What if consciousness is the a priori? The thing that was originally divided from The One to two. What if the underlying force of reality is consciousness seeking to know itself? Seeking to understand The One is quite the task, and you quickly find yourself coming into contact with the infinite or infinite possibilities. But let’s assume this is possible, and in fact consciousness is seeking to understand itself, trying on all finite incarnations along the way.
If this were true, a beautiful fundamental strategy would be mimicry with potential for slight variation. To make this concrete, think about DNA. The blueprint of life copies itself incredibly faithfully… most of the time (mimicry with slight variation). The faithful copying, or mimicry, is required for stability and some sort of harmony between different parts of the system. This harmony is apparent from the level of biochemistry (DNA having specific pair bonding requirements) all the way up through complex ecosystems where the interplay between organisms is nothing short of a symphony. The mimicry is also seen throughout our human world. The archetypal myth is a story begging for mimicry in all cultures, and most of us have role models we try to emulate. But of all the examples of mimicry we can conjure as humans, none beat the masterpiece of Nature.
If one wants to know oneself, mimicry with slight variation seems like a solid approach.
Einstein tells us simultaneity is relative. If we take a limited definition of relative to be that which is the immediate intersection of some defined space and its opposite, can we expand the defined space (through infinite dimensions?) such that the border of this “defined” space becomes infinitely large? This taken to the logical extreme, everything becomes relative. If everything becomes relative, and simultaneity is relative, then you become exposed to infinitely more simultaneities. Could synchronicity be the alignment of simultaneity though dimensions that we cannot perceive? This is how you could derive the perception of acausality*. Then, it would simply be the limitations of our perceptions that lead to the inference of acausality. Ironically, this view would then take you back to the determinism that today’s science demands, with a black box large enough to fit the universe. This is infinite dimensions.
*Certainly not denigrating through the label of acausality, we are simply very limited in our perceptions.
Time would be dependent upon the actual observer of time and its frame of reference. So the understanding of time as seconds, minutes, hours, days, is simply a deluded version of something much more expansive and flexible. It helps fit things into their relative place. Time would then be a state function. There must be scales at which time dilation and length contraction are easily observed and felt. Is there ever a truly fixed point of reference? Or is it such that certain framing of scales allows one to disregard the malleable nature of time. Again, everything comes to relativity.
I am only in the beginning stages of exploring Carl Jung’s theory of synchronicity, and I certainly have a very naive understanding of it at this point. I recently finished reading Atom and Archetype, The Pauli/Jung Letters 1932-1958. This correspondence between two masters (Carl Jung and Wolfgang Pauli) of seemingly disparate areas of knowledge was enlightening. I was thoroughly intrigued by following their adventure into that unknown realm connecting psychology and physics. It is encouraging to watch people of seemingly unfathomable levels of knowledge trudge their way through an unproven space. The push and pull they each provided, as they shaved the unnecessary clay away from their burgeoning theory, was something I have not had the pleasure of witnessing prior to. The structure of the book (reproductions of letters written back and forth) allows you to see how ideas can come into material form in the world. Even through multiple levels of abstraction (translation, lost letters, missing records of in person meetings, etc.) I was able to follow the growing and shaping of their collective ideas. Though I would not recommend this as the first book to new readers of Jung, it is sometimes fun to jump into the deep end. However, do not let yourself be discouraged, this book serves as a potential of understanding. It is a goal.
As you continue to learn, the meaning of things you have previously encountered changes. Or better, if you go back and watch lectures or read books that you have previously been through, you will likely notice a different interpretation of the content (it has different meaning). This is especially true of reading Jung. As I read more or his writing, I am able to further comprehend ideas that flew right over my head upon first exposure. It is certainly a phenomenon of the further from shore you go, the deeper the water gets. As is the nature of all knowledge. Discussion encouraged.