Synchronicity & Coincidence

Though we will define synchronicity more precisely and technically for our needs, synchronicity is generally seen as the simultaneous occurrence of two ‘meaningfully-connected’ but ‘acausal’ events.

When we say ‘meaningfully-connected’ we denote a meaning ascribed by the observer to the event, and this is independent of whether or not the event inherently carries such meaning with it, or whether this is projected onto the event by the observer. We will later distinguish between these two.

Events are ‘acausal’ when they do not originate from the same cause or event. For instance, from the window my desk overlooks, we can see my neighbor’s door. We notice that whenever it rains he leaves his home attired in red. The traffic signal on the corner is also always red at this time. The second of these events is acausal; the first is not. The cause of the redness of his dress is due to an ulterior fact: that his only raincoat is red; and being the sort of man he is, he would not leave his home on an overcast day without it. The redness of the traffic signal is coincidental through the intermittence of the signal.

Note that one would be correct in dismissing the redness of the traffic signal as a ‘coincidence’; one would be incorrect in doing so for the first. And this is due simply to the notion of causality: that there is a cause, even if we know not what it is, or ascribe it incorrectly.

Now let us say, that knowing nothing of traffic signals, we repeated the experiment a hundred times and improbable as it may seem, every time my neighbour steps out the traffic signal is red. Then these two events are synchronous and acausal. They are acausal, only because we know the interior workings or the mechanics of the traffic signal to be independent of weather.

Now imagine that upon further investigation, we learn that he commutes to work. The city bus runs on a fixed schedule. He himself is meticulous and leaves his house everyday at precisely seven-thirty, so he can be at the city bus stop exactly one minute and thirty seconds later. We take apart the traffic signal and study its logic further. The traffic signal is synchronised via microchip on a controller board, and these necessarily break up time in the same units that the city bus runs on (seconds), that our neighbor’s clock runs on and also that his conception of time depends on. It is natural that if he synchronizes himself to his watch; then he enters a world in which time is measured and its effects proffered out discretely. If it is red the first morning at that time, it will be red the following morning at that time, unless the traffic signal’s programming has changed, his alarm clock loses time, or he fails in his usual meticulousness and leaves the home after the fifty second window of time in which the traffic signal remains red, before it switches green and begins the cycle anew.

Now we have understood why after one hundred experiments, the traffic signal was red the moment he emerged from his door. We have explained away the synchronicity and so further established the acausality. This is a critical point. In a direct chain, all causal events are contiguous, but not all contiguous events are causal. Furthermore, all causality is directional: the rain causes the use of the raincoat, and not vice-versa. Indolence of the mind often obscures this fact, and causality is mistaken for identity. Thus in an unexamined mind superstition takes root, and we often acquire the imbecile notion of reversing the chain of causality (as in for instance, wearing red in order to make it rain), especially when we have no understanding of the mechanics behind the events.

Philosophically, synchronicity does not compete with the notion of causality, but subsumes it. It maintains that just as events may be grouped by cause in time (temporal contiguity being the necessary empirical factor), they may also be grouped by meaning. By ‘meaning’ we understand their energy signature, and that all living things, human beings included, constitute energy fields. Thus in the same way that particles in space can be bound together invisibly by a gravity field, we can have elements in time bound together by significance or meaning intrinsic to that element.³⁸

Note that the development of this line of theory leads invariably to the conclusion that such synchronistic events reveal an underlying pattern, a conceptual framework that encompasses, and is larger than any system displaying synchronicity. In this way, the existence of a larger framework is necessary to the definition of synchronicity and is necessarily presupposed by it.³⁹ Jung for instance, believed that synchronistic events are the manifestation of parallel events or circumstances in terms of meaning or significance reflecting this governing dynamic. The Scientist will see that the Universe is reactive and intelligent and the Mystic will see meaningful communication in such synchronous events: it will mean to him a constellation of powers at least, and the Qabalah will be the means of deciphering the communication.

In fact, it is difficult to speak of synchronicity without evoking Jung’s popular work in the exploration of this phenomenon. He is even credited with coining the term ‘synchronicity’ by some, and credited with the discovery of the phenomenon by others; neither of which are accurate.

Jung however, did believe (naively perhaps) that modern physics could explain synchronicity. He appealed to aspects of Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics and went so far as to discuss these ideas earnestly with both Albert Einstein and Wolfgang Pauli in the hopes of arriving at a cohesive scientific theory on the question. Jung was transfixed by the notion that life was not a series of random events but rather an expression of a ‘deeper Order’. Together with Pauli, they referred to this Order or syncreticism as Unus mundus. This Unus Mundus implied that a human being was both embedded in an intelligent and conscious framework and (to Jung) was the focus of that framework. These were more than intellectual realizations, but implied in Jung’s view, a personal transfiguration.⁴⁰

Jung describes synchronicity as “the experience of two or more events, apparently causally unrelated, that are observed to occur together in a meaningful manner.”

The following is a famous example commonly employed in the university classroom to describe a synchronous event:

The French writer Émile Deschamps claims in his memoirs that, in 1805, he was treated to some plum pudding by a stranger named Monsieur de Fontgibu. Ten years later, the writer encountered plum pudding on the menu of a Paris restaurant and wanted to order some, but the waiter told him that the last dish had already been served to another customer, who turned out to be de Fontgibu. Many years later, in 1832, Deschamps was at a dinner and once again ordered plum pudding. He recalled the earlier incident and told his friends that only de Fontgibu was missing to make the setting complete—and in the same instant, the now senile de Fontgibu entered the room.

This attempt at finding patterns within coincidence inevitably involves apophenia. Because “a meaningful manner” is a perfectly subjective term or quantifier, this statement is rampantly liable to projection error as we discuss at length in the next section on Syncreticism. Synchronicity in and of itself can not constitute Proof nor Argument for such a governing dynamic. However, a contiguous series of such events does begin to constitute strong evidence.

Before we can address these concerns however, we are faced with the unfortunate fact that these definitions of synchronicity lack any definable, deterministic terms. We would better confine ourselves to what is empirical and verifiable, and build our definitions and the scope of their applicability upon these, than attempt an all-inclusive, all-encompassing model. We define synchronicity then, as the simultaneous occurrence of a series of events (contiguous in time) in the same location (contiguous in space) sharing a direct syncretic correspondence.

Note this definition depends on two empirical factors:

1. Temporal contiguity of two or more events (Contiguous in space x contiguous in time = temporal contiguity).

2. Syncretic correspondence.

Temporal contiguity then, is a physical fact determined by events E1 and E2 occurring at the same time t at the same place x.

Syncretic correspondence is determined by a translational application of the Keys and tables of correspondences such as those presented in this book. Direct experience of the phenomenon should present an endless supply of ‘noise’ phenomenon all in direct and perfect correspondence to these.

This statement has a number of advantages over Jung’s concept of synchronicity. First, it further reduces the scope of synchronistic applicability and thus reduces our data sets, making our verifiability tests more rigorous. Second, the factors are phenomenological and so quantifiable and empirically verifiable. Finally, we can infer relational definitions directly: Synchronicity depends on two or more events (E1,E2,…,En )occurring in temporal contiguity (same time t and place x) and in syncretic correspondence (Q).

Now, Q or syncretic correspondence is inferential: It is a variable whose function (or value in the field of time) varies with and depends upon the events (E1,E2,…,En), so that Q is a function of E. Thus if p(Ei) denotes the probability of event Ei occurring in syncretic correspondence, then Q becomes a multiplicative probability function where the probabilities can be discrete or continuous, but certainly definable.

Thus, Synchronicity becomes a factor of Q =1 – ∏i=1(i=n)p(Ei)

The Book of Results, Equinox, Vol I No VII, provides an elementary example of this sort of analysis:

How W. knew R.H.K.

1. Force and Fire (I asked her to describe his moral qualities).

2. Deep blue light. (I asked her to describe the condition caused by him. This light is quite unmistakable and unique; but of course her words, though a fair description of it, might equally apply to some other.)

3. Horus. (I asked her to pick out his name from a list of ten dashed off at haphazard.)

4. Recognised his figure when shown. (This refers to the striking scene at the Boulak Museum, which will be dealt with in detail.)

5. Knew my past relations with the God. (This means, I think, that she knew I had taken his place in temple, etc., and that I had never once invoked him.)

6. Knew his enemy. (I asked, “Who is his enemy?” Reply, “Forces of the waters—of the Nile.” W. knew no Egyptology—or anything else.)

7. Knew his lineal figure and its colour. (A 1/84 chance.)

8. Knew his place in temple. (A 1/4 chance, at the least.)

9. Knew his weapon (from a list of 6).

10. Knew his planetary nature (from a list of 7 planets.)

11. Knew his number (from a list of the 10 units).

12. Picked him out of (“a”) Five . : indifferent, “i.e.” arbitrary

(“b”) Three. symbols.

We have no mathematical expression for tests 1, 2, 4, 5, or 6. But the other 7 tests give us the following probabilistic calculations: 1/10 x 1/84 x 1/4 x 1/6 x 1/7 x 1/10 x 1/15 which yields a 1 in 21,168,000 chance.

The above provides us with an example of how a simple probabilistic calculation can give us quantifiable means of determining synchronicity and the valence/magnitude of that synchronicity. These can be useful in providing empirical evidence to satisfy Science’s or one’s own burden of proof requirements. They are sufficient argument for rationalists and may provide mathematical proof via the application of limits and the law of large numbers. However, the practitioner will require more stringent standards for verifiability; that is, he/she must admit no error.

---

Qabalah & Syncreticism

In statistics, apophenia is known as a Type I error, the identification of false patterns in data. It is the experience of seeing meaningful patterns or connections in random or meaningless data and has come to represent the human tendency to see patterns even when none are present. Addicts, paranoids, fanatics, scientific, political or religious bigots et al, exhibit this behaviour markedly and grow excited at any attempt to examine the rationality or source of their Belief. Any colouring of Consciousness will in fact lead to this error. Any unresolved passion, any emotion, imbalance, imperfection, weakness or strength, affects consciousness. The virture of the Qabalah, and Gematria is that it is impossible to deceive oneself in simple calculations which can be repeatedly tested, no matter how temporarily imbalanced one may be. But the Qabalah is more than Number and Letter alone, but the full perception of the Universe and containing this structure and Understanding in the mind. This is why it is said that the QBLH is rightly of the M∴T∴ alone,41 for pure spirit is Black like the Body of Space. And just as light travels through Space invisibly (that is without lighting it) until it hits upon a planet or some other gross material, so Purity presents no obstacle to the passage of Light, and because there is no reflection of Light, there is no Image.

Pareidolia for instance, is today catalogued as a type of apophenia dealing specifically with seeing images or hearing sounds in random stimuli. A common example is seeing the face of Jesus on toast, or Groucho Marx on the subway.

Finally, a third ‘invisible’ factor may be undisclosed to the observer. The improbability of the coincidence is destroyed if for instance, all three events took place at the same restaurant—the restaurant that a fastidious Mr. Fontgibu has been supping at every evening for the last forty years of his life. It would be no surprise in this case, if one ran into the old man every time one visited the restaurant. Or as in the case of The Book of Results, if W had the requisite knowledge of Egyptology and of P’s personal matters, sufficient to answer P’s questions and deceive him. All such extraneous factors abolish the integrity of the test.

These errors are to be scrupulously avoided.⁴² Probabilistic calculation serves best as means of Argument. The practitioner will test and continue to test (as well he or she should) until he or she is convinced of a direct causality. In this way, the probability factors tend to the binary distribution (1, 0): that is, we are either certain, or we are not (regardless of how coincidental some of the events appear to be). This is of too critical an importance for the Student to neglect.

Referring again to our example from The Book of Results, had W provided the incorrect answer for question 3, the probability of the event occurring randomly would now be quantified at 1 in 2,352,000 chance. (Since the probability of answering question 3 correctly is 1/10, the probability of answering incorrectly is 9/10 and hence we have p = 9/10 x 1/84 x 1/4 x 1/6 x 1/7 x 1/10 x 1/15). However the probability of answering any one (and only) of the questions incorrectly would be:

9/10 x 1/84 x 1/4 x 1/6 x 1/7 x 1/10 x 1/15 + 1/10 x 83/84 x 1/4 x 1/6 x 1/7 x 1/10 x 1/15 + 1/10 x 1/84 x 3/4 x 1/6 x 1/7 x 1/10 x 1/15 + 1/10 x 1/84 x 1/4 x 5/6 x 1/7 x 1/10 x 1/15 + 1/10 x 1/84 x 1/4 x 1/6 x 7/7 x 1/10 x 1/15 + 1/10 x 1/84 x 1/4 x 1/6 x 1/7 x 9/10 x 1/15 + 1/10 x 1/84 x 1/4 x 1/6 x 1/7 x 1/10 x 14/15

which is a 1 in 164, 093 chance.

Had P asked only the first 4 questions and received 3 correct answers, the probability of such an event occurring at random would be 1 in 200. Had P received only 2 correct answers the probabilities would still yield a 1 in 80 chance. These are still excellent odds for verifiability and (1 in 80 means that we would be correct 98.75% of the time in assuming the synchronous event was not random). Most prospectors would be quite justified in betting the House on such a prospect. However, we seek Science and immutable Law, not Chance.

Though this may serve to satisfy most rational tests (as in the safety of air flight), for the practitioner these probabilistic calculations will hold little weight. The perfection should be such (and he would do well to insist upon it) that no error is admitted no matter how long he extends the test, no matter how convincing the mathematics. He will abandon the inquiry (or at least must revise his understanding of his object) at the first error, for in practice Synchronicity will admit no error and its perfection mathematically improbable as it will be, will quite often overshoot the bounds of even the improbable and into the fantastical or miraculous, so that no doubt can be admitted in the practitioner and the facts and their probabilities serve only for empirical record or to convince the Skeptic.⁴³ For there must and always will be, Voice to accompany Vision, in the same way that there must be Light where there is Fire; and so internal phenomenon must accompany external manifestation.⁴⁴

---

Synchronicity and Syncreticism in a Time-Series

Instead of being a “rare” phenomenon, as some suggest, synchronicity is all-pervasive, for all events are causally connected, at least ultimately. The occasional dramatic coincidence we notice is only the materialization of subtler energies that otherwise go unnoticed. Though omnipresent, these correspondences tend to become obvious to us only in the case of the most startling coincidences. There is even a bias error ever-prevalent—for it seems to the observer that the more improbable the coincidence, the more significant the event. This presupposes an acting agent in Nature, for the more improbable the event, the more effort it takes to realize, the more extraordinary it is and so the more significant it must be to justify this lavish expenditure on part of the universe.45 This may or may not be so; all gradations and hierarchies are errors of a particular sort. The practice of Qabalah balances all perceptions by virtue of its operative abstraction on the ego and the mind; and eventually corrects all errors of perception. In the very least, it offers a practical method of not only becoming more conscious of these subtle connections, but of testing and even predicting their occurrence throughout one’s life. In this way, the Qabalah serves one to prepare for such an event, and it may serve another as a Lamp to guide one along; as a series of lamps, like points of light that trace the path; and to others, it is the path itself.

Some discuss synchronicity in the context of a “symbolist” world view—the perception of all phenomena as interwoven by linked analogies or “correspondences.” We find that if the event is meaningful, then there appears to be an intrusive, insistent intelligence behind it, as though Nature herself desired a certain result from the event that it causes to re-occur. This intelligence will respond to inquiry, and will react to attitudinal shifts in the observer. In this case, it becomes a simple matter and a further test for reliability to take in the details of one’s environment as points in a time series: the name of the restaurant, it’s address, the number of the gentlemen’s name, and so forth, until one sees the concordances build and the significance of the event revealed. One can demand further proof which is often supplied immediately and with mathematical (Gematria) verifiability (equality). This power to shape Event in Time and react to projection of Thought or Glyph constitutes a multiplicative order of probabilities and is the basis of all Hermetic Art.

Such a series of events upon the same subject, contiguous in time constitute strong argument, but still no proof. As Jung puts it, “When coincidences pile up in this way, one cannot help being impressed by them—for the greater the number of terms in such a series, or the more unusual its character, the more improbable it becomes.”⁴⁶ Nonetheless, one finds syncreticism an empirical fact in all but exceptional cases. Tables of syncreticism (or an attempt at such) are provided in this book.⁴⁷

All that lives is a Field of Energy. As that Life progresses, its energy field intensifies and one’s environment adapts. Though Science will not admit it Today, it is certain that evolution is bijectional. We understand that the organism must adapt to its environment, but we do not yet see, that the environment adapts to the organisms it supports.⁴⁸ In effect, energy alters its medium.

The Student is then urged to Open the Aethyrs should he wish experiential proof and visible manifestation of such Wonders. Liber 418 provides a subjective description of the Aethyrs and the Calls. To call upon the Enochian in the original is generally sufficient to produce an inundation of result.⁴⁹

It appears also, that mathematical operations (summing and multiplication, for instance) have corresponding physical processes (e.g. combination of two elements for addition; one element acting upon another in chemical process as for instance fire upon wood, for multiplication) which we discuss later in this book.⁵⁰

In this way, Gematria serves two purposes:

First, it reveals the perfection of the manifest universe.⁵¹ It is scientific proof of an architecting intelligence in Time. The concordance of number defies all probability, which can be calculated precisely and proven empirically. When this is multiplied through all planes of concordance and then through each event in time, we reach 1/infinity for probability. It serves then as proof undeniable to the world at large and the scientific community should they ever be interested in investigating such matters.

Second, it may be used as a test: the perfections are beyond human capacity to engineer. Hence, if ever one wishes to test the integrity of one’s consciousness and to lay claim on truth versus deception, vision versus hallucination, then this is a sure and certain means even if inexplicably so for the time being.⁵² If one is undergoing initiation, the officers and temple are made visible through application of the key.⁵³

If for instance, the Student were to invoke Anubis and when confronted with a visible manifestation of the Being, wanted to ascertain whether or not he were hallucinating, or if he were not being led astray by some deceptive spirit… then Gematria is the surest means of gaining such an assurance. We begin by asking questions, and then we calculate. We may ask for names, titles, formulae and even numbers. The intricacies of the answers and their correspondences preclude any sort of prevarication, design or lie. It is beyond human cognitive capacity to design such perfection and concordance even if one were armed with the knowledge and all the computational power in parallel to do so.⁵⁴ One knows then that he has hit upon the true vein or current of the matter, for all planes of consciousness and of the phenomenological universe are thus informed. That is, the World is so constructed that the influence from Kether (for lack of a better term) is passed through the rarefying planes of concordance; and just as in a forensic audit, if one is unable to trace the event neatly to its source, then it is because the ‘chain’ was never formed and has its origins elsewhere—in one’s being or another’s, independently of Nature a product of Error as it were and not Vision.

Hence if the numbers, symbols and formulae agree, test upon test, then one is assured. For if one is hallucinating, the hallucination could not produce such perfection, seeing as it is a mere phantom of one’s mind. For the perfection of these constructions, their equivalences and symmetries are such that they are beyond one’s own capacity and knowledge to produce not only instantly but even upon many hours of labour. Similarly, any being will be unable to create the concordances upon will, for they defy rationality and can only be the product of some supra-rational intellect in Nature and Time, which Humanity (foolishly or not) have always viewed as ‘divine’ that is to say, a force for ‘good’.⁵⁵ It is a somewhat apparent fact, that these Beings though charged with the Governance of the Planes, care not for the affairs of human beings; but only that the Work is accomplished.

In this way, Gematria proves useful in tests against all forms of self-delusion, including apophenia which will afflict the Student to varying degrees upon the Path as it is the mind’s basic operative stance: to try and fit new fact or knowledge into its current structure. It also serves as a test of Class A Libers, for the perfections within such texts lie outside the scope of human capability to engineer, as has been said, and so add ‘transcendent’ authority to the origin of the text.

The mathematical calculus of probability, the continual and insistent nature of the synchronicities, the varied tests one will conduct under this Natural Science are the surest means of developing its applicability.

---

38 (See Hume and other Rationalists on the notion of Causality).