From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 09 2003 - 23:56:49 GMT
Patrick,
I did enjoy your post by the way. I didn't respond
because I didn't have anything to say.
I know not having anything to say has not
stopped me from posting in the past, but
there's a first for everything ;-)
The foundations of synchronicity
1.Of all his theoretical writings, synchronicity has
met the least success in large part to the difficulty
of presenting a clear statement of a principle that
contravenes the most fundamental habits of modern thinking.
2. The belief in cause and effect is one of the
cardinal tenets of the Western view of life.
Jung's hypothesis of synchronicity makes it possible to
include causality within the context of a more comprehensive
view of the universe.
3.Hume demonstrated logically that causality is not something we actually see
but is only an imputation that we read into events. (we don’t “see” causality,
we infer it)
He said that all he wanted to show was that from the epistemological pint of
view causality cannot be proven as a truth. It is necessary to believe in it
as if it were a fact to daily affairs (tentative pragmatic value). He
suggested the idea that causality might be best understood as a phenomenon of
culture in the context of history.
4. Veblem, American sociologist, pointed out the historical deep-rootedness of
causality as a “social habit of thought” makes it the criterion that all
thinking must meet in order to pass muster in modern times.
5.From developments in Western sciences, specifically physics, and influence
of nonwestern philosophies it is not too difficult to conceive the world may
be better
understood by principles other then causality.
Jung was greatly stimulated by Bohr and Pauli but rigidities of rationalistic
causal thinking was still predominant during his time
6.Jung experienced Hume’s skepticism and his rationalistic critique of
causality through his study of the works of Immunuel Kant. Jung recognized
that the categories of knowledge are not absolute but “common sense” of every
period of history convinces peole living within its framework that their
particular beliefs about knowledge are fixed and final, universal and eternal.
7.Veblen dissected causality as a Western ‘habit of thought’ and Jung had the
same insight with the conception of the archetypes giving him an additional
dimension of physic depth. Convinced that causality can not be accepted as
absolute reality but as physchologically and historically condition POV Jung
turned his attention to cultural approaches that see life in noncausal terms.
He wanted to see how the world can be understood if causality is not assumed
to be the only possibility.
8.He deliberately dealt with all manner of noncausal interpretations but this
field here becomes exceedingly broad and difficult to work in because the
material is so strange to modern preconceptions that its true meanings are
most elusive. The difficulty is only increased by the fact that these
noncausal approaches are not considered respectable.
9.Jung felt it necessary to have insight into these prescientific procedures
if he was to learn how to follow the nonrational workings of the unconscious
in his patients.
10.Jung had been working exploratively with the idea for more htan 20 years
observing it empirically in hisparactice. He wrote his essay “synchronicity as
a principle of acausal relationship” when he was 75. He was not yet
satisified with its development but felt it was essential for him to organize
the material and write it down so the ideas can be made
Available and receive the benefit of suggestion and criticism from other povs.
(thus should be read as a work in progress rather then a definitive statement)
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 : Thu Jan 09 2003 - 23:49:30 GMT