Unconditional Love?

“You would see a flash in his eyes when people used terms like “Love” to describe their favourite meal. To him the word “Love” had been misused so often it was now corrupted beyond any practical use. To the Visitor, Love was a word reserved for the sacred, such as the spirit
of another person - not for chocolate or wine.”

— The Visitor, pg 3

If you have read the blogs up until today, and struggled with the concept that The Visitor is not just a Love story, but rather a story of Love, then today's blog should help you in gaining a deeper understanding.

In this blog, we tie together the concepts of the Visitor's extreme dualistic viewpoint, his views of things either being sacred or mundane, and his frustration with the inadequacy of language.  You will also get insights into the reason why Truth and Love are central themes, occurring over and over again.  It is the essence of The Visitor.  

Within the first three pages we get a glimpse of the Visitor's perspective on Love.  As discussed in previous blogs, the word Love throughout The Visitor is always capitalized.  Love is not used as an adjective, or a verb, but rather as a proper (or even personal) noun denoting something more than an emotional feeling.  As explained earlier, to the Visitor - Love is a sacred word, not to be used lightly, and as such should only be spoken from the soul.

Even for people who might be able to relate to the idea of how easily and often the word Love has been misused,  the Visitor is deeply concerned with the watering down the true meaning of a sacred notion (in this case the notion of Love) that it becomes meaningless.   

There is no such thing as unconditional Love or true Love, as that would imply that there is the potential existence of conditional Love or false Love.  There is only Love. 

One of the more popular, "innocent" uses of the word Love is found within the frequent and flippant quip of "Unconditional Love".  People use it so often, to assert a "strong" Love, that they don't stop to realize that in doing so, they give credence to a notion that Love can be conditional.   I myself literally cringe whenever I hear someone use the phrase, "Unconditional Love".   To acknowledge the existence of one extreme, is to acknowledge the existence of the other. Can you really have anything such as "conditional Love"?  If the answer is no, if it is conditional than its not truly Love; then it is also true that it is impossible to have it's antithesis - "unconditional Love".  This is an intrinsic example of the dualistic world view of the Visitor.   There are no shades of grey.  You cannot have "unconditional Love" without promoting through your assertion that there also exists a "conditional Love".  The fact is, the dualistic polar opposite of Love is hate...and any limits, conditions or anything else you may try to place on Love takes you away from Love.

This concept is really no different than when someone pleads they are telling "the honest truth".  Is there any other type of truth?  Is there a dishonest truth?  When did it become necessary to defend the truth?  As the Visitor makes it clear, defending the truth dilutes it.  

Notions such as "unconditional Love or honest Truth" pollute the purity of the concepts and notions behind Love and Truth.  You can't dilute either without it becoming something else.  A little white lie is a lie - not the truth.  And a diluted Love may be affection, or strong liking, or kinship, but it is not Love.  Love is pure, as is truth. There are no shades of Truth or Love.  They are absolutes.

Combine both of these bastardizations of Love and Truth and you end up with another popular quip that waters down and diminishes both concepts, the cute phrase of "True Love".  Really?  Is there any other kind?  Is there a false Love?  If there is then by it's very definition, it wouldn't be Love, no more than a false Truth would be Truth.

If you are able to say that you have unconditional Love for someone, than you are recognizing by that assertion the existence of Love at times being "conditional" - else why make the distinction?  And if you think you are capable of recognizing, endorsing or enacting a Love that is not unconditional, then simply put, I have to question if you really know what Love is.

Harsh? - Perhaps...

I understand that people don't really think about what they say, or really understand the deeper meaning of what they say, or even the implications or what they say.  They hear something, it sounds good, they repeat it. Innocent enough.

But when you give life or recognition to the idea that there is such a think as "conditional Love" by stressing at anytime for anyone that you have an "unconditional Love" then you are actually part of the problem of supporting the watering down of what is a sacred word.  Love.

This is the point of the Visitor when he is upset by people misusing the word Love to describe mundane things like chocolate or wine.  When you misuse the word, you make the word meaningless.

Besides the notion of Love being sacred, the Visitor recognizes how things may try to "pass for Love which are not, and tells the crowd to be on guard against such things.  In the poetic parable on Love (pg 33) we get a sampling of this notion.  Although the words you hear may be tempting, and may be what you want to hear - do not be fooled.

Do not settle for less than Love.
Such leaves you incomplete.
Do not be tempted by false Love,
Although it may seem sweet.

Stronger yet is the poetic parable on Truth and Honesty, where the Visitor expands on this idea.  In this parable, the Visitor describes how the word Love should stir from your soul (not from your mind), and never be used for describing mundane or carnal notions.  Even more to the point, the Visitor tells those present to take care of careless use of such sacred words, as it is the way of those who would trick you to diminish truths.  As such, using terms like "unconditional Love, honest Truth, and even True Love" simply confuse people.  

Never say “Love” as a word with no weight
Sacred words should stir from your soul
Nor should you ever speak dark words of hate
As dark words of hate take their toll.

When you claim “Love” in describing possessions
You diminish the meaning of your word
So when you say, “I Love” it may lead to questions
And your true passion may never be heard.

Such is the way of the tricksters
To diminish the truths you would speak
To confuse all your brothers and sisters
And to hide the truth you would seek.

Perhaps a simple notion.  Perhaps one you have never really even put you mind too; and your misuse of such words is no more than innocent ignorance.  But when you understand Love, and Truth, you will realize that there is no such thing as half measures.  You can't Love 99% any more than you can claim Truth to be less than 100%.

Love absolute and complete is not a novel concept.  The idea that Love cannot be conditional is easily understood by Luke 6:27 where we are told to "Love our enemies", no strings attached, no conditions;

---

“But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,  bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them."

---

If you can relate to this concept, then you are well on your way to understanding The Visitor as not just a Love story, but a story of Love.  In closing, and to drive the essence of The Visitor home, I leave you with 1 John 4:8 to emphasize why the word Love is viewed by the Visitor as a sacred notion.

 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Until next time,

Journey in Love

Michael Paul

Silence is Broken

“In the midst of confusion and near the conclusion of where reason had stripped away truth, the Visitor walked towards a familiar hill in the city closest to his home.”

— The Visitor

Chapter II of the Visitor starts with a smooth flowing sentence that is not so smoothly understood.   This simple sentence is instrumental to understanding The Visitor.

                                                                        In fact, this sentence is so essential to understanding The Visitor, that the earliest draft versions of the cover-page contained this quote.  This was actually one of the earliest lines of the novel which came into existence, and provides some insights into the mind of the author during the process of writing The Corvus Chronicles.

In this blog I am only going to focus on the first half of that first sentence..."In the midst of confusion and near the conclusion of where reason had stripped away truth,..." Those few words will be sufficient to provide an intermediate deep dive into interpreting The Visitor.

---

Warning: this interpretive dive is not for the faint of heart.  I highly recommend hyper-imbibing with a nice Merlot prior to attempting this dive.  To interpret this first half of the first sentence, it is helpful to break it into three separate “chunks”. 

1.      In the midst of confusion

2.      and near the conclusion,

3.      of where reason had stripped away truth.

• In the midst of confusion:

The Visitor itself is a story which starts near the end…(the eve of death of the Visitor). However, The Visitor is only one of the books in The Corvus Chronicles.  What the reader might not understand is that The Visitor, while released first, is not the first book of the Corvus Chronicles, but rather it is actually book VII.  Not quite near the end, not at the beginning, but rather in the midst (and near the conclusion) of the story. 

The reader is made aware there is more to the story from the quick glimpse of the life of the Visitor in the opening pages.  Fifty years are recapped in under two pages between pages 5 and 7.  To understand who the Visitor is, why the story is recorded, or even why it was important enough for the narrator to “record” the event is a little puzzling, or confusing. However, the reader should be aware, that to the narrator, the story was important enough to "write the story”.  The second paragraph of The Visitor makes this point very clear, where the narrator shares:

Again, I must stress that these words are not mine. I am a mere instrument of the message. I am attempting to tell the story and record the messages as I have witnessed. While I have tried to stay true to the message, I fear that in my own translation much of the understanding is lost. However, I take no small amount of comfort in knowing that it is not until we are lost that we begin to search for our way. 

What we can take from that, if we really try to understand the narrator, is that he is sharing a “message”.  In fact, he is telling the reader that he is trying his best to “stay true to the message” …” but the message is not his own, and he is even fearful that in his “translation” of the message, understanding may be lost”.

A strong hint to the feeling of “confusion and feelings of being lost” are found in the excerpt of the next novel which is shared at the end of The Visitor.  That excerpt is from a prequel to The Visitor - The Stranger. 

What the reader has no way of knowing at this time, is in The Stranger, (which is not just a prequel to The Visitor, but is actually book one of The Corvus Chronicles) the scene which is taking place is the coming to grips of a loved one who is suffering from medical trauma involving the brain (the organ of 'reason').  The confusion, and being in the midst of confusion is a real life event.  Here is a concrete example of where the story moves from fiction to non-fiction without notice or apology (as explained to the reader in the prologue of The Visitor).

The reader is literally being pulled through a story they are unaware of, a story which begins before the book they are reading.  This part is extremely literal to the process of the narrator, who after all is “recording the events”, which is a pretty strong hint that the narrator of The Visitor is in actuality “the author”.  

“BONUS INTERPRETATION POINTS!!!
If you’re really curious about the author/narrator and consistency...start to ponder the following;

If the narrator is the author, and if the author dedicates the novel to his Beloved, then how can someone else (The Visitor) be with the Beloved in the novel?  How, if The Visitor is not the narrator (which he isn’t) be with the Beloved and the story be consistent?”

So the reality is, from the narrator/author point of view, the story is occurring in the midst of confusion – and the reality is that to the reader, while they may or may not be aware, the feeling of “confusion” is being placed upon them.  What is far too complex to get into in this “intermediate deep-dive” interpretation, is why has the sentence changed from the singularity into the plural.  Why has the narrator/author changed from using the word “I” to the words “we / our”.  That is for another day, but there is a very real change that again probably slips by most readers due to the smooth sound of the sentence.

• and near the conclusion:

As already shared, The Visitor is not the first book in The Corvus Chronicles.  The Corvus Chronicles are made up of eight separate “novellas”.  Although The Visitor is the first novella published, it is actually number seven of eight.  So The Visitor is near the conclusion, but is not the conclusion of the story.  The actual order of the novellas are:

1.      The Stranger,

2.      The Beloved

3.      The Crossing

4.      The Calm,

5.      The Storm

6.      The Awakening

7.      The Visitor

8.      ….and then the final Chapter... which cannot be named at this time without giving away the story prematurely, or prior to the reader having had the ability to discover the ending on their own.

However, for the purpose “within” the novella The Visitor, this part of The Corvus Chronicles is taking place on the last few hours before the death of the Visitor.  So, it is also very much taking place “near the conclusion” of the Visitor’s earthly visit. 

(Note:  instead of “death” I have used the term “earthly visit”… which is in line with the actual reason for the title of ‘The Visitor”.  Although the story takes place on the “eve of death”, the story is not about death at all.  In fact, it is quite the opposite,…but again, that is too deep for an intermediate deep-dive and will have to wait for another blog and much deeper interpretation to understand why the main character is only ever referenced as ‘the Visitor”.

• of where reason had stripped away truth:

This is where the "intermediate deep dive into interpretation needs to occur to start to understand what is really going on in the novel.  While the reader can relate to the story being confusing, and somewhat near the conclusion...the idea of "where reason had stripped away truth" is more challenging.  This concept is essential to understand or interpret “The Visitor”.   If you have been following the blogs in an attempt to understand The Visitor and the message within the story, then you know a few things that will help you:

1.      The Visitor is more than a Love story, it is a story of Love.  There are two separate stories occurring parallel with one another at the exact same time.  You will also understand that to the Visitor, "Love" is a sacred term, and whenever it is used it is in contrast to the mundane connotations of common usage.

2.      The Visitor as a character within the story is described very deliberately as “dualistic”.  He sees the world in black or white, in or out, right or wrong, sacred or mundane”.  (In fact it is argued that any essence of things in between he is only able to perceive by his Beloved)

3.      The Visitor is never referenced by name.  Even though this story takes place in the hours before his death, he is not referenced by any name or by any other term such as “The Departed” or anything like that.  In fact, the poetic parables talk about “the procession of life” and about the similarity between death and birth.  The Visitor himself references himself simply as “a guest” who’s time it is “to leave”.  

4.      There are total chapters and poetic parables devoted to the notions of “Knowledge” and “Truth”.  These are concepts important enough and intrinsic enough to the understanding of the story that they have their own chapters devoted to them.  

If you are aware of these few things, then you might be ready to tackle the interpretation of, “where reason had stripped away truth”.  This is best done by understanding that the two main terms, “reason” and “truth” are set as “counterpoints” to each other.  The terms as used within the story and this sentence are not interchangeable.

Michael Paul:

It is never about being ‘right’; but rather, about uncovering the ‘truth’. 

Michael Paul, The Visitor, pg ix

For the purpose of interpretation,  "reason" is the rationale mind which draws conclusions based by observable experience.  It is akin to understanding the relationship between "cause and effect".  It is in essence the human mind (ie., fleshy brain).   At the beginning of The Visitor, we are exposed to this notion of "cause and effect" as shared by the narrator when describing an early experience of the Visitor. 

Though unable to understand why the birds behaved in this way, he was aware they were responding to his acknowledgement. His choice determined which bird came closer. His actions had consequence,even if he did not understand what the consequence meant or why
the birds behaved as they did.

This is the narrator explaining the nature of "understanding, awareness, consequences", basically "reasoning".  The Visitor was aware or understood his actions had consequences - even though he did not understand "why".  This is the nature of reasoning (or reason). 

Towards the end of The Visitor in the poetic parable on Faith this acknowledgment of the limitations of reason becomes evident.  In this section the Visitor shares the following:

Faith is not exclusive to any one church.
Faith is relentless - beyond reason or belief,
Believing in more than can be found in the search
Accepting what is without proof of relief.

Simply put, the difference between reason and Faith is spelled out clearly.  Faith is relentless - beyond reason or belief.  This is in direct contrast to Truth, which is not bound by limits or understanding.

Reason is often seen as a "rationale" argument, cause and effect, understanding, logic, even common-sense.  It is effective for successful protection of the material, of the flesh, of everything physical.  In essence, the mundane or carnal.

Truth, to the dualistic view and nature of the Visitor is the polar opposite.  Truth does not require argument, logic or common sense.  It exists beyond the material, the flesh or the physical.  It is in essence, the sacred.  Belief or proof or argument does not change the Truth. The truth simply is.  

This distinction is made very clear at the outset of The Visitor, in page ix, before the story begins where the author shares, It is never about being ‘right’; but rather, about uncovering the ‘truth’.  This idea is so central to the novel that it is repeated right after the prologue on pg 3 of The Visitor; To him it was never a matter of being right, but rather of uncovering the truth.

There is a distinct difference between what we see or argue as right, to what we may or may not see but is True.  This is the dualistic view of the Visitor.  It is the physical against the spiritual. It is the carnal against the sacred.  It is the conflict between the push of the flesh and the pull of the Spirit.  And it is something which the Visitor see's no value in arguing.  For example, see page 2 of the novel:

He would not have been keen to entertain arguments with others on whether life was a series of events open to arbitrary choice or a matter of predetermined fate. Such arguments he felt were fruitless and without consequence. Instead, he was more prone to admire a perfectly designed system of ordered chaos constantly in flux with individual human choice. He felt there was something beautiful in the concept of unpredictable chaos within an intentional master design: a duality, like body and spirit.

---

If you were able to follow this last part then you are ready to understand the sentiment, "...where reason had stripped away truth..."

The arguments, the understanding, the acceptance, the reason of everything makes no sense.  Why be born to die?  Why find joy just to suffer?  Why anything?  

This is the message. This is the central point of why the Visitor leaves his home to gather with those he Love's prior to leaving.  This is the reason why the story is important enough to be transcribed by the narrator.  

To understand the story, you must enter it where reason had stripped away Truth, and find that all reason really did in it's stripping of the Truth, was "uncover the Truth". 

Hence: 

In the midst of confusion and near the conclusion of where reason had stripped away truth, the Visitor walked towards a familiar hill in the city closest to his home.

Remember from the earlier blogs,  the beginning is always somewhat vague, and it is only at the end that clarity begins.  So here...near the conclusion, amidst the confusion, where reason has stripped away - and uncovered the Truth...here begins "clarity".

Until next time, Journey in Love

Michael Paul

Consensus of the Majority

While the Visitor knew he constantly suffered his sanity in a disconnected
world, he believed he was at times uncomfortably grounded
due to his unwillingness to be swayed by the consensus of the majority. - The Visitor pg 4.

As promised in the last blog, the blogs moving forward are all "deeper dives" into possible interpretations of The Visitor.   For today's deep dive we are still on page 4 and reflecting on the narrator's assertion that the Visitor knew he was on a different page than a lot of other people.   

It is important to note, that the assertion is not that the Visitor "felt" disconnected or in the minority, but rather he "knew".  This distinction makes it clear the Visitor had self-awareness.  

This self-awareness goes so far as to say that the Visitor was also aware (knew) he "constantly suffered his sanity"  This statement could be interpreted in many different ways, except when the reader considers that the lines which follow this section clarify that the Visitor was aware he was not "insane" but rather felt quite clear not only in his unconventional minority views but took some comfort with them.  He knew his outlook was different, yet he would not have changed his outlook for anything, as illustrated earlier on (pg 3) when the narrator states:  The Visitor was aware of his shortcomings in not being able to see the middle between extremes; however, he would not have changed his understandings for anything.

From this we can see the Visitor has an acute awareness of his shortcomings.  He is blind to aspects outside of his dualistic nature. However, he is not just aware of and comfortable of his shortcomings, he would not change his understandings for anything.  In other words, he is committed to his positions and insights and awareness regardless of the impact or suffering this causes him.  He constantly suffered his sanity.  He knows he sees things differently, he knows his views are in the minority and he is aware this makes life difficult for him.  

“Now I think I know what you tried to say to me,
How you suffered for your sanity,
How you tried to set them free.
They would not listen, they’re not listening still.
Perhaps they never will... ”

— Don Maclean's Starry Starry Night

These words are actually influenced by Don Maclean's song, Starry Starry Night.  For the few who followed the temporary web-site during the writing of The Visitor they would have seen various musical videos which I credited for inspiration.  As strange as it may have been to anyone following the temporary website, one of the video's was Don Maclean's song Starry Starry Night.  Anyone familiar with the song would understand it is about Vincent Van Gogh.  An artist who expressed the world he saw in a very unique style.  The song is influenced by one of the most recognizable pieces of art in the world, Van Gogh's Starry Night.   Van Gogh actually painted Starry Night while in as asylum.  Yet, that piece of work has remained both timeless and universal.  As such, it is an apt influence on The Visitor.  The picture itself is abstract not only in style, but in the fact that the scene itself only exists in Van Gogh's eyes.  It is created.  Yet, his insights have been influenced.  

Note the following potential influence Genesis 37:9,  “And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and behold the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.” 

Note the picture - The sun and the moon (imposed together) and eleven stars.  Coincidence?  Perhaps.  What we do know about Van Gogh was he was acutely aware and worried about his sanity (which was why he checked himself into an asylum).  What many do not realize is that besides being an artist trying to express something; he was also a protestant missionary.  Being a protestant missionary; it is not then a far stretch to think the influence of Starry Night may be in fact derived from Genesis 37.  

The other interesting point is that Van Gogh was never successful during his life and only became well known and appreciated after his death, (tragically in his case by suicide).  He was considered basically a "madman who drank a lot".  

Here we can see a bit of the influence on the Visitor.  Someone who sees the world differently, someone who try's to share insights via art (in the case of the Visitor - poetic parables) and someone who we don't get to know until after his death.  Afterall, The Visitor is a story told by the narrator after the death of the Visitor.  The references of the Visitor's like of alcohol is also found throughout the book, from the drinking of the flask to references of the narrator having spent evenings with the Visitor drinking wine.  The fact that people thought he was a bit of a madman is easily picked up early on page 10;

The rumours of who he was were not the reality, but rumours in time became the accepted version of the truth. Depending on who you talked to he was either a mystic, an intellect or just a crazy old man with a bad temper who had chosen to become a bit of a recluse.

So here we see insights into the character of the Visitor.  Someone who does not see the world as others, is aware that others see him differently, who struggles with his own sanity constantly due to seeing the world differently, and shares his insights through art (poetic parables).  The fact that his words (art/poetic parables) do not reach a wider audience until after his death through the recording and telling of the story by the narrator completes some of the influence on the character of the Visitor.

As in Don Maclean's song Starry Starry Night, the Visitor is also acutely aware that people do not understand what he is saying, and aware that they very well may never understand, but yet it is important enough for him to share his view of the world that he travels outside of his recluse to share his message and understandings on the eve of his death.

The last part of the deeper dive on this blog is regarding what drives the Visitor to his suffering - being "uncomfortably grounded due to his unwillingness to be swayed by the consensus of the majority.

This central theme is played again and again throughout The Visitor.  Early on page ix of the prologue this is made clear.  The novel suggests that ethics and laws are merely manmade rules to protect us from ourselves, the vested interests of those in power, or the ever-changing fabricated social norms put into place by a consensus of the majority with no real regard as to what may or may not be “right”.

Another example is found on page 40 in the poetic parable regarding Laws:

The system designed is by design adversarial
It requires little of truth to succeed.
It lets guilty go free to attend innocent burials
As the majority are appeased in their greed.

The Visitor's position about right and wrong and truth are clearly differentiated from what the majority may declare as right and wrong and true.  To the Visitor, it is about individual accountability, and he shows little regard for human law to dictate appropriate action or inaction.  This is patently clear in the following stanzas.

And following a law which is inherently wrong
Does little to lessen your crime.
And no matter how good and no matter how strong
We all must account in due time.

And while you say punishment equals the crime
And justify - In fact, fear, and Love
A greater law will judge each in their time
And restore a fair balance; which no man’s above

These two stanzas together explain how the Visitor is "grounded and unwilling to be swayed by the consensus of the majority.  Regardless of what human laws allow, or don't allow, we are not excused from our own actions and that each one of us is accountable.  

This should not be surprising.  Again, on page ix of the prologue the author makes this distinction clear to the reader;    It is never about being ‘right’; but rather, about uncovering the ‘truth’.  And in the mind of the Visitor, the truth is not created by any majority consensus, but rather the truth "is what it is" and requires no defense.

Dishonesty appears as anything but
To shield it from what it’s concealing.
The truth will not change - no matter what,
No apologies and always unyielding.

And there my friends are some of the insights into the character development of the Visitor.    He is not in step with the majority and does not cling to what others, even the majority may espouse as "right".  He rather is grounded in what he sees as "truth".  He is aware that others see him as a bit "mad" or "crazy" and he is also aware that people cannot really understand what he is trying to share (or that he is even an instrument capable of sharing what he sees to be true).  However, he would not change this for anything.  He is grounded and unyielding regardless of the cost or the judgement.  And that is Faith.

Until next time, Journey In Love

Michael Paul

Truth and Honesty - Stanza VIII

The "trickster" is a mythological reference used widely in different religions.  Across different cultures and different Faiths they share a common trait of using secret knowledge to confuse (or intentionally abuse) social conventions. 

Such is the way of the tricksters
To diminish the truths you would speak
To confuse all your brothers and sisters
And to hide the truth you would seek. 

In this blog we will explore the poetic parable running through Stanza VIII of Truth and Honesty.  For those who have been reading the previous blogs, they will understand the concept of the "poetic parable".  If you are not familiar with the concept, I would recommend a quick review of the June 19 blog.

In this stanza, you will become more familiar with both the visitor's dualistic views, and be exposed to how he struggles against both the written and spoken word, wishing he could communicate in another way.  This is shared by the narrator on page 4 of The Visitor;

It was probably a natural progression that the more he heard, the less he liked words. The most innocent exchanges became pointless. He began to dread the socially expected small talk. He started to hesitate before speaking, as he worried about how people might attribute
wrong statements to him due to their different understanding between what he meant and what they understood or what they believed they heard, or wanted to hear.

In this poetic parable we see the visitor explain some of his hesitation towards language, as he starts to openly discuss how using words carelessly in our everyday language can diminish truth. 

Truth and Honesty, Stanza VIII - Line I : Such is the way of the tricksters

This line may seem to catch the reader off guard.  Exactly who, or what is meant by "the tricksters"? 

The "trickster" is a mythological reference used widely in different religions.  Across different cultures and different Faiths they share a common trait of using secret knowledge to confuse (or intentionally abuse) social conventions.  For example, intentional misuse of the word "Love" would not be outside the norm of the trickster.  Many readers may be familiar with Loki from Norse mythology who was not only a trickster, but a shape-shifter.  The common connection of all the tricksters is they use intellect, trickery and deceit.  Again, the misuse of the word Love to get what someone wants (calling on the sacred to obtain the mundane) would be a prime example of how a trickster works.  

The warning of the trickster is also cited many times within the Old Testament.  Probably the more well known example is the story of Jacob.  In Genesis Jacob is shown how to trick his brother out of his birthright, and then trick his father out of Esau's rightful blessing.  In each  case Jacob is shown to be intellectual, dishonest, greedy and skillfully manipulative.  In each case he blurs the lines between sacred and mundane.

 Truth and Honesty, Stanza VIII - Line II : To diminish the truths you would speak

Here the visitor flips back to focus on the role of our own actions.  The way of the trickster may be to confuse, but the responsibility still rests with each of us.  To accept common bad practice as normal does not protect us from the impacts of participating in bad practice.  Again, the visitor is very consistent in this message.  As he shares in the poetic parable on Laws

     Try as you must and accepting the flaws
For the best, we must all get along;
But silence or absence from your book of laws
Is no defence against doing what’s wrong.

Responsibility and accountability always remains with each of us.  Even though it may well be acceptable to use the word "Love" for mundane things and possessions, that does not protect you from diminishing you truths you would speak when you use the term Love flippantly.   

This personal accountability is another strong central theme running through the course of the novel.  In fact this concept of personal accountability is stressed on the first page of The Visitor where the narrator of the story literally provides the reader with a warning: 

You cannot unsee what you have seen
Nor unhear what you have heard. 
Turn around now and take your leave
Or you too will own each word. 

This warning basically calls the reader to accountability.  When the veil of ignorance is lifted, you can no longer truthfully hide behind it.  This warning is provided on the very first page of The Visitor to let the reader know that there is a responsibility which goes along with awareness and understanding.   

But again, this line runs even deeper in conjunction with the underlying poetic parable.  By bringing the element of the trickster and awareness together we have added the element of responsibility and accountability - at least as far as Truth is concerned. 

Truth and Honesty, Stanza VIII - Line III : To confuse all your brothers and sisters

He once again we find the cost.  Confusion.  It is the lack of clarity which causes many conflicts.  It is misunderstanding; whether caused intentionally (as in the case of the trickster) or unintentionally (lack of clarity or common understanding).  It is in the mixing of the mundane with the sacred where the visitor has a lot of spoken issues.  

Case in point is the narrator's description of the visitor when it comes to the subject of prayer in the prologue of the novel;

Saying he may have been “offended” by people who prayed with hope, as if tossing coins in a fountain during difficult times, is probably a bit unfair. I am not sure he would have been “offended”, but he did struggle with people habitually turning the sacred into the mundane.
You would see a flash in his eyes when people used terms like “Love” to describe their favourite meal. To him the word “Love” had been misused so often it was now corrupted beyond any practical use. To the Visitor, Love was a word reserved for the sacred, such as the spirit of another person - not for chocolate or wine.

This intentionality an clarity within a dualistic viewpoint is one of the consistent characteristics of the Visitor.  To him, things were mundane or sacred, hot or cold, black or white.  It is why he sees himself and his views as extremely simple.

Truth and Honesty, Stanza VIII - Line IV : And to hide the truth you would seek. 

Without a doubt there is a play on words in the last line of stanza VIII.  In between "hide and seek" is the truth.  To the visitor, the truth is accessible to us all, and to each one.  He does not go so far as to ever claim a universal truth, but rather, that the journey to truth may in fact be different for each and everyone of us.

Again we see consistency in this message, for example in the poetic parable on Hiding our Nakedness, the visitor says;

There are many different ways to go;
Your journey is not mine.
Trust me, you don’t want to know
The path etched in my mind.

It matters not what you may think
Of where or why I go.
From my cup you cannot drink
Worry not ‘bout what I know.

_____________________________________________________________

So while the poetic parable running through stanza VIII of Truth and Honesty may seem complex, from the visitor's viewpoint it is quite simple and his message is consistent.  Do not accept the social norms of mixing the sacred with the mundane, such as using the word Love to describe your favourite meal.  When you blur the lines between sacred and mundane, you diminish truth.  The cost of diminishing truth is confusion, to yourself and to others.  And in such a world of confusion, you may obscure your own truth you are looking for.

Until next time; I leave you stanzas VI through VIII on Truth and Honesty together.

Journey in Love - Michael Paul

Never say “Love” as a word with no weight
Sacred words should stir from your soul
Nor should you ever speak dark words of hate
As dark words of hate take their toll.

When you claim “Love” in describing possessions
You diminish the meaning of your word
So when you say, “I Love” it may lead to questions
And your true passion may never be heard.

Such is the way of the tricksters
To diminish the truths you would speak
To confuse all your brothers and sisters
And to hide the truth you would seek.