22 May 01: I called Paul this morning and I told him that I was going to send him a CD: Mass In C Major. He asked me: “you know what Mass is for, don’t you?” I said Well no, not really-I only know that 9 times out of 10 I probably ain’t interested in it.” He said, “It’s music for death-music to die by”, he replied.
22 May: I am talking to mother and I mentioned Paul’s remark to her. “I don’t know why he put it like that. Actually, Mass is music in celebration of the Crucifixion, and Christ’s demonstration of victory over death”, she explained. “That sounds much better”, I said.
Oct 01 I currently reside 3255 Mathews Road. A sign on a religious sanctuary I pass going to and from work, on Ray Thorington Road off of Vaughn Road, now and then has a message which changes from time to time. Currently it reads: “God sets us free from the need to have to wear a mask.” I currently house sit for two friends, Jim and Carol Miller, who were deployed to Washington for a year this past July. Carol just had the house built a year before. She and Jim had married about the same time that both had been promoted to full bird rank; Jim, 6 months after Carol being promoted. Now that they had “Vultures” status, they were world-wide deployable and no longer had any say so on where and when they were to go. Actually, Carol had planned to retire early this year, but General Lance Lord told her she could not-they needed her for another assignment. Interestingly enough, Jim was also assigned to that area too. Not knowing how to resolve the sudden crisis of either having to sell or have someone look after their farm and house, they said they immediately thought of me.
So, I agreed, and moved in July 02, since my oldest brother said that he wanted to sell the house anyway. The house where I was before, when the experiences I describe in this recounting of the events took place, about 6 months when everything calmed down. Everything, except the fact that the mail box they have up seems to keep getting knocked down (on purpose).
One day, just recently, I was coming home early before sunset about this time, and I noticed a plain black mailbox put up in place of the one I finally took down for good and stored away. I asked the kind people at the mail station down the road if they had put it up. They said no, they were not allowed to put up mail boxes since they are personal property. I emailed Carol and Jim and asked if they had it put up. They said no, maybe one of the neighbors did so. I asked the neighbor next door and they said they had nothing to do with it. I got the mail out of it for the next two evenings. The third evening I pulled up, rolled down the window, and reached for the lid of the box. I couldn’t find it so I turned on my dome light. The mailbox had vanished without a trace as mysteriously as it had been placed. I decided that was enough jokes, so I opened a mailbox down at the station.
Aug 2003 I don’t see nor hear from Paul anymore. The last time I saw him, he flew out to San Jose, California, and drove with me back to Alabama. When almost home, we’d gotten on each other’s nerves, I think for the last time. It went downhill from there, to make a long explanation short – I won’t go into it as it’s a re-hash of the same stuff. It just wasn’t ever going to work, associating with each other. So when we got to my home, that was the end of the road for both of us, and we knew it for certain that time. I wish him well, but I don’t ever hope nor expect to see him again.
I drove up to Jasmine Hill Gardens, the following week he’d left. I wanted to buy some of the tall lovely alabaster pedestals that I used to admire so much. A sign at the entrance stated that Jasmine Hill is closed to the public, with regret. The gate, however, is open and I drive up onto the property. The gift shop-every graceful piece of Greek statuary that filled it’s now stark empty space-gone. A man on a riding mower sees me in front of the Parthenon building looking in and approaches me. “Can I help you?” he asked, as if I had no right to be there. I told him who I was, that “this garden used to be my back yard and I know every corner and hiding place in it.” I asked who he was. He was a friend of the recent owners. He loosened up a bit and told me that the gardens were closed mainly due to lack of interest from the local public. I am given to understand it will not open again-maybe one day, it will.
The absolute end.
End of log. Nothing follows! xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
My thoughts that have resulted from all of this:
My gosh: all of this over one letter! For all the energy spent on the subject matter in respect to this commotion I do feel obliged to do a little critiquing of my own. I got up feeling like a whole different person-who is thoroughly acquaintance with someone I’ve never met. The author who wrote the book, “Beethoven: A Man Of His Word, with a no holds barred attack on the publication “Beethoven”, naturally advertised it to me and raised my curiosity to the point that I just had to find out what she was so inflamed over. So the next time I went to the bookstore it was specifically for this. I got what I went there for; it was readily available then whereas it wasn’t there before. I found some very informative stuff not mentioned in her book that perhaps should have been for making a better account of Beethoven’s character.
What I found in the other book is work based on an objective, not emotional and vindictive, view. A vaster, more satisfying material for the reader, I thought. Referring to the little book I had shelved earlier on twin flames and soul mates-I cross-referenced the two main publications at war with one another and this mission required me to consult again on the web concerning Beethoven’s temperament and reason behind his seeming madness. I learned further that in respect to the Twin Flames, that there is ancient Greek knowledge tying in with his understanding of the nature of the self and that how his “writing style” for the “seemingly undecipherable letter”.
First off: Everyone is still scratching their heads over whose is the pencil he refers to in the letter. The universally accepted logical presumption is that he got it from her. Here’s my “illogical” take: very possible that the pencil he used is the one he’d always already had in his possession-but refers to it as hers “your” pencil – my pencil-it’s all the same as far as he is concerned. In a letter to someone else, he states, “I keep a pencil and paper with me at all times so that if something comes to me I can write it down, else I am afraid that I might forget it. I keep these things near my bed as well. Even when I am sleeping, if an idea comes to me, I wake up and write it down immediately.” Very possible then that what was his he referred to as hers as well.
That the letter-is considered “cryptic” I thought so too when I first laid eyes on it - as I was “sheeping” right along with the other viewpoints offered-not understanding differently. But these past weeks have taught me a lot in that it is important to look at things differently than I otherwise did. No going back now to change anything-the only thing to do is accept and deal with the change. So, I tend to look at this letter from a “spiritually charged” point of view. I got the thought that it would help if I wrote the letter, myself, word, for word, and using a pencil-put myself in his shoes. “The way to understanding is to look beyond the surface of what ‘looks like’, but isn’t.” As I did the work, I thought, “As above, so below”. “As within, so without.”
Interesting, that never associated or acquainted herself with the man, himself, that she knows exactly what he meant when he wrote what he did. She says, “If we were wholly united you would feel the pain of it as little as I”, he meant to say, “If we were legally married”. Not necessarily, if I understand things differently now and that is he simply said, “If we were wholly united”. After all, that is not what he wrote, plainly and simply? We don’t become “wholly united” through our own will and ritualistic practice of religious ceremony. Comparing the two publications, I found from reading “Beethoven” by Solomon, that he “preferred self-self education through voracious reading n everything from Greek and Roman literature to esoteric writings on theology and science….” (and so forth), this is “critical information”, something she failed to mention in her book. Very interesting, since she says she’s been a student of Beethoven’s life for nearly thirty years-that tells me a lot about her seeing how I’ve been a student of his life for only two months, and I was able to see that!
“ When each of us separated into our male and female halves long ago, the soul knew (and still knows) that the rejoining of its incomplete self would inevitably take place... it was part of the divine plan. After that agonizing and painful division took place a deep seated yearning for oneness began to linger within each of us and the desire for reunion and completeness has endured over the ages. Only one other in all the universe can satisfy it.
“…..Plato is not the only individual who has given us insights into twin soul relationships. Spiritual writings from the Sufis 800 years ago say that...“Out of the original unity of being there is a fragmentation and dispersal of beings, the last stage being the splitting of one soul into two. And consequently, love is the search by each half for the other half on earth or in heaven...As twin souls are so alike to begin with, it seems necessary for them to go their separate ways before they can complete each other. Identity and complimentarity are the two driving forces and axes of love... For the complete being there must be a blending of the two…..”
It is very rare for twin flames to be embodied on the planet at the same time and to get together in intimate relationship (and stay together). Often it doesn’t happen until both are in their last incarnation, if then. It is the most intense relationship there is, and the two beings must be highly evolved and have completed a lot of clearing work within themselves to be fully ready for such a reunion.
Twin flames usually haven't been together all that often during their series of lives on the planet, and so their backgrounds may be different. Yet, there is a closeness and similarities of spirit that are almost uncanny, noticed in many ways, such as looking back at yourself when you look at your mate, and a remembering of the distant past when you first split up. Guidance is strong with these relationships, and usually one or both have a good channel for communication with Spirit. Their connection is telepathic, and hugging each other is like coming home for nourishment. Twins only come together when they have service work to do together on the planet.
She probably should have expanded her resources a little further-she’s had more time to do so than I have on account of the subject matter. Historians have done their job well enough to let us know about these two people's interpersonal relationship to one another. Proof: where do modern biographers get their information other than from the efforts of those who have gone before them? The only other two possible places are out of their own heads, or out of thin air (sometimes that is one and the same), neither of which there is hard evidence (Beethoven’s written guidance) to support theories. Apparently many biographers and scholars earn their own place in history just by doing the things that they do. Hats off then, to the historians! If one is going to write about someone, then go to that person for guidance, not everywhere and everyone else!
It doesn’t matter to me who he wrote it to-what matters here to me is that a professed student of Beethoven’s life 30 years culmination along with 20 years experience means that must be plenty of time to eventually get her reasoning twisted and distorted because she is angry at the rest of the world for their interpretations of what they think about Beethoven, writes a book spewing everyone out of her mouth that went before her to provide theories from their points of view, increases her own wealth and status as a result, but in the process, muddies the waters of understanding for those who want to avail themselves to resources hoping to increase their clarity of the truth.
She goes back and forth, challenging the words of Beethoven, to challenging the validity of historical record statements by another deceased’ individual: I discovered why she made such a huge issue out of the “crucial entry” of fanny Giannatasio’s diary and attacked it so viciously. Because it discredits the very foundation upon which she builds her “facts” for her book. What Fanny freely wrote, of her own accord a moment of private reflection none of us are at liberty to challenge. If Fanny was like the rest of us human beings are, it is highly unlikely that she ever considered the notion in the heat of that moment of recording, that future generations would be researching and critiquing her private collection of thoughts.
Ms Altman states: “The fact is, there is no woman whom Beethoven had met in or around 1811 who could possible be the beloved”. I say for her to know that absolutely, she would have had to been there, herself with the subject, 25 hours a day, eight days a week for the entirety of that vear to state a fact. She’s here-not there. Go figure. Even to historians Beethoven's life was not an open book, as folks back then had better advantage of knowing so much about him that he took to the grave without that knowledge ever hitting the Book Mart, first.
The jury is obviously out on the whole subject-but not on her fallacies surrounding it.
Fanny recorded in her own diary that “'Five years ago he met someone”. She states that what Beethoven meant was that he “met someone again.” That is not what the “man of his word” said, according to the only woman who was there to know what he said! So now Beethoven, while he is very text conscious, needs help from a modern biographer to get it over to the rest of us proper translation of this statement because he cannot talk straight?
A man of his word, who does not condone what he knows that God condemns-lying in any degree at any angle-can’t be honest, himself, even if the Giannatasios are simply mere acquaintances. There is nowhere that indicates that the Schoolmaster’s graciousness (the father of this young lady) in offering his Garden House to Beethoven to roost had anything to do with “alterial motives”.
She maintains Beethoven is a man of his word, that Beethoven was not stupid, nor was he a liar, nor was he a fool. But at the same time, according to her understanding, Beethoven, as smart he is, knowing himself so much better than anyone else did, according to her, “most likely” doesn’t know what he meant when he said what he said. He just can’t possibly comprehend the meaning of his own statement and it isn’t due to the fact that he can’t “hear” himself talk. Usually the problem is that a person cannot understand the genius (which I do not doubt is the case with this author). So, now we have switched from the concept that Beethoven can’t comprehend his own statements, to the idea that he can’t measure, (through feeling that he is known for having some very strong ones indeed) one moment in time, in comparison with the next and is in trouble with determining lengths of time”-from one point to another-which means this guy is just clumsier than history has recorded him as being-but somehow he survived, in spite of himself.
So I decided to dig up some background info on her and I discovered this site in the process (which only tangled me up further in the process of forming an argument in “making a case.”
“The biographers immediately sharpened their minds, subtracted 5 from 1816, and came up with Beethoven meeting his beloved in 1811. The biographers, however, were much better at math than Beethoven ever was. Barry Cooper in his The Beethoven Compendium states,
“His (Beethoven’s) capacity for figures, however, was severely limited, as he readily acknowledged: ‘I am really an incompetent business man who is bad at arithmetic.’ Many simple calculations survive in his handwriting, and his bad arithmetic is often in evidence. On one occasion he wanted to know the sum of eleven halves; not being able to multiply even whole numbers (let alone fractions), he wrote the figure 1/2 eleven times in a column, added it up and wrote down his answer, 10 1/2.
So one is asked to believe that Beethoven who could not even add eleven half’s on paper is supposed to have mentally subtracted 1811 from 1816, or even 11 from 16, and come up quickly with the answer of five.…….Too much credence has been put in Beethoven’ math and this date for it to be carved in stone by God.”
This is a flimsy base for a “sound” rebuttal: “One is asked to believe that Beethoven could not even add eleven halves on paper, is supposed to have mentally subtracted 1811 from 1816 or even 11 from 16 and come up quickly with the answer of five.”
Why do I find this so ignorant? For one thing, I noticed right away that the writer is “sheeping right along” with Ms Altman’s distortion of thinking, instead thinking for himself in trying to work this out. Maybe I’m a little ‘text conscious’ too and this is may be what prevents me from being in her corner from the start? Just because he was bad at “the mechanics of figuring” doesn’t mean that he had a problem mentally comprehending measures of “time”. “I am really an incompetent business man who is bad at arithmetic.” If I comprehend this more accurately, I would think that he never said he was an incompetent musician and lacked the capacity for calculating in his head–he stated that he was not a business man whereas the mechanics of writing was required of him in support of his intellectual faculties”. “I do everything badly except compose.”
He was not known for his writing ability either-yet, he is reputed to have been “very text conscious” which is clearly indicative of his capacity to comprehend. Historically recorded, simple easy to comprehend statements from Beethoven and his contemporaries from his program of time, not modern day. That Beethoven’s known capacity for stubbornness made up for his lack for his capacity of figures is indicative of the observation that if he really wanted to learn math-he most certainly did have the capacity inasmuch as the rest of us do. Why? Because geniuses are “whole brain thinkers”, not one-sided, and indicative that this particular genius clearly understood himself; thus purposefully intended a one-pointed concentration that is responsible for the enormous amount of work he is known for. Musical geniuses are also mathematical geniuses, music and math having mirror twin properties of one another.
Referencing a statement in one of his letters to the countess, “We mortals with immortal minds are only born for suffering and joy”, is one of her over looked evidential points that this is who he wrote the letter to, but again, this is a general statement and is not evidence enough that he refers specifically to the Countess and himself within the scope of their communication, else he would have most likely (since I have demonstrated he did know how to count, after all) stated, we two mortals” or something else just as specific. Beethoven, let’s not forget, was “very text conscious”. Why should he not be reasonable then in assessing the fact all people suffered in varying degrees to “get understanding”; that like himself and the countess, everyone possessed within themselves immortality? He knew about people in general, because he didn’t lead much of a sheltered life-as she was not the only person in the world that he communicated with, obviously from observing his track record. From historical bookkeeping we may rely on, the number of different lodgings he occupied was very indicative of the fact that boy oh boy, did he ever get around!
Beethoven’s statement was to her father, not Fanny, (page 244) “.......... so that when he said to Fanny, ‘five years ago, he met someone,’ he was thinking about the time when he had ‘met someone again”. Fanny’s diary states that she overheard the conversation between Beethoven and her father. Therefore he did not make that statement to Fanny, (an obviously overlooked typo in this publication), for the primary purpose of discouraging that young lady. On page 241, She states, “Thus when her father indelicately inquired about his love life, he knew that she was listening for his answer”.
How can she know about Beethoven’s awareness level during the situation since she was not there during the occasion? I would think that if Beethoven, being the sort of man having a fierce sense of personal responsibility and hold over his own affairs-if nothing else-that history documents him as having, a man with a backbone, did not want this young woman’s father to know anything, he would certainly have cut to the quick and put him squarely in his place and -or told him nothing at all. Beethoven was a God-fearing man. A man who fears God has no need to fear man.
A man who fears man is more prone to lie and verify-and Beethoven was not known characteristically as such. Beethoven didn’t bend so easily as she indicates, because this “man of his word” can be counted on: someone cracked to him how difficult it was to play a composition that Beethoven had fashioned, and he asked the man, “Do you think I considered your puny little fiddle when I wrote this? No, I didn’t.” Really , now: does this (or any of his other known comments) indicate a man who is prone to fold like a cheap tent when asked fair question and where there is no real pressure for him to have to dodge the issue? Therefore, that “Beethoven was not being completely honest with Fanny’s father” is unreliable.
She might as well called “this man of his word” a liar-which she practically did without being obvious about it on page 242. Since Beethoven made it plain that he didn’t like liars, why would he put his reputation on the line in a moment of weakness to “deceive” another man just to spare his feelings? “She says, on page 241:....... if Beethoven was so reluctant to express deeply felt emotions with long term friends, why would he suddenly confide in near strangers, opening his heart and giving them such intimate details about his love life?”
My answer to that is: according to historical accounts of those who knew him best Beethoven didn’t spare the feelings of his closest acquaintances many times, so why should smart folks presume he’d fold like a cheap tent with someone of a mere acquaintance? She says that a close friend, Dolezalek, who knew him more than 20 years, claimed “he never showed he was in love”. This is a reliable source for her to stack her theory on? Imagine what a man like Beethoven might say in reply to such a suggestion, “Well, I certainly hope for both our sakes that Dolezalek was doing something else other than trying to figure me out on that account.” Men don’t communicate over stuff of this nature as anally as women do. This is not stated to detract from the other gender. Hurting people’s feelings wasn’t the extent nor the intent of Beethoven’s capacity, but people who knew him best that didn’t want to bear testimony to that fact that he was quite capable understood where to draw the line with this “wild man”. Having been a close friend, surely Dolezalek must be credited for knowing where limits and boundaries existed with his friend.
She states that “Beethoven was aware that Fanny had feelings for him and that only a man with the sensitivity of a lump of clay would have been oblivious to such open adoration”. Well, Beethoven, was respected by her father as well-was he oblivious to that? That their reception was pretty much intact indicates that he was well aware of what a great many people felt for him. So then, if he has any sensitivity at all, then he was not a one-sided person either, in that he could make comparisons as to what was a deeply personal subject, and a general question that no one truly regards as a sensitive question, such as Mr. Giannatassio asking Beethoven if he knew of anyone whom he would consider in respect to the conditions that the father referred to. There’s no reason to lie to someone or pretend when they have an answer to give someone. The way I see it is that he satisfied the man’s question directly, and the man, who obviously also was in the educational field, same as the author, very well may have comprehended the answer without further pursuit (“Next time then, please”). Neither of these two men were desperate for brains.
That the year 1811 was very significant to him because of the fact that no one else knew or had seen this woman doesn’t indicate that it was of no importance just because of lack of proof to anyone else. Just because no one is able to link any woman Beethoven knew to the year 1811 is no grounds to eliminate consideration of that year for the subject matter discussed. Why is it so hard to accept aside from the fact that her diary entry explodes theories and suppositions that various individuals have worked so painstakingly to develop and establish-I guess that would be sort of frustrating, wouldn’t it?
In the book Beethoven, he states that “Beethoven required tranquility and solitude for his creativity”. On the other hand, she tells a story of a stormy relationship between Beethoven and Erdody. If what her counterpart author states is closer to the truth-also indicative of the high output from Beethoven’s productivity then his most creative accomplishments along with other works of honorable mention would have been closer to impossible while bitching and bickering back and forth constantly with someone like Erdody. Taking into consideration that Beethoven was a sick man (physically) as well, this sort of friction would not have helped him along towards the staggering amount of fruits yielded from his efforts. So, do unproductive acts increase productivity? Hardly.
So as far as I can tell this case she makes is as strong as a dried mud pie when one picks it up from its mold to test it cohesiveness and the only thing I feel that this author has going for her right now is that “Fanny G” along with the whole cast of characters is deceased and therefore not subject for recall to the witness stand in their own defense. If they were here it could be pretty entertaining.
The moral of my rebuttal to her publication is simple: There is a snazzy little tone: "Already Gone", by a group called The Eagles:.........just remember this my girl, when you look up in the sky, you can see the stars and still not see the light.......
Was Beethoven a man of his word? Without a doubt, she says. But I can never really be certain getting it from this author's point of view. There are too many booby traps to trip on, too much stick stuff varnishing over the road for the traveler on her path.
September 2001. Nothing follows, yeah yeah yeah. I was down at Mom's house again, cleaning in the den area, raking stuff out from under her couch. Lo and behold, guess who's lurking under the seat....
