leonardcohenforum.com

Hi all,
I enjoyed my time in the wilds.

Back to our discussion:

Leonard's song takes the other direction and laments those who abandon, "Babylon." This seems very significant. (Joe Way)

“Satan is a kind of mischievous subordinate, who teases God into having a bet with him (although the stakes are not specified) concerning Job’s possible reaction to the misfortunes brought upon him. The most damning fact in this story is that God, supposedly omniscient and therefore in no real need of such a test, lets himself be drawn into this cruel game, at the expense of Job. He is being almost cynical, while Satan is only doing his job.” (Doron)

I ask myself at this point "Whence cometh Evil ?" ( Epicurus )
On his death-day, Epicurus writes the following;
“I have written this letter to you on a happy day to me, which is also the last day of my life. For I have been attacked by a painful inability to urinate, and also dysentery, so violent that nothing can be added to the violence of my sufferings. But the cheerfulness of my mind, which comes from the recollection of all my philosophical contemplation, counterbalances all these afflictions.” Epicurus

In the context of the work of Leonard Cohen, his Babylon of broken dawns, his “little will and his Big Will” (Divine Law verses free will) and his “Rivers Dark”; as I re-connect with the little “Book of Job”; I ponder the following:
Epicurus could be termed an Atheist; so he did not blame a god for his Job-like dilemma outlined above, yet his atheistic riddle below, particularly line 4, brings me again to the unknown author of The Book of Job and his view of the role of Satan.

The Riddle of Epicurus
”Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Epicurus (around 300 B.C.)

Epicurus seems to have his act together; a man who enjoyed life’s basic, everyday pleasures of thoughtful company, good food and wine, without the need to bow before an obnoxious, egocentric, seemingly thoughtless, almost autistic god. He also poses a very intriguing question when he asks ‘Whence cometh evil?”
Our conversation lately, via Leonard’s ‘By the Rivers Dark’ (and his Babylon) and ‘I did not know who was hunting there’ and Job’s dismal and cruel dilemma took me to that question above; ‘whence cometh evil?’

It was Carl Jung’s book/essay “Answer to Job” that initiated my interest in the “Book of Job”. In this essay Jung answers Job because Job’s god seems incapable of formulating a reasonable/rational answer/response. Jung psychoanalyzes God as he would a patient. It is a wonderful read and very informative and liberating. http://www.junginstitute.org/pdf_files/ ... 1p1-18.pdf
In (my) summary, Jung casts Job’s God as the egocentric draconian tyrant consumed by doubt and incapable of empathetic reflection. Hence he needs man/Job to develop what we would call wisdom.
Jung argues it is man who is capable of developing reflective wisdom as it is man who lives in space/time.
Satan, according to Jung is the personification of God’s “doubts”; the doubting aspect of the Divine Mind which struggles to reflect, effectively.
So Jung would answer both Job and Epicurus (and perhaps also Leonard); the same. Evil is an aspect of God. (God is a doubting Thomas!)
…and I wonder again whether Leonard is thinking this way when he says:
“I did not know and I could not see
Who was waiting there, who was hunting me”.

Does Leonard, in this song ‘By the Rivers Dark’ also intuit this flawed, ‘doubting’, and Satanic aspect of God?

If so, Joe, then he (Leonard) must take Babylon (and Satan) back to Boogie Street.
And Doron; according to Jung, that “mischievous subordinate” is nothing more than “Divine Doubt”.
I usually interpret ‘evil’ as ignorance, but, in this case, ‘doubt’ will do.
So perhaps, like Job's God; when we unfairly doubt, we unfairly poison.

Mat.

Mat, you say you are a mystic; then let G-d stay mystery – you can’t dissect what’s beyond dissection.

This is the cause of evil:

*Those children who are beaten will in turn give beatings, those who are intimidated will be intimidating, those who are humiliated will impose humiliation, and those whose souls are murdered will murder.
Alice Miller

*The reason why parents mistreat their children has less to do with character and temperament than with the fact that they were mistreated themselves and were not permitted to defend themselves.
Alice Miller

*Sadism is not an infectious disease that strikes a person all of a sudden. It has a long prehistory in childhood and always originates in the desperate fantasies of a child who is searching for a way out of a hopeless situation.
Alice Miller

*Wherever I look, I see signs of the commandment to honor one's parents and nowhere of a commandment that calls for the respect of a child.
Alice Miller

It is time all of us faced the truth. We won’t find Satan or evil in a bible story or in our conceptualizations – we will find it in our own hearts wedged in there by parents and societies who couldn’t love. This reality is denied by so many of us until this day. Often we haven’t the guts to look inside. We remain ‘safe’ behind our weapons of war, behind our consumerism and behind grand hypotheses.

All the while our world dies a little more.

Hi Boss,
Most of what Alice says makes sense. Ultimately, she is implying that we, the individual, are in control of our own responses. (Frankl-esque)
I'm not sure though, in the context of the songs we are analyzing (Ten New Songs & By the Rivers Dark etc) where this fit in?
Would you like to elaborate?

And mate: you are way off target on this statement;

Mat, you say you are a mystic; (Boss)

I have never claimed to be a Mystic, nor would I. I am interested in the writings of the Mystics and the writings of others who seem to be influenced by those writings/mystics; for example Leonard Cohen.
In my opinion, the Mystics are worth stammering and staggering through. They bring delight to my psychological life and satisfaction to both my conscious and my unconscious.

I am, Boss, a big fan of Carl Jung's work and this little book/essay "Answer to Job", in my opinion, is a master stroke of human genius.
By saying that, I do not imply that he is correct or incorrect in his assumptions and "answers". But I do admire the workings of his intellect and his intuitive mind and it makes much sense to me.
This is pretty much how I feel about Leonard Cohen as well.
You say,

It is time all of us faced the truth. We won’t find Satan or evil in a bible story or in our conceptualizations – we will find it in our own hearts wedged in there by parents and societies who couldn’t love. This reality is denied by so many of us until this day. Often we haven’t the guts to look inside. We remain ‘safe’ behind our weapons of war, behind our consumerism and behind grand hypotheses. (Boss)

Perhaps you (Boss) might add also...behind my self-indulgent negativity?
Do you think Jung is right/correct when he defines Satan as "Divine Doubt"...?
Does that doubt also saturate your attitude at times?
Could Satan be nothing more than a psychological attitude?...a doubting Thomas mentality.

I think Leonard would agree with you when you suggest "Love" is the key.
"...there was nothing left between
The Nameless and the Name.
All busy in the sunlight
The flecks did float and dance,
And I was tumbled up with them
In formless circumstance.
I’ll try to say a little more:
Love went on and on
Until it reached an open door –..."

But what then?

...hence my interest in the mystic's "Mystery Divine" and my participation in these ongoing discussions regarding the mystery of Leonard.


Mat.

Negativity?

Nah mate, I’m just another wild Jeremiah pissing in the wind.

So long, Mat

Boss wrote:This is the cause of evil:
*Those children who are beaten will in turn give beatings, those who are intimidated will be intimidating, those who are humiliated will impose humiliation, and those whose souls are murdered will murder.
Alice Miller
*The reason why parents mistreat their children has less to do with character and temperament than with the fact that they were mistreated themselves and were not permitted to defend themselves.
Alice Miller

mat james wrote:Most of what Alice says makes sense. Ultimately, she is implying that we, the individual, are in control of our own responses. (Frankl-esque)

Excuse me giving my thoughts on this:
‘This heart it is not yours’ Maybe this is contesting the existence of 'free will'. What free will have humans got but to act according to the sum of all the psychological paths that our upbringing, culture depicted morality, environment, and all of the chemicals that govern the mind?
“Then he(it?) struck my heart with a deadly force” – The huge shock or realisation that one sometimes get when one realises how little power one has over the 'self' and ones actions.
The emptying of the mind that is what Buddhists aim to realise through meditation, that seems to makes more sense all the time.
'The wounded dawn'. The transition: the seeing of the light, the knowledge that one can chose a different path.

I am glad you gave your thoughts. You are right, you are so right. We can choose a different path, we can overcome, ‘this heart is not yours’. Human beings are of incredible resilience. Through grieving, through mourning for what was crushed/lost/taken in our formative years we can emerge connected and in love with our true selves, our real identities - what’s really there down deep inside. Anger and frustration will be felt, and in the end forgiveness, especially for the abused ‘You’; for all that time you spent in pain just trying to avenge your lost heart. And you will feel pride you overcame evil; that you overcame an evil repeated generation after generation. You will no longer want to hurt yourself or others, you will want to nurture, replenish. Each of us has the ‘power’ to reclaim our selves, we need not lead lives of destruction in the wake of our parents' pain. Love is truly regenerative, it is amazing. Somewhere inside the mess, the human spirit always ‘knows’ the way home. If you are just reaching ‘the wounded dawn’ I wish you courage and I suggest that G-d really is alive.

Please don’t “excuse” yourself Tine D; your thoughts are exactly what it is that the collective we want. The point you raised about “free will” was a topical point of discussion on the “Book of Mercy” threads and as you suggest, it is up for discussion on this thread as well.
I, (and Boss, in the above post), stand on the side of free will for the individual; and, I would argue that Leonard does as well. Predestination in accordance with higher authority (God etc) is “rank pessimism”, as Jung puts it in ‘Answer to Job’.
…and fortunately, I tend towards optimism, or the ‘middle way’ at least.
(I say fortunately, as optimism is the salt on Life's potato )

Moving back a song or two on this “album/CD”,

“Aside from heaven and G~d and the Zen aspects, my visual was physical with man and woman. The marble being the colour of her skin, the chambers were her breasts for holding milk. The sweeping was his caresses. She sent him to her vagina. Not claiming rightness; just sharing my visual that appeared without prompting. I've listened to this song for a long time and this was this visual's first time, as I read the lyrics.” (Lizzy)

Lizzy, I missed this interesting, feminine response/ post of yours regarding the verse below. It certainly fits. And “there’s the rub” with reading Leonard Cohen; as Doron so often says, there are many reasonable options/interpretations, and, I really love the sexy/amorous aspect of yours.

I swept the marble chambers,
But you sent me down below.
You kept me from believing
Until you let me know:

...The marble being the colour of her skin, the chambers were her breasts for holding milk. The sweeping was his caresses. She sent him to her vagina...

I once was blind but now I see!

Mat.

Great little story, Doron.

“Staring down at the sidewalk he thought about everything. At last he raised his head and slowly said, ‘Bloostein, I owe you an apology. I’m really sorry the whole thing happened. I haven’t been able to sleep. From my heart I’m truly sorry.’
“Bloostein gazed at him with enormous eyes reflecting the moon. He answered nothing, but it seemed he had shrunk and so had his shadow.”

Here lies the difference between this story and the story of Job: in the original story, God never apologizes. He restores Job to his earlier position, but says nothing about all the suffering he caused him for no good reason. Here the policeman, in a very human gesture, apologizes. Malamud’s consistent message was that being truly human is more important than being godly, truly or not.

Jung, in 'Answer to Job', argues that Christ's sacrifice (Jesus/son of Man/son of God ect) is the apology.
{(Divine/Human sacrifice)--Payback for Job's/man's shabby treatment .. It is an interesting, semi-suicidal eschatological (god/man) idea, whether one agrees with it or not.
"Oh tangled up matter and ghost." (The Window).}

By the way, one day I have to do a "rave" on the symbolism in "The Window" and Jung's/Leonard's take on that strange little New Testament book, Revelation.
But that is another stumbling saunter!

Mat.

Mat and friends,

A lot has been going on here recently, and I’m afraid that at this moment I can’t relate to it all adequately, so it will have to be telegraphically, asking for your indulgence.

Regarding what Boss said about evil being inside us, I tend very much to agree with that; ultimately we must always search our hearts, rather than project our guilt on external powers.

Concerning Jung’s “Answer to Job”: this requires a serious discussion of its own. Briefly, one way to look at it would be to say that Jung’s position is traditionally Christian: rejecting the God of the Jews, and bringing in the incarnation of Christ as the answer. But there is at least one step further, for Jung did not stop at the Trinity, but favored a Quartet, with the female figure of Mary, based on his archetypal Mandala theory. Some would even say that he may have formed a new religion, with himself as the Pope, or even the Messiah (some of his followers certainly regarded him as such). It also seems necessary to turn the tables on Jung and analyze his attack on the God of the Bible in terms of his need to cut down his two fathers: the real one, a Protestant minister, and Freud, the Jew.

About “The Window”: as you, Mat, and a few other members of the Forum know, I’ve written a rather lengthy study of it (including some references to Jung and to Revelations), which I expect to be published in a scholarly magazine in the coming months. Once it is published I’ll be able to post it on the Forum as well, for everyone to read and respond.

And finally, may I suggest that the next song to be discussed will be “Here It Is”?

Boss wrote:Somewhere inside the mess, the human spirit always ‘knows’ the way home. If you are just reaching ‘the wounded dawn’ I wish you courage and I suggest that G-d really is alive.

Dear Boss, Thank you for your very optimistic and kind thoughts. May I return your wishes and if need I hope they lighten your path.

mat james wrote:I, (and Boss, in the above post), stand on the side of free will for the individual; and, I would argue that Leonard does as well. Predestination in accordance with higher authority (God etc) is “rank pessimism”,

Mat,As regards the discussion on'free will' Someday I may just go to the thread on the book of Mercy. (I've only recently got the book of Mercy.)
Like you, DB and as you suggest LC, I also stand on the side of 'free will' and not on the side of 'predestination'. But is believing in having a free will reason for optimism? Satre: We have a free will and are therefore responsible for our every action and therefore for our own and the worlds predicament. We cannot blame circumstance for whatever becomes us and therefore the world. This is some burden!!

DBCohen wrote:And finally, may I suggest that the next song to be discussed will be “Here It Is”?

That is a good suggestion. All I have heard that LC ever said about this song: 'This is about death'.

May everyone live,
And may everyone die.
Hello, my love,
And my love, Goodbye.

Hi all,

rejecting the God of the Jews, and bringing in the incarnation of Christ as the answer.

Doron

I would interpret Jung's position differently, Doron.
Jung suggest that the "Old Testament" God (Job's God) is operating without much "reflection".Job's God is responding to situations almost unconsciously and therefore his actions almost always are lacking in wisdom and love. Jung goes on to suggest that as mankind operates in space/time, he has time to reflect and gain some (human) wisdom. Jung therefore wonders whether that odd ability of man (to reflect, over time, toward a wise decision) is man's destiny in the divine drama. And Jung also suggests that maybe man can do this for God, as God is omnipresent in "all things" and therefore benefits from the experiences of all things, including our hero, Job?
...some sort of collective infusion;(divine, unconscious process.)
That seems to suggest that perhaps "God needs mankind in order to evolve further" and become "Wise" and not just a bullying omnipotent, un-evolved un-sentient, less than desirable, chap.
And it may follow that mankind needs God in order to evolve further also. A Divine collectively psychic Symbiosis of a sort (collective unconscious).
This, as I understand it, is Jung's brave position. God needs us!
Maybe Job's God does flow along the "Rivers Dark" until we open some crack in that flawed un-consciousness of His and let the Light (of wisdom) in...

"There's a crack
a crack in everything
that's how...Lucifer the light, (and Mat and Jung and even Leonard and Doron) gets in

Mat,As regards the discussion on'free will' Someday I may just go to the thread on the book of Mercy.

Tine, we had a lot of fun meandering along that thread, Book of Mercy, and I am sure you will enjoy the ride.

Mat.

mat james wrote:that odd ability of man (to reflect, over time, toward a wise decision)

Now that is optimistic.
This quote from Leonard Cohen stuck with me from the CBS interview 2009: "You can read the life you're living, but you cannot change a word".

Mat, If it is not too difficult could you give me a linkt to where in the Book of Mercy thread 'Free Will' and predestination are being discussed and in connection with which Poem. Thanks

As I remember it Tine, an interview with Leonard was "linked" and Leonard gave his own thoughts on "little will" and the "Big Will" (of his G~d). I am not sure if the interview was written down or a video? I found his perspectives interesting and likened it in my own mind to the Hindu Atman/Brahman relationship.
Leonard's "little will" I interpreted as "free will".

Mat.

Hi all,
I was finally able to access the Northrop Frye discussion of The Book of Job and wanted to share a little bit here as I think it also sheds some light on Leonard's "By the River's Dark."

First Frye has an observation that The Book of Job seems to mirror the entire structure of the Bible from creation to revelation. He notes that the entire description of the creation process is ambiguous in the sense that darkness and chaos are at first outside of the created order and then eventually incorporated into it with light separated from darkness and the separation of land from sea. In this way, the figures of Satan and Leviathan are not enemies outside of creation, but creatures within and in the Bible this is the only place that this consistently occurs.

Satan is able to set up the whole legal framework of prosecution, defense, trial and judgment which is the "fallen" or Satan-initiated take of the human situation. Job keeps looking for a defender or at least an accuser who would make himself known so that Job might know the case against him. The case against him is simply that he lives in a world in which Satan has much power. Like the Good Samaritan in Jesus's parable, he comes from the country of an Erbfeind(traditional enemy of Israel-assuming that Uz is Edom) and however genuine his piety, he is like Israel in Egypt, exposed to a world of arbitrary processes of nature and fortune. If a soldier is asked why he kills people who have done him no direct harm or asks a terrorist why he kills innocent people, the answer is always that war has been declared and that there are no innocent people in an enemy country during a war. The answer is psychotic but it is the answer that humanity has given to every act of aggression in history.

I would like to quote part of Frye's concluding paragraph:

The magnificent conclusion of Job’s summarizing speech (29-31) is the climax of the poem, and nowhere in literature is there a more powerful statement of the essence of human dignity in an alien world than we get from this miserable creature scraping his boils with a potsherd. One issue in the great test is that of identity or property: how much can a man lose of what he has before the loss begins to affect what he is? God had previously drawn a rough line between Job’s possessions and his “life” (2:6), but here we begin to see what “life” means for humanity: a consciousness that is neither proud nor abased, but simply responsible, and accepts what responsibility is there. God has clearly won the wager.

Mat, Frye comes to a similar conclusion to Jung that Man creates God in the same fashion that God creates Man. Frye says that a good question is not so much looking for an answer, but how to formulate a better question. Both the narrator of Job and Cohen's work seem to keep formulating better questions about the nature of our time here and the relationship that we have with creation.

Joe

Interesting fellow Joe, this Frye,

“The case against him (Job) is simply that he lives in a world in which Satan has much power.” (Joe Way)

This Joe, I sense this statement above assumes that Satan is someone tangible; a real identity.
For Jung, as I understand it, Satan is “Doubt”; God’s doubt. (and therefore intrinsically Man's doubt, I assume)
This “God” may well be a fabrication (Mythic) of Man. And so it follows that this creat-ure, “Doubt” is a shadow of another shadow, “God”, perhaps?

So to return to your “The case against him (Job) is simply that he lives in a world in which Satan has much power.”, I would suggest that Jung (and maybe me as well) would interpret this as; “Doubt” has much power.

But who am I? ???

Defining Satan seems to be easier than defining Job’s “God”; shadow chasing Shadow along some "Rivers Dark"..

Mat.