In my last post I talked about ghosts, different from the soul. I’m very excited about this concept and the implications that could be derived from it. Writing it all out will give me inspiration for other parts of life, I imagine that it will bring me strength. But, I’m in equal kind hopeful that you can follow along. So before blasting ahead, here’s a more thoughtful explication of what it would mean here to have (at least) two ghosts in you.
That the body, memory, unconscious levels of the personality, and most physical sensations persist despite almost everything short of death or dismemberment, I won’t contest. Wonder of wonders be a human, that still leaves a lot up to change. Basically everything that a person would identify with their own nature--their personhood, is subject to flux. The dynamism of a person occurs on grand and minor scales; the latter refers to aspects subordinate to the conscious efforts of a person, their transformability can be illustrated with a simple imagining:
You walk into a room and find your nemesis, mother, and a lover. None of the three can see the other two, How do you act?
In this scenario, we see a warring of conscious modalities. To confront each of these roles laden with memory, meaning, and expectation, i.e., archetypes, a person likely has different behavioral patterns, vocabularies, and emotional sets prescribed. These minor expressive aspects remain so powerful as to drastically alter the presence of a person. Most would agree behavioral alteration in the presence of any of these archetypes would be nigh-automatic, especially when attempting to actually engage any of the archetypical parties: a mother will recognize her child when the child fulfills a rubric of expressions (visual, behavioral) associated with her child; a nemesis will recognize their mortal enemy through a different rubric of mutual antagonism; a lover will only embrace a familiar heat that only lovers know. Fulfillment of these rubrics is assumption of an archetype in like kind.
Now, I was about to conclude the above saying “no one would conflate their mother with a nemesis or lover, thus we see that archetypical assumption is effectively transformation of the person on a minor scale,” but we do see some mother-lovers and mother-nemeses out there in the world. Multiple archetypes can be occupied at once. Such a transformation in presence need not adhere to physical constraints. Two distinct persons can occupy the same space, as when one is observed as a child by their mother and as an enemy by their nemesis simultaneously; or two distinct persons may be blended into one, as when one is Oedipally inflicted towards their mother.
The above observations contribute to our ultimate conclusions on having multiple ghosts in oneself. For now, let’s summarize arguments derivable from examining the minor scale of personal flux:
A person may transform themself relative to circumstance and stimulus
Multiple forms may be occupied simultaneously
In P. 2, the grand scale of personal flux will be examined and I will speak on natura animi secundi (“the nature of the second ghost”).