1
   

Jung's "Synchronicity" and Madness

 
 
Reply Sat 2 Dec, 2006 12:39 pm
Synchronicity is an explanatory principle, according to its creator, Carl Jung.

Synchronicity explains "meaningful coincidences".

Technically put, synchronisity is the "temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events."

According to Michael W. ClarkJung had outlined three types of synchronicity:

1) The meaningful acausal coincidence of a psychological event and an external observable event, both taking place at or around the same time.

This first type of synchronicity could be illustrated as follows: You're driving home and about two and a half blocks from your destination, you begin to think of a friend whom you haven't seen in years. Upon entering the front door you find the very same friend had just phoned and left a message on your answering service.

2) The meaningful acausal coincidence of a psychological event and an external observable event, the latter taking place outside the individual's range of sensory perception.

This second type of synchronicity is illustrated by the well documented vision of the Swedish scientist and mystic Emanuel Swedenborg. Jung notes that Swedenborg inwardly saw a devastating fire which took place approximately 100 miles away in Stockholm, representing what psi researchers now call remote viewing.

3) The meaningful acausal coincidence of an internal psychological event with an external observable event, the latter taking place in the future.

Also called precognition, examples of this third type of synchronicity are found throughout history. In the Biblical tradition, for instance, Jesus accurately predicts Peter's finding a coin in a fish's mouth, as well as his own betrayal, death and resurrection. ------

Now, according to the Psychological Institute at the University of Freiburg there is currently a controversial debate concerning whether unusual experiences are symptoms of a mental disorder, or if mental disorders are a consequence of such experiences, or if people with mental disorders are especially susceptible to or even looking for these experiences.

The word apophenia was originally coined by Klaus Conrad who defined it as the "unmotivated seeing of connections" accompanied by a "specific experience of an abnormal meaningfulness". Conrad originally described this phenomenon in relation to the distortion of reality present in psychosis but it has become more widely used to describe this tendency in healthy individuals without necessarily implying the presence of neurological or mental illness.



Peter Brugger of the Department of Neurology, University Hospital, Zurich, gives examples of apophenia from August Strindberg's Occult Diary, the playwright's own account of his psychotic break:[INDENT]He saw "two insignia of witches, the goat's horn and the besom" in a rock and wondered "what demon it was who had put [them] ... just there and in my way on this particular morning." A building then looked like an oven and he thought of Dante's Inferno.[/INDENT][INDENT]He sees sticks on the ground and sees them as forming Greek letters which he interprets to be the abbreviation of a man's name and feels he now knows that this man is the one who is persecuting him. He sees sticks on the bottom of a chest and is sure they form a pentagram.[/INDENT][INDENT]He sees tiny hands in prayer when he looks at a walnut under a microscope and it "filled me with horror."[/INDENT][INDENT]His crumpled pillow looks "like a marble head in the style of Michaelangelo." Strindberg comments that "these occurrences could not be regarded as accidental, for on some days the pillow presented the appearance of horrible monsters, of gothic gargoyles, of dragons, and one night ... I was greeted by the Evil One himself...."[/INDENT]According to Brugger, "The propensity to see connections between seemingly unrelated objects or ideas most closely links psychosis to creativity ... apophenia and creativity may even be seen as two sides of the same coin."

My question is: how can we seperate insanity and madness from a real experience of synchronisity?

--Pythagorean
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,220 • Replies: 4
No top replies

 
Aristoddler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Dec, 2006 05:43 pm
@Pythagorean,
Realizing whether or not the event was an isolated coincidence, or a string of incidents with similar "symptoms" as defined above.

I had a song in my head this morning, and sang it in the shower.
When I got in the car to go run some errands, the song was playing when I turned on the radio.
This would be chalked up to media hype and marketing if it were a top-40 song, but it was a song from the 50's called "End of the World" by Skeeter Davis. Hardly something I would have heard in the last few weeks.

But half an hour ago, I had "Crazy" by Gnarles Barkley in my head, and what do you know...it's playing right now.
For the sixth or seventh time today.

So does this mean I'm experiencing syncronicity in some form?
Or is this an isolated event that can be chalked up to coincidence?

Which brings another question to bear:
How often have we experienced this phenom, and passed it off as coincidence?
Electra phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Dec, 2006 06:19 pm
@Aristoddler,
"The mystic swims, the schizophrenic drowns."

Phenomenon just means tapping into what is underneath what we THINK is real.

In the dream, things FLIRT with you. If you flirt back, there can be many levels of communion.

All of these questions are dependent on what we believe to be the foundation of all reality.

Synchronicities are indicators of expansion of consciousness. People go crazy by having doubt or suspicion of what they are shown to be true. Intuition is the best guide, not attempts to be clever.

How do we know if we are going crazy or not? I think we went crazy long ago by forgetting ourselves.
0 Replies
 
Stringfellow
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2008 12:27 pm
@Pythagorean,
Jung's three criteria for synchronicity are 1) acausality, 2) simultaneity (within a continuity of time but not necessarily at the exact moment), and 3) meaning. So the event comes "out of nowhere", happens simultaneously with it's counterpart (either objective or psychological), and the event creates a meaning, sometimes an "aha experience." It is a body/mind connection, or subjective/objective one. Reality meets psyche.

If by madness or insanity, you mean "psychosis", then the question is an interesting one for sure. IMO synchronicity requires some extent of individuation (the development of the individual personality), and this means perhaps neurotic, but not psychotic. And, to have an "aha" experience, one must have some level of sanity to recognize this. The only way to determine whether or not a psychotic had a synchronicity would be for it to be validated by another non-psychotic individual. (And this begs the question, "How do you know they are sane. ) So, I think if you recognize that you've had a synchronicity that indicates a level of self-consciousness that shows you are not mad or insane.
0 Replies
 
validity
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2008 10:49 pm
@Aristoddler,
Aristoddler wrote:
Realizing whether or not the event was an isolated coincidence, or a string of incidents with similar "symptoms" as defined above.

I had a song in my head this morning, and sang it in the shower.
When I got in the car to go run some errands, the song was playing when I turned on the radio.
This would be chalked up to media hype and marketing if it were a top-40 song, but it was a song from the 50's called "End of the World" by Skeeter Davis. Hardly something I would have heard in the last few weeks.

But half an hour ago, I had "Crazy" by Gnarles Barkley in my head, and what do you know...it's playing right now.
For the sixth or seventh time today.

So does this mean I'm experiencing syncronicity in some form?
Or is this an isolated event that can be chalked up to coincidence?

Which brings another question to bear:
How often have we experienced this phenom, and passed it off as coincidence?


May I ask how many other songs you had in your head all day. Or was it just these two only.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Jung's "Synchronicity" and Madness
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/23/2024 at 08:24:35