Monday, May 20, 2013

Just Tote Up the Odds---Part 2 2011


Mysteries abound. Inexplicable moments in time and space that elicit the query, Just what exactly is going on here? As previously mentioned, I have a sizeable list of odd occurrences and unlikely meetings from my own experience and also have a fun book called Beyond Coincidence that’s chock-full of these peculiar stories. Reading them one after another only reinforces a feeling of conviction that the phenomenon of the “meaningful coincidence” is legitimate. Every one of us has a few tales that could be included in such a compilation. They’re so compelling when they happen, so strange….
 It so happens that I’m involved with quite a few “scientist-types”—intelligent, highly-rational, natural-born-skeptics—who instinctively distrust anything that smacks of superstition or the paranormal. Who desire some Scientific Proof, not conjecture and Unnamable Principles. I’ve tried to explore the concept of the meaningful coincidence with one of their tribe, on occasion, when such an event pertained to us both. (A smart, well-read person might have some original insights worth sharing; I’d be all ears.) But thus far I’ve unfailingly been rebuffed; none of these people will even discuss the matter.
Barb, an entomologist affiliated with the Smithsonian—has the PhD and more— was typical in her resolute refusal to entertain any notion that synchronicities could be more than a product of pure chance. Her arguments fell along these predictable lines: With so many things happening simultaneously in our complex world it’s no surprise that, every so often, all the cherries line up and you have one of those jackpot-moments. The odds may seem impossibly low but they really aren’t nearly as low as one would think. These things are nothing more than random flukes with no special meaning; to invest them with significance is misguided and naive. Solid reasoning that flat-out disregards something undeniably real.
Barb had taken The Firm Stance and, in this instance, her somewhat-patronizing manner irritated me so I pushed back with a brief summary of the ridiculous string of fortuitous events that guided me to those amazing places where I’ve lived and worked, the dream jobs—that many would say qualify me to claim a charmed life. (Admittedly, this wasn’t an ideal illustration; a couple of the more astonishing stories from my book would have served better.) But she just smiled and shook her head dismissively when I’d finished. “Nope. Un-uh. Pure chance.” The scientist-types—and, despite my tone, I by no means intend to use that label in a derogatory fashion—have dug in their heels. But I’m just as certain they’re wrong. C. G. Jüng would think so, too.                                                            
I believe Jüng was among our great 20th-century-minds, particularly in the sense of one who challenged the prevailing paradigms of his field by introducing radically new and creative ideas. His vast knowledge of history and mythology, combined with a profound understanding of the human psyche’s baffling depths, afforded new ways to view our inner world. I’m both inspired and cowed when considering his compassion and sheer energy; the remarkable scholarship, the synthesis of so much disparate information into a monumental body of work Jüng produced while endlessly treating patients, travelling, lecturing…working on manuscripts and writing many letters every day. And then retiring for part of each year to a stone tower (of his design) by the lakeshore at Bollingen where he continued working to the very end. He exulted in tending his stove, chopping firewood, and hauling buckets of hand-pumped water—living, in seclusion, the contemplative and intentionally-simple life of a modern Mage.
I have a copy of his delightful autobiography—Memories, Dreams, Reflections—which he finished shortly before his death. He recounts two highly-significant occurrences in 1898 that led to his, rather unexpectedly, choosing  psychology from among other fields of medicine in which to specialize. Rather than summarize his experiences, I’ll quote directly from the book (editing slightly for narrative flow):
“During the summer holidays something happened that was destined to influence me profoundly. I was sitting in my room, studying my textbooks. In the adjoining room, with door ajar, my mother was knitting. That was our dining room where the round walnut table stood. It had come from the dowry of my grandmother and was about seventy years old. My mother sat, knitting, about a yard from the table. Suddenly there sounded a report like a pistol shot. I jumped up and rushed into the room. My mother, flabbergasted, was sitting in her armchair, the knitting fallen from her hands. She stammered, “W-w-what’s happened?” and stared at the table. Following her eyes, I saw what had happened: the table top had split from the rim to beyond the center and not along any joint; the split ran right through the solid wood. I was thunderstruck. How could such a thing happen? A table of solid walnut, seventy years old…how could it split on a summer day in the relatively high humidity characteristic of our climate? If it had stood next to a heated stove on a cold, dry winter day it might have been conceivable.”
Spiritualism was going through one of its periods of extreme popularity at the time. His mother was an active adherent; she held seances in their home and believed in any number of paranormal phenomena. She made a comment—vague, but loaded with innuendo—that the incident held some meaning and cast him a significant glance. Jüng was disturbed: “Against my will I was annoyed with myself for not finding anything to say.”
Barb  would likely scoff at their reactions. She’d have a ready argument about built-up tensions in the old wood; that there undoubtedly was a perfectly reasonable explanation. It was odd, yes, but certainly not some sort of supernatural occurrence. And Barb could well be right. To be fair and objective: this story is (so far as I know) unverified, and I’ve never seen a photograph of the broken table nor heard further commentary. The across-the-grain element is what makes it truly hard to fathom.
Jüng goes right on:
“Two weeks later I came home in the evening and found the household—my mother, sister, and the maid—in great agitation. An hour earlier there had been another deafening report. The noise had come from the direction of the sideboard, a heavy piece of furniture dating from the early nineteenth century. They had already looked it all over, but had found no trace of a split. I immediately began to examine it and the surrounding area, fruitlessly. Then I began on the interior. In the cupboard containing the bread basket I found a loaf and, beside it, the bread knife. Its blade had snapped off in several pieces. The handle lay in one corner of the rectangular basket, and in each of the other corners lay a piece of the blade. The knife had been used shortly before, at the four o’clock tea.” In concluding the account he writes that, once more, his mother shot him a loaded glance. Again, the young man was irritated by his inability to respond.
“The next day I took the shattered knife to one of the best cutlers in town. He examined it and shook his head, saying, ‘This knife is perfectly sound; there is no fault in the steel. Someone must have deliberately broken it piece by piece. It could be done by sticking the blade into the crack of a drawer and breaking off a piece at a time. But good steel can’t explode.’” Jüng knew otherwise: “The hypothesis that it was just a coincidence went much too far….So what was it?”
These events and later ones of a similar nature led to his formulating the concept of synchronicity; up to that time, no one had recognized that thematic or clustered coincidences might be related to the subconscious and fraught with personal meaning.
So. Another personal connection I feel with Carl Gustav Jüng is that I’ve had similar experiences which, because of their strange improbability and curious timing, also left me posing that same question: What is going on here? The two tales that follow, coincidentally, both revolve around things breaking spontaneously:

In 1979 I purchased—as a present for my family—a cardboard box containing one dozen glass mugs. Though imported from France they weren’t too pricey and became quite popular. (Cafés used them and you still see one from time to time….) These mugs were made of clear Pyrex glass; a simple but elegant design that I really liked—straight-sided, easy-to-clean and very durable. You could drop one (maybe not on the sidewalk, but onto kitchen linoleum) and it wouldn’t break. My family used them continuously and I ended up with a couple that served me well for many years.
The event in question happened shortly before I moved to the Owens Valley in 1983. My brother must have been home on a break from college at the time because all four of us were in the family room that evening, watching television.
Suddenly there “sounded a report” from the kitchen; nothing like a pistol shot but definitely some sort of minor explosion. I was first on-scene. We all looked around but I was first to open a cupboard door above the counter with shelves that held bowls and other kitchenware, including some spare glasses and mugs. And it took a moment before I realized that one of those French Pyrex mugs had exploded. Since it was made of tempered glass, it had shattered into scores—maybe hundreds—of tiny, roughly cubic, pieces that were strewn all across the shelf. We were all stunned and amazed.
This would be Barb’s take: Pyrex glass is made under very high pressure so it can withstand great temperature variants. The mug may have had a slight nick in it that compromised its integrity and all that internal pressure caused it to “blow up.” It could happen at any time…a ticking time-bomb.
You’re probably right again, Barb. In fact, tempered glass is known to explode spontaneously—usually (but not always) in, or just out of hot ovens. But why did it sit around all that time waiting for my whole family to be gathered together a few yards away before it committed mug-suicide? It could’ve gone off at three a.m. and we wouldn’t have even heard it. “Pure chance,” she’d reply. Well…maybe so.
The other incident also involved glass. And, similarly, I was there to witness it. From an entry that I wrote in the guest-log of a house I was caretaking at the time:
“A most curious incident: a month or so ago before I went to Ventura I was reading on the couch one morning about seven a.m. When I first started staying here a couple years ago I found, while exploring the floor cabinet beneath the swamp cooler, the lens of a magnifying glass—4” wide, ½” thick; the kind Granny uses to read fine print—but the plastic handle had broken and was gone. So there was just the glass lens (a beautiful object in itself…) which I recognized as a valuable aid in viewing rock specimens and wildflowers. So I moved it onto the bar and it’s lived there under the clock for the last two years and was often employed to check out some delicate little thing (at least by me). Nobody moved it away while I was gone all summer. SO: That morning while I was cozy and reading on the couch with Mount Whitney a glance away I heard a very soft sound. A little ‘tink!’ or, maybe, ‘knnck!’ followed by an also-tiny, soft ‘thud’ on the carpet. I got up to investigate and found that the lens had just spontaneously shattered. Basically, it broke in half but with one other little chunk from near the edge and some minute shards which forced me to get out the vacuum. It was such an odd sound in the morning silence. I’m sure there’s a rational explanation but, since so many of these strange things happen to me, I LOVE the fact that the lens sat there for so long and waited into daylight hours so I was in the utterly silent room with it before it popped open like a seedpod—a strangely pleasant sound I’ve never heard nor will likely ever hear again—and half of it plopped onto the floor.”
Note the common theme that all these events were witnessed. They could have occurred when no one was around. Barb would say of my questioning the significance of all these very curious events, “Nope. Just good, old-fashioned, 100% pure chance.”
You’re wrong, Barb. You…are…wrong.
Contrary to the sound of my claims, there’s no doubt some rational explanation for all these events. I’m not a “true believer.” By nature, I too am a card-carrying skeptic. In the case of these anecdotes, the timing is what I find equally odd. Jüng’s stories, as famous as they are, were apparently unverified. As for my two: spontaneously-shattering glass is a known phenomenon, not nearly as strange as it appears on the surface. At issue here is the implacable resistance certain people have to acknowledging that there are things—even in our modern world—that aren’t just out of reach of the scientific method, but are the product of influences that we don’t understand or even have names for. Which is not to say we can’t sense their reality. What bothers me is that the scientist-types don’t even recognize that they’re following their own beliefs with something very like religious zeal. They don’t perceive that they’ve elevated Science to something anathema to their way of explaining reality: a veritable religion.
Evidence of this can be seen constantly in the way that science treats the True Mysteries; by completely taking for granted compellingly-unexplainable (but every-day) phenomena. Life “just happened.” DNA is thought of as—and I’ve actually heard it called—“just another molecule.” (Except it’s the only one that self-replicates….)                  Back to Jüng: when he came to America in 1924-25 he visited the Pueblo Indians of Taos and spoke at length with their chief and found their encounter extremely moving: “As I sat with Ochwiay Biano on the roof, the blazing sun rising higher and higher, he said, pointing to the sun, ’Is not he who moves there our father? How can anyone say different? How can there be another god? Nothing can be without the sun.’ His excitement, which was already perceptible, mounted still higher; he struggled for words, and exclaimed at last, ‘What would a man do alone in the mountains? He cannot even build his fire without him.’
“I asked him whether he did not think the sun might be a fiery ball shaped by an invisible god. My question did not even arouse astonishment, let alone anger. Obviously it touched nothing within him; he did not even think my question stupid. It merely left him cold. I had the feeling that I had come upon an insurmountable wall. His only reply was, ‘The sun is God. Everyone can see that.’”
This is a charming and poignant account but it also personifies a type of unquestioning certitude also common in our more modern, science-influenced view of an accepted “reality.” In the western world (or at least in America), whether or not it’s admitted, we seem to believe that “the unknown” is a nut soon to be cracked. “The Unknowable”—barely recognized, never spoken of—is virtually taboo. Life is just some random fluke; an accident. DNA is “just another molecule.” Everyone can see that.
I think it would behoove us to cultivate a greater sense of something the Pueblos, (and so many other “unsophisticated” cultures throughout time) never lost sight of: the sacred and, ultimately, utterly mysterious nature of our world. It matters little if you think a star is a ball of burning gases or a god. It’s a truly astounding thing. One of them, old Sol, gave us the miracle of life. Maybe worth reflecting on, next time you witness a sunrise. Whether or not it’s splendid….
                                                                                                            26 Mar 2011, 20 May 2013


© 2013 Tim Forsell

All rights reserved.
                                                                                                         
                                                                                                 

No comments:

Post a Comment