During the month of July I wrote the first draft of my law of attraction novel, Alemmia. I’m using “law of attraction” as a blanket term. What really attracts me is exploring reality creation – an inexhaustible subject! Alemmia is a beautiful Mediterranean island full of roses and magic, and the series will follow Lucia as she visits on her summer holidays and grows to learn how she can have whatever she wants.
So many beautiful, private signs found me during the composition of this novel that I’m more than eager to begin edits (and the “manifestation travel guide” that will accompany the books)! Be sure to sign up as a beta reader if you would like to be the first to read this story. ;)
I’ve mentioned before how the Apple word of the day screensaver is always bringing me messages. During the new moon I was catching up on Leeor Alexandra’s livestream, paused to write about the new moon, looked up and saw floating across my screen, the word, “manifestation”. The time? 11:11.
I was also lucky enough to be in the path of the longest lunar eclipse of the century. There is something very symbolic about seeing our collective shadow, I think.
I finally got around to reading Jung’s article on synchronicity. It makes a few interesting claims in trying to explain this phenomenon scientifically. To the best of my understanding:
1 | The problem of statistics
Statistics deal with an average world that ignores the exceptions and aberrations. According to Jung, these “outliers” need to be studied for proof of acausal relationships. The fact that this domain disappears as larger and larger numbers are involved seems noteworthy to me. We operate under the belief that scientific studies are more correct the greater number of cases they study. The margin for “error” is diminished. But this also means that what holds true for the statistical “whole” does not hold true when applied to the “real world” individual, which keeps the rule from being universal. Shouldn’t the scientific truth hold for the specific as well as for the general?
The statistically significant statement only concerns regularly occurring events, and if considered as axiomatic, it simply abolishes all exceptions to the rule. It produces a merely average picture of natural events, but not a true picture of the world as it is. Yet the exceptions—and my results are exceptions and most improbable ones at that— are just as important as the rules. Statistics would not even make sense without the exceptions. There is no rule that is true under all circumstances, for this is the real and not a statistical world. Because the statistical method shows only the average aspects, it creates an artificial and predominantly conceptual picture of reality. That is why we need a complementary principle for a complete description and explanation of nature.