Explain this SERENDIPITY and these COINCIDENCES?

J. Wyatt Ehrenfels ehrenfels at fireflysun.com
Sat Jul 19 13:10:47 EST 2003

I present a stunning case of synchronicity in the first (free) chapter
of my book (downloadable as a pdf from fireflySun.com). There appears
to be an experiential architecture of which we catch an obscure
glimpse from time to time. It is the view of a whole by one of its
parts, so the whole is distorted or symbolized in visual or visceral

I don't see synchronicity quite as the miraculous events some people
attempt either to deify or debunk. I suspect it is quite mundane yet
meaningful, only we don't have sufficient information for it to appear
systematic. Synchronicity challenges our rather finite consciousness.
While we view consciousness as everything, because when we "view" we
are "viewing" from or through consciousness, consciousness is actually
a highly specialized and directed function. It allows us to cultivate
science, technology, civilization and also to adjust to external
requirements. But there is much more to our natures and experiences
than consciousness. For example, there is dreaming. Dreams are
experiences and like waking experiences, whether we recall them or not
they are capable of conditioning the criteria that determine how we
perceive, judge, and evaluate. While it appears we dream 2 hours of
every 8 that we sleep, there are some researchers who argue that
dreaming is like a hidden PC program that runs in the background even
when we are awake.

The cognitive structures at the foundation of our consciousness
determine how we make sense of the world, but they are also not
directly accessible to consciousness. They are like the hidden scripts
that make what we see on our PC monitors. These structures are
necessarily limited in what they allow us to see. If consciousness
were not so specialized and directed, we wouldn't be able to carry on
the way we do. But from time to time we can catch an indirect glimpse
either of the broader fabric of experience or of the cognitive
structures themselves.

Aristotle addressed himself to four different forms of causality. 

1. material cause (x's substance or material)
2. efficient cause (locomotion of x, e.g., billiard balls)
3. formal cause (pattern to which x belongs)
4. final cause (intention or purpose of x)

Psychology is remarkably ill-equipped to deal with formal and final
causation. Physicists have moved forward to formal causation, but we
are still stuck in etiological styles that rely exclusively on
material and efficient causation, hence the preposterous
nature-nurture debate (including nature-nurture interactionism, which
is not much of an improvement because it is manipulating the same old

Psychiatrist CG Jung teamed up with physicist Wolfgang Pauli to
address synchronicity and much has been written on the subject by
these two authors. Jung has a book titled Synchronicity that I
consider to be the most authoritative on the subject.

J. Wyatt Ehrenfels

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list