Below is an edited transcript of my responses to questions during the panel discussion with Bernie Beitman and Joanna Bauer-Savage. The full discussion is available on YouTube all popular podcast platforms.
What is the connection between our intuition and coincidences?
I don’t think there’s a more meaningful topic than meaning. Through the intrinsic nature of meaning we transcend the habitual patterns of our lives. Synchronicity bridges the inner experience, the outer experience, and how that collides with our cognition and the way we think about reality.
For me, the connection between intuition and coincidence is that our minds tend to gravitate towards cause and effect. The idea that I can think my way through a situation, I can understand it rationally. Intuition gets to a deeper layer of experience, one that is more depthful than the thinking mind. Trusting intuitive guidance is a way of moving past the analytical rational mind.
What do synchronicities reveal about the nature of the self?
This depends on whether we refer to the self with a capital “s” or the self with a lowercase “s”. In Eastern philosophy, also in-depth psychology, there’s differentiation between the ego self, the common paradigm or common consciousness within which we operate, and then the higher self or true self. There are lots of different words that we can use.
For me, the revelation is that it appears to be that we’re in a relationship with the Self. Our consciousness, what we’re aware of at any given moment, is a window into a much vaster universe. And synchronicity, at least in my experience of it, asks for a kind of engagement. And then the question becomes, what am I engaging with? If I’m not fully conscious of me, what is it that I’m in dialogue with?
What is it about meaningful coincidences that seem deeply personal, how can they translate into the external world? Could it be that the Self transcends the distinction of mind and matter? And the higher self can orchestrate or guide experiences in our reality far, far beyond what we believe ourselves to be from just a narrow ego perspective?
This revelation is something that seems to be “me” that is much, much bigger than the ego or “I” that has a role to play in you may call it fate, you may call it destiny, but the appearance of meaningful manifestations in life, guidance. However you may view that, it seems that there’s a huge aspect of “myself” that I’m in dialogue with that is far beyond the ego.
What role do dreams play in synchronicities?
It’s a synchronicity with my last answer because using Jungian terminology (Jung’s is the most accurate map I’ve encountered of the depth of the self) meaningful coincidences are events linked in an “impossible” way. A big part of that mystery is related to the Self. The Self orchestrates our dreams. As I was describing how the Self orchestrates reality, if I was to imagine reality as a dream, I’ve got what is known as a dream ego.
I have my perspective. I have an environment. I have an entire play. There are characters in that dream. There are events in the dream. And it’s really easy to forget that within that experience, all of that, every single aspect down to the atomic level of that dream is created by you, is created by your own psyche. And you can engage with the dream. You can understand it more. You can inquire.
It can reveal things that you didn’t even know about yourself. Dreams have been hugely significant in my awakening and my own process. There’s a quote from Marie Louise von Franz, a Jungian analyst. She says that “dreams are love letters the Self sends you each night.”
So the idea is that the Self communicates with you in your dream world whilst you sleep. And often these dreams relate to external events. They can be prophetic in some sense. They can point to a process of becoming, and a process of spiritual growth that has a continuity between the dream and then things that happen in your life.
Are synchronicities meant to be followed?
Again in Jungian terminology there’s a distinction between a symbol and a sign. A symbol is a convergence of multiple meanings that comes together in a way that’s not easy to rationally understand. A sign is more cognitive. Following the guidance of synchronicity raises the subject of discernment and finding the balance, noticing the tipping point where something is a synchronicity. Typically, I’m not looking for it. It has a life of its own, it presents itself to me.
The moment that we realize synchronicity is unfolding, we have a choice to continue, to discern, or fall into the flow of it, which may be exhilarating. It may lead you somewhere, but it can also lead you astray.
Within a split second of noticing, if I’m not careful, I can create a cognitive attachment and then create my own confirmation bias. The moment that we realize synchronicity is unfolding, we have a choice to continue, to discern, or fall into the flow of it, which may be exhilarating. It may lead you somewhere, but it can also lead you astray.
And I think that’s why the evolution of synchronicity and our relationship to it requires us to also integrate discernment and rationality, in a way that distinguishes it from magical thinking. There’s a higher level of discernment whilst also having the wisdom of knowing when to surrender to the flow and when to step back, discern, and follow the sign.
Again, with the Self, these synchronicities, the silver linings, the stepping stones, if they are orchestrated, they’re orchestrated for wholeness, this idea that the lesson is there to be understood and worked with.
If there’s a wound that needs to be worked on, often it will play out in your life. And that’s another beautiful side of seeing the silver lining because then even your wound becomes a form of poetry in some sense. There’s an uplift to your wounding when it plays out in a way that can be seen as magical. So there’s a dynamic which changes the approach to the signs and the flow, I would say.
Who or what distinguishes synchronicity from reading meaning into just coincidences?
So we touched upon this already, but the phrasing of that question, if I’m right in my own interpretation of it, is the question of who discerns. We can look at the intellect as a double edged sword. You know, there’s the sharp sword of discernment that the intellect can be used for, but the intellect can cause harm. There’s the intellect that can cut you off from your intuition. The sword of discernment is a gift that we have. I think the intellect is an absolute gift when aligned, and when in its right place.
So when it’s not just the the the master of the ship, not running the show completely as our Western culture emphasizes, but when the intellect is in service to something higher, then I think discernment is part of our evolutionary progress, in terms of the ego functioning in its healthy way, the ego being a real servant able to discern in a way that supports your becoming and your growth.
I would say that the analytical part of the intellect is the discerning piece, that then allows you to bear witness as these experiences unfold, but then also to question and reflect. And that would be the definition of the ego as a functioning control center. We then segue into psychological healing or therapy, the idea of strengthening your ability to discern cognitively, intuitively as well.
Is meaning discerned primarily by us or is there a higher purpose as to why synchronicities occur?
The question that you’re asking really gets to the heart of mysticism. I know. That buzzword that I love. We’re looking then into the realm of individuality and subjectivity and whether there is a fixed objective universe. A mystic will say, we are one. We’re connected to something greater than ourselves. Therefore, there’s ultimately a paradox. Meaning can only ever be subjective. But how far out does subjectivity go? Is the entire cosmos subjective?
Does the cosmos transcend individual subjectivity into the realm of the Great mind, the Cosmic Mind, however we wanna frame it? In Hinduism, it would be Brahman, the ultimate consciousness. Atman would be our deepest essence that is connected to that. In nondual traditions, there are many experiences and practices, but there are also frameworks that explain how those join together. There are also many Western models.
As science evolves from conventional physics, which states only the material exists, therefore, if I’m perceiving an external objective world, any meaning that I find is coming from me, from my individual island of mind. As science evolves and we realize conventional physics isn’t the be all and end all, and we move into the quantum realm, we then start to see a merging of the Eastern traditions and science. In that, it’s more of a holistic universe. In that, there’s no real pure objectivity. Therefore, within that model of experience, I would argue at least that we are part of a collective consciousness.
Brahman being consciousness, the fundamental nature of reality. Bernardo Kastrup, a leading Western philosopher, explores a model called analytical idealism. There are lots of different models that have been explored across time. Idealism claims the mind is primary, so reality is like a dream. Mind is all there is and matter emerges from mind. It’s all part of the same stuff. Bernardo Kastrup’s model argues that what we experience as an individual is the equivalent of someone with Dissociative Identity Disorder forgetting they’re part of the greater whole.
Someone with DID has a fragmented inner world where they step into different parts of themselves, but they lose connection to the whole. So they step into one personality and then they step out. He likens that to our individual point of consciousness. And what is even more mind blowing than that, there are studies that show that people with DID can recollect dreams from different characters in the dream. So they can actually go into a scene and play out the dream from different perspectives.
We are the cosmic whole. We’re part of a Great Mind and our individual experience is a fragmented part of that. As an extension, meaning is both individual and collective.
And Kastrup’s argument is that mirrors waking reality. We are the cosmic whole. We’re part of a Great Mind and our individual experience is a fragmented part of that. As an extension, meaning is both individual and collective. There’s a deeply personal meaning. But the deeper you go into your personal essence, the more you paradoxically connect to the interconnectivity of life itself. So you realize that you’re part of a mosaic experience where your individual experience is in service to something greater than yourself.
Meaning is subjective. Whenever you try to look at it objectively, you can no longer function in that realm. So there’s a breakdown of trying to objectively describe something that is a purely subjective experience. And that’s where our scientific models have huge shortcomings because they convince us that truth is objective. What’s the one thing that we all know is true? It’s our subjective experience.
That’s the one thing that we can really say is true. And science has convinced us, at least material or empirical science has convinced us that’s the one thing we can’t trust. And the one thing that is true is data that we can see and observe objectively. For Jung, the importance of meaning was that it transcends that paradigm, and it challenges conventional science. It challenges physics, in a way that is fundamental to our evolution.
Is there a correlation between a state of consciousness and increased awareness of synchronicity?
How do you relate the intensity of an inner experience with what we call outer? If there’s an intensification there can be exaltation, there can be a high emotion. There can also be an understanding between the inner experience, the outer experience, and the consensus reality — how other people view that experience. All of those are part of the discernment, and I say that as someone who has really intense inner experiences.
I can completely lose myself in those. I don’t find life uninteresting, but often I find my inner world more interesting. And the difficulty is then how do you bring that into life? How do you create harmony between the inner experience and the outer whilst also acknowledging how that plays into consensus reality?
If you don’t subscribe to consensus reality, you’re called mad. I’ve experienced psychosis. If an inner experience is so profound and it’s interfering and interacting with your reality, at what point is that a delusion, and at what point do you experience something more that perceived through normal means?
The tough balancing act is honoring the intensity of inner experience and the way that it interacts with outer life, whilst grounding it in practicality and an understanding of the consensus. You could view psychosis as an altered state in the sense you have more access to your unconscious material. You’re in a process that’s just starting to, you could say, “overly” interact with the external world, and that becomes a hallucination.
Bethany Butzer, a transpersonal psychologist, has done studies around meditation and synchronicity. It does seem that the more you go out of the rational mind, that state of consciousness increases the likelihood of synchronicity. But grounding is required, and there’s a bigger question around how we have to function in the world we’ve made versus allowing yourself to go with it.
We could argue that these states could be celebrated and integrated in a way where we don’t have to ground ourselves so much. We don’t have to function. But at the same time, I do think that the rational discerning faculty is essential. At least then there’s a choice between the wide aperture and narrowing the focus. And I think that the path for a lot of people is to have more of a choice, so it doesn’t just take them over and they feel out of control.
I like bringing spiritual bypassing into that and how synchronicity can easily become escapism. Look at what’s going on in the world. It’s a tough place. There’s a lot of suffering. There’s a lot of chaos. The risk is that the experience of synchronicity can be so spellbinding that we subconsciously reject the world and say, actually, this is more interesting. I’m gonna bypass this shit show, and just go into my inner process. So that’s a big part of it; allowing the process to unfold rather than using it as a way to escape the day to day.
