Hemingway on his emotional life

Thursday, April 29, 2010

I find myself recurrently thinking about — brooding on — Hemingway’s emotional life. I feel that I understand him as perhaps his biographers do not, quite. What you think, papa?

Yes, you do. Not because you have any particular insight into my life – many of them see the externals much more clearly – but because you know more, consciously, about the fluctuations of moods and almost possessions that we are. You could write that.

Maybe. I don’t have any kind of handle on form. Oh – as I did with Joseph?

The bar isn’t higher, just different. Joseph might not exist. I might be demonstrably different from what you get. But it is the same thing either way.

All right, let’s talk about your rages. Looking at it now from a wider perspective, how do you see it?

Concussions aren’t good for you, for one thing.

Neither is frustration.

No, neither is frustration, but in general you can deal with frustration without rage. It isn’t just a matter of self-control. I had a lot of self-control in some directions.

You would frequently explode at Max Perkins, it looks like.

I’d pour out my anger and suspicion and frustration and worry, and my feeling of not being supported, and my sense of being taken for granted, yes. And there was so much jealousy there, too, though I didn’t quite let myself realize it.

And quite a bit of fear, it seems to me.

Well, fear, yes. Old “’fraid of nothin’” dealt with different fears every day of his life. Some I could acknowledge, because they were rational and merely showed that I knew the risks I was taking. Others I couldn’t admit it because I felt I shouldn’t be afraid of them. And some I didn’t dare admit because I didn’t think it was safe to – and the publication of my letters shows that I was right, too.


10:30 AM. Maybe the way to proceed is to ask a leading question and let you proceed, or – if you already know what you want to talk about, just let you go ahead, as I did with Joseph four and a half years ago.

So, papa – what would you like to say about your life and/or reading and/or experiences.

I came out of the hospital in Italy as Jack London came out of the bars in the Klondike, with no first-hand experience, but a wealth of secondhand experience. After all, I had never fired a rifle at an opponent, and hadn’t even had the preliminary fear of going into combat. The shell that injured me was a bolt out of the blue to a boy who assumed his own invulnerability. So what I knew was pain and suffering and irrational fear. Everything else was secondhand; the life in the lines, the comradeship of arms, the mixtures of fears and courage that filled people at different times, the nature of the Italians.

I was on slightly more first-hand ground with the love affair, except I glamorized it, adding an older man’s perspective on a very young man’s experience. I killed Agnes as I had had to kill my love for her when she rejected me – but the emotions and experiences Frederic Henry had were those I learned much later in life than 18. So to that extent there is a fairytale element in the love story.

Alright, I romanced, telling my story to the press and to my fellows at home. I told it as I dreamed it, rather than as it was. You could look at it as novelizing without the writing of it. But the things that I pretended had happened to me, I knew, even though secondhand.

I do see that. And of course you and I discussed this somewhat three years ago when I read The Young Hemingway while in England.

Well, this is the foundation for understanding my later life, you see. Not Paris, not my upbringing, not the things that happened in Spain and all. Being wounded without warning, being the first of the Americans in the hospital, listening for many months to the real veterans, being able to pretend I was a veteran too, and sort of feeling that because of my wounds, I was. And then knowing that I had a whole extra life to lead, for I could have been killed, even was killed, but came back –. This was the central experience of my life, and it came before I was 20.


For reasons I won’t go into, I was led to post, on Facebook, my page of interview links here.  Then it occurred to me that, although that page is here on this site, many who read the blog may be unaware of it. So here it is. This includes more than a dozen interviews of various lengths, most of them 15 minutes or so, all centering either on ILC or my conversations or the books made of those conversations. Some will find it of interest.




The forces that flow through us

April 13, 2010

4:30 PM. Dr. Jung, reading your ideas about the repressed unconscious breaking out and causing chaos — can we relate that to my guys upstairs, and to the thought I just had?

The system will have its application to any other system until the limits of analogy causes it to break down. How could two systems dealing with the same aspects of reality not relate to each other? It would indicate that at least one was seriously in error.

The guys upstairs — we guys upstairs, I suppose I must say — are forces, or conduits of forces, as much as they are localized consciousnesses. Over and above whatever one is or does as an individual is what one is or does as a representative of his ancestors — spiritual and physical both.

If one is a conduit for vast forces, and those forces cannot flow because there is a dam constructed somewhere on the physical side — well, at some point there is likely to be a collapse and then a flood!

Suppose that you are living your life in a merely conscious, routinized way. You do not get into touch with your “unconscious” aspects — your guys upstairs as they manifest in your life. You seek to conform to a code that may be well-meaning but does not fit your psychology. Your life and externally is more or less a rejection, a repudiation, of the internal life that more truly represents you.

Yes, it is true that you can choose, and it is your choice. But it is also true that too long a time spent making bad choices will lead to results.

For an individual considered as an individual, the stakes may not be too high. What is a frustrated life worth, one may ask. But — pile enough of these dead leaves, and you have the making of a tremendous bonfire.

You need, in life, to come to terms with evil, chiefly by seeing that antithetical values nevertheless have their rights. They must be honored, as the sexual forces must be honored or suffered to run disruptively riot.

If forces have become embodied, it is [in order] that they may be expressed. If too much unbalanced non-expression takes place — too much repression in a certain direction — then to that degree the will of the other side, as mobilized, is being frustrated.

You have not given thought to how this side can have a will of its own. You think of us as dim and almost passive. But you ought to be able to see that whatever formed you in bundles did so through will, discernment, and purpose.

Interacting with the non 3D

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

2:55 a.m. I watched “Kardec” on Netflix last night, on Charles [Sides]’ recommendation. (The film was made in Brazil. Entertaining to see all those French citizens speaking Portuguese!) Very well done, showing how very isolated he was in that materialist era, a true scientist willing and able to pursue facts without being hobbled by the accepted prejudices of the day. A beautiful love story, in the devotion of him and his wife. Of course I don’t know how faithful to the facts the movie was, but it was beautiful as told.

How isolated these pioneers were: Kardec, later Cayce, Roberts, Monroe – less so as time went on, until today we live in an entirely new era, but perhaps we wouldn’t have reached this new jumping-off place without their work. It is true, the spirits told Kardec that he would not have to do the work; that others were ready to do it if he wouldn’t. Still, it cost him, and surely he could see the cost looming before the bill was presented. No small thing, to have achieved a reputation for scientific investigation and be forced to lay it on the altar of the fears of people and their institutions.

3:25 a.m. Guys? Anything today, or do we take a day off?

You can always take a day off merely by not showing up, and, as we have said more than once, sometimes that’s appropriate.

And you, on your end? What are the variables?

On our end nothing, in effect, because we are not constricted by time-slices. Hence, if we cannot work “now,” we can work “later,” and you won’t see the difference.

Except sometimes in mid-process you have asked for time to think.

Yes. Perplexing you extremely, if we recall!

Well, it did. I half-remember you saying the obstacle was actually on my end anyway.

Perhaps a more careful way to say it is that what is available to you depends upon where you are mentally. Some things that are a stretch in one “mood” or at one phase of your life are not a stretch at another. This is not a variable from this end, but of course it may look like it.

So in terms of your recent description of the mental field as an interaction between 3D field and non-3D field –

Surely you can see that a field that continually fluctuates, although within limits, fluctuates in what it is in resonance with. Someone who habitually thinks high thoughts – to make this example severely practical – is going to resonate to different fields than those of one who habitually thinks low ones, or who alternates between the two.

This is the same thing you’ve been saying all along: We shape who we become through our choices.

That’s correct. And this is a way of explaining the process via a different analogy, and a vivid image.

Yes, true. And our choices affect others to some extent.

Isn’t this what religions have always said? Isn’t it common sense, once you see that everything (hence every one) is interconnected? But the electrical field analogy may make it intuitively more obvious.

So what do people do – oh, never mind, I hear the answer before I finish the question. I was going to ask, how do people deal with conflicting voices, and the answer is, Test the spirits.

It requires rashness to accept anything on faith alone. Sometimes that is appropriate, sometimes not. But why take the chance? If something appeals to you, you tend to accept it, but is this the wisest course? If everyone told the truth, it would be merely a matter of openness. If everyone’s intentions were pure, if people could be accepted at face value, that’s one thing. But life in 3D is not that simple. Why would you expect it to be in non-3D?

Yet I have been accepting you and your information for a quarter of a century and more.

But – have you? Uncritically? Without doubt and questioning and demand for evidence, and without qualifying further questions? We would hardly say you accepted everything on faith – nor would we have wanted you to.

Rita continually posed many questions that would not have occurred to me, and often obtained greater clarity that way. I have always regretted that my ability to talk to you was not accompanied by the gift of analysis and cross-examination, and I have hoped for another Rita to perform that function.

You had Rita herself, for four books of transcript worth!

That’s true, but that only backs the problem up one level.

We understand. It is using a non-3D voice to validate non-3D voices.

The fact that I could recognize the feel of my old friend from 3D did make a difference. But you and I for once are on the same page here, it seems, on the question of the utility of doubt.

We have never been on different pages, except in appearance. You stressed your doubts and we counter-balanced the boat by giving you reason to have faith. If you had gone too far in the opposite direction (as you have, occasionally, actually) in semi-deifying us or the message, we would have, and did, counter-balance in the opposite direction, reminding you that no communication may safely be assumed to be pure and undistorted. What we both want is a clearly flowing stream that is not accepted as gospel and is not discarded as fantasy, but is considered, examined, held up to one’s inner truth-detector. And we’d say we’ve both done pretty well at that.

Only now it gets more complicated.

Well, it is complicated, in that we need people to see how to be accepting and critical at the same time. Some will know how to do it instinctively; some can learn how (some merely need it to be pointed out and that’s enough) and some will never be able to balance, but will land on one side or the other.

And the problem is that we are now bringing into consideration the vast impersonal forces you have been leading us toward.

Think now of those forces as if they were gravitational fields, or electrical fields, or, better, magnetic fields. (These are not scientific analogies, because that is not your playground, but they provide images, which will help people to leap the gap.)

That does help. I can feel that my mental field may be interfered with or rather must interact with

Think of it as, in effect, the mental weather. You live among the weather generated by the magnetic currents of the day interacting with the magnetic fields that exist regardless of a specific day.

Terrifically mixed metaphor!

Yes, but we’re trying for an image, not for a definition. You are small boats on a great ocean. You don’t cause the tides or the waves or the atmospheric conditions, all you can do is adapt to them. Or, you are airplanes in a vast sky whose barometric pressure, jet streams, humidity, thunderstorms, etc. you must cope with but cannot control. Or, a third analogy, you are a localized electro-magnetic field interacting not only with a larger field from which you have been thrown off, but with huge external fields independent of your control.

We mean to convey:

  • You are small; the universe is not.
  • You are isolated in effect, no matter how connected you are in fact.
  • You are in unbreakable connection with the field that is the present moment, but neither you nor it is what appears. “Present moment” is not evanescent nor fragile nor perishable, and neither are you.
  • You are not an accident but are part of a system, and have been thrown up in the course of events. Is there such a thing as an accident or a meaningless event?

The bottom line here is that you are not isolated nor meaningless to the rest of reality. Hw could you be? But you may need to function as if you were. Well, if so, so what? There are millions of roles to be played, and the roles are always filled. If Allen Kardec hasn’t said yes, someone else would have, and the world would have continued to spin.

That reminds me of the rhyme Andrew Johnson liked.

“No matter what you sing or say

The world rolls on the same old way,

And he who would possess his soul

Must hang on tight and let her roll.”

Well, sometimes you may prefer to ride “no hands,” but otherwise, sure, that’s the way life is. In non-3D, just as in 3D. It isn’t profitable to consider non-3D as if it were populated by autistic individuals, any more than 3D.

Yeah, but can we trust you?

You know what it said in “Maverick,” so many years ago, “If you can’t trust your banker, who can you trust?”

You’ve got me smiling. I can even tell you the name of the episode: “Shady Deal at Sunny Acres,” though I don’t remember the plot, thank God.

You remember more than you think.

I’ll save it for my past-life review. Thanks for all this.


Papa on what to write

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

3 p.m. So what should I write about? This incessant anxiety to write a book — and this poverty of first-hand experience. It makes a problem.

Papa? How would you handle it?

I’d get the experience, or I’d write what I know, or I’d forget about doing either.

Yes, that seems to be the range of choice. So what do I know? What does it look like from your side?

From here it looks like you are trying to imagine yourself somebody else. You write – or think of writing – from a life that is not yours. Why not from your life, not from what you imagined to be a believable life?

You are different. For Christ’s sake, how typical do you suppose I was? It was the life I could write about – hunting, fishing, writing, traveling – that people read because it wasn’t their life.

Write science fiction, or rather, write metaphysical fiction – just what fascinates you – and see what happens. Your only other story must deal with the human side of someone who strives to be beyond human – or the struggles against the all-too-human entanglements of hostility and love.

Only don’t outline anything here. It’ll get lost. And – to clear your skirts – make a list of the things you wish you had already done – the journal transcriptions, etc.

The mental field, feelings, images, and health

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

4:50 a.m. So, guys, shall we continue?

Maybe. You understand, the subject is complicated. Not only is the viewpoint unfamiliar to you, there are many unsuspected and half-suspected ideas in what they call your subconscious or unconscious mind that will tend to interfere with reception.

My jumping to conclusions, you mean?

In a way. That’s how and why one jumps to conclusions: the inner preconceived ideas rush to finish a sentence in a comfortable manner.

That makes the ideas seem like they have a life of their own.

That’s almost so. It would be a way of looking at things that isn’t all that untenable. You might think of ideas as whirlpools: fixed patterns that are themselves continually in motion, but motion whose structure is held within limits by its own internal dynamics.

So that we as patterns interact with ideas as patterns.

As an electrical analogy, yes.

Electronics isn’t my strong point.

No, and neither is psychology or so many fields that might have been helpful but nobody has every qualification that would help. We do the best we can – to quote Bob Monroe.

First you[-all] must cease to define yourselves as primarily creatures of reason. You aren’t. You are primarily creatures of emotion, of feelings. Thought comes a long way second, if at all. Many a person lives without thought; nobody lives without feelings. But just because this is so, doesn’t mean it is recognized as being so.

I had a friend who was convinced he didn’t have feelings.

You had two friends that way, actually. But what they were convinced of, and what was true, was two different things.

Somebody – Cayce? – said feelings are the language of the soul.

Let’s put it in unfamiliar ways, so as to give you the shock of unrecognition if possible. What you experience as feelings could be seen as resonances of a smaller field with a larger. What you experience as thought is either the association of various fields as it presents itself spontaneously, or the rationalization of the meaning of resonances experienced.

Not quite meaningful to me. Almost, but not quite.

We are constrained by the limitations of the analogy and the limitations of your associations to the analogy. This is why when we can we prefer to stick to images.

How does that work?

Images, like dreams or daydreams, connect things by emotional logic that mechanical logic would never connect.

By mechanical logic, I take it you mean what we call thinking.

More like the limits to your thinking.

Hmm. What our previously accepted ideas allow us to entertain.

That’s right. Your mind is many things. One of them is a huge fragile malleable open-ended structure of associations. This is what any new input has to interact with, either meshing or clashing or being unable to secure entrance in any way. It is your stability, only it is a dynamic stability, changing as the field changes, responsive to alterations in the surrounding fields that affect it.

One way to seriously affect this existent structure is to enter input by way of emotional logic, and this of course is entirely disregarded by any theory that confines itself to mechanical logic on the one hand and environmental “external” influence on the other. This inter alia is why Freud’s work was a bomb in the workings of the civilization of his day. He showed in its own terms that what had looked like a closed system was not, and, worse, that the openings were not subject to any of the laws set down by mechanical logic, which is what the science of the day believed in.

All right. And so?

Your original query was as to the connections between illness and health and time, and circumstance, and mental position or attitude. This is what we are working to explain.

I don’t get the connection yet.

We are scarcely launched. Again, there is a lot of conceptual deadwood to be cleared.

I understand. I’d help if I could.

Consider your body, now. You experience it as a physical being, as a solid complicated organism that has continuity in 3D and leads an existence somewhat independent of you. That is, it breathes, it processes sugars, it maintains complicated physiological systems that interact to create ongoing homeostasis. That is, it doesn’t depend on you to exist, but it does depend on you to do more than exist. In effect, the body is presented as a ready-made chariot for you to ride, but it rides to a large extent where you want it to ride, and how you want it to ride. In other words, it isn’t independent of you, but it does have its own existence.


Yes, but maybe only poorly understood. Remember, not only mentally but physically, you are not only an individual, you are also a community. Communities get along well or badly.

An ill-assorted community may show as a physically ill individual?

That’s jumping a little too far, but you are in the right direction.

Conditions vary.

Look to your horoscope: It defines the community that constellated at that moment. Not that the moment determined the constellation; more like that constellation may have had to wait for the proper time to allow it to form in 3D. But, the horoscope will tell you many things if you will use it not to predict which door you will go through (and what will happen when you do), but what is the internal relationship pattern and how will it manifest as conditions proceed.

Yes, we touched on this sometime fairly recently. A horoscope with oppositions indicates a community somewhat at cross-purposes, etc.

It delignates accurately the energetic pattern your life begins with. How you modify those patterns is up to you, but they are your starting point.

Oh, and – why wasn’t I seeing this? – that’s the link between health and its fluctuations. What we are at birth leaves us prey to, or immune to, fluctuations in the external environment, quite independent of our own emotional world within.

Again, a little slower. You say independent of your emotional world within; we need to be sure that people understand that this assumes (correctly) that internal and external influences are, in effect, not quite interchangeable, but equally internal; put it that way. There is no such thing really as “external” because the walls between you and the world are not walls at all. At most they are shock waves between systems, or, better, interface patterns. So, external events like sunrise or sunset may impact you directly without any emotional input on your part.

Like Seasonal Affective Disorder. People are sensitive to lack of sunlight, and it has nothing to do with their being resolutely cheerful or not.

Well, you are closer there than you realize. Someone with SAD may in fact counteract it to a degree by a consciously-induced counter-irritant. Similarly, you can and often do counter asthmatic conditions by a resolute calmness, or let’s say a willed lowering of internal tension. You aren’t helpless in bodies, but you do need to keep in mind the fact that you have them.

Or they have us.

Either way. And that is enough for the moment.

Hmm. Thanks. Something to think about, here.


Hans Porr on the mental as field

[I encourage my friends to look at these. They are very interesting.]


today’s dialogue you have hit upon a subject that is very dear to me.  As a matter of fact, I have been dealing with this, or similar, in my own dialogues for now about 4 months, with my own contacts “upstairs” which I call “The Club” 🙂

(back in March or so you pushed me to try it myself, and I have been doing this now almost daily).

I want to point out three articles, one is a summary, and two are dialogues with the Club that may help with today’s insight of the “mental field.”  There are but three out of now dozens (if not a hundred)  that deal with a subject matter similar to this field idea.

Reconciling materialism and idealism: Churning: how matter and consciousness form and relate

The Pulse of Being

All is holographic: All is there already, yet created at the same time

There are many others, but it is all cross linked, so if one should strike your interest, it’s all easy to find.

Anyway, technically, I have been heavily influenced by David Bohm’s quantum physics as well as the many-world interpreation.  Just consider that Bohm constituted something new back then which he called “the quantum potential”, which is similar to a field but it is non-local, that is, it does not attenuate over distance, so space is taken out of it.  Your idea today, as far as we need to take the spacial distinction out of it, expresses this as well.

Maybe this will spark something new for you.

Sending Love