For a long time, I have wanted to talk about the “principle of synchronicity,” formulated by the founder of analytical psychology, Carl Gustav Jung. I believe that such knowledge will encourage a greater sense of observation toward the “chance” coincidences in life and will strengthen your trust and interest in their hidden meaning.
The Definition
The definition of synchronicity in the “Critical Dictionary of Jungian Analysis” covers several aspects of this principle, namely:
-
As a “non-causal connecting principle”;
-
As involving events related by meaning rather than by cause (i.e., not necessarily coinciding in time and space);
-
As referring to events that coincide in time and space, but which can also be viewed as psychologically related;
-
As bridging the psychic and material worlds.
Although comprehensive, this definition seemed too dry to me to represent the depth of this principle, which I view as “the language our Soul speaks.”
Therefore, I once again opened the I Ching — Book of Changes, for which Jung wrote the foreword. There he writes that:
“…this curious principle I have termed synchronicity is a concept that formulates a point of view diametrically opposed to that of causality. Since the latter is a merely statistical truth and not absolute, it is a sort of working hypothesis of how events evolve one out of another, whereas synchronicity takes the coincidence of events in space and time as meaning something more than mere chance, namely, a peculiar interdependence of objective events among themselves as well as with the subjective (psychic) states of the observer or observers.”
Actually, when it comes to definitions, they are perhaps always dry :). So, I will move forward and add that the foreword from which this quote (and those that follow) is taken refers to a Chinese book of divination. It presents 64 hexagrams — figures obtained by the “random” tossing of coins or yarrow stalks. These hexagrams are viewed as “an indicator of the essential situation prevailing at the moment of its origin.”
The I Ching — The Chinese Book of Divination
In other words, this book gives 64 different answers to the inquirer, representing 64 typical (archetypal) situations we may encounter in our lives. I realize the courage Jung had to involve himself with a foreword for a book of divination, and I am grateful for the risk he took.
“I can risk this because I am now in my eighth decade, and the changing opinions of men scarcely impress me anymore; the thoughts of the old masters are of greater value to me than the philosophical prejudices of the Western mind.”
The “old masters” are the ancient Chinese sages, and the principle of synchronicity reflects the characteristics of Chinese thought from the time the book was created.
“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. We must admit that there is something to be said for the immense importance of chance.”
For the everyday person, the I Ching is simply a book of divination, but for a scholar like Jung, it is a method for investigating the unconscious, as well as a source of self-knowledge and wisdom.
“The I Ching insists upon self-knowledge throughout. The method by which this is to be achieved is open to every kind of misuse, and is therefore not for the immature and fickle, nor for the intellectual and the rationalist. It is appropriate only for thoughtful and reflective people who like to give thought to what they do and what happens to them…”
As seen from Jung’s comments, what for some is a collection of “archaic magic spells” (a criticism he actually faced) can be for others an occasion for reflection and deeper self-examination. The criterion for the truth of a given hexagram is the inquirer’s subjective sense of validity. It is that feeling when you sense that something is right, even if it doesn’t say pleasant things.
“In the I Ching, the only criterion of the validity of synchronicity is the observer’s opinion that the text of the hexagram amounts to a true rendering of his psychic condition.”
This is exactly what happened to me while I was re-reading Jung’s introduction and, in the meantime, posed a question to the book. The hexagram I received in response was accurate in a way, but it did not resonate emotionally. I could only find intellectual arguments for why it might be true. Suddenly, I realized that I had actually written it down incorrectly — instead of drawing the lines from the bottom up, I had written them from the top down.
When I checked the result of the correct way of writing and what the new hexagram meant, I was finally able to feel an emotional response. It didn’t tell me “nice things” like the first one did, but this time I felt that what was written corresponded to my internal psychic reality.
In the I Ching, there is a hexagram that makes me trust even more in the possibilities it offers for understanding the quality of a given moment. It is the fourth one, called Meng / Youthful Folly. It says:
“It is not I who seek the young fool; The young fool seeks me. At the first oracle I inform him. If he asks two or three times, it is importunity. If he importunes, I give him no information.”
It becomes clear that this is a response that says: “Trust yourself, not me. Do not abuse the possibilities of divinatory techniques.” It is immature to constantly seek answers from the outside. In other words, “as the question, so the answer.” If we were meant to be constantly informed of our soul’s intentions, our psyche would have been constructed differently.
Conclusion
And so, the knowledge of the “law of synchronicity” supports an investigative attitude toward the coincidences in our lives and encourages us to seek meaningful connections, whose validity we check through our own inner sense of correctness. It “reveals” itself through chance coincidences but is also responsive to various divinatory tools. The mark of ignorance is not that we believe in them, but that we do so without trusting our inner sense of truth.
— Kameliya Hadzhiyska
