leonardcohenforum.com

Byron.....the 'phantom limb' case is classic. Thanks for bringing it up. It demonstrates the case nicely.
p.s. I also think (on re-reading your last post), you explained the tree-sound/poem-meaning analogy better than I did.

Lizzytysh.....the man/ animal issue is not quite relevant here. We are really concerned about ears, brains and 'sound' waves irrespective of who they belong to. It it bothers you, substitute animals wherever I have put humans. Your other point is certainly relevant. I am not isolating the senses....but it is a much harder case to make with vision and I am not sure I could do it over the internet - or even face to face for various contingencies, so I'll leave it alone.

Fade....you certainly have a valid point of view. It is the other side of the debate. But personally, the pleasure I get when I understand a songwriter's lyrics clearly far exceeds the pleasure otherwise (not to be confused with the pleasure I get hearing a classical singer singing in a language unknown to me). And it took the advent of the internet to do so in case many of LC's lyrics. If you have an idea in a poem and put it in a public domain (be it CD, book, internet), is it your responsibility to get that idea easily and clearly across to the recipient(s) ? If I were writing for myself....no need to do so, but if I put it in the public domain, I am basically writing for others....in this case I would try to ease the communication. For it is an idea that I am trying to get across. But I agree that you also have a valid point 'from the other side'.

>>>On this very board people spend a great deal of time and thought working out what Leonard meant when he wrote a certain song or poem, but would knowing make it any more valid or beautiful?

In my case it most certainly does so. But I can see that others may feel differently.

The basic idea here was that sound is produced when a tree falls AND an animal is around to hear it. A theorem is proved when someone does so with faultless logic AND when others can understand the logic perfectly. A poem is born when the writer writes it AND when the reader understands the meaning.
This is certainly not meant to be a universal view to be accepted or rejected...that was not my idea. It was simply an alternative view to be considered, I myself may disagree in some instances. A different way to think about it, if you will.

Hi Elizabeth,
My post on the man/woman, right/wrong thing, was, as you know, just an attempt at a little humor. However, I guess this was the wrong thread to be attempting that. I could have accidently got myself analyzed and locked up somewhere.

Dear Bob,

Yes, a definite iron needle weaving its seriousness through the posts on this particular thread. However, I still find your addition very and refreshingly amusing. Now I need to go address the issue of relevancy. Ah well.

~Elizabeth

Kush ~ "Not quite relevant" and "we"? You [all] may not be concerned with what I pointed out, but I certainly was and whilst contributing here, count myself amongst the "we." How did you get to write me out on it? Perhaps I need to re-read from the beginning and see something terribly obvious that I missed? The question is a "metaphysical"[?] one to begin with, so all answers remain relevant, anyway. Who is to say what existence is and is not, and of what and what not? The question has always been a bit of a "parlor game" in my mind to begin with ~ again, making all answers and perspectives relevant.....one of those sophomoric exercises. If it comes down to atoms and the true constitution of things, the trees themselves are every bit as "alive" as we, and likely have their own means of perceiving what we humans define as "sound" ~ so I respectively and relevantly point out that yes, a tree falling in a forest ungraced by man, indeed, does make a sound.

~Elizabeth

Even when the majority of you say that it does not matter to realize or understand what the author wanted to say I think that when an artist is really touching other´s people feeling in the same string he touched when he created his work , in that universality lies the biggest value of his work
I hope I made myself comprehensible...

Sandra, I suppose that the ideal situation from an artist's point of view would be that a work of art would resonate for those perceiving it in exactly the way the artist intended. However, that does not invalidate other reactions to the piece. Also, we are none of us immune to self-deception, and what an artist thinks he is putting into a piece may not necessarily be what others find in it, either because he has not been honest with himself or because their different personalities lead them to react in a different way.

Kush and Lizzytysh are succesfully pointing out that the degree of sophistry which can be found in the various sections of the Forum can tend to divert the reader's appreciation of lc's work.
I'm awaiting the day when some well-meaning, passionately devout, follower of lc and all of his thoughts and words, raises the question of the quality and quantity of the fluff in lc's belly-button at the time of inception of one of his compositions.
The tendency towards navel-gazing sometimes seems to be gathering momentum. But that is just my own personal take on the avid interest of a few.
Lizzy, trees do have feelings. Scientists have recorded the fact that plants react to being cut. Enjoy your salad?
Best regards. Byron

Hi Byron ~

Back to the trees ~ yes, I'm aware of some truly amazing studies related to plants and trees ~ plants' owners being blocks away at the time of an event, etc; trees whose root systems intertwine, etc. There's no question in my mind.

Yes, I'm still enjoying my salad, thanks ~ given a choice between eating something that "screams" when cut [still not comfortable with even that, "knowing more than I need to know" on the topic ~ I'm aware of that phenomena from previously]; or something that, when I look at it, it looks back at me, I'll still opt for the former.

Linda ~ yes, and then another part of the discrepancy between intention/perception is whether the artist was able to find the correct words for what even he/she meant. How many times have we thought we said something perfectly, only to re-read it later and wonder ourselves what we meant....then, via context, recalling what it was, the "best" way to have said it suddenly comes to us. A good case for Leonard's habit of setting things aside, revisiting them later, and reworking them until he's finally satisfied....then, later still, finding himself redoing.

~Elizabeth

Yes...I am not so radical. Lots of interpretations ok but there are many edges on this subject. First the artist may have had a unique , very precise intention when creating his work, or may be not, or may be various intentions.....(who knows) The important thing is that it must leave in us the sensation of something superior,harmonious, joyfull, sense of plenitude,a desire to get more... etc and not necessarily "logical comprehension".
When I write on this forum and nobody answers I prefer to think that they are pleased, amazed, delighted, or even schocked that they are unable to say anything....

not necessarily "logical comprehension".

I agree with that....you can comprehend a mood or emotion or ambience without really understanding the lyrics. I s'pose I feel that way when hearing Songs From A Room. But perhaps this is closer to the feeling or ambience generated when hearing a musical piece or a classical vocalist that touches you.