Yet, in contrast to predominant Western thought, there exists a quite different representation of the world. In the East, as is known, there exist various spiritual traditions, which enjoy a wide consensus: Buddhism, Hinduism, Zen philosophy, Taoism and so on. These are the principal examples of that which we might define, on the whole, oriental mysticism. In general, one of the primary characteristics of these traditions is the attempt to maintain a close connection between the theoretical-metaphysical matrix and practical everyday life. In fact, Western man often imagines philosophy or religion as detached from the reality of daily life, as if the two aspects were of difficult or impossible conciliation. Suffice it to reflect upon the general attitude of individuals, in whose behaviour we may glimpse the presence of principles and moral rules but where we perceive the contemporaneous tendency to keep a distance between the various dominions, similar to separate and independent compartments. Eastern man, on the contrary, seeks in daily life a concrete correspondence with abstract and spiritual aspects. Encouraged in this by the spirit itself of the traditions to which he belongs, he sees the world as a test bench for the comprehension of the superior principles pervading it, in which he rediscovers confirmation thanks to the perception of an overall Harmony.
Although Eastern schools differ among themselves on many points, their vision is founded on a common awareness: the existence of a mutual relationship between all events. The essential idea is that the phenomena of the world are manifestations of a fundamental Unity and are to be interpreted as interdependent and inseparable parts of this Whole, representing different expressions of this same ultimate reality. They recognize, therefore, an intrinsic union among themselves, which thanks to this premise, allows the manifestation of Harmony and a superior Order. As an example, let us reflect upon a cardinal concept of Chinese philosophy, that of the Tao. According to Taoism, reality is conceptually knowable because in all things is hidden something which is in some way rational. In the Tao Te Ching, one of the most ancient Chinese texts, is written:
“The Tao, considered as unchanging, has no name. If a feudal prince or the king could guard and hold it thus, all would spontaneously submit themselves to him. The populace would reach equilibrium without the directions of men. Tao does not act, yet all occur equally everywhere as of its own accord. It is calm, yet able to predispose. The net of the Heavens is so great, so ample, yet it loses nothing.72”
There seems to be in reality a harmonizing principle, a sense that regulates, governs and maintains the world, which Chinese philosophy defines as Tao, Hinduism as Brahman, Buddhism, Dharma, and so on:
“That which the soul perceives as absolute essence, is the uniqueness of the totality of all things, the great All, which encompasses all.73”
It is easy to see that the Eastern and Western models are rather distant between each other. Yet, perhaps, the differences are not as clear-cut as might be though. Actually, the hypothesis of a significant Unity and of a self-existent sense is to be found as well among ancient Western thinkers. Plato, for example, formulated the existence of images or transcendental models of empirical, tangible things, of which the things themselves were nothing other than reflections, as if there were a sense beyond human consciousness, external to man. At the dawn of Christian theology, Philo of Alexandria, I century BC, wrote:
“God, intending to adapt the beginning and the end of all created things together, as being all necessary and dear to one another, made heaven the beginning, and man the end: the one being the most perfect of incorruptible things, among those things which are perceptible by the external senses; and the other, the best of all earthborn and perishable productions--a short-lived heaven if one were to speak the truth, bearing within himself many star like natures ... For since the corruptible and the incorruptible, are by nature opposite, he has allotted the best thing of each species to the beginning and to the end. Heaven, as I said before, to the beginning, and man to the end.74”
Fig. 1
Anima Mundi
In substance, Philo maintained that the firmament of Heaven is infused into Man who, including in himself the images of his stellar nature, in his quality of a tiny part and intention of the work of creation, includes it all. Therefore, it has always existed, according to a part of antique Western doctrine, reclaimed in later centuries by other traditions such as medieval alchemy, a “spiritus mundi”, a “quinta essentia” which permeates everything, gives form to all, “fills all, flows in all, unites all and puts all in relation, in order to make of the “machine of all the world, a whole...75”
In the past, the interconnection of all things, this essential totality in which the human Soul would also participate, was not thought of as extravagant but as something obvious, expected, whereas in modern times, it is generally viewed as an archaism or a superstition to be carefully avoided. Yet perhaps, something is changing. In fact, the belief in the fundamental unity of the universe is no longer an exclusive characteristic of the mystic Eastern experience only of ancient Western thought, because in our times it appears to be one of the most important revelations of modern physics. In penetrating the subatomic world, physicists have observed that the constituents of matter and the basic phenomena in which they take part are all in reciprocal relationship, interdependent: they cannot therefore be interpreted as solitary entities but only as an integrated part of the whole.
“We are led to a new concept of uninterrupted totality which negates the classical notion of the possibility of analyzing the world in existing parts in a manner separate and independent (...)
We have reversed the usual classical conception according to which the independent “elementary parts” of the world are the fundamental reality and the various systems are merely forms and particular and contingent dispositions of those parts. On the contrary, we must say that the fundamental reality is the inseparable quantistic interconnection f the whole universe and the parts which possess a relatively independent behaviour are only particular and contingent forms within this whole.76”
We may therefore conclude, not without surprise, that quantistic physics, ancient Western pre-Christian philosophy, or Taostic and Eastern thought in general, resemble one another to an extraordinary degree. We glimpse in this a sort of continuity, a golden thread which runs through both humanistic knowledge and scientific, making them even nearer and more similar to each other, To return to the starting point, the cardinal idea of Unity and consequent Harmony is the fundamental ontological element of that which Jung, speaking of meaningful consequences, was the first to call the principle of Synchronicity. What does this mean? Why, in this context, do we speak of meaningful coincidences, of Synchronicity?
5.2 Synchronicity
In the Orient, the vision of the world is prevalently centred on a metaphysical model. Vice versa, in modern Western thought, more space is devoted to the principle of causality, which for that matter has come to the fore only in the last two centuries, thanks to the levelling influence of the statistical method and to the success of the natural sciences. Because of this situation, even beyond the most recent discoveries in physics, which remain, however, themselves, beyond common knowledge, the current opinion of collectivity and culture negates any value, even experimental, to the phenomenon of so-called coincidences. The motivations are many: on one hand, the widespread conviction of their total irrationality, their casuality. On the other, the accredited scientific methods which validate only that which may be statistically repeated according to systematic laws and parameters. Are there, then, no other possibilities?
As Occidentals, are we obliged to surrender to the imperious domination of our education with no possibility of reciprocal exchange between the scientific, empirical and rational component and the mystical Eastern model? As we have seen, it is science itself, which offers a point of contact, a gigantic door upon a universe unimagined until some decades ago. Do we wish to lose this opportunity? Certainly not, and it is for
this that it is our intention to proceed in this direction. However, the scientific model is characterized by precise limits. Therefore, without a desire to question the validity of a method that has proven itself key to much research, we ask ourselves, how is it possible to offer a different and more ample point of view, while holding in consideration a common viewpoint? For us Westerners, particulars count as single entities; in the East, they are an integrated part of the general outlook.
Beginning with the supposition that the so-called scientific conception, which has as a fundamental postulate the theorem of cause and effect, may not be the only one possible, we ask ourselves how, in a reality observed from a holistic viewpoint, must we consider those rare and unique facts defined coincidences which exist and therefore merit investigation and comprehension, although apparently lacking their own legitimate statistics? Is it possible to hypothesize the existence of a connection between events of a nature different from a causal one? Admitting that one exists, we wonder, what interpretative criteria we must adopt for the sphere of chance, apparently not connected by any cause to the coincident fact. How to attempt to understand these particular episodes, which seem to find a precise theoretical base in philosophical and traditional thought? The term Synchronicity, modern only in its terminological use, derives from the Greek syn-chrónos, which means together in time. This is the essential trait of the meaningful coincidence, which is possible precisely because a same sense (that is, something rational), in a same time, fits both terms.
Fig. 2
Karl Gustav Jung
Jung analyzed this subject thoroughly in his treatise “Synchronicity”, where he describes the well-known case of a young patient of his in a decisive moment of her therapy. During a session, the woman was narrating a dream in which she received the gift of a gold scarab. During the tale, he heard a sound behind him, as if something were knocking softly against the glass of the window. He opened the window and took in his hand an insect, which in that moment was trying to enter the room where the encounter was taking place; it was a Cetonia aurata, a common rose beetle, at that latitude the insect most similar to the golden beetle. It was owing to events similar to this that the scholar formulated the postulate:
The terms of a meaningful coincidence are connected by contemporaneousness and meaning.
In his anecdote, the two events occurred together in time and possessed a clear and precise meaning for the protagonists of the occurrence, Jung and his patient. Although a “casual” coinciding would have a statistical improbability of immeasurable dimensions, as we said before and as is well known, yet the greater part of individuals in daily life give no value to these facts, regarding them as happenings of no real importance or considering ingenuous those who maintain that they possess significance. There are few who stop to wonder about the coincidences that they encounter. Furthermore, common experience teaches us that, regarding chance and coincidence, the usual hypothesis is a causal explanation whose lack of individuation is at the root of the definition of the event as, precisely, casual.
Our addiction to the principle of cause and effect is so preponderant as to lead us to place it at the base of everything. Yet, as this axiom has a relative validity (although the greatest majority of facts is explainable in this manner), there must exist a “diverse remnant”, either a-causal or whose explanation cannot be derived directly from the classical relationship cause/effect. Here, in brief are the two typologies:
Cause-effect relationship: glass pushed off the table - glass that falls and breaks.
Synchronic rapport: dream of a scarab - beetle/scarab which enters the room.
For all the reasons given, if we wished to investigate these episodes, which today would usually be considered irrational phenomena or mere chance, we might think that the only path possible might be a very long list of curious cases, of uniqueness, as that of the tale of the scarab. However, this would lead only to a rather bizarre collection, perhaps interesting, even fascinating, but certainly incapable of any greater depth. The point, then, is does there exist basic interpretative criteria for these manifestations?
The theory of Synchronicity, in its formulation, states that in it is embodied a connection of significance, subjective and specific for the observer/s, which appears thanks to simultaneity. He who experiences a coincidence in the first person feels, even only intuitively, apart from a possible and legitimate surprise, a particular sensation. It is caused by the fact that the coincidence, especially when it has been particularly meaningful, produces a very brief interruption, a sort of disconnection of ordinary consciousness, similar to a tiny shock, which has the purpose to cause us to reflect upon the reason of this event.
Certainly, for many this passes unobserved. Others instead will ask themselves about the material reasons: why one has met this particular person, in this precise place, in that exact moment etc. Yet others, the more observant, will examine the possible connections with their destiny (the Science of signs) or will reflect upon the ontological and existential questions regarding Synchronicity in and for itself, its more arcane and profound significance (the connection with the All).
We speak so at length of this subject because synchronistic phenomena occur with regularity and frequency in the case of intuitive and “magical” phenomena such as the Tarot. To be more precise, not only do they occur, but also they are truly the basis of their functioning. However, as Jung himself reminds us, in this area the characterizing aspect is that “the synchronistic phenomena appear subjectively convincing to the person involved in the practice but prove to be impossible to formulate statistically, at least for now.77” That is, they possess a subjective and contemporaneous sense but not a provable objectivity, a circumstance which enormously limits their possibility of a more scientific classification. Without presumption, we believe that, regarding this definition, a new time has arrived. In fact, thanks to the individuation of the Coded Structure of the Tarot, its specific utilization assumes a profoundly different value. This use will allow us a new and totally unexpected parallelism, which will be an exceptional contribution to the demonstrable objectivity of Synchronicity.
5.3 Synchronicity and the Tarot
In order to understand what we mean to say, we must make an analogy between the Tarot and quantistic physics. Without letting ourselves be daunted by the apparent complexity and difficulty of the comparison, let us simply reflect upon the fact that, in this last, probability is a fundamental aspect, as it governs all processes and even the existence itself of matter:
“Subatomic particles do not exist precisely in definite points but rather show “tendencies to exist” and atomic events do not occur with certainty in precise moments but show “tendencies to occur.78””
In practice this means that in evaluation of subatomic elements, space and time are equally subject to probability, as if the particles, according to a series of factors, had more or less probability of being in a certain point in a certain moment.
This means that we cannot “predict” exactly where and when the particles, which follow certain laws, will be present. We move, therefore, in a subtle and complex area: on one hand, we have the (causal) laws of quantistic physics, which govern the subatomic world; on the other, the “tendency” of the particles, governed by probability and chance ... What is, if it exists, the boundary?
Regarding the Tarot, from what has been said until now we know that the Codified Structure is an event of exceptional range for its comprehension and, more generally, its history. In fact, the Codes and Laws allow an objectivity, which goes far beyond the interpretative and personal use of the Arcana, transforming their reading into an exact, rigorous and reliable process. At the base of this mechanism is, and discloses itself, Synchronicity. When we shuffle the cards and choose those which will be laid out and used in the consultation, a manifestation occurs, in the same moment, of two events associated by a nexus, a significance.
On
one side, we have the question of the consultant, on the other the answer of the Tarot, extrapolated from the objective and pertinent significance of the Coded Structure, which in this way guarantees, according to the degree of experience of the tarologist, an obliteration or at least a drastic reduction of subjective interpretation. Undoubtedly, we cannot affirm that the cards of the Tarot will present themselves for certain in a definite reading according to our personal and subjective expectations.79
The Tarot Code Page 14