I engage critically with C. G. Jung’s late work on the idea of synchronicities, and related work from other authors at the time. My focus is on methodology, argument analysis and conceptual inquiry (rather than empirical or historical research).

The integration of spirit

In an earlier post, I mentioned Jung’s view that spirit, the archetype of the built-in meaning in our world, was originally a separate being, “facing” us humans, and then over the evolution of the human psyche has become “integrated” into consciousness. What does that even mean?

The dead backwaters of life

There is a particular kind of life situation, in which a person may find themselves, and which fits the pattern I have discussed in my earlier post: it is one of those situations where archetypes are triggered. Let's call it the "dead backwater" type of life situations.

Patterns of life situations

Synchronicities are something that "appears” in an individual person’s life, usually at some particular stage or around some event. Therefore, we can assume that there are certain patterns in people’s lives when archetypes are triggered, resulting in greater likelyhood of experiencing synchronicities.

The autonomy of spirit

According to Jung, spirit is something we humans have “pulled into our sphere and filled our consciousness with”. Spirit is something apart from human beings, something alien. What exactly is Jung talking about when he says 'spirit’ (Geist)?

Personified archetypes

In the midst of our chaotic life processes, as we experience them day by day, there is a pre-existent, hidden meaning. That meaning, or Sinn, is an archetype.

Self-representing archetypes

According to Jung, the archetypes of the collective unconscious are psychological patterns. An archetype thus represents how we (human beings) typically live through and experience certain situations. What kind of situations?

What is Jung’s notion of causality?

Jung’s essay on synchronicities is centered around the notion of causality: he points out certain phenomena that (according to him) cannot be causally explained, and in general he claims that the law of causality is insufficient as a principle for scientific explanation. What does he actually mean by terms such as ‘causal’ and 'causality'?

Leif Frenzel is a writer and independent researcher. He has a background in philosophy, literature, music, and information technology. His recent interest is Jungian psychology, especially synchronicities and the relationship between consciousness and the unconscious.