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

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

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.

Truth and Honesty - Stanza VII

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.

In Stanza VII on the poetic parable on Truth and Honesty, the visitor describes the conflict between the sacred and the mundane.  However, it is not just the dualistic conflict which is presented, but also the confusion which is created when blurring the lines between sacred and mundane.

Truth and Honesty - Stanza VII - Line I : When you claim “Love” in describing possessions

While the words of the stanza may seem a bit confusing on first read, the moment the reader recognizes what the visitor is saying, the message becomes instantly clear.  Although the poetic parable on Truth and Honesty doe not sure up until exactly mid-way through the novel, the visitor's views on this matter are presented early (page 3) where the narrator describes from a third party perspective how the visitor reacted to people using the term "Love" casually.

The word PASSION comes from the Latin passionem which really means "suffering, enduring"

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.
 

It is worthwhile to note in this line the idea of someone being able to "claim" Love.  This means that Love can be viewed as a personal declaration (you claim).  Here in lies part of the problem.  Claiming something does not make it necessarily true - and that is why this poetic parable falls under the category of Truth and Honesty. 

Truth and Honesty - Stanza VII - Line II : You diminish the meaning of your word

The next point worth noting is the idea of using the declaration of "Love" in describing possessions (as presented in Stanza I).  As already outlined in previous blogs; the visitor is clear that everything from the earth remains with the earth.  So here is the dualistic conflict regarding Love which we find ever present in the visitor's words.  How do you claim something which is mundane (possessions) as sacred (claiming Love).

Can you factually and actually Love something material?  Or is Love something beyond the material realm.  That is the point of the visitor.  People are blurring the lines between sacred and mundane.  You can Love the spirit of another person, but is that same emotion present in your like for coffee or chocolate?  If you use the same word for both, you are diminishing the use of the word itself.

If I tell my Beloved, "I Love you", but also tell her; "I Love the Edmonton Oilers hockey club"...what is the message?  Do I really have the same emotional, spiritual connection to my wife as I do to my favourite sports team?  

The important thing to note on this line is the fact that by misusing the word Love you don't really diminish Love.  What you do is diminish the meaning of your word.  You nor I have the power to diminish what is sacred; but we do have the ability to diminish ourselves.  

Truth and Honesty - Stanza VII - Line III : So when you say, “I Love” it may lead to questions

This line follows closely the two previous lines.  If you toss around the word Love for things that are mundane, and you diminish the meaning of your word, than it may lead to questions.  Too often people use words like "Love" to get something they want, or to avoid unpleasant situations.  The word Love has weight.  It should not be used lightly.  It has become habitual how people toss the term "Love" around now to the point it is no longer recognized as a word best reserved for what is really important.  

If there is one central element in The Visitor it is around the concept of Love.  It is why the author uses the phrase, "Journey In Love".  It is why the word "Love" is always capitalized.  It is why the word Love is used 102 times in 91 pages.  Yet; the visitor cautions against over using the word.  So what this tells us is that the visitor's message is a message about Love.

The fact that the visitor sees Love as an acceptable response for all of life's issues is brought to the readers attention in many different ways:

Pg 7:  While he did not know this at the time, saying yes to Love would save him, even though accepting the gift would almost destroy him.

Pg 25: So far, the crowd had only asked the Visitor about the base human needs of food, clothing, shelter, and the need to work to meet such needs. However, if they had listened carefully they would not have failed to observe that the response was often about Love and compassion, with a constant consistent message that they already held the answers to their questions within themselves.

Pg 27: While his answers acknowledged the needs of the crowd, the discourse was slowly moving into areas of discomfort. From the first exchange, which was almost a “mocking” of his message of Love, he had slowly disarmed the resistance of the crowd. The air was now
heavy with the expectation of words we wanted to hear, but we could not voice.

Truth and Honesty - Stanza VII - Line IV : And your true passion may never be heard.

Here the visitor shares the cost of lightly using the term "Love".  If you throw the word around loosely; in describing both the sacred and the mundane, then how will anyone ever be able to hear you when you are speaking from your spirit.  How will you actually make a point in being able to share your true "passion" apart from things that you really just like or enjoy?  

The use of the word "passion" is also purposeful.  As already shared in previous blogs, it is  the intentional use of certain words that sometimes break the rhythm or rhyme, or seem out of place (different language, font etc.,) that give clues to the deeper parable.

Most people think of passion in the romantic sense.  It is used interchangeable to describe an intense desire.  However, the word itself comes from the Latin passionem which really means "suffering, enduring". The word itself as used actually depicts something different than a longing, but rather a "suffering, enduring".  In Christianity "the Passion" is the final days of Jesus leading up to his crucifixion.  

This imagery used by the Visitor again is repeated and consistent in the poetic parable on Freedom where the image of the crucifixion is used to explain the cost of Freedom:

Even at costs that run dearly,
Like a cross / cross your back / on your knees
Then you may finally see clearly.
Then you may finally be free.

__________________________________________________________________________

So the parable within Stanza VII is not just a story about being careful with your words so that you are not misunderstood...but paints a picture of taking care not to paint the mundane as sacred.  To understand the importance of the words you use, and the impact they have on you. Used properly, the same term should not really be used to describe how much I enjoy a cold beer on a hot summer day and the suffering enduring passion of someone who gives all for others.

Until next time, Journey in Love: Michael Paul

__________________________________________________________________________

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.

Truth and Honesty - Stanzas VI through X

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.

Our words impact not just others, but ourselves.

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.

________________________________________________________________________

For the next few blogs I will be moving on from excerpts on the poetic parable on Love (see previous blogs) and offer some insights into the interpretation of stanzas VI through X regarding the poetic parable on Truth and Honesty.

Again, the literary device of a poetic parable is to provide an easy story upfront, but offer the opportunity for personal introspection into deeper meaning.  Each reader may interpret something different.  What follows is only the interpretation of the author.  And fair warning, there are many different interpretations of the stanza's which follow.  Your own personal interpretation may differ.

For today's blog I am specifically going to look at stanza VI of Truth and Honesty.

_____________________________________________________________________

Stanza VI, Truth and Honesty - Line I : Never say “Love” as a word with no weight

It is important to recognize  the word Love is again capitalized.  This provides it the literary value of a proper noun; such as the name of a person or place.  It is not used as an adjective.  As discussed in the previous blogs on Love, the visitor sees Love as an entity.  In this use of the proper noun, the visitor is really using the word Love in the form of a "name".

The word "never" is a strong word.  The visitor is not saying, "try not to use the word Love loosely" such as in describing something mundane - for example; "I love chocolate or I love wine or love how cute that puppy is".  He is saying "Never" use the word Love carelessly. This is again a consistent message shared by the visitor.  Love is an entity, not only deserving respect, but crossing the line to "sacred".  Therefore, understand the "weight" or the seriousness of using that word.

How do we know the visitor regards the word as sacred?  Simply by the second line immediately following this first one.

Stanza VI, Truth and Honesty - Line II : Sacred words should stir from your soul

Here the reader is left with no doubt that the visitor sees the word "Love" as sacred.  So even though talking about Truth and Honesty the visitor is again delivering a message using a continued story of "Love" as the answer.  Love being more than an adjective, but being a "noun or name to represent something sacred".  As such, the word when used should be motivated (stir from) your soul.  This concept is nothing new.  From Jewish tradition, the name Yahweh is sacred and is described as being both unpronounceable and incommunicable.  It is a word spoke more from the heart or the soul rather than from the lips.  As such it is often represented by the tetragrammaton (four letter word/symbol) YHWH.

For those following the blogs to date or reading The Visitor and understanding the influence of Thomas Merton, it should come as no surprise to see another reference which bridges inter-faith understanding.  

This practice of sacred words that cannot be spoken actually was recently reintroduced into the Catholic Church when the Vatican reiterated a directive that the name of God as revealed in the tetragrammaton YHWH is not to be said in liturgy or music. (http://www.catholic.org/news/ae/music/story.php?id=29022) 

"As an expression of the infinite greatness and majesty of God, (the name) was held to be unpronounceable and hence was replaced during the reading of sacred Scripture by means of the use of an alternate name: 'Adonai,' which means 'Lord,'...Invoking a Vatican document from 2001, the Congregation reminded bishops that the name "Yahweh" in Catholic worship should be replaced by the Latin "Dominus" (Lord) or a word "equivalent in meaning" in the local language.

The concept itself has even made it into popular literature in J.K. Rowling's books regarding Harry Potter.  In this case however, it is portrayed as the villian and symbol of evil in the character of Lorde Voldemort as "he who cannot be named".  Incidentally,  in Danish "volde" means "to cause" and in French "morte" means death...so it can be argued the character name of the villain (he who cannot be named) actually translates into "cause death".  

So be it historical, or pop culture, the idea of "sacred words" should stir from your soul and that there are words that should not be said lightly is nothing new.

Stanza VI, Truth and Honesty - Line III : Nor should you ever speak dark words of hate

The reader should easily note how the word Love is capitalized while the word "hate" is not.  That is the first clue.  The word hate is not from the sacred realm.  However, just like the popular culture of Lorde Voldemort the visitor would agree such words should still not be spoken.   This becomes more apparent in stanza VII of the poetic parable on Good and Evil.  In that specific parable the visitor states:

For where Love is absent darkness takes root
Where darkness takes hold, anger thrives.
And where anger grows, there hate may be born
And where hate lives - Love can’t survive.

Again, the reader should easily see the clue of how Love is capitalized and words like hate, anger and darkness are not.  This line when taken into the full context of the visitor's words re-emphasizes why you should never speak dark words of hate.  Simply put, Love and hate cannot co-exist.  Where hate lives - Love can't survive.

Stanza VI, Truth and Honesty - Line IV : As dark words of hate take their toll.

A couple of things are clear in the last line of stanza IV.  The dualistic black and white nature of the visitor, when describing words of hate as dark, and the idea that the words "take their toll".  Literally, "to take their toll" means their is a price, as in payment for crossing a toll booth or road or section of your own personal journey.  The connotation of "take their toll" is even more direct, meaning "causes damage".

So summed up, Stanza VI on Truth and Honesty is a strong warning.  Love is a sacred word with heavy meaning, and should not be used carelessly.  However, even dark words which are the exact opposite such as hate should not be used, as they are damaging.  This stanza illustrates again both the extreme dualistic nature of the visitor, and his consistent message regarding "Love".

Until next time, 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.