Pointers to complementarity

Theories of Correspondences -- and potential equivalences between them in correlative thinking (Part #4)

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

---

At a time when global society is claimed to be challenged by a "clash of civilizations", it is appropriate to note that the science-culture disassociation noted above was given prominence long before by scientist C P Snow (The Two Cultures, 1959). In the synthesis offered by biologist E.O. Wilson (Consilience: the unity of knowledge, 1998), not only does the gap between the two cultures of the Sciences and the Humanities continue to exist today, its very origin remain unexplained.

One attempt to address this condition had been made by analytical psychologist Carl Jung for whom synchronicity was the theory of correspondences in practice. As noted by Roderick Main (Religion, Science, and Synchronicity. Harvest: Journal for Jungian Studies, 46, 2, 2000, pp. 89-107):

No less significant for the development of the concept of synchronicity was Jung's extensive research into the esoteric traditions of the West. The ancient Greek conception of *the sympathy of all things', the medieval and Renaissance theory of correspondences, and above all the alchemical understanding of the unus mundus (one world) and of the relationship between microcosm and macrocosm also provided acausal connections between events (see Jung, 1952, pp. 485-98). At times Jung presents his theory of synchronicity as simply an up-dating of these esoteric views: *Synchronicity', he writes at the end of his 1951 Eranos lecture, *is a modern differentiation of the obsolete concept of correspondence, sympathy, and harmony' (Jung, 1951, p 531).

Ironically the reception accorded the Moonshine Conjecture by some "mainstream" mathematicians can be compared with that accorded the "fringe" views of Robert Temple (The Sirius Mystery, 1987) whose comment on the unhealthy current situation is nevertheless well expressed, if bluntly:

In my opinion, a mind is healthy when it can perform symbolic acts within mental frameworks which are not immediately obvious. A mind is diseased when it no longer comprehends this kind of linkage and refuses to acknowledge any basis for such symbolic thinking. The twentieth century specializes in producing diseased minds of the type I refer to -- minds which uniquely combine ignorance with arrogance. The twentieth century's hard core hyper rationalist would deride a theory of correspondences in daily life and ritual as 'primitive superstition'. However, the rationalist's comment is not one upon symbolic thinking but upon himself, acting as a label to define him as one of the walking dead.

A more conciliatory view is expressed by Karen Armstrong (A Short History of Myth, Melbourne, Canongate, 2005) who addresses the continuing role of myth in industrialized societies and its long-demonstrated functions:

Another peculiar characteristic of the human mind is its ability to have ideas and experiences that we cannot explain rationally.... imagination is the faculty that produces religion and mythology. Today mythical thinking has fallen into disrepute; we often dismiss it as irrational and self-indulgent. But the imagination is also the faculty that has enabled scientists to bring new knowledge to light and to invent technology that has made us immeasurably more effective.... Mythology and science both extend the scope of human beings. Like science and technology, mythology...is not about opting out of this world, but about enabling us to live more intensely within it..

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]