Causal or Acausal?

Jung's take on acausality can be confusing. When consciously recognized by the ego, synchronicity is described as an "acausal connecting principle." 

But Jung also says that the archetypes, as primordial patterns of the collective unconscious, direct us to the experience of synchronicity, which implies causality.

When conceived from a deeper, archetypal level of consciousness, synchronicity might seem more causal than acausal. 

Jungian scholars still debate this apparent casuality-acausality paradox.

Perhaps part of the problem arises from different beliefs about the nature of consciousness. 

Some related questions are:

• Do we perceive from the vantage point of the ego, the archetypes or the self? Are these loci discrete or connected? If they overlap, how might the different loci be weighted?
• Does our unique psychological makeup influence our perception and interpretation of synchronicity? Assuming, as Jung says, that the ego is the high achievement of human consciousness, does the ego ever not identify with some other agency?
• What about individual differences? Might different people have qualitatively different centers of consciousness?
• Might some individuals have several alternating norms of consciousness, each being different (i.e. 'multiple self theory' as found in philosophy)?
• And what of cultural norms? Could the so-called normal ego of one culture be deviant in another?
• How well do Jung's concepts correspond to reality?
• To what degree is Jungian theory influenced by European and North American cultural assumptions?

By way of contrast to the Western hegemony, the Asian theory of chakras indicates seven different centers of consciousness.