Psychology’s Impending Paradigm Shift

The Soul, Synchronicity & the Unus Mundus (the one world)

While we all have unique traits, such as the color of our eyes, skin, and hair, we also share a common anatomy. We each have a heart, a set of lungs, a brain, a skeletal, digestive, and nervous system, and so on.

The same is true of the psyche. Despite our differences, we also share a common psychological anatomy.

Compared with our physical body, however, the anatomy of the psyche remains unclear. Psychology is still in its infancy. Further research is required.

The term psychology is derived from the Latinized Greek psykhē, meaning ‘soul’ plus logia, ‘the study of.’ Given its ethereal nature, the psyche cannot be studied with the relative ease by which we may observe our material being. Unlike the body with its physical organs, the psyche is composed of drives, energy systems, and behavioral patterns that, although real, have no physical form.

In the early years of depth psychology, Freud identified the sex drive and drew upon the Oedipal myth for its exposition. Adler, on the other hand, argued that the primary psychological dynamic was the ‘will to power,’ the individual’s aim to better themselves. Jung figured there were multiple forces at play. He termed these energy systems the archetypes.

Just as the body has its various organs, the archetypes form the anatomy of the psyche. Each archetype characterizes a mode of behavior that may be considered instinctive. Commonly recognized archetypes include the mother, father, child, hero, and trickster.

How might we study these archetypes? These patterns of behavior? How can we turn a lens upon ourselves?

Without an objective standpoint, the reflexive study of our psyche proves enormously difficult. The statistical analysis of human behavior, rats, or monkeys, which dominate mainstream research, yields little insight. For an understanding of the human soul, most people look elsewhere.

In his study of the human psyche, Jung turned to myth. ‘Myth’ means story, a story involving gods, daemons, and other spiritual forces. A living myth, that is believed by all, is considered a religion. It is like a collective dream.

In 1912, at the age of thirty-seven, Jung published Symbols of Transformation. By his own account, this was the book that cost Jung his friendship with Freud. Jung sent Freud a copy, which Freud returned with a note describing the work as a desire to ‘overthrow the father’.

Within Symbols of Transformation Jung posited that the language of dreams was not the babbling of buried childhood emotions bubbling back into consciousness, but rather the richly symbolic, albeit obscure expression of “archaic thought forms”. Further, myths shared the same language.

The unconscious basis of dreams and fantasies are only apparently infantile reminiscences. In reality, we are concerned with primitive or archaic thought-forms, based on instinct… So also, the myth, which is likewise based on unconscious fantasy-processes, is, in meaning, substance, and form, far from being infantile or the expression of an autoerotic or autistic attitude, even though it produces a world picture which is scarcely consistent with our rational and objective view of things.

In his patient’s dreams, as well as his comparative study of myth, Jung found repeating patterns, often from quite independent and seemingly unrelated sources. The common base was the human psyche, and the common patterns were the archetypes.

Within archetypal psychology, the grand stories produced by our human imagination serve as raw data. Themes present across multiple mythic traditions point toward an archetype, for an archetype is characterized by its universal expression. As Hillman notes, mythology is “the psychology of antiquity.”

The translation of myth into modern terms forms the basis of archetypal psychology. Yet mythos is not logos. With its god-like drives and speculative assessment of human nature, archetypal psychology can read like philosophy rather than a science of the soul, that is, a psychology with clear and firm constructs.

What are the chief archetypes? How many are there? What is their nature? How do they develop and function? At this stage, there is no consensus. Again, the anatomy of the psyche remains unclear. If this were the case in medicine, one’s patients would be in trouble!

While rich and fascinating, archetypal psychology can lack the rigor required of a science. Mainstream psychology, on the other hand, has rigor but lacks soul.

Within conventional psychology, there is no psyche, no soul! The mind is considered an epiphenomenon of the brain. What is taught in universities today is better described as behavioral science or neuroscience.

Herein lies the problem. How can the psyche be approached scientifically, without killing it off?

Astrology & Depth Psychology

On closer inspection, we learn that archetypal psychology also began with astrology. In those pioneering years, with little else to work with, Jung turned his attention to star lore. In a letter to Freud dated May 1911, Jung wrote, “At the moment, I am looking into astrology, which seems indispensable for a proper understanding of mythology.”

In his search for the structure of the psyche, classical astrology offered a model that Jung could leverage.

Although he drew heavily upon astrology, not only for its constructs but also as a practical tool to better understand his patients, Jung’s interest in astrology remained relatively unknown.

Freud had warned Jung that his exploration of the occult would endanger his status as a scientist, predicting that he would be accused of mysticism.

Jung took note. Despite its parentage, science had grown to ridicule astrology.

Professionally, Jung could not afford the same fate. To preserve his reputation, Jung concealed his interest in astrology until much later in his career.

Astrology provided Jung with a framework that myth lacked. Moreso than myth, it is astrology that represents the psychology of antiquity.

The astrological stars, or planets, with their well-defined qualities and character and their relation to the gods they are named after, offer the psychologist a concise collection of archetypes. Add to this the signs of the zodiac and the transformational processes they represent, and you have a comprehensive psychological model. Further, the model is not static but may be applied according to an individual’s birth time, date, and place.

The primary sticking point, however, is astrology’s lack of mainstream credibility.

The issue is the seemingly impossible influence of astrological forces. How could the position of a planet, a billion miles away, possibly impact an individual’s psyche? To the educated mind, astrology appears implausible — so much so that it is not worthy of investigation.

When limited to the notion that causality is the only operative principle in the world, then yes, astrology appears ridiculous. From this perspective, astrology’s adherents appear to suffer from low scientific literacy, lack of rationality, or limited intelligence.

Or perhaps it is the understanding of science that is limited.

At this stage, science knows little of the relationship between psyche and substance, spirit and matter. Given the lack of hard-nosed evidence, both spirit and soul are thought not to exist. Of all the sciences, only modern physics posits the reality of the psyche — otherwise, nothing.

The Unus Mundus

The natural sciences are founded upon causal relations. Such causal relations do not exist in astrological theory, however. Instead of causality, astrology is based upon the hermetic principle of the Unus Mundus.

The Unus Mundus, meaning one world, may be defined as an underlying reality that shares both a physical and psychical expression. This is akin to stating that psyche and matter are one and the same.

This age-old concept shares some striking parallels with quantum theory. In quantum physics, the material world is formed from waves. Beyond the tiny particles that make an atom, matter is known to be probabilistic and influenced by observation.

Quantum physics is mind-boggling. What was once explained is rendered inexplicable. Werner Heisenberg, the 1932 Nobel laureate and father of Quantum Mechanics, expressed his amazement as follows.

The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass, God is waiting for you.

The hermetic concept of the Unus Mundus suggests that there is a broader, underlying reality we are a part of but cannot see. This common base draws the psyche and the physical world into a relationship and weds them.

Isaac Newton, who formulated the laws of motion that gave us causal mechanics, also translated the Emerald Tablet, which describes this one world.

It is true without lying, certain and most true. That which is below is like that which is above and that which is above is like that which is below to do the miracle of one only thing. And as all things have been and arose from one by the mediation of one: so all things have their birth from this one thing by adaptation.

Having experienced a lifetime of remarkable coincidences in both his work with patients and his personal experience, as well as having pondered astrology’s riddle for decades, Jung collated his thoughts and experience of the Unus Mundus. In 1952, with Wolfgang Pauli, another Nobel laureate in physics, Jung published a joint paper titled Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle.

Synchronicity

In Synchronicity, Jung modernized the concept of the Unus Mundus.

Since psyche and matter are contained in one and the same world, and moreover are in continuous contact with one another and ultimately rest on irrepresentable, transcendental factors, it is not only possible but fairly probable, even, that psyche and matter are two different aspects of one and the same thing.

Just as Einstein’s theory of relativity revolutionized physics, Jung’s synchronicity promises to overhaul mainstream psychology.

In physics, gravitational waves could not be explained by deterministic causality. Instead, the advanced framework of General Relativity was necessary. Likewise, radioactive decay could only be explained in terms of Quantum Mechanics.

Similarly, psychology cannot explain the psyche when limited to genetic and environmental influences only.

A paradigm shift is required.

When asked what she thought was Jung’s most significant contribution to the field, Marie Louise von Franz answered that it was synchronicity. For von Franz, Jung’s primary student, and later collaborator, the principle of synchronicity stood over and above Jung’s work on types, complexes, archetypes, the collective unconscious, and even the discovery of the Self.

Another scientific revolution is pending. This time in psychology. As incredible as it seems, celestial-archetypal forces must be incorporated alongside psychology’s standard base of nature and nurture.

Proof

Science throws down a challenge. Science says if you make a claim, you must also prove it. Before a theory is fully accepted, it must be confirmed through experimental evidence. This is the scientific method.

A proof can take much time and effort, however. Einstein’s theory that Energy is equivalent to matter (E=mc2) was first published in 1905. It was not until the 1940s, with the Manhattan Project, that this equation was confirmed. This experiment was the atomic bomb. The explosive evidence that only a few witnessed was the transformation of a relatively small amount of matter into a massive amount of energy.

Astrology theorizes that matter also equates to the psyche. A planet is also an archetype! How can such a mind-blowing concept be tested? Can we achieve proof of synchronicity?

If synchronicity is to be proven, it must first be measured. As Jung defined it, however, synchronicity is a meaningful coincidence. Its detection, therefore, requires a subjective assessment that no instrument or machine can provide.

This is the challenge. How does one test for a meaningful coincidence?

Given its connection to both the psyche and the physical world, astrology serves as a bridge.

Astrology argues that planetary positions mirror, rather than cause or create, character structures within an individual — as above, so below. This can be tested. While we have no Manhattan project to research Jung’s theory on a grand scale, we do have the lab of personal experience (n=1).

Once the province of highly skilled astronomers and mathematicians, astrological horoscopes are now easily calculated. Given one’s date, time, and place of birth, drawing up one’s natal chart is now a simple exercise.

Having calculated one’s horoscope and worked through an interpretation, one can then gauge if it fits. Does the interpretation resonate? Is it meaningful?

Although a sample size of one does not constitute scientific proof, the persistent and growing interest in natal astrology suggests that many do find meaning in the interpretations. Astrology rings true

Skepticism versus Cynicism

In the pursuit of knowledge, Descartes called for radical questioning. Similarly, Santayana stated, “Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to surrender it too soon or to the first comer.” Blind faith white ants the intellect.

Yet disbelief is no solution either, for it too is a belief, only to the contrary. At its extreme, it is cynicism, a blindness brought on by the blinkers of rationalism.

Many scorn astrology without ever having explored it. “Where’s the science?” they call, without making any effort!

This is not science but scientism. It is a belief in science rather than a genuine search for knowledge. It is laziness. We mostly follow others; thinking for oneself takes effort.

There are many mysteries that science cannot explain. The principle of synchronicity is no more or less magical than electromagnetic or gravitational fields, which, although measurable, remain equally mysterious. Everyone thinks they understand gravity except for physicists, for whom it remains a riddle.

As a way to knowledge, science was designed to penetrate these mysteries. To do so requires both a sharp and open mind. “In fide, scientism,” to faith, add knowledge.

A middle ground is required. As von Franz advises, “It’s easy to be a naive idealist. It’s easy to be a cynical realist. It’s quite another thing to have no illusions and still hold the inner flame.”

Astrological Research

Although astrology appears to be enjoying a modern-day renaissance, it remains exiled from academia and will not regain entry without due regard for Jung’s theory of synchronicity.

If psychology is to evolve, and factor in Jung’s principle of synchronicity, would-be psychologists must first acknowledge the reality of the psyche. Many do, many don’t. The problem can appear too difficult. This is the initial hurdle.

The next hurdle lies in mapping and verifying the concurrencies between psyche and matter.

For those waiting for more objective evidence, such proof is not available. We are not there yet. While some studies, such as those by Michel Gauquelin, a French psychologist and statistician, have been conducted, they are considered inconclusive. Astrology continues to be classed as a pseudo-science, particularly by those who have never explored their horoscope.

Personally, I don’t think any adequate tests have been executed, be they in favor or against astrology. I do, however, expect that statistical proof may, one day, be achieved and that this evidence will be obtained through a carefully crafted personality test looking for correlations between character traits and planetary placements.

If that day were to arrive, then the psyche would have returned to its place in psychology. Astrology and psychology will have been reunited.

The implications would be profound. Various esoteric teachings will need to be considered afresh. Therapists will be equipped with a revised, soul-centered model of the psyche. Diagnostic manuals will need to incorporate archetypal and planetary complexes. Typology will revert to its roots. Textbooks will be rewritten.

‍