Really wierd shit going on (synchronicity)

[everythinginside]

MynameisnotDeja wrote-

Sure..its called a lot of things. Nothing wrong with recognizing the beautiful little amazing things about life. People say stuff like "its called coincedence" as if using that word makes it any less amazing. I dont get that.

well said.

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

 

[radiohead]

I've had some really weird stuff happen to me over the past year.

When I worked at a bookstore around September, I was stocking books on the shelves and on the radio they started talking about Clinton.
That very second I glanced at the shelve to the right of me and there was a whole row of the same books which said Clinton in bold letters. It was freakin weird. It may have been coincidence but it was still really weird. I had many other things like that happen at the bookstore too.

Many weird things always happen with music. One day I was driving to Walmart with my gf and I had a NIN song stuck in my head which I wanted to listen to but I didn't have the cd with me. I went into walmart to cash a check, then came out and all of a sudden that song was on the radio. Thing is, that radio station never plays NIN music, and it was an older song.
I always have things like that happen with music.

 

[gloggawogga]

Although, again, I don't know what synchron. means. Perhaps someone could explain and I could delve into this?

You need to experience it your self. And you won't untill you are ready to.

(or perhaps you want the skeptic out of this convo? )

No. You just shouldn't be so judgemental. You don't know other peoples experiences. You could just say, "I've never experienced any sort convincing synchronicity my self so I remain skeptical".

So, are logic/reason most efficient when seperated from emotion?

What are your underlying reasons for being so into logic/reason. Are your underlying reasons for logic/reason devoid of any emotion? Can you really say your logic/reason is seperated from emotion?

 

[sexyanon2]

What are your underlying reasons for being so into logic/reason. Are your underlying reasons for logic/reason devoid of any emotion? Can you really say your logic/reason is seperated from emotion?

I answered that. I said I felt that in some cases where emotion need not be in the context, then pure logic/reason would be most effecient. However, when there's emotion involved, such as when dealing with a person, both logic and emotions should be in play, but with some restraint.

For instance: You get angry at someone. A purely emotional response would be to yell at them. This wouldn't really help the situation and it would also hurt the other person (perhaps that's your intent, perhaps not).

However, if instead you choose to talk about your anger and what upsets you, rather than demonstrating it, you'll get a lot further. That's what I mean when I say use logic when dealing with emotion.

Can you really say your logic/reason is seperated from emotion?

Yes and No. No due to the fact that every idea you have triggers some emotional response. A chair - the idea brings comfort. A mouse - a somewhat good feeling b/c i can work on a computer. Etc.

The no part of my answer would be that the emotions are so minimal that they don't affect the outcome of the decision. Hmm.. what I mean to say is that the emotion is "put in check." It's taken into consideration, but doesn't compell the whole idea (like getting angry and not expressing it).


No. You just shouldn't be so judgemental. You don't know other peoples experiences. You could just say, "I've never experienced any sort convincing synchronicity my self so I remain skeptical".

Aye. Sorry about that comment. I think it was after my conflict w/ Left to Right. Either way, I apologize.

Although, the question I ask about this 'synchronicity' is: "So what?"

What have you gained from these coincidences? Do you follow them out?

I'll give a personal example. I'm reading two books at the same time. One on meditation and one called Franny and Zooey. Now, I read Franny and Zooey and they talk about some russian peasant who wants to pray w/o cease and learns to repeat the phrase "Christ have mercy on me."

Then, in my meditation book, only a few pages after where I last stopped, it talks about mantras. This was in the same sitting of a reading session.

Now, as you can see, I've questioned about mantras and am considering them myself. Although, I'd have to talk/think more about the usefulness of them.

Anyways, are these just cool and interesting moments? Or has one followed one of these synch'd moments and gained something from it?

What are your underlying reasons for being so into logic/reason.

I'm guessing that's a question despite the lack of a question mark. I'm into it b/c it helps to solve many problems. Such as the simple anger problem I posted above.

 

[sexyanon2]

Crap. I gotta learn to be more concise. Always big posts.

 

[ebola?]

>>Although it's my understanding (i could be wrong) that every thought and idea is attached with an emotion or feeling (as stated by Spinoza).>>

Hmmm...I'm not so sure I buy it though. I think it is more often the case that emotions present themselves as part of the overall quality of a situation rather than situated within one of its components. Now the principal exception would be anger, which propels us to act on a particular object, and seems to eminate from us to that object.

>>So, are logic/reason most efficient when seperated from emotion?>>

I don't think they can be. Logic is a tool we have created to aid us in acheiving ends in view. Emotions serve to help shape the quality of the situation, fleshing out the direction it (and we) will take, moving from a quality of tension towards resolution (until something else pops up). Why use logic without emotion? What would it do?

ebola

 

[gloggawogga]

I said I felt that in some cases where emotion need not be in the context, then pure logic/reason would be most effecient.

So you feel pure logic/reason would be most effecient in those cases?

For instance: You get angry at someone. A purely emotional response would be to yell at them. This wouldn't really help the situation and it would also hurt the other person (perhaps that's your intent, perhaps not).

However, if instead you choose to talk about your anger and what upsets you, rather than demonstrating it, you'll get a lot further. That's what I mean when I say use logic when dealing with emotion.

Sure. I do that. But isn't it another desire, a stronger desire to be more self controlled and in better control of your situation, that compells you to resist the temptation of your anger?

The no part of my answer would be that the emotions are so minimal that they don't affect the outcome of the decision. Hmm.. what I mean to say is that the emotion is "put in check." It's taken into consideration, but doesn't compell the whole idea (like getting angry and not expressing it).

But isn't your underlying reason to be logical in the first place an emotional one?

I'm guessing that's a question despite the lack of a question mark. I'm into it b/c it helps to solve many problems.

Why do you want to solve many problems? Does it help you live? Why do you want to live at all? Got a logical reason for that?

What do you do when you encounter a problem that logic can't quite solve for you? Thats the question that this thread is really about.

 

[sexyanon2]

Hmmm...I'm not so sure I buy it though. I think it is more often the case that emotions present themselves as part of the overall quality of a situation rather than situated within one of its components. Now the principal exception would be anger, which propels us to act on a particular object, and seems to eminate from us to that object.


Hmm... maybe there's some more research I can look into about this matter. Although emotions are an evolutionary benefit for humans to solve issues and communicate (and feelings are even more advanced). I'd thus think that the emotions would be used as much as possible, if not all the time. Perhaps you could give me some examples of what you're talking about?


What do you do when you encounter a problem that logic can't quite solve for you? Thats the question that this thread is really about.

Aye. I break down. The problem seems unsolvable and seems to make an even bigger obstacle. Although the synchron. doesn't seem to be a problem. Some thing that aren't logical are fine. Like synchron. for example. They're perfectly harmless, and going with the flow is easier than trying to make up logical proofs to disarm the "problem" or issue at hand.


Why do you want to solve many problems? Does it help you live? Why do you want to live at all? Got a logical reason for that?

Well, do you want to ignore the problems at hand? I thought that's what life is about. Problem solvig. If it's sucking right now, why not try and fix the problem? Aren't problems detrimental to life? I don't see why you wouldn't want to fix them. Unless you're talking about small issues like synchron. In that case it wouldn't help to "solve" this problem.

Why do I want to live? Well, from a biological stand point the two goals in life are survival and well-being (as seen from every action of every animal). Thus, I don't really choose to live - it's natural to me. I can give myself reasons, but in the end I want to survive because that's what is programmed in me. So yeah, I do have a logical reason for that. On a more profound and spiritual sense, no I don't. Well, those are shaky grounds and I guess we can delve into those topics further. But it seems you're trying to rattle me loose of my strong clinging to logic, or so it seems.



But isn't your underlying reason to be logical in the first place an emotional one?

Yes. 100%. It's more efficient. Emotions wildly out of control don't really solve anything. Perhaps anger is a bad example. Why not take the emotion happiness. If someone is incredibly happy, isn't it possible that one may believe and tell things that could be incorrect and may make others unhappy due to misjudgement from the incredible happiness?

But isn't it another desire, a stronger desire to be more self controlled and in better control of your situation, that compells you to resist the temptation of your anger?


Yes. Perhaps I should have explained myself earlier. (damn.. I need to do that with almost everything i post. but thanks for calling me on this. it's good practice).

It's all based on want. Desire. The want to survive. The want for well-being. Pure logic doesn't always work (although there is a nice exception, but that's a different story). Logic and emotion combined are a much better method in dealing with problems.


So you feel pure logic/reason would be most effecient in those cases?

I feel and I know. I'm sure there are differences, but currently I can't tell you the difference. Actually, rethinking it, I don't see that big of a difference in the two. How many times have you felt one way but knew the other way was more true? Or, if you felt one way and knew the other way, that you felt in the past that one way and you're still clinging, yet you currently feel and know that the other way is more true. Perhaps this could lead to further discussion.

So I prupose the question to you now: Why do you (or do you not) want to solve many problems? Doesn't solving problems in your life help you live?

 

[michael]

Sure..its called a lot of things. Nothing wrong with recognizing the beautiful little amazing things about life. People say stuff like "its called coincedence" as if using that word makes it any less amazing. I dont get that.

there's nothing wrong with it at all. i personally think it's much more astounding to think that something like that happened purely by chance rather that it being predestined or decreed by higher power on anything like that.

 

[everythinginside]

I'm not so sure if I believe in chance. My logic does not allow such a thing as chance to come into play.

I wish it did. Then I could function as everyone else does.

But no.

I believe that if you have enough focus, you can land a quarter on a predictable side, that is-if you have the right surface, one that you are well and used to. (muscle memory, I can go into this with more examples if need be, perhaps the term is not correct, or does not imply enough)

Maybe some of us are just more used to this surface.

and it's those familiarities in life that give us comfort...

maybe the non-belief in chance is actually good for our mindstate.... it does provide a sense of security.. knowing that everything is, as it is, no matter how.. it still 'is' - and there isn't any other way... because, it is.

and all that 'hippy' stuff

(stoner)

 

[everythinginside]

but then, maybe some of us need to believe in chance, as some of us need to believe in non-chance.

I think we're both right, in ways.. maybe.. who knows... no human.

at least words can't know.

 

[michael]

I believe that if you have enough focus, you can land a quarter on a predictable side, that is-if you have the right surface, one that you are well and used to. (muscle memory, I can go into this with more examples if need be, perhaps the term is not correct, or does not imply enough)

Maybe some of us are just more used to this surface.

ever done it successfully?

the jref will pay you a million bucks to do it. go for it!

 

[everythinginside]

hehe, i wasn't implying I have that much focus, at least not at my "free will"... i'm only human But I might have to work on it.

I did, however once bowl 7 strikes in a row after bowling a 60 something game before.. I guess that's different though. The streak stopped after I humorously told my friend "I found a glitch!"

I had done that once before, but with 6(or 8? can't remember) strikes in a row. Each shot landed exactly as the last... all the pins just flew back simulantaneously... the same for the 7 strike game.

I'm not an advid bowler.

I am off topic, as well. Maybe we should start a chance thread?

___________________________

 

[knight_marshall]

well no one else put it in, so for those wanting the full bill hicks quote, its below. just so you know its in reference to the anti-drugs regime of the media, and how you never hear a possitive news story on drugs:

"Today, a young man on acid realised that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration and that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and you are the imagination of yourself. Here's Tom with the weather...!"

 

[gloggawogga]

The problem seems unsolvable and seems to make an even bigger obstacle. Although the synchron. doesn't seem to be a problem. Some thing that aren't logical are fine. Like synchron. for example. They're perfectly harmless, and going with the flow is easier than trying to make up logical proofs to disarm the "problem" or issue at hand.

Fair enough. But don't be surprised if some day you face a situation that is important to you and logic alone isn't going to solve

But isn't your underlying reason to be logical in the first place an emotional one?
Yes. 100%.

Then how can you talk about this pure logic/reason that you have? Its not pure. Its always emotionally driven at some level. There are assumptions that underly any logic, and those assumptions are emotionally driven as well, hence made with bias. No?


BTW..micheal..Jung did not say these 'synchronicities' were due to a "higher power". He said they were due to something in our unconconsciousness, i.e. something we don't understand. By ascribing them to either "chance" or a "higher power", we are just attaching an understanding that makes us feel comfortable. Of course, I guess you could say calling it our unconconsciousness just made Jung feel comfortable.

 

[sexyanon2]

Then how can you talk about this pure logic/reason that you have? Its not pure. Its always emotionally driven at some level. There are assumptions that underly any logic, and those assumptions are emotionally driven as well, hence made with bias. No?

Agreed. Logic is merely another form a emotion (want, desire). And no, I'm not patronizing you. I've had a nice discussion today that's changed my mind (although I was teetering in between the two ideas).


Now my question, if any of you readers don't mind:

What outcomes (benefits, problems) have come out of these synchronicities?

 

[everythinginside]

http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/naiad2.htm

http://fusionanomaly.net/synchronicity.html

http://brindedcow.umd.edu/308x/synchronicity.html

sexyanon-

from my experience the positive has really just been.. i dunno.. just seeing it, I guess. Knowing that there is something out there that I don't understand.... I've always known it.. but only recently I guess, since i was probably 20, have I grown a big enough head that the universe has to remind me of stuff sometimes.... or just to say hey?

umm..

I don't know.. I really can't devide it up, positive or negative... synchronicities are rarely things you 'know' will happen... they just happen, and you feel it, you sense it.. you're more alive than ever.. or at least that's how you feel.. alive- and in touch.

It doesn't require drugs, so it's nothing like that.. it's just pure (however, my most intense experiences have been while on drugs or preceding or thereafter).

However, from this feeling of holistic well-being, or terror (a few times), sometimes I would try to draw definate meaning from it all.

Because of the hard lessons i learned from choosing a definative-cognitive format (archetype) of thinking/feeling about something, I have had to learn, and choose to tone that crap down... as it's easy to get thrown in a loop with some lessons... perhaps it's hard to get everything from them in one shot... perhaps the point is you can't get everything all at once..

I have learned to just accept it as another cognitive process- however wider, and not understandable. Normally, when I see a synchronicity... I am just aware. I make sure I don't fuck up. I look out. I remember I'm part of this... I am this. It just makes you consider things, where you came from-where you're going, etc.

So that is the positive, I guess.

but it is easier to jump the gun with an experience as touching as some of these can be... so that can sometimes- be 'negative' (defined without context of meaning of word 'bad') or 'life affirming' or it can be a lesson.

I am easily distracted from routine things, and have been called "ADD" my whole life-which I have no doubt about, although i disagree with most psychological dianosis of anything labeled 'disorder'. Maybe this is natures way of compensating for careless people like me.

I dunno, really. I'm just typin in my own experience, because that is all I have to offer. Hope it can help some.

I would suggest reading some of those sights... one has an interesting idea on how the 'subconscious'/'conscious'/environment threshold is effectively much lower in people who are sensitive to synchronicity, or seeing it at least. It goes into some detail, I need to read more.

 

[everythinginside]

Jung did not say these 'synchronicities' were due to a "higher power". He said they were due to something in our unconconsciousness, i.e. something we don't understand. By ascribing them to either "chance" or a "higher power", we are just attaching an understanding that makes us feel comfortable. Of course, I guess you could say calling it our unconconsciousness just made Jung feel comfortable.

-gloggawogga

bump

 

[gloggawogga]

Positive effects: A deeper sense of connectedness with one's self, one's community, nature, or the cosmos, leading to deeper peace of mind, a sense of belonging, compassion, altruism, etc.

Negative effects: confusion over the experience, fear, paranoia, psychotic-like symptoms.