Events that occur together arise out of the same substrate or medium that allows anything to occur in a given time and place at all, and the same process, by which we become aware of an event, has its parallel in how the event happened in the first place. The sun rose this morning for the same reason you were able to notice it happening.
Observer and observed co-arising? Exactly. Energy, light, gravity and its impact on perceived time and space. Either it is just a HUGE coincidence, or there is no such thing as coincidence. Our brains alone bear the physical legacy of the process of countless events occurring over the entire history of the existence of homosapiens as a species, and perhaps from even before that.
It’s interesting that society has twisted the term ‘co-incidence’ to mean something meaningless.
I have read a recently published book that talks about the “flaws” in the human brain, a notion which I personally consider absurd. We perceive time and space through the medium of not only light but sound and any sensible energy in our environment, and although we haven’t constructively identified or explored it yet, we perceive something that lies beneath time space and causality as well. I feel it’s just as reasonable to say that individual events have an influence on each other as it is to say that our planets mass has an influence on the curvature of space time, if not more so. What do you think friends?
The idea of seven degrees of separation would also make sense with events. People are events. Yes, the influence becomes more diffuse over degrees of relationship. Rather than separation, more like congruity, everything relating in different degrees of juxtaposition.
For the purposes of tonight’s discussion of the law of synchronicity, all of what is relevant to us begins in our minds. Neuroscience is coming to the conclusion that the processes we call thought are not “intentional” events, and I would agree with this, but they stop right there, and I feel they stop short. The behaviour of thought as we experience it follows an intelligible pattern or how would we be capable of coherent thought at all? And yet they dismiss those moments of recognition as being errors of a flawed organic meat wad of a computer. Strange conclusion I think, because it would require disregarding the quality of information present in anything in our world. According to them it all works the same anyway. So science with that conclusion, that the brain is flawed, is just self-stimulatory insanity. It would make them well versed in a body of meaningless and absurd information.
Can there be truth in a world of “flawed” minds?
To say the brain is flawed is to say everything you think about the flawed brain is flawed.
Only in an abstract sense, I’d guess. Abstract to the point of functionally meaningless.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.
Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive
~science,mysticism,spirituality~