9 回复

• 
  刘雨菡1班 • 4天前

  1.By making comparisons and use facts.Chinese Thinking (Evidenced by the I Ching): Focuses on the "chance aspect of events", holding that events arise from a complex web of interconnected possibilities and synchronicities (meaningful coincidences without causal links). Western Thinking: "Worships causality"— every event has an identifiable cause, and effects occur in a predictable, deterministic manner.The Challenge to Western Causal Determinism:1. Undermining Foundations: Determinism rejects "chance" and "synchronicity" as explanatory forces, yet these are core to Chinese thinking.2. Shaking Cognitive Logic: The West holds that knowledge stems from proving causality, while Chinese thinking relies on intuition, holistic pattern recognition, and non - causal connections. This challenges the view that "only causal analysis is valid".3. Questioning Controllability: Determinism claims that grasping causality allows predicting and controlling events.

  2.Core Meaning of "Synchronicity"As expounded in relevant discussions, "synchronicity" proposed by Jung refers to the non - accidental coincidence of events with no causal connection, occurring in terms of time and meaning. 1. Dispelling "causal deduction" and anchoring "meaning connection": In the process of coin tossing (or yarrow stalk divination), the combination of the coin's heads and tails (the random result that generates the hexagram) has no causal relationship with the event the diviner is inquiring about — the physical movement of the coins will not "determine" the direction of the event. 2. Recognizing "holistic connection" and replacing "linear analysis": The I Ching views the universe as an interconnected whole, where the diviner, the act of coin tossing.Challenging the verification logic of "causal priority": Western science holds that any valid conclusion must be based on verifiable causal relationships (e.g., "Substance A → Phenomenon B" needs to be repeatedly proven through experiments). However, "synchronicity" emphasizes "non - causal meaning connection", which cannot be verified through the "controlled variables" of scientific experiments (it is impossible to repeatedly construct identical "meaning contexts"). This directly breaks the absolute reliance of scientific verification on the "causal chain".3.Jung’s position reveals tension through two key points:1. Acknowledging the I Ching’s conflict with Western scientific rationality: Western scientific rationality centers on "experimental verification" (requiring objectivity, repeatability, and causal proof). The I Ching (e.g., coin-tossing divination) fails this—its results are subjective and unrepeatable, making it unappealing to scientific minds.2. Advocating the I Ching’s value via intuitive experience: He argues the I Ching’s meaning lies in personal experience: users perceive "synchronicity" (meaningful non-causal coincidences) through intuition, not scientific observation. This offers insights Western science cannot.

  回复 收起

  回复内容

  发表
• 
  李沛垚01 • 4天前

  1. Jung notes the Chinese mind focuses on the "chance aspect of events," while the West emphasizes "causality." This challenges causal determinism by suggesting events are linked by meaningful coincidence rather than cause-effect chains.

  2. Synchronicity means "meaningful coincidence" in time and space, without causal links. It explains I Ching divination (e.g., coin tosses) as acausal reflections of one's inner state and moment, challenging science's demand for repeatable, objective proof.

  3. Jung acknowledges I Ching contradicts "experimental verification" but defends its validity through subjective experience (e.g., a wine taster's judgment). This highlights tension between universal scientific rationality and I Ching's context-dependent, intuitive understanding.

  回复 收起

  回复内容

  发表
• 
  吴静怡1班 • 4天前

   He recognizes the "synchronicity" thought in The I Ching, arguing that its hexagrams are not mere causal inferences but representations of "meaningful coincidences," which align with his theories of "collective unconscious" and "archetypes." Meanwhile, he refutes Western academic criticisms that label The I Ching as "superstitious," emphasizing it as an ancient wisdom tool for exploring the connection between the human psyche and the universe, thus building a psychological bridge for Western readers to understand Eastern thinking.

  回复 收起

  回复内容

  发表
• 
  李星仪1班 • 4天前

  First, Jung says the Western mind focuses on causality, while the Chinese mind (through the I Ching) values chance and coincidence. This challenges Western determinism by suggesting not everything follows strict causal laws, some things are meaningfully connected by chance.

  Second, synchronicity means "meaningful coincidence". It reflects your mental state at that moment. This challenges science, which requires repeatable experiments, because synchronicity is unique to each person and moment.

  Third, Jung admits science prefers proof through experiments,but he argues some truths, like tasting wine or reading astrology, depend on subjective experience. Similarly, the I Ching’s value isn’t in "proof" but in how it helps individuals understand themselves.

  回复 收起

  回复内容

  发表
• 
  张静文 • 4天前

  In his foreword, Jung says the I Ching challenges the Western idea that "everything has a cause"—centered on "synchronicity," and he argues intuitive experience works too. He notes Chinese people focus on "meaningful chance" in the I Ching, while Westerners fixate on cause-effect: Western science explains quartz structure via molecular forces, but the I Ching links it to the present moment, opposing Western "all needs a cause" thinking. He defines "synchronicity" as meaningful, non-causal coincidences—like coin-toss divination matching the querent’s mind—justifying the I Ching and contrasting Western science’s demand for repeatable proof. Admitting it lacks "experimental verification," he uses wine connoisseurs to say intuitive engagement with the I Ching is reasonable, showing tension between Western rationality and the I Ching’s experiential approach.

  回复 收起

  回复内容

  发表
• 
  1班余佳阳 • 4天前

  (1). The Difference Between Chinese and Western Mindsets and the Challenge to Causal Determinism

  Jung describes a fundamental dichotomy in how the Chinese mind as embodied by the I Ching and the Western mind perceive reality:

   

  The Chinese mind is preoccupied with chance:

  It is concerned with the "chance aspect of events" and the "configuration formed by chance events in the moment of observation."

  It "encompasses everything down to the minutest nonsensical detail" to form a complete picture of the moment. Nothing is filtered out as irrelevant.

  Example：For instance, Jung uses the example of quartz crystals to illustrate this. While Western science focuses on the ideal causal principle of a "hexagonal prism," the Chinese thinker is drawn to the "actual form" observed in the natural world, where "no two crystals are exactly alike." The "jumble of natural laws constituting empirical reality" is more significant than a clean, causal explanation.

   

  The Western mind is about worships causality:

  It is centered on "causality," seeking the "hypothetical reasons that seemingly account for" an event.

  It "carefully sifts, weighs, selects, classifies, and isolates" to establish chains of cause and effect.

  For  example, it views an event as a "clearly defined result of concurring causal chain processes," like a dramatic story where something originates from another thing, which came from something else, and so on.

   

  Analysis of the Challenge to Western Causal Determinism:

  The I Ching's perspective fundamentally challenges Western causal determinism by proposing synchronicity which is a non-causal principle for understanding reality. While causal determinism sees events as inevitable outcomes of previous causes, the I Ching reveals a universe organized through meaningful, dynamic coincidences tied to the quality of a moment. This framework suggests reality cannot be fully explained by causality alone, redefining what Western thought dismisses as "mere coincidence" into a coherent source of meaning, promoting chance from a mere disturbance to a primary element of the reality.

   

   

  (2). The Concept of "Synchronicity" and its Role in the I Ching

   

  Definition of Synchronicity:

  Jung defines synchronicity as "a concept that formulates a point of view diametrically opposed to that of causality." Synchronicity is a connecting principle, describing meaningful coincidences between objective events and the observer's subjective state that carry significance beyond mere chance.

   

  Challenge to Western methods of scientific verification:

  Synchronicity challenges Western science, which relies on causality and repeatable experimentation. In contrast, synchronicity deals with unique, unrepeatable situations. Its validation rests solely on the observer's subjective judgment that it reflects their psychic condition, making it unverifiable and unsound for those requiring objective evidence.

   

  How this concept provides a philosophical basis for the I Ching's divinatory method:

  1. The Hexagram as an "Exponent of the Moment": The I Ching's divination rests on the principle that a hexagram cast in any given moment is not random, but rather a meaningful exponent of that moment's unique psychic and physical totality.

  2. A "Legible Picture" of Coincidence: Synchronicity explains the meaningful coincidence between a psychic state and a physical hexagram as a legible picture of their shared momentary situation.

  3. A Shift in the Criterion for Truth: The I Ching's framework challenges scientific verification by substituting objective proof with the subjective criterion of the observer's personal resonance with the hexagram's meaning.

   

   

  (3). How does Jung's position reflect a tension between Western scientific rationality and the intuitive, experiential approach of the I Ching?

   

  Jung does not dismiss scientific rationality but firmly places the I Ching outside its region of judgment, advocating for a different, experiential form of knowledge. This creates a clear tension between the two worldviews.

   

  For instance, the wine connoisseur and the antiquarian, he points out that a connoisseur can identify a wine's origin from its taste, and an antiquarian can date a piece of furniture by merely looking at it. These experts are reading the unique, non-repeatable "quality" of an object or moment. They are verifying a hypothesis not through a controlled lab experiment, but through cultivated, intuitive perception and knowledge. Similarly, an astrologer can deduce the celestial conditions at a person's birth without previous knowledge. This demonstrates that "moments can leave long-lasting traces" and that these traces form a coherent, interpretable pattern.

   

  Jung uses these examples to argue that the world can be understood from multiple angles. The scientific-causal angle is one valid way, while the synchronistic-intuitive angle is another. He states that for the I Ching, "the only criterion of the validity is the observer's opinion." This is a fundamentally different epistemology w based on personal and experiential truth rather than collective, objective proof.

  回复 收起

  回复内容

  发表
• 
  YIEMJXuhtq • 3天前

  1. In the article, Jung used the fact that there are no two identical quartz crystals in the world to specifically illustrate the coincidence or contingency that is emphasized in Chinese thought, as well as the cause-and-effect relationship that is emphasized in Western thought.

  Western thought is deeply influenced by Aristotle's logic, emphasizing the inevitability of the causal chain and believing that events are mechanically determined by their causes and consequences. 

  Jung placed the quartz crystal in front of Westerners, with the intention of causing a division between the two viewpoints from the East and the West, thereby facilitating the argument.

  Morphological constancy does not equal causal determinism. All quartz is hexagonal prisms, yet "no two have exactly the same texture, content, or microscopic defects". This means that nature does indeed follow certain "form laws" (hexagonal crystal system), but the laws do not encompass all details; the remaining parts are filled by irreversible chance. Westerners are accustomed to regarding the "remaining part" as a blank that needs to be further causally explained; while the Chinese acknowledge that this blank is itself meaningful information - it indicates the uniqueness of "this moment and this place". 

  This difference in perspective will have a significant impact on the causal principle that the West has always followed. Because in the causal theory, there is an element of contingency, and this contingency cannot be ignored. It also means that the causal theory of the West has limitations.

  2.2⃣Synchronicity is a certain curious principle, a concept that forriulates a point of view diametrically opposed to that of causality. And synchronicity takes the coincidence of events in space and time as meaning something more than mere chance, namely, a peculiar interdependence of objective events among themselves as well as with the subjective (psychio) states of the observer or observers. 

  In the coin-tossing divination of the I Ching, Jung granted a secular license to the I Ching's coin-tossing method by calling it "synchronicity": The randomness of the coin toss is not an interference but an artificial disruption of the causal chain, allowing the "current problem" and the "landed卦 symbol" to resonate at the meaning level - the contingency itself is a legitimate piece of information， and the world allows symbolic order to emerge within the cracks of an unfettered causality.

  The reason why this concept poses a challenge to the scientific verification methods of the West is that Western scholars are accustomed to conducting experimental verification of facts or relying on the critical thinking process of those who base themselves on factual evidence. This is obviously excluding some contingencies， merely based on the majority of data from the experiments.

  3.Jung placed "experimental verification" alongside "personal experience", precisely pinning the tension between Western scientific rationality and the intuitive method of The I Ching at a single point: repeatability and non-transferability.

  For the Western "experimental verification" mindset, the laboratory demands the stripping away of individual feelings and submission to the common result of the majority of data, allowing anyone at any time to reproduce the same result; while wine tasting and astrologers' divination yield completely different results because a single taste on the tongue or the convergence of celestial phenomena is already all the evidence.

  The data of The I Ching is naturally resistant to second-party re-testing, and the results demonstrated by scientific experiments can indeed be re-tested by countless people and still yield the same result.

  回复 收起

  回复内容

  发表
• 
  陈杨雨露 • 3天前

  1、   Firstly，the author uses contrast and examples to describe this difference specifically. By taking the example of quartz crystals having various forms in the real world, the author contrasts the Western causal thinking (pursuing universal laws) with Chinese thinking (focusing on specific events and coincidences), emphasizing that Chinese sages attach more importance to the complexity of empirical reality rather than separating events for causal analysis.  

            Secondly, chance holds immense importance in the real world. The Chinese way of thinking pays more attention to the contingency and concreteness in the experience of reality rather than abstract ideals or causal explanations. Such a perspective encompasses everything from details to the overall picture. Compared with the Western causal determinism, the Chinese thinking mode is more dynamic, practical and concrete.

   

  2、  Firstly，synchronicity refers to the phenomenon where coincidences in time and space are not accidental but have an inherent connection. Its core lies in "meaningful coincidences" - that is, there exists a mutual dependence between objective events and between objective events and the observer's subjective mental state that cannot be explained by the law of causality. In the divination of the I Ching (such as casting dice or distributing yarrow stalks), synchronicity provides its philosophical foundation. The hexagrams, as mirrors of the present moment, are not random outcomes but correspond to the "essential situation" of the questioner at the moment of the divination (including psychological state, environmental factors, etc.), becoming an overall representation transcending linear time. It negates mechanical causality. Divination does not rely on causal chains (such as A leading to B), but reveals the simultaneous patterns of the situation through synchronicity, emphasizing the inseparability of the subject and the object - the psychological state of the observer and the manifestation of the hexagram are two sides of the same reality.

          Secondly，the challenge to the Western scientific verification method lies in questioning the absoluteness of the law of causality. Science relies on repeatable experiments and statistical laws (causality), while synchronicity emphasizes non-causal associations in unique situations, negating "purely objective" observation and advocating the interactive coexistence of the observer and the phenomenon.The divination of the I Ching refuses to reduce matter to causality, and the idea of the unity of mind and matter challenges the traditional dualism of subject and object in science.

  3、    In Western thinking, science relies on repeatable experimental verification and objective data analysis, while the I Ching emphasizes capturing the unique qualitative nature of a specific moment through subjective experience. Jung illustrated through the examples of wine connoisseurs and astrologers that certain knowledge systems do not require experimental verification but can accurately interpret hidden information in the context of time and space through intuition and experienced connoisseurs can identify the origin and vintage of a wine, and astrologers can infer the star constellations at the time of birth. These cases suggest that momentary contingency may carry deep significance related to the overall context. 

        However, Jung did not completely reject scientific rationality. Instead, he advocated for broadening the ways of cognition, suggesting that science is applicable to universal laws, while intuitive experience is suitable for capturing the uniqueness of specific moments. This tension is essentially a methodological opposition - science pursues objectivity by stripping away subjectivity, while the I Ching-style thinking regards subjective observation as an indispensable part of understanding the world. Jung attempted to reconcile the two, emphasizing the value of personal experience verification, thereby opening up a reasonable space for intuition and symbolic thinking beyond the framework of rationality.

  回复 收起

  回复内容

  发表
• 
  1班高晓博 • 3天前

  1. The author directly points out the difference between the Chinese mind and the Western mind. When it comes to an event, the former emphasizes the element of chance in events, while the latter focuses on causality. Undoubtedly, a quartz crystal has a hexagonal prism structure. For Chinese sages, the actual form of the crystal is more appealing than its idealized version. Ancient Chinese  tended to study the complex interplay of natural laws that shape empirical reality through direct observation. The way the I Ching interprets reality challenges the causal reasoning and linear causal chains inherent in Western thinking.

  2. (1) Concept: Synchronicity views the coincidence of events in space and time as signifying more than mere chance; it refers to a unique interdependence between objective events themselves, as well as between these events and the subjective states of the observers.

  (2) Reasons: This is because microphysical events inherently involve the observer—just as the reality underlying the I Ching incorporates subjective i.e., psychological conditions of the moment. Coin tossing serves as an example, illustrating the connection between the observer and the event in such a momentary context.

  3. In the Chinese worldview, using three coins or forty-nine yarrow stalks is believed to yield meaningful predictions. This reflects their focus on empirical reality and direct observation. Ancient Chinese scholars who employed this method approached it similarly to wine connoisseurs or antiquarians: a connoisseur can determine the vineyard of a specific wine through observation in a given moment, while an antiquarian can identify the exact name and origin of an antique.

  The sixty-four hexagrams of the I Ching act as a tool to interpret the meaning of sixty-four distinct yet representative situations. Although this method cannot be replicated or verified through experiments, Jung argued that in the context of the I Ching, the only criterion for the validity of synchronicity is the observer’s judgment that the hexagram’s text truly reflects their psychological state.

  回复 收起

  回复内容

  发表

添加回复

×

图形验证码

换一个

确定