NON-CAUSALITY AS A UNIFYING PRINCIPLE OF PSYCHOSOMATICS-SULPHUR


NON-CAUSALITY AS A UNIFYING PRINCIPLE OF PSYCHOSOMATICS-SULPHUR. The concept of causality, namely the linear association of phenomena by cause and effect, has always been an unquestioned logical category; in scientific work, especially, it seems to us the only possible and thinkable one. To satisfy our scientific logic-the causal relationship of events has to be established before we can reasonably assume an understanding of the phenomena in question.


AUTHORS NOTE-I believe I should say this before I give you this rather long and formidable paper. It consists of two parts. The first part deals with the general application of a scientific principle-which I think is as important as Copper-nicus revelation-introducing an entirely new approach in natural science. We seem to stand on the threshold of a similar time. It is very, very difficult for us to comprehend, who stand at the very dawn of this time, and who have to strain our poor brains to find out what it is all about.

The first part is an explanation of this principle, which has risen from atom physics and psychology. The second part applies it to a well-known drug. Sulphur, and shows how the symptomatology of the remedy, as well as the personality and constitutional type, seem to fit into a very enlarged pattern and fall almost automatically into line.-E.W.

The concept of causality, namely the linear association of phenomena by cause and effect, has always been an unquestioned logical category; in scientific work, especially, it seems to us the only possible and thinkable one. To satisfy our scientific logic-the causal relationship of events has to be established before we can reasonably assume an understanding of the phenomena in question.

Thus we ask whether physical disorders are caused by mental ones or vice versa. We ask why a potency acts, why a similar drug removes a condition which it can cause; whether prescribing on the basis of symptom similarity removes also the “cause” of these symptoms, namely the “illness.” In attempting to find a logical order in the maze of symptoms of our Materia Medica we have to ask such questions as what causes the “ragged philosopher,” Mr. Sulphur, to have eczemas, and why that same Sulphur constitution should also be characterized by varicose veins and an aggravation from heat? What causes what, and how so?.

At best, these questions prove unanswerable. But, actually, they involve us in more and more illogical paradoxes. The very law of similars itself is such a logical paradox when looked at in terms of causality. That, seemingly, cause and effect could be reversible-such as emotional states causing organic conditions or organic derangements causing mental disorders-seems equally bewildering. More or less despairing of ever finding satisfactory answers, we have embarrassedly stopped asking such questions.

That the very mode of reasoning which we have come to take for granted may itself be a barrier toward a real understanding of the phenomena of life does, not even occur to us.

Astounding as this may sound, it is precisely the conclusion with we seem to be confronted by modern scientific insights. Non- causality, as a scientific principle suitable for a better understanding of nature, has been advanced by the exactest of all sciences, physics, and more recently also be analytical psychology.

W.Heisenberg1 who introduced the so-called “uncertainty principle” into physics expresses himself as follows:.

In the statement that whenever we know the present exactly in every respect, we can predetermine the future, it is not the conclusion that is wrong but the premise. As a matter of principle, we cannot ever exactly recognize the present.

The basis for this statement lies in the fact that, in atom physics, the very process of observation itself has been found to disturb and thereby change the course of the events which are to be observed. One may determine with approximate exactness either the course or the impulse of an electron but not both; the accuracy of determination of the one diminishes in relation to the gain of exactness of the other. Never having had a firmly exact premise from which to deduce an effect, the laws of energy had to be formulated in a different way by quantum physics.

Thus we may understand Plancks statement that the law of causality has finally failed us in its application to the world of atoms. The arrangements of energy quanta and the phenomena or radio-activity are defined by modern physics as causeless phenomena, namely, a priori basic arrangements. Statements about the electrons cannot be made on a linear cause and effect basis, for instance, by deducing a certain action as effect from a given course and energy charge.

Rather, the laws of atom physics are expressed in terms of a generally descriptive statistical probability which lists courses, energy charges the actions as coordinates on equal levels instead of subordinating action as an effect to courses and charges as cause. Thus, a totality of a phenomenon, namely, an indeterminable number of electrons, shares on a statistical basis in the known qualities, some having the expected courses, others the energy, others the action, etc.; it is undeterminable, however, in what way a given individual electron may express the general statistical law in which it shares.

Each individual case is an unpredictable instance of a totality of a general law of arrangement under which phenomena are related to each other, not as cause and effect, but individually and unpredictably expressing different aspects of that general law.

In a recent essay2 C.G. Jung, referring to the above facts of physics, states that.

…since the connection of cause and effect turns out to be only statistically valid, namely, only relatively true, the principle of causality is only relatively usable for the explanation of natural phenomena and thereby implicitly presupposes the existence of one or several other factors necessary for explanation. That means that under certain circumstances the connection of events is of a different nature than causal and thereby demands a different principle of explanation.

This different non-causal principal Jung terms “synchronicity.” He defines it as “the timely coincidence of two or several events which cannot be causally related to each other, but express an identical or similar meaning.”3 He remarks that in the macro-physical world we would but look in vain for non-causal events simply because one cannot even imagine occurrences not causally related. On the other hand, in depth psychology experiences with the phenomenon of synchronicity kept accumulating from year to year in the form of the observation of coincidences of inner subjective psychological states with objective outside events, meaningfully related to each other in such a way that their merely “accidental” association became a statistically determinable improbability.

These coincidences can generally take the form of the coincidence of an endopsychic condition of the observer with a simultaneous objective outer event that directly corresponds to his psychic content (an example of this is the story quoted later on) or with an event that takes place outside of the observers field of perception (for instance, the burning of Stockholm coinciding with Swedenborgs vision of it) or as the coincidence of a psychic state with a corresponding not-yet-existing future event which can be verified only subsequently. For brevitys sake we have to omit the numerous observed instances which Jung quotes as examples.

Jung refers to J.B. Rhine as having established reliable starting points for the investigation of the synchronicity phenomenon through his statistical experiments with extrasensory perception at Duke University. In these experiments various persons tried to predict the cards that were about to be drawn from a deck. Then they succeeded in predicting a series that was yet to be laid out in the near future (up to several weeks) and, finally, a mechanically thrown dice was influenced by wishing for a certain number.

Jung comments that these experiments prove that to a certain degree the psyche can cancel out the factors of time and space and that the motions of inanimate bodies can be influenced psychically.

Since distance in no way affected these experiments, the idea of a transmission of energy had to be discarded. Moreover, as Jung points out, the concept of causality does not hold, since we cannot imagine how a future event could “cause” an effect in the present. Thus, one has to assume, at least provisionally, that improbable accidents of a non-causal nature, namely, meaningful coincidences, have entered into the picture.

Jung goes on to state that in the course of his investigations of the collective unconscious he ever and again came up against connections which he could not explain as merely incidental groupings or accumulations, since the connections of these “spontaneous coincidences” expressed a common meaning in such a way that their accidental concurrence would represent a statistical improbability. (For the Rhine experiments the statistical improbability has been figured out from between 1:250,000 up to 1:289,023,876 millions.).

In giving characteristic examples from his own vast experience he warms that nothing would be accomplished by an ad hoc explanation, since the could mention a great many such stories which in principle are no more surprising and incredible than the irrefutable Rhine experiments and which would show that every case calls for its own different explanation, a causal explanation, however, being inadequate in each instance.

Edward C. Whitmont
Edward Whitmont graduated from the Vienna University Medical School in 1936 and had early training in Adlerian psychology. He studied Rudulf Steiner's work with Karl Konig, later founder of the Camphill Movement. He researched naturopathy, nutrition, yoga and astrology. Whitmont studied Homeopathy with Elizabeth Wright Hubbard. His interest in Analytical Psychology led to his meeting with Carl G. Jung and training in Jungian therapy. He was in private practice of Analytical Psychology in New York and taught at the C. G. Jung Training Center, of which he is was a founding member and chairman. E. C. Whitmont died in September, 1998.