Some feel coincidence to be a guiding force in their lives, a force by which decisions are made, much as one would use astrology. Some equate the word coincidence with the word chance, and so may make statements to the effect that they "don't believe in coincidence". From that statement alone, however, it is impossible to tell wether or not such a person is a skeptic or a mystic!

Some are unsure of the relationship between the terms coincidence and synchronicity - even to the ontological distinction between the two! ( ontology involves the different forms of growth ).

Many others beleive that synchronicities are a sign that we are living in an age of ever increasing interconnectedness, heading toward an "omega point", an "end of all ends", when all things will be revealed as interconnected.

There is even much debate on wether synchronicity should be regarded seperate from the field of parapsychology, or even wether parapsychological phenomena themselves may be considered merely as different manifestations of synchronicity! Some question the relationship between psychology and synchronicity.
Still others see synchronicity as a mystical event, one that shows that in the moment a question arises, the answer too can be found.

The definition of synchronicity, according to Jung himself, is a meaningful coincidence, i.e. a coincidence that holds some personal significance for the experiencer. Writes Jung, " Although meaning is an anthropomorphic (of human origin) interpretation it nevertheless forms the indispensable criterion of synchronicity. What that factor which appears to us as "meaning" may be in itself we have no possibility of knowing." In line with Jung's writing, it has been suggested that the only validity of synchronicity lies in the observers' (participators') opinion of wether the synchronicity gives a true rendering of his psychic condition - that the meaningfulness of a synchronicity can only be judged subjectively.

It has also been suggested that the term synchronicity, for many, refers to a remarkable coincidence which would be assumed to have a very low probability of occuring, yet occurs just the same. Despite its psychological components, synchronicity occurs independently of psychological or cultural conditioning, thereby revealing its objective components as well.

Others argue that the limitation is not in the universe itself, but in how we choose to percieve it. Some suggest that synchronicities happen all the time, but we are not always aware of their existence. It should be obvious through the very nature of synchronicity itself that there are physical components, as well as psychological components, involved in its creation. This is not disputed by anyone. What is usually questioned is the nature of the relationship between the two.
Some synchronicities appear so meaningfully ordered between the psychic (mental) states of the experiencer and the multiple number of objective physical elements that 'random chance', as an explanation, strains to accomodate them. However, anagramatic synchroncities come closer to blurring the distinction between the creativity of the human mind and any hypothesized pre-existent order.

Anagramatic synchronicities consist of rearranging the letters of a single word or group of words - as in a sentence - to make an appropriate descriptive sentence - for example; the letters of "desperation" may be rearranged to produce two such sentences: "I at rope's end" and "A rope ends it". And at other times, that which may seem synchronistic can only be due to the facts of shared interest and background. This is what is known as psuedo-coincidence. Is it the case then, as in the study of figurative language, that there are many forms of synchronicity giving rise to a plethora of terms such as coincidence, luck, fate, omens, destiny, karma, miracles, chance, providence, intuition and serendipity?

According to some, one main distinction between these different types of phenomena may involve the percentage of "inner knowing" to that of "outer knowing". Even less understood is Jungs' viewpoint on the nature of synchronicity, as one may glean from popular literature. It appears from Jungs' writings that a synchronicities' transcendental nature, coupled with the new perspectives in quantum physics, was sufficient justification for labeling synchronicity as a-causal. Jung observed that in order to qualify as a synchronicity, the many elements that make up a synchronicity must belong to chains of causal events , and these chains must have no causal connection amongst each other. This is certainly a clear, unambiguous understanding of the term a-causal as it relates to synchronicity.

Another writes that acausality may be understood as free will. Lest we paint a completely rosy picture of synchronicity, we should perhaps stop to consider "The possibility of harmful or even fatal "synchronistic" occurances…( Jule Eisenbud, as quoted in Incredible Coincidence by Alan Vaughan)". Some synchronicities, instead of bringing a feeling of togetherness and harmony, may actually engender just the opposite - feelings of utter discord, which may be based on mutual misunderstanding, or a sort of mutual repulsion, void of any objective discord, yet nevertheless subjectively percieved as such by the experiencer.

Then there are the types of coincidence which appear to have saved us from harm's way. A lucky coincidence?
What are we to make of all this? Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of synchronicity that may be discussed involves its creative character. Jung called synchronicities "acts of creation in time", and explained that this was the reason he chose the term. He was very careful, however, to stress the fact that by calling synchronicity a creative act, he was NOT claiming synchronicity to be a subjective interpretation of the situation.

In a study at Rutgers University, psychologists found that large metaphors were linked with the process of discovery and with the organization of a body of material. In their book, Metaphors We Live By, authors Mark Johnson and George Lakoff present us with evidence that our entire conceptual system is structured in large part by metaphor. The study of metaphor ( multi-dimensional meaning ) is, in itself, a very fascinating field of study.
What, you may ask, does all of this have to do with synchronicity?
Glad you asked!
If our conceptions are structured in large part by metaphor, synchronicity should be a natural part of that conception, considering its metaphorical nature. In fact, many scientific discoveries have been made through such serendipities. Good creative problem solving is often accomplished through the use of a "multi-dimensional solution", i.e. a solution that solves many problems at once. This fact implies a wholistic system , where the multiple problems are "novelties" and the solution becomes the "constraint" or redundant element ( the answer isn't hard to find, its asking the right questions! ). Often the road to finding that solution is marked by self-reference and self-similarities. Two traits that are integral to synchronicities ( http:// members.tripod.com/~One_3/page-1.html ).

There are certain ceavets when it comes to considering synchronicity in the light of creative possibilities.
First of all, we cannot force a synchronicity, nor can we expect to find one on command. Ascertaining the difference between a true synchronicity and a psuedo-coincidence is the goal of forming good criteria.
Secondly, we must always beware of "reading into" things a meaning that is present ONLY in the subjective interpretation of events. This has, perhaps, been a bewildering introduction to the many levels of intrigue one is faced with in the study of synchronicity.
The field is rich with possibilities. Get out your notebooks!
Stephen J. Davis