I think a great deal of pomposity and harumphing is inevitable when an innocent observation like Eb's is presented. Of which this thread to date is only the latest evidence.
The fact is that the scope of individual consciousness is a glaring, crashing unknown in mainstream human discussion. In a similar vein the actual nature of the interactions between consciousness and the worlds in which we live (plural, intentional) is another crashing unknown.
In the medieval era, a lot of unknowns were "solved" by adopting wildly aberrative stable answers, such as "mystic influence of the stars being herded around by angels" and the like. Or the work of Satan, or his myriad minions. In modern times, we habe promulgated the same appetite for fending off the unknown by ignoring consciousness and focusing entirely on the sphere of mechanics. But I submit that the notion that "all is mechanism" is as superstitious in its use today as the notion "all is angels of God" was in 1300.
From this perspective Jung, and more recently, Ebbie, may be opening doors when they study the relationship between individual consciousness and the meaningful coincidences we call "synchronicity". As Little Hawk points out, when coincidences are not meaningful we don't call them much of anything. This invites cynicism from the materialist camp, but the same cynicism may be applied equally well to the predilection to ignore coincidences which seem to align with the intentions of one or more universes of consciousness.
It may be useful, however, to add that the material universe itself is not a universe of consciousness, but a universe of aggregation, reaction, entropy, densification, and force. These are very much not attributes of consciousness.