|
Overview
Lance Storm’s A New Approach to Synchronicity revisits Jung’s acausal connecting principle through the lens of contemporary parapsychology and related empirical work. The book reconsiders whether synchronicity can be framed as a systematic topic of study rather than a metaphorical construct. Terminological Distinction A central feature of Storm’s analysis is the differentiation between psychophysiological and psychophysical.
Contextual Considerations Research in quantum biology has investigated the presence of quantum effects within various biological processes. If such effects contribute to physiological functioning, the boundary between internal bodily processes and broader physical processes becomes less distinct at a fundamental physical level. Within this broader context, Storm’s differentiation may be interpreted not as a strict division but as a conceptual tool for organizing observations. Whether the categories correspond to separable domains in nature remains an open question. Conceptual Implications The relationship between psyche, physiology, and external physical systems can be approached in multiple ways. Storm’s distinction provides one framework; quantum-biological perspectives offer another. Each aims to clarify how correlations between mental events and physical events might be described without assuming deterministic causation. These approaches do not resolve the underlying mechanisms. They simply outline different ways of framing the question of how acausal or noncausal coherence might appear in empirical reports. Summary Storm’s work contributes to ongoing discussions about the status of synchronicity within research on anomalous correlations. The book’s conceptual distinctions assist in structuring inquiry, though further empirical and theoretical work is required to determine how these distinctions function in practice. Overview
This entry records the occurrence of a major lunar standstill in 2024 and its relevance to archaeoastronomical studies of Stonehenge. The focus is limited to the astronomical event and the monument’s known alignments. Major Lunar Standstill A major lunar standstill occurs approximately every 18.6 years. During this period, the Moon reaches its most northerly and southerly rising and setting positions on the horizon due to the combined inclination of the lunar orbit and the tilt of Earth’s axis. The result is a wider range of lunar azimuths than in typical years. In 2024, one of the southernmost moonrises associated with this cycle is observable. Stonehenge Alignments Stonehenge is widely documented for its solar alignments, particularly the summer solstice sunrise behind the Heel Stone. Less prominent, but noted in archaeological literature, is the relationship between the four Station Stones and the extreme positions of the Moon during a major lunar standstill. These observations suggest that the builders had some awareness of the lunar cycle’s extremes. The evidence remains limited to structural correspondences rather than conclusions about intent. Comparative Sites Several other megalithic structures in Britain and elsewhere have been described as showing possible alignments with lunar extremes. Examples include Calanais in Scotland and the site known as Chimney Rock in the American Southwest. These correlations are part of ongoing archaeoastronomical research and remain subject to interpretation and verification. Notes The major lunar standstill provides an opportunity to observe how extreme lunar positions relate to architectural features at Stonehenge. The present entry records this astronomical context without drawing inferences about cultural meaning or ritual use. Further study would require detailed measurement, longitudinal analysis, and comparison with other structures exhibiting similar alignments. Overview
This entry surveys how several ancient cultures documented unusual or coincident events, with a brief consideration of whether these historical practices may share limited conceptual parallels with what is now termed synchronicity. The aim remains descriptive; any speculative remarks are noted as such and are not intended as claims of continuity or mechanism. Modern Terminology The term synchronicity, introduced by Carl Jung in the 20th century, refers to coincident events that appear meaningfully related without identifiable causal linkage. The concept arises from modern psychological and philosophical contexts. Ancient cultures did not use this term, and any comparison must be undertaken cautiously. Historical Practices Ancient administrative and ritual systems often included records of events that were rare, unexpected, or temporally noteworthy. Examples include:
Astronomical Observations Astronomical cycles played a central role in many ancient temporal systems. Recurring lunar and planetary periods provided stable reference points for calendars and seasonal planning. Megalithic structures with horizon alignments indicate awareness of predictable celestial extremes. These practices document attention to correlations between celestial events and human activity, though the nature of the inferred relationships varied by culture and period. Tentative Parallels While ancient conceptual frameworks differ significantly from modern psychological terminology, it is possible to note limited structural parallels between:
This comparison is analogical rather than genetic. It suggests that the human tendency to notice coincident patterns may be longstanding, without implying a shared underlying theory or common interpretive intent. Caution in Interpretation Any proposed continuity between ancient record-keeping and modern notions of synchronicity remains speculative. The available evidence does not permit conclusions about equivalence, transmission, or conceptual inheritance. Observed parallels reflect similarities in human pattern-recognition rather than established historical linkage. Notes This entry offers a descriptive overview of how atypical events were documented in antiquity and provides a limited, carefully qualified discussion of how such practices might resemble modern attention to coincident occurrences. No claims are made regarding causation, mechanism, or predictive value. Further study would require interdisciplinary analysis integrating archaeology, philology, and the history of ideas. Overview
This entry outlines Carl Jung’s formulation of synchronicity and introduces a working interpretation in which certain reports of coincidence may be considered through the lens of noncausal coherence occurring near Fibonacci-based temporal intervals. The discussion is exploratory and does not imply mechanism or predictive value. Jung’s FormulationJung defined synchronicity as the coincidence of events that appear meaningfully related without identifiable causal connection. His use of the term was descriptive: a category for certain experiential reports in which temporal alignment and perceived meaning co-occur. Noncausal Coherence The concept of noncausal coherence refers here to the observation that some reported coincidences may cluster in ways not easily explained by sequential causality. This does not imply purpose, design, or hidden influence. It simply refers to temporal alignments that appear noteworthy to observers and resist straightforward causal description. Fibonacci-Related Temporal Harmonics The Fibonacci sequence, due to its proportional structure, has been used in various disciplines to model nonlinear growth and periodicity. In examining reports of coincident experiences, it is possible to consider whether some alignments fall near Fibonacci-derived temporal intervals. This is not proposed as a causal mechanism. It is a way of organizing observations: a provisional framework for examining whether certain coincidences cluster around nonlinear temporal proportions rather than uniform chronological distances. Relation to Jung’s Concept Jung’s formulation did not incorporate mathematics or nonlinear temporal models. However, his interest in coincidences that appear meaningful without causal sequence opens space for considering alternative temporal descriptions. Within this context, Fibonacci intervals can serve as one possible coordinate system for mapping when certain reports occur. The connection is analogical:
The comparison is methodological. Pattern Recognition and Interpretation Human cognition is sensitive to structure and recurrence. When coincident events are mapped onto nonlinear temporal grids, apparent clusters may emerge. These clusters may reflect perceptual tendencies, random variation, or genuine temporal regularities; the present entry does not adjudicate among these possibilities. The idea of noncausal coherence near Fibonacci harmonics is therefore treated as a hypothesis about organization, not causation. Notes This entry records:
Further work would require systematic data collection, formal analysis, and comparison with alternative temporal models. Originally written: 2019 (Revised 2025) In earlier work (Sacco, 2016; 2018), I explored whether Fibonacci numbers might structure certain experiences of synchronicity across a human lifespan. This work was part of a broader inquiry into temporal patterning and the geometry of lived experience. Background Carl Jung (1952) described synchronicity as the meaningful alignment of internal and external events without causal connection. His discussions with physicist Wolfgang Pauli shaped the modern framing of synchronicity as an acausal phenomenon—something that occurs outside the logic of cause and effect. In complexity science, synchronization refers to the spontaneous emergence of patterned order within dynamic systems (Pikovsky, Rosenblum, & Kurths, 2001). Research has noted that Fibonacci ratios sometimes appear in physical and biological rhythms, which led to early questions about whether similar intervals could appear in lived experience. The Fibonacci sequence (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21…) is mathematically linked to the golden ratio, and this proportionality has fascinated researchers in many fields. Within the context of synchronicity studies, my early work considered whether these intervals could serve as a temporal scaffold for organizing autobiographical events and moments of meaningful coincidence. The Harmonic Model (Exploratory Framework) The Harmonic Model is an experimental framework that examines how Fibonacci-based intervals appear across a lifespan. It was not designed as a predictive or diagnostic system, but rather as a way of noticing potential correspondences between temporal intervals and lived experience. The model operated in two stages:
These calculations could be plotted visually, resulting in diagrams that resemble wave-like structures. The intention was to explore whether these structures might align with personally meaningful events or phases, without asserting causation or prediction.  Figure 1: Primary interval calculations Figure 1 presents the primary interval calculations based on a birthdate of January 1, 2000 (depicted as 102). Here's a breakdown: 1. The Fibonacci sequence displays its first 21 numbers, labeled as (100). 2. In the stage marked by 101, these initial 21 Fibonacci numbers are translated to correspond with a 24-hour clock format. 3. Step 102 involves adding these Fibonacci numbers to the individual's birthdate. 4. The subsequent age accumulation, expressed in years, is illustrated in step 103.  Figure 2: Secondary interval calculations. Figure 2 showcases the secondary interval computations of the Harmonic Model, which are built upon the primary interval calculations (represented as 103). Here's an elucidated breakdown: 1. The secondary date calculations, denoted as (200-208), stem from the final nine primary interval computations (104-112). 2. These secondary intervals are obtained by adding the primary intervals, beginning from the birthdate. 3. To illustrate, the computation for the secondary interval on 2003-05-03 [210] is derived from 2001-09-1 [209] by adding 1.67 years (sourced from 104). 4. These calculations exemplify the nodal points characteristic of standing wave harmonics. 5. The antinodes, marked as [211], are computed using the mean values of the neighboring nodes. Interpretation The Harmonic Model should be understood as part of exploratory research into synchronicity. It is not a system for forecasting events, providing guidance, or generating diagnoses. Its value lies in offering an alternative way to look at temporal structure—not in determining outcomes. References Coldea, R., Tennant, D. A., Wheeler, E. M., Wawrzynska, E., Prabhakaran, D., Telling, M.,... Kiefer, K. (2010). Quantum criticality in an Ising chain: Experimental evidence for emergent E8 symmetry. Science, 327(5962), 177-180. http://sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.1180085
Jung, C. G. (1952). Synchronicity: An acausal connecting principle. CW 8. Pikovsky, A., Rosenblum, M., & Kurths, J. (2001). Synchronization: A universal concept in nonlinear sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pletzer, B., Kerschbaum, H., & Klimesch, W. (2010). When frequencies never synchronize: The golden mean and the resting EEG. Brain Research, 1335, 91-102. http://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.brainres.2010.03.074 Sacco, R. G. (2016). The Fibonacci Life-Chart Method (FLCM) as a foundation for Carl Jung’s theory of synchronicity. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 61(2), 203-222. http://sci-hub.tw/10.1111/1468-5922.12204 Sacco, R. G. (2018). Fibonacci harmonics: A new mathematical model of synchronicity. Applied Mathematics, 9, 702-18. http://sci-hub.tw/10.4236/am.2018.96048 Sacco, R.G. (2019). Modeling celestial mechanics using the Fibonacci numbers. International Journal of Astronomy, 8, 8-12. http://sci-hub.tw/10.5923/j.astronomy.20190801.02 |