leonardcohenforum.com

If we can take the language out of the thought....................
the language is our intrepretation of the purity which becomes sullied with the ego
the thought is without sin (the ego) and may stem from the common thought or GOD.
the language is the barrier to purity
if we could communicate on thought alone
the filter would dissappear
Georges

Georges, I shall attempt a reply here and this is very tricky. I hope you can bear with me and not take offense? This discussion interests me greatly and I do not think there are any right or wrong answers; only different perspectives to approach truth.
Language and thought are inseparable. This really is a chicken and egg question. Which gives rise to which? Language has its limitations as does thought when communicating or making meaning. It may be that we have to suspend our ideas or beliefs for the moment so that we can truly investigate without imposing our own assumptions.
The universe is so vast as to be beyond the dictates of our language. There is nothing pure in the universe. Purity is a notion we have invented for the purpose of comparison; eg 100% ethanol is purer than scotch or stout on the material level. So really there is nothing pure in the abstract that can be sullied. The ego is a notion to describe a part of the workings of a psychological creature. Where does ego exist except in our thoughts? An abstract concept to help us describe elements of the psyche.
And what is sin? How has this notion entered our language and become so used over time? In the ancient world "sin" was the Babylonian word for the "moon". Hence originally sinners were moon worshippers or those who held a special regard for the moon. Perhaps akin to astrologers who associate the moon with emotions and all things fluid. How is it we now associate the ego with sin as a concept of wrongness?
Do we really believe literally that a snake offered an apple to Eve In some long ago garden? Is not this story a metaphor ar parable for some aspect of our behaviour that is too difficult to describe literally?
And this notion of GOD? Can we avoid the philosophical discussion on whether or not there exists a GOD. Maybe there is and maybe not. Our language tries to identify or describe some power in the universe greater than ourselves and to which we ascribe all sorts of qualities or abilities. If a god does exist (and I make no assertion here for or against) then that being does so independent of our knowing or influence. What I do assert is that the NOTION of GOD that we have embedded in our language is an invention of our minds. I hope you can get my drift here? The description is not the described. Just because we have invented a notion then that does not imply one way or the other that the notion is a real one. Our language is constantly evolving to help us come to grips with that which is beyond our normal comprehension.
And this is the power of poetry! Of lyric! Of song! Of myth! of Metaphor! they can help us to approach that which is beyond the literal description. The art of language asks us to make mental leaps to other understandings that we identify as truth.
So what is the point of all this discourse? Maybe no point at all. Or maybe a way of trying to say- that because something exists in our language and thought, that does not mean necessarily; it exists as a real entity in the real universe.
Therefore if we can enter a discussion with an open mind that is not shackled to its own beliefs/ideas/notions. Then maybe, just maybe we can present opposing views without going to WAR.
Regards,

Georges' post immediately made me think of the Pico Iyer interview that I saw on the same program with Judith Fitzgerald's interview. In his interview, he described his relationship with his Japanese wife, who does not speak English. It was a very charming and refreshing account by someone, whose world [as stressed by the interviewer] is all about words and ideas. He was questioned as to whether this was not what he would want included in a relationship, i.e. ongoing dialogue with his wife about all these various matters. He very [un-male chauvinistically, I might add] genuinely described their interaction as being so focused on making themselves understood that there was no time for suspicions of motives, manipulation, etc. He said they truly related person to person, as in who we are in our essence. As he related these things, it was very easy to follow what he meant and it seemed to describe a purity, which the absence of "language" brought to their relationship.

Another thought I have on this has to do with Helen Keller. Did she not have thoughts that she was desperate to communicate to another living being, prior to her ability to access the tools of communication via hand signals [being already absent the ability to hear and see, and hence speak]? Were her unexpressed thoughts [absent any form of language] not at the source of her frustration and anger, which the tools of communication began to address and then reduce?

These are thoughts that occurred to me after reading both Georges' and Witty Owl's most recent entries here. I followed what you said, Witty Owl, and agree with much/most/all[?] of it, though it definitely becomes quickly convoluted, if you're not diligent about following the path of what's being said. Even when you are, it can become so .

Andrew, I am happy to hear that the video did actually arrive, I was beginning to wonder if some one had found the weapons of mass seduction and confiscated it.

My whole family is very politically divided, opinionated, and out spoken and we have lively discussions but always part friends. The same holds true on the board for me. If I have offended I apologize

You are welcome Andrew, they are great concerts and I do enjoy sharing them.

Dear Linda,
Yours is the most anticipated and welcomed reply. You write, "If I have offended I apologise". For what?
You offered me a gift and I accepted it. Oh yes, they probably are the very best of Leonard "live"; some members of my family have watched the tape, and agree with me that Leonard's "If It Be Your Will" is one of his greatest performances, without exeption.
For this, and much more, I thank you.
Yours, as aye,
Andrew.

Andrew, I am referrring to the discussion on the war issue.

If anyone has found Weapons of Mass Seduction I hope they remember me.

JTS (Remember me, I used to live for music)

No offence taken, Witty
it is only by discussion that we discover the untangible
or can imagine the wee world ...........................we all want
and yearn for
for in the caves of the caverns of our minds
are the secrets we all crave
but most of us only remember them.................
when we have gone to the grave
Georges

Dear Linda,
"I am referring to the discussion on the war issue".....the truth is you haven't, and neither have I.
Other posts have tumbled up, have been addressed by others, yet in between , my message and my thanks ring clear .
Yours,
Andrew.

Liz and Georges, convoluted indeed. This is a very apt description of this process. Yes one has to pay close attention to the path of thoughts to really get the intention of the communication. A speed read can lead to erroneous conclusions or none at all. I think it is even more difficult to try and write down that which I am trying to express than it is to read the resultant message. When the mind is both the observer and the thing being observed delusion or confusion is easily a consequence. Our consciousness is rife with assumptions and presumptions that predjudice our ability to think clearly and see truth. And what is truth anyway? Is there any common ground on which we can define truth as a realm we can agree on? Such a minute % of our brains is ever used during waking consciousness that one can only wonder at the possibilities for our species if we can access the full potential of our reasoning and intuition.
Regards,

The full potiental is the secret
"It's only the tip of the iceberg" exclaimed the Captain of the Titanic
Georges

Linda & Andrew - that's the spirit I always tried to propagate, and hoped it would be there among us - you just live it - and that you should let us share in it... lovely - just a big "Thank you!"

Georges, Witty - your posts deserve a more thorough response than I can give just now. Hopefully I'll be able to post one soon, but it may take some time. (As Witty Owl has pointed out: "I think it is even more difficult to try and write down that which I am trying to express than it is to read the resultant message." - So I will need some time to consider these issues.)

Tom

Dear Witty Owl,
Have you heard of this quote by i think it was F Scott Fitzgerald

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is to be able to hold two opposing ideas at the same time and still retain the ability to function".

If I am interpreting you correctly, your previous to last post tangentially refers to this. Also, I think you are also saying something about the nature of communication (or miscommunication). That reminds me of something a former univ. lecturer of mine in Dallas said (i can't remember his name now)....."If I could frame my test questions to exactly say what I intend them to be, and if you guys could exactly interpret when you read them as I intended, then all you guys would get 100. So, there are two processes here where things could go wrong" He then went on to some philosophical ramble about lack of communication being the root of all problems in the world.
I would like to make another point and I hope you don't mind.......it is not true that we use a small % of our brains during waking consciousness....that is a very old fallacy that has somehow never been rid of. Indeed, almost 100% of our brains are active during waking consciousness (and the neocortex is active even during sleep but in a monotonous repetitive manner, except during REM sleep which is similar to waking consciousness) and different brain regions have different functionalities - easily confirmed by MRI images.

p.s. Ah, his name is Mike Durbin a lecturer for a C++ class I was taking 10 years ago. So, if you ever visit these parts , Mike......

Kush, thankyou for the consideration you have given to this. No I have not read Fitzgerald but I concur with what you have quoted here. It does take mental effort to hold two opposing views at the same time; to be able to appreciate both views and yet have no conflict arise within. To be not attached to either position and yet give both their due attention.
And yes, mis-communication is a most serious condition of our fellow men and women. I think I alluded to this problem in the poem I posted on page 46 of this thread. Very rarely I think does the receiver of a message truly grasp the intent of the the one giving the message. Just look at all the various interpretations of Leonard's songs! And still we do not really have clarification from the writer himself as to the real intent of his lyric(s). Then again some writers like to leave the interpretations open.
As for the brain. Yes I am sure that the BRAIN is almost fully active during waking as you suggest. Perhaps more accurately I could suggest that we use only a small % of our memory or mental capacity/mental potential. That is- it is the mind that is under-utilised not the brain.
I think one can safely assert that our humanity is certainly under-utilised.
Cheers,

WMD ?