By Letícia Capriotti
(Available at https://ijpr.org.br/artigos/jung-e-sincronicidade-o-conceito-e-suas-armadilhas-leticia-capriotti)
The concept of synchronicity
Synchronicity is an empirical concept that arises to try to account for that which escapes causal explanation. Jung says that “the connection between events, in certain circumstances, may be of a different nature from the causal connection and requires another principle of explanation” (CW VIII, par. 818). Modern physics has made the validity of natural laws relative and thus we realize that causality is a principle that is only valid statistically and that it does not account for rare and random phenomena.
Throughout his work, Jung gave several definitions to the concept of synchronicity. Here are some of them:
> “… coincidence, in time, of two or more events, without a causal relationship but with the same significant content.” (CW VIII, par. 849)
> “… the simultaneity of a psychic state with one or more events that appear as significant parallels of a momentary subjective state and, in certain circumstances, also vice versa.” (CW VIII, par. 850)
> “An unexpected content, which is linked directly or indirectly to an external objective event, coincides with an ordinary psychic state.” (CW VIII, par. 855)
> “… one and the same (transcendent) meaning can manifest itself simultaneously in the human psyche and in the order of an external and independent event.” (CW VIII, par. 905)
> “a special case of general acausal organisation.” (CW VIII, par. 955)
> “significant coincidence of two or more events, in which it is something more than a probability of chance.” (CW VIII, par. 959)
> “a peculiar interdependence of objective events among themselves, as well as the subjective (psychic) states of the observer or observers.” (I Ching, p. 17)
> “the principle of causality tells us that the connection between cause and effect is a necessary connection. The principle of synchronicity tells us that the terms of a meaningful coincidence are linked by simultaneity and meaning.” (CW VIII, par. 906)
Jung also defines three categories of synchronicity:
- coincidence of a psychic state with a simultaneous objective external event.
- coincidence of a psychic state with an external simultaneous event but distant in space.
- coincidence of a psychic state with an external event distant in time.
By defining these categories, we can see that in synchronistic phenomena, time and space are relative, that is, the phenomenon occurs independently of them. Basically, what defines synchronicity is coincidence and meaning.
Jung also noted that such coincidences occur mainly when an archetype is constellated. Archetypes are psychoid factors that have a transgressive nature, since “they are not found exclusively in the psychic sphere, but can also occur in non-psychic circumstances (equivalence of an external physical process with a psychic process).” (CW VIII, par. 954)
Jung proposes that the principle of synchronicity be added to the triad of space, time and causality, saying that “space, time and causality, the triad of classical physics, would be complemented by the factor of synchronicity, becoming a tetrad, a quaternion that makes it possible for us to judge the totality” (CW VIII, par. 951). A graph would then look like this:
Space
Causality ————————— Synchronicity
Time
Yet, through suggestions from Pauli, Jung and he modified the graph, replacing the classical physics scheme with the modern one, thus making it:
Indestructible Energy
Constant Connection of Inconstant Connection
phenomena through ———————————————— through contingency
effect (causality) with identity of meaning (synchronicity)
Space-Time Continuum
Through this model, microphysics and deep psychology come together, arriving at the conception of archetypes as psychophysical constants of nature and creative structuring factors.
Jung referred to his definition of synchronicity as synchronicity in the strict sense and distinguished it from a broader view of synchronicity that he called acausal ordering. Synchronistic phenomena in the strict sense are “acts of creation” in time, and include telepathy, ESP and PK phenomena. The general acausal ordering includes all of these “acts of creation” and all a priori factors such as the properties of integers and the discontinuities of modern physics.
It is based on this principle of general acausal organisation that Jung weaves his considerations about number. He says that calculation is the most appropriate method to deal with chance, because number is mysterious and has never been stripped of its numinous aura. “If, as any mathematics manual says, a group of objects is deprived of all its characteristics, in the end its number will still remain, which seems to indicate that number has an irreducible character.” Because number is the most primitive ordering element of the human spirit, it “is the instrument indicated for creating order or for apprehending a certain regularity already present but still unknown, that is, a certain ordering among things”. That is why Jung came to call number “the archetype of order that has become conscious” and cites the mathematical structure of mandalas, spontaneous products of the unconscious, to reach the conclusion that “the unconscious employs number as an ordering factor.” (CW VIII, par. 870)
The historical precursors
Jung devotes a section of “Synchronicity: A Principle of Acausal Connections” to discussing the historical precursors of synchronicity. He states that the Chinese conception of reality, and particularly the concept of Tao, is largely synchronistic. He says: “… according to the Chinese conception, there is a latent ‘rationality’ in all things. This is the fundamental idea that lies at the basis of meaningful coincidence: it is possible because both sides have the same meaning.” (CW VIII, par. 912)
Here in the West this principle existed for a long time. Jung says that “the primitive conception, as well as the classical and medieval conception of nature, postulates the existence of a similar principle alongside causality.” (CW VIII, par. 929) The idea of a unity of all nature (unus mundus) permeates these conceptions, and therefore in them there is no difference between the micro and the macrosome — there is a correspondence between all things; also permeating these conceptions is the idea that there is in nature a source of all knowledge that lies outside the human soul, an absolute knowledge. However, in the past, people did not think about synchronicity because they did not think about chance. Everything was attributed to a magical causality that today seems naïve to us. With the advent of scientific thought, these conceptions disappeared. Jung points out what caused them to disappear, saying that “with the rise of the physical sciences in the 19th century, the theory of correspondentia completely disappears from the surface and the magical world of ancient times seems buried forever.” (CW VIII, par. 929) But this idea of synchronicity and of a subsistent meaning in nature, which is the basis of classical Chinese thought and is part of the naïve conception of the Middle Ages, although it seems to some to be a regression, had to be taken up again by modern psychology since the principle of causality alone does not explain the entire reality of events.
Jung points to the precursors of the idea of synchronicity as Hippocrates’ “sympathy of all things”; Theophrastus’ idea that the sensible and the supersensible are united by a bond of communion; Philo of Alexandria’s idea of a need and friendship that unites the universe; the idea of the monad, which also has a meaning of unity of all things, from the alchemist Zosimus; Plotinus’ universal soul; Pico Della Mirandola’s idea of the world as a single being; Agrippa von Nettesheim’s innate “knowledge” or “idea” of living organisms; and Johann Kepler’s idea of the anima telluris. Jung also cites Schopenhauer and the idea of the will or prima causa and of meaningful simultaneity (hence the term “synchronicity” used by Jung). But the author that Jung cites most is Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Leibniz explains reality through four principles: space, time, causality and correspondence (harmonia praestabilita). The latter is an acausal principle of synchronism of psychic and physical events. Jung disagrees with Leibniz on only one point: for Leibniz this is a constant factor, while for Jung synchronistic events occur sporadically and irregularly.
The traps of the concept of synchronicity
For Western thought since Descartes, “scientific explanation” goes back to a causal validation: D is caused by C, C by B, B by A. It is not surprising then that the discussion of Jung’s hypothesis of a principle of synchronicity has produced numerous misunderstandings.
Marie-Louise von Franz in her article “A Contribution to the Discussion of C. G. Jung’s Synchronicity Hypothesis” points out a series of errors that have already been made or that could be made in the interpretation of this concept and that will be summarised and systematised here.
The author begins by talking about the difficulties that many parapsychologists have in understanding this new way of thinking and says that:
In my opinion this comes from the fact that many parapsychologists are always making an intense effort to gain acceptance of their field by basing it on a “rigorous” scientific method, that is, on quantitative methods and causal thinking, whereas precisely what Jung’s hypothesis proposes is in an opposite direction, away from what has until now been considered the only “scientific” way of thinking. (p. 229)
She then goes on to talk about some people who tend to think that synchronicity explains “psi” phenomena causally and states:
The synchronicity hypothesis does not causally “explain” psi phenomena, but compared with the results obtained in research to date, it places them in a new, broader context, that is, in the domain of archetypes, a field in which detailed biological and psychological studies have already been made. However, these studies unfortunately seem to be unknown to most parapsychologists. (p. 230)
Another erroneous tendency is found among those who seek a neurological explanation for synchronistic phenomena, when in fact what characterises a synchronistic event is precisely the absence of a causal relationship. There are also those who assume that synchronistic events are caused by the unconscious of the observer. In this regard, she says:
According to the Jungian view, the collective unconscious is not at all an expression of personal desires and goals, but a neutral entity, psychic in nature, which exists in an absolutely transpersonal way. To attribute the occurrence of synchronistic events to the unconscious of the observer would be nothing more than a regression to primitive magical thinking, according to which it was once assumed that, for example, an eclipse could be “caused” by the malevolence of a sorcerer. Jung even explicitly warned against regarding archetypes (or the collective unconscious) or psi powers as the causal agency of synchronistic events. (p. 231)
The fact that a synchronistic event does not have a cause can lead to the error of imagining that everything that does not have a known cause is a synchronistic event. Regarding this, Jung is quite clear, stating that: “We must obviously guard against thinking of every event whose cause is unknown as “without a cause”. This is admissible only when a cause is not even imaginable. This is especially the case when space and time lose their meaning or appear relativised, in which case a causal connection also becomes unthinkable.” (CW VIII, par. 957)
The issue of meaning, which is crucial in classifying a synchronistic event, can also cause confusion. Claiming that the existence of an observer who gives meaning to the event is fundamental does not mean that synchronistic events and their meaning are produced by the observer. This issue of meaning also brings other problems. Since meaning is subjective, how can we know that we are not imagining a meaning when in reality it does not exist? Everything that concerns archetypal phenomena has a “logic” of assertion that Jung calls “necessary statements”. These are not created by the ego, they are “imposed” by the archetype and are expected whenever an archetype is constellated, as is the case with synchronistic events, giving us a parameter to know whether the event is truly significant or not.
The acausal ordering and “absolute knowledge” behind synchronistic events should not be confused with a theological “God”. It is possible to postulate a deus faber behind these events, but this is beyond any possibility of proof and Jung never did so.
Since the constellation of an archetype is fundamental to the occurrence of a synchronistic event, it is easy to make the mistake of considering that it was the archetype that ‘caused’ it. Jung says that:
I am inclined, however, to admit that synchronicity in the strictest sense is only a special case of general organisation, that of the equivalence of psychic and physical processes where the observer is in a privileged position to be able to recognise the tertium comparationis. But as soon as he perceives the archetypal background, he is tempted to attribute the assimilation of independent psychic and physical processes to a (causal) effect of the archetype, and thus to ignore the fact that they are merely contingent. We avoid this danger if we consider synchronicity as a special case of general acausal organisation. (…) … we must consider them [acausal events] as acts of creation in the sense of a creatio continua (continuous creation) of a pattern that has been repeated sporadically since all eternity and cannot be deduced from known antecedents. (CW VIII, par. 516)
The archetypal organisation “appears” or becomes “visible” in a synchronistic event, but it is not the cause of it. The synchronistic event is a creatio, a spontaneous emergence of something entirely new and therefore not causally predetermined.
Although Jung suggested that the general acausal ordering can be verified experimentally through the methods of divination, synchronistic events are not amenable to statistical investigation, since Jung is clear that synchronistic events are unpredictable, spontaneous and unrepeatable.
Bibliography
CARD, Charles. Symposia on the Foundations of Modern Physics. Edited by K. V. Laurikainen e C. Montown. Singapore: World Scientific, 1993.
JUNG, Carl Gustav. Dream Analysis. Edited by William McGuire. Bollingen Series: Princeton University Press, 1983.
______. Fundamentos de Psicologia Analítica. 6th ed. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes, 1991. v. XVIII/1.
______. Letters. Edited by Gerhard Adler. 1st ed. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1973. v. 1.
______. Letters. Edited by Gerhard Adler. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1991. v. 2.
______. Nietzsche’s Zarathustra. Edited by James L. Jarrett. Bollingen Series: Princeton University Press, 1988.
______. Psicologia e Alquimia. 4th ed. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes: 1991, v. XII.
______. Sincronicidade. 5th ed. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes, 1991. v. VIII/3.
______. Um mito moderno sobre coisas vistas no céu. 2th ed. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes, 1991. v. X/4.
______. Visions Seminar. Edited by Claire Douglas. Bollingen Series: Princeton University Press, 1997.
SAMUELS, Andrew. Why it is difficult to be a Jungian Analyst in today’s world. Annals of the 13th Congress of the International Association for Analytical Psychology, held in August 1995 in Zurich.
WEHR, Gerhard. An Illustrated Biography of C. G. Jung. 1st ed. USA, Boston: Shambhala, 1989.
WILHELM, Richard. I Ching. 16th ed. São Paulo, SP: Pensamento. 1997.
______. O Segredo da Flor de Ouro. 8th ed. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes, 1996.