In further exploration of the nature of reality, it occurred to me that if I wanted to come to my own conclusion about the nature of reality with the advantage of potential insight from as many credible sources as I can manage, conventional or not, than I could not possibly ignore the phenomenon of synchronicity. Here I will explain most of my understanding as for what I believe the phenomenon to be.

First of all, it is a coincidence, but not the kind of meaningless coincidence that satisfies the only necessary condition to qualify for simultaneous instantiation; rather, it is the experience of a phenomena that is actually always occurring, despite the tendency for most people to seem not to be aware of it. Maybe not in the way that they cannot even sense the connection (although that may be a possibility), but that they may receive the sensation and ignore it. It would be equivalent to driving full-speed past a stop sign as if to never acknowledge its existence. If we take duality to describe our mind, and so also a necessary aspect of at least what we call our waking experience, then we can expect duality to be a level of abstraction that is possible within our perception of our experience. Consider the duality of Self to Other. Like all dualities, it is an abstraction of reality, not reality itself. As a matter of fact, using the term reality to describe the experience of truth, assuming that things that are metaphysically “real” and form our “real experience” are also things that are true in themselves, then the idea of the dual relation of Self to Other is inherently an illusion to the nature of reality. However, if one is trying to understand the nature of reality’s abstractions, this relationship model is inherently useful, as it models our own psychological processes, referring to the functionalities of the unconscious and conscious minds.

If we can generally apply this model to any dual-relational aspect of reality, we could apply it to our “Selves” and any “Other” that is distinct. The self is necessarily formed from a reflection of our experiences. It cannot be completely deterministic in nature, because our awareness does not seem to follow any sort of deterministic pattern. After all, if something is more of a verb-like phenomenon, judging from the seemingly essential state of change that aspects of reality are in, including consciousness, then it seems reasonable to also conclude that it would not be subject to the laws of materiality, but instead itself a law or influence of materiality. Gravity and the falling of objects can only happen if falling is a possible phenomenon.

What if the process of cooperation could be applied not just to relationships between abstract Selves represented by egos, but also between an abstract Self, or perhaps a point of awareness that Self perceives from, and the entirety of reality? The word “reality” and the reality referred to by that word are not the same. Also, considering simply probability as the acceptable standard of realistic phenomena, how unlike would it be that one could abstractly cooperate with all of existence in a mutually beneficial relationship, considering that one is an aspect of existence? Existence itself may not have an abstract Self with which to interact — if it did, I would believe this would be referred to as some sort of god, though that concept as conventionally used is far from what I refer to — but we can reasonably believe that the same awareness that seems to be within us, in light of recent scientific research, testimonial experience of random people, and personal experience if available, is throughout the rest of reality as well. Wouldn’t it be possible, then, that one could communicate through one’s own awareness with the awareness throughout reality, and cooperate to achieve the goal of nature, keeping in mind one’s own connection to existence and reality as a being of nature? This is the basis of morality, ethical standards of long-term mutual benefit, and it is the law we claim to follow as abstract societies, but it is obvious that many societally supported habits and endeavors are inherently immoral? After all, how can the power of all people be responsibly handled by any organization other than all people?

What most people learn when they discover synchronicity and it’s reality is that if your goal is to stick to and freely express your nature, and if you truly understand how that is done, then you should rest assured that your actions and endeavors are affirmed by the rest of existence, rather than denied by it because of a denial of nature. When the relationship is defined with denial by “Self”, it is defined so dualistically, because the “Other” agent is denied by way of “Self”. Though this does not guarantee sovereignty, it is the epitome of harmony.

At times, we may be stuck in the state of perception from the egoic self, but it is imperative at these times be assured by our beliefs that the best way to remain calm, is to admit that you really don’t know what’s going on, but you work with it and it works with you. Our “selves” are only abstractions anyway. They are neither feelings nor awareness; just pattern recognition and response programs run by brains, energized by consciousness. This is why any change of self, dynamic or subtle, is characterized as a death of that self and the remodeling of another. It is one “Self” becoming an “Other”, and we do it all the time. It’s the natural process that most closely defines our existence on the level of the material world, though it can only hold a singular perspective. Synchronicity is general awareness’s way of reassuring our Self’s awareness through our experience, which necessarily means in precise, dimensional terms of our experience. Therefore, it seems to me to be entirely likely based on my experiences that communication can come through the third dimension without needing to be represented by an egoic self.