Abstract Jung promoted the idea of synchronicity in 1928, in the context of discussing the Chinese way of thinking. From 1928 to 1951, Jung’s informal formulations led to more than one understanding of synchronicity. He even tried to apply synchronicity to an astrological experiment. Yet, the experimental results reveal that synchronicity cannot be verified by natal astrology. However, post‐Jungian astrologers still pursue synchronicity in their astrological theories. In this article, Jung’s synchronicity theory is reviewed again to reassert the threshold of Jung’s original conceptualization of synchronicity as a form of empirical phenomena. From there, the article focuses on the reception of the concept among two post‐Jungian authors: Liz Greene and Richard Tarnas. They overlooked, each in their own way, Jung’s cautious epistemological attitude towards synchronicity in order to establish a grander cosmology for astrology. Finally, we suggest an alternative approach to discovering authentic synchronicity in astrology beyond the cosmological/metaphysical approach—by emphasizing the numinous foundation of the unconscious.
Zeng et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: