>things that are meaningful to you are ... meaningful /to you/! Yeah, I had this thought when I was high once. Is that it?
It's also kinda like:>when ya think ya see a sign, trust yr gut cuz ya saw a sign :^)
I find all psychology to be rather trite and vapid>Wow, did you know that people get defensive when you accuse them of a social taboo or faux pas? Doesn't that say a lot about the psyche!
>>24944499>t. never experienced a synchronicityWhen it'll happen, you'll understand how weird such meaningful coincidences are. It's something you must experience yourself to understand the weirdness of the issue.>Why, of all possible things, when I was thinking about Rainbow Dash a woman in light blue hoodie with rainbow wings appears on the same street I've been walking on for twenty years without meeting her once and asks if she needs to be a little bit cooler.Stuff like this.
>>24944739>Why, of all possible things, when I was thinking about Rainbow Dash a woman in light blue hoodie with rainbow wings appears on the same street I've been walking on for twenty years without meeting her once and asks if she needs to be a little bit cooler.yea,i guess a retard such as you would be so mindfucked by a mundane event like that,so much so that he can't make a coherent sentence describing said event.
most psychology majors are just biology rejects. few know this.
>if you have an idea at a certain point in time, somebody far away is very likely to have the same idea too, and likely at the same time.>a turn of phrase>an idea for a scientific theory>a fasion schemeThere seems to be a superstructure is active in human experience, a collective mind of some sort, whose logical positive manifestation is this nonlocal correlation between the independent thoughts of individuals. Will you fight? Or will you perish like a dog?
>>24945955for the retards ITT, synchronous events of this type are normally at a level of improbability of at least 1 part in 10^40 or so, estimating by using the probability of two people precisely repeating an exact english phrase of about 40 words at .5 bits per character, or by a loosely parallel construction with significant overlap which has (to my intuition at least, its hard to quantitate) comparable improbability. These are not mundane coincidences at any reasonable level of probability. In order to explain these phenomena, you need to accept that there are larger frameworks which produce these ideas, and that these larger frameworks are structured into some kind of collective mind.It should be possible to design experiments to test around with this, but you'll have to be really clever about it, like something milgram would come up with. I'll let you know if I fucking think of something.
I've yet to see a single intelligent criticism of Jung that wasn't from people who agree with 99% of what he says anyway. It's so fucking tiresome to see some fag completely misrepresent a theory - to the point of unrecognisability - and then declare victory with some smug redditor quip against the strawman.Aren't you tired of pretending to win debates? Wouldn't you rather actually know what you're talking about for once?
