Author: Lisa T.

That begs the question of who gets to define meaning since assigning the meaning of something is completely subjective to the individual. Assigning meaning is Tzolkonic whose action is given to each kin on earth; self-existing.

This is the problem with religion and dogma, which then formed the foundation of our institutions. One size fits all thinking is completely wrong. There is only unity in DIVERSITY. To tolerate diversity in society, you have to have a modicum of emotional security to accept the “I don’t know” of sitting in the mystery of why someone behaves the way they do without having to put them in a box. Stop talking and listen in other words. Our social media is the opposite.

Well, Jung wasn’t aware of The Matrix, The Tzolkin Harmonic, or its precise mathematical affinity to solar cycles and its exact affinity with third-dimensional physics and time. As a scientist, he would have appreciated it but as a mystic, White 13 Wizard, he may not have liked having exact causal reasons explaining it.

Mystics like to sit in mystery like antiquarian booksellers like to sit in dusty old books instead of finding what they’re looking for on the internet. It takes the hunting fun and synchronicity out of it. It kills the magic.

Still, he was on to it and observed synchronicity in the upper densities pulsing on human behavior even though he didn’t realize it.

Jung was kind of cultish and religious; maybe spiritually a warlock. That’s not unusual for White 13 Wizard kin, and he was a very famous one. Remember, he hails from Maldek. The priestess class on Maldek, with their superstition regarding math, probably contributed to the demise of the planet.

Lucifer easily took hold over there despite good intentions from the people. In my opinion, that’s what happens when you don’t balance the rational, higher mind with emotions. The White Wizard kin I’ve known have either been ultra rational and not in touch with their feelings/repressed or ultra intuitional and emotional and not in touch with the rational mind. If there is one thing we need to learn on Earth, it is that WE ARE BOTH. Our politics won’t succeed or become bipartisan until we accept that about ourselves. This is all the outworking of Maldekian karma. (My comments are in parentheses)

Causality is the way we explain the link between two successive events. (What is their cause?) Synchronicity designates the parallelism of time and meaning between psychic and psycho-physical events, which scientific knowledge so far has been unable to reduce to a common principle. The term explains nothing, it simply forumulates the occurrence of meaningful coincidences (no such thing) which, in themselves, are chance happenings, (no such thing) but are SO improbable (LOL!) that we must assume them to be based on some kind of principle, or on some property of the empirical world.

Synchronicity is a modern differentiation of the obsolete concept of correspondence, sympathy, and harmony. It is based not on philosophical assumptions but on empirical experience and experimentation. Synchronistic phenomena prove the simultaneous occurrence of meaningful equivalences in heterogenoeous, causally unrelated processes; in other words, they prove that a content perceived by an observer can, at the same time, be represented by an ouside event, without any (apparent) causal connection. From this it follows either that the psyche cannot be localized in space, or that space is relative to the psyche. (Exactly) The same applies to the temporal determination of the psyche and the psychic relativity of time. (Exactly) I do not need to emphasize that the verification of these finding must have far-reaching consequences. (Indeed. And I have verifed them in Time is DNA. The hypothesis needs to go through it’s paces though).

From “Jung on Synchronicity and the Paranormal”, page 101

This book preceded “Synchronicity; An Acausal Connecting Principle”

These folks were trying to parse out the psyche or mind, or the literal meaning of psyche, INTUITION! Psyche is the Greek name for the Goddess of Intuition, not Mind. I’m not sure Jung knew that back in his day. I would have to look at his works further on intuition. I have written a few books on Intuition as well.

This second book was published in 1960. I think the first book was also 1960 but the compilation that became the current book, “Synchronicity, An Acausal Connecting Principle” is 1997.

C.J. Jung is definitely a good source on the subject of synchronicity. Enjoy!