I am going to try and decode or deconstruct the Jung-Pauli scheme which consists of a dual-aspect monism which tries to tackles the problem of the archetypal psycho-physical relationship, which asks the question: why are there archetypal patterns that go through this relationship of the psychological (mind) and the physical? (matter)
Quaternity is probably one of the most fundamental archetypal patterns that exist on a universal scale and this is of the number four and it seems to be of a typical representation of wholeness, it seems to be from analysis that quaternity is an essential formula for a logical basis in any kind of wholistic understanding or judgement about anything, here are some examples: space-time, the seasons, the 4 psychological functions of: thinking, feeling, sensation and intution, Schopenhauer’s fourfold principles of sufficient reason such as: being, knowing, becoming and willing and also everyday symbolism like crosses, the square, the four elements and of course the sacred Pythagorean Tetractys.
Now, this is obviously a profound archetype, not just because it represents the universal significance of the number 4 but because its nature is of a psychic // physical relationship and this was a later realisation for Jung, he originally understood and treated archetypal phenomena as something of purely psychic form, that the collective unconscious was specifically psyche-related and nothing more, but after working with Wolfgang Pauli, a well-renowned theoretical physicist who was only in his early 20’s at the time, started to see that the unconscious encompassed the non-material (being mental) and material or physical aspects which led him into the idea that the nature of the archetype functions as predominately: Psychoid, and that due to this the archetype as-such or in-of-itself cannot be made conscious or cannot be presented to us through a fixed image of truth, but only through a system of relatable images through different intellectual categories.
In relation to this psycho physical parrellism, Jung, through the basics of dual-aspect monism, conceptualised a basic reality that does not consist of parts but is one unfragmented whole, something of an underlying reality where everything emerges and everything returns, similar to the archetypal symbol of the ouroboros but what Jung fundamentally called: the unus mundus (one world)
With regards to quantum theory, the ideas of quantum non-locality or quantum holism mirrors the unfragmented wholeness that is presented through the unus mundus, from this holistic, psycho-physically neutral reality, decomposition is necessary of the whole to formulate the mental and material aspect-dualism.
Thus what is formulated is two correlations of psycho-physical relationship that unfold from what you could call a: “symmetry breakdown” of the unus mundus to yield the dual-aspect monism which is of central point in this entire system, therefore we get: The collective unconscious which relates to the mental domain
& The quantum non-locality which relates to the material domain:
Here is my own diagram to help demonstrate:
What can be said is that both of these unfragmented conceptions of the collective unconscious and quantum non-locality are comparative to the unus mundus but through a dual-aspect relationship which correlates to their specific domain of either psycho (mental) or physical (matter)
This is the double-aspect at play which emerges, or more precisely; decomposes from the unus mundus of monadic wholeness.
Thus, the psycho-physical relationship consists of both the collective unconscious through psyche and the quantum non-locality through the physical are both produced by an epistemic (knowledge-related) split originating from the unus mundus, one world or unfragmented whole.
In dual-aspect monism, according to the Pauli-Jung scheme, the mental and the material are manifestations of an underlying, psycho-physically neutral, holistic reality, called: unus mundus, whose symmetry must be broken to yield the dual aspects or complementary aspects.
So far the problem of the psycho-physical relationship has been theoretically illustrated through this scheme, but, seeing that synchronicity is also of a psycho-physical relationship, through acausal, yet, subjectively meaningful coincidence, where does it place itself within this theoretical and illustrative model?
with regard to the mind-matter correlation, synchronicities occur via the following criteria:
1 – a fundamental absence of causal interaction
2 – The events correspond or connect with one another by a common meaning, often expressed symbolically.
3 – Each pair of synchronistic event contains an internally produced and an externally
perceived component that relates in a meaningful manner
A diagram that expands on what is already presented would be necessary to illustrate a deeper spectrum of understanding, this would be necessary I think with regards to other levels of fragmented wholeness within this scheme, synchronicity on the other hand, with it being a LITERAL crossing-over between the psycho-physical relationship or mental and material domain, would I think resemble itself in an expanded quaternarian dynamic, with synchronicity being represented by a coincidental synthesis of the psycho-physical relationship itself
Hopefully my diagram or model which I have made helps demonstrate this, but again, as you may notice, this model or diagram I have theoretically illustrated is another quaternity archetype, which, with regards to the problem at hand, is an attempted wholistic explanation of the psycho-physical relationship caused by the psychoid archetype.
The reason why I link up the opposing peaks of synchronicity and unus mundus is because: 1. both synchronicity and unus mundus demonstrate the SAME NATURE or EXPRESSION of the psychoid archetype which means that both as-such cannot be epistemically or empirically understood (as of now) due to its nature being transcendent, beyond space-time, number and dimension, which means it can only be understood through our visible spectrum which represents itself through image, effect and idea, hence why you have the ouroboros as the image representation of the unus mundus and the principle of synchronicity as only understandable through our visible, limited spectrum. This is why Jung uses the analogy of the electromagnetic spectrum to propose the dynamics of the psychoid archetype, that it exists in the invisible // ultraviolet spectrum but displays itself through our limited, visible spectrum.
And 2. is because synchronicity could be the complimentary inversion of the unus mundus for sychronicity is the dualistic crossing-over of the psycho-physical relationship, which is the inversion of the monistic, unfragmented whole of the unus mundus.
This theoretical observation really comes down to ontology and the philosophy of mind, because; if archetype plays at a level which functions through a psyche and matter relationship via psychoid behaviour in reality then it must be the logical conclusion that the mental and the physical are aspects of the same substance, of a monist substance, this is the theory of dual-aspect monism or double-aspect theory and the above is the Jung-Pauli scheme within that model of mind and matter, this monist philosophy is one way you could or can answer the hard problem of consciousness, it states that their is one substance or one entity, not any dualistic understanding of machine and soul or body and mind or any strictly materialist view, therefore, consciousness and all occurrences within consciousness like qualia (subjective sense perception) are two different aspects or perspectives of the same thing, so for example: one aspect of understanding consciousness would be through the scientific objective method, therefore, to try and understand emotion they would identify neurological, neurotransmitter correlations in association with the likes of dopamine, serotonin etc… but they would only get so far through materialism, they wouldn’t actually be able to find the emotion which is being felt subjectively in-of-itself, they would only find objective, 3rd person correlations associated to the cause of emotion, double-aspect theory would say: science is looking at this one substance, this one entity but is analysing the entity through a particular epistemology, which would be through the 3rd person, we can attain knowledge through the 3rd person and 1st person subjectivity, science in this instance is therefore looking at this one substance through a particular ASPECT of the two dualities.
This theory of mind overcomes interactionism because if I put you in a coma and you wake up and your consciousness is not the same IT IS NOT because your mind EFFECTS the brain or vice versa, it is because the mind and the brain or the mental and physical are two aspects of the SAME THING, and that is what dual-aspect monism fundamentally is: that the mental and physical are two aspects of the same substance.
Nevertheless there are many dualities in the world like the mental and the physical but they are of the same monistic substance through this theory, for example: mind-matter, male-female, good-evil, hot-cold and obviously, this leads into the trinity or the triangle because you have the duality of opposites and then the synthesis which is the peak, in my diagram you have a quaternity but you could also say that it is a mirrored triangle with the two peaks pointing back to the psychoid nature resembled within unus mundus; the unfragmented whole, or where the transcendent archetype lies and of course synchronicity.
So if archetypes have a psycho-physical relationship we are in some sense claiming that the nature of archetypes themselves are of dual-aspect monism because they have a psycho-physical relationship and continue (through that relationship) to substantiate an objective illustration of monadic intent through a kind-off emanationary manner through this dualism of matter and psyche, for example: the quaternity, being an archetype that represents (objectively) the structure of logical wholistic form can in one manner be mentally illustrated by the fourfold existence of psychological functions or by another quaternity archetype in the physical world such as the 4th dimension of space-time continuum. Another way in which this ties such said quaternity archetypes closely is how one of the elements within either lead into a totality, or, all through its complete actualisation, create a totally itself, for example: time (the 4th dimension) totalities the other 3 dimensions in order to formulate relativity theory or how realisation of all four mental psychological functions of thinking, feeling, sensation and intuition lead into individuation.
Synchronicity therefore demonstrates the nature of psychoid archetype because it is beyond our realm of understanding through its meaningful acausality. Cause, as we know it through physics, is in a constant connection with effect but synchronicity is a highly meaningful coincidence that is not (what you could say) offered by the random meaningless occurrence of chance it-self, chance does not or should not ALLOW the opportunity for a highly meaningful coincidence if it is to be referred to as chance, for if it was the case and that this phenomena fulfilled the criteria for synchronicity, it would not be chance as we know it.
If the nature of archetype is psychoid due to its psycho-physical relationship, its nature must be of dual-aspect monism due to this dualistic relationship, if this is the principle of synchronicity, synchronicity must also hold the expression of psychoid behaviour for it is outside our realm of physical, dimensional and empirical understanding.
(ALL (RE)SOURCES CAN BE FOUND IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE VIDEO ITSELF)
Thoughts on Thinking 