From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Sat Dec 07 2002 - 17:41:25 GMT
Well Steve,
the thing is I believe you make a good argument...
but the possiblilty that probability that
meaningful coincidence after meaninful coincidence
is all chance has about equal probability
of they don't to.
Seems to me you can believe the universe is
operating by chance or if everything is meaningfully connected....
I just honestly think your conception of a universe
has any more validity then Jungs.
LoL...there is that one quote in Lila
where Pirsig talks about a poker scene in Sundance Kid.
He askes why is he having such good luck.
He answers "prayer". He doesn't say it sarcastically and
he doesn't say it seriously either.
Yeah that ironic tone is what I'd say to YOUR card
examples;-) I am perfectly fine with your conception of
the your universe..just recognize that is how you choose
to see the world....Just like somebody choosing to see
meaningful connections.
erin
> Erin,
>> Thanks for the quotes. Do you agree with this re-wording:
>>
>> Two events are said to be acausal if they are related, but not
>> causally. And synchronicity describes acausal events that occur
>> at or near the same time but not by chance.
>>
>> Also, do you think that
>> - events described by synchronicity should be freighted with
>> significance on par with causal events?
>> - as an explanatory principle synchronicity is on the same order
>> as causality, as Jungian theory claims?
>> - there is some similarity between the mindset that sees significance
>> in unlikely events and one that treats all events as happening in a
>> moral-based reality?
>> Glenn
>>
>
>Erin, Glen, Wim, All,
>
>Wim, thanks for the recap.
>
>Is there something besides "innumeracy" that is supposed to be at work in
>the adding of meaning to an event considered to be a coincidence in a way
>that is inversely related to the likelihood of occurrence (i.e. The less
>likely, the more meaningful)?
>
>Which poker hand is the least likely to be dealt from a well-shuffled deck?
>A. all 4 Kings and the queen of spades
>B. 2 of hearts, 2 of diamonds, jack of spades, jack of hearts, jack of
>clubs
>C. 5 of diamonds, 6 of diamonds, 8 of clubs, 4 of clubs, queen of clubs
>D. all have about a 1 in 2.5 million chance of occurring
>
>(hint: the correct answer is D)
>
>It would be silly to look at every poker hand and think, "this is just too
>weird, there is only a one in 2.5 million chance that I would get this hand,
>some mysterious force must be at work here." But in effect, this is what
>people do all the time who look for meaning in coincidences.
>
>It doesn't make sense to compute such a probability after the fact unless
>you were looking for the specific occurrence ahead of time.
>
>Q: How likely is it to flip a coin and get 5 heads in a row?
>A: Just as likely as getting HTHTT or any other particular sequence.
>
>Every particular event that you can imagine is unlikely to occur. The more
>specific you are, the less likely it is. But such a probability would only
>apply if you thought to compute the probability before the event happened
>and were looking for it at a specific time.
>
>Another example, someone told me that the lottery number in New York on the
>anniversary of 9/11 was 911 and wondered what the probability of that
>happening is. On the one hand, you could say that the probability is 100%
>since it already happened (assuming it's true). On the other hand if you
>thought to assess the likelihood of the occurrence before it happened (which
>this person did not), the only number I think you could come up with is
>1/1000, the same as every other number on every other day. So what? The
>small probability would not add any extra meaning than it would had the
>number been 912 instead, it would have had the same probability.
>
>According to Jung, what is recognition of such a connecting principle
>supposed to do for us? I don't see how it could be considered an
>"explanatory principle."
>
>President Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy and President Kennedy's
>secretary was named Lincoln. More evidence of a connecting principle? If
>one assumes that coincidences point to meaning, I still can't understand
>what such a coincidence is supposed to mean or how a coincidences meaning
>can be discerned.
>
>For some it is evidence of a mysterious force in the universe that wants to
>make itself known through improbable occurrences. I find that many people's
>spirituality is based in large part on proving God through coincidences. If
>the lottery is a tax on the people who are bad at math, then synchronicity,
>astrology, and the like may be religion for the same people.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 07 2002 - 17:35:26 GMT