Synchronicity & The Mystery of Chance

Flickr - Double Rainbow - davedehetrePeter A. Jordan, Strange Mag
Waking Times

At some time or another it’s happened to all of us. There’s that certain number that pops up wherever you go. Hotel rooms, airline terminals, street addresses — its haunting presence cannot be escaped. Or, you’re in your car, absently humming a song. You turn on the radio. A sudden chill prickles your spine. That same song is now pouring from the speaker.

Coincidence, you tell yourself. Or is it?

For most mainstream scientists, experiences like this, however strange and recurrent, are nothing but lawful expressions of chance, a creation — not of the divine or mystical — but of simply that which is possible. Ignorance of natural law, they argue, causes us to fall prey to superstitious thinking, inventing supernatural causes where none exist. In fact, say these statistical law-abiding rationalists, the occasional manifestation of the rare and improbable in daily life is not only permissible, but inevitable.

Consider this: from a well-shuffled deck of fifty-two playing cards, the mathematical odds of dealing a hand of thirteen specified cards are about 635,000,000,000 to one. (This means that, in dealing the hand, there exist as many as 635,000,000,000 different hands that may possibly appear.) What statisticians tell us, though, is that these billions of hands are all equally likely to occur, and that one of them is absolutely certain to occur each time the hand is dealt. Thus, any hand that is dealt, including the most rare and improbable hand is, in terms of probability, merely one of a number of equally likely events, one of which was bound to happen.

Such sobering assurances don’t necessarily satisfy everyone, however: many see coincidence as embedded in a higher, transcendental force, a cosmic “glue,” as it were, which binds random events together in a meaningful and coherent pattern. The question has always been: could such a harmonizing principle actually exist? Or are skeptics right in regarding this as a product of wishful thinking, a consoling myth spawned by the intellectual discomfort and capriciousness of chance?

Mathematician Warren Weaver, in his book, Lady Luck: The Theory of Probability, recounts a fascinating tale of coincidence that stretches our traditional notions of chance to their breaking point. The story originally appeared in Life magazine. Weaver writes:

All fifteen members of a church choir in Beatrice, Nebraska, due at practice at 7:20, were late on the evening of March 1, 1950. The minister and his wife and daughter had one reason (his wife delayed to iron the daughter’s dress) one girl waited to finish a geometry problem; one couldn’t start her car; two lingered to hear the end of an especially exciting radio program; one mother and daughter were late because the mother had to call the daughter twice to wake her from a nap; and so on. The reasons seemed rather ordinary. But there were ten separate and quite unconnected reasons for the lateness of the fifteen persons. It was rather fortunate that none of the fifteen arrived on time at 7:20, for at 7:25 the church building was destroyed in an explosion. The members of the choir, Life reported, wondered if their delay was “an act of God.”

Weaver calculates the staggering odds against chance for this uncanny event as about one chance in a million.

Coincidences such as these, some say, are almost too purposeful, too orderly, to be a product of random chance, which strains somewhat to accommodate them. But then how do we explain them?

Psychologist Carl Jung believed the traditional notions of causality were incapable of explaining some of the more improbable forms of coincidence. Where it is plain, felt Jung, that no causal connection can be demonstrated between two events, but where a meaningful relationship nevertheless exists between them, a wholly different type of principle is likely to be operating. Jung called this principle “synchronicity.”

In The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, Jung describes how, during his research into the phenomenon of the collective unconscious, he began to observe coincidences that were connected in such a meaningful way that their occurrence seemed to defy the calculations of probability. He provided numerous examples culled from his own psychiatric case-studies, many now legendary.

A young woman I was treating had, at a critical moment, a dream in which she was given a golden scarab. While she was telling me his dream I sat with my back to the closed window. Suddenly I heard a noise behind me, like a gentle tapping. I turned round and saw a flying insect knocking against the window-pane from outside. I opened the window and caught the creature in the air as it flew in. It was the nearest analogy to the golden scarab that one finds in our latitudes, a scarabaeid beetle, the common rose-chafer (Cetoaia urata) which contrary to its usual habits had evidently felt an urge to get into a dark room at this particular moment. I must admit that nothing like it ever happened to me before or since, and that the dream of the patient has remained unique in my experience.

Who then, might we say, was responsible for the synchronous arrival of the beetle — Jung or the patient? While on the surface reasonable, such a question presupposes a chain of causality Jung claimed was absent from such experience. As psychoanalyst Nandor Fodor has observed, the scarab, by Jung’s view, had no determinable cause, but instead complemented the “impossibility” of the analysis. The disturbance also (as synchronicities often do) prefigured a profound transformation. For, as Fodor observes, Jung’s patient had — until the appearance of the beetle — shown excessive rationality, remaining psychologically inaccessible. Once presented with the scarab, however, her demeanor improved and their sessions together grew more profitable.

Because Jung believed the phenomenon of synchronicity was primarily connected with psychic conditions, he felt that such couplings of inner (subjective) and outer (objective) reality evolved through the influence of the archetypes, patterns inherent in the human psyche and shared by all of mankind. These patterns, or “primordial images,” as Jung sometimes refers to them, comprise man’s collective unconscious, representing the dynamic source of all human confrontation with death, conflict, love, sex, rebirth and mystical experience. When an archetype is activated by an emotionally charged event (such as a tragedy), says Jung, other related events tend to draw near. In this way the archetypes become a doorway that provide us access to the experience of meaningful (and often insightful) coincidence.

Implicit in Jung’s concept of synchronicity is the belief in the ultimate “oneness” of the universe. As Jung expressed it, such phenomenon betrays a “peculiar interdependence of objective elements among themselves as well as with the subjective (psychic) states of the observer or observers.” Jung claimed to have found evidence of this interdependence, not only in his psychiatric studies, but in his research of esoteric practices as well. Of the I Ching, a Chinese method of divination which Jung regarded as the clearest expression of the synchronicity principle, he wrote: “The Chinese mind, as I see it at work in the I Ching, seems to be exclusively preoccupied with the chance aspect of events. What we call coincidence seems to be the chief concern of this peculiar mind, and what we worship as causality passes almost unnoticed…While the Western mind carefully sifts, weighs, selects, classifies, isolates, the Chinese picture of the moment encompasses everything down to the minutest nonsensical detail, because all of the ingredients make up the observed moment.”

Similarly, Jung discovered the synchronicity within the I Ching also extended to astrology. In a letter to Freud dated June 12, 1911, he wrote: “My evenings are taken up largely with astrology. I make horoscopic calculations in order to find a clue to the core of psychological truth. Some remarkable things have turned up which will certainly appear incredible to you…I dare say that we shall one day discover in astrology a good deal of knowledge that has been intuitively projected into the heavens.”

Freud was alarmed by Jung’s letter. Jung’s interest in synchronicity and the paranormal rankled the strict materialist; he condemned Jung for wallowing in what he called the “black tide of the mud of occultism.” Just two years earlier, during a visit to Freud in Vienna, Jung had attempted to defend his beliefs and sparked a heated debate. Freud’s skepticism remained calcified as ever, causing him to dismiss Jung’s paranormal leanings, “in terms of so shallow a positivism,” recalls Jung, “that I had difficulty in checking the sharp retort on the tip of my tongue.” A shocking synchronistic event followed. Jung writes in his memoirs:

While Freud was going on this way, I had a curious sensation. It was as if my diaphragm were made of iron and were becoming red-hot — a glowing vault. And at that moment there was such a loud report in the bookcase, which stood right next to us, that we both started up in alarm, fearing the thing was going to topple over on us. I said to Freud: ‘There, that is an example of a so-called catalytic exteriorization phenomenon.’ ‘Oh come,’ he exclaimed. ‘That is sheer bosh.’ ‘It is not,’ I replied. ‘You are mistaken, Herr Professor. And to prove my point I now predict that in a moment there will be another such loud report! ‘Sure enough, no sooner had I said the words that the same detonation went off in the bookcase. To this day I do not know what gave me this certainty. But I knew beyond all doubt that the report would come again. Freud only stared aghast at me. I do not know what was in his mind, or what his look meant. In any case, this incident aroused his distrust of me, and I had the feeling that I had done something against him. I never afterward discussed the incident with him.

In formulating his synchronicity principle, Jung was influenced to a profound degree by the “new” physics of the twentieth century, which had begun to explore the possible role of consciousness in the physical world. “Physics,” wrote Jung in 1946, “has demonstrated…that in the realm of atomic magnitudes objective reality presupposes an observer, and that only on this condition is a satisfactory scheme of explanation possible.” “This means,” he added, “that a subjective element attaches to the physicist’s world picture, and secondly that a connection necessarily exists between the psyche to be explained and the objective space-time continuum.” These discoveries not only helped loosen physics from the iron grip of its materialistic world-view, but confirmed what Jung recognized intuitively: that matter and consciousness — far from operating independently of each other — are, in fact, interconnected in an essential way, functioning as complementary aspects of a unified reality.

The belief — suggested by quantum theory and by reports of synchronous events — that matter and consciousness interpenetrate is, of course, far from new. What historian Arthur Koestler refers to as the capacity of the human psyche to “act as a cosmic resonator” faithfully echoes the thinking of Kepler and Pico. Leibnitz’s “monad,” a spiritual microcosm said to mirror the patterns of the universe, was based on the premise that individual and universe “imprint” each other, acting by virtue of a “pre-established harmony.” And for Schopenhauer who, like Jung, questioned the exclusive status of causality, everything was “interrelated and mutually attuned.”

Common among these various historical sources, as Koestler observes in his book, The Roots of Coincidence, is the presumption of a “fundamental unity of all things,” which transcends mechanical causality, and which relates coincidence to the “universal scheme of things.”

In exploring the parallels between modern science and the mystical concept of a universal scheme or oneness, Koestler compares the evolution of science during the past one-hundred-and-fifty years to a vast river system, in which each tributary is “swallowed up” by the mainstream, until all unified in a single river-delta. The science of electricity, he points out, merged, during the nineteenth century, with the science of magnetism. Electromagnetic waves were then discovered to be responsible for light, color, radiant heat and Hertzian waves, while chemistry was embraced by atomic physics. The control of the body by nerves and glands was linked to electrochemical processes, and atoms were broken down into the “building blocks” of protons, electrons and neutrons. Soon, however, even these fundamental parts were reduced by scientists to mere “parcels of compressed energy, packed and patterned according to certain mathematical formulae.”

What all this reveals, then, is that there may be what Koestler refers to as “the universal hanging-together of things, their embeddedness in a universal matrix.” Many ecologists already subscribe to this sense of interrelation in the world, what the ancients called the “sympathy” of life, and the numbers of scientists now converting to this world-view are beginning to multiply. Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigione of the University of Texas at Austin is studying the “spontaneous formation of coherent structures,” how chemical and other kinds of structures evolve patterns out of chaos. Karl Pribram, a neuroscientist at Stanford University, has proposed that the brain may be a type of “hologram,” a pattern and frequency analyzer which creates “hard” reality by interpreting frequencies from a dimension beyond space and time. On the basis of such a model, the physical world “out there,” is, in Pribram’s words, “isomorphic with” — that, the same as, the processes of the brain.

So, if the modern alliance evolving between quantum physicists, neuroscientists, parapsychologists and mystics is not just a short-fused phase in scientific understanding, a paradigm shift may well be imminent. We may soon not only embrace a new image of the universe as non-causal and “sympathetic,” but uncover conclusive evidence that the universe functions not as some great machine, but as a great thought — unifying matter, energy, and consciousness. Synchronous events, perhaps even the broader spectrum of paranormal phenomena, will be then liberated from the stigma of “occultism,” and no longer seen as disturbing. At that point, our perceptions, and hence our world, will be changed forever.

~~ Help Waking Times to raise the vibration by sharing this article with the buttons below…

  • DO THE “EXPERIMENT” FOR YOURSELF. It is an Experiment with Time using your Dreams. You can read the whole book or just skip to the Experiment. Something absolutely amazing will occur that you will prove to yourself with solid evidence.

    I personally did the Experiment for many months when in a particularly receptive dream period about 40 years ago. There can be no denial or psychobabble academic bullshit explanations that can take this experience away from you. Do the Experiment.

    An Experiment With Time by J.W. Dunne

  • PB

    xyz a new post modern Freud to hp’s Jung? The challenge of the opposites beginning an inner war to distract from crucial discovery. Happens all the time in Analysis. I hope you get a Scarab moment.

  • xyz

    Total bollocks that has nothing to do with reality. Total and utter bollocks

  • hp

    Thank you.

    The link is from a very wonderful book –


    (Thirty-six philosophers from Socrates to Satre. face the Vaishnava guru)

  • James de Juste ll

    hp – your link was an eye opener. Thanks.

    JdJ ll

  • hp

    Jung did write it though.
    Or had it written.

    Both over the door of his house and on his grave stone.

    Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit –
    “Called or not called, the god will be present”

    Of course people will twist and juggle this to whatever ends serve their interests – Nonetheless, there it is..

    Perhaps this might be informative ––EfARj4MsPwSS7GOw

    • Sargon


      The “god” should be *God*. It shows a lack of respect to do otherwise. This post-modern tendency for this I find disturbing.

      • xyz

        U love ur imaginary friend much, dont u?

  • James de Juste ll

    Why did a smart guy like Jung and so many others have such a hard time pronouncing the simple name of God?

  • Rachel

    I would like to comment on the rainbow picture:

    What an incredibly blatent example of nasty aerosol geoengineering!! I’ve seen skies like that here, and my lungs hurt just looking at that chemical horror picture!

    • rob

      i think they are just storm clouds brewing Rachel, although they are bound to be full of the shit they spray.

      • Rachel

        they are definately not just storm clouds. I have watched endless hours of all the different colored crap and even picked out the oil paint colors that make different chemicals in the spray. The brown crap is what causes my inflammation to get really bad, and the ultramarine blue-purple crap is the stuff that smells metalic and bunches up in parts of the sky becoming extremely unnatural in color. The slightly pinkish color is the one that hurts the most, it is life-threatening to me and closes my lungs up agonisingly. The grey is common and floats with white clouds but not like shadows would, although it sometimes mocks shadows, but only if it’s not right up against clear blue…that picture is pure chemical hell.

  • hp

    The first step is nonviolence against animals.
    This means vegetarian and that means good luck because modern people, via whatever conditioning/spell ain’t going to stop craving sense gratification.

    Every bonafide scripture says this.
    How could they not?

    All our heroes we praise so loudly and then ignore say it too..

    “To be non-violent to human beings and to be a killer or enemy of the poor animals is Satan’s philosophy. In this age there is always enmity against poor animals and therefore the poor creatures are always anxious. The reaction of the poor animals is being forced on human society and therefore there is always the strain of cold or hot war between men, individually, collectively or nationally.”

    – Srimad Bhagavatam

    • Frank


      i hear where you’re coming from but the vegetarian angle is not one i understand – i am a meat eater and enjoy eating meat but that does not stop me having compassion for animals and making the best purchasing decisions i can when it comes to the welfare of the animals i eat.

      The way i see it, ALL life eventually becomes food for another form of life – be it a blade of grass, a chicken or a human body. If the cosmos is all one organism experiencing itself subjectively, what difference does it make if i feed myself on a chicken leg or a pile of fruit? And what qualifies eating meat as a greater degree of “sense gratification” than eating vegetables (since taste and pleasure are subjective)?

      I have a pet theory that for a lot of vegetarians not eating meat is about avoiding the guilt associated with harming another form of life – animals have cute faces and remind us of ourselves and other people. Plants on the other hand seem (more) inanimate and are easier to portray as “wholesome” and “fresh” so they feel better about consuming that form of life. However, the fact remains that eating involves destruction of the eaten. This idea helps me make sense of why some of the vegetarians in my life have had very poor personal relationships with food and nutrition.

      I am genuinely interested to hear why vegetarianism/veganism is such a big deal in spiritual terms. It is often cited on Waking Times to be a necessity in “raising your vibration”, but then not followed through with any real justification or analysis. I quizzed someone once in the comments and was given the sharp end of that particular vegan’s tongue! I can’t help feeling there’s a kind of unspoken Groupthink mentality going on (not for everyone of course!). I invite compassionate vegetarians to please fill in the gaps in my knowledge…

      • Brian

        Frank- I agree that it is important to be mindful of your purchasing decisions when it comes to meat but unless you know exactly how the animal was treated during its time on this Earth it’s hard to justify eating it not out of necessity but merely for convenience or preference. Not to mention that the majority of livestock production is an extremely destructive practice for our environment but also our consciousness as a whole. Also there is mounting evidence that humans are physiologically herbivores, our bodies have simply not adapted to handle the digestion of meat, if they were than we would be able to consume raw meat directly from a living animal with no ill effects.

        • Frank

          Thanks Brian,

          I am lucky enough to live in an area where animals are raised under excellent conditions and product information is detailed – i maintain that welfare and quality should be the focus rather than abstinence. I would like to see this evidence that humans are herbivores because i’ve seen plenty that we are omnivores – we have canine teeth for a start. Most things i’ve read about evolutionary nutrition point toward prehistoric man relying primarily on shellfish and coastal foraging.

          There is also the idea that humans have such impressively large brains and small guts due to the discovery of cooking – particularly cooking of meat because it is so nutritious and easy to digest (check out this BBC documentary for more on this: “Did cooking make us human?” ).

          It is possible to eat raw meat if it is fresh and quality, it’s just not as efficient or palatable as when cooked. In fact many Inuit and Siberian folk eat a lot of raw moose, seal and fish while many in the west eat steaks nearly raw. Plus there is sushi of course.

          Brian, you said “the majority of livestock production is an extremely destructive practice for our environment but also our consciousness as a whole.” – can you qualify these two claims (particularly the one about consciousness)? I hear this a lot but it is never explained (maybe its just ‘obvious’ to vegetarians?). And also why does my “preference” for meat require justification (versus fruit and veg) if all eating involves destruction of life? Please fill me in guys i’m trying to understand the vegan perspective.

          cheers F

          • Brian

            Frank- First I wanted to thank you for having a logical open-minded approach to this issue. And you are fortunate that you do live in such an area with proper regulations. First off the canine teeth are not definitive proof, eating any hard fruit such as an apple would be impossible without these. Humans jaws, like many herbivores, move from side to side in a grinding motion as opposed to purely up and down like that of carnivores.
            There are varying theories on why the human brain is so large in comparison to other species, one being that our earliest ancestors were scavengers and then hunter gatherers who needed to remember where the berries grew during spring time or which trees held the most fruit etc.
            Intestinal tract length- Carnivorous animals have intestinal tracts that are 3-6x their body length, while herbivores have intestinal tracts 10-12x their body length. Human beings have the same intestinal tract ratio as herbivores.

            Stomach acidity. Carnivores’ stomachs are 20x more acidic than the stomachs of herbivores. Human stomach acidity matches that of herbivores.

            Saliva- The saliva of carnivores is acidic. The saliva of herbivores is alkaline, which helps pre-digest plant foods. Human saliva is alkaline.

            Shape of intestines. Carnivore bowels are smooth, shaped like a pipe, so meat passes through quickly — they don’t have bumps or pockets. Herbivore bowels are bumpy and pouch-like with lots of pockets, like a windy mountain road, so plant foods pass through slowly for optimal nutrient absorption. Human bowels have the same characteristics as those of herbivores.

            Fiber- Carnivores don’t require fiber to help move food through their short and smooth digestive tracts. Herbivores require dietary fiber to move food through their long and bumpy digestive tracts, to prevent the bowels from becoming clogged with rotting food. Humans have the same requirement as herbivores.

            Cholesterol- Cholesterol is not a problem for a carnivore’s digestive system. A carnivore such as a cat can handle a high-cholesterol diet without negative health consequences. A human cannot. Humans have zero dietary need for cholesterol because our bodies manufacture all we need. Cholesterol is only found in animal foods, never in plant foods. A plant-based diet is by definition cholesterol-free.

            Claws and teeth- Carnivores have claws, sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, and no flat molars for chewing. Herbivores have no claws or sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, but they have flat molars for chewing. Humans have the same characteristics as herbivores.
            As for the impact on the environment, at least here in America it is a very destructive practice. We devote 65% of our annual grain production to feed the livestock so not only are we comitting a large amount of our water, land, and energy to grow the livestock we’re also committing untold resources to just grow the food for the “food” we eventually eat. Also livestock production has been estimated to account for upwards of 20-45% of the world’s greenhouse gases, hopefully we both know how destructive that can be.
            As for the effect on our consciousness as a whole I don’t have any “concrete proof” but there are plenty of stories and videos that show how callously we denigrate the value of life of other species, these are not how animals are supposed to live. I do think you bring up a great point about the destruction of life though, why is it that killing plants is more favorable than killing animals? I don’t have that answer but what I do know is that we are doing is essentially slavery and animal torture. And if you are a proponent of collective consciousness why is it so hard to believe that animals have thoughts and emotions that are just as valid and worthwhile as ours. If you could look into the eyes of these animals as they are beaten senseless or murdered ruthlessly I bet you would see enough conscious suffering to last a lifetime.
            I hope I answered some of your questions, I look forward to your response.
            One love,

        • john smith

          We can consume raw meat without ill effects of any kind and have done so historically. I have been eating raw organic steak for years with no adverse reaction. It is delicious and very nutritious. Humans have existed successfully across various cultures across the planet for thousands of years as HUNTER gatherers. If this was detrimental to our natural biological make-up, why have we always had an instinctive desire to hunt and kill for protein?

          • Anonymous

            I can take this topic even a little further. I have been eating primarily raw foods for about 15 years or so. I eat raw dairy and raw meat (Beef, chicken, fish, etc) almost every day. I have tried almost every type of meat you can think of, and far from having any ill effects from it, I feel that my health has dramatically improved because of it. We need to take another look at the “germ theory”- I think it is a long standing theory that may very well be incorrect. I was diagnosed with “ALS” and almost all of my symptoms have reversed and I enjoy much better health now than I ever have, and I feel like it just gets better every day. Just wanted to share my experience!

          • Brian

            It seems I have been shown the error in my thinking, raw meat seems to be perfectly safe, if its handled correctly. But there are plenty of studies and research that show that as consumption of animal protein, and animal-based foods as a whole, increases so do the majority of chronic diseases. There is a fantastic book by T. Colin Campbell called the “China Study” in which he lays out a very concise and objective argument for why a whole, plant-based approach to nutrition is the most beneficial to our health. He doesn’t rely on opinions or societal beliefs regarding these behaviors, he relies instead on 30+ years of research that he himself has done, as well as plenty of other well respected professionals in his field have done.

          • Frank

            Some good replies here from both sides.

            Blake – incredibly interesting that you have long-term experience of eating raw meats! The evidence that diet (and stress) is everything in health terms is piling up into a mountain for me of late. Thanks for sharing!

            Brian – firstly i agree that the worst diets you will find anywhere will be based on (poor quality) meat, but in my opinion it’s poor nutritional knowledge and practice that ultimately determines an individual’s poor health. You made some good points about the digestive systems of carnivores and herbivores but i can’t help but think you’ve missed the real thrust here – humans are omnivores, ie. we evolved eating both meat and plants; this explains why we have a mix of carnivorous/herbivorous qualities, we do not occupy an extreme position on the spectrum.

            A quick debunking of what you said about intestinal length: human intestines are around 5m long, ie. 2.5x body length, not 10-12x as you claimed. I also don’t agree that livestock has anything like a significant impact on greenhouse gases (the whole “global warming” – sorry – “climate change” thing is a colossal scam). Also the explosive growth in the human brain (and shrinking of our guts) over the last million years can only really be explained by a dramatic cultural and nutritional change – i buy into Terrence McKenna’s theories of psilocybin mushrooms along with the discovery of fire and cooking to explain this.

            Re animal welfare – exactly i agree that we should love and care for our livestock and slaughter it humanely rather than preach abstinence. If people demanded meat of high quality and welfare rather than giving up and becoming vegetarian then maybe they would have a positive effect on the meat industry (ie. voting with your cash). It’s also unfortunately the case that many animals simply wouldn’t have a place on this earth if they weren’t bred for livestock.

            Brian you said “if you are a proponent of collective consciousness why is it so hard to believe that animals have thoughts and emotions”? I acknowledge that ALL the cosmos is conscious and feeling – that we are all ultimately one. There is no room in this view to treat a more organized form of life (an animal) differently to a plant when it comes to food for energy – as i said before, eating (or the sustenance of life) requires the death of the eaten and assimilation of its energy. I just think you might be wrong in thinking you are being more responsible when you avoid meat.

            It’s nice to have a proper exchange with someone on these comments for a change!

            cheers F

        • Not everyone can be a vegan. It’s not a matter of will-power. It depends on your biochemical make-up. The brain requires cholesterol and long-chain omega-3 fatty acids like DHA which only occur in animal products (and a few sea weeds). Some people, especially those with type O blood (half of the population), are unable to convert the short-chain omega-3 found in plants into DHA, as well as EPA, needed by the heart. Many well-meaning people try to be vegetarian or vegan, only to find that they become sick, weak and have trouble thinking. Other people, especially blood type A and AB (40% of the pop) thrive on a vegetarian diet. There is no vitamin D in a vegan diet (they could get it by spending a lot of time naked in the sun!) Also no vitamin B12, needed to prevent nerve degeneration and anemia. There are no primitive people who lived on a totally vegetarian diet, according to the research of Dr Weston Price, a dentist who traveled the world in the 1930’s, documenting the diet and health of people on their native diets. He found that people still eating their native diet, which always included some animal products, were very healthy and had perfect teeth, while the same people, after being contacted by Europeans, and eating the white man’s white food: white bread, sugar, rice, became sick, stunted and had rapid tooth decay. (see Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.) It is certainly true that the wild game eaten by Paleolithic hunters and Native Americans, accompanied by a lot of exercise catching it, had nothing in common with today’s high fat supermarket meat, laden with pesticides, synthetic hormones, and fed on genetically modified grain. Cows shouldn’t be eating grain or corn anyway – they are meant to eat grass. Those who eat meat and dairy should choose organic, grass-fed products. It is also true that a mostly plant based diet is better for the earth than meat fed on corn grown by fossil fuel-based mechanized agribusiness using chemical fertilizer and pesticides and GM seed from MonSatan. We should eat a diet high in organic fruits and vegetables, with as much of clean, naturally raised animal products as we individually need to be healthy. If we were all vegan, there wouldn’t be happy cows and pigs running around. There wouldn’t be any cows or pigs. Nobody would bother raising them if not for food.. I eat eggs from my own free range chickens who spend their days happily munching on weeds and bugs and are not abused or exploited in any way.

  • Nothing will change for man’s benefit, until We define the true will of the People for all to know. After We’ve done that, life will automatically begin to manifest as We like it.

    Email for your free copy of “How We Create Reality,” the universal law the banksters use against Us, through fear, to covertly force Us to unwittingly help them manifest their new world order nightmare. They can’t do it without Our help. When most of Us know this simple truth, We can change their nightmare into our paradise in the twinkling of an eye.

  • hp

    Spontaneous Human Combustion.

    Now THAT’S some big equation. (sound vibration)

  • keldoone

    One of the most opening and creative thoughts following the discovery of sub-atomic particles was the recognition that they might not have been there prior to the search for them. Bohm suggested that we are in an observer universe… that there is a shift that happens by our merely observing …anything… Wheeler went further to say that we are in a participatory universe… that through our presence we are not just causing shifts but actually participating… actually playing with what ever is in our – not only immediate vicinity but the whole of everything. This is why Gregg Braden says that through such tools as Tanscendental Meditation a group as small as the square root of one percent of a population can by meeting in mediation daily…actually change the activity of that population. Physicists suggest that there is nothing outside of the self except a mirror… and as sung by the late Michael Jackson, “if you want to make a change in the world, take a look in the mirror and make that… change!”
    We are all participating in every moment… but as Charles Tart so aptly suggests we are almost all participating in what he calls a “consensus trance” and we don’t even know it. So, we are consciously or unconsciously… actively promoting everything that appears to be happening “outside” of us… to include events happening on the other side of where ever you are on this planet, through out the multiverse and in other dimensions.
    And rather than freaking out about this kind of knowledge, the opportunity is to begin to wake up by realizing that there is wiggle room to do so. For example the speed of light is 86,000 miles per second except when it is not. But of course that can’t be because that doesn’t fit in the equations? Hello? Who determined/designed the “law” of equations and why are we buying into that? Most everything we have been taught about “laws” are not reality but part of the “consensus trance”…. there is room actually for original thought… go for it!

    • John

      What a clear, cogent, coherent comment to a very interesting article. I’m slowly approaching the idea of creating reality by observing it. Sobering thought!

    • Brent

      The intentions we have ( thought, emotion, beliefs ) created from and observed spiritually. Can’t help but come to this physical place. The spirit which powers this physical place is the key to understanding how it takes place. Seek all that is within you to effect all that is around you.

  • Jafar

    If anyone wants to plumb the endless depths of the synchronous mind I suggest keeping a dream journal, along with recording all of the synchronicities or peculiar phenomenon that occur in your life.

    • Jason

      I agree. I started a journal shortly after noticing an alarming increase in synchronous events. They seem to come in waves. Their will be a period of a few days when several happen each day and then there will be days or weeks when nothing happens. I’m really fascinated with the entire subject and truly believe these occurrences are not merely coincidental.

Thank you for sharing. Follow us for the latest updates.

Send this to friend