Without a Cause: The Sinister Nature of Synchronicity pt.1
Awareness of the phenomenon of “acausal connections” or “simultaneous occurrences”, although unrecognized by mainstream academia, is a persistent hallmark of our day and age – if it’s not recognized as such publicly it all the more can picque the interest of myriads of people in their private lives and, as is customary these days for “suppressed issues”, it became locus classicus online.
There are strong reasons for this and I call synchronicity ‘a phenomenon’ because I affirm its existence, which is hard to deny regardless of it being apparently scientifically inexplicable.
In this analysis we’ll offer a few insights into what synchronicity might be. However, in contrast to most treatments of this phenomenon – from C.G. Jung’s preliminary work down to plethora of New Age “spiritual” textbooks and manuals, ending up with the alt right ‘chaos magick’ inauguration of their President of choice – the inferences you’ll find below are intended to show that the question of synchronicity could in fact be a rather sinister affair.
The premonition of this is already apparent in the very term Jung employed to define it:
This term, upon which we have already dwelled elsewhere, is brimming with layers of meaning although, on closer logical scrutiny, it is, in its core, quite meaningless.
Jung chose it because he irrevocably rejected the notion that causality can provide a basis for an account of meaningful coincidence between the reality of man’s inner being and the world he’s immersed in.
This decision implies the total, utter and irrevocable rejection of any kind of intellectual, in the sense of a metaphysical and/or theological, approach to the issue or, as would seem more appropriate, fact, of the correspondence of what is inside to that which is outside.
Let us note in advance that the main reason for this, on an ontological level, was Jung’s restricted understanding of causality itself. The main flaw in it – to use a very generous qualification – is that it is based on the modern epistemology taken from a specific understanding of the natural sciences with the added spin of the supposedly new horizons opened by “new physics” whose advent he witnessed in his time; the notion that was seemingly opening the skies above his head while in fact it was dissolving the ground beneath his feet.
So, if we call Jung’s work on synchronicity groundbreaking, the reader is advised not to understand this as a compliment.
On the contrary, for a moderately keen observer of contemporary fringe movements it is becoming increasingly obvious that breaking of the ground was a clear invitation to perform the twofold descent, understood by some of them as an ascent:
It is now fairly simple to believe that you can change the world by the wilful act of imagination and call it a “reality tunnel” in which meaningful coincidences abound to such a degree that they cease to be coincidences; it is also very simple to believe that world is being re-enchanted because your “reality tunnel” seems, by its very nature, to be the world itself; finally it is now simple to believe that your “research”, “activism”, “personal adventure” or “political project” signify the advent of the new age, where inside will be reconciled with the outside on the higher ground.
Yet, this is an illusion.
Breaking of the ground – and we’ll attempt to show that synchronicity is precisely the omen of this coming to pass – can get you only below it. The reconciliation doesn’t happen on higher ground but on an ever lower level of erosion of both mental and societal – even natural – stability.
It is the descent into madness reconciled with the fall into chaos.
That is: the illusion that progressively becomes real.
The first part of the analysis will be devoted to outlining the genesis of “synchronicity” in modern thought and contemporary examples of it becoming an epistemology, and even an ideology, of sorts for fringe movements and individuals who nevertheless exercise considerable influence precisely, and paradoxically, by being fringe.
In the second part, we’ll attempt to show that synchronicity is an inversion of the traditional metaphysical idea of correspondences both in the world of nature and one’s life path, caused by the activity of the ultimate causality of God and intermediary causality of non-material principles, i.e. that meaning is brought about precisely by that which modern thought seeks to reject – an eternal causal activity which could be summed up in the Medieval notion of transcendentalia – The One, The Good, The True and The Beautiful.
Or, to put it in terms most irritating to the cynical mind:
It is caused by the activity of eternal love.
Meaningful Correspondences – From Schopenhauer to 4chan
Synchronicity is a chain of events connected in the observer’s mind by congenial meaning that is nevertheless disclosed by something from the “outside world”.
For example, if I rise in the morning thinking about a certain number, say nine, walk to the kitchen and observe nine cups in the dishwasher, then walk out in the street and at exactly nine o’clock receive a reminder that my little cousin is celebrating his ninth birthday, we can say that I might be in the presence of a synchronicity event. If I proceed to read in the evening and realize that the question that was bothering me could have been answered on page nine of a book, then I’m all the more reinforced in this belief because the chain of coincidences was fulfilled by a meaningful answer to a question.
This occurrence is not as rare as one might think and it provoked some modern thinkers to think it indicates towards something modernity vulgaris finally renounced in the mid to late 19th Century – the existence of a meaningful structure that encompasses and somehow unites one’s life with the world at large.
Not that this was something new. The doctrines of traditional metaphysics already addressed this implicitly or explicitly, not as a curiosity or strange premonition of something “hidden” but rather as a second rate fact in the great scheme of Creation.
On the other hand, those few modern thinkers that “broke the ground” worked on the assumption that their ancient and medieval predecessors just gave an imperfect explanation of the phenomenon and took to the task of explaining it in modern terms.
What followed from this typical mistake of modern philosophy was not merely a negative result, i.e. outright denial of the existence of meaningful connections uniting the soul and the world, but a positive inversion, i.e. appropriating the phenomenon in terms of their own presuppositions – which in fact cannot affirm its existence, let alone comprehend it – and thus distorted its image into its very opposite.
They created a counterfeit, an illusion that is real; a meaning stemming from the meaningless.
The motive for this was initially a fairly valid one:
“Here it is very unlikely that the most important thing in the world, namely the course of a man’s life purchased at the price of so much activity, trouble, and suffering, should obtain only the other half of its guidance, namely the part coming from without, simply and solely from the hand of a really blind chance that is absolutely nothing in itself and dispenses with all direction and order.” (Schopenhauer, A. “Transcendent Speculation on Apparent Design in the Fate of the Individual”, in: Parerga & Paralipomena, Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1974, pg. 206)
The desire to find meaning in one’s own life is fairly natural, isn’t it? Well, until recently, it was.
However this urge to reach the universal order taking as the starting point one’s own needs and urges, however strong and pure they might be, and not the other way around, is precisely the essential characteristic of what in Jung’s hands later became known as synchronicity.
Since then things went further downhill until the moment when this “natural desire” provoked a whole plethora of chaotic young people to invoke their own god to inaugurate their presidential candidate into office.
But there were some preliminary changes in the mindset of our civilization that made this finally possible.
Arthur Schopenhauer was one of the first among modern philosophers who wrote about the problem that later became known as synchronicity and his essay “Transcendent Speculation on Apparent Design in the Fate of the Individual” was recognized by Jung as a critical starting point for his own speculation.
He gives two analogies that serve to illustrate the underlying purposefulness of events that are seemingly accidental. We’ll use the first one as the starting point for our discussion of synchronicity (all emphasis below by KT):
“Accidental means the concurrence in time of that which is causally not connected. But nothing is absolutely accidental; on the contrary, even the most accidental is only something necessary that has come to us on a more distant path, since definite causes lying high up in the causal chain have long ago necessarily determined that that something was bound to occur precisely at this moment and, therefore, simultaneously with something else. Thus every event is the particular link in a chain of causes and effects which proceeds in the direction of time. But in virtue of space, there are numberless such chains side by side; yet they are not entirely foreign to one another and without any interconnection; on the contrary, they are intertwined in many ways. For instance, many causes now operating simultaneously, each of which produces a different effect, have sprung from a common cause higher up and are, therefore, related to one another as great-grandchildren are to their great-grandfather. On the other hand, a particular effect occurring now often requires the coincidence of many different causes which, each as a link in its own chain, have come to us from the past. Accordingly, all those causal chains, that move in the direction of time, now form a large, common, much-interwoven net which with its whole breadth likewise moves forward in the direction of time and constitutes the course of the world. Now if we represent those individual causal chains by meridians that would lie in the direction of time, then that which is simultaneous, and for this reason does not stand in direct causal connection, can be everywhere indicated by parallel circles. Now although all things situated under the same parallel circle do not directly depend on one another, they nevertheless stand indirectly in some connection, though remote, by virtue of the interlacing of the whole net or of the totality of all causes and effects that roll along in the direction of time. Their present co-existence is therefore necessary; and on this rests the accidental coincidence of all the conditions of an event that is necessary in a higher sense, the happening of that which fate has willed. To this is due, for example, the fact that, when in consequence of the migration of the German tribes Europe was overrun with barbarism, the finest masterpieces of Greek sculpture, the Laocoon, the Vatican Apollo, and others disappeared at once as if by a trap-door by finding their way down into the bowels of the earth, there to await unharmed for a thousand years a milder, nobler era that would understand and appreciate the arts. When that time finally arrived at the end of the fifteenth century under Pope Julius II, those masterpieces reappeared as the well-preserved specimens of art and the true type of the human form.” (Schopenhauer, 215 – 216)
Herein Schopenhauer expresses his conviction in the existence of unity of the world, which is truly a source of any substantial meaning both in the individual human life and its environment. In that sense, Schopenhauer is still to an extent connected to the traditional notion of metaphysical principles situated above the transient world of change and chance, both in the cosmological, outer, and psychological, inner, sense.
The meaningful coincidence we call human fate comes from the activity of the higher cause which is not apparent to us, so, if we try to divine the meaning from a plethora of apparent causes of some meaningful situation, they appear to us completely accidental. Thence comes the sense of wonder and foreboding about meaningful occurrences that shape one’s life from the outside although, if taken in themselves, they display no apparent meaning. The result is that we have a fairly justified intuition that the world somehow conspired to bring about circumstances which set the individual on the path that is unique for him.
However, while this would be very close to the understanding of traditional metaphysics, Schopenhauer diverges in a radically different direction. Instead of taking the higher causes to be of a completely different order than human or natural faculty, he employs his Kantian doctrine of transcendental idealism.
Namely, Schopenhauer’s own philosophy is based on the Kantian assumption that phenomena possess only empirical reality while they retain transcendental ideality. This mean that the things we experience in the spatial/temporal world are phenomena and not things in themselves; their essential structure, that is the fact that they’re given in the forms of space and time, and are comprehended in the category of causality – the only one of twelve Kantian categories of pure reason Schopenhauer retains – is built by a conscious subject.
This subject is not an individual human being, but pure subjectivity as a source of conceptual and material structure of the world, and can be summed up as pure will and reason. The will, in Schopenhauer’s eyes, is not originally conscious, but blind striving towards being, which evolves in the higher forms that finally, in the case of a human being, achieve the faculty of mind enabling it to reflect and produce concepts and conceptual images thus making the cosmological will self-conscious.
We’ll not delve deeply into Schopenhauer’s pessimistic metaphysics, but note only a few things that are highly important for our subject.
This philosophy is just one among the systems of modernity, trying in a roundabout way to prove that world is in fact a creation of consciousness. Schopenhauer’s more successful contemporaries, summing it up under the umbrella term of Classical German Idealism, strived to do the same.
This consciousness is, putting it as simplified as possible, the self-consciousness of human being, raised to the level of both the main metaphysical principle and the ultimately certain principle of knowledge.
Therefore, the modern philosophy of consciousness, or transcendental philosophy, can, with high degree of accuracy, be named as the philosophy of pure Ego. It starts from the fact of the absolute evidence of an “I” that reflects upon itself and takes this as a self-evident truth upon which it can build everything else.
In this way, all phenomena, willy-nilly, start to revolve around a metaphysical ‘I’ and all notions of traditional metaphysics and theology are being explained as imperfect premonitions of this fact.
So the primal cause, in Schopenhauer’s view, is not God, as Tradition would have it, but transcendental will which resides in all things but is understood in anthropomorphic terms, because no other terms exist.
If now we turn to current affairs we can detect the faint reflection of the same idea in the notion of the ‘synchronistic reality tunnel’ employed by plebeian “chaos magicians” from internet image boards. In Richard Spencer’s words:
“But even though we always took Trump seriously, there was still a moment of unreality – or perhaps too painfully intense reality – when the state of Pennsylvania was called for Donald Trump, the moment when we knew Kek had smiled upon us, that meme magic was real. And though these terms are used half-jokingly, they represent something truly important–the victory of will. We willed Donald Trump into office, made this dream into reality.” (source)
To recap, the idea is that a plethora of Alt Right aficionados “willed Donald Trump into office, made this dream into reality” by invoking the Egyptian god of Chaos.
The “proof” of this was precisely the synchronicity. To make a long story short this is how the idea dawned on 4chan posters:
„The precise origins of Pepe the Frog are, like all imageboards memes, obscure and unimportant. All you really need to know is that sometime around 2010, a sad-looking cartoon frog began to trend among posters on 4chan.org and similar “underground” imageboards.
Shortly afterwards, the age-old piece of online vernacular used to express laughter—”LOL”—fell out of favor on these sites. In its place a new slang term of synonymous meaning rose to common use: “KEK.”
The origins of this trend are much more important. It comes from an odd technicality involving the Korean language and the popular video game World of Warcraft.
One last thing you need to understand about imageboard culture: dubs.
Every post on 4chan and similar venues comes with an 8-digit numerical stamp. This number represents that post’s entry position in the entire posting lineage of the imageboard.
With the amount of traffic these sites get, the last couple digits of this number are essentially a random roll. When a poster gets repeated digits, it’s called “dubs”, “trips”, “quads”, and so on.
Since a poster can’t know their post number until after they’ve submitted the post, it’s common for people to “bet” the contents of their message on the occurrence of repeating digits (…) When that endeavour proves a successful, a “GET” has been made and the stroke of luck is celebrated.
Out of this practice, a strange phenomenon began to take place on /pol/: discussion threads associated with Trump which displayed noticeably frequent GETs. It wasn’t long before all of these seemingly random elements discussed so far became irreparably tied together within imageboard culture:
- Pepe the Frog (now /pol/’s unofficial mascot)
- Donald Trump (/pol/’s overwhelming candidate of choice)
- Repeating digit post numbers (“GETS”)
- “KEK” (used as an expression of delight, particular in response to Trump’s “trolling” of the establishment, as well as in reaction to unlikely GETs in general)
…and a god was born.“ (source)
If we put this in Schopenhaurean terms there should have been a higher cause that prompted the accidental correspondences to bring about the prediction of Trump’s victory. However, this is not how “chaos magicians” see it. The event was brought about by their will, i.e. it was a horizontal activity of the individual wills and not a vertical activity of transcendental cause acting upon them. The only exception to this rule, breaking all other rules, is their firm conviction that they invoked something from below to aid them in their labors.
Let us keep this in mind for later.
This indicates towards a significant change of perspective we’ll provisionally define as a “postmodern” one: the principle of ‘I’ is no longer something at the same time common to all and different from all, but is what it is in everyday living – a series of divided indivisibles or individuums; the world-building Ego is no longer a singular entity underlying all, but myriad of separated, and in their view quite absolute, wills creating the world(s) in their own image(s).
If this seems absurd, because there is after all only one world, well, it is. But it is real never the less. From this perspective Schopenhauer’s notion of the web of causality, descending from one original cause and intersecting at certain points to create simultaneous effects cannot explain anything. There’s no hierarchy of causes, because every conscious node in the network is equally significant or insignificant for the whole.
To be more exact, there is no whole, because the only reality is the projection of the imagination of the individuum numerically distinct from other individuum which is also projecting its imagination and will.
In this sense the wholeness would be only an aggregate or sum total of individual projections, in itself always only a potential, ever changing kaleidoscope that constantly gets constructed and deconstructed, depending on the perspective of the observer.
Strangely enough this kind of web of synchronistic events, differing from Schopenhauer’s analogy by virtue of its horizontality, would quite well describe the World Wide Web in the most anarchic sense of total digital freedom and the infinite flow of information where everything is connected with everything else with no hierarchy in the strength of various infinite connections.
The internet is therefore a very apt medium for synchronicity because it is based on an infinite nexus of meaningful connections that are nevertheless meaningless if taken as a whole by virtue of having no existing unifying principle.
It is no wonder that fringe movements such as Alt Right, especially in its fundamental internet incarnation, thrive on synchronicities as an explanatory and ideological model: Kek the god of chaos truly rules this “reality tunnel” because it is his appropriate domain. The infinite flow of by definition of meaningful pieces of information – always finally reduced to the virus like simplicity of memes – could very well be understood as a huge web of synchronicity itself; a web where everything is simultaneous and meaningful in itself, but as a whole completely meaningless.
This brings us to the notion of the acausal and C.G. Jung’s appropriation and critique of Schopenhauer’s flawed, but still not yet quite sinister notion of meaningful correspondences.
Breaking the ground – C.G. Jung and the idea of acausal connections
The second Schopenhauer analogy provides us with a premonition of where both the nature of the phenomenon of meaningful correspondences and the attempts to explain – and exploit – it will diverge in the late Twentieth Century:
“A second analogy that from an entirely different angle can help towards an indirect understanding of the transcendent fatalism we have been considering, is given by the dream to which life generally bears a resemblance that has long been recognized and often expressed, so much so that even Kant’s transcendental idealism may be conceived as the clearest exposition of this dream-like nature of our conscious existence (…). Indeed it is this analogy with the dream which enables us to observe, although again only remotely and obscurely, how the mysterious power, governing and controlling the external events that affect us with a view to their purpose for us, might yet have its root in the depths of our own unfathomable nature. Thus, even in the dream, circumstances by pure chance coincide and there become the motives of our actions, circumstances that are external to and independent of us and indeed often abhorrent. But yet there is between them a mysterious and appropriate connection since a hidden power that is obeyed by all the incidents in the dream controls and arranges even these circumstances and indeed solely with reference to us. But the strangest thing of all is that this power can ultimately be none other than our own will, yet from a point of view that does not enter our dreaming consciousness. And so it happens that the events in a dream often turn out quite contrary to our wishes therein, cause us astonishment, annoyance, and even mortal terror, without the fate that we secretly direct coming to our rescue. In the same way, we eagerly ask about something and receive an answer whereat we are astonished. Or again, we ourselves are asked, say in an examination, and are incapable of finding the answer, whereupon another, to our shame, gives a perfect answer; whereas in the one case as in the other, the answer can always come only from our own resources. (…) Now might it not be possible for fate in real life and for that systematic planning which perhaps everyone comes to know from an observation of his own life, to be analogous to the position set forth in the dream? It sometimes happens that we have devised and enthusiastically adopted a plan from which it is evident that it was by no means suited to our true welfare. Yet while we are eagerly pursuing it we experience against it a conspiracy of fate, which sets in motion all its machinery to defeat it. In this way, fate finally thrusts us back, against our will, on to the path that is truly suited to us.” (Schopenhauer, 216 – 217)
Here, Schopenhauer with his customary clarity displays both the truth and delusion of the modern notion of what became known as synchronicity.
He is obliged to observe the strict necessity inherent in the modern notion of causality where cause and effect are standing in the irreversible relation of succession. There’s not anymore a clear notion of effect simultaneously proceeding from, remaining in and returning to the cause, as we shall see was the case in traditional doctrine of meaningful correspondences, but nevertheless the nexus cannot be conceived as anything but causal. This means that the hand of fate is indeed ever stronger and wiser than our individual wills.
On the other hand, the simile of a dream is a clear step in the direction that will, as I would argue, end up in what we have now with New Age, chaos magick and, finally, chaos politics.
As the will of fate is congenial to us in the sense that it can be understood only in analogy to us – we who are, according to Schopenhauer, its highest manifestation in nature – it can only be conceived as an eternal dream master: the progenitor of the great dream of life inside of which all our individual dreams play out.
This is illusion as reality – Schopenhauer named it Maya in accordance with his pioneering interpretation of the Upanishad he spliced to Kant’s transcendental idealism.
His connection to traditional notions is still apparent in his focus not on magical correspondences which are primarily of utilitarian interest but on fate as a moral category.
As he considers the individual man to be the only subject of true meaning in history, in contrast to societies and great historical events – something his arch enemy Hegel saw from a completely opposite direction – the meaning of meaningful correspondences is to be understood as leading an individual to a kind of moral fulfilment that finds its ultimate goal in the resignation of the will and extinguishing of the desire to exist in Schopenhauer’s understanding of Buddhist Nirvana, which he equates to all true mysticism and sainthood.
As flawed, and quite extravagant, as his notion might appear, it’s logical structure is a faint reflection of traditional doctrine on the meaning of life in general, putting the freedom of the will and its communication with the higher realm in the sphere of good and evil.
However, can there be any good and evil in a dream, apart from waking up?
He would argue, no.
Those who came after him pushed this ominous idea further by stating there is in fact no possibility of waking up.
The idea that meaningful correspondences might not be caused at all dawned on C.G. Jung who explicitly states that Schopenhaer’s essay was his life-long inspiration in this regard.
Where he diverges from his teacher is with the notion that a causal nexus is necessary for explanation:
„The philosophical principle that underlies our conception of natural law is causality. But if the connection between cause and effect turns out to be only statistically valid and only relatively true, then the causal principle is only of relative use for explaining natural processes and therefore presupposes the existence of one or more other factors which would be necessary for an explanation. This is as much as to say that the connection of events may in certain circumstances be other than causal, and requires another principle of explanation.“ (C.G. Jung „Synchronicity – An Acausal Connecting Principle“, in The Structure and Dynamics of the PsychePrinceton University Press: Princeton, 1973, pg. 14)
In his rejection of causality Jung relies on the notion that new physics “demonstrated” that natural laws are merely “statistical truth”. This later became the common place of New Age where quantum physics supposedly “proves” that matter is unreal and that this “groundbreaking” insight will somehow put humanity on the way downwards towards the realm of spirit conceived of as a more subtle and original form of “intelligent” matter.
The notion is a classical case of what Rene Guenon would, roughly at the time Jung wrote this essay, call “counterfeit”, where the formal notion of a metaphysical truth is retained while its fundamental meaning expressed in the simple term of direction is inverted. In this way the counterfeit becomes the illusion endowed with the power of exercising an actual operation on the psyche and the world, because it doesn’t flatly deny its content, but corrupts it; the counterfeiter doesn’t devalue an idea, as a reasonable criminal wouldn’t devalue the money he counterfeits, but rather uses it to replace the real thing. Fate, meaning and meaningful correspondences are retained but they are now supposed to come from the opposite source from the real one – not from upwards but from downwards.
It is therefore all the more interesting that by all together rejecting the modern notion of causality Jung doesn’t simply re-attach to the traditional doctrine of it, but takes as the only appropriate explanatory model an ultimate modern technique of mathematical divination – statistics.
The acausal connection, that is: temporal correspondence of simultaneous events connected by meaning is to be demonstrated in the terms of quantity by means of the most soulless among the mathematical disciplines of calculating its probability.
There’s no more use in invoking the meaningful cause to explain the meaning. The sphere of research and the origin of the phenomenon must be the un-meaning itself:
„Now, there is in our experience an immeasurably wide field whose extent forms, as it were, the counterbalance to the domain of causality. This is the world of chance, where a chance event seems causally unconnected with the coinciding fact.“ (Jung, 16)
In Jung’s optics, there’s no possibility of anything in the world existing before the chance, while at the same time he tries to demonstrate precisely that chance itself is an illusion. This is something that was lost to him and to more morally minded admirers of his.
But sinister ones never missed this opportunity. They flatly declared that the origin of the meaning is the great un-meaning itself: Chaos and its progeny.
Jung had arranged all the pieces on the postmodern Warhammer gaming board ingeniously:
„In man’s original view of the world, as we find it among primitives, space and time have a very precarious existence. They become “fixed” concepts only in the course of his mental development, thanks largely to the introduction of measurement. In themselves, space and time consist of nothing. They are hypostatized concepts born of the discriminating activity of the conscious mind, and they form the indispensable co-ordinates for describing the behavior of bodies in motion. They are, therefore, essentially psychic in origin, which is probably the reason that impelled Kant to regard them as a priori categories.“ (Jung, 28-29)
It’s all there: transcendental idealism and the evolutionary principle of spontaneous primitive and civilized modern, the dichotomy of noble savage with access to a more original experience of the world and the self-conscious but neurotic gentleman. Time is a “pure form of intuition” (Kant), but not transcendental, i.e. a singular and all encompassing subjective principle, but a creation of the individual, historically developed psyche founded in biological evolution. After all:
„But a ’cause’ can only be a demonstrable quantity. A ‘transcendental cause’ is a contradiction in terms, because anything transcendental cannot by definition be demonstrated.“ (Jung, 39)
This is a clear statement of ultimate discrepancy and contradiction in terms of knowledge that seeks only material causes that can be demonstrated, while on the other hand grasps at statistics to “break the ground” on which they rest in order to divine the meaning emerging through the cracks of this earthy mud and cosmic void we call the world.
When dispassionate academic jargon is set aside it appears as pathetic and desperate as the invocation of Egyptian god of Chaos by the legion of 4 and 8chan dwelling kids.
To stick to the crudeness of it, the appropriate metaphor would be the attempt at having sexual intercourse while denying the very possibility of penetration.
Indicates to quite a lot of humping and quite a bit of noise, but little in the terms of satisfying result.
Jung’s proposition was that unconscious archetypes bring meaning at the expense of the individual’s ego, but does not proceed to explain how the unconscious bridges the gap between ‘I’ and the world.
He saw the possible solution of the problem in modern scientific magick, i.e. in Rhine’s experiments with ESP. This clearly demonstrates that now synchronicity is no longer concerned with good and evil, but with its application in order to fulfill the needs of the ‘I’, be it mental health or action at distance.
In any case the ‘I’ is no longer a single transcendental principle but an accidental infinity of egos projecting their wills and imaginations into the world, sometimes changing it in still mysterious ways.
While it would be unfair towards Jung to consider his motives as the introduction of the chaos principle into the world for the sake of what chaos is only good for – that is: creating more chaos, yet this is quite a logical conclusion of his unconscious counterfeiting operation.
In this respect, the reader can consult our analysis of Order of the Nine Angles metaphysics, where one can witness how the Jungian approach served to build an entirely consistent system of modern Satanism.
What puts Jung’s ‘groundbreaking’ discoveries squarely in the postmodern mould of the further dissolution of traditional teaching that could help one to find one’s, primarily moral, bearing in the world, is his idea of experimental quantifying of synchronicity for the purpose of becoming able to control it. This is only an implied, but nevertheless necessary (causally?) consequence of his approach, exemplified by his interest in ESP and divination techniques. The ‘deep psychology’ approach furthermore distorts the ancient symbols, Jung and his adherents are all too happy to explore, by putting them in the sphere of the amorphous unconscious psyche whereas they are based on strict doctrines developed on the assumption that our world is ultimately caused and held in existence by a causality which infinitely transcends anything modern science – in whichever direction it focuses – can comprehend.
The idea that teachings of the Platonists like Plotinus and Proclus or the Church Fathers, for example, are the product of the working of the unconsciousness of ‘primitive mind’ would be laughable if it wasn’t so ominous.
However, those teachings, as we shall attempt to demonstrate in more detail in the second part of the analysis, are completely inappropriate for creating the chaos magick Presidential Election and thence can only be aped in a more or less sinister way.
The main reason for this, to say in advance, is the complete impossibility of higher – and this strictly means: immaterial – causes to be manipulated by those who came into existence by their activity. Traditional metaphysics is the set of doctrines historically descended from the world where man was perhaps the crown of Creation, but in no way, shape or form could he have conceived himself as its creator.
This is something almost no one wants to hear now, let alone those who invoke the Below which is, in the eyes of the deluded, something that indeed can be manipulated and put to use, be it in revolutionary or magickal practice, or indeed a combination thereof, as the leader of Alt Right himself half-ironically stated.
So, things being that way, I’ll be all too happy to say it loud, clear and in detail in the second part of this analysis.
Kali Tribune runs on reader’s support. If you found the above informative and/or enlightening, consider making a donation