Book of Mercy #41-45

Debate on Leonard Cohen's poetry (and novels), both published and unpublished. Song lyrics may also be discussed here.
User avatar
mat james
Posts: 1844
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 8:06 am
Location: Australia

Re: Book of Mercy #41-

Post by mat james »

Bind me to you, I fall away.
This is quite a prayer.
It would make a meaningful mantra.

...Bind me to you, I fall away
Bind me to you, I fall away
Bind me to you, I fall away
Bind me to you, I fall away
Bind me to you, I fall away
Bind me to you, I fall away
Bind me to you, I fall away
Bind me to you, I fall away...
"Without light or guide, save that which burned in my heart." San Juan de la Cruz.
Diane

Re: Book of Mercy #41-

Post by Diane »

I like that, Mat.


I think I'm correct in saying that BoM was written when LC was going through a period of depression. If so, BoM is the fruit of what philosopher Peter Wilberg calls the depressive process. "The depressive process is a wordless process of finding a new inner bearing...following (it) takes one from muteness to metaphor." Or from muteness, to faint whispers, to speech:

You draw me back to close my eyes, to bless your name in speechlessness. Blessed are you in the smallness of your whispering. Blessed are you who speaks to the unworthy.
DBCohen
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:31 am
Location: Kyoto, Japan

Re: Book of Mercy #41-

Post by DBCohen »

Diane,

This is a somewhat tricky problem. On the one hand, we are told that LC suffered of depression, on and off, most of his life. But on the other hand, as far as I know, depression usually paralyzes the creative faculties. At that time LC created both BoM and the Various Positions album, so how depressed could he really be? Your quote from Peter Wilberg is very intriguing, but I wonder in what context was it made. It seems to say that depression leads to positive results (I’m putting it very crudely), but I believe depression is often destructive. Well, I guess the subject is too complicated to be dealt with seriously here, but I felt the need to make this comment anyhow.
Diane

Re: Book of Mercy #41-

Post by Diane »

Doron wrote:... as far as I know, depression usually paralyzes the creative faculties. At that time LC created both BoM and the Various Positions album, so how depressed could he really be? ...
Doron, the fact that Leonard Cohen suffered from depression has, I imagine, not been merely a successfully sidelined hindrance to much of his (earlier) work, but the force behind it. *Edit: You asked about context for the Wilberg quote. I think I got it from this, rather lengthy as you have to keep clicking on it, powerpoint explanation: http://www.meaningofdepression.com/Depsite.ppt

I first became interested in Wilberg's ideas when I read a book of his about what the West can learn from the Japanese concept of hara, which led on to an interest on what he had to say about poetry, and, most recently, about depression. You are correct that this is an off-beat interpretation for BoM, and the fact that I have only recently read Wilberg's thoughts about this may be biasing me to make this interpretation.

But what he says makes a lot of sense. He believes that 'depression' is a result of a resistance to the, natural, depressive process. This is mostly not a deliberate, conscious resistance of course. He rejects the western medical model of labelling depression as a bad thing, and says instead that the depressed person needs to follow the call to deep reflection that is the 'point' of it, and leads to the way out of it. That oversimplifies a complex issue, I don't want to minimise what I know is an immense burden to many people, and as you point out this is not the place to get into this, but the idea is relevant I think. It also addresses the issue of nine out of ten people, who have heard of Leonard Cohen, believing that he "is depressing". I imagine Wilberg would say that he invites you to enter the depressive process, that that is the sense in which he is depressing, and that is a positive thing!

I think it was Blonde Madonna, (maybe other people too) who at one point said she thought BoM was about an embracing of the true self, regardless of religious notions, but using religious imagery (I paraphrase). This verse 41 to me is a marvelous description of what happens when you let go of resistance to your true feelings about something difficult, and eventually return to a feeling of wholeness. This is also how minor depressions are resolved, and fits with Wilberg's model. From this perspective, the 'you' Leonard is addressing in the verse, is himself.

Something else I wanted to say about this line:

Blessed are you in the smallness of your whispering.

A lot of life's beauty is very subtle, and can barely be put into words. This line expresses that, perfectly.
Last edited by Diane on Mon May 18, 2009 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Cate
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:27 am

Re: Book of Mercy #41-

Post by Cate »

I really enjoyed listening to #41 Peter - thank you for posting that!
This verse 41 to me is a marvelous description of what happens when you let go of resistance to your true feelings about something difficult, and eventually return to a feeling of wholeness.
I think this excellent description of this verse.
mat james wrote: This is quite a prayer.
It would make a meaningful mantra.
absolutely, it seems to take on a greater meaning when repeated.
User avatar
mat james
Posts: 1844
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 8:06 am
Location: Australia

Re: Book of Mercy #41-

Post by mat james »

the 'you' Leonard is addressing in the verse, is himself.
Diane
I like your reasoning Diane.
I was reading the "you" as perhaps Leonard's God; but I wondered why the "you" was written constantly with a lower case "y" in this verse. Your suggestion that the "you" is Leonard (or perhaps an aspect af Leonard's totality ?) makes sense to me, "From this perspective", as you say.
"You/you" is a word pregnant with possibilities and is often intentionally used by those writers who wish to blur the boundaries of morphing oneness.
The mystics, of course! :)

MatbbgmephistoJ
"Without light or guide, save that which burned in my heart." San Juan de la Cruz.
Diane

Re: Book of Mercy #41-

Post by Diane »

Doron wrote: I kneel toward my heart. I have no other home – One of LC’s biographies is titled Prophet of the Heart, and indeed, LC’s “message” always had to do with the heart, and here he seems to be equating it with the religious element..
This reminds me of the wonderful Irish writer John O'Donohue (RIP), who said that our longing is for something within, as much as without. He said, "For too long, we have believed that the divine is outside us. This belief has strained our longing disastrously. This is so lonely since it is human longing that makes us holy."

Mat, you caused me to have a check, and the word "you", where it seems God is being addressed, has 'y' in small case throughout BoM. You, Doron and others have already shown the mystic, and religious interpretations. There is also this, psychological interpretation (not that I have been the first to note this, as I said). In fact the word 'psychology' derives from the Greek for "soul science".

I have edited my last post with the source for my original quote.
User avatar
mat james
Posts: 1844
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 8:06 am
Location: Australia

Re: Book of Mercy #41-

Post by mat james »

where it seems God is being addressed, has 'y' in small case throughout BoM.
Thanks for the correction, Diane.
I am getting my wires crossed with other texts.
I must say that I prefer a constant lower case "y" for the "you/You", in BOM. It leaves interpretation open for the reader to decide who or which aspect of the trinity ( ;-) ) (god, soul or author) is doing the talking .
I suppose it doesn't matter in the end if one takes the neo-platonic approach; an omnitract*, as is my tendency.

Mat.

( * : my newly invented word that no doubt some misfit/mystic has used before.) 8)
"Without light or guide, save that which burned in my heart." San Juan de la Cruz.
Diane

Re: Book of Mercy #41-

Post by Diane »

mat james wrote: an omnitract*,
I used to have one of those, but it died:-(. Yes, no-one can accuse LC of not being multi-layered. Tom S is close by, so maybe he will write a post about this fine verse number 41.
User avatar
~greg
Posts: 818
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 9:26 am

Re: Book of Mercy #41-

Post by ~greg »

elsewhere mat james wrote:
Chelsea/~greg,
I noticed that the butcher ("butchery") enters Leonard's work once more in
Book of Mercy # 41
“...Bind me, ease of my heart, bind me to your love. Gentle things you return to me, and duties that are sweet. And you say, I am in this heart, I and my name are here. Everywhere the blades turn, in every thought the butchery, and it is raw where I wander;”

"And in the case of "The Butcher" Leonard was trying to work, or pray, his soul
up to where he could take over from his father, and carry out his last instructions
--"lead on, my son, it is your world" (now).” ~greg

Cate suggests (on the BOM thread above quoted) that the "you" could be Leonard himself. But If I read your thoughts correctly, then I think that you would suggest that "you" is his father, again.
Am I accurate here?

MatbbgmephistoJ

Dear Mephisto,

First of all, we must never again speak of Cate in this forum!

Not after her outrageously improper interpretation of "Light as the Breeze"
in terms of a term that can be dear only to herself, and perhaps to a small
number of similarly depraved lost souls not wanting to be found.

(That song is obviously innocent of her vile accusation!
It is clearly and simply about the pleasures of flying a kite
on the Nile delta, at "the cradle of the river and the seas",
near where Moses led the Jews out of sado-masochistic bondage in Egypt.)

Second of all, no one should ever take anything I say seriously.
The longer I live, the more mistakes I notice I have made, and
continue to make. It'd be no exaggeration to say that I have made
nothing but mistakes. And while others don't usually bring them
to my attention, I always eventually see them, and they keep
me in a constant state of cringing.

(In my defense, when I seem to be speaking authoritatively,
that's not the attitude I actually have. But I read once a certain
famous writer's description of how annoying he found a certain
bad writer to be on account of all his qualifications and
considerations of all possible exceptions which made
what he wrote well neigh impossible to read and respond to.
Or something like that. And I am quite serious about this.
I do do an enormous amount of hemming and hawing,
(or "doo doo",) but I do it implicitly, not explicitly, because
to do it explicitly is effeminate. And this attitude
is so much a part of me that I always forget that I do it.
And so it always comes as a real surprise to me when people apparently
hear and respond only to the 1/10th explicitly authoritative tone coming
from me from above the surface, and hear not the implicit 9/10ths of total
tentativeness that, purely for the sake of making a more masculine read,
I had to deliberately drown out under foot below. (You see? There's a mistake
right there! I don't actually walk on water! It just seems that way sometimes.))
~~~

It is possible that with the uncapitalized 'you' Leonard was referring to his father.
There might be no simpler way to interpret eg
...I am in this heart, I and my name are here.
...you hide me in the shelter of your name...
However, what I really think is:
asking who the 'you' refers to, -- himself, his father, God, or whoever, --
is the wrong question to ask. It's a question that can never be
answered in a satisfactory way because, at the level that Leonard Cohen
does introspection, they are really all the same thing. So that it's not
even right to say "all of them" because, again, they are exactly the same thing.

The following quote from Theodor Reik's "Listening with the Third Ear"
should make it clear why this is so. And I hope that everyone will read
it, because it is not a throw-away quote.

I have colored red his central assertion. And also what I consider to be his most
important point. It's important because, as he says, he said it in order "to avoid the
impression common among many analysts that the superego is
a factor that only criticizes, punishes, forbids."

I think that the concept of "superego" is neither particularly clear nor plausible
without that observation. Whereas with it, the concept is lucid and really inevitable.
from Listening with the Third Ear - by Theodor Reik, pgs 5-9
~~

Where is the transition from observation of others, as we see it in children, to self-observation?
There must be an intermediary phase which has been neglected. Here it is: The child realizes
at a certain age that it is an object of observation on the part of its parents or nurses. Stated
otherwise, the I can observe the Me because They—-She or He
once observed the Me. The attention the persons of his environment paid to the child
will be continued by the attention that the child pays to itself. Self-observation thus originates
in the awareness of being observed. The intermediary stage between the observation of others
and self-observation is thus the realization that one is observed by others.

Where the personality is split, as in certain psychotic diseases, self-observation is again
transformed into hallucinations of being permanently observed by others. In another form
the phenomenon of depersonalization, in which the person complains that he does not feel
but only observes himself, reinforces this point. A man gives a speech and suddenly becomes
aware of peculiarities in his voice, of certain gestures that he makes, of some personal
ways of expressing himself. This awareness is not independent of the fact that he sees
or senses the impression his speaking or the content of his speech makes upon his audience.
We have a good expression for this kind of recognition. The speaker becomes self-conscious.
One does not become self-conscious only in the presence of others, although that is usually
the case. The occurrence of this reaction when one is alone is much more rare, and of a
secondary character.

I repeat, self-observation is not a primary phenomenon. It must be traced back to being observed.
One part of the self observes another part. I assume that differences in the kind and intensity
of this observation may be significant for the future psychological interests of the individual.
A little girl I know asked her mother, "Why do you always smile when a lady in Central Park
smiles at me?" The child had observed that her mother smiled at another woman who looked
with pleasure at the pretty little girl. Such a case shows not so much self-observation as
observation of others who react to one's self. By primitive observation the child learns early
in life to interpret the reactions of his parents or nurses as expressions of approval or disapproval,
of pleasure or annoyance. Being observed and later on observing oneself will never lose
its connection with this feeling of criticism. Psychology teaches us again and again that
self-observation leads to self-criticism, and we have all had opportunity to re-examine
this experience. Add that self-observation is from its inception a result of self-criticism.
This self-criticism continues the critical attitude of mother, father, or nurse. They are
incorporated into the self—become introjected. Introjection, or absorption of another
person into oneself, is an indispensable precondition for the possibility of self-observation.
Without it a child cannot transform the feeling of being observed into self-observation.

The process describes a circle: attention directed to external world and others; awareness
of being observed, often criticized; incorporation of the observing or critical persons into oneself;
self-observation. We know that many psychologists have wondered—some did not even wonder
-—about the possibility that the I can observe the Me. We see now who this observant
and observing I is. It is the object taken into oneself, the mother, the nurse who observed
the child. The split, which enables one to observe oneself, comes about through the introjection
of the supervising person into oneself. We make one part of the self the supervisor of the other part.
The observant I is a survival of the observing mother or father.

We are reminded at this point of the genesis of religious belief in the omniscience of God,
the belief that God sees everything.
A little girl was very indignant when she heard this
and said, "But that is very indecent of God."

Freud once remarked that the introspective perception of one's own instinctual impulses finally
results in inhibition of these tendencies. We would like to add that such self-observation of one's
tendencies is already the result of a previous inhibition. If there were no memory-traces that
persons in the child's environment reacted with disapproval or annoyance, with withdrawal
of affection, to certain instinctual expressions, no self-observation would develop.

Let us return to our speaker. When he becomes self-conscious, and if this feeling reaches a certain
intensity, he becomes embarrassed. He begins to stammer, to hesitate, to make slips of the tongue,
to grow uncertain. That would be the result of the impression he gets that his speech is not being
received with approval, but is being met with negative criticism. To become self-conscious means
to become conscious of the negative attitude of others, to realize or to anticipate that the others
are critical of one.

Psychology makes the presence of two persons necessary—even if it is introspection done by
a researcher in a lonely study. There is always a second person there who observes the Me.
We know this person was originally the father (or mother) who now continues his existence within us.
The seer of oneself has an overseer; he who has received a vision of himself has taken on a supervisor.
Psychoanalysis has given a name to this invisible superintendent of the self; it calls him the superego.
We thought we were masters in our own household until Freud discovered this inspecting and introspective
factor, the superego—the image of the father incorporated, taken into the self as a part of it. The superego
is also the second person present in self-observation.

I want to avoid the impression common among many analysts that the superego is a factor
that only criticizes, punishes, forbids. If this part of ourselves, this concealed roomer in our
psychical household, is a survival of the father and mother of our early childhood, he cannot
have only these functions. We learn in psychoanalytic practice that the superego can have
pity on the individual, and we call this experience self-pity. It is really nothing but the unconscious
idea: If mother or father could see me in this misery she or he would feel sorry for me.
The superego can smile, console, and seem to say, "Take it easy; it isn't half as bad as you think it is."
We call it humor. We even know situations in which the superego forgives the person who is aware
of his misdeeds or sinfulness, and we call this self-forgiveness. Religion calls it grace that descends
upon the worshipper. In many cases where we use words with "self" (like "self-confidence"),
"self" refers to the part of the person which is the representative of the father within him.
Without knowing it, we mean the superego.


The ego is primarily an organ of perception directed toward the outside world. It is unable to
observe the self. The superego is the first representative of the inner world. It is the silent
guide in the subterranean realm of our psychical life. Psychology started with the supervision
of emotional processes by this superintendent, this proxy-parent within us. It was this factor
which examined what took place in our thought and emotional life. Its attention and vigilance
were directed to those tendencies and impulses that were socially disapproved. It would criticize,
condemn, suppress, and finally repress them.

The first discoveries in the field of psychology were made in the service of those suppressing powers.
The origin of psychology can be easily recognized in our psychological descriptions and judgments.
Language has immortalized this origin. How do we characterize or describe a person? We say,
for instance, that he is stubborn or avaricious or pedantic or kind or friendly. Does not the voice
of the superego sound in such psychological descriptions? We want to observe and describe
without preconceived ideas, but our miserably poor language forces us to put an undertone
of approval or disapproval into scientific statements. Psychology was for a long time in bondage
to moralistic and religious conceptions, and the superego is a witness to this servitude to ideas
foreign to the spirit of research. The superego knows more about what takes place in the human
mind than the other parts of the ego, exactly as worldly-wise, clever priests often know more
about people than people know about themselves.
...
~~
ps:
I am sparing 'you' ( me, you, God, etc) my essay on the trinities
("Father Son Holy-Ghost", "Osiris Isis Horus", "Hecate Demeter Persephone",
"Brahma Vishnu Shiva", "etc etc etc". ---I assume that everyone here can name
a dozen of these things.).

All the trinities have mystery cults associated with them in which the parts
are mystically identified with each other (--they are 3, and yet they are 1.)

Which, superficially, is what I am saying about the identification of LC with his father and God.

However, after thinking about this for awhile, I have decided that the drive
to mystically identify the parts of the trinities with each other does not
derive from the same elementary structure of the human psyche that
accounts for LC's ambiguous use of "you".

The trinities derive from concepts of the atomic family (father mother child)
and the basic temporal life-link (3 successive generations,)
(all mixed up of course with the Neolithic planting and harvesting sciences.)

And it is really the clear and ever present dependence of our human existence
on the continuity of these things that drives us to mystically equate the parts.
In fact, the secret behind all the mystery cults is monotheism,
- the unity of the noumenon behind the phenomena.
We feel that by forcing this unity in our imaginations,
(mystically regarding different things as really being the same thing)
we can force the continuity that we require for our survival.
(The chain can't be broken --if it's got no parts to separate.)

So you can be thankful that I didn't go into that.

~~~
pps:

The song "Everybody's Child" had me baffled, and still does.
I probably heard its lyrics wrongly in more ways than Jack knows how to treat a cat.

How did I get "I remember Lilly Pons / Singing Hey Lisbon"
from "I remember the promise/ That you made in the barn " ?

For the longest time I thought that "Blessed is the memory / Of everybody's child"
referred to either a wayward hippy girl child (as in
"One of sixteen vestal virgins / Who were leaving for the coast")
or to a kidnapped child.

But then, while jogging and listening to it on my muvu, it suddenly came to me
that for every one who has had a child, there is a memory of them implanted
in that child. And that to bless that memory, amounts to a blessing on the parent.

Even the worst parents and caretakers had to have done at least enough
that the child survived. And most do better. But even when that's not the case,
children always, instinctively, bless their parents anyway. Even when they have to kill them.
Hence -
....You draw me back to close my eyes,
to bless your name in speechlessness.
Blessed are you in the smallness of your whispering.
Blessed are you who speaks to the unworthy.
~~~~
ppps:

(There're still several problems with "Everybody's child",
---as was mentioned in one of its threads
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9174&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
--- particularly whether the variable X in the lines
but you lost X in your freedom
and you need him now you're wild
has the value -him- or -them- or -'em-.

When you listen to the song without thinking about it,
then you'll definitely hear it one way or the other.
But then when you listen closely, on repeat loop,
it becomes impossible to be certain.
Even the "him" in the second line becomes uncertain.
)
User avatar
~greg
Posts: 818
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 9:26 am

Re: Book of Mercy #41-

Post by ~greg »

For the purposes of this dissertation (or "post")
I will use the term "supersuperego".

I know the word's grotesque. But at least its meaning,
after a few comments, should be self-evident. So I'll
use it for now.

"supersuperego" gets about 300 hits on Google.
Most of then take the first "super" to be an intensifier,
and "supersuperego" to simply mean a superstrong superego,
super selfcritical.

But I take both supers to mean "above". And "supersuperego"
to be the third step in the logical sequence: ego->superego->supersuperego.

And it isn't critical at all.
It's the non-critical objective observer in us of everything going on
in our psyche; - our sprawling blind ids, our uncritically observing egos,
and our self-observing self-critical superegos.

The supersuperego simply observes these things without judgment.
It is the thing in us that does objective phenomenology.
It's the target state of meditation. It's Gurdjieff's "self-remembering".
And it's what makes Leonard Cohen's poetry so appealing.

The very first poem in LC's "Stranger Music" anthology,
(called "Poem"!), which he wrote when he was 20,
is this:
I heard of a man
who says words so beautifully
that if he only speaks their name
women given themselves to him

If I am dumb beside your body
while silence blossoms like tumours on our lips
it is beause I hear a man climb the stairs
and clear his throat outside our door.
Whoever this other "man" is ("the better man")
he is obviously derived in part from LC's superego (his father introjected).

But what's most interesting is that LC does not identify with him.
He does not, as others probably would, simply take the role of his superego
and write a poem criticizing himself for his silence. Rather, he objectively
observes it happening in himself.

Reik talked about 2 levels
Psychology makes the presence of two persons necessary
—even if it is introspection done by a researcher in a lonely study.
There is always a second person there who observes the Me.
We know this person was originally the father (or mother)
who now continues his existence within us.
The seer of oneself has an overseer;
he who has received a vision of himself has taken on a supervisor.
Psychoanalysis has given a name to this invisible superintendent of the self;
it calls him the superego.
What Reik obviously missed is that to even talk that way requires, and implies, 3 levels.

It is of course quite common to find ourselves criticizing ourselves
for being too self-critical. We tell ourselves to go easier on ourselves.
But all this occurs on exactly the same level. It's still the superego's doing.

What's not so common is to simply observe ourselves being self-critical
(or whatever) - without criticizing ourselves for it.
(Without identifying with it. Without taking that role.)

I suppose we never let our guards down like that out of the superstitious fear
that if we do, (- if we don't continuously identify with our superegos, -)
then we will fall to pieces. We'll become slobs.

It's the same superstition that makes the Greeks still paint talisman eyes on their boats.
Diane

Re: Book of Mercy #41-

Post by Diane »

Jesus, Greg. One glance into your posts makes me want to shut up forever. Which is another way of achieving speechlessness, so I'm not knocking it.

I identify Doron as the critical parent. We were all quietly appreciating Peter's lovely recitation of this verse, when
Doron wrote:It was a promising beginning, but then things have died out. Are there no more comments on #41?
And suddenly there were more levels than the shelves in B&Q.
User avatar
mat james
Posts: 1844
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 8:06 am
Location: Australia

Re: Book of Mercy #41-

Post by mat james »

~greg, your Freudian semantics seem to assist you in gaining a wonderful understanding of Leonard’s work.
Do you think there is room for other tools? (non-freudian)
If the “superego” is no longer judging (“do not eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil” genesis) and is merely observing, then perhaps it is the Hindu “dweller” (supersuperego in Reikian semantics)
I prefer the term “dweller” :) as it is more poetic (and makes space between Brahma and Atman for me to "be". . ) My mephisto trinity :D
and then I’ll saunter on;
“...and nameless know them better.” P.R. Eason

Mephisto.
"Without light or guide, save that which burned in my heart." San Juan de la Cruz.
User avatar
~greg
Posts: 818
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 9:26 am

Re: Book of Mercy #41-

Post by ~greg »

Mat,

You told me on the Butcher thread - you sent up the Batman signal to me
- that Cate was acting up over here and I needed to get my ass right over
and straighten her out about a few things and put her in her place.
there mat wrote:Cate suggests (on the BOM thread above quoted) that the "you" could be Leonard himself.
And therefore that's what I did.
And that's all that I did!

Well, the next thing I know I get an excoriating e-mail from Cate,
telling me exactly what she would do to me if she ever caught me
in a dark alley alone at night! I can't repeat any of it - it'd make
your skin crawl into a corner quivering - so I'll just say that there
would probably be very little of me left if she ever had her way with me!

Of course I had no idea what she was on about.
But it has all become perfectly clear now!

It wasn't Cate who began this you/You mess!
It was Diane!
--- exactly as you yourself say here (- but not there!)
here mat wrote:
the 'you' Leonard is addressing in the verse, is himself.
Diane
I like your reasoning Diane.
If I had known it was Diane, and not Cate, who was causing all this ruckus,
then I would have had to put Diane in her place, and not Cate
- which I might have done by pointing out that Diane's favorite
Mistress Barbara video -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlddwLtuJds
is, in fact, a plagiarism of this one!!! -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIR1jLbWiz0
(or, if that's not working, try: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aztub_hM ... re=related
-- and then watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6wKV2TKanI
which is another one I like )

!!!!!


And if that didn't work,
then I just don't know what I would have done!!!!

~~~

But, mat,
you obviously did all this on purpose
just to get me in trouble with the fairer (but oh so un-fair) sex!

So I'd say it was you all along who needed the place pudding.

So how about a big warmed-over bowl of grade school tapioca?
(And there'll be no satori for you until you finish it all!)
~~


ps:

"You" is capitalized at the begining of sentences in the BOOK OF MERCY.
And in exactly one other place.
The last word in poem #17.

Anyone who can explain that
- will win eternal life.

===========================================

pps:
for Cate and Diane, for putting up,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajbXZ9_A9nE

(apparently it was recorded low,
so put up the volume)
User avatar
mat james
Posts: 1844
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 8:06 am
Location: Australia

Re: Book of Mercy #41-

Post by mat james »

Being familiar with Cate and her demonic sirens, I can just imagine which skin she was peeling back !
She corrected me as well (gently/diplomatically) for claimimg Diane's quote as hers.
But I didn't bother to correct it because all bubbles rise to the surface, like some pre-reflective cogito to samahdi.

"At the still point of the turning world, there! Your satori is." (T.S. Eliotesque)
you sent up the Batman signal to me
- that Cate was acting up over here and I needed to get my ass right over
~greg
It is great to see You have fallen, (taken the hook so enthusiastically) to this thread ~greg. :D

Mephisto the Conspirator. :twisted:
"Without light or guide, save that which burned in my heart." San Juan de la Cruz.
Post Reply

Return to “Leonard Cohen's poetry and novels”