How to explain synchronicity?

[AshvinP]

Let me guess. You have either customized your feed or youtube has customized it for you based on your prior viewing.

I happen to be looking for spotting scopes and have done some Google searches. It must be synchronicity that now suddenly ads for spotting scopes keep appearing on random pages I go to.

IMV, not really comparable at all, and in any case, all being completely unfalsifiable, as usual, we're never going to be convinced by each other's take on it, so it no longer seems worth the bother trying to make the case that Jung's approach to this was hardly poorly thought through, such that he was merely fooling himself. Clearly you feel differently ... so be it

Yep. I think Jung was fooling himself.

If you had happened to be doing any Jung or synchronicity searches recently, it wouldn't be surprising to find a "feed" knows about your search history and might "suggest" something.

The problem with so many of these synchronicity events is the many different types of events can meet the same criteria.

It's typical for people in the modern age to elevate the particular manifestation over the universal principle - the OP was not about whether that particular cat commercial event can be analyzed and determined to be a valid "synchronicity". That was merely a reference point for the overall concept of synchronicity and whether that concept makes sense under idealism, where meaning is fundamental to 'outer' and 'inner' worlds. Since you generally reject idealism, it is clear why you must also reject synchronicity no matter what evidence or data or arguments is produced. But if that's not your position, then maybe you can explain what it is and why "synchronicity" is an invalid concept.

[Soul_of_Shu]

It's typical for people in the modern age to elevate the particular manifestation over the universal principle - the OP was not about whether that particular cat commercial event can be analyzed and determined to be a valid "synchronicity". That was merely a reference point for the overall concept of synchronicity and whether that concept makes sense under idealism, where meaning is fundamental to 'outer' and 'inner' worlds. Since you generally reject idealism, it is clear why you must also reject synchronicity no matter what evidence or data or arguments is produced. But if that's not your position, then maybe you can explain what it is and why "synchronicity" is an invalid concept.

I hadn't thought of putting it this way before, so I also would be very interested in hearing Jim's reasoning for how, under idealism, synchronicity, as Jung accounts for it, is not entirely plausible, and entirely expected. Otherwise, it just comes across as level-headed Jim showing how muddle-minded and gullible proponents of idealism are, which isn't likely to be credible to any proponent of idealism here, and would only be convincing to the hordes (ahem) of anti-idealists who are obviously attracted here.

[SanteriSatama]

Otherwise, it just comes across as level-headed Jim showing how muddle-minded and gullible proponents of idealism are, which isn't likely to be credible to any proponent of idealism here.

It's quite credible to this proponent of idealism, that I'm muddle-minded and gullible.

[Soul_of_Shu]

It's quite credible to this proponent of idealism, that I'm muddle-minded and gullible.

Well, I stand corrected, Jim may at least convince you that under idealism synchronicity is not valid ... and then he can get to work on disabusing you of your other forest-finn fantasies

[AshvinP]

It's typical for people in the modern age to elevate the particular manifestation over the universal principle - the OP was not about whether that particular cat commercial event can be analyzed and determined to be a valid "synchronicity". That was merely a reference point for the overall concept of synchronicity and whether that concept makes sense under idealism, where meaning is fundamental to 'outer' and 'inner' worlds. Since you generally reject idealism, it is clear why you must also reject synchronicity no matter what evidence or data or arguments is produced. But if that's not your position, then maybe you can explain what it is and why "synchronicity" is an invalid concept.

I hadn't thought of putting it this way before, so I also would be very interested in hearing Jim's reasoning for how, under idealism, synchronicity, as Jung accounts for it, is not entirely plausible, and entirely expected. Otherwise, it just comes across as level-headed Jim showing how muddle-minded and gullible proponents of idealism are, which isn't likely to be credible to any proponent of idealism here, and would only be convincing to the hordes (ahem) of anti-idealists who are obviously attracted here.

Yeah and I was not only picking on Jim with that point, bc we idealists fall for that trap often too. We start pointing to specific manifestations of something and say that's evidence of a larger reality, but idealism should actually lead us in the opposite direction... the principle at work is more real than the manifestation, and the meta-principle (archetype) than the principle. That is medieval philosophical realism, except we now have capacity to develop knowing faculties so that it does not remain at super abstract level of resolution. I discuss that more in next essay installment which should be posted soon.

[Jim Cross]

It's typical for people in the modern age to elevate the particular manifestation over the universal principle - the OP was not about whether that particular cat commercial event can be analyzed and determined to be a valid "synchronicity". That was merely a reference point for the overall concept of synchronicity and whether that concept makes sense under idealism, where meaning is fundamental to 'outer' and 'inner' worlds. Since you generally reject idealism, it is clear why you must also reject synchronicity no matter what evidence or data or arguments is produced. But if that's not your position, then maybe you can explain what it is and why "synchronicity" is an invalid concept.

I hadn't thought of putting it this way before, so I also would be very interested in hearing Jim's reasoning for how, under idealism, synchronicity, as Jung accounts for it, is not entirely plausible, and entirely expected. Otherwise, it just comes across as level-headed Jim showing how muddle-minded and gullible proponents of idealism are, which isn't likely to be credible to any proponent of idealism here, and would only be convincing to the hordes (ahem) of anti-idealists who are obviously attracted here.

Synchronicity would be entirely plausible in a solipsistic idealism.

It could make sense in physicalism if Wargo's time loops exist.

The problem is determining when it happens and when it is just the mind making connections with random events. Do you have a technique to distinguish real synchronicity from chance happenings?

[Soul_of_Shu]

Synchronicity would be entirely plausible in a solipsistic idealism.

How is it not plausible under non-solipsistic idealism?

Do you have a technique to distinguish real synchronicity from chance happenings?

There will always be the possibility that it is just random chance, even in the classic case of Jung's account of the scarab beetle synchronicity, or the similar examples that BK offers in DJM, so it can never be ruled out. The point remains that for proponents of idealism, in considering explanations for such an event, if it comes down to what Jung is offering contra what you are offering, unless a convincing case can be made that what Jung is offering (as per Chapter 4 of DJM) is implausible and invalid, then it seems somehow unlikely that your alternative is going to trump Jung's alternative as the more convincing explanation for proponents of idealism. So assuming you've read chapter 4 of DJM, please do make the case for why proponents of idealism should reject it in favour of what you are offering.

[Jim Cross]

Synchronicity would be entirely plausible in a solipsistic idealism.

How is it not plausible under non-solipsistic idealism?

Do you have a technique to distinguish real synchronicity from chance happenings?

There will always be the possibility that it is just random chance, even in the classic case of Jung's account of the scarab beetle synchronicity, or the similar examples that BK offers in DJM, so it can never be ruled out. The point remains that for proponents of idealism, in considering explanations for such an event, if it comes down to what Jung is offering contra what you are offering, unless a convincing case can be made that what Jung is offering (as per Chapter 4 of DJM) is implausible and invalid, then it seems somehow unlikely that your alternative is going to trump Jung's alternative as the more convincing explanation for proponents of idealism. So assuming you've read chapter 4 of DJM, please do make the case for why proponents of idealism should reject it in favour of what you are offering.

It's plausible under any kind of metaphysics. It is just more plausible with solipsistic idealism.

No, I haven't read DJM. If you can't rule out random chance or, more importantly, you cannot tell in any particular instance whether it is real synchronicity or random chance, then why believe it? What's more, even if you could detect actual synchronicity, what value do you gain from it aside from maybe some personal satisfaction that the universe is ever in your favor?

[AshvinP]

Synchronicity would be entirely plausible in a solipsistic idealism.

How is it not plausible under non-solipsistic idealism?

Do you have a technique to distinguish real synchronicity from chance happenings?

There will always be the possibility that it is just random chance, even in the classic case of Jung's account of the scarab beetle synchronicity, or the similar examples that BK offers in DJM, so it can never be ruled out. The point remains that for proponents of idealism, in considering explanations for such an event, if it comes down to what Jung is offering contra what you are offering, unless a convincing case can be made that what Jung is offering (as per Chapter 4 of DJM) is implausible and invalid, then it seems somehow unlikely that your alternative is going to trump Jung's alternative as the more convincing explanation for proponents of idealism. So assuming you've read chapter 4 of DJM, please do make the case for why proponents of idealism should reject it in favour of what you are offering.

It's plausible under any kind of metaphysics. It is just more plausible with solipsistic idealism.

No, I haven't read DJM. If you can't rule out random chance or, more importantly, you cannot tell in any particular instance whether it is real synchronicity or random chance, then why believe it? What's more, even if you could detect actual synchronicity, what value do you gain from it aside from maybe some personal satisfaction that the universe is ever in your favor?

Because, quite simply, there is no such thing as "random chance" under idealism (and I am not even sure there is under any other ontology). Ideas are structured with highly specific meanings, which are fundamental to the Cosmos, meaning there is no appearance of the Cosmos without meaning existing within itself. I think the more interesting question is whether any occurrence in the Cosmos is not a "synchronicity" for some perspective beholding it, and I lean heavily towards the answer "no". I suspect that "synchronicities" are occurring around us all of the time and we either fail to perceive them or write them off as "coincidences" or concepts which cannot possibly reflect the underlying Reality, like "random chance". Of course, in that case, the term is only useful for distinguishing which perspective on any given occurrence is having the synchronous experience.

[Soul_of_Shu]

No, I haven't read DJM. If you can't rule out random chance or, more importantly, you cannot tell in any particular instance whether it is real synchronicity or random chance, then why believe it? What's more, even if you could detect actual synchronicity, what value do you gain from it aside from maybe some personal satisfaction that the universe is ever in your favor?

I can't pretend to make a better case than what is offered in chapter 4 of DJM, which attempts to address those questions, nor simply encapsulate it here without pretty much just re-writing it, since it's already a very succinct encapsulation. If I could copy and paste I would. Suffice to say that what Jung proposes has nothing to do with causality, such that one's thoughts solipsistically cause corresponding synchronistic events to occur, but only a careful reading of Jung's offering can hope to get at why. But I suspect you'd probably reject it anyway, so maybe you're better off saving the 10 bucks.