Newness Yeartub wishedness

[imaginary friend]

Geoffrey wrote:

make no mistake. leonard is capable of loving people, and indeed i am sure he has a great deal of love for many people - it's just not a romantic love. he loves in the same way as jesus may have loved, a humanistic, neutral, uninvolved passionless love that is unselfish, warm and fatherly. if not for his uncontrollable libido he could one day have been made a saint, but his body's desire for physical release has, unfortunately, always dictated over his spiritual self, and commanded that he pursue hedonistic pleasures, dictated that he give priority to achieving personal release of sexual tension rather than putting that pent-up energy into a more philanthropic pastime.

The most interesting thing about Leonard is this signature dichotomy: His ability to uplift/inspire a listener/reader beyond the mundanity of 'real' life to aspire to a higher level of human kindness and introspection. (His own life has reflected many examples of striving for a higher consciousness.) At the same time, his abundant sexual energy has been well documented – not the least by himself.

The thing that sets him apart is that he has taken us along with him on this journey. He has openly shared his human weaknesses with us along with his higher self. This openness is what inspires us with hope, I think; this acceptance that the flesh and the spirit are intertwined; that the presence of one does not exclude the other. The crack in everything, I guess...

[Cate]

Hello Darlings (whether mine or not)

This swell little ramble reminds me of the fun we had last year, doing due diligence to tittles on another thread.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=21213

Happy New Year!

XO

it's nice to see you dear sweet friend ... I had forgotten about tittles, although I'm not sure how as they are oh so cute. I made a few revisions to Ms. Camembert's poem, tried to fix the rhymes up a bit.

[Geoffrey]

imaginary friend wrote:
>The most interesting thing about Leonard is this signature dichotomy: His ability to uplift/inspire a listener/reader beyond the mundanity of 'real' life to aspire to a higher level of human kindness and introspection. (His own life has reflected many examples of striving for a higher consciousness.) At the same time, his abundant sexual energy has been well documented – not the least by himself.
>
>The thing that sets him apart is that he has taken us along with him on this journey. He has openly shared his human weaknesses with us along with his higher self. This openness is what inspires us with hope, I think; this acceptance that the flesh and the spirit are intertwined; that the presence of one does not exclude the other. The crack in everything, I guess


perhaps we can learn from the pharisees and the sadducees, two jewish tribes whose hatred for one another only metamorphosed into brotherhood when confronted by jesus, their common enemy. though only a moralist would agree that being slave to a higher consciousness is more praiseworthy than allowing liberty to one's abundant sexual energy. so who but a moralist decides whether conditions of human weakness refers to lower or higher consciousness? just as a teaspoonful of milk will cloud an entire cup of tea, and once done can never be reversed - so leonard's addiction to the pleasures offered by womens' bodies has forever affected his ability to conform to the rules of society. yet perhaps there is a reason for this dichotomy. self discipline and restraint were wilfully cast aside in favour of gratification and indulgence. he was never as happy as when in the saddle riding towards another firework display. he was insatiable, sexual exhaustion was foreign to his character, his libido demanded a constant supply of new conquests and fresh meat. because only via orgasm could a glimpse of the spiritual realm be achieved. climax was his passport to achieving a religious experience.

[Violet]

imaginary friend wrote:
>The most interesting thing about Leonard is this signature dichotomy: His ability to uplift/inspire a listener/reader beyond the mundanity of 'real' life to aspire to a higher level of human kindness and introspection. (His own life has reflected many examples of striving for a higher consciousness.) At the same time, his abundant sexual energy has been well documented – not the least by himself.
>
>The thing that sets him apart is that he has taken us along with him on this journey. He has openly shared his human weaknesses with us along with his higher self. This openness is what inspires us with hope, I think; this acceptance that the flesh and the spirit are intertwined; that the presence of one does not exclude the other. The crack in everything, I guess


perhaps we can learn from the pharisees and the sadducees, two jewish tribes whose hatred for one another only metamorphosed into brotherhood when confronted by jesus, their common enemy. though only a moralist would agree that being slave to a higher consciousness is more praiseworthy than allowing liberty to one's abundant sexual energy. so who but a moralist decides whether conditions of human weakness refers to lower or higher consciousness? just as a teaspoonful of milk will cloud an entire cup of tea, and once done can never be reversed - so leonard's addiction to the pleasures offered by womens' bodies has forever affected his ability to conform to the rules of society. yet perhaps there is a reason for this dichotomy. self discipline and restraint were wilfully cast aside in favour of gratification and indulgence. he was never as happy as when in the saddle riding towards another firework display. he was insatiable, sexual exhaustion was foreign to his character, his libido demanded a constant supply of new conquests and fresh meat. because only via orgasm could a glimpse of the spiritual realm be achieved. climax was his passport to achieving a religious experience.

Geoffrey, after writing the following, I’m thinking I’m probably in agreement with you, though perhaps my emphasis is slightly different. I.F. perhaps I'm furthering here your comments as well..


WHAT IS THIS THING CALLED LOVE?

I don’t know a great deal about Leonard’s past. I’ve not read a bio as yet, and came here because of his music, his lyrics, how they have for so long now moved me, and spoke to me in ways that maybe I’d not experienced before with other artists or musicians. I think Closing Time perhaps speaks to an aspect of what you’re talking about, Geoffrey, this more “strictly sexual” dimension of Leonard. I guess I need to re-look at its lyrics, but it is not a favorite song of mine. It is the song to me that shows a conceit he was trying on, but that I don’t think he truly believes. Then again, that might be the intention of the song, I’d have to think about it more..

I think there is a danger here in focusing too fixedly on the sexual release part, though that is integral, of course. But I think one could talk about the idea of “merging” with another soul.. what one feels to be happening when one falls deeply in love with someone – and I do feel Leonard is well acquainted with that feeling, though maybe you were saying, Geoffrey, in an earlier post, that that’s not strictly about loving another person. It’s true that it’s a feeling that maybe gives us a sense of God almost, in that we feel a part of something larger than ourselves.. It’s a feeling that gives a new dimension to life itself, even.. when all is sensual and new and in a renewed sense: beautiful.

But then there is the “relationship” itself.. and when one recovers from this merger, it’s to see the person who had somehow inspired this.. it’s to see him or her more clearly perhaps. It is to come back to earth, in a sense. Of course, the necessity of this is, over the long run, a better – no, perhaps the only condition one can really function in, as how does one function when merged with another as one does when falling in love?.. One must differentiate a self. Two selves existing side by side who have a good understanding, I guess could be said to be blessed. They are together knowing they can never again be wed through God, as it were, in this divine sexual union.. or not quite with the same intensity.. and yet.. they are comfortable in themselves for having found one another. Perhaps Leonard has known this feeling at times. Perhaps he knows it now, I don’t know. Again, I don’t follow his life that way, and anyway, who can really know but Leonard?

Yes, Geoffrey, I’d say it’s true that for Leonard this desire for union, inspired by sexual desire and longing.. may arise over and over again.. With some maybe this is more strictly to do with sex.. but with Leonard, it seems far more than that, though you suggest that as well, in talking about this union with the divine as through sex..

So.. it’s a circle, of sorts.

Is sex a path to something.. to ourselves, I guess?.. or does it sometimes just throw a wrench into the works?.. The sexual revolution would suggest that you work out your sexual hang ups, and life improves.. but as this is just one dimension of ourselves, it would seem that this is but a part of something far greater. We don’t know entirely what we seek from each other. We don’t know. Yes, for those happily married for years and years, they have a sense of having found the person who is there for them throughout all of life’s challenges.. the person that understands them to the degree that they are comforted in this. Again, they may be the ones who are truly blessed in that they have found a kind of contentment. Sometimes artists though are.. I don’t know.. living in this place of doubt almost. What is this thing.. called love?.. as the song goes. What is this dimension that is divine in us?.. Is this “not knowing” the thing that drives the artist to try and find out, again and again, sometimes.. but not just for sexual release?.. To find out: what?

Can we be whole without sex?.. Many are. If you believe in reincarnation, does the soul arrive at that level in which such need is transformed, through one’s incumbent wholeness, to good works out in the world.. good works serving others? This I think may well be true. Do we condemn ourselves then if we’ve not yet arrived? I don’t think so. I think we struggle. I think it’s the nature of where most of us seem to be. And so, maybe for the artist, just how do we bring light to this struggle?..

Perhaps Leonard -- the artist, and the man, himself -- has done so for us.

v.


I've posted this before.. but really like how through her character Gwyneth Paltrow tells us an intimate story with this song.. and, in the end, how lovely too to find one's strength again, even amidst love's defeat..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTRpUjl-pxI
FULL SCREEN..

[imaginary friend]

Quoth Geoffrey

climax was his passport to achieving a religious experience.

That made me reflect (fondly) on how often Leonard's admirers/reviewers have likened being at a Leonard Cohen concert to a spiritual experience. Joking aside, women of all ages are drawn to the man like flies to honey and many of them feel a strong personal connection with him. Are we seeking to justify our sexual attraction by claiming that we are really lining up to receive a spiritual experience?

My favourite client, who christened me Dragon Lady, will now have to step aside. That description pales beside the vision of a bossy, big-bottomed/bosomed moralist – la-la-la – I am giddy with righteousness!

[Geoffrey]

thank you violet (and imaginary friend) for your contribution. leonard has himself examined the area that we now find ouselves discussing, and i hereby reprint a sentence from his second novel that perfectly describes how one may view the best part of making love. "as for me, i knew that one more stroke would deliver me - i hovered on the edge of my orgasm like a parachutist in the whistling doorway." he was teetering right on the edge of ecstasy, the thrill was within his grasp, he was the master of the moment, whether to prolong it by balancing on the rim, or whether to jump and enjoy the pleasure to which he had worked. all that was required of him there and then was a single movement, the slightest thrust.

women are more likely to be sexually attracted to a man who cannot resist trying to bed them than to a man who makes it known that he values their personality. the highest compliment a woman can receive is to know that a man finds her physically attractive, it confirms her femininity, her role of being the hunted, and eventually impregnated. of course a woman also likes to be courted, to have a mental rapport with the man, but that has more to do with romance, with beginning a long-term relationship - and that is not what we are discussing.

the excitement of a sudden impulsive act of coition, even of being taken by force, appeals very much to a woman's self esteem, to know that a man simply must have her. she will be saying no no no and fighting him off, but simultaneously loving every second of it - and leonard knows this only too well. he will exploit a woman's need to know that she is able to awaken the primative animal instinct embedded in man's nature. she also knows that the act will help her to relieve all the tension her body has accumulated over the past months, that her pent-up restlessness will be released in a voluptious blaze of glorious eroticism, that for a few brief moments her mind and ego will be thrown up into heavenly fulfillment, a breathtakingly sensuous voyage to a cosmic paradise up amongst the stars where neither space nor time seem to exist. that is her reward for surrendering to passion and furthering her species, for being a willing slave. she is given a little taste of something wonderfully exotic and mystical, a spiritual experience that transcends all reason and willpower.

and leonard is right there with her on that journey, a dedicated companion sharing her state of bliss and eventual satisfaction - until both are spent, completely relaxed and exhausted. the bee has pollenated the flower, and it is time to move on to the next one.

[Cate]

the excitement of a sudden impulsive act of coition, even of being taken by force, appeals very much to a woman's self esteem, to know that a man simply must have her. she will be saying no no no and fighting him off, but simultaneously loving every second of it

No G. (but I think you know that)

A man who commits such an act of violence and hate against you, who makes you fell powerless, small and filthy, is not doing this because he desires you or values you in any way… there is no twisted compliment there, this is not an act of love, it’s an act of destruction.

In B.L. when the men have chased down Edith there’s a moment when she’s so afraid that she pees herself and for a moment love or compassion attempts to move in. For a moment they see her as human … (her peeing reminds me of Catherine spilling of the wine) but then this little miracle gets ignored - they - the men, are a group and not individually willing to admit they don’t want to continue so they push aside that feeling that entered them (perhaps fear of what the others will think) … and they hurt her anyways.
Later our Narrator feels bad that he sometimes fantasizes about this.
Why would some people want to fantasize or play games along those lines? ... I don't think un-normal to want to act out a fear in a safe setting … perhaps it’s a way to marry love/compassion with that darker part of us.

Blabbering on … I don’t think that it was Love that led Jose to his terrible action. I think that it was his desire to control love and Carmon was so much like love itself - free and wild.
Darkness is simply an absence of light. I think that in the moment that he killed her, Love was not present. I said before - poor Carmon and poor bull, but I see now that it is also poor Jose.



End note – my first paragraph is true. There is very little that I know to be true but that I know … the rest is just thoughts.

[Geoffrey]

Cate wrote:
>A man who commits such an act of violence and hate against you, who makes you feel powerless, small and filthy, is not doing this because he desires you or values you in any way… there is no twisted compliment there, this is not an act of love, it's an act of destruction.


Let us not confuse "being taken by force" with non-consensual sex, or rape. For a competent stud who has devoted his life to the persuasive art of seduction, such as Leonard, will know the difference between a horny slut feigning modesty and the genuine protests of a demure maiden. He is a skilled womanizer who will know both from her body language and the manner in which his subtle coercion is received whether or not the female is ripe for mating. Also, for him I believe the act has very little to do with 'love', but is rather his way of sharing with someone a divine experience. He is helping them, kindly giving assistance, offering spiritual enrichment. As he sings in one of his songs: "I guess you call this love, I call it service."

[Violet]

Cate wrote:
>A man who commits such an act of violence and hate against you, who makes you feel powerless, small and filthy, is not doing this because he desires you or values you in any way… there is no twisted compliment there, this is not an act of love, it's an act of destruction.


Let us not confuse "being taken by force" with non-consensual sex, or rape. For a competent stud who has devoted his life to the persuasive art of seduction, such as Leonard, will know the difference between a horny slut feigning modesty and the genuine protests of a demure maiden. He is a skilled womanizer who will know both from her body language and the manner in which his subtle coercion is received whether or not the female is ripe for mating. Also, for him I believe the act has very little to do with 'love', but is rather his way of sharing with someone a divine experience. He is helping them, kindly giving assistance, offering spiritual enrichment. As he sings in one of his songs: "I guess you call this love, I call it service."

.. hi Cate & Geoffrey.. I just wanted to mention.. well, first: Losers was written when Leonard was a much younger man, and perhaps your quote too, G., is from a considerably earlier date.. My mentioning this is that there is something about an artist, especially when you are younger, you are pushing the limits of things.. It's almost like a child who is testing a parent's boundaries with things.. the artist's mind is seeing just how far he/she might go with something. Now, this doesn't necessarily indicate who that person is. Especially when one is younger, one is trying things on for size, and so much changes as one evolves through their life.

I'm just positing this, since I think people sometimes forget to contextualize such ideas time-wise, and in terms of the "artist's" working something out. I know I'd written things as a much younger person that I am uncomfortable with now, and that don't reflect who I feel myself to be. I probably go out on a limb even now and write things that I maybe then need to take back inside myself, and reconsider. Part of it is that you want to give yourself the freedom to think out loud without self-censor.. but there is always later, when the bill is due, and when maybe we see, as persons, at least, we might need to temper things a bit.. again, at least in terms of how we view ourselves as "persons."

And art, too, makes its own demands. I may write a poem I'm not entirely in control of, even.. and like Cate was saying re: dark fantasies.. there's this darker side we're all beholden to, in a sense -- and while most would want to maybe deny such aspects, artists are often called upon to draw them out in the open. So, again, I guess it's to distinguish between the artist and the person here. Should a person's personal identity be tied to a fleeting feeling caught in a lyric?.. Maybe the answer is 'yes,' I don't know.. I just know it's a bit more complicated from where the artist is sitting.

In sum: I guess it may be to distinguish between the person, the artist, and also how it is we evolve over time..

v.

[Violet]

I probably go out on a limb even now and write things that I maybe then need to take back inside myself, and reconsider. Part of it is that you want to give yourself the freedom to think out loud without self-censor.. but there is always later, when the bill is due, and when maybe we see, as persons, at least, we might need to temper things a bit.. again, at least in terms of how we view ourselves as "persons."

I would add that I'm not implying that you change the art necessarily, just because there's a part of you that's uncomfortable with it.. I mean, it's a subjective thing, obviously, but sometimes you just shoulder the burden of something because it's what an art work, a lyric, book, etc. demands of you, in a way.. It's complicated, I think..

v.

[Cate]

Let us not confuse "being taken by force" with non-consensual sex, or rape.

So you meant more in a ‘game’ sense, my eyes fell on ‘force’ and I got stuck there in my own perception of the word.

In sum: I guess it may be to distinguish between the person, the artist, and also how it is we evolve over time..

true

[Geoffrey]

Cate wrote:
>So you meant more in a ‘game’ sense, my eyes fell on ‘force’ and I got stuck there in my own perception of the word.

A game? Well, partly. Though there is not always a sharp dividing line between one thing and another. I once knew a lady who would purposely walk through a park where a serial rapist was known to operate, but she was never touched. And, if we turn to Leonard's semi-biographical novel, we can read a description of Breavman hypnotising the family maid (see below) and abusing her. That was 'non-consensual sex', but no one was harmed.
----------------------------------------------
"He unbuttoned his fly and told her she was holding a stick. His heart pounded. He was intoxicated with relief, achievement, guilt, experience. Semen on his clothes. He told Heather that the alarm clock had just rung. It was morning, she had to get up. He handed her her clothes and slowly she dressed. He told her that she would remember nothing. Hurriedly he took her out of the sleep. He wanted to be alone and contemplate his triumph." ['The Favourite Game' - Leonard Cohen]

[Geoffrey]

Violet wrote:
>hi Cate & Geoffrey.. I just wanted to mention.. well, first: Losers was written when Leonard was a much younger man, and perhaps your quote too, G., is from a considerably earlier date.. My mentioning this is that there is something about an artist, especially when you are younger, you are pushing the limits of things.. It's almost like a child who is testing a parent's boundaries with things.. the artist's mind is seeing just how far he/she might go with something.

Dear Violet. Leonard was not a child, but a fully grown adult man when he wrote 'Losers', indeed it could not have been written otherwise. To suggest that it is the work of a juvenile, or an immature man who has since disowned all responsibilty for it, is a grave insult to the masterpiece he created, and to his genius as a writer. I understand you mean well, and wish to excuse him for the things he wrote, but that is not necessary. He has written nothing of which to be ashamed - quite the contrary.

[Violet]

Violet wrote:
>hi Cate & Geoffrey.. I just wanted to mention.. well, first: Losers was written when Leonard was a much younger man, and perhaps your quote too, G., is from a considerably earlier date.. My mentioning this is that there is something about an artist, especially when you are younger, you are pushing the limits of things.. It's almost like a child who is testing a parent's boundaries with things.. the artist's mind is seeing just how far he/she might go with something.

Dear Violet. Leonard was not a child, but a fully grown adult man when he wrote 'Losers', indeed it could not have been written otherwise. To suggest that it is the work of a juvenile, or an immature man who has since disowned all responsibilty for it, is a grave insult to the masterpiece he created, and to his genius as a writer. I understand you mean well, and wish to excuse him for the things he wrote, but that is not necessary. He has written nothing of which to be ashamed - quite the contrary.

Geoffrey.. I can see how you arrived at that interpretation of what I'm saying, but that's not at all what I meant. I don't mean to question the validity of a work of art. What we were talking about though was an artist's personal relationship to what he/she does, and that is not always a simple matter. What I'm suggesting is that the Leonard of today might not be able to write something like Losers since he is no doubt not the same author. The reason this came up is that I thought you were making assumptions about who he is "personally".. and that changes. Also, I just know, thinking of myself, that I have a different perspective on what I do as an artists/writer than I did when I was younger. I would add that the idea that an artist pushes boundaries does not mean he/she IS a child.. it was an analogy about what goes on psychologically.. pushing something to its limits. As one gets older, as one discovers more who one is, this testing of limits in itself may no longer hold the interest it once did. Again, I don't know anything about Leonard in this regard, I'm just drawing on my own experience. Of course, we're also talking about characters in novels. Whether it's in part auto-biographical or not, there is still a distance between a character one is creating and one's life. And in making of one's life an art work, now one is looking to it to have a life of its own, apart from one's life.

Again, I was addressing making assumptions about who Leonard is personally as based on his art, and I think it's rather complicated..

v.

[Violet]

Also, I just know, thinking of myself, that I have a different perspective on what I do as an artists/writer than I did when I was younger. I would add that the idea that an artist pushes boundaries does not mean he/she IS a child.. it was an analogy about what goes on psychologically.. pushing something to its limits. As one gets older, as one discovers more who one is, this testing of limits in itself may no longer hold the interest it once did.

.. thinking about this more, I realize I still am drawn to pushing the limits of something boundary-wise.. however, being older and so hopefully a bit wiser, maybe I'm able to contextualize more what such decisions might mean for me personally. I mean, one does have to stand by what one does as an artist.. you ask yourself: is this really what I want to convey?.. even if, artistically speaking, it might be the "out there" choice, and so rather compelling in that regard.. one still has to decide if one wants to have to "take that on," as it were.. when maybe as a younger artist you do this more unquestioningly.

v.