Synchronicities: The Science and Psychology with Gibbs Williams Ph.D.

The following is my rebuttal to some challenging comments in response to my recent interview with Alan Steinfeld on his New Realities website.

To all those interested in this topic I urge you to first hear the podcast and then read my comments below. To access the pod cast paress the following:

http://www.newrealities.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&s...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebuttal re Podcast on New Realities
05/15/2010

Alan [the host] said (agreeing with the first commentator): “Gibbs is being too intellectual about the whole thing. And the whole point of my program is to present possibilities that result in a new paradigm that exists in another causal realities…. [it is] bigger than our logical minds… [as] new realities are emerging with a whole new way of thinking. It includes the psychological, but it is way beyond it as well.”
My response:
•I substantially agree with what Alan has said but my perspective is different than his.
•My research indicates that the major reason as to why the findings in this field are relatively murky is not due to the fact that researchers are too intellectual but that they are not intellectual enough.
•We establish order on the raw data of experience by seeking cause and effect relationships. What is at question these days is the questionable over reliance of conventional linear logic utilized in scientific method in generating meaningful connections between events. Thus in trying to understand the nature of synchronicities Jung is clearly accurate that linear logic is not adequately able to explain the link between the subjective internal event (A) and the objective external event (A’) which is comprises the structure of every synchronicity. Thus he adopts his radical concepts of the principle of a causality. However, and this is a huge however, to eliminate conventional scientific causality (linear logic) as a adequate explanation of the link between A and A ‘ of every synchronicity does not necessarily eliminate the conceivability of an alternative form of causality that does adequately explain the link.
•What has here-to –fore prevented the formulation of an alternative form of causality is Jung’s anti causal arguments that the apparent randomness of a synchronicity (similar to a fire fly’s flashing) means that a researcher is unable to utilize scientific method in objectively studying the nature of these anomalous events. That has been true until now.
•My research – prompted by Freud and other psychoanalysts – indicates that by inserting the details of one’s synchronicities into the dated flow of a person’s stream of experience – it is possible to objectively study the nature of these events. I call this method contextual analysis).
•Subjecting individual’s synchronicities to contextual analysis indicates that it is no coincidence that a given coincidence occurs for a given individual. {The time factor] Additionally, coincidences serve knowable purposes of creative problem solving for the experiencer. Further, the process by which a given synchronicity happens indicates that coincidences are neither explained by utilizing conventional linear logic nor are they adequately explained utilizing a principle of a causality. Instead, my research indicates that synchronicities obey knowable laws of an alternative causal principle governed by what I refer to as experiential logic.
•Experiential logic is a combination of complementary streams of information including ideas (linear logic) plus intuition, feelings, bodily sensations. Experiential logical logic also takes note of possible contributions of such anomalous experiences as karma (repetition compulsion), insights, fate, chance, destiny, an ill defined sense of ‘spirituality’ and the likes.
•I agree that we are on the edge of another emerging paradigm. However I believe that paradigm will be dominated less by utilizing the collective unconscious than utilizing the personal unconscious combined with the realm of the collective consciousness.
•Most importantly I am not setting myself up as the final authority on this issue… instead I see myself as presenting a viable alternative for those who believe there must be a naturalistic explanation of such events. My alternative serves as a counter weight for those who insist that there must be a mystical/ magical explanation. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
•The alternative causality which I propose is making psychodynamic understanding the conventional method by which humans make sense of the raw data of their experience.
•To be fair and reasonable I challenge any who are truth seekers to utilize my method of decoding their own synchronicities and assess for themselves the value or lack of value of my perspective.
•Finally – in speaking with Allen – he made a point that has had a great deal of impact on me. He said: “Don’t get stuck in your own paradigm. “ I fully agree. And I would like to return the favor: Allen – Don’t get stuck in your paradigm either.
•I look forward to a continuing lively discussion on this most fascinating and challenging topic.