Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by Cory Duchesne »

My own perspective on consciousness is that it somehow is not strictly a product of mechanistic causation. The view that the brain operates mechanically is obviously correct insofar as drugs and physical damage reduce or limit one's temporal capacities, but what does not seem to be correct is the view that consciousness is less fundamental to the totality of the brains physical activity. This means that if you were to get dementia, you are only temporarily unconscious. The totality of your life still relates itself to the non-temporal or non-local, which is why Kierkegaard says:"for God, everything is possible."

This leads us to explore the difference between serendipity and Synchronistic events.

I value this distinction because Serendipity does not distinguish itself sufficiently. The term, as it's defined, is lumped up with conventional notions of consciousness.

What makes Synchronistic events so interesting is the same reason for why humanity loves mirrors, photographs and being on camera. It appeals to our narcissism.

Synchronistic Events are very much a mirror, a direct mirror, and they cause events in the environment to reflect what you already believe. When you have a synchronistic event it's like looking at yourself through a microscope, or better, your are seeing a symbol of yourself that represents a large-scale or general analysis of your behavior, your beliefs and your conduct. This might be flattering, but could just as easily be humiliating.

From this perspective, it would be dangerous and foolish to see synchronicitic events as guideposts or friendly signs of progress. Most of us understand the problems caused by the mirror, the seductive but fruitlessly vain temptation to become overly enchanted by our own reflection.

Humanity has a tendency to make an opiate out of everything, and synchronicitic events seem to be nothing other than a mirror, a way of seeing yourself. Synchronicity then becomes as useful as mirrors themselves are useful - but just as vain!

The universe tends to gauge or measure you, not as an individual person, but as a kind of archetype. We are all archetypes playing out a story that has happened billions of times already. Therefore, it's not difficult to conceive that all of our behavior has a correlated mirror outside of us. Everything we do inside gets reflected back to us someway from the outside, and this can happen because what is happening inside of us is not really all that unique. If what we happen to be is genuinely unique, genuinely on the leading edge, then we occupy the archetype of messenger, christ, angel, god or devil. The universe has you pigeonholed, no matter how unique you are. Everything you do will create a mirror output, giving you a kind of feedback that seems magical, but is really just the nature of consciousness, which is non dual.

"As long as you still experience the stars as something above you, you lack the eye of knowledge." - Friedrich Nietzsche

"Nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." Thomas: 6
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

You're thinking is appreciated, Cory.
Cory Duchesne wrote:From this perspective, it would be dangerous and foolish to see synchronicitic events as guideposts or friendly signs of progress. Most of us understand the problems caused by the mirror, the seductive but fruitlessly vain temptation to become overly enchanted by our own reflection.
That's true, they have actually just as easily some utterly random and meaningless nature. The fact that they appear to be bizarre or the odds incalculable, does not make them more special than any other event. The Shaman teaches about "reading the signs". But anything, everywhere can become sign if you know how to project and interpret the "right" way. The most ordinary thing can suddenly reflect the most subtle and profound complexity. Or distort it cleverly. Just as easily.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by Russell Parr »

"Synchronistic events" occur because nature flows in patterns. The only time people particularly marvel over synchronistic events is when they are projecting some sort of egotistical significance into them.

I'm curious about your first statement though, Cory:
Cory Duchesne wrote:My own perspective on consciousness is that it somehow is not strictly a product of mechanistic causation.
Are you saying that part of it is caused by something not mechanistic, or that part of it is causeless?
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Russell wrote:"Synchronistic events" occur because nature flows in patterns. The only time people particularly marvel over synchronistic events is when they are projecting some sort of egotistical significance into them.

I'm curious about your first statement though, Cory:
Cory Duchesne wrote:My own perspective on consciousness is that it somehow is not strictly a product of mechanistic causation.
Are you saying that part of it is caused by something not mechanistic, or that part of it is causeless?
I think it must be a twin of the mechanical universe. So there is a mechanical universe that is uncaused, and that mechanical universe seems to have a twin. So there would be a causal relationship between the mechanical universe and the... archetypal? No sense in modelling something that can't be modeled.

I am justified in referring to it because I've experienced it enough times to know that it can't be ignored. It's there, I just couldn't tell you exactly what's going on. We each have a mind that occupies a local space in a mechanical universe. Somehow there is a non-local aspect that ties all minds together into one. Why it's like this....there really is no answer, it seems that's the way it's always been.

I think the meaning of life is simply art. Consciousness exists to recreate itself and to discover itself as art.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by Russell Parr »

Cory Duchesne wrote:I think it must be a twin of the mechanical universe. So there is mechanical universe that is uncaused, and that mechanical universe seems to have a twin. So there would be a causal relationship between the mechanical universe and the... archetypal? No sense in modelling something that can't be modeled.

I am justified in referring to it because I've experienced it enough times to know that it can't be ignored. It's there, I just couldn't tell you exactly what's going on. We each have a mind that occupies a local space in a mechanical universe. Somehow there is a non-local aspect that ties all minds together into one. Why it's like this doesn't really have an answer, it seems that's the way it's always been.
I think it's a matter of the trouble there is in trying to directly observe the source of consciousness; it can't be done. It's the ole' fingertip reaching around and touching itself problem. Empirical observation is obsolete here in this unique instance, so all we're left with is logical deduction. For all intents and purposes, the evidence points to consciousness being a property of the physical body, and its interactions with its environment. To make a claim as to what lies beyond this is necessarily an artificial projection of your imagination; indeed, an attempt to model that which cannot be modeled.
I think the meaning of life is simply art. Consciousness exists to recreate itself and to discover itself as art.
This seems like a melancholy approach to me. Consciousness exists simply because nature caused it to exist, a phenomena which is significant enough in it's own right. Why must we further attach our own meanings to it?
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Russell wrote:
Cory Duchesne wrote:I think it must be a twin of the mechanical universe. So there is mechanical universe that is uncaused, and that mechanical universe seems to have a twin. So there would be a causal relationship between the mechanical universe and the... archetypal? No sense in modelling something that can't be modeled.

I am justified in referring to it because I've experienced it enough times to know that it can't be ignored. It's there, I just couldn't tell you exactly what's going on. We each have a mind that occupies a local space in a mechanical universe. Somehow there is a non-local aspect that ties all minds together into one. Why it's like this doesn't really have an answer, it seems that's the way it's always been.
I think it's a matter of the trouble there is in trying to directly observe the source of consciousness; it can't be done. It's the ole' fingertip reaching around and touching itself problem. Empirical observation is obsolete here in this unique instance, so all we're left with is logical deduction. For all intents and purposes, the evidence points to consciousness being a property of the physical body, and its interactions with its environment. To make a claim as to what lies beyond this is necessarily an artificial projection of your imagination; indeed, an attempt to model that which cannot be modeled.
This is not something I can prove to you. I can prove it to myself through my own experiences, but these aren't experiences you can solicit in a laboratory. The requisite observations require approximately 15 years of self-examination, rigorous study, combined with living in a relatively outgoing, dramatic fashion (relations with people become intimate even when you try to keep them rational, and if you fully intend on being romantic or poetic, then you're in for some even stranger surprises).

One needs to have a high tolerance for uncertainty. If you have a constant need to control everything to minimize chance, you're going to miss what I'm pointing to.
I think the meaning of life is simply art. Consciousness exists to recreate itself and to discover itself as art.
This seems like a melancholy approach to me. Consciousness exists simply because nature caused it to exist, a phenomena which is significant enough in it's own right. Why must we further attach our own meanings to it?

It's not so much we are attaching meaning to it, but we are taking the totality of our life's experiences and we are relating our memory to what is total. This is in fact the honest way of creating a relation with life. This means that the individual has overcome attachment to parents, society-opinion, prejudice, wishfulness, etc. He exists in relation only to the beautiful, which is the whole of nature. It is Joy.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by Russell Parr »

Cory Duchesne wrote:One needs to have a high tolerance for uncertainty. If you have a need to control everything to minimize chance, you're going to miss what I'm pointing to.
Yet at the same time, in effect to minimize chance, you claim that the following is required:
approximately 15 years of self-examination, rigorous study, combined with living in a relatively outgoing, dramatic fashion
All you're really saying here is that your experiences has caused you to believe in something that can't be proved beyond a hunch. I wouldn't call this a high tolerance for uncertainty, more like a willingness to believe in your own projections.
It's not so much we are attaching meaning to it, but we are taking the totality of our life's experiences and we are relating our memory to what is total. This is in fact the honest way of creating a relation with life. This means that the individual has overcome attachment to parents, society-opinion, prejudice, wishfulness, etc. He exists in relation only to the beautiful, which is the whole of nature. It is Joy.
I thoroughly agree here. I would also add that we should be weary of looking beyond ourselves for an explanation of reality, lest we miss out on what is right under our noses.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by Cory Duchesne »

My views are speculative. They aren't really beliefs, and I still see the universe as a mostly uncaring, apathetic place. The love, guidance and protection come from humans. Some of the humans might believe strongly in their fanciful speculations (whilst also being very reliable and kind people). Some of the humans might be rigorously secular (whilst being very reliable and kind people). Some of them might be like myself; largely agnostic about my speculations (I think of myself as a relatively moral person, for the most part. I'm not as good as I might be next year).

I really am not in the position to convince you, since I myself only have my speculations. However, I believe in the value of speculation and experiment with the occult. It's worth playing around with, largely because what else am I going to do with my free time? Play Nintendo?
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by Russell Parr »

I appreciate your honesty. I enjoy reading your insights on femininity, by the way.

What are your thoughts on enlightenment? Do you regard it as a goal, or possibility for yourself?
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Russell wrote:I appreciate your honesty. I enjoy reading your insights on femininity, by the way.

What are you thoughts on enlightenment? Do you regard it as a goal, or possibility for yourself?
I had made enlightenment my goal when I was pretty young. At the time it was just like mountain climbing, I didn't really think of it as enlightenment, but I seen my own mind as a conquest of some kind. I seen my brain as something to push to the furthest extreme, and that was what I naturally wanted for myself. After messing around too much though, you start to realize that learning has to become less phallic (less messing with other people, less reliance on aesthetics, and more inward, logical and dry).

The deeper I studied, the harder I pushed myself to find the most foundational answers.

How it appears to me is that there are things you can know with absolute certainty and that when you know these specific things, it gives one the sense that one is enlightened. So I consider myself enlightened, but only because that's how it appears. We only ever know appearances.

My knowledge grants me a very particular type of omnipotence, not so much in terms of how I'm able to effect other people, but more in terms of how I'm able to interpret myself in relation to the whole of existence. Ethics is an important part of it, one must be careful not to bite off more than one can chew. The sage never tries to do anything very big. I should add I do not see myself as perfect. There is always a speculative aspect to existence. I shouldn't call it an "aspect", rather, speculation is simply part of the greater whole.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by Russell Parr »

Cory Duchesne wrote:There is always a speculative aspect to existence. I shouldn't call it an "aspect", rather, speculation is simply part of the greater whole.
I would agree that speculation has its place, but certainty about existence is definitely possible. For instance, we can know for certain that that which lies beyond the reach of conscious experience is unknowable and formless, due to the absence of consciousness.

I gathered from your statement about consciousness being "meant" to see life as art, combined with your mirrored universe theory, that what I explained above is lacking in some way for you.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Russell wrote:
Cory Duchesne wrote:There is always a speculative aspect to existence. I shouldn't call it an "aspect", rather, speculation is simply part of the greater whole.
I would agree that speculation has its place, but certainty about existence is definitely possible.
Not only is it possible, it's necessary. Realizing what is absolutely true was essential for me. Until a person gets comfortable reasoning with perfect certainty, he is in a very bad position to speculate.
For instance, we can know for certain that that which lies beyond the reach of conscious experience is unknowable and formless, due to the absence of consciousness.

I gathered from your statement about consciousness being "meant" to see life as art, combined with your mirrored universe theory, that what I explained above is lacking in some way for you.
I don't find what you say lacking, what you say is correct. My experiences with the occult (the exotic or novel) primarily involves psychology and the nature of one mind in relation to another mind. You can break into some very unusual perceptions, so what is generally unknown or ignored, becomes your personal data to reflect on. There are some very interesting things to be seen and I don't think anyone is really in a position to know what they mean.

I should add, this exotic scientific data is not gathered by observations from outside of you, rather, the exotic data is gathered from within. This is what makes it worth emphasizing, insofar as the future of the species depends on whether or not we can start moving more and more into the inside.

Obviously these kinds of ventures are very dangerous, very easy to slip into bias, or worse, psychosis. In some sense, it's logically impossible to distinguish what is "just your imagination" from "objectively real". I don't think such a distinction ever truly exists.

The challenge is really to get a clearer idea of what the imagination is. It's not an easy question to answer, consciousness itself is a hard problem, as we both know.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Cory Duchesne wrote:I think it must be a twin of the mechanical universe. So there is a mechanical universe that is uncaused, and that mechanical universe seems to have a twin. So there would be a causal relationship between the mechanical universe and the... archetypal? No sense in modelling something that can't be modeled. ... We each have a mind that occupies a local space in a mechanical universe. Somehow there is a non-local aspect that ties all minds together into one.
You do see sense in modeling since you are presenting a (rough) model instead of playing Nintendo. But you shouldn't quickly "unmodel" it when it gets complicated or esoteric sounding.

I'm not sure about the logical consistency of that "uncaused mechanical universe". If the universe was mechanical, isn't it caused by the definition of mechanics? Or if "everything" is mechanical, why would the "archetypal" not have its own sort of mechanics? And since you relate of a causal link between the twin universes, you are creating in your own words a new overarching universe which causes both "mechanical" and "archetypal".

Some call the archetypal the symbolic which are then certain patterns, linkages and resonating of events especially in human interactions with nature through time. Larger than life, for sure. But why create two universes when we could speak of multiple "dimensions" to physical and experimental aspects? Or would that be the same? Again, not "uncaused" dimensions naturally.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Cory Duchesne wrote:I think it must be a twin of the mechanical universe. So there is a mechanical universe that is uncaused, and that mechanical universe seems to have a twin. So there would be a causal relationship between the mechanical universe and the... archetypal? No sense in modelling something that can't be modeled. ... We each have a mind that occupies a local space in a mechanical universe. Somehow there is a non-local aspect that ties all minds together into one.
You do see sense in modeling since you are presenting a (rough) model instead of playing Nintendo. But you shouldn't quickly "unmodel" it when it gets complicated or esoteric sounding.

I'm not sure about the logical consistency of that "uncaused mechanical universe". If the universe was mechanical, isn't it caused by the definition of mechanics?
Well... a definition is something psychic, non-physical. And we know that when we examine the mechanical universe too closely, the boundaries are not even real. The consequence of these truths is to reason one's way to the totality, which then leads one to the eternal. Something eternal is outside time, and something outside-time has to be uncased, by definition. You might say that the knowledge of the universe being outside of time causes it's very timelessness, that the mind creates the universe, each moment is inescapably causal. However, this type of causality is not mechanistic. If causation works in that manner, it's a causation that occurs outside of time, creation happening only in an instant, at-once. Everything breaks down when you take it far enough, you're left with only a certain omnipotence, a non-sane, creative capacity.
Or if "everything" is mechanical, why would the "archetypal" not have its own sort of mechanics?
I suppose it does, but to me, it's largely definitional. When you start painting a picture, playing with shape and form, stretching boundaries and filling in details, that's not really modelling. It's creating. However.... is creating really different from discovering? I don't see any reason to see the imagination as anything other than some landscape that's automatically filling itself out... kind of like the way water (under pressure) rushes into the nearest vacuum.

Why would I postulate a twin-world? I think it's probably just a new challenge to bridge two things that seem opposed to each other. There clearly is a causal mechanic between two things that seem separate, they certainly cause each other.
Some call the archetypal the symbolic which are then certain patterns, linkages and resonating of events especially in human interactions with nature through time. Larger than life, for sure. But why create two universes when we could speak of multiple "dimensions" to physical and experimental aspects? Or would that be the same? Again, not "uncaused" dimensions naturally.
The only thing uncased is the totality. So yes, the archetypal world (the twin) certainly functions according to a mechanic.

I think what I want to emphasize is that there is an area of existence that is purely definitional, and by definitional, I mean that it's non-physical and can only be understood in terms of contrast, one form in relation to another. Science focuses on a material world, and spiritual philosophy focuses on a subjective one. I think we need to conceive of these two (the earth and heaven) as separate. The two talk to each other, inform each other. Heaven shapes the earth, and earth shapes heaven. Both are in a constant passing away. There is a constant renewal through death, and spirit of death is in the earth (science).
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Cory Duchesne wrote:Why would I postulate a twin-world? I think it's probably just a new challenge to bridge two things that seem opposed to each other. There clearly is a causal mechanic between two things that seem separate, they certainly cause each other.
But you stated "uncaused mechanical universe" which is also caused at the same time? Even when being creative, some basic logic can be applied. The reason for this is to sustain the thought a bit longer as it will collapse otherwise rather fast unto itself.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Cory Duchesne wrote:Why would I postulate a twin-world? I think it's probably just a new challenge to bridge two things that seem opposed to each other. There clearly is a causal mechanic between two things that seem separate, they certainly cause each other.
But you stated "uncaused mechanical universe" which is also caused at the same time? Even when being creative, some basic logic can be applied. The reason for this is to sustain the thought a bit longer as it will collapse otherwise rather fast unto itself.
I did not speak as well as I could have. The only thing uncaused is the totality. But if the mechanical universe is only one half of a greater whole, then it is caused by what it is not. The modern mind doesn't easily distinguish the two main categories of causation. On the one hand we have mechanical-temporal-causation, but on the other hand we have a kind of Pythagorean, non-temporal causation, where manifestations are caused simply due to their non-temporal contrasts. Understanding cause and effect through geometry is a significantly different lesson than learning about how rust develops on a Bicycle.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

That's better :-)

I've never thought much about mechanical-temporal-causation. Perhaps because of reading so much Science Fiction as a child, the notion that anything is possible is almost mundane now. The stuff than can occur in certain states of minds, it cannot be described in any language and only briefly or clumsily hold through the symbolic. So I always think about the "Pythagorean" or Taoist causality when it comes to philosophy.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
That's better :-)

I've never thought much about mechanical-temporal-causation. Perhaps because of reading so much Science Fiction as a child, the notion that anything is possible is almost mundane now. The stuff than can occur in certain states of minds, it cannot be described in any language and only briefly or clumsily hold through the symbolic. So I always think about the "Pythagorean" or Taoist causality when it comes to philosophy.
I find someone like Schopenhauer holds very firm to a temporal conception of causation.

"The whole foundation on which our existence rests is the present - the ever-fleeting present. It lies, then, in the very nature of our existence to take the form of constant motion, and to offer no possibility of our ever attaining the rest for which we are always striving. We are like a man running downhill, who cannot keep on his legs unless he runs on, and will inevitably fall if he stops." (Schopenhauer).

I think a great deal of humankind's bitterness comes from the physical management of the material world, staying committed to that rolling, temporal form of causation - the unpredictable patterns of a child's tantrums, the misplaced phone, the deteriorated wind-shield wiper, the obstinate mother.

To indulge in the other mode of causation, the non-temporal is much more suspicious. It has a practical purpose insofar as it helps the individual relate himself beyond the mere manifestations around him. One's identity can begin and end in a purely logical/metaphysical conception.

Beyond that, the non-temporal way of causation could have a connection to the wishful-spirit of the anima. The female tendency to wish instead of will does appear to have occult properties, but it's perhaps more often used for negative ends and probably never really pays off the way imagined. And then there's the issue of synchronicity and how it expresses itself by connecting past moments and present moments in a way that seems like Art.
iamforhereithink
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:14 am

Re: Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by iamforhereithink »

As the topic was including synchronicity , i shall quote my own definition of it here
"When the outside world conspires to present one with experience that directly communicates or addresses the present secrets in ones mind , which only you can recognise and others around would not without your explicit explanation , There should be a pause for reflections"

then the question arises, is it chance or the hand of some intelligible psychic influence being exposed to one ?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

iamforhereithink wrote:is it chance or the hand of some intelligible psychic influence being exposed to one [synchronicity] ?
Another question: which of those two options would make you feel better about it? Either way one has invoked some awesome "hand", one being perhaps more personable than the other.

Or perhaps with "chance" you indicate that it's become meaningless and empty because there's no other meaning giver and personal fulfiller standing behind it?
iamforhereithink
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:14 am

Re: Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by iamforhereithink »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
iamforhereithink wrote:is it chance or the hand of some intelligible psychic influence being exposed to one [synchronicity] ?
Another question: which of those two options would make you feel better about it? Either way one has invoked some awesome "hand", one being perhaps more personable than the other.

Or perhaps with "chance" you indicate that it's become meaningless and empty because there's no other meaning giver and personal fulfiller standing behind it?
My game plan has been to studiously monitor ,observe, reflect, and criss cross all coincidence, chance, unusual phenomena encountered by myself which can sometimes stretch chances claims beyond its limits of believability
It is true that i tend to lean towards there being hidden intelligence in the psychic realm that can affect directly human engagements and relating and endeavours in general
I understand also that there is growing evidences that feed the chance brigades case , but there is also a case for one sees what one expects to see in that a persona that only believes in chance or human influence, may only be looking for such and miss out on some more subtle possibles of recognition that may challenge that chances claims to fill in the grey areas
There is also a strong case that a believer in hidden intelligences may over interpret events to satisfy that cause
But let us say that every persona has a consciousness of sorts which certainly does vary depending on its individual and collectivised societal development
Concsiousness
the distinction between awake consciousness and sleep consciousness being that someone in awake consciousness can say i am i and perceive their own existence as it happens in every waking moment
The other distinction is whilst that waking consciousness was in a dream, and its ability to declare " i am i " in the dream has been mysteriously de-activated .
The person has a form of more vague consciousness of what is occuring in the dream , a dream existence, but they cannot immediately connect this dream consciousness with their waking i consciousness as if their dream existence is being projected to their consciousness only , bypassing their ability to perceive these projections through the filter of their i consciousness

But it is also proven that some people can indeed be completly lucid in their dreams and even direct their dreams, proving that the "i consciousness" can perceive in dream existence thus proving that there is indeed a connection between awake existence and dream existence

therefore the distinction in consciousness is not truly defined in the awake or dream existences because you can have i-consciousness in both realms , and you can also lack i-consciousness in both realms .

The distinction in consciousness is actually defined in consciousness itself
The distinctions are consciousness itself which is the ability to perceive phenomena and act / react to that phenomena
And there is also Self -Consciousness which is the i-consciousness

Every living person has consciousness , but the degree to which they have self-consciousness differs dramatically
How a person has evolved their self consciousness is directly related to how they perceive and value other consciousnesses

A language of meaning is required to try and define the critical difference between consciousness and self-consciousness

And the key words in that defining language is "intentionality" and "Intention"

Intentionality is an excellent term introduced by Jeremy Bentham and my personal use of this term is that intentionality represents all the random or occuring impulses and instincts that occur in every human consciousness
BUt it is how one reacts or directs these impulses or instincts that declares ones intention which is directly related to the evolution of ones self-consciousness which is the i-consciousness

Evolution of I-consciousness is defined by the manifestation and realisation of ones intention , which is not necessarily good or evil , as those judgements are defined with how peoples intentionality or intention integrate with each other

So it seems that to be a good progressive person in a society , as in adhere the self to a code of ethics beneficial to the self and to other selfs , another form of consciousness must be developed which could be termed others-consciousness

A person begins with consciousness, in which state they can be very eratic and unpredictable
They evolve self-consciousness in which they begin to express certain distinct intentions which defines their persona
Which evolves their others-consciousness where they have self- intentions but become aware of how the manifestation and realisation of these self-intentions may affect others as far as they are able to perceive from the phenomena available to them

Has anyone had a synchronicity event in a lucid dream that then could be correlated into awake time
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by Cory Duchesne »

iamforhereithink wrote: Has anyone had a synchronicity event in a lucid dream that then could be correlated into awake time
It wasn't a lucid dream because I had no control of my choices. I had a very vivid dream where I watched myself going along with a sequence of events which climaxed into a very symbolic scene, and then ended ambiguously.

A month later, I experienced the event in waking life, in more literal terms.

I put together a four part mnemonic on my website that goes into Jung's idea of internal-links which connect the present with the future. His argument, which conforms to the physics of eastern mysticism, is that time is a continuity. That in many ways, the future already happened and the present moment is in someways being pulled into the future by certain archetypes.

The Ethics of Telepathy
Last edited by Cory Duchesne on Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
iamforhereithink
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:14 am

Re: Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by iamforhereithink »

interesting , thx for the link , i will read this soon as can
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Synchronicity as Macroscopic

Post by Cory Duchesne »

"The future is there... looking back at us. Trying to make sense of the fiction we will have become."
- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
Locked