held few years ago, the astrologer Dieter Koch at a conference in Zurich a presentation on a newly discovered Kentaurenplaneten: The Centaur Pholus
was on 9 January 1992 by the astronomer David Rabinowitz discovered. Pholus has an eccentricity of 0574 a very highly elliptical orbit. During his lecture, stumbled Dieter Koch a lying on the floor elliptical iron object. The location of the conference was in fact the former studio of an artist, and the object of which was a sculpture - an iron cylinder with an elliptical plan, the 1968/69 was created by a New York artist. This artist was called - David Rabinowitch! So almost exactly as the discoverer of Kentaurenplaneten, lectured on the cook!
This is a typical example of a so-called "synchronicity" as such phenomena are generally named for the paper "Synchronicity: An acausal principle contexts" [1] the psychologist CG Jung: events from a variety of "causal strands" come to a human observer in a substantive and meaningful relationship without even bear a causal relationship. CG Jung was of course not the discoverer of such phenomena and also not the first who has investigated systematically. But he has created the name under which this phenomenon was henceforth known. And even though it is not a particularly happy name, because the simultaneity is not exactly the characteristic of this phenomena - Dieter Koch shows that the name "Syntychie" actually would be more accurate (a "co-tuning of fate" so) and in this sense as early as ancient times was used. After over fifty years, the term "synchronicity" but already so burned that it is practically not be changed.
to believe in any arrangement would, in the example above, but funny: The organizers were certainly not, as the discoverer of Pholus was called, and if it would be downright wicked been one of them to place the speakers, the sculpture of the same artist's feet . Above all, to what end they should have done something, too?
synchronicities such as the above told are so amazing that they challenge to any explanation: When we hear a bang, as long as we are concerned, until we have found the cause of the blast. A similar uneasiness we recorded at the synchronicities. But a source in the usual sense, we can not find them because the events are not precisely linked by a common connection between cause and effect. The typical response "It's just coincidence," said unfortunately no. This is supposed to be told that synchronicities happen this way "forever" if you just busy enough to bet everything related. But how could such a thing as the rarity of synchronicity in general can measure? However, set can not, what meaning can then give the statement, synchronicities are merely a coincidence?
Dieter Koch has taken his Rabinowitz experience as an opportunity to deal with the phenomenon more accurately and 2008 about a remarkable book published [2], in which he arrives at a precise and logically comprehensible analysis of the phenomenon to his own statement. He presented and discussed in a refreshingly objective manner various traditional theories - the "pre-established harmony" of Leibniz will be discussed as well as the Bhagavad Gita, Plotinus, Schopenhauer, or the physicist Victor Mansfield and David Bohm.
He dares to challenge the now so common psychological explanation of CG Jung: Jung überstrapaziere the skills the human unconscious, if he considered it remains as an arranger of synchronicities. It is also not realize that behind the synchronicities always a kind of educational purpose stand, a "creative potential morphing", as it is in Wikipedia on the term synchronicity. Some synchronicities seem to have no such educational purpose, but simply for the sake of performing. Often they are even downright humorous, irritate the viewer laugh - Cooking the synchronicities denoted by the subtitles as "laughter of the gods."
But if they are not psychologically explicable, then how? What explanation Koch sees himself for the synchronicities? He takes the following set of CG Jung to the starting point:
Here we come now to the temptation, however, in the absence of detectable a
accept transcendental cause
.
"cause" can only be a detectable size.
a "transcendental" cause that is so far a contradiction in terms
as something transcendental
by definition can not be determined. [3] Here's a cooking
criticized, rightly, that the concept of cause is too narrow, ie only in the sense of time and space subject to efficient cause. But Aristotle led next to the cause of action on three other types of causes that come to the explanation of a phenomenon in question. Therefore, a transcendental cause
well something thinkable that a meaningful statement to consider the phenomenon of synchronicity is. Dieter Koch is the transcendental cause, the stone which has rejected the psychologist, the cornerstone of his own explanatory model: for him behind the synchronicities "a transcendent ordering intelligence" [4].
The synchronicity could also be called associations - there are things related to each other, sometimes just because an utterance, a name, a property's enough to make the relationship. The set of Heraclitus "Like a garbage heap, at random, then thrown is the most beautiful cosmos," seems to fit into this context: In the colorful All kinds of Things of this world are arriving for the strange cross-references that make us wonder. An intention is difficult to see. But the associative nature of the phenomena is reminiscent of another task: to the thinking. Our thinking goes, even in associations. The synchronicities have the flavor of thinking. What if these synchronicities are references to the ancient idea that the world itself is only meant? So hard and really it appears to us, it is, including ourselves, perhaps only the conceptual content of a higher being! The world itself - that would be the divine thoughts, while the synchronicities gewissermasssen by-products or waste products of the divine Thinking pose.
This idea is consistent for me and the nature of synchronistic probably most suited to, even if it is unfamiliar to modern thought. Instead of somewhere far away from God our private cook soup can, would we really in a very intimate place of God - in his mind. One of the writers and philosophers probably familiar idea that Goethe expressed with the following poem:
What would a god, who came only from outside the circle of the universe
could run on your finger! He's
seemly, to move the world within,
nature in itself, to cherish, in nature,
So what in it lives and moves and is never missing
His power and His Spirit.
This idea itself is very old, even among the Indians it was written down, and she finds out like all good ideas in the present materialistic Neuaflagen. So the science-fiction writer Galouye wrote in 1964 a - by none other than Rainer Werner Fassbinder filmed - novel in which saw the whole world around us, as part of a large computer simulation program called
Simulacron
that of higher intelligences launched for research purposes. [5] A similar idea in stories was popular, it is also to let the people involved are aware that they might be part of a novel could be.
If synchronicities so on material and psychological level, not explainable and not always have the educational function to guide us to spiritual wholeness, as Jung believed, so any rate they can act as
wake
to us in the direction an idealistic philosophy to lead.
[1] Carl Gustav Jung:
synchronicity as a principle of acausal connections
(1952), in: CG Jung: Synchronicity
, acausality
and occultism, dtv, January 2001.
[2] Dieter Koch:
synchronicities - From the laughter of the gods
, publisher of Heretical leaves, Frankfurt / Main 2008,
http://www.lulu.com/content/hardcover-buch/synchronizit% C3% A4t/4448338
.
[3] Young, p. 34
[4] Koch, p. 47
[5] Daniel F. Galouye:
Simulacron-3
. Heyne, Munich 1983rd
0 comments:
Post a Comment