I find myself mostly agreeing with Jung.
Of all his ideas, I think synchronicity is the most the hand wavy and difficult to prove scientifically. But in principle I do think it would make sense, considering mammals are social creatures, there would be certain aspects of our programs and imprints that are collective in nature, and that perhaps a subset of the group would express parts of a larger program that may appear as synchronicity to individuals at certain points in time.
The archetypes would be the base programming that is primed in us unconsciously through our sensing of our environment. The act of playing out reality under the activation of the archetype will reinforce it. It's essentially evolutionary programming that plays out across the group. I do think it's funny that it may make more sense to
call it an asynchronicity if you were to take a holistic view over an
individual one.
They can also come directly from nature too, of course. Like how the spinning earth creates a projection of day-night
cycles, which in turn reinforce programming in us for when to sleep or eat. Or even just the darkness being a scary unknown where anything can happen/signals potential danger, and therefore we make associations with light and darkness having an up-down meaning for us. Like, for example knowledge and brightness being related.
Anyway, If we take the consciousness of nature into account, I think it makes more sense to call it asynchronicity, but maybe that's just me. :D
nextwave
npub13v…l94vn
2024-01-16 15:02:07
in reply to nevent1q…jayc
Author Public Key
npub13v7fq4smc0x6ud6hu7q2axymahfgdq658usp9mxrpglfqjkdx4vqhl94vnPublished at
2024-01-16 15:02:07Event JSON
{
"id": "9f4e6c87b497ac02105bca1c2cdebee73ca785c8d1f3734e94c56be2db843aa0",
"pubkey": "8b3c90561bc3cdae3757e780ae989bedd28683543f2012ecc30a3e904acd3558",
"created_at": 1705417327,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"6b81c7c13fb42f1efab153d58d0e4a925bac36419791c66dc845727cc1bf72d5",
"wss://nostr.mom/",
"Catty_McCatface"
],
[
"e",
"31b67494f331d6ebb27986bef290cda8e19651c187cdb7ac811e5066e3b9b970",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"af5a5ecc9defbc77a1ce4c1e935e48da90b92aabb2299898634bc1296c5b80d8",
"wss://no.str.cr/",
"reply"
]
],
"content": "I find myself mostly agreeing with Jung.\n\nOf all his ideas, I think synchronicity is the most the hand wavy and difficult to prove scientifically. But in principle I do think it would make sense, considering mammals are social creatures, there would be certain aspects of our programs and imprints that are collective in nature, and that perhaps a subset of the group would express parts of a larger program that may appear as synchronicity to individuals at certain points in time. \n\nThe archetypes would be the base programming that is primed in us unconsciously through our sensing of our environment. The act of playing out reality under the activation of the archetype will reinforce it. It's essentially evolutionary programming that plays out across the group. I do think it's funny that it may make more sense to \ncall it an asynchronicity if you were to take a holistic view over an \nindividual one.\n\nThey can also come directly from nature too, of course. Like how the spinning earth creates a projection of day-night \ncycles, which in turn reinforce programming in us for when to sleep or eat. Or even just the darkness being a scary unknown where anything can happen/signals potential danger, and therefore we make associations with light and darkness having an up-down meaning for us. Like, for example knowledge and brightness being related. \n\nAnyway, If we take the consciousness of nature into account, I think it makes more sense to call it asynchronicity, but maybe that's just me. :D",
"sig": "22311682248fdbb4432013ccd7bf58c087c4db4d289d0e4c834a3db1bedefbd2ffb0857126e9e86a05bccf5ed01f91e59219addf77bf7e4a8cb1f229bd564678"
}