Synchronicity and Connectivity

Saturday, April 21, 2018 K.Z. Freeman 0 Comments


Synchronicities happen no matter if you believe in them or not. In which case what you think about them plays no role whatsoever.

Or they happen as a function of the belief in synchronicities. Meaning the subject is the one who interprets an event as a synchronicity.


The third option may be that synchronicities occur no matter what you think of them but their occurrences respond directly to intent. In this scenario, the observer has agency in their occurrence.


In any case, writing about them is what interests me.


The main factor separating a synchronicity from a chance meeting seems to be intent or desire.


For something to be recognized as a meaningful coincidence, the desire of the observer has to present itself in the form of an answer to that desire.


In other words, if you happen to meet Sally and you were not thinking about Sally, a mind may interpret meeting Sally as a chance meeting.


However, should you have been thinking about Sally who happens to live in another country, and while going for a walk you meet Sally who happens to be in your area just for the day, then you might interpret that as a meaningful coincidence, a synchronicity. 

A chance meeting connected by meaning. 
You may further feel strange when she sees you and says something like: "Oh! I've been thinking about you!"

In this, subjectivity and intent inject meaning to random chance.


Described as an acausal connecting principle - when two things are connected by meaning rather than a specific cause - synchronicity is a merging of intent through will and agency, not because of a specific cause.


In simpler terms: You don't meet Sally because you both happen to be in the same place at the same time, but because you both want ideas the other one has. Or even stranger, you might need something from Sally on the level of personal development which you are perhaps not aware of, a flaw of character that her experience can perhaps help you overcome or become aware of. In this scenario especially, meaning seems to play the main role in making sure which personalities will be connected through synchonicity. But is meaning truly an acausal event?


You might view this scenario as Sally and yourself being connected through meaning, and not through the cause and effect of going to the same place.


However, I question the axiom of this statement in two crucial aspects. And that is the aspect of connectivity and acausality and the role they play in the occurrence and mechanisms of synchronicities.


Both connectivity and acausality are dualistic principles.


Connectivity suggests there exists a fundamental disconnect between things which can later be connected through action and thus share connectivity.


And acausality implies that anything at all can be acausal and that meaning (thought) is not cause. 


Both view the subject as separate from the outside world.

An acausal event suggests that meaning is not causality. In other words, it disconnects thought and/or wish (desire) as being a causal event (even such wishes the subject is not aware of consciously) and perceives it as an isolated system happening separately from everything else. In this view, meaning is implied as a connecting principle, and only further perpetuates the idea of there being a fundamental disconnect which can be subject to connection.


In contrast, any action by a human where he has to move anything or change anything or act with force upon anything other than himself is perceived as a could-be cause for something else to happen. And so anything which happens will be a causal event. However, in the Jungian frame of thinking of synchronicity, thought (meaning) may not be considered a casual event. This separates mind from meaning and necessitates a viewing of synchronicity as being acausal - an acausality.


In this way of looking at mind and its events, it views it as separate from outside the skull, or separate from the space/time it occupies aside from its immediate position in it. This thinking necessitates a further separation and suggests there is a connection which occurs only at the point where a synchronicity happens: when two subjects meet to form a meaningful coincidence.


However, there is no meaning inherent in a chance meeting other than what the subject has been thinking or feeling. So while there is no meaning in any connection outside of the observer's mind, there is an inherent connection there that requires no meaning for the connection to happen.


The two intents (individuals) until the point of synchronicity or "chance merging" are only subjectively unconnected, perceived by the observer as two separate events, precisely because the observer himself views himself as a separate event from everything around himself.


When two minds or more have a conscious intent this intent may pulse through the psychosphere as a ripple of frequency. On the level of consciousness, each object in space is space and occupies the same field so any spatial separation is seen as a division only by the observer. Meaning that it may seem that two frequencies could naturally seek coalescence because they are the same frequency. And yet having arisen out of the same space and moving in the same field, the two frequencies are always connected non-locally, even when their distance is great.


In this, it seems synchronicity is an emphatic system that responds to individual states (emotion and sense-response) and connects according to the needs of the individual, and not his or her will.

Because of this aspect, it is exceptionally hard to speculate the role of intent in the manifestation of synchronous activity. Especially because intent itself is always accompanied by counter-intent. Meaning that even if a mind holds the intent towards something it will also hold a subconscious possibility of the intent not coming to fruition or form the desired goal.

In common objects this non-local connection is hard to demonstrate outside the scope of elementary particles, however, the mind seems to display curious properties of non-separateness in the way it communicates with other minds.


The above can be explained differently by using, for example, the principle of sympathetic resonance. Where one object's frequency will resonate when another object near it is struck. Meaning that the second object which has not been struck will pick up on this pulse as they are both not in the same field, but are the same field. Again, these two objects may, through resonance, appear to coalesce into the same resonance.





In the case of mind, the consciousness it has access to (and in fact is it*) may appear to respond to these frequencies non-locally, meaning the mind, while being consciousness itself, is also a conduit through which consciousness can flow. And so through the observer's point of view, a synchronicity brings together two states of consciousness where they can coalesce.

(*, in this case, the mind is seen as being consciousness itself and not a lump of matter that has consciousness.)

However, they only seemingly coalesce.


Why seemingly?


As two similar frequencies "meet" they are perceived by the observer to merge into synchronous movement, observed as a merging of two minds to then follow the same pattern of action.

A chance meeting of two people with the same intent as observed by the subject/observer.

However, the two intents are the same intent. 

Any meaning which the subject gives this chance meeting is because he had intent. Not the intent to meet Sally, but the intent to learn something which Sally can teach, without necessarily thinking Sally is the one he has to meet. But perhaps a specific intent is not even required, perhaps the mere intent to continue to exist is enough, as our nature seems to be a mirror of the field (space/time) which we ourselves are, meaning the nature of our consciousness might be to naturally expand.

The two intents are apparently separate points and thus perceived by the observer as merged when these two intents become synchronous, while in reality, the two intents are already one intent, fully merged and realized. It is only in the observer's dualistic framework of viewing where it seems the two intents are not already fully merged.


In other words, the observer projects a disconnect because he is disconnected from others, not because there is a disconnect there.


The observer will view the thought of another as a separate thought, even when the two thoughts are identical and convey the same meaning and arise in the same space/time field.


When the individual's intent is viewed from an observer's standpoint through the lens of an active observer (self), he views these intents as separate from one another.

That the intents arise within two individuals who feel themselves separate does not make them separate events, but only seemingly separate through subjectivity.

That these intents are not separate is further practically displayed when two individuals come into immediate space of each other, where again the two intents seem, from the point of the observer, a single event actualized by two intents, while in reality, the two intents have always been one and the same thought occupying the same field of space/time, separated only by the perception of self.


At this point, it is perhaps important to note that what we call our senses is in fact only one sense. The sense of touch.


What we call our senses are refined ways of touching the same field. Refined ways of touching this field or space/time that we are not moving inside of, but are ourselves. Whether we touch it through the vibration of air, vibration of the spectrum of light, or in presenting of our own vibration against something (touch), etc.


In the view of the mind as not an isolated system, it not only functions within space/time, but is it, and so constantly touches reality.


What does this mean about the functions of synchronicity?



When a mind learns about an experience, it will attempt to replicate it, or at the very least emulate it.

To a degree, the willingness of a mind to copy the experience depends on the mind’s level of interest in the experience that it has learned about.


It can only ever experience anything if it has the knowledge of that experience.


Without this knowledge, it cannot experience anything.


The knowledge can be learned by being read about, seen, heard, or imprinted in the genetic code, so in a very real sense, the subject must first touch this knowledge, which then expresses itself through the individual.


Every step since infancy is a way of learning about a certain experience and how to act and feel so the infant can at last experience it for himself.

He must learn to touch light with his eyes, learn to touch sound with his ears, learn to feel other objects and learn how they touch him, learn how he feels about certain things, then project this knowledge into three-dimensional space. Meanwhile, he learns to experience the time dimension by having touched the now in which the experiences occurred, then imagines them as the past and contrasts them with the now to draw a sense of time.

In a very real sense, he must learn how to touch reality.


If the knowledge of how a being should act is not learned from other minds, the mind will attempt to draw the knowledge it thinks it needs from its genetic code and then act according to its recorded impulses. In this, he merely directs the sense of touch inward.


Ultimately, the infant has to learn to do what humanity considers a vital experience. Which is learning how to touch the perceived self.


This is quite a feat, actually, as for the experience of there being a self to arise one has to actively split himself from the experience and view it as a perceived observer.


As far as we know, nothing else can quite manage it the way we can.


This split, while perhaps necessary for survival, is to a large extent later responsible for feeling separate from the world, not being the world, and thinking of ourselves as a part of nature and being in nature, as opposed to being its expression in human form – in exactly the same way as a tree is nature in the form of a tree.

Synchronicity then too is mistakenly viewed in this way, as a coming together, instead of an expression of a connection that is already there, has always been there and remains the very expression of humanity.


A person will almost never be consciously aware that the processes of mind are trying to replicate a learned experience. That is to say awareness will not be aware of itself naturally expressing this connection until it enters into immediate awareness.

The process itself will not become clear until the process interrupts the everyday experience.


When it becomes obvious -- then it becomes obvious. Or in our case, when Sally adds, "Oh! I've been thinking about you!" Then the whole coincidence seems to be a bit too coincidental to be just a coincidence.


It is always the natural tendency of the mind to emulate that in which it is interested in experiencing or even that which it imagines it does not wish to experience. As on the level of space/time field, what we wish to experience and what we wish not to experience carries the same potential and energetic pulse.


Because the observer is the observed, and the observer is split from the observed only so the act of observing can occur (which we had to learn how to do), the subject may be led to believe that the process of preparing for the experience is happening independently of himself. In other words, when a synchronicity occurs the process may seem as if it happened all by itself. While in fact, the observer is always an active participant in the process of actualizing any experience. It is only his level of conscious awareness about his actions and lack thereof which convinces him he directed no action towards the realization of any experience.

"It must have been fate," he might say. And in saying this, the one who says it forgets himself as being necessary for fate to happen. A stage remains empty without an actor to fill its space with meaning.


The observer is always an active participant in the realization of any experience, because the split of there being a participant and a thing to be participated in is imaginary, although again, perhaps necessary.

In this way, that which causes a synchronicity to arise is the observer himself.

However, in this too, you could make the mistake of viewing the observer only in the local sense of personal self, while it is the whole movement of reality responding to intent.

While the observer is touching light with his eyes, he is also touching reality with his mind, affecting its frequencies and sending his own through the psychosphere. (This is not necessarily something as transmundane as sending thoughts out into space, but merely reacting to situations and interacting with the world.)

Just as the observer never concerns himself with trying to beat his heart, but lets it happen, so he does not concern himself with causing an experience to rise from his knowledge of the experience. Because just like breathing, it arises naturally through intent.

And yet intent always arises as a response to something else. From a desire to attain.


Once the mind has attained the knowledge, it can replicate the experience, and so conscious intention is no longer necessary.


We are not aware of the mind setting the stage for an experience because we operate in the conscious field of mind. The conscious field is influenced and one with the subconscious at all times, however, the focus of the everyday mind is on the conscious part only.


To set the stage is not the role of the conscious mind, only to perceive and touch, and in this create the unconscious where more of the stage is set so the conscious can then further interact, and so on.


In other words, the role of conscious intention (as opposed to subconscious), is to continue to touch reality and itself simultaneously so it can give meaning and shape to reality.


So the observer’s main purpose remains shifted outwards and inwards to attain and absorb sensation and information and reference it.

A curious thing occurs, however, when the mind chooses to look directly at mind.

In this case, conscious attention has shifted from observing what is perceived as being outside, to observing that which is the observer.

And yet the split remains.

The mind is so convinced of itself as split from all that is sees, even its own processes of growing hair, beating a heart, breathing, thinking and even pain, that it will stay in this state of there being one who is observing and that which is being observed even when mind looks at itself.

When we consider it, it seems very natural for us to think what we are observing is our own thoughts.

But this is never the case.


There are no thoughts which are our own. 
What I mean by this is there are no thoughts which rise independently from your immersion in the events around you and the environment, so all thinking is the direct result of the flow of these events. This is the very crux of why an acausal event is being questioned, as there seems to be no such thing and a human never seems to act, but always seems to react.

The same split operates even when you look at self. It is still the same split of the observer and the observed which remains active and continues the same energy of thought of a split from the world around us, and so we inevitably think our thoughts exist independently of others.


While in actuality, no thoughts arise without the knowledge you have gained about the way to think.

Without learning how to think a certain way, the experience of thinking a certain way can never arise.

This learning is always dependent upon other minds, from which our own mind is constantly absorbing information and fitting it into its ideals and perceptions to fill out the whole picture of what it wishes to attain.


No thought of ours is independent. No thought or expression is unique. The only factor which determines how unique our expression may seem to other minds is the obscurity of our sources of knowledge.

And so while synchonocity appears to connect through meaning, that meaning is always superimposed by the observer upon a connection that is always there, arrives from the same form and field which we are, and naturally seeks to form denser and denser clusters of itself to play with and expand itself, forever.






0 komentarji: