The literary site of Jason Bentsman & Co. Entertainment, illumination, edification
I just found a tiny bug, a baby cockroach, in my friend’s cabinet, and instinctively squashed it with a napkin.
So, too, can someone or something squash me in an instant.
We nestle away in lees of safety, adorn ourselves in houses of comfort, live a grand illusion, when we exist on the flimsiest of foundations, bound to fate and the seemingly blind, indiscriminate will of the universe.
The law of the fear of death. The closer a creature is to inanimacy, the less it fears death?
There is no mind without matter. Therefore, when the body expires, the spirit leaves in the form of ethereal matter— which we can’t yet detect. Cats and some other animals can see it. We could systematically monitor creatures at the point of death to detect what the spirit is comprised of.
♡ Like FWIW on FB
FWIW currently publishes a few or more pieces of writing or other media by Contributors every month, which appear in the Writings & Works of Others section. Right now these are by talented writer and artist friends and acquaintances. In the future, I will probably open up the section to submissions. If you wish to submit, for the time being, please do so through our affiliate The Journal of Universal Rejection (which, let’s be honest, is how most contemporary literary publications will treat your submission anyway).
FWIW takes * a lot * of time and money to run, and I keep it completely ad free for readers’ benefit. ♡ DONATIONS are immensely helpful (and indeed indispensable)
Join FWIW’s mailing list to receive an occasional Email Digest
(every month or so) with the latest, greatest pieces—
including writings and other media by Contributors,
poetry, philosophy, humor, dreams, interviews, cartoons,
videos, rare songs, culture jamming, and more. . .
[subscribe2 hide=’unsubscribe’ wrap=’false’]
Follow FWIW’s occasional, original posts on:
Facebook | Instagram | Ello | Twitter
J.
I have been thinking about this, and I think that Leonard Cohen is bequeathing a deeper oeuvre to the world than Bob Dylan.
Bob Dylan is more popular, and may forever be, but Leonard Cohen’s oeuvre is deeper. Life, even the rarefied heights of art, is in large a popularity contest— a bitterness many a poet writes about.
A particular work of art, if apprehended mindfully and properly, may deepen one’s perception a fraction of the depth one already brings to it, but typically not much more.
And the masses, that is, the mean of people between the two extremes of the metaphorical spectrum of perception, are by nature forever moderate in perception. If all people saw as artists, new artists would emerge to reveal deeper mysteries.
The perennial struggle of the artist, especially in placetimes of little depth. How to proffer an art that aspires to the deepest and most noble when the society could care less about such things, in fact, often doesn’t even know they exist.
All things considered, I think our placetime, meaning, all people alive, has a middling or maybe fair reach of depth. Bob Dylan appeals to the more earthly, fiery and somewhat more simplistic impulses and interpretations than Leonard Cohen does, and this aesthetic appeals to a greater number.
I grant that Bob Dylan’s music overall— songwriting, technique, musical tableaus, landscapes— is significantly richer than Leonard Cohen’s, especially due to its sheer voluminousness and diversity. But, taking the entire offering, the music, the words— I think Leonard Cohen’s oeuvre overall is deeper, reveals a greater degree of ‘Truth.’ If I had to choose between having heard one but never the other, I would say, wistfully— for I love Bob Dylan— it would have to be Leonard Cohen. Maybe a more enlightened posterity will agree.
M.
1. “The perennial struggle of the artist, especially in placetimes of little depth. How to proffer an art that aspires to the deepest and most noble when the society could care less about such things, in fact, often doesn’t even know they exist.” I think that you underestimate “society.” I suspect increasingly that the actual, individual people in our society are not as shallow or ignoble as many of our cultural signs (i.e. popular television, movies, music) would suggest. It is difficult to imagine that a society that elected George Bush twice, for instance, could be at all noble. And yet wherever I go— Colorado, New Jersey, New York, etc— I meet a great many people and I so rarely meet anyone I find base or ignoble. I see depth, or a certain wisdom, in almost everyone (some more or less). Moreover, artists whom I meet are no more or less likely to possess spiritual or intellectual depth. A mechanic or professor or waitress is as likely to possess such qualities, no more and no less.
This all matters.
2. Cohen and Dylan… I don’t like the Bloomian game of ranking artists, but if I had to… I would agree with you, of course. Dylan, I think, is a better “songwriter,” by which I mean— narrowly— that he excels more at that elusive craft of pairing words and music into a symbiotic whole. But Cohen’s songs, in the end, are “better,” if we mean “more profound,” more truthful, poetic.
J.
I both agree and disagree on both observations. I agree that each person is of the same essence and aspires to the same ‘depth,’ and that each person has depth in various aspects, and some people who in most accounts are oblivious have more depth in particular aspects than those who in most accounts are very ‘deep.’ I do think that the mean of people, which is the majority, have a moderate amount of ‘depth’ overall… One need not be an artist, of course, to possess a lot of depth. There are plenty of artists who are pretty shallow. Art, after all, is also just a word, and anyone can call themselves an artist. Since I was comparing two artists, I used this word, but one can substitute ‘person of depth,’ or ‘artist of depth.’ When we speak of the artist as an archetype, we implicitly assume ‘great artist’ or ‘artist of depth.’ The artist of depth (especially in shallow placetimes) is concerned that what they proffer won’t be accepted by most people, for, though each person has the flame of depth somewhere in them, this flame isn’t bright enough to accept the proffering; most will ignore, overlook, deride, and the artist of depth will be reduced to making art for oneself, which is what they are basically doing anyway, in that all is one and one is all, but the work won’t be accepted— and then more practical matters of subsistence also factor.
One could be the only person (being) alive deep enough to perceive something. No one else could perceive this thing, and also be so shallow as to deride or even execute one for it— this happens perennially. But there is a fine line between delusion and true insight, and the chances of being deluded are inordinately higher.
Looking at the world entire, I am not too pessimistic about our age overall. As I say— ‘I think our placetime has a middling or maybe fair reach of depth.’
In order to believe the above, of course, one need believe, or at least entertain belief, in an Objective reality.
As for ranking art or any other act of profundity. It’s a paradox— profundity can’t be quantified in terms of value, yet we exist precisely because of value, assess everything in these terms, and are the great valuers of all earthly species. So, on one hand, it’s impossible to say who’s ‘deeper,’ but on the other we have an intuitive sense of the question (depending, of course, on one’s own depth), and, forced to choose, would ultimately opt for one over the other, as you’ve done a little begrudgingly.
By the way, when I said Leonard Cohen’s oeuvre compared to Bob Dylan’s, I meant just their musical oeuvres— not including books of poetry or prose, visual art, or any other standalone art they’ve made outside of their musical offerings.
–from Jan 2009
That ‘business’ and ‘friendship’ are separate is a myth. Life is a dialectic of utility, pleasure, and virtue, and there are always trade-offs and repercussions in all realms based on how one conducts oneself— based on one’s intentions and actions.
After all, money is a man-made illusion, a game (‘the Money Game’), a grossly inadequate solution for quelling the power struggles that have beset humankind since inception, that typify all species in certain epochs of their development.
Still the way of the world: Most people say they will do what is right, and then usually do what is most convenient for them in terms of utility and pleasure. Will it ever be otherwise?
Today I had the most insightful conversation I’ve had in the last month, and it was with a four year old (uncle’s son). Children at this age are just old enough to know enough words to express themselves adequately, but not to become brainwashed by what passes for “common sense” and “wisdom.” They see a lot because they don’t know a lot.
He told me that numbers go on forever, but he can’t imagine ‘forever.’ And that his toy soldiers can’t imagine it either, because they’re not alive, which is why their feet have special grooves for being propped up by living people. Something to all of this. (“Only second-rate minds are afraid of the obvious.”) Research laboratories should employ young children to come up with observations and ideas.
Recent Comments