Signs

Recently I read Robert Perry's book Signs: A New Approach to Coincidence, Synchronicity, Guidance, Life Purpose, and God's Plan. As the title indicates, the book concerns synchronicities -- those mysterious cases in which two or more events come together in a way that seems to defy chance coincidence. A classic example of a synchronicity is given by Carl Jung, who was discussing a patient's dream about a golden scarab when the session was interrupted by a tapping noise. It turned out that a rare scarab beetle was tapping at the window of Jung's office. The improbability of this event helped the patient achieved a breakthrough.

The trouble with synchronicities is that they seem to be inherently subjective. What strikes one person as a remarkably unlikely coincidence may strike another person as easily within the bounds of chance. What's needed, argues Robert Perry (who has taught and written extensively about A Course in Miracles, or ACIM), is a more objective way of assessing synchronicities in order to separate genuine signs from chance.

Perry's criteria are pretty stringent. In fact, as Perry points out, Jung's famous synchronicity wouldn't even qualify! In order to be considered a full-fledged sign in Perry's terms, four criteria must be met:

1. There must be at least two "strikingly similar" events occurring no more than twelve hours apart.
2. There must be multiple parallels between the two events (eight parallels on average).
3. The conjunction of events must "comment" on our personal situation in some way.
4. The interpretation must be "rule-based," not arbitrary or subjective.

This is, of course, only a brief overview of an interpretive system that is fleshed out in detail, with specific examples, over the course of the book. It makes an interesting and provocative read. I was particularly struck by chapter 8, "Can Signs Predict the Future?", and chapter 9 "The Depth of Their Insight." Chapter 8 includes a lengthy summary of a series of signs involving an ACIM copyright controversy in which the signs -- as they were interpreted at the time -- seemed to correctly predict future developments in the dispute, even when these developments were unexpected and unwanted. Chapter 9 shows how several signs offered unusual insight into a certain person's psychological problems at a key point in his life.

Actually, Perry doesn't really like the word signs all that much. He prefers an acronym he coined: CMPE, which stands for Conjunction of Meaningfully Parallel Events. His main point is to distinguish CMPEs from other, more subjective signs and to encourage readers to look more deeply at possible CMPEs in their own lives.

After reading the book, I tried doing just that with a minor synchronicity of my own. I was a bit skeptical, in part because the synchronicity in question did not seem very impressive at first glance. Still, by forcing myself to examine the conjunction of events in as much detail as possible, I did come up with a "message" that was relevant to my personal situation in a meaningful way. It's possible that I merely used the events as a kind of Rorschach test -- an ambiguous inkblot pattern into which I read my own (conscious or unconscious) concerns. Even if this is true, it was still a useful exercise. After all, Rorschach tests can be highly revealing, and anything that provides us with greater access to our unconscious conflicts and unresolved issues can serve a valuable therapeutic purpose.

But wait. Reading our own subjective meaning into the events is precisely what Robert Perry doesn't want us to do! His whole focus is on making these events more objective, and identifying a meaning and a message that come from outside the self. Some of the examples given in his book do seem to fit this description, while others arguably are closer to the Rorschach test model. In some cases I wondered if the apparent synchronicities were the result of the natural confluence of interests on the part of the small circle of people involved in teaching and studying ACIM.

Basically I would say that more research has to be done if CMPEs are to be categorized as objective phenomena. Perry himself is doing some research along those lines, with initially promising results.

For me, the bottom line is that even if your own "signs" are more like ink blots than objective messages, they can still be valuable and meaningful. And if they do prove to have objective qualities, then they will only be even more meaningful and powerful. Either way, you can't lose.

Not only is Signs inherently interesting, but also it opens up what may turn out to be a promising new line of research. I appreciated the author's caution and candor, and his sheer persistence -- he's been documenting CMPEs (his own and others') for thirty years! These decades of experience and observation have been distilled into a highly readable book with a unique perspective on an intriguing phenomenon. Give it a try.

Comments

[Kevin]

Hey Michael - it's Carl Jung, not Karl Jung. Common mistake. Not a big deal, just a head's up.

[dmduncan]

"4. The interpretation must be 'rule-based,' not arbitrary or subjective."

What does this mean? That they should follow his previous three rules?

It seems to me that he's merely trying to establish a set of subjective criteria that he himself finds appealing but which in reality is just as subjective.

Why 8 parallels? Why 12 hours as opposed to 13 or 14? It seems arbitrary. Somebody more skeptical than he is might say we needed 36 parallels within 15 minutes.

I think the Jung example is startling enough. How startling it is in the context of the event may be the measure because maybe it's NOT supposed to prove anything. Maybe it's purpose is to startle you and make you think, to give you pause. It's probably not going to have the same impact on people who were not there anyway, so why try to objectify it? It's probably more personal than that.

[Art]

I agree. One person's synchronicity is someone else's coincidence. I see the number "53" all over the place. Since it was the year I was born it's a little synchronicity for me and has meaning for me - but for someone else it is most likely meaningless. By the way a lot of big Semi truck trailer are 53' feet long and they have the number "53" in big numbers on the side so I see it a lot when I'm driving down the highway. A lot of times when I wake up at night the clock will say 3:53 and since I was born in March, 1953 I'll get a big grin on my face. It's strange how I will wake up exactly at the same time every night. There was a really nice used bookstore near where we used to live and they had a "free" bin outside and one time I was perusing through it and I stumbled upon a 1953 yearbook. It was the only yearbook in the bin - but the exact one I found was 1953! It happens to me all the time. Very strange.

[Robert]

Hi, this is Robert Perry, the author of the book Michael has reviewed. I'd like to response to the "it seems arbitrary" comment above. I would probably assume the same as you, but in fact the model I'm presenting is anything but arbitrary. I didn't start out looking for some particular phenomenon with specific contours. I just had a lot of synchronistic things happen to me and I eventually started writing them down. Out of this mass of synchronicities I found that very slowly a particular phenomenon within that mass emerged. This happened over many years.

Therefore, the parameters that one might assume are arbitrary, like the distance in time between the events or the number of parallels, were not imposed from the start but rather arrived at at the end. For instance, I kept a record of how far apart in time the two events were for occurrences that on all other counts qualified as CMPEs. Once I had lot of examples in that record, clear patterns emerged. Likewise for the 8 parallels idea (which Michael got slightly wrong--they don't require 8 parallels but rather average 8 parallels). This average figure again comes out of a lot of data.

My experience is that I am seeing the same basic phenomenon happen again and again in my life and in the lives of others. And I am just trying to describe that phenomenon as accurately as I can. I learn more about it all the time.

That evidence-based approach is why I've had researchers like Bruce Greyson, one of the founding fathers of near-death studies, and Bernie Beitman, co-designer of the Weird Coincidence Scale--WCSII, join my research team for the pilot study we've just completed. They can see that this is not just my arbitrarily dictated set of rules, that there is some sort of phenomenon here, whether I've captured it perfectly or not. I don't actually care if I've captured it perfectly. My parameters remain flexible because what matters is the phenomenon itself, not my particular portrait of it.

I don't know if that will put to rest your suspicions of arbitrariness, but since I follow this blog, I could't resist speaking up to clarify.

[Michael Prescott]

"it's Carl Jung, not Karl Jung."

Thanks. Fixed it.

"Likewise for the 8 parallels idea (which Michael got slightly wrong--they don't require 8 parallels but rather average 8 parallels)"

Fixed that too!

I'm glad Robert is participating in this thread, as he can add necessary clarifications. My review was short and could only hit a few highlights. When the theory is presented this way, it does look a bit rationalistic and artificial. The detailed presentation in the book gives a different impression, though.

[TomC]

has anyone read about this recently published study by Daryl Bem?

Feeling the Future

any thoughts? comments?

[Rene from Holland]

Hello all;

Because I recently had to deal with a death in my family, I begin to wonder that in some cases certain things just can't be a coincidence.

A few days prior to that person's death, while shopping alone, I felt a very strange empty feeling suddenly. Next day I got a call, that was the 10th of October this year. It also was the same day I saw that person alive for the very last time.

Someone recently told me that there must be life aftr death because we all are energy and that must go somewhere after death.

[Rene from Holland]

An additon to my latest post;

Hence, I begin to wonder if there really is life after death, me being a non-believer.

[dmduncan]

Robert, welcome, and thanks for answering.

It's difficult to respond to your full argument from reading a precis, so I'll have to buy your book.

All I would say at this moment is that while you may have found a pattern in whatever group you have, different patterns may appear in different groups. Since you say your "parameters remain flexible," then you are already aware of that.

I think there is no way to divorce whatever data you collect from the impact it has on you as a person that makes you or I say "that was weird."

For example, you will find — I think in the previous thread — links to how willing Dr. Gerald Woerlee is to go through unusual contortions to deny there was anything unusual about the Pam Reynolds case.

I think his contortions are more remarkable than the NDE. It seems unlikely you will get the Woerlee's, for instance, to say that anything is truly weird at all.

Similarly, if a synchronicity — or series of them — happens that does not meet all of your criteria, but still has a powerful — or cumulative — emotional impact, then I think it's something a person should pay attention to just the same.

I think what you are doing is interesting and I look forward to reading your book.

[Robert]

I hope you enjoy the book. It will certainly get a much better feel for the model.

I am definitely not claiming that if something doesn't fit the model people should ignore it. There are some stunning synchronicities out there that do not fit the model. I wouldn't be surprised if some day we will have discovered various categories of synchronicities.

I do think, as I said, that this is a general phenomenon, and that it is either going unnoticed (which definitely happens) or is being noticed as a sort of standard one-parallel synchronicity (like Jung's scarab). I've found clear examples of it in books and in lives quite distant from mine. The pilot study we just finished came up with 17 examples in a four-month period in a pool of 17 people.

I concede that certain people will never say "that was weird." But they will usually resort to distorting the facts to keep from saying that. It seems to me that that is what Dr. Woerlee is doing. And hopefully history will eventually just roll over them.

[J9]

Off topic, Happy Thanksgiving, Michael, and everyone!! have a wonderful day tomorrow! (and if you are not from the US, have a great day, too!)

[Michael Prescott]

Happy Thanksgiving to you, J9, and to everyone else!

[Robert]

Thank you! I am recently moved to England (from Arizona) with my English wife and while I don't particularly miss the US (I could live anywhere), as it turns out, I do miss Thanksgiving! So we are going to do a version of it this Sunday.

[MatthewX78]

Happy Thanks for Giving to you and Everyone else too!

[Kathleen]

I have a question--what to make of meeting someone you know out of the blue? This actually happened to me, and I've read about it happening to others. I was at a sporting event attended by approximately 140,000 people and found myself waiting in line for a bus next to a person I used to work with a few years ago. The funny thing too was that we had both at one point discussed how we had attended this annual event for many years. Of course it was possible that it could happen, and probably just like "hitting the lottery," but it was pretty weird.

[Robert]

Personally, I don't quite know what to make of such meetings. I've heard some real doozies myself. I think there is a good argument that that sort of thing is bound to happen every now and then. On the other hand, some of these meetings seem extremely unlikely. So I'm left not knowing what to think.

[realpc]

This is a fascinating and important subject, but it must be very hard to study objectively. According to a holistic multi-dimensional view of the universe, these things ought to happen. The old book Flatland explains how things that appear to be separate in 2 dimensions might be connected in 3 dimensions. 2 separate circles in a 2-dimensional plane might be a cross section of a donut in 3 dimensions.

And, by analogy, the same thing would happen with higher order dimensions. Two events that seem to be independent on our level of 3 spatial and one temporal dimensions, could actually be components of one event on a 5-dimensional level.

And, ultimately, all events are connected because the highest dimensional level is infinite.

Most of the time our experience is restricted to our normal 4 dimensions. But now and then our perspective suddenly raises and we become aware of connections we cannot normal sense.

This happens to me quite often. Suddenly I am seeing the donut instead of just the 2 circles. Events in my life that happened at very different times and are not connected in any ordinary way are actually threads, or themes, running through my life.

It can't be explained in words, because our conscious thought and language is on this ordinary restricted level.

Carl Jung used the term "acausal connecting principle." The synchronicities he studied are symptoms of the principle that connects things on higher levels.

I have not read this book, would like to. I don't know if a scientific case can be made for synchronicity, but I hope so. It's hard to remove the subjective factor. And of course a lot of apparently meaningful coincidences would happen purely by chance. It's hard to prove that something is a meaningful sign.

But in any case, this subject is important and it's amazing when you experience these things for yourself. If we can manage to sometimes relax our focus on our restricted ordinary 4D reality, we can jump to a higher level and experience higher level connections. And these can be expressed as synchronicities.

[Rene from Holland]

Worth mentioning is something I experienced during meditation.

Suddenly I was "floating" above a road, steadily and slowly, no traffic. I remember being afraid, wondering if I really was "out of my body". I didn't open my eyes though. It seemed a long time, but it must have been not more than a few minutes I guess...

Any feedback is welcome of course.