The subject used to be called the power of positive thinking or the power of a positive mental attitude (PMA). I've mentioned before that I grew up at the tail end of an era in which multi-level marketing companies relied heavily on the motivating power of PMA to help crowds of people sell soap to friends and family.
The new twist to the old PMA tale is called "Synchronicity." Dean Koontz defines Synchronicity as "That mind and matter are entwined, that as individuals and as a community of minds, we can affect reality, even unconsciously create it." [1] I first read about Synchronicity in the book "The Big Dark Sky." The book, a work of fiction by Dean Koontz, is predominately about our mind's affecting matter. Mr. Koontz is one of my favorite authors and the best writer I know who can weave stories of life, death, and all the weirdness between the two points.
The book's ultimate hero is an AI named Artimis, who belongs to a project called Olivaw. Olivaw was named after a robot detective written by Issac Asimov. So is it a coincidence that I picked "The Big Dark Sky" to read while at the same time I'm reading "I. Asimov: A Memoir?" or is it Synchronicity?
Jamie Todd Rubin, an author, and blogger I also enjoy reading, would call this causal relationship between the two "The Cumulative Effect." Mr. Rubin recently published a blog essay entitled "The Best Self Paced Course I've Ever Taken," [2] in which he details the cumulative effect of reading hundreds of books and then recognizing something in one book that reminds him of something from another. I do not doubt that mind and matter are entwined in ways that we can neither comprehend nor understand at this point; however, it is much easier to connect the dots of the cumulative effect by understanding how our brain filters information.
"What used to be obscure references to me suddenly have new meaning because I recognize the references" [3] Mr. Rubin states in his essay. I suspect that if I hadn't been reading Mr. Asimov's memoir, the reference regarding his robot detective would have been words on the paper. I would have skimmed the comments without any additional thought. However, because I had been reading Mr. Asimov, the connection quickly cemented in my synaptic memory. The experience was almost an "ah ha" moment of discovery.
Mr. Gerardo Patriotta, an organizational theorist, would say that I had increased my stock of interpretations allowing me to see the connection between Mr. Koontz's use of the project named Olivaw and the robot detective created by Mr. Asimov. Mr. Patriotta holds that "our universe is preinterpreted," in other words, we only see what our current stock of interpretations "allows us to see." [4] The story often told to highlight this ability of understanding (which I highly doubt occurred) is that when Columbus arrived on these foreign shores, the Native Americans could not see his ships. The design was so alien that they could not put the sight into context, and the vessels were rendered invisible to the naked eye. [5]
The point of Mr. Rubin's essay, and of which I wholly agree is whether reading a book of fiction or nonfiction; the end should be "if a book provides me with something of practical value, it was worth reading." [6] There is immense practical value in expanding general personal knowledge and using that knowledge in unexpected ways. [7] I have used this quote by Stephen King before; however, it is also adept at this point.
"There is no Idea Dump, no Story Central, no Island of the Buried Bestsellers; good story ideas seem to come quite literally from nowhere, sailing at you right out of the empty sky: two previously unrelated ideas come together and make something new under the sun. Your job isn't to find these ideas but to recognize them when they show up." ~ Stephen King
The cumulative effect of reading is to increase our general knowledge, increasing our stock of interpretations that allow us to "see" connections between references, as Mr. Rubin points out. Using our newfound ability to "see" and connect unrelated thoughts in unexpected ways isn't necessarily our job, whether as a writer or line worker; however, we need to "recognize them when they show up." Our recognition will stimulate new patterns in our thinking, and what could be more satisfactory than that?
Written October 25, 2022
References:
[1] KOONTZ, D. E. A. N. (2023). _Big dark sky_. THOMAS & MERCER.
[2] https://jamierubin.net/2022/10/25/the-best-self-paced-course-ive-ever-taken/
[3] ibid
[4] Weick, Karl E., and Kathleen M. Sutcliffe. Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty. Second ed., Jossey-Bass, 2007. p.57.
[5] https://www.northcoastjournal.com/humboldt/myth-of-the-invisible-ships/Content?oid=2129921
[6] https://jamierubin.net/2022/10/25/the-best-self-paced-course-ive-ever-taken/
[7] Weick, Karl E., and Kathleen M. Sutcliffe. Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty. Second ed., Jossey-Bass, 2007. p.99.