Book of Mercy #16-19

[mat james]

“My sacriligious suggestion is that maybe Cohen is using the formal language of religion to find a True Self outside of that religion.”

Blonde Madonna

Now Mat please explain

The sure path of any apostate.
The sure path of the individuated seeker.

B.M. and friends
The sacrilegious person (you, Blonde M.) is willing to question (some would say violate) that which is perceived to be sacred within their religious Myth/upbringing. This requires bravery and great strength of character; for to freely choose to swim against the current of inherited culture is a psychologically dangerous and lonely endeavor.
Leonard does this particularly in his early work, for these adventurous attitudes are usually the domain of the young artist.
An “apostate”, one who rejects the religion of their upbringing in order to discover their own truth would be deemed sacrilegious by those more conservative members of his/her original faith.
An individuating person (Carl Jung terminology) needs to go through this process of abandonment of prejudice (pre-judgmental attitude) in order to become “individuated”; that which you call “The True Self”. In a sense, this is the “scientific method” and it is the way forward for the rational sector of our Being.
At this point, the newly freed apostate (culturally sacrilegious) is…. lost…. and enters what many mystics; for example St. John of the Cross, call “The Dark Night”.

“I set out one night
when the tide was low
there were signs in the sky
but I did not know I’d be caught in the grip
of an undertow
ditched on the beach
where the sea hates to go
…I set out one night
but I did not know.” Leonard Cohen/Lorca

Leonard may have written this song via the poet Lorca, but it is the “Dark Night” of being “differently sensitive” and alone that seeps through these words to this reader, me.

I certainly am willing to accept the coexistence of different possibilities here (although I do believe that we should make an effort to understand who “you” is in each occurrence). However, I believe there is a certain compatriot of yours who would strongly disagree… DB Cohen

From the perspective of the mystic/mysticism:
“You” in the work of such writings can be anyone you love;
but…(and) it is also, often, Divinity, however that divine presence is perceived or experienced by that individuating, sacrilegious poet/thinker/writer/person.
So, for the mystic in this reader;
“You” when associated with longing/desire, is often the unrealized Divinity of the Dark Night of Leonard.
“You” in the Book Of Mercy, is usually the self-realised Divinity Who has blessed the longing seeker, mercifully, with mutual acknowledgement.
In both cases “You” is the Lover of lovers; that which is desired beyond all else.
That Who satisfies/completes (mercifully) the seeking soul that all others have failed to do.

DB, oh patient one, I don't deny the validity of the various ways of viewing the meanings of these "songs" of Leonard's.
My small contribution to this discussion, I feel, is in the area of mysticism, and how poetry can be written and/or interpreted in a mystical way. A bit of a tricky pastime and no doubt I "miss the mark" often enough. I talk about what I "see" in the symbols (and words are wonderful symbols) and what I "intuit" between the lines. Leonards songs/poetry tend to take me quite naturally off on this tangent. Right or wrong, that is where I go and I write of what I see.
In The Book of Mercy, so far, I "see" a lot of this.

And (Blonde Madonna) as for me and my Biblical quotes and Religious/Mythic allusions:
They add colour to my cultural palette.
They turn a black and white poem into a rainbow
They are the Myth that has shaped much of my being
And they are a hurdle I had to jump!

Mat the apostate

[Manna]

Bravo, Madam
Bienvenue to this discussion. I have, thus far, only skimmed your pronoun monograph, and even in such a cursory glancing, I can see its worth. I will more thoroughly ketchup on this thread later today and do some thinking. Thanks for showing me the possible turning.

[Manna]

I had been playing with the idea of the pronouns having various meanings. I didn't get anywhere that others haven't gotten, but it did bring me to play with other thoughts.

This line is important:

You folded your distance back into my heart.

A lot of the other stuff that "you" does/did seems to explain various sides of this.

So, I played with the idea that this one is about trusting the value of every experience, trusting that God is in every experience. What I'm seeing here is not a partitioning of emotions into sorrow or joy or fear or anger or pleasure... but rather all the emotions coexisting (gaw, I wish I knew a better word). I think if you know how, you can attach any emotion you want to an experience. It's all there, all the time. Emoting is a human thing to do. And God knows that about us. I think if anything, it's interesting to him. He's there, he loves us, he watches us, but beyond that, he doesn't help us with our human emotions. That he loves us, in his case, is enough. Of course, I may be wrong, and I don't know if I believe this myself - just trying it on. (Plus I had a dream that kind of illustrated something like this.)

I'm not saying that our emotions shouldn't be important to us. We're human, and there's nothing that I hold as congenitally wrong with that. And I think Leonard wants to have all the emotions too, but if he could pick one, at least to start with - Joy...? I'd pick that one too! Ah, but change my mind. This last paragraph feels cheap to me. I need to do more thinka-thinka.

[Steven]

Blonde Madonna,

In terms of conventional living (nah, I'm not comfortable using the word "conventional"),
joy and sadness are connected. Sadness, though, in some of its shades of meaning can
be far more independent from joy than the other way around, for e.g. when it correlates with suffering or despondency. When this larger degree of non-connectedness is present, it seems to be an exception to the general rule of relatedness between the two, though.

The degree to which joy is ordinarily experienced is often a perception, perspective
and experience informed by a variance from sadness. But for valleys, what would we make of hills and mountains?

When you spoke of "veil," please tell me what you meant. (I don't have the text to
look at, if this harkens back to it, and forgive me if it was from a quote in another
post or quotation given in this thread from the text.)

[mat james]

I edited my previous post to clarify a few points. Matj

[blonde madonna]

When you spoke of "veil,"

Well Steven I came up with it all by myself and I hope those with a better knowledge of their psalms are not smirking or, worse still, laughing at my misunderstanding of 'vale of tears'. Comes from my first and most intense exposure to the Old Testament being when I was very young.

I'm not sure why it came to me. I love the line in 'Last Years Man' about the 'veil of flesh' and so...

'You drew the tears back to my eyes' ...still think of it as an injury, causing tears, more tears.

[Manna]

Hmmm...someone else's tears...?

[mat james]

1.19

You let me sing, you lifted me up, you gave my soul a beam to travel on. You folded your distance back into my heart. You drew the tears back to my eyes. You hid me in the mountain of your word. You gave the injury a tongue to heal itself. You covered my head with my teacher’s care, you bound my arm with my grandfather’s strength. O beloved speaking, O comfort whispering in the terror, unspeakable explanation of the smoke and cruelty, undo the self-conspiracy, let me dare the boldness of joy.

This is “The Book of Mercy” and perhaps Leonard is referring to the mercy of momentary understanding, that fleeting mystical intuition not uncommon to spiritual people/poets.

“You let me sing, you lifted me up, you gave my soul a beam to travel on.”

This “beam”, I suggest, is his poetry/songs. Leonard is suggesting to me that his abilities are god-given and through these gifts he has, with his God’s help, raised his consciousness. The thoughtful process of writing helped him through the dark night of Soul, through his personal “cloud of unknowing” (early English Mystic, Brother John), through the “terror”, “smoke”, “cruelty” of ignorance.
And what is it Leonard was ignorant of?
I suggest his God’s touch, blessing, the divine “hello, I Am and so are you”; that momentary awareness that the fortunate seeker sometimes stumbles into, mercifully. This moment/experience seems more of a “blessing” than a “discovery” and therefore the use of the word “mercy” and the associated humility of Leonard’s words,particularly in this verse.

“You folded your distance back into my heart. You drew the tears back to my eyes. You hid me in the mountain of your word. You gave the injury a tongue to heal itself.”

The “injury” is ignorance.
He had the recipe books, so to speak, but had not eaten of the fruit.
But through his childhood exposure to his Jewish “Myth” (Jung) and later, when older, by doing the “Jew’s business” of looking at (debating) things from all angles, objectively, under the guidance (care) of his valuable Teacher(s), and the strength of character and writing skills (previous forum posting. I can't remember who. My apologies.) he inherited from his grandfather he eventually discovered within the scriptures (“in the mountain of your word”) of his culture and perhaps other nation’s scriptures as well, that which he was looking for.
He had a job/profession/calling. He could use words to venture forth and discover his own truth, his own Way. This in a way released him from unhappiness and “drew the tears back to my eyes” for he had sought and he had found. And the distance he once felt existed between him and God was no longer there; “You folded your distance back into my heart.”

“You gave the injury a tongue to heal itself.”

Those words and ideas which he (Leonard) speaks and sings, through his poetry, his books and his music are the tongue healing itself and thereby himself, his mind and his Soul as well.

“undo the self-conspiracy, let me dare the boldness of joy.”

Here he is suggesting to me that his doubt, pessimism and lack of persistency in optimistic faith have dragged him away from his God and his happiness/contentment too often. This “self-conspiracy” is a hurdle that perennially stands between him and his experience of abandonment in “joy”. He defines God here as “O comfort whispering” and he wishes God to keep whispering to him as he, Leonard, “stammers” (San Juan de La Cruz) to God and hopeful happiness through life’s journey.

“Let me dare”

He wants to be brave enough to be happy and full of “joy”.
And my reaction to this verse is: Good Luck Leonard with your struggles towards the "joys" of optimism,happiness and contentment.

Matj

[DBCohen]

Mat,

I thought this was an excellent analysis, if I may say so, very consistent, and if we dare seek the “true” meaning of what LC wished to convey here, I’d bet you’ve came very close. Still, (and I hope you wouldn’t wish to kill me now as you did last time I’ve said this), I still insist that there can always be more than one level of understanding of these texts. As I’ve said before, I believe that LC’s writing is esoteric, and there are often several levels of meaning hidden one beneath the other in what he writes. Perhaps the level of meaning that you have found in this prayer comes close to what he had in mind as the esoteric meaning, and perhaps there is even a deeper level of which we are not aware. Simultaneously, the exoteric meaning also has its value. For example, when he talks of “joy”, this could refer not only to the joy of mystical enlightenment, but also to the everyday joy of love, and of being able to enjoy life without feeling guilty (something Jews and Catholics are especially good at - feeling guilty I mean; and for a Jew growing up among Catholics it must have been the worst). So for me, there is always more than one way to understand this book and benefit by it, and I believe that we should learn to read it this way, keeping in mind the different possibilities.

[mat james]

Thanks DB.

And yes, this everyday "joy", you talk of below, that weeps from Leonard's work seems to be linked to his desire to understand, rather than his desire to be understood.

For example, when he talks of “joy”, this could refer not only to the joy of mystical enlightenment, but also to the everyday joy of love, and of being able to enjoy life without feeling guilty (something Jews and Catholics are especially good at

Yes, very true. I feel that 1.19 is primarily about this desire to find joy in everyday life. He struggles with accomplishing this or to sustain this positive mood, so it seems to me, without first feeling o.k with his place in the scheme of things.
It is as though he struggles with the last 9 commandments if he hasn't digested and lived the first commandment (to love and include God utterly).

As an analogy, I would say that many people just enjoy the cake, while guys like Leonard must first understand the recipe and cook it a few times before they find satisfaction and joy and in that "cake".

(and I hope you wouldn’t wish to kill me now as you did last time I’ve said this), DB Cohen

Keep up the good work, DB.

Mat the apostate

[Manna]

For me, understanding the work is usually my first desire, though I know I haven't been entirely consistent there. Sometimes I want to understand the intent, and that is when people like you all come in very handy, and I am grateful for all the references that I don't know much about. Other times, I am happy to interpret it from my own feet and see where it takes me.

And yes, this everyday "joy", you talk of below, that weeps from Leonard's work seems to be linked to his desire to understand, rather than his desire to be understood.

It really struck me just now what you say here, because what it seems to me you have done is try really hard and very thoroughly and at least somewhat successfully, I'm sure, to understand Leonard. What is the object of your desire to understand? Is it the Leonard who wrote these works? Maybe how that Leonard became the same one who wrote a certain song that seems to say opposite things? Maybe the work(s) itself? What does this passage bring you? What do you feel? After reading this, what thoughts come? Are you interested in understanding yourself?

You let me sing, you lifted me up, you gave my soul a beam to travel on. You folded your distance back into my heart. You drew the tears back to my eyes. You hid me in the mountain of your word. You gave the injury a tongue to heal itself. You covered my head with my teacher’s care, you bound my arm with my grandfather’s strength. O beloved speaking, O comfort whispering in the terror, unspeakable explanation of the smoke and cruelty, undo the self-conspiracy, let me dare the boldness of joy.

Often, I find, when I read these passages, if I understand them on some level, I get an urge to touch Leonard. I'm not talking about a sexual touching; I just want to put my hand on his shoulder. I also feel gratitude for him - for showing me something, for letting me carry these thoughts around for a while.

For this one, I feel a struggle between the joy that is expected and the joy that is true. The expected joy is also true, but I feel I have to question it because the joy that is true may be harder to find when the joy that is expected is present. I know that I feel good when I do X, but I also know that I am supposed to feel good when I do Y. I truly feel joy when I do both X and Y, but the rules of my culture forbid one of them, and the two seem to be in opposition. Am I being at all clear? I'm trying to talk w/o exposing too too much. It's the best I can do just now.

I'm looking for a way that I can continue to do both these things that bring me joy - let me dare that boldness too.

[blonde madonna]

What Matj has said is more enlightening than I could ever be on what might be Cohen’s idea of ‘true self’.
Manna I enjoy the way you approach the words from such a personal perspective.
DBCohen, you are moderating the often disparate views in such an even handed way.

DBCohen says
I wish you’d elaborate more about how you see the “I”, the speaker here.

I return to Scobie’s words, when he says that BoM is an example of Cohen’s ‘self-deconstruction’ and that the ‘poet here is set aside’. To explain what I understand from this comment I will refer to two post-struturalist theorists credited with initiating deconstruction. Barthes is famous for announcing the death of the author, which is a rhetorical way of asserting the independence of the text and its immunity to any fixed meaning the author may have intended. Derrida argues that the stable self-identity which we attribute to speech as the authentic source of meaning is illusory.

So when Scobie says Cohen is self-deconstructing I think he is referring to the way in which Cohen attempts to disappear in this text. In an interview Cohen did on Various Positions and BoM (posted elsewhere) I think he confirms it in his discussion on will.

Cohen says
when this tiny will is annihilated you’re thrown back into a kind of silence until you can make contact with another authentic thrust of your being. And we call that prayer when we can affirm it. It happens rarely, but it happens in Book of Mercy,

So this is a consciously self-abnegating Cohen. I have already referred to the way he constantly changes pronouns, this to me is the most obvious sign of what he is trying to do. I will go back to I.7 as an example of another way of destabilizing the meaning of the ‘I’.

I pushed my body from one city to another, one rooftop to another, to see a woman bathing, I heard myself grunt.

As was already noted in the discussion of this section, this is a reference to David and Bathsheba (also echoed in the song Hallelujah). Another interesting aspect to this Biblical reference is that Cohen has said in interview (and I can’t remember where I read this now) that he got this image from Joyce, not the Old Testament. Which challenges the idea that his religious teaching is the starting point of this work. The ‘I’ in this verse could be seen as David, not Cohen. Also look at I.17 for an example of the use of ‘we’.

We thought we were summoned, the aging head-waiters, the minor singers, the second-rate priests. But we couldn’t escape into these self-descriptions,

Here Cohen seems to be directly referring to this instability of identity.

So that is why, returning to I.19, I am wary of its seeming autobiographical appearance. What I see is an inbuilt ambivalence in every line that defies a fixing of meaning. Central to this is the instability of the ‘I’. I know that we need to find meaning (although I can’t relate to Manna’s fear of ‘word salad’) but I am comfortable with it moving, changing and contradicting itself with each new post (she says to prepare for the disagreement that will follow ).

[DBCohen]

BM,

Thank you for this intriguing posting. I believe you have touched on some important points.

Here is what I’ve written during the discussion of I.8 (and please excuse me for quoting myself):

I agree that in the final sense “he” refers to the narrator here; but in the lyrical sense, he is depicted as a different figure than his usual self, as a fictional figure with whom he identifies.

Also:

Even if we don’t wish to adopt Derrida’s dictum that “there is nothing outside the text”, and even if we no longer go along with Barthes about “The Death of the Author” and the rest of the structuralist business, I believe that we should try to learn as much as we can from the text itself, and not try to interpret everything in it in terms of the author’s life, because it is easy to go astray when we follow this path. I too may have been guilty of this practice before, and I’m not sure I can totally free myself of this approach henceforth, since it is impossible to free our minds totally of what we know about the author, but it is worth keeping that in mind, if we can.

And indeed, I have been guilty of alluding to the author’s biography now and then, and I don’t regret it, because in my view it is impossible to adhere too religiously to Barthes’ and Derrida’s ideas. The author seems to have been resurrected in recent years, and I also believe that the text must be viewed in context; otherwise we reach a dead end. I think many people have started to realize that.

Still, I do believe that the text should come first, and we must extract whatever we can from it, within reason, before turning our eyes outside. After all, a good poem has so much to tell us in itself, and it is usually the better poems that stand on their own without external crutches. The changing of the pronouns that you have analyzed is a good example for the many layers of meaning that may be found in the text. It may also has to do with the distancing from the “I”, as you suggest, but when doing so aren’t we bringing back the author through the back door, even when discussed in negative terms? (not that I object to it myself).

By the way, the question of the will was also discussed at the early stages of the thread, and the quotation you bring from LC’s interview may also reflect his Zen training (saying this brings me also to say how I wish Simon was back with us!).

[Simon]

I Hope to be back around soon. For now I lost track of the thread and will have to read quite a few pages back to catch up.

Cheers

[DBCohen]

Great, Simon! See you back here soon.