Season of the witch" did I like the best. A couple of days later I saw a movie which played that version of the song. Such coincidences are bound to happen since we are all immersed in the same cultural data pool. You know what folklore tells us about how to distinguish meaningful coincidence from ordinary coincidence: the third time is a charm.

In contradistinction to the medieval speculations, synchronistic phenomena provide us, as Jung emphasizes, with empirical evidence of the existence of such a unus mundus."

www.jgsparks.net/guides/aurora/Section_D.pdf
Marie-Louise von Franz, "Number and Time" SELECTIONS

"Although the nonperceptual potential continuum or unus mundus appears to exist outside time, certain dynamic manifestations of it break through into our ordinary temporal sphere in the form of synchronistic occurrences." p. 11.

"The medieval philosophers merely ascribed potential reality to the 'one world' ... ; Jung also stresses the fact that he views the unitary reality underlying synchronistic phenomena as a 'potential' reality 'in so far as all those conditions which determine the form of empirical phenomena are inherent to it.' [CW 14, par. 769] The phenomena of synchronicity, however, represent sporadic actualizations of this unitary world. In contradistinction to the medieval speculations, synchronistic phenomena provide us, as Jung emphasizes, with empirical evidence of the existence of such a unus mundus." [CW 14, pars. 767f.] pp. 171-174