Author Archive

This is another small excerpt from my forthcoming book of transcripts of altered-state conversations with what I take to be the still-living mind that was Ernest Hemingway. The process of talking to Papa proved educational in many ways. Not only did the sessions give me insight into Hemingway’s life and opinions, they often gave me ways of seeing his work that I found not only convincing but helpful beyond their own framework. This one, for instance.

A boy’s perspective

[May 16 and 17, 2010]

A friend of mine, a retired teacher of literature in Denmark, followed these conversations as I sent them around on the Internet, and one day wrote me that her students never could decide which was the point of “Indian Camp,” that Uncle George was really the father of the baby and so the Indian killed himself, or that the Indian couldn’t stand her pain, and so he killed himself. So I asked which it was.

Neither. When you read my stories, look at every element in them. You may not know why, but every element is there for a reason. And, remember, you are to get an emotion from it. Look at the last line.

Nick knew that he would never die.

List the elements in “Indian Camp.”

["Indian Camp" is only three pages long, but I listed many thing, including: the rowboat with two waiting Indians; Nick, his father, Uncle George; two rowboats, each with an Indian rowing; George smoking a cigar and giving the Indians cigars; a dog barking, then more dogs; an old Indian woman holding a lamp; the young Indian woman who had been trying to give birth for two days; her husband, who had cut his foot badly three days earlier; Nick’s father explaining that her screams were not important; no anesthetic; hot water, coffee, and sterilization; the doctor washing hands carefully and thoroughly, explaining why; the woman biting Uncle George during the operation; Nick's father showing Nick, and Nick looking away; Nick's curiosity had been gone for a long time; Uncle George looked at his arm. The young Indian smile reminiscently; Nick’s father excited and talkative afterwards. “One for the medical journal”; “oh you're a great man all right.” The proud father dead with throat cut. “sorry I brought you, Nick. Awful mess”; always such a hard time? Exceptional”; “Why did he kill himself? Couldn't stand things, I guess”; do many kill themselves? Not very many; do many women? Hardly ever; “is dying hard?” “I think pretty easy. Depends”; the sun coming up. Bass jumped. Hand in water; quite sure he would never die]

So compressed; hard to summarize more than it already was.

All right. Now, try to relax and we’ll get it through. Can you see how sex and death are interwoven in the boy’s experience?

I guess it was his first sight of a woman’s sex organs, and in a gory context. I guess that’s why “he looked away, his curiosity gone for a long time.”

And he asks if many men kill themselves, if many women do, and why, and is dying hard. And the physical surroundings — the morning, the warmer water, the fish, his father rowing — makes him “quite sure that he would never die.” Going forward in the dark it had been first the three white men, or the two and the boy, then they met the Indians and divided, then they were all together, then George went off by himself, then it was Nick and his father returning in the daytime.

I’m afraid I am still too dense to get the full intent.

The doctor intended to begin Nick’s education, but he got more than he had bargained for. He was not an evil or cruel man, but he turned off his emotional response to do the job he was there to do. Coming back he told Nick he was sorry he had gotten him involved, but he wasn’t sorry for anything else — not his lack of sympathy for the mother, not his own unawareness of the effect of someone’s pain on someone else. He didn’t realize. He didn’t realize that the Indian — who couldn’t get away because of his foot — would be affected by the pain that he himself had disregarded — not the pain but the evidence of pain, the screams.

I don’t understand the Indian smiling reminiscently. Just to bring the connection to sex back?

The same action in different contexts has different meanings, and it can suggest connections. As it did.

Nick was a boy and he didn’t really understand a lot about what he was seeing, did he?

That’s the point exactly. That’s exactly it. He was quite sure he would never die. He would also never get involved in messy situations, would never be callous or unimaginative, would never cause pain and certainly would never kill himself. That’s why the last line. He recorded, he remembered, he observed, but he didn’t really understand — and the reader who did understand got the point. It wasn’t designed to teach obstetrics or fishing, and it wasn’t a detective story. It was to feel that state of observing but not understanding.

And Uncle George?

He showed sympathy in contrast to his brother’s (or could be his brother in-law’s; didn’t matter) businesslike manner-of-fact attitude. George shared cigars; George helped, though it is mentioned only in the doctor asking him to move the blanket; George was a little disgusted by the doctor’s slight bragging and his self-satisfaction; George was upset by the suicide and didn’t want to be around the doctor’s matter-of-fact attitude about it, even though the doctor was upset. The two men were upset about it in different ways. The doctor was upset that Nick had seen it, that it was senseless and unnecessary. George could imagine the man’s cumulative state — for he had been unable to get away, remember. He had badly cut his foot the day before she had started going into labor two days before. He’d stood it all. The doctor abstractly understood, but he didn’t necessarily let himself feel it. His concern was for Nick. Where did Uncle George go? He’ll turn up all right. In other words, nothing happened to him; he’s safe. But he’s not in sight. So you see, George was there to bring out certain aspects that couldn’t have come out if the doctor and Nick had been there alone among the Indians. George was hurt, he was injured, by the woman’s pain, as the doctor was not. But there’s no need to make George the baby’s father — if I’d had that in mind, you’d have known, and if I’d had that in mind and you hadn’t known, I’d have failed (assuming perception on your part).

Another strand to the story was good intentions going astray, wasn’t it?

Yes. The doctor saved the baby and the mother but never thought of the father; he wanted to give Nick experience but gave him more than he wanted to. George was there in sympathy but never realized who needed it, and wasn’t able to do anything except help in the operation.

Other elements in the story?

Well, reread it again and see if it looks different now.

I see that it is a description as a young boy would see it. The objects that stood out to him. And I noticed, this time, the line about the men having moved off up the road to be out of the range of her screaming. Her husband is smoking a pipe, like them, but he is right there. As you say, he couldn’t get away.

When the doctor says the screams are not important is when the husband rolls over against the wall. And you will notice, the young Indian woman after the operation “did not know what had become of the baby or anything.” Nick’s perception, you see. Sensory inputs still wide open, regardless of what he did or didn’t understand.

I can see how the stories were aimed: you wanted people to react to them as they reacted to life. The stories affect you as life comes at you, and they affect you but you may not know why or how.

That’s it exactly. Does this say anything about how far off the critics were? If you criticize the facts of the story but don’t absorb the atmosphere of it, you can’t see the reason for the facts. So you don’t know what you’re talking about. You wind up trying to make George the father because of the cigars, or you ask about the wrong things. But the reason for the story is right there in the final line: “In the early morning on the lake sitting in the stern of the boat with his father rowing, he felt quite sure that he would never die.”

That’s as much as I can do for now. Thank you. I’m learning something.

Those who have no personal experience of dowsing, and those who know of dowsing only in connection with the practice of finding water, will scarcely be able to believe its true potential. One particularly effective practitioner is my friend Raymon Grace, whose book The Future is Yours we distributed at Hampton Roads about 10 years ago.

Here is Raymon’s latest newsletter. As always, it contains good news, hopeful news, because it reminds us of the great abilities we have to directly affect things that conventional understanding says can’t be affected.

(more…)

Did an interesting interview Friday night with Ken Jackson, host of  Global Perspective, a blogtalk show on Freedomizer Radio.

Freedomizer Radio appears to specialize in pursuing conspiracy theories, which is not exactly at the center of what I spend my time talking about. And yet, perhaps it wasn’t such a misfit, either. People who are unwilling to consider conspiracy theories are often unwilling to consider that things may be different than they appear on the surface. And if that isn’t true in psychic exploration, I don’t know what is. We talked a good deal about the process of communicating with the other side. Ken Jackson asked interesting questions, and we had a good time. Find the interview here: http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/2/940/show_2940209.mp3. My segment begins 7:35 into the link, and ends about half an hour before the end.

Empires are not created — and do not decline — in a day or two. Neither are free republics lost so quickly. It takes time. Years ago, in going through old journals, I found this poem copied out, by Archibald MacLeish, titled “Conversation in a Belfry,” from Ten Conversations,  written post-Watergate. Each passing year only goes to show how truly he saw.

Conversation in a Belfry

Centennial bell that will not ring,

Tell me why your iron tongue

Rusts in the rain, your mouth is dumb.

Why are you silent, bell?

                                                  For shame.

You are not shamed.

                                            Not I but you.

We? With all we’ve done and do?

We’ve ruled ourselves two hundred years.

No name on earth is proud as ours.

 

It was your fathers’ pride that ruled:

Their sons are tricked and lied to, fooled

As Lincoln said no people could be –

All of them – always – for their good!

 

But still we’re free. Ring out, O ring!

 

What man is free when fraud is king?

 

Our souls are ours: our minds our own.

 

While someone listens on the telephone?

 

This is John Adams’ holy land…

 

John Adams would have seen you damned!

 

When Jefferson’s immortal word…

 

Jefferson’s immortal word

Is yet to hear. It will be heard

But not by those who sell his soul.

 

You ring now, bell.

                                        I toll, I toll.

 

The funny-looking guy on the right-hand side of the photo is me sometime in the early 1970s, complete with long sideburns, a thick long  mop of hair,  and a  frame that now by comparison appears skeletally thin. The man I’m standing next to is my father. March 6, 2012 makes 27 years since he left us, age 70, less than five years older than I am now.

(more…)

I included this exchange in my forthcoming  Hemingway on Hemingway.

Legitimate Suffering and Mental Illness

Sunday, August 8, 2010, 5 AM. Just spent most of an hour posting [on my website] a couple of conversations from May…. It was interesting to read the pieces from May 24 and 25. I had forgotten that it was from Carl Jung that I first got the concept that Hemingway represented a complete man, that his great attractiveness to people stemmed from his wholeness. Obviously that didn’t prevent him from experiencing and ultimately succumbing to serious personality problems, but it does change the picture. All right, so here we go. Dr. Jung, I have been using a quotation of yours as a part of my signature in e-mails for some time, but only yesterday — at your prompting? — did it occur to me that I didn’t quite understand it. It rings true intuitively but it could do with some explanation. “The foundation of all mental illness is the unwillingness to experience legitimate suffering.” What is “legitimate suffering,” and for that matter what is mental illness, and how are they thus so intimately connected?

(more…)

This doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. I remember seeing a similar story after the Indonesian tsunami a few years ago that killed so many people so suddenly. Of course many dismiss perception of ghosts as superstition, and fear of ghosts often is superstition. Nonetheless, some perceive more than others, and it would be well not to dismiss these reports too lightly, just because “science” says they can’t be true. In fact, they can be, and sometimes are.

original story: http://news.yahoo.com/one-ghosts-stalk-japans-tsunami-city-073229608.html

One year on, ‘ghosts’ stalk Japan’s tsunami city

By Miwa Suzuki | AFP – Tue, Feb 28, 2012

A year after whole neighbourhoods full of people were killed by the Japanese tsunami, rumours of ghosts swirl in Ishinomaki as the city struggles to come to terms with the awful tragedy.

 

(more…)

Peter Diamandis: Abundance is our future

This TED talk  is the ultimate answer to the people who think the past is dismal, the present is dismal, and the  future is  hopeless.

Peter Diamandis runs the X Prize Foundation, which gives rich cash awards to  inventors and engineers. The X Prize’s first $10 million went to a space-themed challenge. Diamandas’ goal now is to extend the prize into health care, social policy, education and many other fields that could use a dose of competitive innovation.

Now that you know who he is, listen to his irrefutable analysis of what’s going on around us.

http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_diamandis_abundance_is_our_future.html?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2012-03-02&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email

 

For some time now, I have had this photograph as wallpaper on my computer, just so I wouldn’t forget. Looking at it, what would you say it is? If you didn’t know that it was a planet or satellite, would it really look like one? Look — really look — at that shape. Look at the weirdly symmetrical pockmarks. Does any of that look natural? Or does it look artificial? Does it not, in fact, look like an artificially constructed or extensively modified world?

I found this on Richard Hoagland’s Enterprise Mission website, part of his fascinating several-part series on the mysteries of Iapetus, one of the moons of Saturn.

Say it isn’t artificial. Then what makes it look like that??? It looks, for all the world, like something Buckminster Fuller would have constructed if he had had the technology available.

 

Some pretty good information from the guys upstairs this morning, complete with diagrams. Some of the information builds on material from The Sphere and the Hologram, and The Cosmic Internet, but should be understandable enough.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

The other night, sparked perhaps by something Facebook-related — it reminded me of high school, I think — I had absolutely crippling pain just beneath my rib cage, and my back too. Just now occurs to me, maybe I blew out a blockage at the solar plexus.

(more…)