Hemingway: Different ways to connect

In December, I finished writing The Cosmic Internet, presenting a logical explanation of what I’ve gotten from the guys upstairs on how the world works and what our place in it is. Upon completing the task, I had a sense that I should do something out of my ordinary routine, so I decided to take a vacation. At my friend Michael Langevin’s suggestion, I went with my old friend Charles to the Florida Keys. (Because of the generosity of two other friends who are letting us stay as guests in their house on one of the keys, I am spending more on books about Hemingway than on lodging.) The first full day in the keys, we went to see the Hemingway house and museum on Key West. The next morning, I had a talk with Papa — my first in what seems a long while.

Friday, January 7, 2011

Seems odd to realize that yesterday was our first full day in the Keys. Now we have nearly 2 weeks ahead of us with nothing planned and nothing we need to do. And I have several books, of varying quality.

Sonny Hemingway’s Ernie.

Jack Hemingway’s A Life Worth Living.

The Breaking Point, by Stephen Koch

Hemingway In Love And War by Henry S. Villard and James Nigel

Hemingway Goes To War, by Charles Whiting

Strange Tribe, by John Hemingway

Given that I chose them intuitively, may I assume that they were chosen for a purpose, papa?

There is the Law Of Accident and the Law Of Necessity, as you know. Not every sparrow falls in exactly a given place, even if the sparrow’s fall is noted.

Meaning — I take it — that whatever books I chose, I’ll get something out of them.

You will, or you won’t, and that aspect of things will much matter. You connected with the space, didn’t you?

I did sort of, in a slipshod way as usual. I mean, we took the tour through the house, we saw the study, I glanced at the swimming pool, I felt for the right books to buy in the gift shop, and that was about it.

No it wasn’t. Think.

Already, I get it. Slow down, you me. And that is what has been wrong these past couple of months, isn’t it? Too revved to communicate here in this way.

There is an art to anything. You can’t go flyfishing by rules that work for —

I dried up on the analogy. I don’t know fishing.

No, you don’t — and you’re forgetting that you’re supposed to be letting stuff come through, not providing it.

I am indeed. Boy am I rusty. Okay, let’s try recalibrating. [Pause]

We got our tickets and went to the living room — after a timely stop at the restroom on another part of the grounds. The guide came in, welcomed us, and started his spiel. In the living room I noticed the photo of Gregorio Fuentes, in particular, after it was pointed out. And the furniture was original, they said. I noticed the size of the room, the height of the ceiling, the light and air of the room. And I remember thinking — realizing — that Hemingway had actually lived there, that he had been there.

We crossed to the room at the front of the house on the opposite side of the central hallway, the dining room, which was dominated by photos on the walls, as I remember. The Hemingway wives, etc. Started to notice — or had I noticed right away? — the disrespectful undertone in the guide’s “funny” comments.

But if that was the dining room, what was the other room on that side behind it? Then the kitchen, then upstairs to the master bedroom.

My memories aren’t very specific. Wasn’t I paying attention, or was I paying attention in a different way, to different things?

Is that a rhetorical question or a real one?


When you try to absorb the atmosphere of something, you are blanking your mind of specific associations and thoughts — in fact, thought interferes with the process. The memories are there, of course — they are therefore everything in your life — but they are not memories of words or thoughts (which you were not recording or registering) but of connection. If the thing was recorded in one mode, how could it be played back in another? If you think, you remember thought. If you feel, you remember feelings. If both, both.

Let’s skip to your study, then.

You were at first disappointed that you could go only a couple of feet into it before you were stopped by the metal barrier. But this had its advantages. No one else was in there too. The room was empty of people. It was a composition of scene. And people’s energy did not disrupt the built-up energy that the reconstructed scene creates.

I don’t quite understand that. If you had left the room and it was as you had left it, I could imagine that your presence had left an imprint. Not so easy to imagine that, given that you left before 1940, and it was only reconstructed as a model of your writing life decades later, after Pauline’s tenure and the new owner, etc. But this is assumption on my part, and I begin to see it.

Yes, you’re getting it. My imprint on that room does not depend upon the visual cues left around or deliberately placed, any more than a ghost’s appearance depends on a photograph of him remaining on a wall. We leave our energy on our surroundings as we live, or, to put it another way, we merge our energies with the world, continually. It is one more way in which people are not as separate from the world as they think they are.

Now, you can see the assistance that visual cues provide. Auditory cues, too, would help if there were any. Recorded voices or sounds help to produce that composition of place. But neither visual or auditory nor any other kind of cue — smells, for instance — are necessary; it’s just that they can be helpful.

When I went to Salisbury Cathedral in England, I could feel Bertram connecting to it — Bertram within me, let’s say — and I could certainly feel his awe at the base of the spire, which apparently was not in place when he was there. For that matter, I seemed to feel his irritation and perplexity at how they had cut up the interior by adding little boxes — rooms on a human scale. Plus there was the experience of hearing a couple conversing in German and realizing that’s what the people of his day sounded like, to his Norman-French-accustomed ears.

And I well remember walking through London by the Nelson column, actively trying to allow David to reexperience London, wondering if buses and radios etc. were part of his experience — that is, if he could register them, I having a different and far less sophisticated idea of the nature of communication then. And we walked down to the embankment at the river — I suppose “we” is about the best way to say it — and I looked at one monument that said, merely, “July 1, 1916,” and I — he? — was filled with this ghastly flood of grief, indignation, etc. when I didn’t even know what battle it referred to, or why the monument should have needed nothing beyond the date itself.

As I said in A Farewell To Arms. After a point, after enough suffering, words like “glory” and “sacrifice” can’t mean what they are used to mean, and only dates and other concrete specific markers retain meaning — and that partly because they have meaning only to those who know why they have meaning, where words like “valor” don’t mean anything specific to they sound as though they do, and people think they feel or understand something when in fact it is merely abstraction. David didn’t respond to the conventionally worded tributes, did he? For one thing your own overlay of thought and reading — secondhand memory, call it — got in the way. But mainly, he wouldn’t be in the mood to hear patriotic speeches, and was in the mood to connect who he was then and now with who you were at the moment (which was “now” to you then and now is “then”).

Now, when you went through the house, in feeling for my presence you were not listening to stories about dead people, you were doing something entirely different. You were there, in that moment, willing to connect with me in that moment. That couldn’t be a sensory experience; I am not there anymore. But it can be a non-sensory experience, because I am a part of the place not in any metaphorical sense but as a real living (though not living in 3-D) person. All the visual cues are designed for people trying to imagine what it was like, and they do assist in the process. But imagining can be either (or both) of two processes.

You can imagine as a sort of what-if exercise, in which you assume that the people who lived there are dead and you are alive, and so it is only a sort of petrified memory that helps you to fantasize a story.

Or you can imagine as an extension of your senses, in which you assume that the dead remain there non-physically (but not only their, of course, not tethered there, so to speak), available for you to interact with non-physically. In that case, imagination is not story-telling, or fantasizing. You did not wander around thinking that you were hearing me talk to you, or were even talking to me then. You went around in an open and receptive state, open to the interesting physical cues like photos on the rooms themselves, but open as well to whatever might come in between the lines.

I begin to get the idea. I don’t think I could have phrased it. We go to a place and the place itself keeps us focused on somebody, and if we go around in the open receptive state we can perhaps absorb both physical and non-physical cues.

Yes because you are going around non-physically as well as physically, of course: your mind is non-physical.

And this is what Richard Leviton meant when he said we go to sacred spots to be infected, rather than to experience any sudden change.

Infected, if you are willing to become infected, and of course that statement depends a lot on who “you” is.

Well, I think I must end this. Nice to begin to get back into the swing of things! Thanks, papa. We can talk later, perhaps, about this impossible book project.

9 thoughts on “Hemingway: Different ways to connect

  1. Hi Frank. Happy New Year. I like this: “We leave our energy on our surroundings as we live, or, to put it another way, we merge our energies with the world, continually. It is one more way in which people are not as separate from the world as they think they are.” This describes how experience a healing. I feel that my mind and body have become one with everything, and then I physically and consciously record: I see medical images, experience emotion and see and relive events in the client’s life. I describe everything as being overlaid. I also noticed you used the word overlay.

    “Or you can imagine as an extension of your senses.” I like this because this is something my guides have talked to me about. I also feel that when our senses work in harmony they essentially become a sixth sense. A seventh sense, for me, is knowing without the processes of sensing evidence. I’m not intuitive, I simply know. I think to believe that our five senses are a physical mechanism, limits our potential, and nullifies our connection with the earth. We are the earth, so I can smell you now. I don’t have to see you or be in your vicinity for my senses to record you. This is what we’ve forgotten. Our world view is narrowing, because we don’t sense: we only see what’s in front of us, and most times not even that.

    For me healing is an observing force. Bodies and lives heal because they’re seen. The act of seeing without the influences of perception and programmed emotion ignites a creating force.

    I might be rambling. Good luck with impossible book project.

    1. > “I’m not intuitive, I simply know.”

      This gave me a smile. I once said to Rita Warren that sometimes I felt like a know-it-all, saying all that stuff with great assurance when in fact i didn’t have any evidence for any of it. She laughed and said that what i had just said was practically a definition of being an intuitive.

  2. Hi Frank,
    This made me realize how much I’ve missed your regular postings, and what a special gift they were at the time.

    I do like the tone of this series. It doesn’t strike me as a teacher trying to educate his students, but rather as two peers working out the intricacies of non-physical communication together, each contributing something to the process.

    As always, thanks for sharing this.


    1. Interesting point about the tone of the communication. I don’t know that I had noticed, but when you point it out, I see it. I guess we get better at anything we practice long enough.

  3. SO GLAD you are back! No where else on the web can I get such a huge dose of surprising, shocking, comforting and still often perplexing info on the afterlife. After all these months following this blog, it’s still my hope that someday I’ll learn to contact my father in the way you can contact “dead” people. Is that a shallow or selfish motive for being here, I wonder? It is what it is, I guess.

    The last bit about “sacred spots” gave me pause and made me go look up “Richard Leviton”. Is the Hemingway House a sacred spot to you?

    1. Not a shallow or selfish motive, and not impossible — by a long shot — either. In several postings over the past four years I have spelled out how to go about it. It’s (I say) in some ways easier done than said. Try looking for those posts by searching the category Intuitive Linked Communication. A lot to search, however!

      The question about sacred spots is a good one and deserves a better answer than I can give at the moment. No, I don’t regard the HH+M as a sacred spot in the sense of Machu Picchu, say, or Salisbury Cathedral, or other places where the inherent energies of the earth provide access to other — dimensions, call them. In this case, it served as sensory reinforcement (because he and I had both seen the place) and we’ll see what if anything it leads to.

  4. Frank,

    Guess I’m an intuitive as well. I missed you and was wondering if you had gone on vacation only to discover indeed you had to a place I have dreamed of visiting or maybe visited in dreams Key West precisely because of Ernest Hemingway.

    Seems he has come back into my life through you and as a result films I have seen of late mention him. Saw one on PBS about many artists in Paris at a given time and his relationship and then conflict with Gertrude Stein, who began as a mentor and ended up as not much of a friend, in which she said he was macho and limited by his topics and he said she was repetitious and well less than flattering remarks. Funny our small selves can really get into these quarrels.
    But it’s great to have you back and to have Hemingway with us. Funny while you were away I read over Muddy Tracks to connect and realized again why I write …it is a form of connection to others who may not be nearby, but who I am conversing with on some level.
    Looking forward to your new book and more conversations with Ernest.

    Happy 2011…astrologers say it is supposed to be good for books coming out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.