leonardcohenforum.com

I just wanted to say that I'm currently, religiously unaffiliated and uneducated, and count myself with the searchers rather than the believers. I am currently involved in a cover-to-cover reading of the Bible, though it's been a reading-in-progress for about 2 years now. (I need a break now and zen.) I'm reading King James, but I also have a copy of The Message which, while it is an interpretation, has come in handy when things start to sound like word-salad.

And I wanted to say that I've read the discussion here of a few of the Psalms, and that it has been instructive to me, as I'm in the Psalms right now. (I'm a bit afraid to admit, I was unaware that David had had a Hellular tenure. How did I miss that? Is it yet to come?)

Anyway, I think I may be due for a break because the Psalms are getting to the point where they're like fingerprints or wood grain. Sure they're all different, but man, they're all the same.

DBCohen wrote: There is also the “Jew’s business” with which the text ends; for many non-Jews the first association here will probably be of money (what can a Jew’s business be other than dealing with money?), but which here refers to the serious study of the Torah.

Funny I never made the association with money until I saw you mention it and then all of a sudden it seemed so prominent, and made me think of leonard's poem from Book of Longing

I wrote for love

I wrote for love.
Then I wrote for money.
With someone like me
it's the same thing.

Do you really believe that a Jew's business is the serious study of the Torah? That just might be what Leonard is suggesting but I get a feeling that it is not. The word business makes me wonder.

Jack,

I believe the word “business” can mean different things, such as in the sentences: “I make it my business to know what he’s doing”, or “what you’re doing is none of my business”, etc. It can also relate to the matter which a person is occupied with, such as studies for a scholar or music for a musician. In this case, I thought that LC used the word ironically, and he probably wished it to mean more than one thing. What does it mean to you?

On the whole, it seems so far that our participants are not greatly fascinated by I.13, or perhaps I introduced it too early, since people are still going back to I.12. In any case, I’ll wait a little longer before introducing I.14, which I think will keep us busy for a long time, as long as we make it our business to discuss it.

I have NO time at all until next weekend as I'm stuck with preparing my PhD thesis (not the PhD itself; but introductory theses which will give me rights to make the work itself in next three years).

So as BoM is in question I'm still stuck with #12; I didn't have time to go deep into #13, sorry guys

You want to place them in such a way that the sun by day, and the moon and stars by night, will shine through them. I suggest another perspective which would include the light of the celestial bodies within the supernal radiance of the cubes. We lean toward each other over the table.

Is he just talking to himself, gemini fashion?
The conservative in Leonard wants to view things through traditional eyes.
Yet the free thinker in him moves further out to a universally inclusive perspective.
result:

We lean toward each other over the table.

I suggest Leonard is saying to himself:
Now let's do what we Jews have been trained to do in our studies, and that is : argue our case.
I'll argue my conservative case.
I'll argue my universally intuitive case.

Matj

Mat,
I think you’ve made a fine point. We’ve often seen how he seems to be splitting into two halves, or two sides, never settling for just one or the other. So the “friend” he addresses here may as well be himself. Incidentally, people used to wonder why in “Famous Blue Raincoat” he signs “Sincerely, L. Cohen”, while the figure he addresses seems also to be an image of himself, and the reason is that he was able to view himself from two different points of view. I noticed that in some live performances he signed “Sincerely, a friend”, as Jennifer Warnes also does in here cover of the song.

I wasn't aware of that DB.
It seems to make sense. I think Leonard has this struggle and it is on-going.

Don't we all, who strive for "knowing"/the Tao etc.

Matj

+/-

Lazariuk,

I liked that you brought in the lines from "Book of Longing":

I wrote for love

I wrote for love.
Then I wrote for money.
With someone like me
it's the same thing.

There are many artists that seek external validation for themselves via
the public's acceptance of their work; the unhealthy extent of their
doing so is a not uncommon pathology among them. Not saying
that this quote puts him among those that have this, but both
perceived love and money are equivalences for some artists
of the acceptance by others that is inordinately needed by them.
There are not many that would be honest enough to admit it to
others, let alone to themselves.

And as to your question and comment:
"Do you really believe that a Jew's business is the serious study of the Torah? That just might be what Leonard is suggesting but I get a feeling that it is not. The word business makes me wonder." -- For the ultraorthodox Jewish men, the study of the Torah (particularly the oral law, Talmud), is of prime importance, so much so that it is not unusual for them to put their wives to work to support their studies, to accept charity, or welfare (in Israel) -- to carry forth their "business" of learning. I wonder if Leonard is suggesting that this and other forms of religious obsession might be the stock of trade of this "business."

BoHo,

Yes, I think the double, or sometimes triple, split is eminent in LC’s work since its early stages (including me-you-he/she, saint-sinner, Jew-non-Jew etc.). I can think of several reasons for that, but would not like to speculate. Thanks for all the references. In the past I’ve read and enjoyed your piece on “Stranger Song” and also some of your other pieces on LC. I appreciate your observations and analysis. By the way, what are the “five masterpieces" which I’ve seen you mention elsewhere?

I wrote this last night and hesitated to post it as it is not as clear as I would like it to be. After reading it today, I decided to post it anyway. I'm sorry if it doesn't add clarity, I really am not trying to obfusticate.

It could be God speaking to the narrator.

Friend, when you speak this carefully I know it is because you don’t know what to say. I listen in such a way so as not to add to your confusion.

He could be speaking of us right now.

Doron speaks of the perspective, split into two halves, so the

"friend" he addresses here may as well be himself.

Boho, in turn, says,

Mr. Cohen returns to the splitting device as recently as, say, _Dear Heather_ with "Morning Glory."

That’s it. Are we moving towards some transcendental moment? That’s right. That’s it. Do you think you’ll be able to pull it off? Yes. Do you think you can pull it off? Yes, it might happen. I’m all ears. I’m all ears. Oh the morning glory!

I make some reply at every opportunity so as not to compound your loneliness.

The umbrella of optimism...don't we stand out here, you and I, and I and you...in the delta of opinions and wonder? He speaks of the thick surface and that puzzles me. Flaws and the successful trip.

Now the diamond substance...romanticism running rampant as light passes through a kind of casement to be transformed. And how are you and I changed?

Dust, too, that elemental substance carved into personalities and left to drift through a Jew's business until the dividing line of Ismael's wavering landmarks stand above the cherry petals and poison gas. Sanhedrin, protein, power and above all else, mercy.

More later,
Joe

Joe,

I saw your posting here yesterday for a brief moment, and then it disappeared, to my surprise. I’m glad you’ve reposted it. It’s very beautifully written.

+/-

I.13
Friend, when you speak this carefully I know it is because you don’t know what to say. I listen in such a way so as not to add to your confusion. I make some reply at every opportunity so as not to compound your loneliness. Thus the conversation continues under the umbrella of optimism. If you suggest a feeling, I affirm it. If you provoke, I accept the challenge. The surface is thick, but it has its flaws, and hopefully we will trip on one of them. Now we can order a meat sandwich for the protein, or we can take our places in the Sanhedrin and determine what is to be done with those great cubes of diamond that our teacher Moses shouldered down the mountain. You want to place them in such a way that the sun by day, and the moon and stars by night, will shine through them. I suggest another perspective which would include the light of the celestial bodies within the supernal radiance of the cubes. We lean toward each other over the table. The dust mingles with the mist, our nostrils widen. We are definitely interested; now we can get down to a Jew’s business.

In the previous prayer the one being addressed is very inpersonnal. The great source of attraction, the magnet of the cherry blossoms. The speaker is calling out to who found David in hell and the view of others that he has is described with terms like bully, torturer and the sly.
In this prayer he is very personal and is very considerate of who he is addressing like it is someone who is very much like him. He says that he knows why the other is speaking very carefully and he seems to know that his not listening carefully will add to the other's confusion.
They have stuff in common. Thoughts about stuff. They order meat in thier sandwich for the protein. Is it spontaneous? Do they like meat?
They could take their place in the Sanhedrin. This seems to suggest other things that they have in common. They must be both Jews and both males to be in the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin brings to mind that they think they are now in a position to judge. Also it is often said that the Sanhedrin was the cause of the anti-semitism of the christians as it was the Sanhedrin who comdemmed jesus.
They seem to greatly enjoy the way that they are looking at things together. "You put the diamonds this way and I put them that way"
Gee that seems an awful lot like what we are like in this forumn when we find someone who can relate to our particular point of focus. We see that they are focused in the same direction we are and so we start listening more carefully to what they are writing, we confirm them, we make an effort to reply because we are considerate that their lonliness might be like ours and generally we do the stuff that Leonard is describing and I think it is pretty much like everyone wants to be treated. Someone even suggested that it felt like God talking to them. But here I am speaking for everybody when it is not my business to do so. I mean there is my business, other people's business and God's business. Whose business should I be in?
I am very sensitized to the use that is made of up and down and so i wonder why Leonard said "get down to a jew's business" makes me think of the fallen cherry petals.
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.

Thinking about this prayer made me think about a little book that came out the same year that the Jewish state of Israel was formed. The book was called ten rungs and had the following in it.

"Concerning The Stork
In the Talmud it says that the stork is called hasidah in Hebrew,
i.e., the devout or the loving one, because he gives so much love to
his mate and his young. Then why is he classed in the Scriptures
amoung the unclean birds? Because he gives love only to his own."
From "Ten Rungs" compiled by Martin Buber

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