Jung, Pauli, and Synchronicity

General discussion about the Elder Race, Life, the Universe and Everything.
Post Reply
New2RS2
Discens
Discens
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon May 22, 2017 3:13 pm

Jung, Pauli, and Synchronicity

Post by New2RS2 » Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:26 pm

I have taken Lone Bear's suggestion and am working on developing an RS2 analysis of Jung's concept of 'synchronicity' - especially as it relates to the cosmic sector. While doing some research on this topic, I have run into an issue that I need help in clarifying:

Larson has stated (BST) that at the moment of death, both Level 2 structures (the material body and its cosmic counterpart) are destroyed; that is, neither survives the severing of the link that binds them together in the form of a living organism. I can see how the cosmic structure would not be able to survive in the material sector, and how the material structure would continue its process of entropy. However, given that KVK Nehru, in his paper, "Non-locality in the Reciprocal System," has pointed out that, due to the 'frame-merging' that occurs in the time region of the material sector and the space region of the cosmic sector (Corollary #12), gravitation is outward in both regions, and the cosmic structures are characterized by 'inverse entropy.' This explains how the link between the cosmic structure and the material structure is made possible, and how interaction between the two can occur 'since the governing force (motion) is identical in both of them.' Unless I am missing something here, it would seem to me that the cosmic structure would continue (at the moment of death) a process of 'inverse entropy,' which is equivalent to an increase in energy and coherence, but that this process would take place entirely in the cosmic sector and therefore be unobservable from the material sector.

My issue is this: even though the material structure - the physical body - would lose its energy and coherence after death has occurred (since it is no longer linked to a cosmic structure), it would seem equally logical to me to conclude that severing the link between the two structures would result in a cosmic structure that, instead of being destroyed (as Larson stated) not only survives (in the cosmic sector) but acquires greater cohesion and greater energy as a result of severing the link between the two (inverse entropy). It would, however, no longer be associated with a material body in the material sector and would therefore lose direct access to information from the material sector that is derived through the physical senses.

On a related note: if it could be demonstrated on logical grounds that the cosmic structure in this duality (life-unit) survives (or could survive) as I have suggested, that would explain a great deal (to me at least) about Jung and Pauli's ideas regarding synchronicity, in particular, and archetypes of the collective unconscious, more generally, not to mention shedding much light, also, on Bohm's 'implicate order,' Sheldrake's 'morphic fields,' Pribram's 'holographic theory' of the brain, Husserl's concept of the 'intentionality of consciousness,' and numerous other ideas I have toyed with over the past 30 years or so. Therefore, I would like for anyone who can shed light on this issue to comment, especially if I have misunderstood the issue in some way, to help me clarify the problem, as I do not feel completely grounded in either RS or RS2 at this point.
Last edited by New2RS2 on Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:23 am, edited 2 times in total.

New2RS2
Discens
Discens
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon May 22, 2017 3:13 pm

Re: Jung, Pauli, and Synchronicity

Post by New2RS2 » Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:57 am

From Anthony Storr, editor, "The Essential Jung":

"Throughout his life, Jung had been impressed by clusters of significant events occurring together, and by the fact that these events might be physical as well as mental...such coincidences, which he considered "relatively common," demanded an explanatory principle in addition to causality. This principle he named "synchronicity"...Jung's idea was that synchronicity was based on a universal order of meaning, complementary to causality."

It appears to me that Jung is proposing what, in the context of Larson's reciprocal system, might be defined as a reciprocal of causality, or "inverse causality," which would manifest as a structural order that is native to the cosmic sector, but of which we can catch an occasional glimpse from our point of view in the material sector. Life's 'synchronicities' may well be glimpses of this other order. It is interesting to me, personally, that Jung described this other order as a universal order of meaning. That would suggest to me that some features of the inverse-causal order, at least from Jung's point of view, might be discovered through a critical analysis of the 'meaning-making' structures of human rationality.

The evolution of the causal order discovered in the history of science would then be one example of how to construct a world view (human meaning) from these same structures. Within this world view, the assignment of meanings to our observations would be strictly confined to a rationality that assumes: 1) a linear progression of time, 2) a chain of contiguous events occurring in a sequence along this one-dimensional temporal continuum, 3) a way of isolating these contiguous events from other 'confounding' factors, and 4) an observable, or measurable, change at each event site so that the prior event can be assigned the meaning of 'cause,' and the later event can be assigned the meaning of 'effect.' To communicate the discoveries emanating from this world view, the use of words (symbols) would likewise need to be strictly confined to terms that explicate these assigned meanings.

To say that the observations taking place in these strictly confined parameters describes everything that exists is a purely arbitrary statement that, itself, violates the same rational principles used in constructing the world view in the first place. In my opinion, the reason that many scientists tend to do this repeatedly is to systematically exclude from their 'view' any factor that might result in a loss of focus. In other words, the causal order celebrated in the sciences is probably best understood as a "complex mantra" that helps to keep the causal order situated as the 'figure' that stands out against a 'background.' In order to keep the causal order as the central figure, more and more elements of the background (everything real that does not conform to causal principles) must be systematically ignored when it makes an appearance.*

What would be the 'inverse' of this causal order? And how would the 'meaning-making structures' of human rationality be used to construct a world view that is a natural complement to the causal order? I will leave that discussion for a later time. For now, consider the famous example of synchronicity brought to awareness by Jung:

"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 this dream I sat with my back to the closed window. Suddenly I heard a noise behind me, like a gentle tapping. I turned around 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 analagy to a golden scarab that one finds in our latitudes, a scarabaeid beetle, the common rose-chafer...which contrary to its usual habits had evidently felt an urge to get into a dark room at this particular moment." - from "The Essential Jung," by Anthony Storr, editor.

Jung went on to convey that this young woman had been treated by two psychoanalysts prior to him, and had made no progress. The main reason for her lack of progress, according to Jung, was "her animus, which was steeped in Cartesian philosophy and clung so rigidly to its own idea of reality that the efforts of three doctors...had not been able to weaken it." In other words, she suffered from a very rigid world view, clinging for dear life to the causal order of nature. The sheer improbability of a scrabaeid beetle tapping on Jung's window as she was relaying her dream had the effect of 'shattering' this rigidity in her personality and made it possible for her to "burst through the armor of her anima possession and the process of transformation could at least begin to move."

In this example, it is apparent that elements of the 'background' made an appearance in such a manner (statistically improbable) that they could no longer be ignored or dismissed out of hand. This type of experience can produce a deconstruction of the 'good gestalt' of a rigid belief, and allow new meanings to exist in a broader psychological space than was possible before. In fact, 'space' itself (as well as time) is already endowed in our experience with qualities according to the phenomenological psychologists. This has a direct bearing on my future contributions to this discussion. Jung, in fact, believed that material structures themselves contain the history (archetypal qualities) of the landscape. This is consistent with Larson's theory, as long as one recognizes the earth itself as a living organism (linked to cosmic structures of its own).

*The use of such mantras is generally considered to be a temporary phase, necessary for a time, in the same way that a scaffold is sometimes required for constructing tall buildings. Once the concept of 'causality' is fully grasped, the need to make such statements becomes obsolete, along with the need to 'defend' the world view supported by the observations. In a later post, I will take this matter up again by examining how the 'figure-ground' relationships described by the gestalt psychologists might shed some light on this issue. In short, the background is also necessary in order that the figure might stand out.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3770
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: Jung, Pauli, and Synchronicity

Post by LoneBear » Thu Jun 29, 2017 5:25 pm

New2RS2 wrote:
Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:26 pm
Larson has stated (BST) that at the moment of death, both Level 2 structures (the material body and its cosmic counterpart) are destroyed;...
When the life unit "dies," what happens is that the material (body) and cosmic (soul) rotational systems continue to exist--but as inanimate structures.

What Larson fails to account for is that a body can be connected to multiple souls across clock space, which we see as complexes in the psyche, and each of those souls can be connected to multiple bodies spread across clock time--incarnations. So any one body or soul could "die" and become separated from the aggregate, but the aggregate of life, itself, continues. This multiplicity is bound together by the ethical control unit. Without a control unit, you basically just have the single lifetime and things proceed the way Larson describes.
New2RS2 wrote:
Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:26 pm
It would, however, no longer be associated with a material body in the material sector and would therefore lose direct access to information from the material sector that is derived through the physical senses.
Since we are dealing with a universe of time in 3 dimensions, not an "arrow of time," one must realize that past and future are just the direction one is facing in that temporal landscape--the trail you have blazed through the landscape is your past, what you see ahead is your future, and where you are standing is the present.

Knowing this, you realize that only the access to information stored in the brain is lost when the body dies. What is stored in the soul and spirit continues on. And because time is a landscape, the information is still there--you can reclaim access to it by tapping past life memories (create a new link to the old body).
New2RS2 wrote:
Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:26 pm
Therefore, I would like for anyone who can shed light on this issue to comment, especially if I have misunderstood the issue in some way, to help me clarify the problem, as I do not feel completely grounded in either RS or RS2 at this point.
Heck, I invented RS2 and am still not grounded in it... every time I think I have something figured out, something happens and I have to expand my view, yet again!

You seem to be on the right track, so keep pushing forward. Just remember that Larson isn't infallible; the RS is only a "first draft," and RS2 is the "second draft." Feel free to think outside the box and bring that new knowledge back to the Reciprocal System ideology.
Keeper of the Troth of Ásgarðr, Moriar prius quam dedecorer.

Post Reply