In reading Gareth Knight; I came across the concept of "signs-following" (S-F); which he used to describe the confirming effect of synchronicities that may follow after a significant life-experience, insight, or decision.
As an example of signs-following; a new life-project might be decided upon, and this is followed by a series of synchronicities in our subsequent life, that (apparently) conform the validity of the new plan.
Perhaps a phone call from a thematically-linked person out of the blue, a highly relevant book is found in an unexpected place - or falls from a shelf, a job-opportunity opens in exactly the right place... that kind of thing.
It strikes me that this is a formal conceptualization of a common - perhaps unconscious - way that many people have of checking that they are on the right lines, have make the correct choice.
Certainly; in my own life, important and correct decisions have always been confirmed by "signs-following".
And this is, indeed, pretty much how I would expect divine providence to make itself known; and S-F is therefore potentially a very important matter!
However, it would be a mistake to make a formal, explicit dogma of this way of checking; since if S-F is made into a system then it can be manipulated.
In the first place, we may fool ourselves; by interpreting genuine coincidence as purposive, or my misinterpreting a negative sign - a warning - as if it was positive confirmation.
And secondly the natural tendency can be exploited by external and malign powers; especially nowadays when launching a major Litmus Test strategy.
It can be seen that top-down totalitarian strategies simulate "signs-following" - for example in the 2020 Birdemic scam, where the initial statements were followed by apparently confirmatory events of the dangers - which were either cherry-picked, semi-staged, or misinterpreted; and the pre-selected conclusions were mega-amplified by officialdom and media.
Similarly, the "AI Revolution" almost exactly four years ago; was a top-down launched and sequenced strategy; whereby it seemed as if one after another "breakthrough" just happened to come along on cue - to confirm the impression of a qualitative advance in civilizationally-valuable technological functional capability.
At an inter-personal level; planned sexual seduction often tries one-sidedly to exploit the innate human tendency to regard S-F as evidence of a special relationship.
My conclusion is that signs-following are, on the one side, an essential aspect of a Romantic Christian life; and, on the other side, there must be discernment concerning the possibility of self-deception and external manipulation.
Pattern recognition and the following-of-signs also figures largely in schizophrenia. I wonder what schizophrenia really is. It seems like something of a failed shamanic initiation sometimes. What do you make of it, Dr. Charlton?
ReplyDelete@Epi - My views as of 2000 are in here:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/psychhuman.html
To which I would add that the core of schizophrenia was what was termed hebephrenia - and the rest were other things.
It arose probably in the 1700s or thereabouts and became increasingly common through the 1800s. And last I heard schizophrenia was declining in incidence very considerably, especially in women - and new diagnosis had become rare.
So this terrible disease arose, waxed, and waned over a span of a few hundred years - and really nothing significant was ever understood about its causes or cure.