Thank you SyncroniCity. Thie is a very interesting topic.

I searched the "All S is P" on the internet and found the symbols refer to "space-time" events. The "S" is the Syncronistic event and the "P" is space-time.

Big Bell Test

Tell me if I am getting this.

I think Jung's theories of "Collective Unconsciousness" play a role in his arriving at his other theory of Syncronicity. Jung observed things like for example, all babies somehow instinctively know how to nurse; all cats instinctively know how to clean themselves.

We as beings in this reality often do things for no other reason than simply that it has been is part of the construct from which this reality gives us our existence.

I think the "All S is P" statement is opening the door to the idea that time is merely a construct of our consciousness. Or more precisely that time is "created" by consciousness simply to allow perception to take place. "All S is P" may essentially be saying (like in the Matrix movies) "there is no Spoon." In other words, all the events that we can perceive are in essence nothing more than consciousness anyway. Syncronicity simply becomes the proof that digital consciousness is the natural state of all our perceptions.

Jdlaw, thanks, I was checking it out at

you tube on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6G3-Zc9mtM

It seems that it revolves around the same basic foundations of inquiry, like multiple unity at different levels. Almost all the writers on the topic notice how separate areas of knowledge, like philosophy, religion, science, psychology, and so on merge into a coherent view, that there is order and unity in the supposed chaos.

For example, a person, is a unity that is made up of a multiplicity of atoms and molecules, chemical dna, and so on.

I would like to refer to a mind boggling, albeit a crude anthropomoporhic grasp of consciousness. Though this "noosphere," or by many names extends beyond our physical universe, I would like to point at our own "thinking planet." I mean this in the philosophical sense of "DEMIURGE," in that we are the "et" being sculptured from invisible idea(s).

“In Einstein’s vision, the universe is like an organism in which each part is the manifestation of the whole” (Synchronicity: The Bridge Between Matter and Mind p 76).

“Bohr was convinced that complimentary was relevant not only to physics but also to psychology and to life itself” (Deciphering the Cosmic Number p 102).

If we can consider the mathematician physicist, Wolfgang Pauli's dream illustration his "countries mandala" that can be found in a wonderful collection of letters between himself and Jung we can notice how he explores the collective unconscious ("u-field" for physicists), and collective consciousness as if similar to an individual "I" dreaming.



In the table above, the "FITS" or "SIFTS" are the basic functions of the psyche that is used in the Jungian school of psychoanalytics.


I was fortunate enough to talk with Dr. Ira Progoff, Depth Psychologist in the 1970's. He was one of Jung's favorite students. He was kind enough to flatter me as having a good technical grasp of the subject.

In his book, Synchronicity, Jung and Human Destiny, from an original manuscript that was heavily edited by Jung with handwritten notes in the margins, Progoff suggests that we compare Einstein, Bohr and Piere de Chardin's "noosphere" with Jungs cu and synchronicity.



Now imagine that analogous to Pauli's exclusion principle, or in Mandlebrots fractals an individual jumps into another coherent collective level, a sort of Ultra Human. I we can consider our perception of the 'present' as narrow, but with an Ultra Man Psychology with a personality, may have enveloped all of our time.

According to Jung, "the unconscious personates."



We should keep in mind that persons are not words, nor are words things. However, if we consider the discussions between Pauli and Jung, particularly here, that Pauli had been initiated into philo linguistic symbolism occurring in his dreams. Both analyzed the manifestations in terms of what names like "Spiegler" meaning "REFLECTOR" and "Auctor" which Jung says can be "auctor" (actor), we get a sense of how a unity where like dna is to a person, articulates as a sort of "thinking planet."



Here is a sonnet that I composed in 1981. By 1983, it was very close to this one posted, with less than a handful of changes to compact syllables. These are full of irony, "coincidences" regarding names, etc. I had sent a copy to Dr. Progoff in 1984. One was faxed to Dr. Mortimer Adler Chicago office in 1983.

Dr. Mortimer Adler tried to correct my spelling of NOOS, by insisting it was NOUS. But that was because he is a tarzan Aristotlean philosopher.





Theologian Bernard Lonergan, in his Truth and Method provides some insight into how we can interpret names.




Many writers have pointed to the world as a classical stage, a living dream. Mythologist Joseph Campbell suggested that we get past the physical view of the world to see it as a poem (interview with Bill Moyers).

That means that we each observe 'the holy cosmic play' differently. German scholar Hans Georg Gadamer in his Truth and Method, points out that all is expressed in the play, but that not all spectators will see all of the meanings.

In a sense, this "noospeak" is a sort of "ju de nom class coincidences" (from French "jeu" and "jeux" meaning "play," "game," "match," and "set.")

I hope this makes some sense to help envision a sort of mind boggling consciousness that operate in patterns across time.

Sean Carroll has recently posted a very interesting interview he did with Leonard Susskind on 'Quantum Information, Quantum Gravity and, Holography.' Listen here. If you don't want to listen to the podcast, the full transcript can be found if you click on the link further down the page.

And, in the transcript at 0:23:11,







Leonard Susskind says: "You can't have both, you can have one but not the other, and it depends on what experiment you do." I find this very interesting, indeed.

Food for thought:

So perhaps it's neither a particle nor a wave until it interacts with a particular apparatus and, may have a proclivity for one or the other depending on the "experimental question" we ask. Unless, of course, quantum experiments show otherwise?