A Research Article

“Is this a sign, or am I the one signing it?”

Table of Contents

Part I — What Synchronicity Actually Means3

Part II — The Gestalt Connection: Why This Idea Belongs in the Therapy Room4

Part III — “We Are on the Right Path”: Examining a Popular Belief5

Part IV — The Physics: What Quantum Theory Actually Says (and Doesn’t)5

Part V — What If There Are No Synchronicities At All?6

Part VI — The Brain’s Role: Why This Feels So Real7

Part VII — Across Cultures: The Tao, the I Ching, and Other Traditions8

Part VIII — Grief, Loss, and the Felt Presence of the Dead9

Part IX — A Word of Care: Meaning-Making Versus Losing the Thread9

Part X — The People Who Took This Seriously10

Part XI — Books Worth Reading10

Part XII — How to Actually Notice: A Gestalt-Informed Practice11

A Closing Thought12

Glossary13

References14

There is a particular kind of shiver that comes from a coincidence that feels too precise to be an accident. You think of someone you haven’t spoken to in years, and your phone rings — it’s them. You are wrestling with a decision, and a stranger on a train says the exact sentence you needed to hear. You open a book at random and the page answers a question you never asked out loud.

Most people have a story like this. Some file it away as a curiosity. Others treat it as a compass — proof that they are, in that phrase so many therapists, teachers, and mystics repeat, “on the right path.” But what is actually happening in these moments? Is the universe arranging itself around you, or is your mind — brilliantly, quietly — arranging itself around the universe?

This article sits deliberately in that uncertainty. It draws on the psychology of Carl Jung, the practice of Gestalt therapy, the speculative bridge some physicists built toward quantum theory, the anthropology of grief, and the more sober findings of cognitive science — not to settle the question, but to sharpen it. By the end, you may find yourself looking back at your own “signs” with new eyes. That is the point.

Part I — What Synchronicity Actually Means

The word belongs to Carl Gustav Jung, the Swiss psychiatrist who broke from Freud to found analytical psychology. Jung first used the term “synchronicity” in a 1930 lecture, in connection with the psychological resonance he noticed while consulting the I Ching, and he spent the next two decades refining the idea before publishing his mature statement on it in 1952. He defined synchronicity as an acausal connecting principle — a way that an inner, psychological event and an outer, worldly event can line up meaningfully, without one causing the other.

This is a subtler claim than people often assume. Jung was not saying “everything happens for a reason” in the folk sense. He was proposing something almost heretical to classical science: that alongside cause-and-effect, there might be a second, parallel principle organizing reality — one governed not by force and mechanism, but by meaning.

His most famous illustration is worth knowing, because it shows exactly what he meant. A patient of his — a woman so rigidly rational that therapy had stalled completely — was describing a dream about being given a golden scarab beetle. At that exact moment, something tapped at the consulting-room window. Jung opened it and caught a real beetle trying to get in: a rose-chafer, the closest thing to a scarab found in that part of the world. He handed it to her wordlessly. According to Jung, that single coincidence did what months of interpretation could not — it broke through her defenses and let the therapy actually begin.

Jung didn’t claim every coincidence qualifies. He was careful, almost fussy, about the threshold: an event only becomes “synchronistic” when it exceeds anything reasonably explained by chance, and when it connects to something alive in the person’s inner world at that exact moment. A coincidence without emotional charge, in Jung’s system, is just a coincidence.

Part II — The Gestalt Connection: Why This Idea Belongs in the Therapy Room

Gestalt therapy, developed in the 1940s and 50s by Fritz and Laura Perls together with Paul Goodman, never set out to be a school of mysticism. It is a practical, body-aware, relationally grounded form of psychotherapy. But its underlying philosophy shares a strange kinship with synchronicity — closer than most textbooks admit.

The word Gestalt itself means something like “whole configuration” — a shape that cannot be reduced to the sum of its parts. Gestalt therapy borrowed this from early Gestalt psychology’s discovery that perception doesn’t build up piece by piece; the mind organizes raw sensation into meaningful wholes automatically, instantly, and often without our consent.

Figure and Ground

At any moment, your awareness organizes the field of experience into a “figure” — whatever is most alive, urgent, or emotionally charged — set against a “ground” of everything else, which fades into the background. A person going through heartbreak will suddenly notice love songs, couples, wedding rings — not because the world has filled with them overnight, but because heartbreak has become the figure that pulls everything relevant out of the ground.

The Here-and-Now

Gestalt therapy insists that the present moment, fully inhabited, is where healing and awareness actually happen — not in analysis of the past, not in anxious rehearsal of the future. Perls wanted clients present enough in their bodies and senses to notice what is actually arising, rather than what they expect or fear to arise.

Put these two ideas together and something interesting appears. A “synchronicity” may be, in part, a moment when your psychological figure — the thing consuming your inner life — suddenly and vividly meets its match in the outer world, and because Gestalt awareness is tuned to notice exactly that kind of figure-ground event, the coincidence lands with enormous force. Gestalt doesn’t explain away the mystery. It offers a working theory for why some people notice synchronicities constantly and others barely at all: they are more practiced at staying with what is figural, moment to moment, rather than living several steps removed from their own present experience.

This is worth sitting with. Gestalt awareness training and “openness to synchronicity” may be, functionally, the same skill wearing two different names.

Part III — “We Are on the Right Path”: Examining a Popular Belief

Ask around in therapeutic, coaching, or spiritual circles and you’ll hear some version of this refrain constantly: synchronicities are confirmation. When the coincidences start piling up, you’re aligned with something larger than yourself; when they stop, you’ve drifted off course.

It’s an appealing idea, and not a trivial one — it has real psychological utility. Believing you are “on the right path” can lower anxiety, increase persistence through difficulty, and create a felt sense of narrative coherence in a life that might otherwise feel arbitrary. Meaning-making of this kind is not a flaw in human cognition; in many ways it’s the whole architecture of how we survive uncertainty.

But notice the shape of the claim. It is almost perfectly unfalsifiable. If good things happen and you notice coincidences, that’s confirmation. If bad things happen and you notice coincidences, that’s often reframed as “the universe redirecting you.” If nothing unusual happens at all, that’s simply “quiet” — not evidence against anything. A belief that absorbs every possible outcome as support for itself is a belief doing very little actual work — except, perhaps, the work of comfort.

When you feel most certain that a coincidence is “meant,” how much of that certainty comes from the event itself — and how much comes from how badly you wanted a sign at that particular moment?

This isn’t an accusation. It’s simply the most honest question available — and Jung himself, to his credit, asked something similar of his own patients and of himself.

Part IV — The Physics: What Quantum Theory Actually Says (and Doesn’t)

No conversation about synchronicity avoids quantum physics for long, and there’s a real historical reason for that, not just New-Age borrowing.

Jung’s thinking was shaped in direct conversation with two towering physicists. He discussed the relativity of time and space with Albert Einstein before the First World War, and decades later he entered a long, serious correspondence and friendship with Wolfgang Pauli — the Nobel laureate physicist behind the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Pauli was, unusually for a physicist of his stature, a patient of Jung’s, wrestling with his own turbulent inner life, and their intellectual partnership eventually produced what scholars now call the Pauli–Jung conjecture: a speculative proposal that mind and matter emerge as two aspects of one deeper, “psychophysically neutral” reality, connected not by force but by meaningful correlation.

Pauli brought real physics to the table — nonlocality, complementarity, the strange behavior of quantum systems where measuring one particle appears to instantaneously affect another correlated particle regardless of distance. It’s easy to see why this was tempting to map onto synchronicity: both involve connections that seem to bypass ordinary causal chains.

Here is where honesty matters most. Mainstream physics does not endorse this mapping. Quantum entanglement is a precisely defined, mathematically testable phenomenon that applies to particles under very specific experimental conditions — it does not extend to beetles at windows or phone calls from old friends. Even physicists sympathetic to Pauli have been blunt about this: one of Pauli’s own students, asked directly about synchronicity, is reported to have said it was something physicists neither knew about nor wished to. Synchronicity, as a scientific hypothesis, is essentially untestable and unfalsifiable in its usual form — which is precisely why it is often classified as pseudoscience when it borrows the language of quantum mechanics without the mathematics.

None of this means the Pauli–Jung conjecture is worthless. As a piece of philosophy — a meditation on whether meaning might be as fundamental to reality as energy or mass — it remains genuinely fascinating, and serious scholars in the philosophy of mind still study it today. But it is philosophy, dressed in physics vocabulary, not physics itself. Keep the wonder. Just be honest about which room you’re standing in.

Part V — What If There Are No Synchronicities At All?

Now the harder, quieter question.

What if the golden thread isn’t there? What if every “meaningful coincidence” you’ve ever experienced was, in fact, exactly what probability would predict?

This possibility deserves the same seriousness as the mystical one, because the evidence for it is unusually strong.

The brain is a pattern-detection machine that cannot turn itself off. This tendency has a name — apophenia — the spontaneous experience of seeing connections and meaning in random or unrelated data. It’s the same underlying mechanism that lets you see a face in an electrical outlet or hear your name in white noise. Pattern-seeking wasn’t a bug evolution left in by accident; a hominid who assumed the rustling grass might be a predator survived more often than one who assumed it was nothing. We are descended, quite literally, from the more paranoid pattern-finders.

Confirmation bias does the rest of the work. Once you decide something is significant, your mind starts, automatically and invisibly, hunting for further confirmation while quietly discarding the countless near-misses that don’t fit. You don’t consciously choose to do this — it happens beneath awareness, which is exactly what makes it feel so convincing from the inside.

The frequency illusion — often called the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon — is the clearest everyday proof of both mechanisms at once. Learn a new word, and suddenly you hear it everywhere for a week. The word hasn’t multiplied in the world; your attention has simply been primed to notice it, and each new instance quietly reinforces the sense that something uncanny is unfolding. This is, essentially, a synchronicity experience with the mystery surgically removed and the mechanism laid bare.

And then there is simple statistics. Given the sheer number of thoughts, names, memories, and associations moving through a single mind on any given day, and the sheer number of people, phone calls, songs, and passing strangers in the world around it, some collisions between the two are not just possible but mathematically probable. Statisticians sometimes describe this as the law of truly large numbers: with enough opportunities, spectacularly improbable-seeming events become almost routine. The coincidence that feels like it was written just for you may simply be what happens when countless small probabilities are given countless chances to intersect.

What if the sense of being “guided” is not a signal arriving from outside you, but a portrait of how badly, how beautifully, your mind wants your life to mean something?

That desire is not shameful. It might be one of the most human things about you. But it is a very different claim than “the universe sent this.”

Part VI — The Brain’s Role: Why This Feels So Real

Even if we set the metaphysics aside entirely, the experience of synchronicity is neurologically real, not imagined. A few mechanisms are worth naming:

• Selective attention narrows the enormous flood of sensory information down to what is currently emotionally relevant — which is why an emotionally significant thought and an emotionally significant event can seem to arrive together so often. They aren’t found together by accident; your attention has been quietly tuned to notice both.
• The salience network, a set of brain regions including the anterior insula and anterior cingulate cortex, flags certain stimuli as urgent and meaningful before conscious reasoning even gets involved. Coincidences that align with strong emotion get flagged as important almost instantly — which is why they feel less like thought and more like revelation.
• Memory is reconstructive, not photographic. Every time you recall a striking coincidence, you subtly re-edit it, smoothing out the messy, unremarkable coincidences that didn’t pan out, and polishing the one that did into a cleaner, more dramatic story than it actually was in the moment.
• Dopamine and meaning-detection are closely linked; the same reward chemistry that makes solving a puzzle feel good also appears to light up when the mind detects a “meaningful” coincidence. Noticing a synchronicity may simply feel good in the same neurochemical way as any other small “aha.”

None of this requires cynicism. It simply means the wonder you feel is happening inside a magnificent, meaning-hungry organ that evolved to find significance — sometimes real, sometimes constructed — everywhere it looks.

Part VII — Across Cultures: The Tao, the I Ching, and Other Traditions

Jung did not invent the intuition behind synchronicity so much as give a Western, clinical name to something older. In the early 1920s he was introduced to the I Ching, the ancient Chinese divination classic, by the sinologist Richard Wilhelm, and he spent an entire summer experimenting with it. What struck him was that the text’s method of reading meaning into the fall of coins or yarrow stalks depended on exactly the acausal, meaning-based logic he was starting to formalize. Jung came to see Taoist thought not as irrational but as operating on a different axis altogether from Western causal reasoning — one where correlation and resonance, not force and mechanism, hold things together.

This is not a uniquely Chinese intuition. Variations on “meaningful coincidence as message” appear, in different clothing, across an enormous range of traditions: Celtic and Appalachian folk beliefs about animal messengers, Mexican Día de los Muertos traditions of ancestral visitation, West African and Indigenous American practices of reading nature for signs, and the long Western history of omens, augury, and divination that predates Christianity. What’s notable is not that one tradition is “correct,” but that the underlying psychological move — treating an external event as a kind of punctuation mark on an internal state — appears to be close to a human universal, independently arrived at by cultures with no contact with one another.

Seen this way, Jung’s contribution was less the discovery of a new phenomenon than the construction of a modern, clinical vocabulary for an old, cross-cultural habit of mind. That doesn’t settle whether the habit tracks something real about the universe or something real about the human need for pattern — but it does suggest the impulse itself is not a modern eccentricity. It is very, very old.

Part VIII — Grief, Loss, and the Felt Presence of the Dead

Perhaps the single most common real-world setting for reported synchronicities is bereavement. A significant body of research on what clinicians call “after-death communications” or “sensory and quasi-sensory experiences of the deceased” finds that a large proportion of bereaved people — reviews and surveys commonly cite figures in the range of 40 to 70 percent — report some form of felt presence, sign, or meaningful coincidence connected to someone they’ve lost: a specific song playing at an exact moment, a bird behaving unusually, a number that recurs. These experiences are most concentrated in the first year after a loss, often peaking around emotionally weighted dates like the three-month or one-year mark.

What’s genuinely interesting is how contemporary grief researchers treat this. Rather than filing these reports under pathology, a growing body of clinical literature — including reviews conducted through international consortiums studying unusual sensory experiences — concludes that these experiences are overwhelmingly benign, and often adaptive: they appear to help maintain emotional bonds with the deceased and can meaningfully ease the grieving process, rather than signal something going wrong. Grief, in other words, may be one of the conditions under which the human mind is most primed to construct — or perceive — synchronicity, precisely because the emotional “figure” (in Gestalt terms) is so intensely, unrelentingly present.

This doesn’t resolve whether such experiences are messages or constructions of a grieving mind reorganizing itself around absence. But it does suggest that whatever synchronicity is, it is doing real, often gentle, psychological work in exactly the moments people need it most — which may be the most important fact about it, regardless of metaphysics.

Part IX — A Word of Care: Meaning-Making Versus Losing the Thread

One honest caveat belongs here. For most people, most of the time, noticing meaningful coincidence is a normal, even healthy, part of how the mind processes emotion and constructs a coherent life story — the kind of gentle meaning-making described throughout this article. But there is a real difference between finding personal significance in a coincidence and organizing one’s decisions, relationships, or sense of reality entirely around a chain of perceived signs, especially if that pattern intensifies rapidly, disrupts sleep, or starts to feel less like comfort and more like urgent compulsion. That shift is worth taking seriously and, if it’s happening to you or someone you care about, worth bringing to a doctor or therapist rather than working through alone. The everyday version of synchronicity-noticing this article is about is something else entirely: a lightly held curiosity, not a demand that reality prove itself to you.

Part X — The People Who Took This Seriously

Carl Jung remains the central figure, and his position was more nuanced than pop culture allows. He never claimed synchronicity proved anything supernatural; he framed it as a hypothesis, a possible second ordering principle alongside causality, offered specifically because certain clinical and personal experiences resisted causal explanation entirely. He revised his thinking on it for over twenty years before publishing his final essay.

Wolfgang Pauli, as discussed above, brought scientific rigor and skepticism to the collaboration even as he took the psychological side seriously — he insisted that any physical extension of synchronicity move beyond purely psychological language like “archetype.”

Arthur Koestler, the novelist and philosopher, picked up the thread in his 1972 book on coincidence and parapsychology, treating synchronicity as a challenge to purely mechanistic views of the universe, though his work leaned more speculative than clinical.

F. David Peat, a physicist who worked directly with the concept, tried to build a genuine bridge between physics and psyche, describing synchronicity as a moment where the mental and physical “fields” behave as reflections of one underlying order — closer to Pauli’s caution than to popular mysticism.

Marie-Louise von Franz, Jung’s closest collaborator, extended his work on synchronicity into the study of divination, fairy tales, and number symbolism, and remains one of the most careful scholarly voices on the topic.

Contemporary Gestalt and depth-oriented therapists rarely use the word “synchronicity” clinically, but many still work directly with its underlying skill: helping a client notice what is figural in their life right now, and treating the outer world’s echoes of that figure as material worth exploring in the room — not as proof of anything cosmic, but as data about what the client’s psyche is currently organized around.

Part XI — Books Worth Reading

• Carl Jung, *Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle* — the original essay. Dense and academic, but the primary source.
• Carl Jung, *Memories, Dreams, Reflections* — his autobiography, far more readable, and full of the personal experiences that shaped his theory.
• Fritz Perls, Ralph Hefferline, and Paul Goodman, *Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in the Human Personality* — the founding text of Gestalt therapy, for the figure-ground and awareness concepts underneath this article.
• Fritz Perls, *Gestalt Therapy Verbatim* — transcripts of Perls actually working, more accessible than the founding text.
• F. David Peat, *Synchronicity: The Bridge Between Matter and Mind* — a physicist’s serious, careful attempt to connect the two worlds.
• Arthur Koestler, *The Roots of Coincidence* — an outsider’s philosophical take, more speculative, useful as a counterpoint.
• Harald Atmanspacher and Christopher Fuchs (eds.), *The Pauli–Jung Conjecture and Its Impact Today* — for readers who want the serious, contemporary academic treatment.
• David J. Hand, *The Improbability Principle* — the essential skeptical counterbalance; a statistician’s explanation of why “impossible” coincidences are mathematically expected.
• Marie-Louise von Franz, *On Divination and Synchronicity: The Psychology of Meaningful Chance* — a deeper, scholarly extension of Jung’s original idea.

Read Jung and Hand side by side. That tension is the whole point.

Part XII — How to Actually Notice: A Gestalt-Informed Practice

Whatever you conclude about the metaphysics, the skill of noticing is real and trainable, and Gestalt therapy offers a genuinely useful method for it — no belief in acausal principles required.

1. Locate your figure. Once a day, pause and ask plainly: what is most alive in me right now — what feeling, question, or unfinished thing is pulling my attention? Naming it clearly sharpens your ability to notice when the world seems to answer it.
2. Drop into the body, not just the story. Gestalt therapy insists that awareness includes physical sensation, not just thought. Before deciding a coincidence is “meaningful,” notice what happens in your body first — a tightening, an opening, a held breath. That physical charge is real data, even before you interpret it.
3. Stay with the moment instead of explaining it immediately. The instinct is to rush to what does this mean within seconds. Try, instead, to simply stay present with the coincidence a little longer before rushing to a verdict — mystical or dismissive. Both hasty conclusions foreclose on noticing anything further.
4. Keep a plain record, without editing. Write down coincidences the same day, including the mundane, failed near-misses — the friend you thought of who didn’t call. This single habit does more than anything else to correct the reconstructive-memory bias described earlier, and over months it will show you your own actual pattern, not the flattering story your memory prefers.
5. Ask the harder question, every time. Is this meaningful because of what happened, or because of how much I needed it to be meaningful right now? You don’t have to answer definitively. Just ask it honestly, every single time — that discipline alone is closer to Jung’s own rigor than most casual synchronicity-hunting ever gets.

A Closing Thought

Maybe you finish this article convinced the world is quietly, meaningfully arranging itself around your inner life. Maybe you finish it convinced your brain is simply, spectacularly good at finding faces in the clouds. The most honest place to land, probably, is somewhere neither camp is fully comfortable admitting: we do not actually know, and the not-knowing itself might be more interesting than either answer.

What we do know is this — the quality of your attention shapes what you notice, and what you notice shapes the story you tell about your life. That much is not mystical. It’s just true. So the next time something lines up in a way that raises the hair on your arms, don’t rush to file it under “sign” or “coincidence.” Sit with it a little longer than that. Ask what it’s pulling to the surface in you.

That pause, more than any beetle at the window, might be the real practice.

Glossary

Acausal connecting principle: Jung’s core definition of synchronicity — a link between events based on shared meaning rather than cause and effect.

Apophenia: The spontaneous perception of connections or patterns in random or unrelated data.

Confirmation bias: The tendency to notice and remember information that supports an existing belief while overlooking information that contradicts it.

Figure and ground: A Gestalt psychology concept describing how attention organizes experience into a foregrounded “figure” against a background “ground.”

Frequency illusion (Baader-Meinhof phenomenon): The sense that something recently learned or noticed suddenly appears everywhere, driven by selective attention and confirmation bias rather than an actual increase in occurrence.

Numinosum: A Jungian term (borrowed from theologian Rudolf Otto) for the felt quality of awe, mystery, or sacredness that often accompanies a synchronistic experience.

Pauli–Jung conjecture: The joint proposal by Carl Jung and physicist Wolfgang Pauli that mind and matter are two aspects of one deeper, psychophysically neutral reality.

Salience network: A brain network, including the anterior insula and anterior cingulate cortex, that flags emotionally or motivationally significant stimuli for conscious attention.

References

Atmanspacher, H., & Fuchs, C. A. (Eds.). (2014). The Pauli–Jung Conjecture and Its Impact Today. Imprint Academic.

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Gestalt therapy.” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/Gestalt-therapy

Counselling Tutor. “Gestalt Therapy Definition.” https://counsellingtutor.com/counselling-approaches/what-is-gestalt-therapy/

De Gruyter Brill. “The Pauli–Jung Conjecture and Its Relatives: A Formally Augmented Outline.” Open Philosophy. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/opphil-2020-0138/html

Frequency illusion. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion

Gestalt.org. Barlow, A. “Gestalt Therapy and Gestalt Psychology.” https://gestalt.org/barlow.htm

Hand, D. J. (2014). The Improbability Principle: Why Coincidences, Miracles, and Rare Events Happen Every Day. Scientific American / Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

International Association for Analytical Psychology (IAAP). “Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle.” https://iaap.org/jung-analytical-psychology/short-articles-on-analytical-psychology/synchronicity-an-acausal-connecting-principle/

Jung, C. G. (1952/1972). Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.). In Collected Works of C. G. Jung, Vol. 8. Princeton University Press.

Jung, C. G. (1963). Memories, Dreams, Reflections (A. Jaffé, Ed.; R. Winston & C. Winston, Trans.). Pantheon.

Jung Journal: Culture & Psyche. “Synchronicity in the Jungian Unconscious: The Connections Between Taoism and Modern Science,” Vol. 19, No. 1. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19342039.2025.2453153

Koestler, A. (1972). The Roots of Coincidence. Hutchinson.

Nautilus. “The Synchronicity of Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung.” https://nautil.us/the-synchronicity-of-wolfgang-pauli-and-carl-jung-238037

Pari Center. “Divine Contenders: Wolfgang Pauli and the Symmetry of the World.” https://paricenter.com/library-new/c-g-jung/divine-contenders-wolfgang-pauli-and-the-symmetry-of-the-world/

Peat, F. D. (1987). Synchronicity: The Bridge Between Matter and Mind. Bantam.

Perls, F. (1969). Gestalt Therapy Verbatim. Real People Press.

Perls, F., Hefferline, R., & Goodman, P. (1951). Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in the Human Personality. Julian Press.

Physics World. “A Universal Theory of Matter and Mind.” https://physicsworld.com/a/a-universal-theory-of-matter-and-mind/

PMC. “Sensory and Quasi-Sensory Experiences of the Deceased in Bereavement: An Interdisciplinary and Integrative Review.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7707065/

PMC. “The Phenomenology of Bereavement: Sensory Experiences of the Deceased.” European Psychiatry. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12437889/

Psychology Today. “Frequency Illusion.” https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/frequency-illusion

Von Franz, M.-L. (1980). On Divination and Synchronicity: The Psychology of Meaningful Chance. Inner City Books.