What do you think?
Rate this book
Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle.
152 pages, Paperback
Published April 9, 2019
2 people are currently reading
22 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 23, 2025
JUNG’S EXPLORATION OF THE IDEA OF NON-CAUSAL ‘MEANINGFUL COINCIDENCES’
The Editorial Preface to this 1960 book explains, “Jung introduced the idea of synchronicity to strip off the fantasy, magic, and superstition which surround and are provoked by unpredictable, startling, and impressive events that, like these, appear to be connected. They are simply ‘meaningful coincidences.’ … his first formal presentation of the theory was a brief lecture … at the Eranos Conference of 1951… the monograph was published the following year.” (Pg. v-vi)
In the Foreword to this paper, ‘Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle,’ he wrote, “In writing this paper I have, so to speak, made good a promise which for many years I lacked the courage to fulfill. The difficulties of the problem and its presentation seemed to me too great; too great the intellectual responsibility without which such a subject cannot be tackled; too inadequate, in the long run, my scientific training. If I have now conquered my hesitation and at last come to grips with my theme, it is chiefly because my experiences of the phenomenon of synchronicity have multiplied themselves over decades, while on the other hand my researches into the history of symbols, and of the fish symbol in particular, brought the problem ever closer to me, and finally because I have been alluding to the existence of this phenomenon on and off in my writings for twenty years without discussing it any further. I would like to put a temporary end to this … by trying to give a consistent account of everything I have to say on this subject…
“[T]here can be no question of a complete description and explanation of these complicated phenomena, but only as attempt to broach the problem in such a way as to reveal some of its manifold aspects and connections, and to open up a very obscure field which is philosophically of the greatest importance. As a psychiatrist and psychotherapist I have often come up against the phenomena in question and could convince myself how much these inner experiences meant to my patients… I was amazed to see how many people have had experiences of this kind and how carefully the secret was guarded. So my interest in this problem has a human as well as a scientific foundation.”
He states in the first chapter, “The philosophical principle that underlies our conception of natural law is CAUSALITY… the connection of events may in certain circumstances be other than causal, and requires another principle of explanation. We … look round in vain in the macrophysical world for acausal events, for the simple reason that we cannot imagine events that are connected non-causally and are capable of a non-causal explanation. But that does not mean that such events do not exist. Their existence---or at least their possibility---follows logically from the presence of statistical truth. The experimental method of inquiry aims at establishing regular events which can be repeated. Consequently, unique or rare events are ruled out of account… The so-called ‘scientific view of the world’ based on this can hardly be anything other than a psychologically biased partial view which misses out all those by no means unimportant aspects that cannot be grasped statistically.” (Pg. 5-6)
He continues, “there is in our experience … the counterbalance to the domain of causality. This is the world of chance… Chance, we say… is only called ‘chance’ or ‘coincidence’ because its causality has not yet been discovered… But if the causal principle is only relatively valid, then it follows that even though in the vast majority of cases an apparently chance series can be causally explained, there must still remain a number of cases which do not show any causal connection.” (Pg. 7-8)
He explains, “To mention but one example… We have fish for lunch; Somebody happens to mention the custom of making an ‘April fish’ of someone… In the afternoon a former patient of mine, whom I had not seen for months, showed me some extremely impressive pictures of fish which she had painted… In the evening I was shown a piece of embroidery with fish-like sea monsters on it… [The next day] another patient, who I had not seen for many years, told me a dream in which she stood on the shore of a lake and saw a large fish that swam straight toward her and landed at her feet. I was at this time engaged on a study of the fish symbol in history… The suspicion that this must be a case of ‘meaningful coincidence,’ i.e., an acausal connection, is very natural. I must own that this run of events … seemed to me to have a certain numinous quality.
“In such circumstances we are inclined to say, ‘That cannot be mere chance,’ without knowing what exactly we are saying… It is, admittedly, exceedingly odd that the fish theme occurs no less than six times within 24 hours. But one must remember that fish on Friday is the usual thing… I had at that time been working on the fish symbol for several months… So there is no possible justification for seeing in this anything but a chance grouping… It is, therefore, generally assumed that all coincidences are lucky hits and do not require an acausal interpretation. This assumption can… be regarded as true so long as proof is lacking that their incidence exceeds the limits of probability… Should this proof be forthcoming, however, it would prove at the same time that there are genuinely non-causal combinations of events for whose explanation we should have to postulate a factor incommensurable with causality. We should then have to assume that events in general are related to one another on the one hand as causal chains, and on the other hand as a kind of ‘meaningful cross-connection.’” (Pg. 10-11)
He asserts, “Decisive evidence for the existence of actual combinations of events has been furnished, with adequate scientific safeguards, only very recently, mainly through the experiments of J.B. Rhine and his fellow workers, who have not, however, recognized the far-reaching conclusions that must be drawn from their findings. Up to the present no critical argument that cannot be refuted has been brought against these experiments… The fact that distance has no effect in principle shows that the thing in question cannot be a phenomenon of force or energy, for otherwise the distance to be overcome and the diffusion in space would cause a diminution of the effect, and it is more than probable that the score would fall proportionately to the square of the distance. Since this is obviously not the case, we have no alternative but to assume that distance is psychically variable, and may in certain circumstances be reduced to vanishing point by a psychic condition.” (Pg. 16-17)
He contends, “it is impossible, with our present resources, to explain ESP, or the fact of meaningful coincidence, as a phenomenon of energy. This makes an end of the causal explanation as well, for ‘effect’ cannot be understood as anything except a phenomenon of energy. Therefore it cannot be a question of cause and effect, but of a falling together in time, a kind of simultaneity. Because of this quality of simultaneity, I have picked the term ‘synchronicity’ to designate a hypothetical factor equal in rank to causality as a principle of explanation.” (Pg. 19)
He reports on some of his experiments with the I Ching, but admits, “the results… do not provide any basis for a statistical evaluation. I have, therefore, looked round for another intuitive technique and have hit on astrology, which, at least in its modern form, claims to give a more or less total picture of the individual’s character. There is no lack of commentaries here; indeed, we find a bewildering profusion of them---a sure sign that interpretation is neither simple nor certain… If… we want astrology to tell us anything about the acausal connection of events, we must discard this uncertain diagnosis of character and put in its place an absolutely certain and indisputable fact. One such fact is the marriage connection between two people.” (Pg. 37-38)
He argues, “Although nobody knows what the validity of a nativity horoscope rests on, it is just conceivable that there is a causal connection between the planetary aspects and the psycho-physiological disposition. One would therefore do well not to regard the results of astrological observation as synchronistic phenomena, but to take them as possibly causal in origin. For, whenever a cause is even remotely thinkable, synchronicity becomes an exceedingly doubtful proposition.” (Pg. 44-45)
He acknowledges, “I know… from long experience … that spontaneous synchronistic phenomena draw the observer… into what is happening and occasionally make him an accessory to the deed. That is the danger inherent in all parapsychological experiments. The dependence of ESP on an emotional factor in the experimenter and subject is a case in point.” (Pg. 63) He adds, “Compared with Rhine’s work the great disadvantage of my astrological statistics lies in the fact that the entire experiment was carried out on only one subject, myself.” (Pg. 65)
He asserts, “Synchronicity postulates a meaning which a priori in relation to human consciousness exists outside men… It was modern psychology and parapsychology which proved that causality does not explain a certain class of events and that in this case we have to consider a formal factor, namely synchronicity, as a principle of explanation.” (Pg. 85-87) Later, he adds, “synchronicity is not a phenomenon whose regularity it is at all easy to demonstrate. One is as much impressed by the disharmony of things as one is surprised by their occasional harmony… Synchronicity is not a philosophical view but an empirical concept which postulates an intellectually necessary principle. This cannot be called either materialism or metaphysics.” (Pg. (95-96)
This book will be of keen interest to those interested in Jung’s ideas about synchronicity, as well as his exploration of astrology, etc.
The Editorial Preface to this 1960 book explains, “Jung introduced the idea of synchronicity to strip off the fantasy, magic, and superstition which surround and are provoked by unpredictable, startling, and impressive events that, like these, appear to be connected. They are simply ‘meaningful coincidences.’ … his first formal presentation of the theory was a brief lecture … at the Eranos Conference of 1951… the monograph was published the following year.” (Pg. v-vi)
In the Foreword to this paper, ‘Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle,’ he wrote, “In writing this paper I have, so to speak, made good a promise which for many years I lacked the courage to fulfill. The difficulties of the problem and its presentation seemed to me too great; too great the intellectual responsibility without which such a subject cannot be tackled; too inadequate, in the long run, my scientific training. If I have now conquered my hesitation and at last come to grips with my theme, it is chiefly because my experiences of the phenomenon of synchronicity have multiplied themselves over decades, while on the other hand my researches into the history of symbols, and of the fish symbol in particular, brought the problem ever closer to me, and finally because I have been alluding to the existence of this phenomenon on and off in my writings for twenty years without discussing it any further. I would like to put a temporary end to this … by trying to give a consistent account of everything I have to say on this subject…
“[T]here can be no question of a complete description and explanation of these complicated phenomena, but only as attempt to broach the problem in such a way as to reveal some of its manifold aspects and connections, and to open up a very obscure field which is philosophically of the greatest importance. As a psychiatrist and psychotherapist I have often come up against the phenomena in question and could convince myself how much these inner experiences meant to my patients… I was amazed to see how many people have had experiences of this kind and how carefully the secret was guarded. So my interest in this problem has a human as well as a scientific foundation.”
He states in the first chapter, “The philosophical principle that underlies our conception of natural law is CAUSALITY… the connection of events may in certain circumstances be other than causal, and requires another principle of explanation. We … look round in vain in the macrophysical world for acausal events, for the simple reason that we cannot imagine events that are connected non-causally and are capable of a non-causal explanation. But that does not mean that such events do not exist. Their existence---or at least their possibility---follows logically from the presence of statistical truth. The experimental method of inquiry aims at establishing regular events which can be repeated. Consequently, unique or rare events are ruled out of account… The so-called ‘scientific view of the world’ based on this can hardly be anything other than a psychologically biased partial view which misses out all those by no means unimportant aspects that cannot be grasped statistically.” (Pg. 5-6)
He continues, “there is in our experience … the counterbalance to the domain of causality. This is the world of chance… Chance, we say… is only called ‘chance’ or ‘coincidence’ because its causality has not yet been discovered… But if the causal principle is only relatively valid, then it follows that even though in the vast majority of cases an apparently chance series can be causally explained, there must still remain a number of cases which do not show any causal connection.” (Pg. 7-8)
He explains, “To mention but one example… We have fish for lunch; Somebody happens to mention the custom of making an ‘April fish’ of someone… In the afternoon a former patient of mine, whom I had not seen for months, showed me some extremely impressive pictures of fish which she had painted… In the evening I was shown a piece of embroidery with fish-like sea monsters on it… [The next day] another patient, who I had not seen for many years, told me a dream in which she stood on the shore of a lake and saw a large fish that swam straight toward her and landed at her feet. I was at this time engaged on a study of the fish symbol in history… The suspicion that this must be a case of ‘meaningful coincidence,’ i.e., an acausal connection, is very natural. I must own that this run of events … seemed to me to have a certain numinous quality.
“In such circumstances we are inclined to say, ‘That cannot be mere chance,’ without knowing what exactly we are saying… It is, admittedly, exceedingly odd that the fish theme occurs no less than six times within 24 hours. But one must remember that fish on Friday is the usual thing… I had at that time been working on the fish symbol for several months… So there is no possible justification for seeing in this anything but a chance grouping… It is, therefore, generally assumed that all coincidences are lucky hits and do not require an acausal interpretation. This assumption can… be regarded as true so long as proof is lacking that their incidence exceeds the limits of probability… Should this proof be forthcoming, however, it would prove at the same time that there are genuinely non-causal combinations of events for whose explanation we should have to postulate a factor incommensurable with causality. We should then have to assume that events in general are related to one another on the one hand as causal chains, and on the other hand as a kind of ‘meaningful cross-connection.’” (Pg. 10-11)
He asserts, “Decisive evidence for the existence of actual combinations of events has been furnished, with adequate scientific safeguards, only very recently, mainly through the experiments of J.B. Rhine and his fellow workers, who have not, however, recognized the far-reaching conclusions that must be drawn from their findings. Up to the present no critical argument that cannot be refuted has been brought against these experiments… The fact that distance has no effect in principle shows that the thing in question cannot be a phenomenon of force or energy, for otherwise the distance to be overcome and the diffusion in space would cause a diminution of the effect, and it is more than probable that the score would fall proportionately to the square of the distance. Since this is obviously not the case, we have no alternative but to assume that distance is psychically variable, and may in certain circumstances be reduced to vanishing point by a psychic condition.” (Pg. 16-17)
He contends, “it is impossible, with our present resources, to explain ESP, or the fact of meaningful coincidence, as a phenomenon of energy. This makes an end of the causal explanation as well, for ‘effect’ cannot be understood as anything except a phenomenon of energy. Therefore it cannot be a question of cause and effect, but of a falling together in time, a kind of simultaneity. Because of this quality of simultaneity, I have picked the term ‘synchronicity’ to designate a hypothetical factor equal in rank to causality as a principle of explanation.” (Pg. 19)
He reports on some of his experiments with the I Ching, but admits, “the results… do not provide any basis for a statistical evaluation. I have, therefore, looked round for another intuitive technique and have hit on astrology, which, at least in its modern form, claims to give a more or less total picture of the individual’s character. There is no lack of commentaries here; indeed, we find a bewildering profusion of them---a sure sign that interpretation is neither simple nor certain… If… we want astrology to tell us anything about the acausal connection of events, we must discard this uncertain diagnosis of character and put in its place an absolutely certain and indisputable fact. One such fact is the marriage connection between two people.” (Pg. 37-38)
He argues, “Although nobody knows what the validity of a nativity horoscope rests on, it is just conceivable that there is a causal connection between the planetary aspects and the psycho-physiological disposition. One would therefore do well not to regard the results of astrological observation as synchronistic phenomena, but to take them as possibly causal in origin. For, whenever a cause is even remotely thinkable, synchronicity becomes an exceedingly doubtful proposition.” (Pg. 44-45)
He acknowledges, “I know… from long experience … that spontaneous synchronistic phenomena draw the observer… into what is happening and occasionally make him an accessory to the deed. That is the danger inherent in all parapsychological experiments. The dependence of ESP on an emotional factor in the experimenter and subject is a case in point.” (Pg. 63) He adds, “Compared with Rhine’s work the great disadvantage of my astrological statistics lies in the fact that the entire experiment was carried out on only one subject, myself.” (Pg. 65)
He asserts, “Synchronicity postulates a meaning which a priori in relation to human consciousness exists outside men… It was modern psychology and parapsychology which proved that causality does not explain a certain class of events and that in this case we have to consider a formal factor, namely synchronicity, as a principle of explanation.” (Pg. 85-87) Later, he adds, “synchronicity is not a phenomenon whose regularity it is at all easy to demonstrate. One is as much impressed by the disharmony of things as one is surprised by their occasional harmony… Synchronicity is not a philosophical view but an empirical concept which postulates an intellectually necessary principle. This cannot be called either materialism or metaphysics.” (Pg. (95-96)
This book will be of keen interest to those interested in Jung’s ideas about synchronicity, as well as his exploration of astrology, etc.
Displaying 1 of 1 review