Page 3 of 7

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 4:24 pm
by lizzytysh
Dear M ~

Do you also see shadows around corners?

~ Lizzy

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 4:36 pm
by lizzytysh
I'd be happy with either one ~ each for their own reasons. Meanwhile, I'll enjoy them both :D , from where they will likely remain for me, from afar.

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 4:49 pm
by lightning
Moonlight and others:
re:cryptic messages
There was the Delphic Oracle, Nostradamus, the I Ching, Chinese fortune cookies.. etc etc. People like that sort of thing. Leonard Cohen once said in an interview with New York videographer Mitch Corber that he wanted to be like the prophet Isaiah and write "beautiful and bewildering" messages. He succeeded in being deliberately bewildering; he never aspired to be a journalist. However his most appreciated works are his most accessible. That's why he was commercial and so many people still gather in honor of him. I don't think he's making fun of us. Just actualizing a dream of his. Small artists want to be great artists, great artists want to be saints and prophets. It's the next step up the ladder.

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 5:00 pm
by lizzytysh
Excellent explanation, Lightning.

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 7:25 pm
by Linda
Moonlight, My Minnesota drollery :lol: We do have fun here. I threw that in because someone commented once about drool on his chin a while back.

It is not the price one sets on his own work but what people are willing to pay that make its monetary value.

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 8:33 am
by Hermitage
It is more likely that Mr. Cohen's "We Are Not Convinced" drawing is a response to an event or events in the world.

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 4:34 pm
by lightning
What isn't an event in the world?

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 4:57 pm
by lizzytysh
Ahhh, yes, Hermitage......I know what you mean. Something other than 'us' :lol: ! Something more universally recognizable. Perhaps, even, a commentary on some of the songs he's currently working on for release on his upcoming album. There may be some highly-relevant-to-the-world-scene offerings there. Who knows? His internal response[s] over the last two-and-a-half years to all that has been going on out there may be so intense that they have compelled him to back-burner his collection of poetry, and return to the guitar, the keyboard, and the lyric for getting them out through song.

I know that "We Are Not Convinced" works for me as an editorial comment to Bush's framing/reframing/let's-try-another-perspective, re-re-framing of the issues and explanations for his actions and behavior. The content of his song[s] may, indeed, not let them off the hook [in the more typical sense and interpretation of that phrase]. The collective "We" may include some of us, and that may be the extent of its being 'addressed to' us. Perhaps, a more 'revolutionary' Leonard on the horizon? I seriously do hope that all that's going out there does get addressed in his new album ~ in some kind of way.

~ Elizabeth

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 5:23 pm
by Linda
Oh, Lizzytysh honestly are you for real. :lol:

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 5:35 pm
by Coco
Hi Linda and Lizzytysh!

I hope our Leonard has something to give us soon. I don't care if its a book of poetry or an album as long as it is soon. :D

I don't know where I got the idea but I always thought Leonard was right wing in his politics. :? Didn't he want to bomb countries in the drug war? :shock: I seem to remember this from some interview.

I just don't think the "we are not convinced" is about political events. Of course I could be wrong. I often am! :cry:

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:11 pm
by lizzytysh
:lol: Uhhh, yeeeeaaaaahhhhhh, Linda ~ I am. "Honestly," to quote you. Honestly, to speak for myself. You certainly added to the discussion.

~ Lizzytysh

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:33 pm
by Coco
Hi Lizzytysh!

I hope I didn't say something wrong because I sort of agreed with Linda about the non-political interpretation of the We are Not Convinced portrait. Sometimes I don't add to the discussion the way I should or think that I am. :oops: Oh, dear, does any of this make sense? :?

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:59 pm
by lizzytysh
Hi Coco ~

Of course, it's fine! It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. It has to do with simply throwing out a denigrating, dismissive remark, without pointing out any areas of disagreement ~ just a de-facto discount. You gave your opinion, with your own questioning, and substantiation of why. What Linda did had nothing to do with that. Truth be known, you can't even be absolutely certain just what you agreed've made your own presumptions on it, but that's it. There was nothing to go on to really nail it down....was it whether his portrait is politically-based or not.....was it his reasons for abandoning the book in lieu of the record....was it the possibility that he may not be buying into the current, political jabberwocky [despite his past leanings?]....was it in regard to my, own, political stance, in regard to her ['hallowed' ~ had to throw that in :wink: ] Bush....or was it everything? What was it?

A comment such as hers does nothing to illuminate anything. It only serves to denigrate the one it's addressed to......not an uncommon pattern in this particular case.

~ Lizzytysh

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 7:18 pm
by Coco
Thanks Lizzytysh!

I understand what you are saying. But do you think that sometimes we take things too personally. For instance, I could take what you said about my not being absolutely certain what I was agreeing to (with Linda's post) and that I was making presumptions about it that were not warranted. I could have read that and become offended by it. I could think, "She, (Lizzytysh) is saying that I am dumb." (I know that you are not doing that!) I saw Linda's post as just a pleasantry. She did use a smiley face emoticon. :lol: Anyway, I hope this doesn't start any kind of pattern! :)

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 9:04 pm
by lizzytysh
Hi Coco ~

Yes, I understand what you're saying, too. The smiley :D :) face is almost assuredly friendly; the laughing face almost definitely depends on context :lol: ~ laughing at? laughing with? I don't recall having said anything funny. If so, share it for real?" ~ as though all indications were that I was not joking ~ and, in fact, I was not. It was, indeed, a very serious response to Hermitage.

I know that you weren't offended. A reenforcement for how you would/wouldn't interpret my comment to you is the reality that, aside from the little tipping of our canoe in the beginning, you and I have a history of friendly relations. This will, of course, mitigate against misinterpretation. That is not, and has not been, the case with Linda. However, strictly with regard to the example you used ~ when I commented that you had made presumptions, I had hoped to make certain that nothing could be taken negatively with my comment, by substantiating it, with stating the objective, easily-observable-for-confirmation fact that there was nothing in the remark itself to indicate what aspect(s) of my post were being questioned.

The pattern is much more evident to me, as I have fielded this kind of thing with Linda for, approximately, two-and-a-half years. However, since you've now provided the 'pleasantry' [vs. sarcasm] door, I'll watch to see if and how wide she swings it, to hide behind or escape, as the case may be. There are, have been, and continue to be many opportunities for 'pleasantry.' Interesting that they're, with absolute regularity, bypassed :wink: . Of course, it's never too late to accept that Pepsi Challenge :D . If you do something long enough, even if it's only pretense, it can actually become a part of you in a positive way.

I did not take anything personally that was not meant personally. Simply a subtler form of ad hominem. If you think of the undercurrents in a Woody Allen film, you may get a better 'hit' on it.

~ Lizzytysh