synchronicityfilm.com

I see this forum being announced on blogs all over the place. Hopefully, there will be more activity in the future. I am quite interested in the movie being promoted. I look forward to watching it when it comes out.

I have a long-time interest in synchronicity. For some years now I have been recording instances of an extreme form of synchronicity. Its defining characteristic is that two events occur together, seemingly by chance, and objectively share not just one common feature, but a long list of them. In other words, the two event have an extremely improbable amount of things in common.

My experience of tracking these occurrences is that they seem to be speaking to me. I don't say this lightly. It is easy, of course, to see an intelligent communication where there is really just random noise. It happens all the time. But I honestly don't think that is what is happening here. The messages expressed by these occurrences are extremely wise and helpful. They have also often been accurately predictive. They take definite stands; it's not all mushy generalities. They seem too intelligent and too helpful to be anything but intentional messages.

I also think this is an extremely widespread experience. I've come across people who don't seem to believe in anything who yet have made important decisions in the belief that some remarkable coincidence was a case of "the universe" speaking to them.

If this is really what's happening, if something is speaking to us, then I don't have hope for something like quantum physics to explain synchronicity, or at least the more impressive cases of it. How can quantum physics explain something crafting and sending intelligent messages to us?

So if we take seriously the possibility that something is speaking to us, we need to be prepared, I think, to look outside the realm of impersonal scientific laws, and be willing to explore the possibility that there is an actual intelligence or intelligences capable of arranging the seemingly random events of our daily lives into a message.

Robert

When you say "something is speaking to us" what exactly do you think that is?

John C. Lilly thought synchronicities were controlled by the Earth Coincidence Control Office (E.C.C.O). He detailed this in his book "The Dyadic Cyclone". Lilly posited that human experiences were set up as a chain of "coincidences" , being played out here on Earth (and beyond), while being governed by some unexplainable force or set of rules. By defining E.C.C.O.'s existence Lilly was able to give a name to the seeming unfathomable connections and possibilities in the universe that man was, and often still is, incapable of grasping. Being such a scientific mind as he was, I believe that this was John's way of defining his own "god", making the concept into a tangible thing.

Some calling this "speaking" the voice of the universe. Some call it their higher selves. Some call it chance and projection.

What do you think the source of the "speaking" is? Perhaps a conscious universe?

Also some of your examples of "extreme synchronicity" would be a pleasure to read.

Luke

Luke,

I really appreciated your reply. You asked for examples of the extreme form of synchronicity I mentioned, and as luck would have it, your reply was part of one! So I’ll tell the story as a way of familiarizing you with the phenomenon.

In the morning, I read your reply and found myself pleasantly surprised by how intelligent and informative it was. I had never heard of John Lilly’s E.C.C.O., and was intrigued by a scientist positing some kind of cosmic intelligence controlling events in our lives. I was so struck that I talked about your response to my wife and told myself that I really should find myself a copy of Lilly’s book. I knew Lilly was quite “out there,” but I thought it would be useful to know his thoughts on the matter anyway.

Later in the day, my 20-year-old son came over. He barely got in the door before he handed me a book he said he was lending me, and then began telling me about its contents. The book is DMT: The Spirit Molecule: A Doctor’s Revolutionary Research into the Biology of Near-Death and Mystical Experiences, by Rick Strassman, M.D. He sat down and began telling me about it. It was about government-approved experiments conducted at the University of New Mexico using DMT, a plant-derived psychedelic that is also manufactured by the brain itself. My son said that through this research, Strassman had come to believe in other dimensions of reality and even in nonhuman intelligences that lived in these other dimensions and seemingly interacted with his research subjects.

While he was talking, I began to see a number of parallels between what he was saying and what you had said. Following the link you provided to the John Lilly bio on Wikipedia, here are the parallels I can see, the features shared by both your reply and the conversation with my son:

1. Someone tells me about a book.
2. The book is by a medical doctor who is also either a psychiatrist (Strassman) or psychoanalyst (Lilly).
3. He did government-approved or -funded research in a university setting.
4. His research involved researching the structures of the brain (Lilly “began researching the physical structures of the brain"; Strassman focuses on the pineal gland, which releases DMT).
5. He did extensive research on psychedelic drugs (Lilly is well-known for his research into psychedelics; Strassman's book is about his psychedelic research).
6. Though beginning as a conventional scientist, his research takes him beyond conventional scientific views into the spiritual and mystical.
7. Specifically, he comes to accept the existence of nonphysical dimensions of the universe,
8. And of nonhuman intelligence(s) in those dimensions that can interact with our lives.
9. The book recounts his explorations into consciousness and the conclusions he has drawn.

In my mind, this goes way beyond chance. Can we realistically imagine two independent events just happening to share this many features? You can probably see why I call this an extreme form of synchronicity. In Jung’s famous scarab beetle story, a patient tells him a dream about a scarab beetle and then Jung hears a scarab beetle tapping at the window. There you have two events that share only one feature in common: a scarab beetle. Here, though, you have two events that share at least nine features, some of them strikingly specific, and all of them coming together to tell a coherent story. And it’s actually a quite interesting story: Someone tells me about a book in which a conventional scientist’s research into psychedelics takes him beyond the pale of conventional science and into the spiritual and mystical.

This is a very typical example of the phenomenon I am talking about. You can read other examples on my blog: http://www.semeionpress.com/signs/SignPosts/

I realize you also asked my thoughts on what might be speaking to us in these occurrences, but in the interests of not lengthening an already long post, I’ll go ahead and answer that later.

Robert

Hi Robert

I'm quoting here from Synchronicity: Science, Myth and the Trickster:

[A curiosity shop could be filled with interesting but apparently meaningless tricks of chance.] "Jung himself was critical of such coincidences, and in most instances did not consider them to be true synchronicity. [He] was explicit in limiting his notion of synchronicity to those coincidences that express symbolic or mythic meaning."

Now the scarab beetle story certainly displays symbolic meaning, but if we are to accept Jung's theory of synchronicity, does this strange event with the Lilly book qualify?

Other people have looked at synchronicity differently. For example Paul Kammerer focused on ideas, themes or patterns that repeat themselves, for example watching people in the street all walk past wearing the same hat, or carrying the same bag. See more here: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Law_of_series

Other synchronicity is the coinciding of meaning, as you have in your illustrated example. So there are different flavours of synchronicity - are they all pointing to the same thing? If so, what might it be?

Luke,

Good to hear back from you. To give you a bit of background, I've been tracking synchronicities very much like the one I wrote up here on the forum. Over time, I realized they represented a very distinct and specific phenomenon, with particular characteristics you see again and again. Those characteristics---which include closeness in time and a long list of parallels that are specific and tell a coherent story---make them appear to go way beyond chance.

I've come to believe that where we need to start is somewhere like this, with examples that stand out as truly defying a chance explanation. Then we can inquire into what phenomenon (or phenomena) is behind them. But I think we need to start with the data, and let it tell us about itself, rather than start with a lot of opening assumptions.

That is a problem I have with Jung's approach and with Synchronicity: Science, Myth, and the Trickster. Both seem light on examples and heavy on theorizing. Maybe it's just my dim memory, but I can only remember three actual examples of synchronicity in Jung's book. There may have been a few more, but there wasn't many. The same was true of the Science, Myth, and the Trickster book. Lots of theorizing but few examples.

What I have noticed in the examples I've collected is that, rather than meaningless, they are always pointed at a situation in my life that is relevant for me. Usually, this situation is front and center. It is generally the main focus of one of the events, though other times it is more subtle. What this phenomenon does is highlight a situation of relevance and then say something about it. It frames that situation in a certain way. It puts a certain spin on it, which hopefully is not just spin.

So meaning is central with the phenomenon I am recording. It just doesn't seem to be expressed through the kind of symbols that Jung posited---particular objects like scarab beetles, fish, and birds that he saw as expressing archetypal meaning. That does not seem to be a feature of this phenomenon.

So are there different kinds of synchronicity? That's a very good question. I suspect there probably are, just because the kind I am focused on clearly doesn't cover all examples of synchronicity. There are some knock-your-socks-off examples of synchronicity that just don't fit the model of what I'm observing. But I can't discount them. So I suspect there are probably all sorts of different kinds or flavors. Maybe someday we will have a taxonomy. In the meantime, I am working on a pilot study with some researchers, from the near-death field or who have done prior synchronicity research, to do an initial exploration of the phenomenon I am talking about. We'll be recruiting participants soon. It should be very interesting.

I see you've posted some new things, so I look forward to reading those.

Robert

Hi Robert, thanks for the interesting thoughts, and sorry for the delay.

RobCOA wrote:What I have noticed in the examples I've collected is that, rather than meaningless, they are always pointed at a situation in my life that is relevant for me. Usually, this situation is front and center. It is generally the main focus of one of the events, though other times it is more subtle. What this phenomenon does is highlight a situation of relevance and then say something about it. It frames that situation in a certain way. It puts a certain spin on it, which hopefully is not just spin.

This is a very interesting idea, and this is where synchronicity gets both fascinating and much more difficult to understand and define. Yes, it does appear that they point at something, but understanding what they point at is an uncertain science.

For example, as I mentioned on this thread, I recently had an interesting synchronicity involving a piano in a subway station. I don't play the piano, or any other instruments. If this is pointing at something, is it that I should learn piano? Or that I should get in touch with my sister who plays piano? Or that I should listen to piano more? Or a million other potential ways to read it? Now I could just free associate this experience with anything slightly related in my life and say it means that, but this is just speculation. So you can see it happened but didn't appear to point to anything front and center in my life, but I came away feeling reinforced in a hunch that I had been carrying for a while telling me to be more musical and spend more time singing in nature. But just as easily I could have said to myself that it was pointing at any of the other potential ways of reading it.

So how do we interpret synchronicity? Is the first free-association between the content of the synchronicity and a certain situation in my life the correct one? Is internally generated meaning legitimate? We certainly have a bias against internally generated meaning/speculation in our culture, but perhaps that is the most reliable way to understand synchronicity?

RobCOA wrote:So meaning is central with the phenomenon I am recording. It just doesn't seem to be expressed through the kind of symbols that Jung posited---particular objects like scarab beetles, fish, and birds that he saw as expressing archetypal meaning. That does not seem to be a feature of this phenomenon.

I've noticed that in most cases you're right, and that there doesn't appear to be any archetypal symbol behind the synchronicity. But this is the thing about synchronicity - it breaks all the rules. There is no way to pigeonhole it, because sometimes it does work through symbols.

For example a few months ago I spent about a week or two in deep procrastination, placating my senses and creativity with useless hedonistic time wasting like watching movies and TV all day. Throughout this time I kept hearing reference to "A Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. Over and over, many times a day it kept coming up. I didn't know what it was about, so eventually I looked it up and found out that it's about people who have given up their drive, creativity and individuality to be placated by hedonism and quick and easy gratification, which completely encapsulated how I was living at that time. Seeing it through the mirror of synchronicity knocked me out of it, and I've been good since.

Seeing that I didn't know what the book was or what it was about, it's very interesting to me that it turned up to symbolically remind me of my situation. So if we look at this through Jung's lens, it seems that I had activated the archetype of "hedonism killing one's drive" and so it reflected in my life through the synchronicity of a cultural icon of A Brave New World.

RobCOA wrote:In the meantime, I am working on a pilot study with some researchers, from the near-death field or who have done prior synchronicity research, to do an initial exploration of the phenomenon I am talking about.

I would love to hear more about this when you're ready.

Luke

Luke,

Thank you for your long and thoughtful reply. It is nice to dialogue about this with someone who has clearly given the subject a great deal of thought.

To answer your question about how to interpret the meaning of synchronicities, I need to clarify that I focus only on those synchronicities that conform to a specific and extreme model (you can read more about it here: http://www.semeionpress.com/signs/model.php). In brief, the model requires that you have two independent events occurring within hours of each other that share a long list of objective similarities, or parallels, as I call them. On average, there are about eight or nine such parallels, and they always come together to tell a coherent story. Finally, this story will clearly describe or be about some situation that is relevant for you, usually one that is "up" for you at the moment.

If you have a synchronicity with that structure, it is my experience that you won't need to go the internally-generated meaning route. The synchronicity will have its own voice. One of the ways this comes through is that the story told by the parallels will usually frame the relevant situation from your life in a certain way. It will give it a certain spin. That's not the only way such synchronicities express their "voice," but it's probably the main way. My point, though, is that these events, in my experience, really do have their own voice. And they will continue to repeat their perspective on this situation in future synchronicities, which will many times even happen on the same day in future years.

I think we generally find the internally-generated meaning approach attractive, because it is so open-ended. You really can't get it wrong. On the other hand, we also like the solid ground of there being a particular meaning that we can reliably identify. If I am talking to you on the street, you really don't want my utterance to be so enigmatic that you don't have a clue what I'm trying to get across. You don't want to start free-associating just to find out if I asked you where the nearest McDonalds is. Open-ended meaning has its benefits but also its burdens.

I can provide examples of how this works, and would be happy to. I have hundreds. But this post is already long enough.

I read your piano/escalator story with interest. I was particularly interested in whether or not it fit my model. Unfortunately, I don't think it does. There just aren't enough parallels, as far as I can see. So in terms of my model, it drops out, which means I have no suggestions for how to interpret it. But it is a great story and very memorable.

Thank you for expressing interest in the study I mentioned. We are preparing a brief announcement to invite participants. If it would be OK with you, I could post it on this forum. If not, I can just describe the basics of what we are doing.

Robert

Hi Robert

Thanks for sharing. Your model makes sense and is a good basis to work from.

But here you say it seems that synchronicity has it's own voice. What do you think the source of that voice is? Why is synchronicity jumping in and reminding us to spend more time with loved ones, for example?

Luke

Luke,

I guess I've been dodging this question of yours because it can so easily give the wrong impression about my model. But you've asked it enough times that I think it's about time I answer.

My best explanation for what is speaking to us through these extreme synchronicities is God. I don't say that as a kind of prior faith conviction that must be assumed from the outset. In fact, for many years that isn't how I saw what was speaking. I thought it must be something in my unconscious mind. However, the phenomenon itself slowly pushed me in that direction.

As I catalogued and worked with this phenomenon (and I probably process about 75 such occurrences each year, both from my life and from the lives of others), I began to get more and more of a feel for the "voice" that was coming through. It is extremely wise and insightful. It sees into people and situations at an astonishing depth. It clearly sees an incredible potential in us, yet at the same time doesn't mince words about our shortcomings. It can be extremely blunt. It doesn't coddle us, but definitely seems to want our happiness, as it constantly appears to be steering us in positive directions. Indeed, it urges us in the direction of the highest ethical values. Additionally, it has demonstrated a remarkable ability to see into the future (I have some great stories about that). You know how you get a feeling over time for another person's level of wisdom, such that with some people your respect for their "voice" grows and takes on weight over time? That is how it was with me with this phenomenon. Over time, it took on a god-like feeling for me.

A couple other things were relevant in this regard. One is that different instances of this extreme synchronicity would comment on the same situation, and when they did, they would always say consistent things about it (and often on exact same date in subsequent years!), such that when you put them together, they acted like different pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, forming a larger vision of that situation. These visions are invariably detailed, sophisticated, and original. They always strike me as beyond normal human ability.

The other is that different people will often have these synchronicities about the same situation, and whenever that happens, they will express the same basic perspective. If you didn't know, you honestly couldn't tell whose was whose. In other words, in my experience of this phenomenon, there seems to be a single voice speaking, no matter who it is speaking to (I have some great stories of this, too). The source of this phenomenon, then, definitely seems to transcend the personal.

My best way of explaining this is by reference to God, or at least something god-like. It may not be God. It may be a wise and prescient collective unconscious that is able to express itself through the intelligent organization of seemingly random events. But there does seem to be a single intelligence that is expressing in the lives of different people. My database for this is currently quite small. It encompasses only my life and the lives of other people I've worked with in this regard. So as I encounter this phenomenon in the lives of an increasingly number of people, I might find that this impression of mine has been incorrect, that the phenomenon really does say irreconcilable things as it expresses in different lives.

My main point is that my God explanation is, in my view, evidence-driven. It is a tentative conclusion that comes at the end of the process, not a faith assumption that is assumed at the beginning.

Robert

My main point is that my God explanation is, in my view, evidence-driven. It is a tentative conclusion that comes at the end of the process, not a faith assumption that is assumed at the beginning.

Hi Robert

Very nicely put. This is my feeling too. I could be wrong, but I believe that the inevitable conclusion we must all reach if we are to accept synchronicity to be more than chance is that there is a conscious intelligence behind it. If it can be explained in any other way i´d like to hear it, but it seems that the "imp of the perverse" that synchronicity is appears to be a guiding voice. And whether we call that God or anything else matters not, as it boils down to the same idea: A conscious intelligence that organises the happenings of the universe through synchronicity to guide us in our lives.

Luke