Let me briefly and in the most general way tell you though about my perspective on synchronicity, which is quite different than the perspective ordinarily taken on the meaning of the word.

Most accounts or discussions of synchronicity involve a transpersonal dimension - that is, a kind of semi-mystical dimension which alludes to the operation of some sort of unknown organizing principle at work in the universe. For many people (and I include myself), the personal experience of synchronicity can border on a religious experience. In fact, a very large survey a number of years ago which asked people to describe any religious-like experiences they may have had revealed that by far the "commonest of all the categories" referred to "extraordinary coincidence(s) or to a sense that somehow one's life has an unfolding pattern to it" (Hay, D. [1990], Religious Experience Today, p. 41, London; Mowbray Books).

Because the experience of synchronicity can have religious-like qualities, the general assumption made in both popular and academic writing has been that the experience of synchronicity must be based on something that is metaphysical, and thus, the subject of synchronicity ends up being 'lumped together' with topics like parapsychology, mysticism, etc..

Now, while I do not automatically rule any of this out - having been convinced by some very well thought out and carefully executed parapsychological research done by others that there is 'something going on' in human consciousness that we can't easily explain (e.g., Bem, D. & Honorton, C. [1994]. Does Psi Exist? in Psychological Bulletin, vol. 115, no. 1, pp. 4-18) - I have found that parapsychological discussions of synchronicity, as exciting and stimulating as they may be to the intellect and imagination, typically end up going nowhere, or degenerate into the very tired old disputes between the the "scientific" perspective and the "humanistic/transpersonal" perspective.

My view on synchronicity, on the other hand, does not require metaphysics, mysticism, or anything like that, and thus can side-step the inevitably unproductive circularity of the parapsychological debate, and as I hope to show in the next few years (through research, etc.), can actually be made into a pragmatically useful concept in those domains of life which interface with issues of self-identity, motivation, and general psychological health. For example, in a study I am working on right now, I have found that 1st year university students who score higher on a measure of "synchronicity" also score higher on a self-rated measures of psychological health, on adaptation to their first year of college life, and on their feelings of being 'in control' of their lives than students who score low on synchronicity. They do not, however, actually do any better grade-wise (or at least I have not found the link yet - but I am still analyzing the data).

So what is my perspective on synchronicity? Well, in a nutshell, rather than a metaphysical perspective, I take the view that synchronicity is a *kind or style of thinking* characterized chiefly by an active process in which the person continually works (mostly unconsciously, I suspect) on the "re-authoring" of their self-identity in such a way that their self-identity increasingly "meshes" with the world in which they live. As the world changes, then, so must self-identity; and both must be fit into each other into a kind of flexible on-going "story" of self-world identity. Because of this analogy to "authoring a story", I call the process "narrative emplotment" (a term I have hijacked from literary theory and criticism).

In other words, self-identity is a story we tell ourselves to guide ourselves through life. But it is not a fixed story - it must continually change in order to adapt to new situations, new stages of our lives, and so on. Adaptation is survival, in a word, and in terms of self-identity, those who are able to change, elaborate, create new networks of self-referenced meaning, and so on, may be those best suited to survival, particularly in a world that changes almost from day-to-day.

Ken Wilber (in Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality, 1995) uses the term "network logic" and suggests that it is the first necessary stage in the next phase of the evolution of our species. Synchronicity, as a kind of thinking, can be thought of as an instance of "network logic."

Admittedly, some people don't like this view because it takes away some of the mystery and mystique of synchronicity, yet on the other hand, I think it has the potential to cut quicker to our exploration and understanding of the central self-identity issues in people's lives which can be expressed simply by the question 'who am I, what am I doing, and what is my life all about?'

Steve Hladkyj

June 13, 1997