From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Sat Dec 07 2002 - 19:12:16 GMT
>Steve:
>What I am taking issue with is the idea that what makes a given coincidence
>meaningful is a perceived low probability. Making a probabilistic argument
>for how meaningful something is is nonsense.
>Steve:
>I still can't see how the examples you gave are *meaningful* coincidences.
>What do they mean? (If not to simply point to some mysterious force in the
>universe that wants to make neat coincidences happen)
I am not sure if I am understading you but it
seems you want to know what meaning is....
That's really hard to answer...
to me your guess seems partially right...
I think meaning is about the interconnectedness of
everything and harmony/experiencing meaning is feeling
an interconnected. The synchroninistic events are
when you feel it particularly strong.
It's not just low probability by the way.
It's about acausal relationships.
#1Let's say you are thinking about
your friend Joe who you haven't seen in 20 years and
decide to give him call.
#2 Let's sya you are thinking aout your friend Joe who
you haven't seen in 20 years and when you pick up
the phone to call him he is on the line asking for you
because "out of the blue" decided to call you
Now you want to say well #2 has low prob so it is more
meaninful.
But that's not all there is to it.
I can 'trace' the causal events that led to hearing
Joe's voice on the phone in 1 but not in 2.
Thus the sycnronicity of 2 does give you a feeling
of interconnectness/force in the universe.
And its not all just odds. (unless you choose it to be)
erin
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 - 19:05:52 GMT