Were I to have a "concept of 'God'", - which I do not,Many strong men thrived
Though they boasted solitude
God was at their side
...
Many weak men lied
they came to God in secret
and though they left him nourished
they would not say who healed
-LC
- then I would lie about it.
And I would never talk about it in public.
~~
Somebody pointed out once that, after Freud, people were
perfectly willing to discuss their most intiment of sexual details
in public - peverversions even, - while they were unwilling
to talk about moments of tenderness.
~~
If I discuss something in public, then I am not "serious" about it.
What I don't discuss, I am serious about.
~~~~~~~~~~
But I'm not half way through.john.m.lake wrote:You have added nothing to the actual discussion
I am glad that you said it, not me.john.m.lake wrote:stop the accusations and immature personal attacks
and lets discuss the topic at hand – whether that be Leonard’s music
or God in general.
So, it's got to be one or the other, again.
Door #1, or door #2.
It's a very wide range in any case.
But I have to go back a bit to what this
"whether that be ... or God in general"
reminds me of.
earlier john.m.lake wrote:Hmmm, You peaked my interest Greg.
To criticize is to evaluate the merits and faults of the given topic at hand.
Do you hold this belief ("Critics are evil") to be true for 'all topics'
or just in relation to what you believe to be 'God' ?
However that wasn't what you said.and then john.m.lake wrote:I did read your first post
and the only words that interested me enough to comment on,
I did comment on.
It is interesting to me that you found my words to you to be aggressive
- If I find something that I do not agree with - I question it - that is all.
You didn't say that you found anything you disagreed with.
You didn't even hint at what it was, if anything.
And you haven't told me yet what it was.
But now I know that it wasn't anything. You were lying.
What you were really pissed at wasn't something that you disagreed with.
What you were really pissed at is that in your view I haven't "added nothing to the actual discussion",
Meaning that I haven't yet defined for you what I "believe to be 'God'".
Thus denying you the pleasure of belittling it.
~~
What you did say, first of all, was that I
.peaked your interest
And then later you didn't deny that you had been aggressive.
What you did say, then, was that
And those kinds of things are what's called passive aggressive.It is interesting to me that you found my words to you to be aggressive
(Which was half of the agression I saw in you.)
One thing I can guarantee you is that you would be the last one to see it in yourself.
~~
But back now to your limiting of choices.
You defined what I had to mean by "To criticize" -
("The given topic at hand" - was the key. But I didn't realize that at first.)To criticize is to evaluate the merits and faults of the given topic at hand.
And then you asked me a question.
Two choices -- which confused me no end.Do you hold this belief ("Critics are evil") to be true for 'all topics'
or just in relation to what you believe to be 'God'
On the one hand you didn't seem to know what I meant by "critics are evil".
But you didn't ask me what I meant.
The first thing you did do was to limit what I was allowed to mean by "to criticize",
-- to something that I didn't mean at all.
And then the next thing you did was to limit what you would allow me
to apply the expression "critics are evil" to
- to just two things: -
either
or else'all topics'
Neither of which I meant.just in relation to what you believe to be 'God'
( Presumably by "all topics" you were asking if I meant "all critics are evil".
But I couldn't make heads or tails of what possible relation you had mind between
"critics are evil" on the one hand, and what I believe to be 'God' on the other!
"The topic at hand", - of course, was the key.)
However my point here is that those were what's called "leading questions",
(or a "leading definition" followed by a leading question.)
And those kinds of things are objectionable and highly aggressive
tactics that lawyers sometimes try to get away with.
And that was the other part of the aggression I sensed in you.
~~
"The topic at hand" - is the key.
You are pissed that, in your view, I don't stick to your topic.lets discuss the topic at hand – whether that be Leonard’s music
or God in general.
The topic that you wanted to get into, as soon as propriety allowed,
after you titled your thread "The word and the voice of God",
and after you began it by talking about Leonad Cohen.
But do try to remember how this thread actually did begin: --
john.m.lake wrote: Hello all... I picked up my first Leonard Cohen - "The Essential Leonard Cohen" about three weeks ago. I wish I would have discovered his music sooner - Beautiful, Biblical - Brilliant!
- John
johnlakeart.com
"There is a crack, a crack in everything... that's how the light gets in" - Leonard Cohen[[q
Gerrida wrote: Hello, John, nice to have you here. You have a whole world to explore ... enjoy! Try to get Field Commander Cohen, Tour of 1979. I love his voice on that album and the songs are great as well.
jimbo wrote: yes John essential is essential
Last edited by jimbo on Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
john.m.lake wrote: Thank ya Kindly Gerrida and Jimbo...
- simply amazing musical compositions. I have a new favorite artist now... I'll be picking up everything I can find.
"There is a crack, a crack in everything... that's how the light gets in" - Leonard Cohen
kokenpere wrote: John -
Welcome! Check Marie Mazur's Speaking Cohen site also. Between the Files and 'Speaking', you should have plenty of information for your quest.
michael
john.m.lake wrote: Thank you Michael - I'll check out the site.
"There is a crack, a crack in everything... that's how the light gets in" - Leonard Cohen
john.m.lake wrote: Just checking in... Still listening to 'The Essential Leonard Cohen'. I've lost track - BUT - I believe I have listened around 10 times now. The latest yesterday wile taking a little trip - Timeless! Light of The Father.... not of any one religion or non-religion But.. the one and only God.
"There is a crack, a crack in everything... that's how the light gets in" - Leonard Cohen
st teresa wrote: Hi John
And welcome to the club! Trying to imagine what it would be like to have just discovered Leonard cohen. I guess I would wonder how I could have missed him all these years. A little like a spiritual awakening I should imagine. I do remember the first time--my brother returned with a little casette tape entitled Songs from a Room. First he played the tape, and then he played some songs on his guitar, sounding a lot like leonard. My siblings and I literally fell on the floor laughing at Bird on a wire. Laughing and loving it.
I still feel like that when I hear a new cd by him. Maybe not as wild--after all its been 40 years or so. But some things just reach you on a certain level. The voice of God? amen.
And that's where it ended.john.m.lake wrote: Hi St Theresa... thank you for the welcome and the story. The music is the most beautiful, the most soothing I have ever heard - I can't imagine ever being tired of it - and - I can't wait to pick up his other albums. I'm not a strongly religious person - I have no true affiliation... but - I am a spiritual person and when I hear the words and music I feel a very strong connection to the spiritual... not that I believe Leonard Cohen to be thee 'God' of Course... And I'm sure that Leonard would scoff at such an idea - BUT I do believe God is 'Everything' - there is nothing outside - so - in my belief system Leonard is definitely 'part' of God and maybe a little closer to the Understanding/ Knowledge than most - a true prophet - whether he realizes this or not. If I'm lucky enough for his 2008 tour to stop near New Jersey.. I'll be one of the first in line.
"There is a crack, a crack in everything... that's how the light gets in" - Leonard Cohen
Or where it turned, from Leonard Cohen, as a god-like singer-song-writer,
- into your concept of 'God' topic.
Because the next post was Casey Butler's first post.
And all further mention of Leonard Cohen was thereafter reduced to infinitesimal tokens.
So I am glad that you said:
Leonard Cohen was what my first posts in this thread were about,lets discuss the topic at hand – whether that be Leonard’s music
or God in general.
-whether you saw that or not.
And I said back then that I don't have a concept of 'God'.
I am a-theoretic.
But I get the feeling that you are trying to convince people - perhaps even me
- that you have a superior concept of 'God' - not limited in the ways
other people's concepts of 'God' are limit. Which I thinks is very doubtful.
But you are proselytizing it just as much as Casey is proselytizing his
concept of 'God'. A superficial impression would be that you are merely
feeding the troll, because, you believe, your concept of 'God' is
less traditional and cultic than Casey's is. But in fact you are both
trolls. Although this of course depends on the definition of troll,
which we certainly don't share.
- whenever the "given topic at hand"... is 'God'.To troll is to evaluate the merits and faults of the given topic at hand.
But I won't argue that.
A point which I may argue, later, is that you are, in fact,
a fundamentalist in a well defined tradition,
just as much as Casey is .
Which of course depends on the definition of fundamentalist.
Which we don't share.