Coincidence Vs Syncronicity

[Chuck]

It seems to me that the concept of sychronicity merely argues that whatever the real causal relationships of separate events, the mind makes its own classification of relatedness. It does not seem to me to argue that if the mind were to perceive relationship between two events, then that in fact shows any non-perceptual relationship between these two events .


So if my understanding is right, then sychronicity relationship exists whenever and only when your mind, however it functions, perceives a relationship, in much the same way as explanation exists so long as one chooses to create an explanation, regardless of whether the explanation is right, valid or verifiable.

[Tracyt90]

I say no, there are only coincidences. But in saying no, I say that the majority of people find comfort in think everything happens for a reason. And people get the feeling of everything happening for a reason, because people can link an action to a direct consequence, and in doing so you are making the connection that the action happened in order for the consequence to take place, therefore getting a sense of synchronicity (everything happens for a reason). So, it all really comes down to how you view it retrospect.

[HalcyonicTrust]

Obviously there are only coincidences. Synchronicity is a fantasy that can be a bit of fun occasionally when you're in an imaginative mood though.

[Moros Synackaon]

Carl Sagan once quipped, with regards to Percival Lowell's "Martian Canals", was that there was "... intelligent life, but at which end of the telescope?"

I feel that same in this bit.

[ib.me.ub]

(27th January 2011 11:43)DoubtVsFaith Wrote:  Obviously there are only coincidences. Synchronicity is a fantasy that can be a bit of fun occasionally when you're in an imaginative mood though.

lol.