Synchronicity/atemporality

So many folks are taking up [synchronicity]—and [atemporality]…

From Atom and Archetype: The Pauli/Jung Letters 1932–1958:

Letter from Jung to Pauli, November 1950:

I now wonder whether it is not so that every state of being that has no conceivable cause (and thus no potentially ascertainable one) falls into the category of synchronicity. In other words, I see no reason why synchronicity should always just be a coincidence of two psychic states or a psychic state and a nonpsychic event. There may also possibly be coincidences of this kind between nonpsychic events. /// Insofar as for me synchronicity represents first and foremost a simple state of being, I am inclined to subsume any instance of causally nonconceivable states of being into the category of synchronicity. /// “Causality” is a psychologem (and originally a magic virtus) that formulates the connection between events and illustrates them as cause and effect. Another (incommensurable) approach that does the same thing in a different way is synchronicity. Both are identical in the higher sense of the term “connection” or “attachment.” But on an empirical and practical level (i.e., in the real world), they are incommensurable and antithetical, like space and time. [pp 60–61]

Letter from Pauli to Jung, December 1950:

…I have once again carefully weighed up the pros and cons of the narrower and broader definitions of “synchronicity.” Pure logic gives us a free hand to choose either definition. In such a case, the deciding factor is intuition, pointing the way to the future as it does… [T]he intuitive function has such a strong tendency toward the apprehension of holistic structures that despite all arguments to the contrary, I find myself leaning toward your broader definition. [p65]

Leave a Reply

Close Menu