Magic and Synchronicity
By Robert M. Place

Magic, real magic - not sleight of hand or trickery - is illusive and hard to define. The term is derived from the Greek magnus, a word referring to sorcerer. The Greeks borrowed this word from Persia where it was the name of a member of the priestly class. This brings out one of the essential problems in defining magic: Is it separate from or one and the same as religion?

The dictionary further defines magic as "the use of means (charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces." This seems to fit the common conception of magic, though the definition contains a disclaimer in saying "believed to have." This is as if to say some people believe in magic but we officially do not. Therefore, the second essential problem with understanding magic is the fact that our culture sees it as a misconception or false belief. Although magic is an important part of ancient culture and of some modern cultures, and though many people in our own culture continue to believe in and practice magic, it is officially considered a superstition.

Modern Magic

Most studies of modern religious thought start with a discussion of the theories of the British folklorist and author Sir James Frazer. In 1890, Frazer published The Golden Bough, in which he placed magic on the bottom rung of an evolutionary anthropological structure and stated that humans, finding themselves helpless in nature first attempt to control nature with magic. According to Frazer, as culture advances, humans realize that magic is ineffective and abandon it. They then develop a belief in a higher power outside their control, which they attempt to appease. This is called religion. When sufficient knowledge of the real workings of the world are attained, humans abandon this second superstition and enter into the wisdom that is called science. In this final stage, the culture aims at real power over nature.

Of course, this breakdown is a bit too pat to be useful. For instance, most primitive people believe in a higher power or powers and use both magic and technology in conjunction with this belief. Most historians, meanwhile, trace the origins of rational scientific thought to the philosophers of the classical world, such as Phthagoras and his follower Empedocles. As mathematician and magician, Pythagoras is responsible for initiating a religious scientific and magical culture simultaneously - one that became the root of modern Western culture.

In fact, the distinction between magic and religion is an artificial one created in the West. Saint Augustine helped to create the medieval Christian worldview by describing magic as a continuation of Pagan culture and therefore unchristian. His view persisted, and near the end of the Middle Ages, the papal bull of 1320 defined magic as heresy, subject to the censorship of the Inquisition. This happened in spite of the fact that the essence of the Christian mass is the magical transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, that saints were all reported to have performed miracles, and that many Christians were involved in alchemy and Hermetic tradition. In order to think of magic as evil and unchristian, it was necessary to see it as something separate from religion and to redefine sanctioned magic as a miracle of God. Although this separation does not exist in any other culture, it continues to influence modern Western scientific thinking. Today scientists think of magic as an ignorant superstition.

Magic and Religion

It is impossible to separate magic from the esoteric aspect of religion. This esoteric aspect has the power to create a personal inner experience, one that can lead to psychic transformation and growth in the quest for enlightenment. Today, modern Westerners have increasingly turned to other cultures for this experience. Although this outside influence has been good for the health of our culture, the separation from our own esoteric tradition is unhealthy.

Aleister Crowley, a notorious twentieth-century magician, defines magic in his Magick in Theory and Practice as: "The Science and Art of causing change to occur in conformity with will." Crowley believed that because magic makes use of cause and effect experiments in the practitioner's attempt to control nature, there is a closer analogy between magic and Frazer's final scientific stage than between magic and religion. In fact, Crowley's definition of magic is not that different from the dictionary's/ To Crowley the charm and spells of the magician only seem to supernatural to the "vulgar," but both definitions admit that they cause change in the natural world.

I believe that magic is synonymous with what Jung calls "sunchronicity." Carl Jung, in his introduction to the Wilhelm and Baynes edition of the I Ching, says that when we successfully consult this Chinese oracle we are experiencing synchronicity. This word is defined by Jung as: "A meaningful coincidence of an external even with a psychic event, such as a dream, fantasy, or thought." These events coincide in time in a way that gives them meaning for the observer. That is, they seem like communications between a divine force and ourselves, and they confirm that there is a connection or interaction between our psyche and physical reality. Jung feels that these occurrences are not part of a cause-and-effect relationship. Instead, he insists that they are acausal acts of pure creation adds that when synchronicity happens an archetype is activated, but we should not think of the archetype as causing synchronicity. Sunchronicity is simply what happens when the archetype emerges into consciousness. With this definition, Jung breaks from previous definitions of magic which all try to define magic as a cause and effect relationship instigated by the magician. Here we come to a deeper and more profound view of reality, one connected to the quest for higher consciousness.

Archetype is a term that Jung borrowed from Plato, who did not trust his five senses to give him accurate information about reality. Instead, Plate reasoned that the sensual world was entirely composed of temporary, time-bound objects and that the forms or patterns that these objects posses are timeless and therefore real. These are the archetypes.

In other words, if we look at our house cat what we are seeing is a temporal creature. Yet, this cat contains a form that we can distinguish from other animals and that we can see is consistent with others of its species. Its essence is the immortal or divine cat, which, as long as there are cats, will never die. This is what Plato calls the real cat or archetype. Plato said that number is the bases of form and the essence or archetypes. This view is confirmed by modern scientists who discovered that an archetypal form is communicated to each living creature through a pattern of molecules, called DNA, contained in the center of each cell.

When we include the observations of modern quantum physicists in this discussion, we too find that the number of electrons and protons in an atom determine what substance it will be. Yet when we try to determine what substance it will be. Yet when we try to determine the nature of these subatomic particles we find that they are made of an illusive nonstuff which has the disquieting, acausal habit of slipping in and out of existence. These facts pull the rug out from under our materialistic worldview and show that there is a connection between psych and matter. All physical reality, therefore , is the expression of the numerical thoughts of the universe - what the alchemists would call the Anima Mundi - and our thoughts are a manifestation of the thoughts of universe.

When Jung Explored the unconscious mind, he discovered that at its deepest layer there emerged psychic patterns or personalities that were the same in all individuals and that can be found in religion and myths throughout time. At the deepest level of the unconscious, he, like the quantum physicist exploring matter, found that he lost sight of the archetypes as they merged into the vast sea of the collective unconscious. For this phenomenon, he used the alchemical term Unun Mundus.

When we use an oracle, such as the I Ching or the tarot, we bring these unconscious archetypes into consciousness through the use of symbols. This gives us the opportunity to intervene and create the future that we desire. When we perform magic, we use symbols to manipulate the inner world of the psyche and affect change in the outer physical world. When we succeed in this, the changes seem miraculous. By using symbols to manipulate the psych, we are activating the archetypes - in fact in many magic rituals we deliberately contact them as gods, angels, or demons. The magical event is the manifestation of an archetype, or, in other words, syunchronicity.

As I said before, Jung feels that synchroncity, or magic, is an acausal act of pure creation. This concept is almost impossible for our Western minds to grasp. Saying that it is acausal is akin to saying That it just happens. Is magic just an illusion created by our ego to convince it that it is in charge? Rather, perhaps our magical actions are a manifestation of the archetypes. Jung has supplied evidence to support this view by demonstrating that most people perform daily rituals and yet remain unconscious of their symbolism. Notice next time you meditate - when you quiet your mind the archetypes will emerge out of nothingness, the empty void. This void, the Unus Mundus, is the real creative power. This is where inner and outer reality comes from. If we want to effect change, this is where we must go with desires. We must dissipate the ego and go beyond desire. So how can we manifest our desire if we no longer have them? This is the paradox of magic. Magic must take place in the middle zone, where the archetypes emerge out of the unconscious, and our desires are not yet dissolved.

In general, in spite of what Jung says, I have found from experience that the archetypes respond to my expectations of them. If I treat them as individual personalities that can cause change, change happens when I ask for it. If I treat them as manifestations of the Unus Mundus, then acausal suynchronicity happens.

Agan, this is reminiscent of quantum physics. When scientists conduct an experiment to prove that subatomic quanta are solid particles, they find that they are. When they conduct an experiment to prove that these same particles are immaterial waves, they find that they are. In both cases, reality responds to the expectation of the observes. The observes is intimately connected to result simply be having expectations. This is magic.