Jung is not announcing a discovery here — he is naming a problem in the instruments of observation. The observer and the observed have never sat comfortably on opposite sides of the table, and every discipline that has tried to enforce that separation has eventually had to account for the table itself. What synchronicity forces into view is that the psyche is not a window onto events but a participant in them, which means the usual appeals to objectivity — the scientist's apatheia, the analyst's neutrality — are already implicated in what they claim to measure.

The phrase "neutral language" is worth sitting with. Pauli meant something precise by it: a symbolic register that would neither reduce inner events to physical substrate nor dissolve matter into mental projection, but would let both cohere in a single descriptive act. Jung took the invitation seriously because he had encountered, repeatedly, events that refused the causal register entirely — moments where meaning cohered across a gap no force could bridge. His response was not mystical assertion but methodological: if the data keep exceeding the instrument, build a better instrument, or at least name the one you are already using. What he is proposing here is not a metaphysics of cosmic connectedness. He is proposing honesty about the limit of the frame.