I suggest that those from a 'scientific materialist perspective' or those who undertake research have more knowledge of the cognitive biases and will acknowledge such in reports. It is part of their training and education. — Amity

:up: I try not to cop-out and lean explicitly on my old (long unused) graduate degree in cognitive psychology when discussing philosophical topics. Conceptual clarity is – should be – more persuasive than stroking our credentials.

Okay. As I thought, there's no "theory of synchronicity" in any publicly accessible, or corroborative, sense, and you're just gassing about a story you tell yourself. I wish people would just be honest about merely speculating, or waxing poetic, and stop trying to pass off wholly subjective beliefs or feelings as "theories" which whither under the most casual critical scrutiny. Much of human experience, like nature itself, is fragmented witth epistemic cracks and gaps of unknowns and uncertainties which our species neurotically over-interpret (i.e. buries with confabulated denials) in order to cope with existential anxieties and, often, psychological maladies. Folks are welcome to their subjectivities; you're not, however, entitled to us treating them as if they're also factual or explanatory. Philosophical dialectics is neither "theory" nor "therapy", my friend, and without intellectual honesty we're just chasing our own smelly tails (tales) endlessly ad nauseam.

Okay, I won't force the issue. I only opened the thread with a view to discussion of Jung's idea of synchronicity, to know what people think about the idea. I understand that many on the forum do not find it useful at all.

Okay, I won't force the issue — Jack Cummins

:roll:
It isn't about you 'forcing' an issue.
It's about what you and others take from the discussion.
Considering points, carefully.
A thoughtful weighing-up.

Do I take it that you will not be responding to my last two posts ?

It's not so much that I don't wish to respond to your posts but some of it seems more about me as a person, which goes beyond philosophy. I will look at your links and reflect on what you are saying. I am sure that I have many weaknesses and some may think that I am shallow in thinking, although I am not sure that this can be established on the basis of forum discussion. As it is, I try to keep a critical awareness, and do wish to think with as much clarity of thought and engage in philosophy discussion. I hope that I don't drive you to need whiskey on account of using the expression, 'I believe', and I will take the feedback on board in thinking about what I write. It is good to be aware of the personal aspects of belief, with a mixture of honesty and ability to think and evaluate ideas.

It's not so much that I don't wish to respond to your posts but some of it seems more about me as a person, which goes beyond philosophy — Jack Cummins

The questions I raised are about your thoughts.
Some analyse what you write as an expression of your self and beliefs.
Tell me, how does this 'go beyond philosophy'?

I am sure that I have many weaknesses and some may think that I am shallow in thinking, although I am not sure that this can be established on the basis of forum discussion — Jack Cummins

Nobody is trying to establish anything.
My point and questions related to this 'personal' exchange, initiated by you :

The main reason why I chose not to do a degree in psychology was because I did 'A' level psychology and felt that experimental psychology was so shallow.
— Jack Cummins

You feel and judge from a single experience. I am reminded of your swift assessment of a short story.
Dismissing it - from its title alone. In that case, fairly unimportant consequences.
Consider how your habits of thinking/decision-making might appear 'shallow' to others ?
What are the implications in your 'life experiment' ?

Experimental psychology.

Isn't that how Jung came to his conclusions. The ones you admire so much ? — Amity

A more careful response to this and other specific questions would be appreciated.

***

I hope that I don't drive you to need whiskey on account of using the expression, 'I believe'. — Jack Cummins

OK. 'I do believe' this is an attempt at humour. I do believe... * slurps * :party:

It is good to be aware of the personal aspects of belief, with a mixture of honesty and ability to think and evaluate ideas. — Jack Cummins

Indeed. And words are easy. It's all in the action, baby.
Elvis Presley - A Little Less Conversation (Album Master)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWVMXLSS1cA

Take care :flower:

Your questions do raise the question as to what extent are ideas related to autobiographical constructs? On this forum, it varies so much how much people disclose and it is probably more related to choice than anything else. But, it may also be connected to the expression of ideas as academic ones or in connection with experience. Some people write from a more detached point of view whereas others make more links with personal experience. One writer who has written philosophy more as an autobiographical expression is Bryan McGee. Jung himself wrote his autobiography, ' Memories, Dreams and Reflections', but this was towards the end of his life.

In connection with Jung and criticism of his work, his writings have been a source of inspiration for some but attacked fiercely by others. Of course, he was writing on psychoanalysis, but his writings explored so much more, especially in relation to esoteric philosophy, such as alchemy and Gnostic thinking, alongside reflections on his own clinical work.

From the standpoint of philosophy, he is a bit of a 'fringe' writer, and I think that this needs to be taken into account when thinking about his ideas about synchronicity. It would probably be hard for him to present his ideas in the cultural context of the twentieth first century, although a lot of people do write all kinds of ideas which appear in 'mind, body and spirit' sections of bookshops. Such ideas may be regarded as 'woo woo' by some, but there is academic philosophy, on the other hand, which can be seen as an intellectual pursuit. But, how real is the split in construction of thinking about experience and do the ones who write academic texts hide behind the cloak of theory, and how much is separate from the pursuit of philosophy as a way of making sense of life experiences? How much is the preference for the academic or other expression of written ideas bound up with an underlying personal philosophy position firstly?