The term synchronicity was coined and used publicly as early as 1928[1] by the Swiss psychologist Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961) as a means by which to define events that are apparently connected with each other, but cannot possibly be explained by the rules of causality.  The underlying idea behind causality is that two objects can only be connected with one another by exerting some sort of force or influence upon each other that can be analyzed and quantified.  Time and space are two defining prerequisites to this system because it is through them that causal events can be examined and measured.  If object A emits a force at a certain moment in time, while it is occupying a certain space, then object B may be affected, or not affected, by this force due to its relative location from object A in space and time.  The whole system is rather mechanical because both space and time are quantitative factors that can be used as tools for measurement.  Being able to quantify data, reproduce the results, and remain an independent observer are the three main components of the scientific method, which is used to study various types of causal phenomena.  In Jung’s theory of synchronicity, time and space become relative principles, which under certain psychic conditions can be transcended altogether via the occurrence of a ‘meaningful coincidence’.  The word coincidence is used here not so much as a descriptive term to describe something that is an accident, or a fluke, as it has come to mean in modern times, but rather a state where two systems coincide with one another in a relatively meaningful way. Thus, object A no longer has to exert any known force upon object B in order for there to be a connection between them.  The two objects don’t even necessarily have to coincide with each other in space and time.  They can be far removed from each other in both of those categories, yet still be seen by an observer to somehow share a connection through similar meaning.  These odd correlations would, and do, go unnoticed in most cases unless they are pointed out to, or somehow brought to the attention of, the subject who is experiencing the correlative psychic state.  Many argue that synchronicity is not scientifically ‘provable’ but this is a logical fallacy, because the theory itself may indeed point to a property of nature that is not reducible to the classical scientific method.  Synchronicity seems to work as a fourth principal with which to explain connections between things in addition to time, space, and causality.  As a theory, it can be applied to many subjects that previously were unexplainable through modern scientific thought, but its main and most profound application is to the field of astrology. 

Astrology has long been defined as a science, which purports to explain the correlations between the movements of the planets and stars, and their influence on the course of earthly occurrences and human affairs.  The keyword in that broad definition is ‘influences’.  For quite some time astrology has claimed that in some way or another, the planets themselves literally influence people and events directly or indirectly by emitting some sort of force, which can be conceptualized and examined by the use of astrological charts.  The history of astrology is littered with various tracts which have attempted to explain the astrological ‘effect’ through various schemes and in light of various ‘occult’ forces.  It appears now in retrospect that this may not have been the way in which astrology was originally conceptualized and practiced[2], and there has been a continual dilemma over the nature of the astrological phenomena or mechanism since at least the 2^nd century CE following Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblios[3].  Indeed, it wasn’t until very recently in the 20^th century with the work of Jung that astrology began to be conceptualized outside of a more causally based framework, and instead within the context of an acausal or purely correlative phenomena. 

Jung is remembered mainly for his impact on the field of psychology, and although he was often remembered as a psychologist, he was also a philosopher.  It is clear from his writings and his work that he was heavily influenced by the philosophy of Plato.  The most obvious example of this is in his theory of the archetypes.  The archetypes being defined as the original model of which all other similar persons, objects, or concepts are merely derivative, copied, patterned, or emulated.  They are original (i.e., primal), inherited patterns, or forms of thought and experience.  In his work The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious he has this to say about the archetypes:

The concept of the archetype, which is an indispensable correlate to the idea of the collective unconscious, indicates the existence of definite forms in the psyche which seem to be present always and everywhere. Mythological research calls them "motifs"; in the psychology of primitives they correspond to Levy-Bruhl's concept of "representations collectives," and in the field of comparative religion they have been defined by Hubert and Mauss as "categories of the imagination." Adolf Bastian long ago called them "elementary" or "primordial thoughts." From these references, it should be clear enough that my idea of the archetype- literally a pre-existent form- does not stand alone, but is something that is recognized and named in other fields of knowledge.[4]

This concept of eternal forms, which exist in the collective unconscious and manifest in various ways in the world is extremely similar to, and probably drawn from the concept of the Platonic Forms.  B.A.G Fuller explains Plato’s description of the Forms in his book A History of Philosophy:

They are, he tells us, eternal and immutable, present always and everywhere, self-identical, self-existent, absolute, separate, simple, without beginning or end.  They are complete, perfect, existent in every respect.  They are without taint of sense or imagery, invisible to the eye, accessible only to the mind.  …  Forming as they now did the intelligible structure of the entire universe, their scope had to be correspondingly extended.  Wherever two or three data of sense are gathered together under a common name, there a Form is present also.  Hence there must be as many Forms as there are possibilities of grouping things under headings and applying to them a common term.[5] 

The parallel is obvious, and this example in effect sets a precedent because Jung acknowledges drawing on other sources in order to create his concepts, and it is likely that Jung was also drawing on Plato when he formulated his theory of synchronicity.  This isn’t to say that Jung stole ideas from others directly, but rather that he had a knack for perusing ancient modes of thought and taking bits and pieces from them and then reconceptualizing them to fit into the psychological model that he was creating.  Synchronicity is a likely candidate for this as well, because although Jung coined a new term in order to describe it, and attempted to outline a rational model for the theory, he acknowledged that it was essentially a modern conceptualization of the idea of ‘cosmic sympathy’:

Causality is the way we explain the link between two successive events.  Synchronicity designates the parallelism of time and meaning between psychic and psychophysical events, which scientific knowledge so far has been unable to reduce to a common principle.  The term explains nothing, it simply formulates the occurrence of meaningful coincidences which, in themselves, are chance happenings, but are so improbable that we must assume them to be based on some kind of principle, or on some property of the empirical world.  No reciprocal causal connection can be shown to obtain between parallel events, which is just what gives them their chance character.  The only recognizable and demonstratable link between them is a common meaning, or equivalence.  The old theory of correspondence was based on the experience of such connections- a theory that reached its culminating point and also its provisional end in Leibniz’ idea of pre-established harmony, and was then replaced by causality.  Synchronicity is a modern differentiation of the obsolete concept of correspondence, sympathy, and harmony.[6]

The immediate implication of this theory is that it is a return to a model of the cosmos in which all things are interconnected in a way.  Not through direct physical causation as we are predisposed in modern times to believe upon hearing the word ‘connected’, but rather all things are, or all things can be, connected to one another through correlation, meaning or equivalence. 

One of Jung’s most famous examples of an instance of synchronicity occurred during a therapeutic session that he had with a young woman who was in his office telling him about a dream that she had the previous night in which someone gave her a golden scarab beetle.  As he was listening to her tell her story about the dream, suddenly he heard a slight tapping at the window behind him, as if something was trying to get into the dimly lit room.  He thought this odd, so he went to the window to figure out what it could be, and it turned out to be an insect on the windowpane outside the room trying to get in.  He opened the window and caught the insect, realizing that it was a type of scarabaeid beetle, the closest analogy to a golden scarab that could be found in that area of the world, and then he turned around and handed it to his patient with the words, “Here is your scarab.”[7]  This is a perfect example of a synchronistic occurrence in which two causally unrelated events, which shared the same meaning, happened to coincide in time with one another in a way that was significant to the two people, because they acknowledged it as being so.  In this instance the two events were the woman retelling the subjective story of the dream that she had about the scarab beetle, and then the corresponding objective event of a scarab beetle actually appearing during that same moment.  Clearly there is no causal connection between these two things, but instead there is a quite obvious connection that consists in meaning, correlation, and equivalence.  This connection is admittedly entirely subjective, and it requires the awareness of the two participants to realize, or ascribe meaning to it, but that does not diminish from its importance to those involved. 

It is in this sense of meaning, correlation, and equivalence that the theory of synchronicity is then applied to astrology, and to the Chinese oracle system of the I-Ching or Book of Changes.  The I-Ching itself is a mixture of numerology and geomancy in that through the chance toss of three coins or a division of 49 yarrow stalks, both of which are equated numerological values, a hexagram or pattern of six horizontal lines is drawn, and from this hexagram certain meanings can be derived about the inherent nature of a situation inquired about at the time of the query, in a way that is analogous to horary astrology.  There are 64 different hexagrams with many other slight variations of meaning within the hexagrams themselves. The Book of Changes is used as a guide in the process of interpreting the meaning of the hexagram that forms at the moment of inquiry, relative to the situation that the querent inquires about.  This was the original means through which Jung became acquainted with and experimented with synchronicity in the 1920’s[8], and it speaks volumes about the nature of the theory of synchronicity and its implications when applied to other systems such as astrology.  The I-Ching is clearly a divinatory, or mantic art because its goal is essentially to draw or ‘divine’ meaning from a random occurrence of numbers and geometrical shapes, based on the assumption of a unity, or correspondence in nature between the subjective psychic state or thought processes of the individual and the objective formation of the hexagram and its interpretation through the oracle of the book.  As we can see from his statement in his essay On Synchronicity: 

The I Ching presupposes that there is a synchronistic correspondence between the psychic state of the questioner and the answering hexagram.[9]

Jung saw the I-Ching as a way for the inner state of the individual, the unconscious as he called it, to be expressed, or represented as an outer, more objective state in the physical world because the totality of the psychic state of the questioner is paralleled in the pattern and meaning that can be derived from the toss of the coins, or the division of the yarrow stalks.  Since the unconscious knows more than the conscious psyche of the individual, this psychic state is supposed to be somewhat enlightening when objectified in such a way, especially if a person isn’t normally that attuned to the inner content of their unconscious.  The fact that the theory of synchronicity was largely developed out of, and in the context of Jung’s experiments with the I-Ching is extremely, yet subtly, important because of the divinatory nature of the I-Ching, and because in this context the theory of synchronicity becomes a principle through which to explain the mode of operation of divinatory experiences or systems.  Thus, the moment synchronicity is applied to astrology; it is cast in a divinatory light, like other approaches to divination such as the I-Ching, or Tarot cards.

When the theory of synchronicity is applied to astrology, the practice becomes much less about observing a type of objective natural law, or force that is impinging itself upon, or imprinting, the life of the native, and instead it becomes an astrology that is much more about interpreting the signs and symbols in a hermeneutical sense[10] where the intentionality, and subjective ability of the practitioner is wrapped up in the observable celestial phenomena which correlate with the horoscopic chart under scrutiny.  Correlate is a key word because when synchronicity is applied to astrology, the alignment of the stars in a horoscopic chart mysteriously reflects, or mirrors the life of the individual in the case of the birth chart, or the question in the case of a horary, and there is seen to be a coincidence in meaning, symbolism, or equivalence, but not through the direct causal interference of the planets. The astrological method then presupposes a meaningful coincidence between the horoscopic chart and the content of a person’s life.

Initially Jung expressed some doubt about astrology’s mantic or divinatory nature

In light of the most recent astrophysical research, astrological correspondence is probably not a matter of synchronicity but, very largely, of causal relationship.[11] 

Consequently we are no longer justified in describing astrology as a mantic method.  Astrology is in the process of becoming a science.  But as there are still large areas of uncertainty, I decided some time ago to make a test and find out how far an accepted astrological tradition would stand up to statistical investigation.[12]

But after the astrological experiment that Jung performed on the charts of married couples trying to determine the statistical validity of three different prominent synastry contacts, he subsequently revised his position on the nature of astrology as a mantic method due to the revelation that his own psychic state had come into play during the course of the experiment when he was handling the astrological material: 

Although I was obliged to express doubt, earlier, about the mantic character of astrology, I am now forced as a result of my astrological experiment to recognize it again.[13]

Later, Jung rationed that due to the precession of the equinoxes, causing the tropical signs to be out of alignment with the actual constellations, that it is not the causal influence of the stars which imbue systems with their quality or nature, but rather the hypothetical time qualities that we have assigned to them, or which they represent on some level, are what correlates with the systems whose horoscopic charts are analyzed.  Based on this, he is able to formulate the concept that

‘Whatever is born or done at this particular moment in time has the quality of this moment of time.’[14] 

Thus Jung arrived at a conclusion which was incredibly important for the history of astrology because not only had he done away with the need for a causal mechanism to explain why horoscopic astrology works, but he had also acknowledged that there was a degree of participatory significance in the phenomena as well, thus firmly setting it in the same camp as other forms of divination.  If astrology is indeed a form of divination based entirely or even partially on synchronicity, then this casts serious doubt upon the applicability of scientific method as a reasonable form of inquiry into its validity because as Jung says

The experimental method of inquiry aims at establishing regular events which can be repeated.  Consequently, unique or rare events are ruled out of account.  Moreover, the experiment imposes limiting conditions on nature, for its aim is to force her to give answers to questions devised by man.  Every answer of nature is therefore more or less influenced by the kind of questions asked, and the result is always a hybrid product.  The so-called “scientific view of the world” based on this can hardly be anything more than a psychologically biased partial view which misses out all those by no means unimportant aspects that cannot be grasped statistically.[15] 

And then in his forward to Wilhelm’s translation of the I-Ching he remarks:

It is a curious fact that such a gifted and intelligent people as the Chinese has never developed what we call a science.  Our science, however, is based upon the principle of causality, and causality is considered to be an axiomatic truth.  But a great change in our standpoint is setting in.  What Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason failed to do, is being accomplished by modern physics.  The axioms of causality are being shaken to their foundations: we know now that what we term natural laws are merely statistical truths and thus must necessarily allow for exceptions.  We have not sufficiently taken into account as yet that we need the laboratory with its incisive restrictions in order to demonstrate the invariable validity of natural law.  If we leave things to nature, we see a very different picture:  every process is partially or totally interfered with by chance, so much so that under natural circumstances a course of events absolutely conforming to specific laws is almost an exception.[16] 

Naturally, this is a difficult view for people living in modern society to take because the Aristotelian outlook with its explicit emphasis on practical measurement and observation of the natural world in order to ascertain truths about it has dominated western culture for hundreds of years now, and our modern rationalistic scientific outlook is based upon it.  But when Jung introduced his theory of synchronicity, he also reintroduced the possibility to conceptualize astrology through abstract and theoretical means, which is precisely how Plato, Aristotle’s teacher, said that truth could be ascertained.  And it appears that it may have been largely from his cosmological framework, especially his more mystical work the Timaeus that the earliest astrologers of the Hellenistic astrological tradition drew from[17].  Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that astrology would benefit greatly by being practiced within that context once again. 

Horary astrology is based off of the presumption that there is a synchronistic correspondence or parallel of meaning between the psychic state of the querent who poses the question to the astrologer and the alignment of the horoscopic chart that forms the answer to the question at that moment.  Natal astrology presumes that there is a synchronistic correspondence between the alignment of the horoscopic chart of an individual at birth, and the pattern and nature of that individual’s life.  The premise is that different moments of time have particular qualities inherent in them, and things which happen at the same moment in time are an expression of the same time content.  The synchronicity of natal astrology is similar to horary, except that instead of the horoscopic chart describing the answer to a question formed at a specific moment in time, the natal chart describes the entire life of the individual based off of the quality of time inherent in the moment that they were born. 

Therefore, horoscopic astrology studies the synchronistic patterns underlying existence by using specific markers in time to extrapolate information about the qualitative and quantitative nature of general and specific subjects within the area under scrutiny.  Seen in this light, astrology isn’t so much about studying the direct correlation between an individual’s birth chart and their psyche, or their body, or their career, or what have you, but rather the intent is to understand the underlying patterns that are inherent in an individuals life which weave themselves together to form a somewhat consistent, although apparently coincidental, overall pattern of underlying meaning and purpose. 

The old maxim that ‘the stars incline but do not compel’ is correct insofar as the horoscopic chart does not compel, or cause the nature of a person’s life to behave in a specific way, but rather, it shows the synchronistic pattern of inclination which a given system, or life in the case of natal astrology, will follow based upon the underlying pattern of meaning that it was born into.  This is a system of ‘signs and omens’, which portends to the evolving pattern of meaning that a system carries out, quite apart from the causal level that it is operating on. 

Jung’s theory of synchronicity was an important development to the history of horoscopic astrology in the 20^th century because it reinvigorated the art with a consistent theoretical basis, which was something that had been missing, or had not been explicitly apparent for the greater part of its history.  Coincidentally, this conceptualization of astrology in the light of a type of acausal divinatory phenomena, instead of a deterministic causal phenomena, may have been much more similar to the way in which it was conceived of originally in the Babylonian tradition and possibly even in the early Hellenistic tradition[18].  Astrology itself represents a worldview that is fundamentally hostile to science because it is a requirement of the Aristotelian philosophy upon which science is based that one must examine the natural world for evidence in order to discover how it works, whereas the Platonic philosophy upon which astrology may be largely based[19] says that you can understand the world through abstract and theoretical means[20], and this is precisely the way in which astrology operates as a construct- through abstract and theoretical means.  When horoscopic astrology was first devised, it may have been created as a theoretical construct through which to analyze and interpret the signs and omens inherent in nature by observing the celestial phenomena as natural expressions of meaning that reverberate throughout the cosmos. When astrologers attempt to conceptualize and adapt astrology to the prevailing causal models of the day, it is inevitable that they must do away with and reform many parts of the astrological apparatus because they have to, because many parts of the astrological construct are fundamentally incompatible within the context of a causal framework.  By making astrology conform to the realm of natural science in the ancient and Medieval period, astrology was saved and ensured survival into the present time because that made it philosophically compatible with prevailing modes of thought, but even in this reconceptualized form, astrology is still essentially a mantic art in the disguise of a natural science[21], and its periodic exposure as such is a constant problem, and has threatened its survival until very recently.  In our time, it is largely still trying to fit this causal framework by subjecting itself to the scientific method[22], but change is afoot, and there is a new reconceptualization of astrology underway which seeks to re-establish the art in its rightful place as a radically different approach to perceiving, and living life in an animate cosmos which exists and reacts in unison with humanity.   Not only the astrological community, but also the world owes its gratitude to one man for resuscitating, and reconceptualizing an ancient concept into modern idiom and making it known to the world.   His name was Carl Gustav Jung. 

Bibliography

• Carl Gustav Jung – The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 8, Synchronicity – Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1973
• C.G. Jung – Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle – Translated and edited from its 1952 version in 1955, with revisions by Jung.  1955 volume translated as - The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche – Bollingen Series LI, New York & London 1955.  – Republished in the Collected Works
• C.G. Jung – On Synchronicity – Originally given as a lecture, “Uber Synchronisitat,” at the 1951 Eranos conference, Ascona, Switzerland, and published in the
  Eranoe-Jahrbuch 1951 (Zurich, 1952).  The present translation was published in Man and Time (Papers from the Eranos Yearbooks, 3; New York & London, 1957); it is republished with minor revisions in the Collected Works.
• Roderick Main – Jung on Synchronicity and the Paranormal – Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1997
• Richard Wilhelm/ Cary F. Baynes – The I Ching or Book of Changes (With a Foreword by C.G Jung) – Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1950 – twenty seventh printing 1997
• Nick Campion – Astrology, History and Apocalypse: The Centre For Psychological Astrology Press, London, 2000. 
• Geoffrey Cornelius – The Moment of Astrology, Origins in Divination:  Pengiun Books Ltd., London – Original 1994 Edition. 
• David Pingree - From Astral Omens to Astrology from Babylon to Bikaner, Roma: Istituto Italiano per L'Africa e L'Oriente, 1997
• B. A. G. Fuller, A History of Philosophy, New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1951
• James H. Holden, A History of Horoscopic Astrology, Tempe, AZ: American Federation of Astrologers, Inc., 1996
• Tamsyn Barton, Ancient Astrology, Routledge, London, England, 1994.

Endnotes

---