Friday, July 31, 2015
[A member of a Hemingway list I am on posted photos from the Hemingway collection at the JFK library, including a photo of a ticket stub to a bullfight Hemingway had attended. I copied the photo to Nancy Ford, adding “nice coincidence, if you look at the date,” because July 27 is my birthday.
[Knowing of my long connection with Hemingway, she wrote back,” I would really like to know how far back the two of you originally shared lives. I don’t think this is the first time and when I saw this ticket, I thought, `Of course, he was a strand of EH during those days.’ Regardless of the timing of birth and all that, the feeling was very strong and to have you find this with your birthday on it feels like a smile from Hemingway to you, like `hi.’”
[As I thought about it, I suddenly thought, “Of course! If people share lives, they are available to be a strand in one another’s future mixtures, and so on and so on. It can be quite an intricate braiding, perhaps.” The fact that it produces an “of course!” doesn’t make it right, but it did draw my attention. So I decided to see what I could find out.]
12:15 p.m. Nancy proposes that maybe Papa and I shared a lifetime at some point, and the me that was then, became a strand of his at some point. And of course it could be the other way around, either an “either” or a “both.” That seemed a very productive thought, adding a braiding effect I’d never considered. And – interesting to observe, something I’ve been noticing – I am too fast in my reactions to an exciting idea to actually pull it apart. But talking to somebody slows it down and helps me to get someone else’s analysis
So, I not knowing who to invite in for a chat – Papa? Dr. Jung? Rita? TGU in general?
The idea of braiding needs spelling out in implication as well as in its initial simplicity, but it has the potential to advance the argument significantly. Notice that it is already being advanced on Facebook and, mostly, via comments from your blog and on TMI Explorers – don’t lose track of the comments and the arguments, because here is the genesis of more than one book or article. The idea you had, of “It’s Not Too Late to Tell Them” [about communication after people have died] was good. This can be another, on the lines of “Reincarnation is not like hide and seek,” or something relatively light-hearted but serious.
Can we go into how it might work?
You already have the concept of strands being previous minds created by the living-out of a new combination. Now realize that any given strand may include elements previously combined in other ways. Then, trace it out. For instance,
A, B, C, D E L
F, G, H J L
[etc.] L O
No, it isn’t clarifying.
That is the basic concept. The angel is in the details. Now suppose A, F, and elements of K, M, and N are all aspects that were contained in an earlier container we will call “you.”
A contributed to E
F contributed to J
E and J, both to L
L contributed to O, as did strands from M and N (K having entered through L)
Now L has strands including E (partly consisting of your A) and J (partly your F) and K (equally yours).
L teams up with M and N (and others) and all add to this newly created being we labeled O.
Strands A and F are not what they were. They have been modified by their separate experience prior to joining again as part of L. And so forth.
Now, this is true of everybody involved. The long and the short of it is, that in a way you hadn’t yet considered, everybody is literally part of the whole fabric, not metaphorically but in the most basic and unchangeable of ways.
So now say that what became Hemingway were traits B and C, G, etc. You can see that A, B and C are no longer only you and he separately, but also part of E – part of the same lifetime – and F and G are part of J, so come to a fusion with E as part of L and again, the braiding takes place. Pieces of him, pieces of you, then pieces of him/you, and the mixing and matching goes on forever.
And of course it is anachronistic to speak of “you” and “Hemingway” back before either of you existed as such – but it is for the process of elucidation.
Yes, I see.
And of course there is always much more, but this is enough to chew on for the moment. By the way, the word you were looking for is “increment.”
It is? I tried it and discarded it.
A noun, not a verb.
If you say so. Still not entirely persuaded but thanks.