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

Willful Blindness

As promised in the previous blog, today's blog is on another central element contained within The Visitor.  The good news is this concept of willful blindness is a little easier to grasp than the theme of Duality and the Singularity (see previous blog).

Although this theme of willful blindness is easier to understand, what may surprise some readers is how frequently this theme plays out in only 90 pages.  That said, the reader should start to be familiar that within The Visitor, due to it's reliance on poetic parables, such central themes can be invoked numerous times in less words than say...these blogs.

In the prologue on page viii of The Visitor we see the first hints at the context being set up to discuss willful blindness.  Shared, but maybe not emphasized to the same degree, is the strong
suggestion that deep within us, in the silence of our souls, we know intuitively the differences between what is right and what is wrong.

The contextual set up in this sentence prior to the story beginning is the idea that we know...intuitively (or instinctively) things which we don't necessarily have to be taught, but rather we possess a knowledge, (although we might not be conscious of it), even if we ignore it rather than look within ourselves to raise it to the forefront of our everyday knowledge.  But it is there, (and it is universal - see other parts of The Visitor regarding the theme of universality).

 Page 1 of  The Visitor is actually where the theme plays out this theme with a warning from the narrator, where he basically says, before you continue reading, the Visitor would warn you:

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 is a literal warning to the reader.  You can only claim (and at best it's a "claim") ignorance (i.e., innocence) if you are not aware of "the rules, or the law, or social mores" etc.  This is a familiar claim, played out in the innocence of children and in the courtrooms.  The defence of "I didn't know!" The tricky part is sometimes this is true, and other times it is more of a "willful blindness" rather than a true "ignorance".  Hence the opening warning...once you "know" the plea of innocence is gone and all that is really left as a defence is "willful blindness".  Disagreement does not provide a defence.  You may disagree that driving 150km/h is not dangerous, but if you know the posted speed limit is 50 you may find your defence of personal opinion or disagreement with the rule/law may not be successful.  Truth cares little for personal opinion.  You might believe a bottle marked poison is harmless, but that personal belief may provide little comfort if you consume the contents.

To be willfully blind is to allow yourself to be blind towards your actions, inactions, reactions and to defend your actions, inactions or reactions in order to limit or decrease your guilty or culpability.  But it goes farther than that.  To decide not to read a safety manual, even though there are warnings and pleas to "Read First" is another form of willful blindness.  To not want to know, or to be too lazy to know, or to not care to know are all forms of willful blindness.  

Therefore the warning on page 1.  Once you are aware, you are aware.  You can still try and claim willful blindness, but in actuality, and in truth, your defence is only that - a "claim" that has no bearing on the truth or fact of what you do know...regardless how loud your pleas of "innocence, not knowing, not understanding, or not being aware" are defended.  Therefore, what you become of aware of, (by continuing on reading), has the power to ensure your ignorance, your not understanding; your veil of innocence and ignorance; is lifted.

You become responsible and accountable.

The Visitor shares many times the idea that even if you don't care to listen to him, you are already aware, as are we all;

• Pg 12 the Visitor shares the idea that not only do you know, but you try hard to forget you know, to the point of "staying blind" - and what he really is sharing is just what he has learned from you.

Though you try hard to forget
And stay blind to what you see,
What I share is just my debt;
To give you back the you in me.

• Pg 13 The Visitor illustrates this point further when he asks who he is to share the message that you already own (know) and longs to find its way back home (to you, from whence it came).  These secrets (buried knowledge/awareness) you know well and deeply (within your heart); the fact that you stay blind to the message is the concept of "Willful Blindness".

Who am I to deliver?
This message which you own
Which you freely shared with me
And longs like you - to find its home?

The secrets that you know too well
The message in your heart
If there were time, then time could tell
If this is the end, or just the start.

• Further yet on page 15 - the Visitor makes it even more clear he has no answers to give you that you do not already know, and that the "truths" already reside in you.  At best, he shares reminders of what you know within your own heart...even as you turn a deaf ear (Willful Blindness).

What answers can I give to you
Which stir not in your soul?
What truths can I reveal to you
You don’t already know?

I can only share reminders of
What’s written in your heart,
Even as you turn deaf ear,
The end is but a start.

• Page 20, we here the same theme from the Visitor:

The answer to your query
Already lives within your heart.

• Page 29 is another example that the answers already lie within you when the Visitor says to look in to your own heart to see if you are worthy to be an instrument of giving what you have received.  To plead ignorance to this is again just another example of Willful Blindness:

Do not tell your stories, of those undeserving
To justify your charity or greed.
Rather, look in your heart to see if you’re worthy
To be an instrument of giving; what you have received.

• One more example (but not the last instance) just to share how this theme is repeated you can find on pg 47 where the Visitor says, that when searching inside (speaking to your soul) you will not always hear what you want to hear (the truth) but to listen and not be tempted to be Willfully Blind by turning a deaf ear (ignoring what you know is right).

n speaking to your soul, it will not always say
What your ears are yearning to hear.
Do not be tempted by sweet words that sway
And blindly turn deaf your soul’s ear.

---

I could go on with more examples illustrating this concept of Willful Blindness discussed in The Visitor but it perhaps will mean more if you find the other examples yourself.  Afterall, as quoted in The Visitor in the poetic parable on Knowledge, the truth is already within you, there for you to find...a journey only you can take.

He does not impede learning by insisting he’s right
But leads you to truth from within.
He fears not the darkness nor turns from the light
Takes note of the good while ignoring the sin.

He strips you from reason to reveal the truth
For these visions he sees are not yours.
He guides you to knowledge that lives within you
And leaves you - to open the doors.

Until the next blog where I will outline another central theme contained within The Visitor; one that may be a bit more entertaining if not for the shock value - "Unconditional Love???"

Journey in Love

MIchael Paul

Duality and The Singularity

I was going to release the blog on "Willful Blindness" (3rd stanza of Silence is Broken, pg., 12 of The Visitor) but instead have been moved to release the first interpretive "senior level deep dive".  This blog is a little harder than previous blogs, and I believe it takes some effort and openness to understand.  At least it did for me.

To me, and for me, The Visitor is a challenging read, which might still unsettle some people when you consider I wrote it.  As my wife would attest, The Visitor (and The Corvus Chronicles) has been a struggle for me to write. Although The Visitor is only about 90 pages; it may has well have been one page or a thousand pages as the story itself is too large for words.  (As the Visitor would have said - language and words are inadequate).

As I shared many times with my wife (my Beloved) the story itself is bigger than I am.  I would go into my office, light my three foot high candelabra, clear my mind and start writing.  Sometimes the words would flow.  Sometimes they would stop.  Some nights I would get up from my sleep and simply delete everything I had put down.  Constantly I worried, and still do.  The Visitor is literally a work of Love. I do not believe it will ever be or is meant to be a commercial success.  I don't believe that I will in my lifetime ever meet anyone who truly can interpret it entirely successfully.  I do believe however, that it is meant to be, and that sometime someone will look upon this and achieve what I was never able to...  Understanding.

So today's blog is the first "senior level" deep dive - an attempt to interpret an important theme that runs long past the limits of 90 pages.  It is what I would call "the first golden key to understanding".  To those who can suffer through this blog, it will make sense why it needed to come now before the blog on "Willful Blindness".  In fact, anyone who can even slightly understand this current blog will no doubt see through the surface love story, and will start to get a larger understanding of The Visitor as a story of Love.

---

“The concept of a singularity runs through The Visitor in many instances, including references to the themes of “silence”, “universal language” and “we are one”.”

Duality and The Singularity are important concepts throughout The Visitor.  The reader will no doubt pick up some of the concepts on "duality"; but the unspoken larger part is in "the singularity".  The singularity is obvious once pointed out, but until the reader becomes intrinsically aware of it, the concept of "the singularity" probably remains unnoticed.

Duality

There are many instances where the dualistic nature of The Visitor (as a book) and the Visitor (as a character) occur.  An obvious example is found in the first paragraph of Chapter II The Needs of Many pg 17.

The conversation, like the Visitor himself, was almost dualistic, moving from one extreme to the other, yet meeting in the
middle like a circle where the end and the beginning can be anywhere and everywhere at once.

This concept may be symbolized in many ways, but one of the more recognized ways is the "yin and yang" symbol.  This symbol is typically represented by contrasting elements (black and white) arranged in a circle yet intersecting in the middle through their curve.  It is a contrast and balance of "black and white", "negative and positive", "good and bad", "wrong and right", "spiritual and carnal (mundane)", "earth and heaven", "night and day", "on and off", "in and out", "positive and negative", etc.,

Such extremes and dualistic opposing forces are encountered throughout The Visitor.  From Joy and Sorrow, to Pleasure and Pain, to Life and Death.  But there is even more beyond the subject matter and the defined dualistic personality of the Visitor.  

There is "...the beck of the crow and the call of the stars..."  In that case the crow is black, the stars white, the crow is earth (fleshy) the stars heavenly, the crow symbolizes death, the stars heaven and life.  It is also not a coincidence that the black "earthly" crow transforms to a white "heavenly" crow from the reflection of the lightening at the moment of the Visitor's death/birth.  The symbolic crow is confined to earthly dimensions no matter it's ability of flight, the stars heavenly, although they may "fall" from time to time.  It is no coincidence that in writing The Visitor and The Corvus Chronicles I became obsessed with crows and stars, and this obsession is still persistent as I try to interpret.  The scene of the crow and the magpie, the ever present crow, and failing health are all from true events.  The moving out of the city to the country and the gift of a telescope to see the stars,...all real life.  This is another example of where the story crosses at times from fiction to non-fiction without notice or apology.  However, it must be noted that the character The Visitor, is not me.  But there are real life elements used in helping to portray who he is.  The fact that I found a meteorite on our home out of the city below where the crows constantly soar over-head only makes the writing a bit more esoteric. 

“The Corvus Chronicles follow the struggles between the desires of the flesh and the pull of the spirit while balancing the discord between
our external and internal selves. Together they form one story on a journey of Love.”

— The Visitor, Page 87 "About the Author

On page 87 in the About the Author section this personal view is shared openly with the reader in describing the dualistic nature of the story.  

Singularity

At the same time we find examples of dualism throughout the novel we find the concept of "singularity".  

Perhaps one of the most instructive examples are stanzas 3 and 4 in the poetic parable on Joy and Sorrow (Pg 56).  Although the topic, Joy and Sorrow may appear dualistic, the parable shows the balance where they come together...(the singularity).   In this parable the Visitor describes how laughter (joy) and tears (sorrow) are born of the same place (Spirit).  The parable then goes on to talk about "universally shared state" of these "spiritual expressions - prayers".  Here we find both the dualistic and singularity together.

Within yourself where your laughter is born,
Is the place that gives birth to your tears.
Whether you smile or whether you mourn
‘Tis your spirit simply talking in prayer.

Your joy and sorrow are not yours alone
They are both universally shared states
Unless your heart is carved out of stone
Such feelings are our shared human fate

There are more examples of this throughout the book, but one more obvious example is in the poetic parable on Good and Evil (page 48).  Again, the subject Good and Evil are two extremes or dualities, yet we witness the Visitor describe that they are not only two different sides of the same coin, but "they are one though can never be joined"!

Good and evil are like joy and sorrow,
They are two different sides of one coin.
While one sleeps today, one wakes tomorrow.
And though they be one, they can never be joined.

This is the concept of "dialetical monism".  

This concept I was first attracted to in 1983 when I came across the concept at University.  It was around the same time I discovered some of the works of St. Thomas Aquinas and "the golden mean".   While the eastern influence of yin and yang and the western influence of St Aquinas may appear totally different, I was almost in awe of the similarity.  It is no surprise looking backwards why I connected with the writings of Thomas Merton, a trappist monk who felt there was a lot to be gained in inter-faith understanding.  As such, it should be no surprise to readers of The Visitor the influence of connectedness, universal language, and "we are one" comments throughout the novel.

But back to the idea of "dialectical monism".  The term itself can be roughly translated into the unity between "duality" (dialectical) and "singularity" (monism).  It describes the indescribable; the connection between the paradox of simultaneous unity and duality.  How the extremes can exist together.  This is the basic nature of the Visitor.  As the narrator shares in page 3 of The Visitor " He [the Visitor] felt there was something beautiful in the concept of unpredictable chaos within an intentional master design: a duality, like body and spirit.

From here we can start to understand both the nature of the Visitor, and why he felt he was destined to find his Beloved to become complete.  The Visitor is "dualistic" to the point of only being able tor recognize the extremes - for example from Pg 3  of The Visitor:

He was not the easiest person to suffer at times. He was black or white, hot or cold, in or out. As such, it was not surprising that he viewed most things (if not all things) as being either sacred or mundane. By all accounts, he lived within dualities and extremes.  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. He believed it was this shortcoming of being black or white that had brought his Beloved into his life. She was his rainbow, his connection to the parts of life he could not grasp…

What is important to understand, that without the influence of the Beloved, he was incomplete.  The Beloved is never described as "grey"...the intermediate between "black and white", but rather as his "rainbow".  

Welcome to the senior level deep dive.

Two extremes (black and white) which together are made up of all the colours of the rainbow without any shades of grey.  These attributes exist at the exact same time.  All the various colours are contained within white light.  Whether we can see them or not, matters not, they are there, and for those who doubt this simply shine a white light through a prism.  The same when we look at the earthly black pigment when all colours are combined and light is not reflected, we see black.  Not grey.  The duality and the monism.  White and black are both created through the use of "all colour" and the difference is only seen if we are looking at "light" or if the light is absorbed by pigment and reflecting no colour, at which time we see black.

The Beloved is "the connection".  She is what unites the dualistic extremes of the Visitor. Page 6 of The Visitor:

Through her, and with her, he learned who he was. No easy task. Without her, he was not an easy person to get to know or want to know. He was aware of this, but still, he had little desire to change. He liked who he was and he loved the fact that she was in many ways his opposite. She was his missing “peaces”.

The Visitor is "incomplete" without the Beloved.  His dualistic view of the world robs him of peace.  He see's things as "black and white", "sacred or mundane", "earthly or spiritual".  It is a struggle he constantly balances.  This struggle is revealed on page 21 of The Visitor in the poetic parable "Hiding our Nakedness".  Here we see the narrator recalling an event prior to the eve of death where the story takes place.

For months I had heard the Visitor say, “We are one.” At first I thought he was speaking “spiritually”, but it was a little out of place for him to be overly evangelistic. In fact, he deliberately shied away from piousness to the point of being almost inappropriate. I confronted him once about the way he talked as it seemed to compromise his sincerity.  

To which the Visitor replies: 
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.

To the Visitor, the struggle is real.  The desires of the flesh and the pull of the spirit.  Both are in existence at the same time.  And it is not the "greyness" of right and wrong which are merely moral constructs.  The Visitor talks about the gift of everything from eating meat to having sex. There is no judgment on the needs of the fleshy shell which house a growing spirit.  This is the struggle between the needs of the flesh and the needs of the Spirit.  A duality and a paradox which are connected.

In the poetic parable on Self-Knowing, page 70 these concepts get deeper.  He in speaking about death (for whom the bell tolls) the Visitor is talking about life (join life's procession).  A deeper duality is again seen in the "no one knows" and "nothing is left to chance".  This is where the concepts of "UNKNOWN" and "PREDETERMINED" are united, even though they are extreme opposites.  This fact probably again slides by the reader.

No one knows for whom the bell tolls
And nothing is left to chance
In time your body will shed your soul
To join life’s procession and dance.

On page 76 in the poetic parable on Death this concept is further developed.  Here the Visitor talks about earthly death in the first line being akin to birth, and in the last line how in death their is no death.  This is the procession of life.  Again, two dualities brought together.

Your soul, released from earthly ties
Like a babe from its mother’s womb,
Leaves comfort of darkness yet never dies
As in death there is no earthly tomb.

This concept is nothing new.  See the duality, the monism, and the procession altogether in Corinthians 1 : 15 :

40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. 42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body....

Another example to me is the concept of the Trinity.  There is "the Father" (monism, one God) from which derive and exist at the same time "The Son" (God made flesh through Jesus) and "The Holy Spirit" (Spirit derived from one God).  An earthly form, a heavenly form and a form above and beyond which made both the heavens and the earth from which both are derived.

---

So that my friends ends the first "senior level deep dive" into interpreting The Visitor.  It is as I described "the first golden key" to understanding.  The dive could be deeper, as there is much more within the them of Duality and the Singularity.  I barely touched on St Aquinas' "Golden Mean", but for those really curious you can refer to that on your own and then read the poetic parable on Courage where the Visitor talks about the soldier and the coward.

Anyway, congrats if you made it this far.  If you did, and grasped any of this I am sure the next time you read "The Visitor" you will read a far different story than you did the first time around.

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

The Truth is Out There

I could never quite figure out if he was admiring the night skies, or if he was just deep in thought or prayer. I asked him once, and his answer was simply, "Is there a difference"?

Today's blog is looking at one simple sentence on page 5 of The Visitor.  In this sentence, the narrator is providing the reader a glimpse into the thoughts of the Visitor.  But it is more complex than that.  Ready for the next deep dive into interpretation?

First off, I know that currently there are less than 75 people following this blog on and off.  And I am more than pleased with that.  If there is one person who one night finds something within this blog, than that is success.  And I can guarantee you that there is at least one person, even if that one person is me, the author of The Visitor and The Corvus Chronicles.

As I have explained to my wife, I am constantly struggling to interpret what I have written.  Over the 18 months it took to draft the first 90 pages which makes up The Visitor (one of the eight books which together make up The Corvus Chronicles) I tried to come to grips with a story that is much bigger than myself.  The story folds in on itself and has very many layers.  The easy part is understanding there are two separate stories which run parallel to each other at the same time.  A Love Story, and a Story of Love.  

The book itself is set up to deal with a procession of Life.  From basic needs, to family, to society, to values, to Faith and beyond this fleshy existence.  But even within the various sections, poetic parables, paragraphs and individual sentences there are interactions which are occurring which the reader will not notice.  Some are cryptic (such as actual names), some are illustrated by a change in font, some by a misspelling, some by a change in language or pattern of expected rhyme.  All those are the more apparent stumbling blocks which are meant to trip the reader up, to slow the reader down and to take note.

However, just as many instances occur that run so smooth they will not be noticed.  This is the case with the simple sentence - I could never quite figure out if he was admiring the night skies, or if he was just deep in thought or prayer. I asked him once, and his answer was simply, "Is there a difference"?

In this exchange, there are two people who are both in active in their own experiences.  The exchange of the question tells us they are "together", but prior to the exchange (the question and answer), both are in their own space.  We can assume that if the narrator is thinking, and the Visitor is in thought or prayer that prior to the exchange their is silence.

In the void of silence we are witness to what we all experience daily.  Our thoughts, and how they can be consumed by thinking about someone else, while someone else is not necessarily thinking about us.  In this case, the narrator is wondering what the Visitor is thinking about, (or even if the Visitor is thinking).  The Visitor while answering the question does not provide a direct or maybe even expected answer.  We know that it was never fully answered, since the entire novel is written after the passing of the Visitor, yet the fact is that the narrator is still saying, "I could never quite figure out.." 

Two different experiences, yet a shared experience.  To different perspectives yielded in one exchange.  How can we be so close as to have an intimate exchange yet still at the exact same moment be so alone that our interpretations of the event are not the same, nor even necessarily understood?

Even when we think communication and a shared understanding has been achieved, we are witness to the way the narrator tells the story that it wasn't.  Even after the death of the Visitor, he had still not figured out whether the Visitor was just admiring the stars, in thought, or in prayer.  Yet most readers will not notice this exchange is not complete, no common understanding is arrived at, and we really only get insights into what the narrator is thinking.  The Visitor's response is "assumed" to mean something, but what that means can differ greatly between different people.

Is there a difference between admiring the skies or praying?  Does it depend on the person and the situation? Can both be done at the same time?  Is there a difference between being deep in thought and praying?  Is there always a difference?  Can you be deep in thought while admiring the skies?

What is the connection, even symbolically speaking between using the term "the heavens" to describe the starry skies and "heaven" as it is used in religious dialogue?  

Stars themselves are referenced numerous times in the Bible, for example: Ishaiah 40:26

Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.

This line makes it pretty obvious that you can do all three things at the same time.  "Lift your eyes and look at the heavens (so looking at the stars).  Who created all these? (thought). Recognizing the power and the might and the strenghth (prayer).

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world…
— PSALM 19:1-4”

To the Visitor, it may very well be that there is no difference.  Admiring the beauty of the heavens, to think about the world, the universe and beyond, and to be amazed and in awe can all be the same thing as prayer, thought and admiration occurring simultaneously.  To the Visitor, it may very well be hard not to entertain all these things at once in almost a gestalt manner.

Can you separate the thoughts?  Can you separate your actions?  From the context of the Visitor, the argument would probably be no.  Proof for this comes in the poetic parable on Religion where the Visitor is quoted as having said -

Who can be true in their words and their ways
And separate their Faith from their actions?
Who can divide the moments of their day:
“This be for God, and this for my passions?”

The Visitor would argue that you can't separate Faith from your actions, and does not limit what those actions are.  Therefor those actions would include both thought and prayer.  This is one of the defining differences between "hope" and "Faith".  Faith is all consuming and cannot be divided between the moments of the day.  It is constant. 

If the narrator actually understood the Visitor's answer, he would have been able to understand, that to the Visitor, there is no difference, and if he truly understood what that meant, he would not still be wondering (or even have asked the question in the first place).

This explains part of the reason the Visitor questions whether he can be an instrument of the message, and whether anyone would ever understand what he is saying.  His doubt in relaying a message that people cannot hear is shared many times within the 90 pages of The Visitor.

Even as the author I still struggle with the simple exchange, so the narrator as a character of the story can hardly be blamed for not being able to fully understand.  As such, it may be even harder for the reader to fully comprehend this exchange.  Words are simply inadequate.  

But Faith is that someone, somewhere, someday will understand.  As Mulder would have said while looking up at the skys, "The truth is out there...or...I want to Believe."

---

There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars…”— LUKE 21:25

Until next time....Journey In Love

Michael Paul

From Cover to Cover - The Visitor - Chapter 1

The blog posts starting from here will be looking at various interpretations of The Visitor.  It is recommended that the reader first look inward for their own interpretations prior to looking at the following blogs so that they may be enlightened by their own introspection.

Remember, the interpretations that follow are not the only, or even necessarily the right interpretation(s).

The people walked in darkness, But have seen a brilliant light.

The Visitor - Chapter I - page 1

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.

The poetic parable above are the first words we hear recounted by the narrator.  It is important for the reader to remain aware that although the visitor's words are represented in poetic parables and italics throughout the novel, that we never actually hear the visitor himself speak as the story is written after the visitors passing.  We only hear the narrator's recollection of the visitor's words, or the narrator sharing the words he heard.

On the surface, this verse is easy enough to understand.  Most of us have experienced the truth in this verse, although unfortunately, we typically have learned these lessons through "negative experiences".  

If you have ever seen or witnessed a horrendous event, you will know what is meant by not being able to unsee what you have seen.  Myself, as the author have witnessed numerous events that I had not planned or wished to see.  For example, my wife Deborah and I were first on the scene at a tragic hit and run in Edmonton years ago.  When we fled from our coffee from the outside patio at a Second Cup to run to the aid of the lady who had been hit by the runaway driver, we came upon the broken sprawled out body of a young women who was hit at high speed and was literally split open with her insides spilling outwards onto the pavement.

This is a vision burned within my mind.  Mostly because I was helpless to do anything.

As the visitor shares (via the words of the narrator) most of our memorable moments are connected strongly to either joy and/or sorrow.  Emotional responses tied to an event.  In the case above, my helplessness at a moment of sorrow tied the sights, the sounds and the even the smells of the event into my memory.

Soldiers, military people, first responders and anyone who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) would understand the impact of negative events that cannot be erased from your mind.

The same concept applies to the idea that "you cannot unhear what you have heard".  Again, too many people will understand this line from experience with negative events.  If a loved one says something hurtful, we tend to hold onto it.  Where young kids are bullied and/or embarrassed it can have a lasting impact.

The idea of the opening lines of The Visitor though are not meant to trudge people down negative experiences.  Rather, this verse is a reminder and warning of the notion of responsibility and accountability which remains central within the context of The Visitor.

If you are not aware of something, than it is hard to be accountable for it.  If you hurt someone's feelings unintentionally and were not aware that you had hurt their feelings you would suffer from neither guilt or remorse.  In short, you would probably not even say "sorry" as you are unaware of the damage that you inflicted.

However, if you were aware that something you said or did was hurtful, and you said and did it anyway, then you are both responsible for your actions and accountable for your actions.  Even though you cannot "undo" your actions.

In the context of the visitor, the warning is about "lifting of the veil".  For example;

If you were not aware that anger can lead to hate, and that hate will drive away Love than you may be innocent of not understanding the destruction your own anger can have to an environment of Love.  However, once you have read (or heard) the visitors words throughout the novel - that "anger" provides fertile soil for "hate", and that where there is hate, Love cannot exist; then you now have inner knowledge about the danger and damage that your anger can do.  

Even though it intuitively makes sense, by having the "veil lifted" you are now responsible for the damage inflicted towards Love by your own anger.  Whether your anger is justified or not, you are still responsible for the impact of your anger.

Whether you agree or not, really doesn't matter.  No more than whether you agree or not with any laws in the land you live.  

It is no wonder that many people feel "ignorance is bliss".  

The idea of "innocence verses ignorance" has always been a topic of debate.  From the "two bite rule" when it comes to dogs, to the ways the Western world and the legal system works when it comes to "pleas of insanity" leading to a dismissal of guilt.  

None of that is new. Regardless of the reader's own personal belief system, going back to some of the earliest written script found within the Bible, we see a parallel concept.

The people walked in darkness,
But have seen a brilliant light.
They sat in lands death-shadowed,
Then light dawned [and banished night].
(Matthew 4:16, Isaiah 9:2).