In Colman’s paper, Synchronicity and the Meaning-Making Psych, Warren Colman contrasts his view on synchronicity with Jung’s view. Carl Jung first explained the concept of synchronicity. This term can be described as the occurrence of two events that have an acausal connection, yet are meaningfully related. Both Jung and Colman attempt to portray and relate this idea of synchronicity and different ways.
Jung was the first to explain and put his account of synchronicity, in which it was explained as evidence of an objective principle of meaning in nature with a view that emphasizes human meaning-making. In other words, Jung believed there were indications of how we are connected with our peers or acquaintances and with natural in general. Carl …show more content…
In simple terms, Jung boiled this down to describing meaningful coincidences. When it comes to the two events, one has to be internal, such as a thought, feeling, or dream and the other has to be external and can be objectively observed. Jung suggested that overall synchronicity could be a part of rapport building in psychoanalysis.
Colman took the view of synchronicity and different way and critiqued Jung’s claims. Warren Colman saw synchronicity phenomenon of human being, which is produced from the interaction between mind and nature. Jung, on the other hand, saw this as a just a phenomenon of nature. Therefore, Colman revealed that actual objects and events make the correspondence apparent, instead of images of the external world.
For this reason, Colman thought Jung’s attempt of describing synchronicity in the objective domain by publicly verifiable knowledge was destined to failure. He considered that Jung needed to use the rational world of knowledge, instead of the imaginable experience that related to personal knowledge. This thought process came from the idea that Jung’s concept creates meaning for those involved, but doesn’t create publicly verifiable knowledge. Overall, Colman thought Jung would have been more successful if he stuck with arguing that time, space, and causality were conclusive only of one way of being in the world that relied entirely on rational
Jung was the first to explain and put his account of synchronicity, in which it was explained as evidence of an objective principle of meaning in nature with a view that emphasizes human meaning-making. In other words, Jung believed there were indications of how we are connected with our peers or acquaintances and with natural in general. Carl …show more content…
In simple terms, Jung boiled this down to describing meaningful coincidences. When it comes to the two events, one has to be internal, such as a thought, feeling, or dream and the other has to be external and can be objectively observed. Jung suggested that overall synchronicity could be a part of rapport building in psychoanalysis.
Colman took the view of synchronicity and different way and critiqued Jung’s claims. Warren Colman saw synchronicity phenomenon of human being, which is produced from the interaction between mind and nature. Jung, on the other hand, saw this as a just a phenomenon of nature. Therefore, Colman revealed that actual objects and events make the correspondence apparent, instead of images of the external world.
For this reason, Colman thought Jung’s attempt of describing synchronicity in the objective domain by publicly verifiable knowledge was destined to failure. He considered that Jung needed to use the rational world of knowledge, instead of the imaginable experience that related to personal knowledge. This thought process came from the idea that Jung’s concept creates meaning for those involved, but doesn’t create publicly verifiable knowledge. Overall, Colman thought Jung would have been more successful if he stuck with arguing that time, space, and causality were conclusive only of one way of being in the world that relied entirely on rational