Sunday, October 18, 2015

Beyond Synchronicity: Mind ≠ Brain

ITEM: I had a dream Thursday night of attending a holiday meal at my childhood bestie Tom's house. It was at a huge table that seemed to snake throughout the house. I was at the far end, talking to his two nephews who (in the dream) were playing for the New York Giants. They were attending the dinner party in full game gear (I'd just watched Silver Linings Playbook).  
That next day Tom, who I hadn't spoken with for several weeks (or months, time has been getting away from me lately), called me.  
Tom and I were supposed be born on the same day (twins, of a kind, our mothers were friends) but I was 11 days late. He has a memory that would give most computers a run for their money and has a mind for pop culture minutiae that constantly amazes me. 
The last thing we talked about was one of favorite movies, the Aleister Crowley-connected British horrror classic Legend of Hell House (based on the Richard Matheson story), which used to run on our favorite local station, Channel 56.
ITEM: I was sick as hell this past week, my MPS symptoms hitting me like a tractor trailer in reaction to the toxic mold in the atmosphere. As happens in these episodes, I had long stretches where I couldn't do anything but writhe. I couldn't even watch television, I couldn't rest. It's unbearable but I guess I'm used to it by now. 
 So I tried some visualization exercises. For some reason I began visualizing the famous frieze of Inanna/Ishtar, which I decided was a suitable target. This morning Gordon sends me a picture of he took of that very same image. Apparently, it was taken out of storage and put back on display just recently. 
In room 56 of the British Museum.
These of course are classic synchronicities, inner conceptualizations manifesting as outer realities, ripe with symbol and hidden meaning (there are 56 cards in the minor arcana of the Tarot, for instance).

And they can drive you crazy after a while. 

The only way to prove these coincidences is to write down everything you're thinking at every moment in some kind of computer log which records day and date, which of course tends to evaporate pretty much every creative thought circulating in your brain and turn you into a robot.

Because of this unwieldiness, I actually downgraded classic Synchronicity as a working method-- the thought manifestation variety-- several years ago. I can tell you those two stories up there but you have to essentially take my word for them. And that drives me nuts.


You see, I disagree with the "False" Memory sickos (and debunkers in general) on nearly everything, but mostly because I believe that human memory in fact hews to a normality bias. 

I believe that human memory is constantly denying any kind of unusual, profound or traumatic experience, not only to protect the psyche but also to keep the individual conformable to the collective. Extreme experience tends to isolate the subject from the group, which is why memory goes to work in rewriting experience to the acceptable mean. 

So even if you write everything down as it happens, you begin to doubt your own experiences, most especially as the weirdness piles up.†

Because of this essential inability to prove your classic-model Synchronicity- at least without recording your every thought with a verified timestamp- I began focusing on a different brand of sync several years ago, one I can't quite pin a name on but one I later explored in detail on say, the NASA posts.

That work led to the work on this blog, particularly a lot of the symbol and ritual studies I did for the first several years; the Synchronizing of provable events and the coinciding of curriculum vitae. 

This offered a window that people could look into, without having to take my word on a dream or a passing thought or some other will o' the wisp that traditional Synchronicity is built around.º


Now, "Synchronicity" is a useful term in some settings-- a kind of accepted shorthand for discussing unusual experience-- but in others too often becomes the dinnerware we take out for guests but rarely use for ourselves. It's a kind of quasi-scientific window dressing on a reality that our forebears understood as magic or religious phenomena.  

I often wonder what Jung himself actually believed about synchronicity. He was in a tricky position. He was trained as a scientist and existed in that milieu. But psychology and psychiatry themselves were barely recognized as sciences during much of his career (many still don't take them seriously as sciences, even today) and he was always careful to put the proper clothing on his ideas in order to make them presentable to a skeptical and often hostile world. 

Hence you get the whole idea of acausality, a split-the-difference notion which tends to alienate both believers and skeptics. I don't think meaningful coincidence is acausal, do you?

This only got dicier when he underwent what can only be described as a mystical transformation-- his own road to Damascus experience-- and began retracing the steps of the Mithraists and other visionary sects of the pre-Christian West.

Luckily for Jung, he wasn't the only one poking around in the fecund marshes of meaningful coincidence. The radical quantum physicists were also interested in the concept, Wolfgang Pauli for example. But I'm not sure that they meant the same thing privately when they discussed Synchronicity publicly. Pauli was thinking about non-locality and spooky action at a distance and Jung was probably thinking about angels and spirit guides. 

And this is my brief against Synchronicity. It has become yet another of those words that morphs into a leash. A buzzword for panel discussions and TED talks and all other tedious endurance tests that bleed all meaning from life.

And what if, finally, "Synchronicity" is in fact all bullshit? A blanket- and a wet one- thrown over all sorts of experiences that are inherently more interesting?

I remember talking with the brilliant scholar David Hufford at Esalen in 2008 about Synchromysticism, which he hadn't heard of. We then talked about Synchronicity and he asked me to offer some examples of it that I'd experienced. I did so and without any hesitation he said, "That all sounds like psi, not Synchronicity." He explained that what I was talking about was in fact precognition, not some hoity-toity-- and rather nebulous-- Jungian buzzword. 

Now be aware that Esalen is very down on Jung in general and was founded by therapists much more in line with Freud and Reich. But I had to admit that Hufford was correct. 


So if Synchronicity is misdiagnosed psi ( I should mention that Eric Wargo has been on this trail for a while), what then? The US Government spent a lot of money for a long time with some damn talented psychics (and don't let anyone tell you otherwise) trying to find applications for psi but found ultimately that it was less reliable than good electronic surveillance. 

You, on the other hand, aren't trying to undermine governments seeking to nationalize their copper mines or gas reserves, you are trying to make your way through an increasingly Social Darwinist world. Does Synchronicity- in whatever form you choose to work with it-- have applications for your daily life?

Well, I think the first thing you need to do is de-science the shit out of it. Take it entirely out of the realm of science (or pseudoscience) and back into the realm of the paranormal, where it belongs. Whether you choose to view it through the lens of psi or mysticism is your call. 

Now, you may ask, why opt out of the running when we have all this evidence to take to the court of scientific opinion? They'll have to consider all this data, right?

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. 

Scientists throw out evidence on far more mundane phenomena than something that would be classified as psi. 

Scientists love to throw out evidence. It makes them feel powerful and important. They especially love to throw out evidence from mushy fencesitters who come to them, cap in hand, tail between legs, begging for validation for someone's pet obsession, whether it's ancient lost civilizations or psi or NDEs. 

If they haven't smacked you down yet it's only because they want you to delude yourself into thinking the pat on the back is coming any day now. It makes the sear of the laser across your throat sound even sweeter. Especially after you betrayed all your old friends and abandoned the rest of your beliefs in hopes that your one cherished belief will (pleasepleaseplease) get a nod of approval one day.

If you don't realize this is a metaphysical certainty then you don't know many scientists. Sure, you might get the odd maverick here and there (less frequently now) but Western science will never sign off on Synchronicity. I've done the reading; you can't believe the pretzels they twist themselves into to dismiss the data. It would be funny if the motive behind it all weren't so sinister.*


However, it's the mechanism or agency that always seems to be missing from discussions of Synchronicity. Synchronicity always seems to be its own explanation, and I think that's one talking point the debunkers are right about. 

The quantum stuff feels dry and empty. Psi feels a lot meatier but there needs to be someone else on the other end of the line, if you get my meaning.

I think it all leads us to the basic formula that mind ≠ brain, perhaps the greatest scientific heresy of this naturalistic age. Examples escape me presently (and I'm not getting paid enough to wade through a bunch of tired fencesitter drivel) but I'm sure I've seen some Synchronicity advocates argue against that formula as well, which leads you who the fuck knows where. 

If you take any of the remote viewing data seriously-- and I do-- you have accept that mind ≠ brain reality. Same applies if you accept any of the NDE data. 

And that scares some people because they believe opening that door leads immediately to the Inquisitions and witch burnings. It's insane and contradictory (the real inheritors of the Inquisition and witch hunters are the scientific and academic establishments and their fellow travelers, and the historical victims of the witch hunts were the people who believed in/practiced psi) but here we are.

The question becomes where do we go next?

º There are also the Sync Logs, usually events that correspond in interesting or remarkable ways to topics or issues that I cover on the blog. 

† Debunkers understand this process and are trained by experts (usually CIA) to exploit it.

* Scientists will lapse into gauzy ruminations on coincidence theory when it comes time to explain away the high mortality rate of say, microbiologists and UFOlogists, however.


  1. I've seen too many X-Rays and CAT scans of people who have little or no physical brain to ever believe that mind = brain. According to that certainty, these people should be dead, or at least in a vegetative state. Yet persons with little more than a brain stem are walking around as functional adults, their craniums filled with little more than fluid. Fortean Times has featured several such cases over the years, and the Web is full of them. Now, yes, these folks are often fraught with headaches, seizures and other nasty burdens. Yet they can function in society to a reasonable degree, without most or all of the organ that science insists is essential to life, let alone the tasks of social interaction.

    I have no explanation for this, except to see our knowledge of the brain is far from complete.

  2. I'm surprised a debunker magazine like Fortean Times would run that kind of material but you're dead on. There's no end of evidence as to the nonlocal reality of mind but of course it all gets thrown out before it's ever read by 99.9% of the scientific community. Clinging to those 19th Century beliefs must be powerful tiring work.

  3. I use that picture in the profile of my blog Sync Psience. (My own photo from Brit Museum.) You can guess from the title that I am preoccupied with precisely the issues you raise here: The science of synchronicity.

    I want to prove it to me! I am the biggest sceptic of my own “synchronicity” and, yes, much of it has to be critically appraised conscious as I am of numerous mental biases and how crap I am at probability theory. I write that blog for ME. (Which is good because hardly anyone reads it.)

    You raise the issue of verifiability. I.e. that we have to take your word for it. Well when your only peer reviewer is yourself that is one duck down [smile] So at least I know I’m not lying about sync. I also keep a daily diary which is useful in terms of countering the bias of retrospective accounting.

    Does Synchronicity- in whatever form you choose to work with it-- have applications for your daily life?

    It aids in choice. Evidence from certain kinds of brain damage that impact emotional response show that these people actually become incapable of making even the most basic choices – a red or a blue pen. They are incapable of subjective preferences. [See here for start: ]

    These days we are inundated with information and calls on our attention. How do we choose what to read, listen to – pay attention to?. Sync says to me: Pay attention to this. This is important to you. It’s the guiding thread of my life. It’s the main reason I read your post when I did over the thousand other calls on my attention. (Most people choose what syncs but are not as conscious of it.)

    I don’t defend synchronicity to science. I agree it’s impossible. I once watched a documentary on that psychic octopus Paul. A mathematician calculated the probability of his consecutive accurate choices. It was highly improbable BUT the scientist admitted that it did not matter how improbable it was because he already believed that octopus was not psychic – no amount of evidence could convince him otherwise.

    I think it is good to be a little sceptical of synchronicity. There are numerous things that I discount as "synchronicity" when critically appraised. That merely serves to focus me on the “true sync.” (Otherwise one can get lost.)

    I find that syncs emerge overtime. That’s why I keep on blogging. It’s part of my personal project & I’m still compiling the data.

    This is a post I made on meta-sync.

    P.S. Awesome blog.

    1. Cheers. Well, I was very rigorous with my Synchromysticism (though I didn't use that term) when it really intruded upon my life post-9/11. Of course, 9/11 itself intruded upon my life as well. I was pretty close to manic, chasing down every scrap of documentation I could find to nail down the connections I was making. But it was worth it.

  4. I'm going to advocate for quantum physics a bit and say that our body serves to entangle us with the universe, and the particulars of our often too human entanglements are what drive the psi / syncs, and affinity. Scientists who understand quantum physics often deny the implications. (Or these days, ignore and keep looking for "god" "particles".)
    I really like the alternate viewpoint for Psi as Sync, maybe it is because the synchronicity side of things are seemingly overvalued lately, but ideas like this wax and wane over time.
    I do think SOME syncs are syncs without precognition. Perhaps it is just then in that case a meaningful co-incidence? Or is it that these syncs trace a deeper geography of the universe, and we are in flatland.
    I also think the brain is important, but not as a computer. I wrote a little about this on my blog recently. While neurons are connected in computer-like structures, the interactions cannot be shown to be consciousness. The primary problem here is the clock speed on one's brain is laughably slow. Too slow to hit a baseball. Or even walk as well as those clumsy google bots (with much faster digital computers). So what are the neurons doing? Bringing it back to quantum physics (and I know some people find the topic distasteful or not helpful), I think the function of the brain is to integrate / entangle the body with itself and the universe. Don't forget we have neurons in other parts of the body, notably the gut.

    1. Well, all hands on deck. We don't know so why not throw it all into the blender? What do we have to lose? Quantum entanglement, precog, spiritual intervention, let it ride. Go with what you feel.

  5. I needed to read this. Had it in queue but kept being
    interrupted. I really appreciate the manner/tone/mood of the approach to the subject matter and your observations and how you express it. I have nothing to add but a thank you for taking the time to post it.

    1. My pleasure. I'm glad you got something out of it.

  6. I think Jung did not reveal what he really thought about the link between psyche and matter in his published works. I suspect he kept a lot of it to himself or as oral transmission to people like Marie-Louise von Franz, who followed him into his alchemical phase (when others, like Tony Wolff, wouldn't). His later work, beginning with synchronicity and then alchemy and then his UFO book, shows him grappling with the boundaries between mind and matter. It seems to me, based partly on von Franz's work, that Jung saw it all as a continuum (coining the term "psychoid" to refer to phenomena that were both psychic and material).

    I believe there is a lot of as-yet-unpublished and unearthed work of Jung's concerning this later phase that maybe one day we'll get to see. His heirs are quite guarded about opening the vaults. We did finally get The Red Book a few years ago, but that was from his earlier work and does not well represent his later thought.

  7. Thanks to you, Chris, and Monkeygrinder.

    I have a hard time accepting a sync/psi link because my experiences seem to fall into two categories, those of meaningful events as opposed to those of precognition, or at least a diffuse form of precognition. By that, and as a reference, I mean I once saw a ghost passenger train riding well above an old railway track during the night. Within minutes of returning home that night, I got a call from a cousin saying her brother had committed suicide. Never would I have connected the two because I'd been thinking of the old railway as I passed it in my car.

    Seems nebulous within one perspective except that I've had other experiences in the same manner with the same results. No hard data, just a sense something was going to happen. Most times there is a flimsy connection and sometimes I can't ignore the implications prior to the psi message. I've been warned. Warned myself?

    These episodes are nothing like syncs, but the mechanism behind them feels the same which is what confuses me. Worse, I can think of two more categories of experience that are available to me in times of great mental or physical distress, hallucination and healing. The hallucinations were harmless but offered relief from mental anguish, sort of like a kindly wake up call to break my train of thoughts. The healing took place in a surreal dream where I became electrified and sizzled my way to a measure of health.

    Regardless of my categorization, my mind and whatever mechanism is available, seem a separate entity from that of my brain. Just feels that way in some deeply significant way. But I venture that all the odd experiences are related under an umbrella. Categorizing may be meaningless, but I can't help feeling our minds are capable of more than we can imagine. Syncs may be the clue staring us in the face.

    1. All I can say is that you're not alone, so don't let the world make you feel that way. The hardware doesn't come with an owner's manual so we all have to feel our way through the dark. We're all told things that happen are not supposed to and have to cope with the fallout that inevitably results, since as you refer to, these things often arise in moments of crisis.

  8. Ah, Creature Double Feature on ch56, every Saturday afternoon. Why go out and play, when you can sit on the floor in front of the old RCA vacuum tube console B&W and get terrified by men in rubber suits? (Sweet youth).

    Then, decades later, MST3K comes along and disenchants the whole genre... with IRONIC DISTANCE! (The Universal Solvent).

    The Veil does seem much thinner than usual lately, for whatever reason. Almost drowning in sync-events at this point (though to some extent, this may be my own damned fault).

    Rather than bore folks with all of them, I'll share just one: One morning right before getting up for work last week, I dreamt that I was playing the bass, and enjoying the hell out of it... enough that I was actually deeply sad upon waking up.

    (Funny thing, though- I'm not a bassist, never owned one. I'm a aging guitarist who barely even does that anymore as I went electronic some 15 years ago).

    On the drive home from work that day, figured WTF and stopped at a small local music store... and there's the exact same &@^$%! bass from the dream, hanging there. Not "kinda like it". Exact. And on sale, to boot.

    Message from the Unconscious received: Think less. Play more.

    1. Oh dear, MST3k. I would say any message that cleanses that from your pallette is well received. I used to play, was serious about music for some time. Maybe it was a waste of time but maybe not. It taught me more than anything else that messages come from outside and that humans can very easily reach clairvoyant states.

    2. Robert Fripp, of King Crimson fame, always says that music plays the player, not the other way around (he was into mysticism and a lot of other stuff back in the 70's.....maybe still is, I don't know). I've always felt that was true when performances were really "on". When I'm thinking about other things, or just not really 100% into playing, it always feels so forced and unnatural to me to play (I do it anyway, for the sake of staying in practice). But when I focus completely on the "feeling" of the music, that is when amazing things happen. I have friends who are far more technically adept at guitar than myself, who often are amazed by the things that come out when I am playing in that mind set. It's a bit like meditation, in that my mind is essentially clear of all thought and the music is flowing out of me. I hear other musicians talk about that kind of thing all the time, yet debunkers never seem to want to "debunk" creativity (though their very existence suppresses it in themselves and others). It's one of those interesting things that is just accepted by people who are otherwise striving for machine like literal-ism. Anyway, this point is relevant to me as I will be performing for people (at a bar) for the first time in 5 years. Just something I felt the need to do

    3. Well, being a huge Fripp fan and a onetime guitarist I know all about that. Playing guitar was a fascinating experience because there were several experiences not only of psi (reading other musician's minds and vice versa) but what I can only describe as a kind of daemonic possession, where you are literally an observer of the music being played by another force using your hands. Another experience that's impossible to explain to the inexperienced but very real and very profound.

    4. Fripp used to run "Guitar Craft" seminars down in VA back in the 1980s. I never got to go, myself, but a close collaborator during my college years (from Braintree, oddly enough) did, and kindly passed at least some of the info onto me.

      Anyway, Fripp apparently, explicitly treated the guitar as a mystical experience. Morning meditations. Vegetarian diet (though that might have been Toya's doing). Long exercises of 'practicing silence' to 'learn how to just-listen'.

      And it showed in the music. (Anyone else lucky enough to have seen the League of Crafty Guitarists during those years?) 20-30 guitarists, seated in a semicircle, playing as one organic unit.

  9. It's funny. Whenever it comes to arguing against Keynesian economics; or against rampant psuedo-skepticism; or against the all-encompassing-security state, I always see EXACTLY the same mental gymnastics being performed.

    "Prove it."

    But of course, you can't. You can't "prove" what it's like to have a conversation. You can't "prove" a pattern exists, either. Upon learning the word antipattern I had a sudden burst of curiosity about what, exactly, constitutes a pattern in the first place. And you know what? There's no hermeneutic, no logical equation whatsoever that defines a "pattern" against a backdrop of "not a pattern." Maybe the good Justice Stewart was onto something in his description of porn after all.

    1. Does anything ever get proven on the Internet? You need to prove what you need to prove to yourself most of all because proof is as mythical as Santa Claus when it comes to arguing on say, Reddit. That being said proving things to yourself is extraordinarily important, I can't stress that enough.

  10. An excellent and thought-provoking post. Thanks for that CK, and I know I'm only one of many who wish for you a remission of symptoms.

    Your perennial aphorism here: "Coincidence is the Hidden Architecture of Reality" has always served to jostle my awareness. A close companion of that for me is, "Synchronicity is a language by which something communicates with us". This, in monkeygrinder's comment, is also congruent - "these syncs trace a deeper geography of the universe, and we are in flatland"

    "De-science" is an idea whose time has come, and I concur that 'acausal' is a bit of a dodge. But psi alone doesn't fully satisfy either. The most common synchs I experience in the last few years are of a type, and that type invariably has a media component.

    For example, when listening to a podcast I'll glance at an unrelated news article online. As I read e.g. the words "New Zealand", a voice on the podcast will say "New Zealand" in precise calibration with my reading of the identical words. This has happened dozens of times in recent years and I've been careful to look for overt connections, such as related topics within the two forms of media. This phenomenon occurs without any such relation. The precision timing of overlap is uncanny.

    As far as I understand psi, it doesn't seem to be a factor here. Nor can I see any deep resonance personally to either of the twinned subject matters. And yet, I am the nexus point between the two. I am the vector which is required for the event to happen as it does. It baffles me. The only impact of these events is along the lines of, "I do not comprehend how reality works, and here's evidence of that."

    1. Thank you, X. When I say de-science, I mean we need to resist this ascientific march towards the religionizing of science, which is leading to all kinds of bullshit being foisted on the public with a thin coating of "science" rubbed over it like glaze on a donut. People who idolize science in this manner can't even explain what the scientific method is, it's just a totem to them to wave at those people they want to feel superior to.

  11. Lorde, lorde. take the time and energy to visit Carl Jungs home and gnostic space on lake Geneva I truly enjoy my space and constant. This synchromystic universe of friends in and around this sun of an invisible nature. Shine forth brave souls. Dennis of an 87 nature.

    1. Care to give us a travelogue, D? That sounds like an experience.

  12. I don't see a problem with a worldview that entertains psi and recognizes synchronicity likewise. They are not mutually exclusive categories. I fail to see how. The problem with synchronicity is it's a label, a description passing off as an explanation. Once one recognizes that, then there is no longer a problem, a confusion, a misunderstanding. The question is not whether synchronicity is real, of course it is, but what underlies it, how does it happen. The work of Stanford here on Psi Mediated Instrumental Response and Storm and Thalbourne's psychopraxia is relevant (and overlaps in my mind, frankly I can't tell them apart, but Storm and Thalbourne insist there is a difference). Thing is the work of all three parapsychologists is in turn further descriptions, nobody is getting deeper down. That's because we hit a brick wall here, it is a mystery. Like everything else. However there is no contradiction between psi and synchronicity. A silly fight over terminology, although I do agree with you Chris that people can employ the latter term in order to explain away Magic and a shamanic worldview.

    1. Well, psi is testable even if there's a lot of dismissal as to its actual efficacy. That might be a function of propaganda and not science. Syncs in the classical science are very difficult to test for unless you do as I mention and record your every thought. Which I think is a surefire way of eliminating synchronicity from your life.

  13. In answering my own question about where and how to advance my understanding I bought the Monroe Institute's Hemi Sync Gateway program and settled in with meditation with the help of biurnal beats. While many interested that program are questing for out of body experiences, I just wanted help with reaching deeper levels of meditation without religious, philosophical or scientific influence. Answers I live with have to come from me. It seemed this program was the least invasive I could find.

    It worked well in that I had psi or precog experiences much more often, but my progression into more mysterious levels of experience left me shaken. An intrepid explorer I'm not apparently! And that's okay for now.

    So maybe it's just an excuse based on fear, but because the material exists by whatever rational, I choose to be entertained and guided to some extent by what comes naturally rather than to experiment with enhancement techniques. Today anyway.

    1. I address some of that in today's post so please fill us in on some of the details with your experiences. I am very interested in hearing about this.

  14. Chris, I don't know much about this man's work but it seems to go with your theme.

  15. Moss is my go-to guy in matters of sync. I'm reading his Sidewalk Oracles now. He believes the universe is at play with us, sending bundles of probability our way for interpretation and use in personal matters to improve our lives. He has the poet's way in this.

    But for sheer entertainment, some of his personal syncs are incredible.

    1. Thanks for the link. I'd be interested to hear Moss' explanations as to the mechanism behind these syncs. I get a little nervous when I hear nebulous terms like "the Universe" since that, of course, means everything everywhere ever. I'd like to hear some specifics. But I do like his practical approach. What else is there, after all?

  16. For me the brain so obviously doesn't equal the mind that its rarely worth mentioning. It's not like I'm besties with a bunch of reductionist materialists. Most of my friends are artists or seekers of some description and are of the shared opinion that the human animal is more than the sum of its parts.

    In my personal experience I engage with various forms of PSI every day. I have telepathic or pre-cog experiences all the time, to the point where I am now finally starting to lace these facets through my own sense of identity, without cringing at terms like 'Intuitive' or 'Psychic'. It took a long damn while though, and this blog was no short help in allowing me to get to this place. Your work, Chris, aside from saving my life in a very literal sense, also helped me to comprehend myself without the existential mindfuck that previously stopped me from gaining purchase anywhere. I owe you for that.

    But in a greater sense synch has taught me that there are always hidden patterns in every experience. Not everything is synchronicity, and it is most definitely not acausal in the common use of that phrase, but also there are no outside arbitrators judging what is and is not meaningful. This puts responsibility squarely at our door. And that's as it should be. I don't want some dipshit telling me what is and isn't meaningful in my own life. So much of synch, like the more exotic functions of the mind, is weaved and written and contextualised in a our own most intimate and private and secret language.

    For example, my most powerful synchs are virtually untranslatable - relying as they do on an incredibly personal tapestry of associations and insights. With this in mind it becomes pointless trying to convince anyone of the veracity or meaningfulness of your synchs and hidden patterns. Which is why you must craft your own methodology for comprehending these things. And while that method should have the nuance and flair and vitality of art, it should equally be indomitably rigorous, as the best of real science is supposed to be. Observe, correlate, cross-reference. What the fuck else can we do?

  17. Maybe that was my term, Chris. I was paraphrasing and just trying to remember how he'd put the idea in the book.

    Moss may be hard for some to take because he's a dream shaman whose books reflect what he's learned from many forms of shamanism, yet he believes we are all our own. He believes in totem animals. He has the dreamer practice soul retrieval. He's also well versed in psychology, a lover of Yeats, Jung, the sciences, the Greek classics as well as many other Gods from antiquity. Synchronicity is his hallmark in my estimation because he utilizes what he may learn from it without going nuts overdoing looking for meaning everywhere. He poses questions and waits to see what happens. So I take what I can from him without focusing much on what I'm not as interested in. He's enthusiastic for his readers and dreamers to work some magic in their lives. He's all over the place and still steady as a rock.

  18. I guess I didn't answer your question. Lol

    I don't think he knows the mechanism for how things get from there to here other than that they are personal. He loves the mystery, but employs whatever works for him with joy. Hes a good magician in that sense.

  19. Interesting stuff at the Wargo link. I have to echo a couple of the comments in that I believe he is drawing a distinction where there is none to be drawn. Jung's idea is not a denial of an as-of-yet undiscovered underlying relationship, but an umbrella for the phenomenon of uncanny coincidence, bound as it is by meaning instead of some other traditional scientific explanation like causality.

    He is certainly not the first to posit a future-fed precognition as the mystery behind certain of these coincidences, though his is the first I've read that likewise holds Jung's ego responsible for co-opting the propriety of his patient, an intriguing supposition that's routinely obvious in its plausibility that I still find appealing nevertheless.

    So, yeah, he suggests a retroactive cause behind certain of these correlations, which is fine, but it doesn't, in my opinion, invalidate the cluster of "like-minded occurrence" that we're all swimming in, the vast majority of my experience has more in common with the example cited by X above.