It is through the "affect" that the subject becomes involved and so comes to feel the whole weight of reality. The difference amounts roughly to that between a severe illness which one reads about in a text-book and the real illness which one has. One possesses nothing unless one has experienced it in reality. Hence a purely intellectual insight is not enough, because one knows only the words and not the substance of the thing from inside. (Jung, The World of Values).
On Aug 22, 7:24 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > I am not expert of Jung, but have enjoyed his writing and work now and > then. I think what this means is that there is something more than > what we think of as cause and effect at play here. That while, as > Slip suggests, sychronistic events for us are responsive to our > individual thoughts and feelings, we do not cause them to come about > like we cause a stone to roll by kicking it. Synchronicity is, I > think, always at play in our lives, but our awareness of it increases > as our perception of the more subtle levels of being changes. We > don't cause it, we become aware of it by tuning into it. > > On Aug 22, 7:37 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I would wonder the same thing about it all being acausal. I remember > > when my mother in law died my wife, a life long devout catholic, > > mentioned something about a sign, a butterfly that would appear. I > > always thought that to be coincidence but at the cemetery, there it > > was, a large white butterfly that landed and stay for several minutes > > then casually flew off. I guess there is some synchronicity there, > > in the death, the mention of and appearance of the butterfly. > > > On Aug 22, 12:33 am, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Great question. As a believer I wonder why Jung calls synchronicity > > > 'acausal' in that essay "Synchronicity, An Acausal Connecting > > > Principle". Does he embrace a Humean notion of causality as constant > > > conjunction in which causes precede effects temporally? > > > > Yet I do find myself reluctant to jump in with both feet and call > > > something a meaningful coincidence. This is no doubt my inner atheist > > > whispering. As a believer I know synchronicity under a different name: > > > providence. God always meets our real needs. Sometimes I see the > > > pattern and call it providence. Usually I do not, perhaps because it > > > is to bright for my minds eye. > > > > On Aug 21, 5:08 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Synchronicity is a word that has come up now and then in these > > > > discussions and is, I think, becoming more a part of our scientific > > > > and philosophic paradigms. Webster defines it as: the quality or > > > > state of being synchronous or simultaneous : concurrence of acts, > > > > events, or developments in time : coincident movement or existence; > > > > chronological arrangement of historical events and personages so as to > > > > indicate coincidence or coexistence; a representation in the same > > > > picture of two or more events which occurred at different times. > > > > > Jung required a larger framework for his idea of synchronicity, a > > > > framework that reveals an underlying pattern for what he called > > > > "temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events." > > > > > What does synchronicity mean to you? What role does it play in your > > > > life? What do YOU think? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
