Roddy the Skeptic!
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

The ClubHouse: General Discussion Archives: Archive Three: Roddy the Skeptic!
 SubtopicMsgs  Last Updated
Archive through July 16, 2002 25   07/16 11:13pm

Unrepentantsinr

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 11:19 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Posted by Lurknomore:
"But that is not a legit challenge, from the "Amazing Randy," or as John Edward once called him, a man who uses an adjective for his first name. He won't commit to what would be proof."
My respone:
There's no reason to make untrue statements like that. And the juvenille jab (issued via John Edward's mouth) is rather unbecomming.

The truth of the matter is that it is a legitimate challenge precisely becuase there are no set rules on what will be accepted as evidence - except one. That rule is deliniated clearly on the randi challenge web page.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
I quote:
"All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant."

The test is designed around the claims of the applicant. That is, if someone claims they can speak to a dead persons father, douse, shoot psi-balls from their hands - it is up to them to give a definative statement of what their "skill" is, and then, again, up to them if they accept what would constitute evidence of them manifesting said "skill."

Far from being a suckers bet, the randi challenge is like taking candy (or in this case a million smackeroos) from a baby - for those who actually can do what they claim they can do. That seems to be where people stumble. If you would like to see the challenge in action, check out this commentary by Randi himself on a Russian girl who supposedly could see with ESP.
http://www.randi.org/jr/022202.html

Unrepentantsinr

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 11:25 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Posted by Sanfranjoshfan:
"He could have some trick to it (like a real evangelist "faith healer" did years ago, who was exposed on a 60 Minutes type program with an earphone, being fed info about the audience from his wife....they actually picked up his wireless headphone and broadcast the info that he was getting "from god" on that exposé! )"

Good to see another atheist posting here. You're referring to Peter Popoff and he was exposed as a fraud by... (drumroll) - James Randi. Here's a fundamentalist site (to avoid accusations of bias) that discusses the whole investigation.
http://www.bible.ca/tongues-popoff-39-17Mhz.htm

Lurknomore

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 11:26 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Zenya, most of the disputes are from folks like the the cynical organizations quoted above you. I am all for intelligent dissection and fair evaluation of this entire topic. Those skeptics will ONLY allow for all this being a fraud and will twist the findings to support that. I won't get into a debate with any of them as it is a total waste of time.

And Unrepentant sorry but I won't waste my time with what you ask. If you would like me to write in detail the proofs I have experienced and the reason I believe, then let me know. I'd be glad to do that. Actually I've written a book about it if you must know :)

By the way, please don't assume you know my response. My actual response is that I wouldn't waste any energy to debate this with closed minded skeptics...and if it was intention to provide any intelligent skeptic with proofs I would do so with first hand, personal knowledge and experiences not debate a study I had no actual participation in.

Ryanc2002

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 11:28 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Peter Popoff....Oh ...You're kidding, right? Who named this kid?! Not a kid now but dang...

(Another atheist here, BTW)

Zachsmom

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 11:29 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
STANDING CLAPPING to SANFRAN!!!

Excellent!

I am Christian and I do believe in God. Can I prove His existance ? NO!

I think it was said best in "Miracle on 34th Street"

Faith is believing even when you can't prove it..or something along those lines..that can go for God, mediums, psychics whatever you call your highter power..

I am glad I live in a country where our beliefs are so diverse yet we can live side by side!! (well..most of the time)

Unrepentantsinr

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 11:46 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Posted by Angelsluv:
"The paranormal has been studied and researched for years all over the world. There is proof that it does exist."

This statement is simply untrue. It's one of those amorphous bits of supposedly factual information called a "gratuitous assertion."

Can you provide a little more substance, and perhaps cite a few peer reviewed journal articles showing the research and proof?

Posted by Angelsluv:
"Big problem is that many times anyone who has more of a scientific/mathmatical mind cannot grasp the thought that, if you cannot see it, that it still exists."

This is rediculous. First off it takes scientific understanding (by anyone, people have interests, not are "of minds") to understand that there are things that cannot be seen that do exist. Radio waves are a favorite example of the credulous.

Just one problem with this example supposedly proving the point of the believer. We can study and test and yes, even apply the scientific method to radio waves - and other things like sub-atomic particles, incredibly distant astronomical bodies and the center of the Sun or the planets, which we cannot see.

Where are the successful studies, tests and applications of the scientific method to the paranormal?

Spear

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 11:52 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
On a lighter note, this reminds of one of the funniest moments of BB2 -- Mike Boogie asking the Ouija board, "Why am I a p*ssy?".

Zeyna

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 11:56 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
LOL Spear, now that was a moment!

Lurk, I never asked a question, so I'm not sure how I assumed a response, but I won't do it again :)

Unrepentantsinr

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 11:59 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Posted by Lurknomore:
"And Unrepentant sorry but I won't waste my time with what you ask."

Translation: I'm not up to the task.

Please, don't patronize me. If you don't want to go into something that I've discussed, just ignore it and move on. You're posting messages to an internet forum, don't blow smoke about "wasting time." ;) LOL

Posted by Lurknomore:
"If you would like me to write in detail the proofs I have experienced and the reason I believe, then let me know. I'd be glad to do that. Actually I've written a book about it if you must know."

Personal anecdotes are worthless to me, to the actual provision of evidence and to making ones case in an effective manor.

I would be interested in checking out your book though, if you'll e-mail me the title (horemheb19@yahoo.com) I'll dig for it on amazon.com.

Posted by Lurknomore:
By the way, please don't assume you know my response. My actual response is that I wouldn't waste any energy to debate this with closed minded skeptics...

I guess you missed my smilie.

Actually, the "I won't waste my time" (again, the irony of someone saying this while posting to a message board is priceless!) and "closed minded skeptic" would have been my second choice for your canned pat replies to my simply asking for some real evidence.

I also find it ironic how quickly you abandon Schwartz when asked to defend a study you apparently place great confidence in. If I were to ask you to defend your brand of multi-vitamin would you abandon it as quickly?

Well, hombre, as for my close mindedness, I'm sorry, but your powers of "intuition" or whatever you creduloids like to call it have failed. I'm always willing to investigate anything tossed out by believers.

I AM WILLING to "waste my time" investigating claims made by others, objections raised to points I have made and overall reviewing the veracity, plausibility and viability of things I think and believe. Obviously this is something you apparently are unable to "waste time" doing.

So please, don't spay paint on teflon.. it just runs to the floor and makes a big mess.

Lurknomore

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 12:08 am EditMoveDeleteIP
No, translation is I won't waste my time where I don't want to be wasting it. Arguing with someone who clearly WANTS to argue and not have an intelligent discussion is something I choose not to partake in.

Yes I mentioned the study as proof this has been explored scientifically. But my personal philosophy is to discuss personal experiences that I know to be true. It would be foolish for me to argue someone else's findings when I have my own, albeit not scientific.

But I see no reason to continue this discussion as clearly you only wish to state why others are wrong and you are right. Come to think of it, that does not constitute a discussion. I can't think of a single reason why I would like you to read my book or comment on it. Clearly you only want to prove my beliefs are wrong. I never set out to prove anything to anyone. Simply to share my experiences and what I learned with anyone who is interested or could gain comfort or learn something from them. But I'm sure there are others that will be glad to endlessly debate with you.

Lurknomore

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 01:11 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Almost forgot...Zenya, only the first paragraph of my reply was to you...the second half was to Unrepentent. He was the one (assuming it's a he, I smell testosterone LOL) who did all the assuming. :)

Oregonfire

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 01:16 am EditMoveDeleteIP
LOL Lurk--I thought you handled that very well.

Angelsluv

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 02:04 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Thank You Lurk *VVBS*,

Reason I learned what I did was due to many years ago, my family got suckered into a mess with one "spiritual councelor/Fraud" who took us for such a ride that it cost around $1,000 (Lesson learned!)

This happened way before James VanPrague, Sylvia Browne, and John Edwards were in the spotlight..

As far as speaking to the dead.. I can't do it (wish I could), but have had a life-long experience with entities around me (long story).

I also have flashes of psychic ability.

Ability to perform Reiki.

Throwing energy (in general).

See and sense auras (when the situation is right.. This started after a near-death experience).

Knowing through dreams when a close friend or relative is about to die (even when unexpected), within 2 days of a repeated dream lasting 3 nights in a row..

*Side Note*: To be in the same room as John Edwards would be incredible just to feel his energy. His aura is tourquise, which makes sense because of his abilities. He truely does have a healing effect on those around him (whether or not he reads them).

I don't know if anyone has seen it, but once in awhile, A&E shows a documentary about mediums, psychics, etc. It was recorded on film to document scientific research done in Moscow in the 1970's.. Very Enlightening..

There was also a show on late night NBC for awhile called "The Other Side" (late 1980's, not the one on now). The show was a talk show that dealt with this topic. This is where I first saw James VanPrague and Sylvia Browne.

Late last year, Larry King had the 3 of them and Randi.. I have it on tape somewhere... Usually he just had one of them on seperately

The mini series (I think it was 2 nights, maybe 3) that CBS did (not too long ago) starring Ted Danson was based on James VanPrague

I too, could go on about this subject for eons.. Seems like my existance is meant to flow in this direction (beyond my control).

All I can say right now to anyone who doesn't believe other than having a good amount of scepticism is healthy and wise, is that you can doubt anything and everything but having an open mind is the key..

Goddess146

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 02:15 am EditMoveDeleteIP
"Seems like my existance is meant to flow in this direction (beyond my control)."

No control = No responsibility

I vaguely remember those days. They ended when I was about 3 to 4 years old.

Unrepentantsinr

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 02:40 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Posted by Lurksnomore:
"He was the one (assuming it's a he <snip gratuitous assertion>"

Wow! Good job cold reading. Can you tell me how my grandmother is doing, or is my lack of belief interfering with your "intuition?"

Posted by Lurksnomore:
"No, translation is I won't waste my time where I don't want to be wasting it. Arguing with someone who clearly WANTS to argue and not have an intelligent discussion is something I choose not to partake in."

I have accepted your concession that you cannot defend your position through written discourse, and if you're going to continue to respond this way, I'm going to have to give you a Native American name. Hmmmm. S/He Who Speaks With Buzzwords.

Please, don't try and transfer whatever sort of prejudices you have about skeptics on to me. I am indeed here to discuss this issue, just as Roddy is in the house. I'll address your condescendingly derisive comments about "arguing" vis a vis "discussion" below.

Posted by Lurksnomore:
"Yes I mentioned the study as proof this has been explored scientifically."

Fabulous. And I was pointing out that the scientific methodologies of that study as being flawed. In a similar manner, I would point out to someone asserting that cold fusion was possible because it has been scienficially explored would be an incorrect conclusion as the methodologies of the University of Utah scientists were flawed.

Posted by Lurksnomore:
"But my personal philosophy is to discuss personal experiences that I know to be true. It would be foolish for me to argue someone else's findings when I have my own, albeit not scientific."

Ah, yes, the "intuitive" aspect to this issue. As I previously stated, -- Personal anecdotes are worthless to me, to the actual provision of evidence and to making ones case in an effective manor. --

You could claim that you had flown to the moon in a rocket ship that you made in your kitchen from wax paper, spagetti and Fluffernutter, but without some corroborating evidence for your claims they would be worthless as far as determining their value, or veracity.

Posted by Lurksnomore:
"But I see no reason to continue this discussion as clearly you only wish to state why others are wrong and you are right. Come to think of it, that does not constitute a discussion."

I'm afraid your efforts to paint me are really starting to create a mess. Let me see if I can translate your buzzwords for any lurkers that might be reading along.

When Lurksnomore says "discussion" what it means is an intellectual daisey chain with like minded persons.
When Lurksnomore says "argument" what it means is interacting with someone who dares to disagree or present an opposing view.
Now of course, this isn't what you think you're saying, but it's what I'm reading when I read your replies.

Posted by Lurksnomore:
"I can't think of a single reason why I would like you to read my book or comment on it."

I however, can think of two simple reasons you would not want me to. Fear and close mindedness. You credulites fear critical analysis of your beliefs and you close your mind to anyone who might arrive at a different conclusion from you. If you somehow change your mind though, my e-mail is above.

Posted by Lurksnomore:
"Clearly you only want to prove my beliefs are wrong. I never set out to prove anything to anyone. Simply to share my experiences and what I learned with anyone who is interested or could gain comfort or learn something from them."

You are simplistically incorrect in the motives you are attempting to paint me with. I am all about (as I mentioned above and will doubtlessly have to mention ad nauseum) investigating claims. I really don't care if your claims are veracitous or bogus, but I want to find out. I don't care if the Loch Ness Monster exists or not, but I want to find out. I don't care if UFOs are conducting bizarre medical rituals on people, but I want to find out. (actually I do care about the last one - ouch!)

If you're really interested in (quoting you) "share[ing your] experiences and what I learned with anyone who is interested or could gain comfort or learn something from them" then why are you so reticient about sharing them with a skeptic who might learn about the validity and value of paranormal phenomena.

Is it that you're not really interested in discussion, or that you're just afraid of having the mettle of your beliefs challenged?

With the continued evasivness you're showing, I can only "intuit" the latter.

<removed last 3 lines unrelated to this discussion - ryn>

Moderator

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 05:41 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Do not attack one another. Feel free to debate issues, but do not turn any debate into a personal attack.



(14)

Auntiemike

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 06:00 am EditMoveDeleteIP
What doea any of this have to do with BB3 anyway? I think you are all way off the mark to discuss in this forum. How about finding a chat room you can do this in private.

Crossfire

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 06:29 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Basically, every person on the planet is a non-believer, some just go one God further than the rest.

There are too many God's claiming to be the one and only, and if nothing, that should be a cause for concern. What if I picked the wrong one?

Oh my heck!

Crossfire

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 06:37 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Outside the good house. Hehehe. :)

Ryn

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 06:39 am EditMoveDeleteIP
naw - changed my mind (I posted I was going to move it). The topic is about Roddy after all.

The discussion somehow changed to a personal debait about someone else's beliefs. Maybe we can get back to Roddy now and keep it here.

:)

Lurknomore

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 08:40 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Have no fear Ryn, I wanted to have a discussion that kept on topic with what Roddy said (since it is something near and dear to my heart, not to mention something I sometimes have a lot to share with). But some here want to turn it into a raging debate. I have no intention of doing so. I can tell when some of closed minds want to twist everything and "talk" only to prove me wrong. If it was a worthwhile conversation with any purporse I'd suggest taking it to email, but since it isn't I won't.

As for Roddy, I was suprised that someone who seems to have his smarts played it so dumb last night on this. I don't care what he believes but he wouldn't even listen to others. Like I said before I think this was bad strategy for BB. Chiari was really turned off by it. Bet it turns the tide and helps push the alliences M/F versus beautiful people.

Sanfranjoshfan

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 08:41 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I respect Roddy's beliefs. I commend him for stating them. He has a lot of courage to take on a houseful of believers.

Go Roddy!

Adamblast

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 09:11 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Same here, SFJF... My respect for Roddy, which has always been fairly high even when I don't like him, spiked dramatically last night. I won't discuss the reasons, as some folks around here are clearly very emotional about their faith in mystical whatever...

Mystery

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 09:25 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I guess Roddy's lucky that the public doesn't get to vote this year! It sounds like he might be out, if that were the case. I notice that we don't have any "Jason the Believer" threads with nonbelievers saying it was a bad idea for Jason to come out with *his* beliefs.

Sanfranjoshfan

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 09:31 am EditMoveDeleteIP
"I guess Roddy's lucky that the public doesn't get to vote this year!"

Imagine if a Muslim had been in the house! All this believer VERSUS non-believer rhetoric scares the crap outta me.

As Rodney King said, "Why can't all just get along....?"

Zachsmom

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 09:50 am EditMoveDeleteIP
What Roddy believes or doesn't believe should have no bearing on how he play(ed) the game..If Jason wins it won't be cause of his belief in God..as if Roddy wins it won't be because he doesn't..

Foodbunny

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 11:22 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I started this thread as a love topic for people who like Roddy... it only turned into a debate when people came in to attack his beliefs and attack the Randi Challenge. This is not what the thread was intended for and I thought I made that clear in my starting message. There's a Roddy bashing thread which I have not posted in and have no intention of posting in where people could have gone on about how his beliefs are stupid to their heart's content, I don't see why they had to do it here.

Lurknomore

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 12:09 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Food, I'm not gonna get into any more debates but I do want to make one comment. This is a board we all join in on. I've started threads that have totally turned left and gone away from my intention. That's just how discussion goes. At no point did I bash Roddy. If anything I disagreed with the way he didn't listen to Chiara and how upset she seemed by it...I felt that was bad strategy.

But my point is we all come here to share our opinions, hopefully respectfully. I have not in this thread or any other thread every told anyone they were wrong. I think folks are entitled to their views, just as I am mine. But when one posts, I think it's fair to expect that folks will follow up with their opinions. That's all I did, and I think that is what makes a board go round. Now I'm done with this thread cause it's far more negative than I like to be.

Earthkitten

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 12:30 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Unrepent, you're my hero!

Posted by Mystery: "I notice that we don't have any "Jason the Believer" threads with nonbelievers saying it was a bad idea for Jason to come out with *his* beliefs."

Sad, isn't it. It is hard to be an athiest in this country. Especially when one has to fear for the safety of their lives & their property. Christians (not all-don't get me wrong) can be very "non-christian-like" when finding out the views of non-believers. It sure has happened here in Florida where I live. A man had a license plate that he has had for like, 20 years, that said "Athiest". Well, someone complained to the DMV this year & he almost got it taken away until someone realized they would also have to take away God-related plates. In the meantime, he received threats & his car was vandalized. Sometimes I think it is harder to come "out of the closet" as an athiest than it is to be gay in this country! (not that there is anything wrong with being gay! Go Marcellas!) And go Roddy! Thanks for standing up for you "beliefs" or lack thereof!

Angelsluv

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 08:54 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
""Seems like my existance is meant to flow in this direction (beyond my control)." (me)

"No control = No responsibility " (Goddess146)
* * * * * * * * * * *

No, "Synchronicity" and "Kharma".. To phrase it eloquently...

Synchronicities are events that you attract into your life for various reasons. They make you sit up and take notice of what is important to you. You attract them not your life (grids - energy fields) - when you are looking for a confirmation or seeking guidance.

With the merging of realities and the increase in planetary frequencies at this time - synchroncities are becoming part of our daily lives as we learn to understand how we manifest. This will accompany increase in psychic abilities.

Synchronicities are created on a level other than the third dimension. You attract the synchronicity to you on a higher level then it manifests in third dimension.

Not all synchronicities are events that you must experience or take seriously.

Synchronicities often can point to 'learning lessons' you do not wish to experience.
They can also go no where - just there to make a subtle point.

For example - you meet someone who interests you and touches your soul. Through synchronicity - that person seems to come into your life over and over again. You begin to feel a destiny with that person. You begin to think with your heart instead of your head. You connect with that person. In some cases the karma between the two people is positive - but in many cases you have attracted that person into your life for a learning lesson whether you are aware of it or not.

Look at the underlying facts when the synchronicity occurs to be sure you know why you attracted that person/ situation into your life.
You can consider an event synchronistic when an inner experience such as a dream, vision, or other form of deja vu prepares you for the physical event.

CARL JUNG ON SYNCHRONICITY

Synchronicities, according the Jung are meaningful coincidences.

Psychologist Carl Jung believed the traditional notions of causality were incapable of explaining some of the more improbable forms of coincidence.

Where it is plain, felt Jung, that no causal connection can be demonstrated between two events, but where a meaningful relationship nevertheless exists between them, a wholly different type of principle is likely to be operating. Jung called this principle "synchronicity."

In The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, Jung describes how, during his research into the phenomenon of the collective unconscious, he began to observe coincidences that were connected in such a meaningful way that their occurrence seemed to defy the calculations of probability. He provided numerous examples culled from his own psychiatric case-studies, many now legendary.

"A young woman I was treating had, at a critical moment, a dream in which she was given a golden scarab. While she was telling me his dream I sat with my back to the closed window. Suddenly I heard a noise behind me, like a gentle tapping. I turned round and saw a flying insect knocking against the window-pane from outside. I opened the window and caught the creature in the air as it flew in. It was the nearest analogy to the golden scarab that one finds in our latitudes, a scarabaeid beetle, the common rose-chafer (Cetoaia urata) which contrary to its usual habits had evidently felt an urge to get into a dark room at this particular moment. I must admit that nothing like it ever happened to me before or since, and that the dream of the patient has remained unique in my experience."

Who then, might we say, was responsible for the synchronous arrival of the beetle--Jung or the patient? While on the surface reasonable, such a question presupposes a chain of causality Jung claimed was absent from such experience. As psychoanalyst Nandor Fodor has observed, the scarab, by Jung's view, had no determinable cause, but instead complemented the "impossibility" of the analysis. The disturbance also (as synchronicities often do) prefigured a profound transformation. For, as Fodor observes, Jung's patient had--until the appearance of the beetle--shown excessive rationality, remaining psychologically inaccessible. Once presented with the scarab, however, her demeanor improved and their sessions together grew more profitable.

Because Jung believed the phenomenon of synchronicity was primarily connected with psychic conditions, he felt that such couplings of inner (subjective) and outer (objective) reality evolved through the influence of the archetypes, patterns inherent in the human psyche and shared by all of mankind. These patterns, or "primordial images," as Jung sometimes refers to them, comprise man's collective unconscious, representing the dynamic source of all human confrontation with death, conflict, love, sex, rebirth and mystical experience. When an archetype is activated by an emotionally charged event (such as a tragedy), says Jung, other related events tend to draw near. In this way the archetypes become a doorway that provide us access to the experience of meaningful (and often insightful) coincidence.

Implicit in Jung's concept of synchronicity is the belief in the ultimate "oneness" of the universe. As Jung expressed it, such phenomenon betrays a "peculiar interdependence of objective elements among themselves as well as with the subjective (psychic) states of the observer or observers." Jung claimed to have found evidence of this interdependence, not only in his psychiatric studies, but in his research of esoteric practices as well.

Of the I Ching, a Chinese method of divination which Jung regarded as the clearest expression of the synchronicity principle, he wrote: "The Chinese mind, as I see it at work in the I Ching, seems to be exclusively preoccupied with the chance aspect of events. What we call coincidence seems to be the chief concern of this peculiar mind, and what we worship as causality passes almost unnoticed...While the Western mind carefully sifts, weighs, selects, classifies, isolates, the Chinese picture of the moment encompasses everything down to the minutes nonsensical detail, because all of the ingredients make up the observed moment."

Similarly, Jung discovered the synchronicity within the I Ching also extended to astrology. In a letter to Freud dated June 12, 1911, he wrote: "My evenings are taken up largely with astrology. I make horoscopic calculations in order to find a clue to the core of psychological truth. Some remarkable things have turned up which will certainly appear incredible to you...I dare say that we shall one day discover in astrology a good deal of knowledge that has been intuitively projected into the heavens."

Freud was alarmed by Jung's letter. Jung's interest in synchronicity and the paranormal rankled the strict materialist; he condemned Jung for wallowing in what he called the "black tide of the mud of occultism." Just two years earlier, during a visit to Freud in Vienna, Jung had attempted to defend his beliefs and sparked a heated debate. Freud's skepticism remained calcified as ever, causing him to dismiss Jung's paranormal leanings, "in terms of so shallow a positivism," recalls Jung, "that I had difficulty in checking the sharp retort on the tip of my tongue." A shocking synchronistic event followed.

Jung writes in his memoirs:

"While Freud was going on this way, I had a curious sensation. It was as if my diaphragm were made of iron and were becoming red-hot--a glowing vault. And at that moment there was such a loud report in the bookcase, which stood right next to us, that we both started up in alarm, fearing the thing was going to topple over on us. I said to Freud: 'There, that is an example of a so-called catalytic exteriorization phenomenon.' 'Oh come,' he exclaimed. 'That is sheer bosh.' 'It is not,' I replied. 'You are mistaken, Herr Professor. And to prove my point I now predict that in a moment there will be another such loud report! 'Sure enough, no sooner had I said the words that the same detonation went off in the bookcase. To this day I do not know what gave me this certainty. But I knew beyond all doubt that the report would come again. Freud only stared aghast at me. I do not know what was in his mind, or what his look meant. In any case, this incident aroused his distrust of me, and I had the feeling that I had done something against him. I never afterward discussed the incident with him."

In formulating his synchronicity principle, Jung was influenced to a profound degree by the "new" physics of the twentieth century, which had begun to explore the possible role of consciousness in the physical world. "Physics," wrote Jung in 1946, "has demonstrated...that in the realm of atomic magnitudes objective reality presupposes an observer, and that only on this condition is a satisfactory scheme of explanation possible."
"This means," he added, "that a subjective element attaches to the physicist's world picture, and secondly that a connection necessarily exists between the psyche to be explained and the objective space-time continuum." These discoveries not only helped loosen physics from the iron grip of its materialistic world-view, but confirmed what Jung recognized intuitively: that matter and consciousness - far from operating independently of each other--are, in fact, interconnected in an essential way, functioning as complementary aspects of a unified reality.

The belief suggested by quantum theory and by reports of synchronous events - that matter and consciousness interpenetrate is, of course, far from new.

Synchronicity reveals the meaningful connections between the subjective and objective world.
Synchronistic events provide an immediate religious experience as a direct encounter with the compensatory patterning of events in nature as a whole, both inwardly and outwardly.

Jung's Model

All synchronistic phenomena can be grouped under three categories:

1 The coincidence of a psychic state in the observer with a simultaneous objective, external event that corresponds to the psychic state or content, (e.g. the scarab), where there is no evidence of a causal connection between the psychic state and the external event, and where, considering the psychic relativity of space and time, such a connection is not even conceivable.

2. The coincidence of a psychic state with a corresponding (more or less simultaneous) external even taking place outside the observer's field of perception, i.e. at a distance, and only verifiable afterward (e.g. the Stockholm fire).

3. The coincidence of a psychic state with a corresponding, not yet existent future event that is distant in time and can likewise only be verified afterward.

Two Fundamental Types of Synchronicity

1. One in which the compensatory activity of the archetype is experienced both inwardly and outwardly. [the event seems to emerge from the subconscious with access to absolute knowledge, which cannot be consciously known]

2. One in which the compensatory activity of the archetype is experienced outwardly only. [ these convey to the ego a much-needed wholeness of the self's perspective, they show one a new perspective]

Essential Characteristics of the Synchronistic Event

1) The specific intrapsychic state of the subject defined as one of the following:

a) The unconscious content which, in accordance with the compensatory needs of the conscious orientation, enters consciousness [something is in our conscious]

b) The conscious orientation of the subject around which the compensatory synchronistic activity centers [something happens concerning what is in our mind]

2) An objective event corresponds with this intrapsychic state [may be literal or figurative correspondence]

a) The objective event as a compensatory equivalent to the unconscious compensatory content

b) The objective event as the sole compensatory of the ego-consciousness

3) Even though the intrapsychic state and the objective event may be synchronous according to clock time and spatially near to each other, the objective event may, contrary to this, be distant in time and/or space in relation to the intrapsychic state [as in telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.]

4) The intrapsychic state and the objective event are not causally related to each other [acausality]

5) The synchronistic event is meaningful [excludes some coincidence, but does not require the meaning to be understood]

a) The intrapsychic state and the objective event as meaningful parallels

b) The numinous charge associated with the synchronistic experience [feeling of spiritual experience]

c) Import of the subjective-level interpretation [the content must reflect back on the issues of the individual]

d) the archetypal level of meaning [transcends the individual and implies absolute knowledge].

What historian Arthur Koestler refers to as the capacity of the human psyche to "act as a cosmic resonator" faithfully echoes the thinking of Kepler and Pico. Leibnitz's "monad," a spiritual microcosm said to mirror the patterns of the universe, was based on the premise that individual and universe "imprint" each other, acting by virtue of a "pre-established harmony." And for Schopenhauer who, like Jung, questioned the exclusive status of causality, everything was "interrelated and mutually attuned."

Common among these various historical sources, as Koestler observes in his book, The Roots of Coincidence, is the presumption of a "fundamental unity of all things," which transcends mechanical causality, and which relates coincidence to the "universal scheme of things."

In exploring the parallels between modern science and the mystical concept of a universal scheme or oneness, Koestler compares the evolution of science during the past one-hundred-and-fifty years to a vast river system, in which each tributary is "swallowed up" by the mainstream, until all unified in a single river-delta. The science of electricity, he points out, merged, during the nineteenth century, with the science of magnetism.

Electromagnetic waves were then discovered to be responsible for light, color, radiant heat and Hertzian waves, while chemistry was embraced by atomic physics. The control of the body by nerves and glands was linked to electrochemical processes, and atoms were broken down into the "building blocks" of protons, electrons and neutrons. Soon, however, even these fundamental parts were reduced by scientists to mere "parcels of compressed energy, packed and patterned according to certain mathematical formulae."

What all this reveals, then, is that there may be what Koestler refers to as "the universal hanging-together of things, their embeddedness in a universal matrix." Many ecologists already subscribe to this sense of interrelation in the world, what the ancients called the "sympathy" of life, and the numbers of scientists now converting to this world-view are beginning to multiply.

Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigione of the University of Texas at Austin is studying the "spontaneous formation of coherent structures," how chemical and other kinds of structures evolve patterns out of chaos. Karl Pribram, a neuroscientist at Stanford University, has proposed that the brain may be a type of "hologram," a pattern and frequency analyzer which creates "hard" reality by interpreting frequencies from a dimension beyond space and time. On the basis of such a model, the physical world "out there," is, in Pribram's words, "isomorphic with"--that, the same as, the processes of the brain.

So, if the modern alliance evolving between quantum physicists, neuroscientists, parapsychologists and mystics is not just a short-fused phase in scientific understanding, a paradigm shift may well be imminent. We may soon not only embrace a new image of the universe as non-causal and "sympathetic," but uncover conclusive evidence that the universe functions not as some great machine, but as a great thought--unifying matter, energy, and consciousness. Synchronous events, perhaps even the broader spectrum of paranormal phenomena, will be then liberated from the stigma of "occultism," and no longer seen as disturbing. At that point, our perceptions, and hence our world, will be changed forever.

EXAMPLES OF SYNCHRONICITY
There are in your life when financial difficulties seem to have no end. Yet there is always enough money for basic expenses...rent, food, utilities. Finances seem to appear where and when they are needed.

You have just received your last check from unemployment when suddenly a job comes along. \

You walk into a book store not knowing what to buy, and the book you need falls from a shelf and practically hits you over the head.

You have been feeling ill with no apparent cure. You are out for the day and meet someone who knows a doctor or healer with the answers.

There is a sudden relocation which seems to be for one reason, and you find much more than you bargained for.

You finally end a bad relationship and immediately another partner comes into your life.
You feel depressed and can't find focus in your life and the next person you talk you says something that brings you the guidance you need.

Everyone's favorite.....You drive to a place where parking is "next to impossible" and someone pulls out of a parking spot or it is just waiting for you.

http://www.crystalinks.com/synchronicity.html

Wink

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 09:41 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
>>>>>>Everyone's favorite.....You drive to a place where parking is "next to impossible" and someone pulls out of a parking spot or it is just waiting for you.<<<<<

Yup. And then some smart ass wheels around the corner or up the lane and pulls in ahead of me. And I'm back to being depressed and unable to find focus in my life.

Sanfranjoshfan

Thursday, July 18, 2002 - 12:42 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Gee, I thought a new comment had been made about Roddy's skeptism...instead, when I opened the thread, I found a really loooooong book/article/lecture about synchronicity that had absolutely nothing to do with Roddy and his skepticism (at least as far as I could tell by reading the first, middle, and last paragraphs.....there was WAY too much off topic info to hold my interest.)

No offense intended...JMO