Source of Synchronicity

Much beloved of Jung, Arthur Koestler, The Police.

"to describe circumstances that appear meaningfully related yet lack a causal connection."

The magic word is appear. As someone said elsewhere recently, one in a million is next Tuesday.

We are evolutionarily wired with hyperactive agency detectors: That twig moving in the dark might actually be a sabre-toothed tiger.


God, if anything, talked to us as His only begotten by the Holy Ghost son.

1 Like

It’s too bad Jung did not credit God with his synchronicities.


1 Like

Or a cucumber. (reference the cat video on the humor thread)


I’ll respond to y’all individually later as it’s late, but I just logged on to see if anyone had responded, & read each response; thank you. I actually had a synchronicity when doing so! Lol. I have my headphones in, & I’ll admit that sometimes my music starts to play on my phone even though I don’t have it opened or on. I don’t know why. However, as I was searching the forum, suddenly my music app kicked on (I’d been listening to YouTube, not the music app earlier), & the song that happened to play was “God is in.” I think it’s the only religious song on the list.


I thought about using ‘synchronicity’ as a substitute term for coincidence, but I reject Jung’s godless inference in them and what it has come to mean. So ‘co-instants’ and ‘co-instance(s)’ are pretty straightforward and intuitive, meaning ‘not a chance!’ ; - ) I’ve been keeping a Co-instants Log for nearly forty years now with retrospective entries for almost three decades prior.

A one-off coincidence does not necessarily make it into the log, but sets of connected ones with obvious meaning linking otherwise separate and disjoint events certainly do. And multiple ones are impressive (some recounted here, in case you haven’t seen it).


Thanks for the explanation, the names, oh, and the The Nice info in OtherThread. In my infancy with “older” parents, I missed much.

1 Like

Yes! This is partly why I say animals have archetypes, as well. Symbols that they understand across time & place. The cucumber is like an archetypal predator. The symbol, I assume, of a snake. I’ve seen another animal react similarly to a green tape measure- serpentine & green.

Are you describing synchronicity as transmissions from multiple towers thereby creating similar signals from different sources, which would be a recurring pattern? Or are you using the multiple towers and fuzzy signal to describe the difficulty in discerning where the signal is coming from?

If synchronicity is not a coincidence, I often think that it is God talking to us, but I also wonder if the communication could be coming from elsewhere. Could I be getting communication from a source that intends to mislead me? Could the devil speak to me this way? Or is synchronicity only Divine and positive? Or can it come from both sources? Could it come from something else entirely? I suppose one way to know is by the value and morality of the data being communicated.

I think an issue for me is that I sometimes have trouble deciphering the message if there is one. Synchronicity tends to be symbolic if there is meaning in it, and Weller subconscious minds often speak and symbolism in our dreams, which I am told is a way that God communicates with us, our conscious minds tend to think more in words.

I was once amused when I was dealing with interpreting a dream. I had a synchronicity in which the meaning was spelled out in plain English. Lol. I felt as though God felt sorry for me because I was struggling so much with the interpretation, and was like, here, I’m just gonna give you the answer to this test question! Lol.

I agree that one way in which God talked to us was through Jesus Christ, His only begotten son. I also believe that He did so though the Bible, &- at one point, at least- directly, as we see God speaking to people directly in the Bible.

However, I am not convinced that God never speaks to people today in different ways. The Bible says at one point that God will send visions and dreams to people. To me that is a form of communication. It’s in Joel 2:28, Acts 2:17, Numbers 12:6, etc.

Does God still speak directly to people? I’ve heard some people say that God has spoken to them through words or a different form, such as through an emotional experience & mental/spiritual understanding. Others believe God speaks in synchronicities, as well. I’m open to that. I don’t believe that every dream or coincidence is a message from God, but I believe that some dreams are & that some coincidences may be.

:smile: I was asking you if you were defining "synchronicity*** as one or the other. I was trying to figure out what you might mean by it, not giving you answer to any of your. For me, “synchronicity” occurred whenever my lips and the lips of my sweetheart met in the same place at the same instant, and the messages sent and received by each of us were mutual. Synchronicity like that doesn’t typically happen between more than two people at the same instant. And if it did, that would be weird.


Thanks Dale & everyone for the responses!


I have never thought of Jung’s synchronicity as godless. However, I also haven’t thought much about the fact that he called it “acausal.” So, I understand what you were saying. I suppose that does infer that God isn’t using it as a means of communication. However, I don’t think that necessarily makes it godless. For example, if synchronicity wasn’t a form of communication, but it was evidence of the inner connectivity of all things, that interconnectivity could arise from our creation or creative source, which is God. But I’m not convinced that it is acausal as Jung suggested.

I wouldn’t think he left God out due to any personal prejudice against Him. Jung once said that he didn’t think God existed because he KNEW that God existed. That’s a firmly theistic or deistic response.

When I use the term synchronicity, I guess I don’t use it 100% as initially intended or defined because I don’t make the assumption that it is acausal. I studied some Jungian theory under a man who was a student of Jung’s direct student, so in academic lineage he was two people down from Jung separated from him by only one man. My former professor believed strongly in the existence of God, though he wasn’t Christian. He also believed that synchronicity was meaningful & had a cause. He believed that it was imbued with meaning to be interpreted, as if by communication.

I love your term, however. Co-instances is intuitively & accurately descriptive. It’s also a fun play on words, as it sounds like coincidences, but refers to “coincidences” that aren’t necessarily simply coincidental! I will have to use that, if I may. I will be sure to credit you.

I haven’t gotten to read your other post, yet, but will. I plan to respond to the linked post (on this thread). I love reading other people’s synchronicity experiences.

Keeping a log is a great idea. I wish I had been doing so. Maybe I can start now & add in a few older co-instances. In addition to thinking, as you do, that a string of similar co-instances seem more meaningful, there are some one offs that are so profound that I think they are also worth recording. But I get your point about not recording every small occurrence as they are more likely to be a coincidence.


Lol. Well, I thought your “description” even if it was a question was a good analogy. Hopefully, the latter part of my response explained what I meant?

So, you & your wife received a similar mental, emotional or spiritual message when kissing? What a beautiful experience!

Thank you for sharing your experience & thoughts.

1 Like

I don’t really know much about what Jung meant by synchronicity but my guess is it would have something to do with unconscious motivations involved in seeming coincidences, somewhat analogous to Freudian slips but not the same. Since as a non Christian I tend to think of God as something ‘inside’ rather than something ‘out there’ I think you could answer yes. But I have no idea how kosher that answer would be across the denominational spectrum of Christianity.

1 Like

Jung’s synchronicities have nothing to do with ‘the inside’ – they are more than remarkable, as in startling, instances of coordination between independent, objective, disjoint external events except for the individual(s) involved, imparting meaning (so in that sense they may be considered ‘inside’), not at all unlike God’s providential interventions. The latter, however, are most wondrous when they consist of entire sets of ‘synchronicities’. Jung’s were singular one-offs as I recall.

1 Like

This fits, having to do with God’s sovereignty over time and place (and timing and placing!):

…he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.
Acts 17:26-37

1 Like

Jung was a pseudoscientist. He denied that synchronicity was real and at the same time affirmed it was a window on the paranormal.

1 Like

I wouldn’t describe him as primarily a scientist. He had more subtlety than Freud in that regard.

1 Like

Sometimes. At least I perceive this to be the case. I also perceive there to be persons in the world making a causal link between an invisible intent and their visible actions – but that is just me.

Usually. We do indeed have overactive pattern/agency detectors. But science works because sometimes the pattern/agency we detect has real substance to it.

Perhaps. Just because we are paranoid doesn’t mean someone isn’t out get us.

But most of the time this isn’t helpful either way.

1 Like

That’s a nice way of putting it. He is described as a psychologist, just as Wallace is as a biologist - he believed in nonsense too. It’s only C20th physicists of stature that fell for claptrap. No biologist or biochemist or geologist or historian or psychologist or theologian or philosopher of any stature has since.

1 Like