Drug and alcohol use by homicide victims in Trinidad and Tobago, 2001-2007.
Synchronicity has long been described as an ‘acausal’ connecting principle. However, the use of this descriptor is not only misleading, but also outright false on any seriously considered picture of synchronicity due to admissions of multiple types of causes. Furthermore, previous attempts to clarify the ‘acausal’ label have served only to further muddy the waters of discussion. A ‘multi-causal’ conception of synchronicity is proposed to ease and encourage future discussion in many disciplines. Synchronicity is a nefariously slippery topic. I contend that much of the confusion surrounding synchronicity stems from describing it as ‘acausal.’ The myriad of explanations and interpretations of this terminology muddy the waters of discussion. In my search to better understand this topic, I have arrived at the position that synchronicity should be described, instead, as ‘multi-causal.’ Gestures made to Aristotelian conceptions of causes favor the adoption of a ‘multi-causal’ description of synchronicity, and conflict with the current ‘acausal’ conception. More importantly, though, conceiving of synchronicity as ‘multi-causal’ opens discussion in many disciplines, whereas the term ‘acausal’ has immensely limited the conversation. 49 Zachary Stinson Stance | Volume 4 | 2011