Some Thoughts on Synchronicity

I've been entertaining some speculative, maybe even theoretical, thoughts lately on the nature of synchronicity.

I think it was yesterday that it occurred me that the experience of synchronicity is somehow tied to the act of engaging with 'causal entities'. When I experience synchronicity I tend to do so in clusters. A series of them in short periods, which, if we think if it in this way, would be consonant with the picture of interacting with any normal material body, except from our position, the body of a causal entity would appear as a series of meaningfully related events. Its body would be comprised of temporal instead of material elements.

A causal entity would be able to alter events in our world or continuum of experience easily due to the fact that, by definition, if such a thing existed, from its position causal effects are not limited in the same way that the fruits of our own activity are , mediated by circumstances and conditions. A causal entity could potentially effect the relationship of events across time and space merely due to its existing.

The psilocybin mushroom 'species-consciousness' that Mckenna believed that he interacted with could possibly be a causal entity.

The matter that comprises our body comes directly from the Earth. So in a way, we say that the Earth has some sort of hierarchical preeminence over us. It was here before us, we come from it, "Mother Earth", etc...

From the larger macro-perspective of the inter-relationships of the Earth, the ecosystem, and our own bodies, there is no real separation. Our health is necessarily directly linked to the Earth. But our focus of self-reflexive, autonomous awareness, is anchored within our own bodies.

This same framework may hold up to our relationship, as humans, with hypothetical causal entities. Since a causal entity would have more to do with time and events than with the relationship of material elements, our experience of events would be directly tied to its activity and existence. Our 'causal lifeworld', the component events that make up our world, the relationship of events and information, would proceed from it in some way similar to the way that the substance of our bodies proceeds from the Earth.

If we consider the way that we recognize any object, I don't think its that incredibly far-fetched to propose that a particular relationship of events could possess its own, though to us, obscure, consciousness.

For example, Kant asked, "what is table?" No matter how hard we look, physical 'tableness' will never be found simply because table does not exist as a quantifiable, but rather, as the relationship between objects, which themselves are merely another relationship between smaller objects. Kant's conclusion was that table is just an idea, and our perception of it is an act of imposing, by our own minds, upon bare reality. If we accept this then there really is no logical reason to assert that material objects and beings have any sort of ontological reality greater than that of a causal being of the nature I just described