3326Re: [gthomas] Moments of Truth
- Oct 1, 2000At 09:31 AM 10/1/2000 , you wrote:
>--Jung called it acausal, but I don't see that as part of the necessary
>If you are willing to actually accept synchronicity as real I suppose it
>could exist. The problem with synchronicity is that it is purportedly
>"acausal". It is very difficult to reject the laws of cause & effect which
>are required by science & the scientific method.
explanation. As you put it, it is difficult to reject cause and effect. So
it could be that two things happening at the same time are the effects of
causes. By way of example only, one could argue that both efffects are
sympathetic responses to something larger, as opposed to one being the
cause of the other. I believe that Jung himself meant something like this.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>