Book of Mercy #11-15

[lizzytysh]

Jack said:

I.13
The surface is thick, but it has its flaws, and hopefully we will trip on one of them.

He is wanting to find the crack because thats how the light gets in

Yes


~ Lizzy

[Manna]

I have been half-following this thread - more entertained than interested in participating. You all seem so witty to me, and I don't have enough me to spend analyzing LC's work as much as I might like.

Have you all read LC's letter to the Asian Reader regarding BL? I wonder what he would say these days about Book of Mercy. I don't have it, so perhaps I should get it.

[DBCohen]

It might be none of my business but since leonard brought forward the subject I think that a Jew's business has something to do with a piece of land, with repentance and how they treat the people who they are to share the land with.

Jack,

Everyone is entitled to their own associations, but how do you find this specific meaning in that specific text is a mystery to me. And if it is not really in the text, and you are just flying off on a tangent, than I once again would like to caution against this practice, although I know my efforts are in vain.

And, by the way, the traditional process of learning with a friend is not about agreement, but about disagreement. Each one brings his own perspective to bear on the problem, and they argue in an attempt to convince each other, and also because through the argument and discussion the problem becomes clearer. This is the main essence of a Jew’s business: arguing. In that sense I’m not your typical Jew: I don’t like arguing, and I will not try to convince anyone that my opinion is better than theirs. But I will state my opinion, and I will point out an error of interpretation in the other’s opinion when I think I detect one.

[lazariuk]

Jack,
Everyone is entitled to their own associations, but how do you find this specific meaning in that specific text is a mystery to me.

Hi DB
Your above sentence is a mystery to me. First I am not sure if it is a question or not. The words "how do you find" suggests a question but then it just ends with a statement without a question mark. Second I never suggested that Leonard placed that specific meaning in that specific text. I though I made it clear that I was just writing what I thought was a Jew's business. Since the subject arose I had the idea that it could be useful information to give my little opinion of what a Jew's business is, the opinion of a non-jew.
I am happy to tell you how the text led my thinking in that direction.
From the text Leonard seems to be addressing a fellow Jew and it seems to be in a very considerate way. It seems that the consideration comes from understanding how the other experiences him. He gives lots of examples of that. In considering that it made me think of the ways that I often personally give much more consideration to those who I sense share my center of focus. It's enjoyable but I sense a problem in that and I felt that Leonard was also sensing a problem and that is what led him to the hope that flaws will be found to make them trip. I could have gone on and on elaborating on what I see are the problems that are caused by grouping with those who we feel are part of our crowd, but I thought it would be more appropiate to ponder the situation from a Jew's point of view and to do that I followed the thoughts that the text led me to.
The focus seemed to be on Moses and the Law and the judge group that he started called the Sanhedrin. These things they seem to have in common. On a number of occasions Leonard has made mention that he is critical of the Jewish tradition on a number of points. One being that the Jews seem to handle the law part well but not the mercy part. The other is that he has been critical of the ways that Jews treat others.
If that is the way that he thinks then this leads me to wonder what he will meet in the tradition that will be problematic. He ends the prayer with saying that now we can get down to a Jew's business. So what is a Jew's business? Leonard as a singer and poet is in a certain business, as a father he is in another business etc. You make the claim that "the main essence of a Jew’s business: arguing" You might be right but it is a mystery to me how you come to this conclusion. I don't have your vast experience with Jews and I came to a different conclusion. Following the text I felt drawn to consider Moses and following the feel of Leonard's consideration for one who he can relate to I was reminded of a little conversation that God had with Moses. God made it very clear to Moses that the Jews were being given a land where they were once strangers. It seemed to me like a very important part of the deal involved how the Jews treated who were to become the strangers in thier midst. It seemed to also be pointed out that they were not being asked to do what is not possible and God had pointed out that they had something very important that they can relate to: namely they had first hand experience of what it was like to be a stranger in a land. Stressing the importance of the idea of the stranger does not to me seem too out of line in this forum as Leonard seems to be quite interested in the idea of a stranger and uses the word often maybe because of the source that I mentioned. So that is how I came to the idea of a Jew's business somehow involving a piece of land, how the people on it are treated and the part about repentance comes from thinking that there is always a turning available if the agreement hasn't been honored.
Maybe I am totally wrong but considering the current problems that are happening on that piece of land I am of the opinion that my idea of what is a Jew's business might be even better than your idea that a Jew's business is to argue, even though you are a Jew and it is hense your business that we are discussing.

And if it is not really in the text, and you are just flying off on a tangent, than I once again would like to caution against this practice, although I know my efforts are in vain.

I guess that if you didn't know that your efforts are in vain then you would have cautioned me rather that just say that you would like to caution me. If you ever get around to actually cautioning me please let me know what you feel are the dangers that you are cautioning me about. I know that you are pointing to something very real and that it is something that causes me problems but the way that i think seems to have a mind of it's own and I decided long ago to stop trying to get it to work like others think it should and see where it takes me. I am perfectly willing to change strategy if I am shown a compelling reason to do so. As it is sometimes I am very satisfied with it and other times i am not.

And, by the way, the traditional process of learning with a friend is not about agreement, but about disagreement. Each one brings his own perspective to bear on the problem, and they argue in an attempt to convince each other, and also because through the argument and discussion the problem becomes clearer. This is the main essence of a Jew’s business: arguing. In that sense I’m not your typical Jew: I don’t like arguing, and I will not try to convince anyone that my opinion is better than theirs. But I will state my opinion, and I will point out an error of interpretation in the other’s opinion when I think I detect one.

Even though I don't see why you state what you think is the traditional process of learning or what you have to base that opinion on, it seems to me like the path you have chosen is very reasonable. In return I will tell you about a preference of mine. In general I am not too interested in people's opinion about things. What most interests me is learning about what they have experienced.

[BoHo]

+/-

[BoHo]

+/-

[DBCohen]

Jack,

Well, as I’ve said earlier, I don’t like to argue, and since we’ve already had a quite similar exchange a few months ago, I don’t see the need of repeating it all over again. So I’ll relate briefly to only a few of your points.

You said:

You make the claim that "the main essence of a Jew’s business: arguing" You might be right but it is a mystery to me how you come to this conclusion.

You should take this statement with a grain of salt. However,

Even though I don't see why you state what you think is the traditional process of learning or what you have to base that opinion on, it seems to me like the path you have chosen is very reasonable.

I should have specified that this is the traditional Jewish way, the Talmudic way, in which the process of study is the one of arguing from different points of view. And by the way, the Sanhedrin (which you’ve mentioned in your earlier posting) was not just a court of judgment: it was also a legislative body, which discussed and argued the finer points of the Torah to reach a decision. So when he speaks here about taking his place in the Sanhedrin it’s not necessarily to judge, but again, to discuss the Torah, and in essence, to study.

On a number of occasions Leonard has made mention that he is critical of the Jewish tradition on a number of points. One being that the Jews seem to handle the law part well but not the mercy part. The other is that he has been critical of the ways that Jews treat others.

Could you give some specific quotes of what and where he said these things? Personally I can’t remember any such references, but I’m sure there must be some statements he made that I haven’t read yet.

[lazariuk]

Jack,

Well, as I’ve said earlier, I don’t like to argue, and since we’ve already had a quite similar exchange a few months ago, I don’t see the need of repeating it all over again. So I’ll relate briefly to only a few of your points.

Hi DB
I take from the above that you get a sense that our exchanges have the nature of arguments. I am a little drawn to trying to discuss things with you for the simple reason that we seem to have such different ways of looking at things and I am curious as to what extent we can actually communicate. My intentions in this has been fairly light and it is something that I can easily drop as it seems to be stressful to you. I certainly, like you, am not interested in having agruments.

Could you give some specific quotes of what and where he said these things? Personally I can’t remember any such references, but I’m sure there must be some statements he made that I haven’t read yet.

The following is an example reference. The one I most had in mind was a talk that he once gave in a Jewish church in Montreal but I don't remember where the transcrip of that is.

The exclusive elements, the nominal elements, seem to be emphasized and a kind of scorn for the nations, for the goyim, a kind of exclusivity that I find wholly unacceptable and many young people I know find wholly unacceptable, is expressed. A confident people is not exclusive. A great religion affirms other religions. A great culture affirms other cultures. A great nation affirms other nations. A great individual affirms other individuals, validates the beingness of others. That has also encouraged some of our brightest and best into affirming this connection with groups that at least have the fire going. The tradition itself has betrayed the tradition. The messianic unfolding has not been affirmed and we don't have teachers that are warm in their invitation. The mercy of the Lord is not affirmed. One side of the tree, justice or judgement, is affirmed strongly but the other side is not affirmed. So we need a system that will provide experience in these matters and that is not within the confines of an exclusive vision that affirms one element of humanity and scorns the rest.

Did the above suffice to confirm the point I made or do you need another reference? One very thought provoking sentence in the above is "The tradition itself has betrayed the tradition"

I like Leonard more for the questions that he brings to my mind than for the answers.

trying to figure out how to be friendly - Jack

[DBCohen]

BoHo,

Wow, there’s a lot of fascinating material in your posting, and I simply can’t relate to it all now. I am much intrigued, though, by your plan for a new thread. By all means, do start it, and if I can contribute anything meaningful to it, I’ll be glad to do so.

[DBCohen]

Jack,

I acknowledge your friendliness with similar feelings.

I remember now reading the quote you’ve given. I’m not sure it says everything you say it does, but in any case, it seems to me that he questions not the tradition, but its implimentation by certain people. Note also that it was made for internal consumption, that he addreses his fellow Jews, and that in such context people tend to speak more harshly than they would while speaking with outsiders. I belive that one of the main point of BoM is the affirmation of his tradition – the way he sees and interprets it, of course (we’ve been through that before too, I seem to remember). Others may disagree with him on many points, but the great thing is his very ability to operate within the tradtion and offer a fresh interpretation for it. Also, perhaps we sometime forget that he is an artist, and he creates withing the artistic context, not the scholarly or theological one. This is something worth remembring and taking into acount consantly as we go along.

[BoHo]

+/-

[BoHo]

+/-

[DBCohen]

BoHo,

Well, why not open an adjacent room in this very edifice, LC’s Poetry and Novels? This seems to be the natural place, although I still don’t have a clear idea of those Magnificent Five you’re aiming at. Are there more books than albums among them or vice versa? In any case, as long as we discuss the work, it doesn’t matter so much where we do it, although sensible compartmentalization surely helps.

[lazariuk]

Jack,

I remember now reading the quote you’ve given. I’m not sure it says everything you say it does,

What do you mean that you are not sure? I said that he said " the Jews seem to handle the law part well but not the mercy part"
He said

The mercy of the Lord is not affirmed. One side of the tree, justice or judgement, is affirmed strongly but the other side is not affirmed.

I wrote "he has been critical of the ways that Jews treat others"
and he said

a kind of scorn for the nations, for the goyim, a kind of exclusivity that I find wholly unacceptable and many young people I know find wholly unacceptable, is expressed"

If you find fault with the way i represented what he said tell me what the fault is, but if you are saying that you are not sure because you would like to see more evidence then let me know and I will supply some.

but in any case, it seems to me that he questions not the tradition, but its implimentation by certain people.
.

Can you tell me how you arrive at that thought from the words

The tradition has betrayed the tradition

It seems to me that he is suggesting that something in the very tradition has gone wrong but again if you find fault with my reasoning tell me where my fault is.

Note also that it was made for internal consumption, that he addreses his fellow Jews, and that in such context people tend to speak more harshly than they would while speaking with outsiders.

The Jewish Bookclub is hardly an insider publication closed to the general public, but you are right for when he spoke in the Jewish synagogue in Montreal then he really let loose. His words were extremly harsher than in the magazine article. So harsh in fact that I am sure I read it with my mouth wide open in amazement that he could have been so critical and still be alive. I remember thinking as I read it "This is one courageous fellow we have here"

I belive that one of the main point of BoM is the affirmation of his tradition – the way he sees and interprets it

I know that this is what you believe. Are you open to the possibility that the main point of BoM is the affirmation of the Mercy of the Lord and not the tradition? Doesn't the title suggest that to you? I certainly do not think he wants to affirm the part of his tradition he says does not affirm the Mercy of the Lord.

I am certainly willing to concede that he seems to make an earnest effort to affirm the root of the tradition that give rise to what draws him to want to affirm all great traditions.

[lazariuk]

In context, the statement you isolight, Jack, resonates on a different frequency, it seems to me; he is not disparaging nor insulting Judaism

Hi Boho
I used the word critical so as not to suggest that he was being disparaging or insulting, amoung other things. Thanks for pointing out to me how my words might fail to convey what I was trying to say.