17th century representation of the "third...
Image via Wikipedia

Jung’s take on acausality can be confusing.

When consciously recognized by the ego, synchronicity is supposedly an “acausal connecting principle.” But Jung also says that the archetypes, as primordial patterns of the collective unconscious direct us to the experience of synchronicity.

If observed from a deeper, archetypal level of consciousness, synchronicity might appear somewhat more causal than acausal. Jungian scholars still debate this apparent casuality/acausality paradox.

Perhaps part of the problem arises from different beliefs about the nature of consciousness. Some of the related questions are:

  • Do we perceive from the vantage point of the ego, the archetypes or the self? Are these loci discrete or connected? If they overlap, how might the different loci be weighted?
  • Do psychological conditions and parameters influence our perception and interpretation? Assuming the ego is the high achievement of consciousness, do we ever not identify with some other agency?
  • What about individual differences? Might different people have qualitatively different centers or norms of consciousness? Might some people have several alternating norms of consciousness, each one being different (i.e. multiple self theory as found in philosophy)?
  • How well do Jung’s concepts correspond to reality?
  • Is Jungian theory shaped by European and North American cultural assumptions?

By way of contrast, the Asian theory of chakras indicates seven different centers of consciousness.

Return to article