Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00091)

Dear Mic,

Thanks for the explanation. What strikes me is the seeming 
contradiction between causality and coincidence. Could 
coincidence be causality only partially perceived? Could it be that 
there is a pattern of cause and effect so vast and comprehensive 
that even what seems to be a coincidence could be a part of that 
pattern, but that the scope of the cause and effect relationship 
might be beyond our ability to see?

Adelasie

On 5 Feb 02, at 3:16, Mic Forster wrote:

> Dear Adelasie,
> It would be my pleasure, but this is my interpretation
> and I am sure others see it differently (and that's
> what makes this world great).
> 
> The best way to explain it would be to give an
> example. Everyday I go to the same cafe to eat lunch.
> When I enter there is invariably one or two customers
> eating their lunch or drinking coffee. I order my meal
> and sit down to eat it. Let's say this occurs at
> 1.05pm. At approximately 1.07pm another customer
> enters the cafe closely followed by several others.
> These customers do not know eachother or have any form
> of association. They have merely had the preconception
> of enetering this cafe to eat lunch. At approximately
> 1.20pm the cafe is once again quiet with myself
> remaining and a few other customers. In the next ten
> minutes two more customers enter to order their meals.
> Then at approximately 1.35pm eight or nine customers
> enter the cafe in close sequence and these people,
> once again, have no relation to each other what so
> ever. Given this my interpretation of synchronicity
> would be a series of causally unrelated events
> coinciding in time and space. 
> 
> A great scientist, though history has not proven him
> so yet, Paul Kammerer went to a great deal of trouble
> to scientifically document the phenomena of
> synchronicty. He would sit for hours on a park bench
> and record details of those who walked passed him,
> such as age, appearence etc, to see if he could record
> this phenomena of synchronicity. One day I too decided
> to see if I could record it. Although I am sure my
> methodology was somewhat flawed I did find that
> casually unrelated events were occurring. My methods
> were to sit in a public place, in this case the path
> leading to the Opera House here in Sydney (thereby I
> could get a diverse range of people from all over the
> world), and note males over the age of 15 if they had
> facial growth or not. Assuming facial growth was less
> common than not having facial growth, I found that
> there were extensive periods when there would be males
> with no growth followed by short periods of males with
> growth. As noted above my methodology was not entirly
> sound (ie a bus load of Middle Eastern men could have
> walked past hence adding bias to my results).
> 
> Perhaps I should quote a passage from Kammerer himself
> and I am sure anybody who is reading this would have
> experienced something similiar at some stage in their
> life:
> 
> "On September 18, 1916, my wife, while waiting her
> turn in the consulting rooms of Prof. Dr. J. v. H.,
> reads the magazine "Die Kunst"; she is impressed by
> some reproductions of pictures by a painter named
> Schwalbach, and makes a mental note to remember his
> name because she would like to see the originals. At
> that moment the door opens and the receptionist calls
> out to the patients: "Is Frau Schwalbach here? She is
> wanted on the telephone."
> 
> Another example from Kammerer: "on November 4, 1916,
> his brother-in-law went to a conert where had had seat
> No. 9 and cloakroom ticket No. 9; the next day, at
> another concert, he had seat No. 21 and cloakroom
> ticket No. 21".
> 
> An example from my own experience: I was in the city
> walking to go to a meeting when a homeless man asked
> me for some change. I quickly felt in my pockets and
> found no change so I apologised. He obviously did not
> find this too sincere as he cursed at me as I walked
> off. Feeling somewhat bad I returned later with some
> change but he was no where to be seen. I went home to
> prepare myself for an engagement that evening. Leaving
> the house I was halfway to the train station only to
> realise that I left my jacket at home. Consequently I
> missed the train I planned to catch. The train I
> eventually caught unexpectedly broke down at a station
> and we had to alight for another train. On alighting I
> noticed a $2 coin on the ground and I thought the
> great wheel of karma was shining upon me. Once back in
> the city I unexpectedly saw that homeless man again
> and duly gave him the $2 I had found and a few more
> coins I had in my possession.
> 
> Now in regards to synchronicity and theosophy.
> Although I have not read extensively the theosophical
> literature, what I have read indicates that the ego
> returns to the physical body when it has had enough of
> the spiritual world. To me this is completely
> unsatisfactory and I hope I have either misread what I
> have read or I haven't read enough. Presently, I am of
> the opinion that we go through stages of our evolution
> according to the law of synchronicity. That is, a
> series of causally unrelated events coincide in time
> and space to return us back to the physical plane or,
> for that matter, any other plane. 
> 
> Another area which I am dissatisfied with is this law
> of karma. Logically speaking, if I do something bad
> then something bad will happen to me in return and
> vice versa. Now we say as a conscious being we can
> make the decision to do good and break the bad karma.
> But how can this be broken? Logically, it would be
> either an ever ending cycle where bad things
> continuously happen to us or good things continously
> occur. Presently, I am of the opinion that a series of
> causally unrelated events occur that eventually lead
> us to do either good or bad. Hence we get good and bad
> karma.
> 
> I must stress that these are my current views. Not
> five years ago I was an ardent believer in
> Christianity. These days my view of the world could
> not be more different. I suspect that in five years
> time my opinion will, once again, be completely
> different.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Mic 
> 
> 
> --- adelasie <adelasie@surfari.net> wrote:
> > Dear Mic,
> > 
> > I wonder if you would explain a bit the concept of
> > synchronicity, as 
> > you see it. 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Adelasie
> > 
> > On 4 Feb 02, at 15:35, Mic Forster wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > I completely agree with conjev. Some things that
> > HPB says science did
> > > not agree with in her day science certainly does
> > agree with these
> > > days - especially in the areas of quantum physics
> > and the nature of
> > > the atom. Though one area which I think is very
> > important, and as yet
> > > has hardly (as far as I know) been addressed by
> > science or theosophy,
> > > is that of synchronicity. This phenomena is so
> > widespread and obvious
> > > that it can be seen everyday. Yet when I bring it
> > up with my fellow
> > > scientist they merely scoff at the concept.
> > Clearly there is still a
> > > lot of learning to be done by all sides - science
> > and theosophy.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
>