Changing Of The Guards Explained
Tom Sayliss
My apologies to the regulars if this has been dicussed
already at length.
i'm in a band [folk/rock] we do very few covers let alone
Dylan (we had knockin' in our set once) we just added
2 female back up vocalist. i've been listening to Street Legal
a lot lately and tried selling the idea of covering COTG,
the reaction was "what's it about?" well i strumed a few cords
on the acoustic and sang a verse or two, then went off on a
tangent about sybolism, armageddon, where Bob's life was at
the time, how slow train followed...well the reaction was
blank stares and chin waggin' with the occasional huuuh!
[made sense to me!]
does anyone out there have a readers digest condensed synopsis
of the song?
thanks in advance!
Tom
L Mossford
Tom Sayliss <say...@ican.net> wrote in article <354017...@ican.net>...
I believe, in part, it's about Bob's bitter and caustic warning to the
record industry's "suit's" for treating him so bad after everything he had
done for them over the preceeding sixteen years. -
"I dont need your organization, I've shined your shoes,
I've moved your mountains and marked your cards,
but Eden is burnin', either brace your self for elimination,
Or else your hearts must have the courage for the changing of the guards."
(Some people rob yer with a fountain pen)
At least thats just one verse, any other ideas?
Elijah baley
In article <01bd70b4$f3211e20$0efaaecc@mossford>,
L Mossford <moss...@direct.ca> wrote:
>
> I believe, in part, it's about Bob's bitter and caustic warning to the
> record industry's "suit's" for treating him so bad after everything he had
> done for them over the preceeding sixteen years. -
>
> "I dont need your organization, I've shined your shoes,
> I've moved your mountains and marked your cards,
> but Eden is burnin', either brace your self for elimination,
> Or else your hearts must have the courage for the changing of the guards."
>
> (Some people rob yer with a fountain pen)
>
> At least thats just one verse, any other ideas?
Well, I certainly think the song begins on that theme with the reference
to the sixteen years, ie 1962-1978. The sixteen banners could represent
sixteen albums, but that's a little tricky as you'd have to be a little
selective in the way you counted them. The theme of disgruntlement with
the recording industry might possibly be discerned in later stanzas, but
what I find interesting is the introduction of other themes in this
opening stanza.
Good shepherd grieving - seems clearly a reference to Jesus (try as I
might I just can't see LSD) to whom Bob would soon turn to salvation.
desperate men/desperate women - by all accounts, Bob seems to have been
pretty desperate at the time of Street Legal, and a burned out,
desperation seems to permeate the whole album.
spreading their wings - taking off, realising fullness, finding salvation?
falling leaves - something Dylan seems often to associate with apocalypse
or eschataological destruction. See also Cat's in the Well, Ain't Gonna Go
to Hell (the version other than the SOLID ROCK version), Man of Peace etc.
From this, I personally get the feel of a man at the end of his tether,
fed up with a lot of things, including the recording industry, and looking
around for deliverance, for the chance to spread his wings and get the
hell out of wherever he is.
The second stanza refers to merchants and thieves, and Bob's last "deal"
going down. Possibly LSD :-) but more likely recording industry
disgruntlement. And where does the writer look for salvation and
deliverance?
To a *woman* of course.
She's smelling sweet like the meadows where she was born
On mid-summer's eve, near the tower.
For some reason this woman always reminds me of the naturally beautiful
"Shelter" woman with silver bracelets on her wrists and flowers in her
hair. I thinks it's at least the same "ideal" of the same woman, and he's
looking to her for shelter and salvation once again.
Okay, the next bit is quite a stretch, but I'm just sharing how it works
for me. I see a sort of association between this woman and Christ in the
next couple of stanzas. "They" are doing awful things to her suach as
shaving her head and causing her to be torn, but the singer can't help but
follow her and see her on the stairs. This sort of reminds me of St Peter
following Jesus at the time of his trial, from a distance where it was
safe, but still being drawn to his master's fate.
Okay, after that I sort of lose the plot. Easy to do with a Dylan song,
except for the fact that the singer seems to identify himself with the
male protagonist who gets together with the woman near broken chains
(salvation?) and in a beautiful natural setting - mountain laurel and
rolling rocks (a river?).
Then comes the denouncement of all those whom the singer has had to serve
(shine their shoes), and the warning that things are about to change.
Reference to elimination can't help but remind me of the Christian
understanding (and perhaps also the Jewish) of the destruction of the
wicked at the end of time. But that's just me. For Dylan, I imagine, it
would have taken a lot of courage to embrace Christianity and change his
guards like that.
Lastly, peace will come. Is this a veiled reference to the peace that
passes all understanding that purportedly comforts Christian even during
the hardest times? Well, it certainly offers no rewards. Dylan knows his
Bible and Jesus' promise of hardship and cross-bearing to his disciples
which is why He also promises them that peace, I guess.
Maybe these biblical ideas are tangled up in the emotion and narrative of
the song and maybe not. The song ends with reference to the Tarot,
something about which I have no idea, so I do see the song as quite a
tangled jumble of themes along the lines I outline above. Disgruntlement
with life in general, the search for some sort of salvation, and the
momentous feeling that things are somehow about to change dramatically,
wonderfully and painfully.
Lije
Dennis Jacques
It seems to me that COTG is too compilcated to explain on just one
level- like
Tangled Up In Blue, if you try to explain it in
one flat way you end up contradicting yourself.
But for whatever it's worth, I always thought God was the captain and
Israel was the
woman. Works for me.
Dennis
John Howells
red...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (Elijah baley) writes:
<Well, I certainly think the song begins on that theme with the reference
<to the sixteen years, ie 1962-1978. The sixteen banners could represent
<sixteen albums, but that's a little tricky as you'd have to be a little
<selective in the way you counted them.
Not really.
Bob Dylan
Freewheelin' Bob Dylan
Tht Times They Are A-Changin'
Another Side of Bob Dylan
Bringing It All Back Home
Highway 61 Revisited
Blonde on Blonde
John Wesley Harding
Nashville Skyline
Self Portrait
New Morning
Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid
Planet Waves
Blood on the Tracks
Desire
Street Legal
Notice I divided the 16 albums into 4 sets of 4? See any correlation
between the albums in each set? Each is of a certain musical style.
Each of a different lyrical style. Each representing a different region
of the US.
Set 1 - acoustic traditional folk, with plaintive lyrics of social
protest, representing the North ("North Country Blues", "Girl of the
North Country", remembrances of Minnesota like "Bob Dylan's Dream", etc.)
Set 2 - electric rock and roll, with surrealistic lyrics of great
humor, with an East Coast hipness - very New York City - with some
Zen thrown in for good measure. "Desolation Row".
Set 3 - country music, with honest and open songs of love and a
Southern emphasis on tradition and family values. "You Ain't Goin'
Nowhere".
Set 4 - western swing seems to be the dominant musical style, and the
lyrical style is more rambling with lots of rustic narratives. Songs
of loss and lonlieness. A very Western feel. "The Jack of Hearts".
Notice how each set has a 4th album that acts as a transition into the
next phase. "Another Side" looked ahead to Rock and songs of personal
inward searching. "John Wesley Harding" looked ahead to country songs
of simple pleasures (the last two songs on that album in particular).
"Pat Garrett" looked toward the Western phase with its legend of the
West, Billy the Kid. At the time I didn't know it, but "Street Legal"
was looking toward his Christian period.
--
John Howells
how...@bigfoot.com
http://www.punkhart.com
Marty Traynor
John Howells wrote in message ...
John is onto a great theory here. Look at the next four (Christian era):
Slow Train Coming
Saved
Shot of Love
Infidels (transitional)
But then things seem to become cloudy with:
Empire Burlesque
Knocked Out Loaded
Down in The Groove
Oh Mercy
Can anyone make a thematic whole of those four?
Then:
Under the Red Sky
Good as I Been to You
World Gone Wrong
Time Out of Mind
Perhaps someone with more imagination can point out themes for the last two
groupings?
Marty
Chiarot
>Perhaps someone with more imagination can point out themes for the last two
>groupings?
i think the fella who wrote this:
"The Dylan-body is omnipresent.
Each sentient being beholds it
Through aspiration and Karma relation
As it dwells eternally on this seat of meditation."
Has more than enough imagination for the task.
johnhenry
SIXTEEN is called the number of love in the study of symbolic
Biblical numerics. The Sacred Name of The Self-Existent One,
(traditionally translated as "Jehovah") appears in Scripture
combined with other significant words sixteen times to form
what are called the "Jehovah Titles." The sixteen titles are:
1. Jehovah-Elohim (Eternal One: Creator) - Genesis 2:4-25.
2. Adonai-Jehovah (The Lord Sovereign) - Genesis 15:2, 8
3. Jehovah-Jireh (The Lord our Provider) - Genesis 22:8-14
4. Jehovah-Nissi (The Lord our Banner) - Exodus 17:15
5. Jehovah-Ropheka (The Lord our Healer) - Exodus 15:26
6. Jehovah-Shalom (The Lord our Peace) - Judges 6:24
7. Jehovah-Zidkenu (Lord our Righteousness) - Jer. 23:6
8. Jehovah-Midkaddishkem (Lord our Sanctifier) - Ex. 31:13
9. Jehovah-Zaboath (The Lord of hosts) - I Samuel 1:3 (et al.)
10. Jehovah-Shammah (The Lord is Present) - Ezekiel 48:35
11. Jehovah-Elyon (Lord Most High) - Psalm 7:17, 47:2, 97:9
12. Jehovah-Rohi (The Lord is my Shepherd) - Psalm 23:1
13. Jehovah-Hoseenu (The Lord our Maker) - Psalm 95:6
14. Jehovah-Eloheenu (The Lord our God) - Psalm 99:5, 8, 9
15. Jehovah-Elohekah (The Lord thy God) - Exodus 20:2, 5, 7
16. Jehovah-Elohay (The Lord my God) - Zechariah 14:5
(Sources: Biblical Mathematics by E.F. Vallowe,
Companion Bible, appendix 4, E.W. Bullinger)
I believe number 4 above is worthy of special attention
in connection with all of the above to verse one of Dylan's
"Changing of the Guards." (Sixteen banners united...)
I believe "the fields where the Good Shepherd grieves"
refers to the "parable of the sower" at Matthew 13:18-32,
plus the Lord's interpretation of the parable at 13:36-44.
Matthew 13:38: "The field is the world..."
-johnhenry
dh
Is there any other evidence, other than these interpretations by others,
that Dylan has had any interest in these types of esoteric understandings
of the Bible? Far too much of this sort of thing is attributed to him. I
think he chose the number 16 because it sounds cool not because it is
related to the names of Jehovah. Dylan is a wordsmith, not a
meaning-monger. A true artist is evocative in that he provides an
objective symbol to which individuals attach their subjective meaning.
Changing Of The Guard (or any other song or work of art) cannot be
"explained", but only interpreted, and that from the limited subjective
view of the interpreter. Dylan is a genius, in part, because he has always
been able to create symbols in which widely diverse people can attach their
own subjective meaning.
Don
johnhenry <van...@gate.net> wrote in article
<vangrod.39...@gate.net>...
> SIXTEEN is called the number of love in the study of symbolic
> Biblical numerics. <snip>
Peter Stone Brown
> groupings?
>
John's theory is fairly on the mark as to the 16 years, 16 albums. The period from
Planet Waves to Street Legal is not Western Swing by any stretch of the imagination.
And of course he leaves out one major work The Basement Tapes, truly the transition
between BOB and JWH.
At the same time the grouping by numbers thing really doesn't work, though of course
Dylan like any great artist went through various periods.
--
"I was just too stubborn to ever be governed
by enforced insanity." --Bob Dylan
Peter Stone Brown
e-mail: pet...@erols.com http://songs.com/psb
Mark Moore
On 28 Apr 1998, dh wrote:
> Dylan is a wordsmith, not a
> meaning-monger. A true artist is evocative in that he provides an
> objective symbol to which individuals attach their subjective meaning.
> Changing Of The Guard (or any other song or work of art) cannot be
> "explained", but only interpreted, and that from the limited subjective
> view of the interpreter. Dylan is a genius, in part, because he has always
> been able to create symbols in which widely diverse people can attach their
> own subjective meaning.
No genius is required to do this. If this is all Dylan has done, he is
just a vastly overrated mediocre writer and thinker who owes his
"greatness" to the elite Interpreters who have used his work for their
own ideas without regard to his. Dylan is a genius because he sees beyond
what the vast majority of people have seen and is able to communicate his
vision in an extraordinary way, both musically and lyrically.
dh
Mark Moore <mmo...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.980428...@godzilla1.acpub.duke.edu>...
> On 28 Apr 1998, dh wrote:
>
> > Dylan is a wordsmith, not a
> > meaning-monger. A true artist is evocative in that he provides an
> > objective symbol to which individuals attach their subjective meaning.
> > Changing Of The Guard (or any other song or work of art) cannot be
> > "explained", but only interpreted, and that from the limited subjective
> > view of the interpreter. Dylan is a genius, in part, because he has
always
> > been able to create symbols in which widely diverse people can attach
their
> > own subjective meaning. DH
>
> No genius is required to do this. If this is all Dylan has done, he is
> just a vastly overrated mediocre writer and thinker who owes his
> "greatness" to the elite Interpreters who have used his work for their
> own ideas without regard to his. MM
I think you have missed the point completely. Dylan's work stands alone,
as he himself has said, and there is no real need to read all sorts of
things back into it. But people tend to read all sorts of things into his
work, just as they seek to explain what Picasso's art "really" means. Dylan
is an original genius, it is his interpreters who are most often mediocre.
DH
Dylan is a genius because he sees beyond
> what the vast majority of people have seen and is able to communicate his
> vision in an extraordinary way, both musically and lyrically. MM
Yes, exactly -- vision, music, lyric -- these are the ways he conveys the
symbols! But do you really think that when Dylan choose the number "16" in
the Changing Of The Guards that he was specifically thinking of the 16
names of Jehovah as one writer suggested? I don't think so. The writer
was only giving his subjective interpretation -- what it meant to him
(which is fine), but he was not "explaining" what Dylan meant. DH
Mark Moore
On 29 Apr 1998, dh wrote:
> Mark Moore <mmo...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote in article
> > On 28 Apr 1998, dh wrote:
> >
> > > Dylan is a wordsmith, not a
> > > meaning-monger. A true artist is evocative in that he provides an
> > > objective symbol to which individuals attach their subjective meaning.
> > > Changing Of The Guard (or any other song or work of art) cannot be
> > > "explained", but only interpreted, and that from the limited subjective
> > > view of the interpreter. Dylan is a genius, in part, because he has
> always
> > > been able to create symbols in which widely diverse people can attach
> > > their own subjective meaning. DH
> >
> > No genius is required to do this. If this is all Dylan has done, he is
> > just a vastly overrated mediocre writer and thinker who owes his
> > "greatness" to the elite Interpreters who have used his work for their
> > own ideas without regard to his. MM
>
> I think you have missed the point completely. Dylan's work stands alone,
> as he himself has said, and there is no real need to read all sorts of
> things back into it. But people tend to read all sorts of things into his
> work, just as they seek to explain what Picasso's art "really" means. Dylan
> is an original genius, it is his interpreters who are most often mediocre.
> DH
This time you are correct.
> Dylan is a genius because he sees beyond
> > what the vast majority of people have seen and is able to communicate his
> > vision in an extraordinary way, both musically and lyrically. MM
>
> Yes, exactly -- vision, music, lyric -- these are the ways he conveys the
> symbols! But do you really think that when Dylan choose the number "16" in
> the Changing Of The Guards that he was specifically thinking of the 16
> names of Jehovah as one writer suggested? I don't think so. The writer
> was only giving his subjective interpretation -- what it meant to him
> (which is fine), but he was not "explaining" what Dylan meant. DH
How can you be so sure?
Tom Sayliss
> > On 28 Apr 1998, dh wrote:
> >
> > > Dylan is a wordsmith, not a
> > > meaning-monger. A true artist is evocative in that he provides an
> > > objective symbol to which individuals attach their subjective meaning.
> > > Changing Of The Guard (or any other song or work of art) cannot be
> > > "explained", but only interpreted, and that from the limited subjective
> > > view of the interpreter. Dylan is a genius, in part, because he has
> always
> > > been able to create symbols in which widely diverse people can attach
> their
> > > own subjective meaning. DH
> >
>
thought provoking genius.[probibly my biggest creative influence]
I really wasn't expecting anyone to explain Dylan,
as much as I was interested in other people's interpretation
of that song.
what's your read on it? ;-}
TS >
PS. " A true artist is evocative in that he provides an objective
symbol to which individuals attach their subjective meaning."
So, if an artist created a work of personal expression that didn't
lend itself to a subjective meaning, would it be false?
just a thought...
R. Bentz Kirby
I thought that Dylan used 16 because that was the number of years he had been
in the music making bidness. Does anyone know if that adds up from 1978 back
to 1962?
dh wrote:
> Mark Moore <mmo...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote in article
> <Pine.SOL.3.91.980428...@godzilla1.acpub.duke.edu>...
> > On 28 Apr 1998, dh wrote:
> >
> > > Dylan is a wordsmith, not a
> > > meaning-monger. A true artist is evocative in that he provides an
> > > objective symbol to which individuals attach their subjective meaning.
> > > Changing Of The Guard (or any other song or work of art) cannot be
> > > "explained", but only interpreted, and that from the limited subjective
> > > view of the interpreter. Dylan is a genius, in part, because he has
> always
> > > been able to create symbols in which widely diverse people can attach
> their
> > > own subjective meaning. DH
> >
> > No genius is required to do this. If this is all Dylan has done, he is
> > just a vastly overrated mediocre writer and thinker who owes his
> > "greatness" to the elite Interpreters who have used his work for their
> > own ideas without regard to his. MM
>
> I think you have missed the point completely. Dylan's work stands alone,
> as he himself has said, and there is no real need to read all sorts of
> things back into it. But people tend to read all sorts of things into his
> work, just as they seek to explain what Picasso's art "really" means. Dylan
> is an original genius, it is his interpreters who are most often mediocre.
> DH
>
> Dylan is a genius because he sees beyond
> > what the vast majority of people have seen and is able to communicate his
>
> > vision in an extraordinary way, both musically and lyrically. MM
>
> Yes, exactly -- vision, music, lyric -- these are the ways he conveys the
> symbols! But do you really think that when Dylan choose the number "16" in
> the Changing Of The Guards that he was specifically thinking of the 16
> names of Jehovah as one writer suggested? I don't think so. The writer
> was only giving his subjective interpretation -- what it meant to him
> (which is fine), but he was not "explaining" what Dylan meant. DH
--
Peace,
dh
> > Yes, exactly -- vision, music, lyric -- these are the ways he conveys
the
> > symbols! But do you really think that when Dylan choose the number
"16" in
> > the Changing Of The Guards that he was specifically thinking of the 16
> > names of Jehovah as one writer suggested? I don't think so. The
writer
> > was only giving his subjective interpretation -- what it meant to him
> > (which is fine), but he was not "explaining" what Dylan meant. DH
>
> How can you be so sure?
>
Why don't I think so?
A. Because some people "interpret" 16 as being something Dylan took from
the names of Jehovah, another who says it relates to the number of years he
was in the record business at the time.
B. Dylan himself had never "explained" what he was talking about, and he
is the only one who can explain -- others can only give their
interpretations, which are often groundless. Personally I think they
related to the number of candles on his cake the year he got his drivers
license...8)
That's how I can be fairly sure.
Don
Mark Moore
On 30 Apr 1998, dh wrote:
> B. Dylan himself had never "explained" what he was talking about, and he
> is the only one who can explain -- others can only give their
> interpretations, which are often groundless.
If he uses words to convey some sense of meaning, the meaning has the
possibility of being understood. There is also something called the bell
curve.
dh
Mark Moore <mmo...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.980430...@godzilla3.acpub.duke.edu>...
Yes, but different people assign different meaning as in the examples I
gave. The bell curve? I only used that in grading student papers -- how
does it apply to the field of literary criticism?
Don
Mark Moore
> >
> > > B. Dylan himself had never "explained" what he was talking about, and
> > > he is the only one who can explain -- others can only give their
> > > interpretations, which are often groundless.
> >
> > If he uses words to convey some sense of meaning, the meaning has the
> > possibility of being understood. There is also something called the bell
> > curve.
>
> Yes, but different people assign different meaning as in the examples I
> gave.
MEANING: 1. that which is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or
indicated.
MISINTERPRET: to interpret, explain, or understand incorrectly.
> The bell curve? I only used that in grading student papers -- how
> does it apply to the field of literary criticism?
Perchance hee for whom this Bell tolls, may be so ill, as that he knowes
not it tolls for him; And perchance I may thinke my selfe so much better
than I am, as that they who are about mee, and see my state, may have
caused it to toll for mee, and I know not that.
--John Donne, Devotions upon Emergent Occasions, XVII. Meditation
johnhenry
"dh" <thea...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>The bell curve? I only used that in grading student papers -- how
>does it apply to the field of literary criticism?
As I've heard it, the famous bell curve is derived from a compound principle
known in earlier centuries as the Quasimodo Quotient, (derived from an
unpublished paper by Pascal on the relative qualities of impact, or weight
of potential influence upon the inner senses, contained within isolated units
of literature.) It was most often applied in a negative sense, directed
towards measurement of the capacity of lesser literary works to create
retroactive vacuum within the mind of the reader, or other less desireable
possibilities. It gained little popularity outside 17th, 18th & 19th century
France, but survives to this day as a vital aspect of nondescript European
politics. It is also employed by economists in forecasting the financial
effects of various forms statistical demographic propaganda. -johnhenry
dh
Yes, yes, Johnhenry, it comes back now. Didn't the renown contemporary
Polish author Stanislaw Lem cover this in "A Perfect Vacuum", his landmark
book on literary criticism?
Don
johnhenry <van...@gate.net> wrote in article
<vangrod.39...@gate.net>...
dh
Hi Mark
Your response to a friendly discussion about whether or not people can
"explain" or only "interpret" the literary work of another has turned,
well, er, bizarre. Should I be taking your quote from Donne as a veiled
threat against me personally since it has nothing to do with the Bell
Curve, Literary Criticism or Dylan? Should I be calling people at Duke to
find out if you're dangerous or not? Let me know.
Don
Mark Moore <mmo...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.980430...@godzilla3.acpub.duke.edu>...
> On 1 May 1998, dh wrote:
> > Mark Moore <mmo...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote in article
> > > On 30 Apr 1998, dh wrote:
>
> MEANING: 1. that which is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or
> indicated.
>
> MISINTERPRET: to interpret, explain, or understand incorrectly.
>
>
> > The bell curve? I only used that in grading student papers -- how
> > does it apply to the field of literary criticism?
>
Mark Moore
On 1 May 1998, dh wrote:
> Hi Mark
>
> Your response to a friendly discussion about whether or not people can
> "explain" or only "interpret" the literary work of another has turned,
> well, er, bizarre. Should I be taking your quote from Donne as a veiled
> threat against me personally since it has nothing to do with the Bell
> Curve, Literary Criticism or Dylan? Should I be calling people at Duke to
> find out if you're dangerous or not? Let me know.
>
> Don
Hi, Don. You have a real knack for misinterpretation, don't you? I find
your paranoid reaction to be well, er, bizarre. Are you on medication? I
wouldn't want my words to set you off into a bout of psychosis, as it
seems you have a very difficult time interpreting them correctly. Let me
know, ok? Now, if you applied the bell curve to yourself in terms of
ability to comprehend things such as abstract ideas and imaginative
literary expression, where do you suppose you would fall? Can you think
of any reason why you have difficulty understanding Dylan's songs other
than your assumption (which, by the way, is incorrect) that they cannot be
explained?
David Faciane
In article <01bd7282$bd519fc0$643561cb@starbase1>,
dh <thea...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>Is there any other evidence, other than these interpretations by others,
>that Dylan has had any interest in these types of esoteric understandings
>of the Bible? Far too much of this sort of thing is attributed to him. I
>think he chose the number 16 because it sounds cool not because it is
>meaning-monger. A true artist is evocative in that he provides an
>objective symbol to which individuals attach their subjective meaning.
>Changing Of The Guard (or any other song or work of art) cannot be
>"explained", but only interpreted, and that from the limited subjective
>view of the interpreter. Dylan is a genius, in part, because he has always
>been able to create symbols in which widely diverse people can attach their
>own subjective meaning.
Amen! (no pun intended).
--
David Faciane |web: http://www.nws.fsu.edu/
NOAA National Weather Service |Real-Time Worldwide Marine Weather Reports
Tallahassee, FL | http://www.nws.fsu.edu/buoy
johnhenry
As the author of the post on the "Jehovah Titles" I feel compelled to insert
a statement here. First, I did not originate the subject line: "Changing of
the Guards Explained." I would never choose the word "explained" to head
any offering I might make concerning a Dylan song. Second, to the assertion
that my post represents a "subjective" interpretation or reaction to the song,
I must point out that two of several paragraphs I wrote open with the words,
"I believe, etc." I might have said, "It seems to me" & said the same thing.
Pointing out the obvious has no impact I can see on the content of the post.
Next, to the idea that an individual's personal, or subjective reaction to any
Dylan song cannot be an accurate or genuine match with the author's intent,
state of mind, meaning, or frame of reference in the writing, I say: bullshit.
Anything is possible, including direct apprehension of a Dylan song as it is.
Under the right circumstances, many unlikely things become extremely
probable. What is impossible is proving the same to anyone else without
the clear second witness of Dylan himself. (Why would anyone want to try?)
However, many who undertake to educate themselves within interests in
common with Dylan often discover evidence of conscious design within his
work that communicates (with clarity) on impersonal or objective levels.
Next, to the idea that the Bible is an unlikely source of Dylan's imagery, etc.
This is almost like saying Dylan does not play the guitar. It is only possible
to believe the Bible is not present in Dylan's work when the Bible is mostly
unknown to the listener. There seems to be three main foundations for all
Dylan's work: his personal experience, traditional folk music & poetry, &
the Bible, (before & after 1978.) A person unfamiliar with the folk tradition
will not hear the folk references & likewise with the Biblical references.
(& obviously, "his personal experience" allows all kinds of room in there.)
Next, to the idea that Dylan has never made statements to support the
expectation of Biblical reference & inspiration in his work. Again: bullshit.
His interviews over the years make repeated mention of this, sometimes
very directly, sometimes in scriptural paraphrase (that again will be lost
on the Biblically illiterate.) Anyone can read these interviews all over the
web nowadays. An especially good selection appears on the Ragged
Clown website. There really is no reason for argument on this question.
It is common knowledge Dylan has read the Bible since youth, & studied
seriously with ministers & rabbis. He'd need to be a very poor student to
have studied so many years & not be aware of the "Jehovah Titles" that
I posted, (as well as aware of the failure of traditional translation there.)
By all evidence, Dylan is an exceptional student of anything he explores.
His work displays a knowledge of scripture that exceeds many ministers.
Last, I want to say I think it might grieve Dylan when his work becomes
the root of dispute about the Word of God. On "Time Out of Mind" he has
employed reference to folk music (including spirituals) almost exclusively.
Biblical reference in the record seems to be minimal, (but then again the
first song quotes the Song of Solomon, which is a story of lovers parted...)
So you never know how listening might be enhanced by awareness of
Biblical references. I post them for others to take or leave, nothing more.
-johnhenry
johnhenry
"dh" <thea...@xtra.co.nz> writes:
>Yes, yes, Johnhenry, it comes back now. Didn't the renown contemporary
>Polish author Stanislaw Lem cover this in "A Perfect Vacuum", his landmark
>book on literary criticism? >Don
I'm not familiar with Lem's work, but am not surprized to hear of rediscovery
of vacuum variant mathematic principles in the field of literary criticism.
(It sometimes appears these tools were designed for the twentieth century.)
Esoteric French mathematics as applied to literary measurement has been
an interest of mine since I was given my first abacus as a toddler - it is
gratifying to know the work accomplished in this area by so many devoted
scholars is not confined permanently to obscurity. Indeed, in an age when
the calculator is as common as the toothbrush, these ideas find their rightful
time. Did Stanislaw Lem perform any experiments on Dylan works by chance?
>johnhenry <van...@gate.net> wrote:
>> "dh" <thea...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >The bell curve? I only used that in grading student papers -- how
>> >does it apply to the field of literary criticism?
>>
dh
Hey Mike Moore
I don't know Slick, but this is a quote from some jive guy on RMD -- "
Slamming a hammer is a violent act. Easy to be misinterpreted and usually
is." I think you have misinterpreted what I have said about the difference
between an explanation and an interpretation. How to you think the hammer
quote applies in our exchange?
I think it's pretty clear that what I said from the beginning is accurate
-- only Bob Dylan can "explain" what Bob Dylan meant in his songs. Others
can only "interpret" what they think he meant. Why do you have difficulty
understanding that, Slick?
>I find your paranoid reaction to be well, er, bizarre.
One of my old professors used to say, "Just because you're not paranoid
doesn't mean someone's not after you". That could apply to me in this
case, right Slick? After all, I just made an observation, you're the one
who's quoting John Donne in such a bizarre context.
> if you applied the bell curve to yourself in terms of ability to
comprehend things such as >abstract ideas and imaginative literary
expression, where do you suppose you would fall? >Can you think of any
reason why you have difficulty understanding Dylan's songs other
>than your assumption (which, by the way, is incorrect) that they cannot be
>explained?
Your opinion, Slick. My GPA in both Literature and Psychology was high
enough for me to know I can't read another man's mind, or to be so filled
with ego to imagine I could.
Don
Mark Moore <mmo...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.980502...@godzilla1.acpub.duke.edu>...
dh
johnhenry <van...@gate.net> wrote in article
<vangrod.39...@gate.net>...
> As the author of the post on the "Jehovah Titles" I feel compelled to
insert
> a statement here. First, I did not originate the subject line: "Changing
of
> the Guards Explained." I would never choose the word "explained" to head
> any offering I might make concerning a Dylan song. Second, to the
assertion
> that my post represents a "subjective" interpretation or reaction to the
song,
> I must point out that two of several paragraphs I wrote open with the
words,
> "I believe, etc." I might have said, "It seems to me" & said the same
thing.
> Pointing out the obvious has no impact I can see on the content of the
post.
> I post them for others to take or leave, nothing more.
Fair enough.
>
> Next, to the idea that an individual's personal, or subjective reaction
to any
> Dylan song cannot be an accurate or genuine match with the author's
intent,
> state of mind, meaning, or frame of reference in the writing, I say:
bullshit.
> Anything is possible, including direct apprehension of a Dylan song as it
is.
Of course anything is possible, but people tend to make their own
connections based on their own experience. We will never know for sure
unless Dylan himself wants to give us explanations of what he meant.
Everything else is speculation, some grounded, some groundless.
> Next, to the idea that the Bible is an unlikely source of Dylan's
imagery, etc.
My previous comment was that taking the number 16 from Changing Of The
Guards and relating it the 16 names of Jehovah was flimsy does not mean I
personally think the Bible is not present in Dylan's work. Obviously there
are biblical or theological references in the majority of the things he has
sung or written from "Gospel Plow" to "Love Sick". But just because he has
made such references does not mean that everyone who has a theological view
must plug their view into Dylan's lyrics as if that is what Dylan "really
meant".
Don
Mark Moore
On 3 May 1998, dh wrote:
> I don't know Slick, but this is a quote from some jive guy on RMD -- "
> Slamming a hammer is a violent act. Easy to be misinterpreted and usually
> is." I think you have misinterpreted what I have said about the difference
> between an explanation and an interpretation. How to you think the hammer
> quote applies in our exchange?
I don't know, Dick. The author is dead. I now can only interpret, er, I
mean misinterpret, like you. Explanation has become impossible.
> I think it's pretty clear that what I said from the beginning is accurate
> -- only Bob Dylan can "explain" what Bob Dylan meant in his songs. Others
> can only "interpret" what they think he meant. Why do you have difficulty
> understanding that, Slick?
I understand you, Dick. I just vehemently disagree with you. Some people
have the ability to comprehend what Dylan means in his songs without
having him explain them to them like schoolchildren. Even if he did
attempt to explain them, do you really suppose you would be able to
understand his explanations any better than his original lyrics, Dick?
> >I find your paranoid reaction to be well, er, bizarre.
>
> One of my old professors used to say, "Just because you're not paranoid
> doesn't mean someone's not after you". That could apply to me in this
> case, right Slick? After all, I just made an observation, you're the one
> who's quoting John Donne in such a bizarre context.
If you took the time to think about it, maybe, MAYBE, you might
understand what I meant by the quote in that context. However, it does
take a certain amount of imagination to make the connections, Dick.
>
> > if you applied the bell curve to yourself in terms of ability to
> comprehend things such as >abstract ideas and imaginative literary
> expression, where do you suppose you would fall? >Can you think of any
> reason why you have difficulty understanding Dylan's songs other
> >than your assumption (which, by the way, is incorrect) that they cannot be
> >explained?
>
> Your opinion, Slick. My GPA in both Literature and Psychology was high
> enough for me to know I can't read another man's mind, or to be so filled
> with ego to imagine I could.
GPA has little correlation with actual intelligence, Dick.
You hand in your ticket
And you go watch the geek
Who immediately walks up to you
When he hears you speak
And says, "How does it feel
To be such a freak?"
And you say, "Impossible"
As he hands you a bone
johnhenry
"dh" <thea...@xtra.co.nz> writes:
>johnhenry <van...@gate.net> wrote:
>>Anything is possible, including direct apprehension of a Dylan song as it is.
>Of course anything is possible, but people tend to make their own
>connections based on their own experience. We will never know for sure
>unless Dylan himself wants to give us explanations of what he meant.
>Everything else is speculation, some grounded, some groundless.
How are the "grounds" determined? By more speculation? & who is "we?"
Dylan is not from another planet. Simply by being human his experience will
converge with experience of listeners, & his expression meets recognition.
I once painted an abstract portrait of a woman in a picassoesque manner
& placed a halo around her head. When the picture was seen in public, some
viewers thought I was mocking the Virgin Mary (which had never entered my
mind.) Others, in their own words, expressed recognition true to my intentions.
Another time I painted three silly clowns, a father clown & two sons. Someone
saw it & declared it was a portrayal of Freud's "Superego, Ego, & Id" (which
had never entered my mind.) Others saw three silly clowns & a family tradition.
Explaining the work would have served no useful purpose (& many times
artists learn about their own work after the fact - so what's the point?)
I learned it is better to let people see what they see & also learned it is
possible to communicate with art. Your position underestimates the
possibilities of art. The law of averages says someone will "get it."
-johnhenry
johnhenry
"dh" <thea...@xtra.co.nz> writes:
>johnhenry <van...@gate.net> wrote:
>>Next, to the idea the Bible is an unlikely source of Dylan's imagery, etc.
>My previous comment was that taking the number 16 from Changing Of The
>Guards and relating it the 16 names of Jehovah was flimsy does not mean I
>personally think the Bible is not present in Dylan's work. Obviously there
>are biblical or theological references in the majority of the things he has
>sung or written from "Gospel Plow" to "Love Sick". But just because he has
>made such references does not mean that everyone who has a theological view
>must plug their view into Dylan's lyrics as if that is what Dylan "really
>meant".
Now, you have read more into mention of the Jehovah Titles than I have read
into Changing of the Guards. What "theological view" has been expressed?
We're talking about a song that alludes in theme, paraphrase, or quotes of
phrases, to Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Joel, John & Revelation,
(there may be more that escape me now.) "Eden is burning" is from Joel 2:3,
the "wheels of fire" is from Daniel 7:9. "Good Shepherd" is from John 10:11.
Given the number of Biblical thematic references, it is reasonable to expect
& find an allusion to the Sacred Name in the introductory verse. Given this
number of Biblical thematic references throughout, it is improbable that the
16 banners refer to anything else but the titles or attributes of the Creator,
(as expressed in the written Word, in which the author was then immersed.)
Defining whatever "theological view" is expressed by the song is another
matter. One might be wise to consult the prophets referenced for answers.
-johnhenry
dh
johnhenry <van...@gate.net> wrote in article
<vangrod.39...@gate.net>...
> "dh" <thea...@xtra.co.nz> writes:
>
> >johnhenry <van...@gate.net> wrote:
>
> >>Anything is possible, including direct apprehension of a Dylan song as
it is.
>
> >Of course anything is possible, but people tend to make their own
> >connections based on their own experience. We will never know for sure
> >unless Dylan himself wants to give us explanations of what he meant.
> >Everything else is speculation, some grounded, some groundless.
>
> How are the "grounds" determined? By more speculation? & who is "we?"
> Dylan is not from another planet. Simply by being human his experience
will
> converge with experience of listeners, & his expression meets
recognition.
"Grounds" would be Dylan mentioning "Sara", for example, with us knowing he
might have been singing about his (former) wife of the same name. We could
not be 100% on this, but we would have grounds to believe that.
"We" is anyone who appreciates Dylan and who wonders about his lyrics.
Yes, we can share human experience. I once had a waitress ask me to draw
her picture in a cafe (ala Highlands), but that sort of connection is a far
cry from someone saying that an "explanation" of the number 16 in Changing
of the Guards is related to the 16 names of Jehovah.
YOUR following examples demonstrate exactly the point I have been making,
and I'm a little surprised there is a question about the difference between
an explanation (which only Dylan can give) and an interpretation which
individuals are free to make.
Don
Maureen & Stephen Scobie
>
> I once painted an abstract portrait of a woman in a picassoesque manner
> & placed a halo around her head. When the picture was seen in public, some
> viewers thought I was mocking the Virgin Mary (which had never entered my
> mind.) Others, in their own words, expressed recognition true to my
>intentions.
But, based on your description here of the painting, the interpretation of
it as referring to the Virgin Mary seems perfectly reasonable and valid.
Now, if we had more of a context (fuller description of the painting; other
paintings by the same artist in the same show), this judgment might change.
But your simple statement that a reference to Mary "had never entered
[your] mind" is not, in and of itself, sufficient ground to dismiss the
interpretation.
(Of course, it is possible that what you were taking exception to was not
the simple reference to Mary, but the interpretation of the reference as
"mocking." In that case, we enter into an interesting discussion of what
are now taken to be the cultural implications of painting "in a
picassoesque manner.")
Stephen
Mark Moore
On 3 May 1998, dh wrote:
> and I'm a little surprised there is a question about the difference between
> an explanation (which only Dylan can give) and an interpretation which
> individuals are free to make.
The point you are making is ludicrous, Dick, and you obviously have
failed to understand that the real subject of this discussion is whether
or not Dylan's songs convey any definite meaning. You have shown very
hazy thinking, and, Dick, you obviously have been sucked into the
postmodernist morass.
>
> >
> > I once painted an abstract portrait of a woman in a picassoesque manner
> > & placed a halo around her head. When the picture was seen in public,
> some
> > viewers thought I was mocking the Virgin Mary (which had never entered my
>
> > mind.) Others, in their own words, expressed recognition true to my
> intentions.
> >
> > Another time I painted three silly clowns, a father clown & two sons.
> Someone
> > saw it & declared it was a portrayal of Freud's "Superego, Ego, & Id"
> (which
Maureen & Stephen Scobie
In article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.98050...@godzilla3.acpub.duke.edu>, Mark
Moore <mmo...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>
> The point you are making is ludicrous, Dick, and you obviously have
> failed to understand that the real subject of this discussion is whether
> or not Dylan's songs convey any definite meaning. You have shown very
> hazy thinking, and, Dick, you obviously have been sucked into the
> postmodernist morass.
The point you are trying to make, Mark, is, as usual, partial and "hazy."
The "real subject" is (at least) twofold: (1) whether there is any such
thing as "definite meaning," if that phrase is to suggest that any text can
have only one, singular, exclusive meaning; and (2) whether such a
"definite meaning" (even if it existed) could be determined in terms of
authorial intention.
My contention, of course (which is "postmodernist," and proud of it) is
that (1) no text can be confined to a singular, exclusive meaning; and (2)
that the meaning of a text *always* exceeds the intention of the author.
This does *not* imply (as you tiresomely insist on insisting) that the
intentions of the author are irrelevant. It simply contends that, while
the intentions of the author (insofar as they are knowable - always a
problem) are always of interest, they are never absolute, never definitive,
never unproblematic.
Stephen
Maureen & Stephen Scobie
> SIXTEEN is called the number of love in the study of symbolic
> Biblical numerics.
[remainder snipped]
For what it's worth -- and since I earlier today posted a response which
might be seen as against john henry -- I have to say that I find his
exposition here quite convincing.
I've always noticed the "sixteen years/sixteen banners" as being possibly a
reference to the fact that it was sixteen years (and/or sixteen albums)
since Dylan's first recording, and it always struck me as a possible and
suggestive reading of that opening --
-- but it always bothered me that then it went nowhere: that is, that the
interpretation of the first two lines in this context did very little, if
anything, for the interpretation of the rest of the song.
To return to an earlier point, I am *not* arguing here in terms of
authorial intention. It doesn't matter a whole lot to me whether or not
Dylan intended "sixteen years" as an autobiographical/autodiscographical
reference. What matters is what makes sense of the text as we have it.
And in this context, I think the Biblical reference is more productive of
meaning than the autobiographical one. So the autobiography is, at best, a
pleasant accidental bonus, which may be allowed to play a minor part in our
response to the song, but not a definitive one.
Stephen
R. Bentz Kirby
I just thought he was summing up the past and foreshadowing something different that
what had happened in the 16 years/albums/whatever before. I never saw it needing to
mean or represent anything else except, this is past, I have had enough, I am
changing, and if you don't, your creativity will die. Get ready for elimination.
So, Stephen's post draws me to the question, does it need to mean anything. After
all, I always thought one of the great things about Dylan was it could mean what you
saw in it, and could change as you did. I am getting lost in my idea now. This is
not a flame, but a question whether we put too much into interpreting. Does Dylan
like TS Eliot is another way to put it I guess, but that is for the literature list
I am on I guess. :-)
Maureen & Stephen Scobie wrote:
> In article <vangrod.39...@gate.net>, van...@gate.net (johnhenry) wrote:
>
> > SIXTEEN is called the number of love in the study of symbolic
> > Biblical numerics.
>
> [remainder snipped]
>
> For what it's worth -- and since I earlier today posted a response which
> might be seen as against john henry -- I have to say that I find his
> exposition here quite convincing.
>
> I've always noticed the "sixteen years/sixteen banners" as being possibly a
> reference to the fact that it was sixteen years (and/or sixteen albums)
> since Dylan's first recording, and it always struck me as a possible and
> suggestive reading of that opening --
>
> -- but it always bothered me that then it went nowhere: that is, that the
> interpretation of the first two lines in this context did very little, if
> anything, for the interpretation of the rest of the song.<snip>
> Stephen
dh
Hey Slick
Mark Moore <mmo...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.98050...@godzilla3.acpub.duke.edu>...
> On 3 May 1998, dh wrote:
> > johnhenry <van...@gate.net> wrote in article
> > YOUR following examples demonstrate exactly the point I have been
making,
> > and I'm a little surprised there is a question about the difference
between
> > an explanation (which only Dylan can give) and an interpretation which
> > individuals are free to make.
>
> The point you are making is ludicrous, Dick, and you obviously have
> failed to understand that the real subject of this discussion is whether
> or not Dylan's songs convey any definite meaning. You have shown very
> hazy thinking, and, Dick, you obviously have been sucked into the
> postmodernist morass.
Check the NOT Explained thread from the beginning you will discover I
started it in reaction to an interpretation which claimed to "explain" the
song. So, you are wrong when you suggest I failed to understand "the real
subject." I have pointed out to you on one (or more) occasions that YOU
seem to have missed that point, but it appears you were too drugged on self
to notice.
Obviously Dylan's songs have meaning (both objective and subjective), but
the meaning different people give them (especially the weird religious
ones) should not be taken as the meaning Dylan understood as he wrote them,
or the meaning others may attach to them. You cannot force your
hermeneutic on others.
To speak as you have regarding the postmodern element of Dylan's writing
is, IMO, an outright admission that you have decided that Dylan's work only
fits some schema you personally have constructed or approve of, and no
others count. I hope that's not true, for that would be the mark of a
small-minded and arrogant person.
Don
dh
Hello JH
johnhenry <van...@gate.net> wrote in article
<vangrod.39...@gate.net>...
> "dh" <thea...@xtra.co.nz> writes:
> As Graham Chapman was often known to announce: "This is getting silly!"
Let's hear for Chapman. Right on.
> I will return to quiet studies now. Whatever
> "last word" you feel is yet necessary is all yours to sound. -johnhenry
Thank your for allowing me the "last word". That is very generous of you.
My "last word" is this: I find it troubling that some people disregard the
path of literary criticism which is filled with opinions, and instead do
exegetical work on a Dylan lyric as if the lyric were a scripture passage,
and try to pass it off as if it were some deeper truth rather than what it
really is -- another opinion laced with theological bias.
Don
don wiley
Butting into this erudite thread: I come down on the side of BOTH!!
Let the exegesis and lit criticism roll on!
>
don wiley
johnhenry
ssc...@uvic.ca (Maureen & Stephen Scobie) writes:
van...@gate.net (johnhenry) wrote:
>> I once painted an abstract portrait of a woman in a picassoesque manner
>> & placed a halo around her head. When the picture was seen in public, some
>> viewers thought I was mocking the Virgin Mary (which had never entered my
>> mind.) Others, in their own words, expressed recognition true to my
>>intentions.
>But, based on your description here of the painting, the interpretation of
>it as referring to the Virgin Mary seems perfectly reasonable and valid.
Yes, it was surprizing, but in hindsight almost predictable. There was no
possibility of reversing the offense with any explanation, so I stood silent.
>Now, if we had more of a context (fuller description of the painting; other
>paintings by the same artist in the same show), this judgment might change.
I hesitate to strain patience discussing my own work. This was the best
example of an understandable misunderstanding that came to mind. The
image was burned, carved & stained on wood, (giving an antique feel) &
went beyond what people accept as decorative abstraction, into distortion,
yet conveyed a sense of the "giaconda smile" - the puzzle was to place
renaissance calm into the modernist form associated with rebellion,
antagonism, "twentieth century alienation" & all that. (It also sold.)
>But your simple statement that a reference to Mary "had never entered
>[your] mind" is not, in and of itself, sufficient ground to dismiss the
>interpretation.
Yeah. I was not dismissing the interpretation, just saying it was not my
intention, to contrast with the fact that some others percieved my intent
more clearly than I'd imagined likely. (To some extent, I thought offense
taken by the others was hasty & unfair, since any intentional mockery of
the Virgin would have included the Christ child in her arms.) Specifically,
I learned I couldn't paint halos on people without suggesting the Roman
Church, so I tried other ways of doing it that eliminated that association.
My point is sometimes an artist is trying to say or make something felt.
I cannot separate many years of listening to Dylan from that effort, so it
may be Dylan's spiritual writing was an influence on even wanting to try
such things. I think he has lifted gospel out of the church onto the street.
>(Of course, it is possible that what you were taking exception to was not
>the simple reference to Mary, but the interpretation of the reference as
>"mocking." In that case, we enter into an interesting discussion of what
>are now taken to be the cultural implications of painting "in a
>picassoesque manner.")
"Pseudomodernist" manner might better say it, & I was not really mocking
any church so much as looking or a job decorating a future one (maybe).
I meant no offense, (like Lennon saying he was as popular as Jesus.)
Anyway, my point was that an artist hears all kinds of things, & some of
them connect directly to a specific intention (which is not always present.)
In the case of Dylan, it wouldn't matter what anyone chooses to see or hear
in any given work, if there was no intention - meaning there'd be no reason,
(& maybe no excuse) for directing anyone towards any particular interpretive
conclusion. But a major portion of his work has a specific theme of warning.
Maybe half the songs on Greatest Hits III evoke Biblical prophetic warnings.
It's only natural for a person who recognizes them to share them if possible.
We're talking about a man who lately says he "don't know what all right even
means" & sang Hard Rain for the Pope. When he stacks Jokerman, Senor,
or God Knows into a single set, some folks come away feeling they've been
hit with more than "artwork." I believe he's written the Word into those songs
for many reasons, & one of them is to meet those he knows will go digging
for the "meaning" of the song, to let them discover it aint really the singer.
He can & does speak volumes more in this way than by any "explanation."
Like, if someone wants to make imagery out of a late Mondrian, that's cool.
But no one with any sense quotes the Bible as much as Dylan does just to
put out an interesting record. There is purpose as well as method present.
Everyone's free to ignore the intention, but the question is for how long?
I've rambled, but speaking of art, Professor, have you seen: bowieart.com?
David Bowie & friends have published a magazine that is advertized there.
Sincerely, I think you might be a natural contributor (assuming versatility?)
You might begin with an analysis of something of mine? Make me a star?
-johnhenry
dh
Hello John Henry
johnhenry <van...@gate.net> wrote in article
<vangrod.39...@gate.net>...
> "dh" <thea...@xtra.co.nz> writes:
>
> >johnhenry <van...@gate.net> wrote:
> >>Next, to the idea the Bible is an unlikely source of Dylan's imagery,
etc.
>
> >My previous comment was that taking the number 16 from Changing Of The
> >Guards and relating it the 16 names of Jehovah was flimsy does not mean
I
> >personally think the Bible is not present in Dylan's work. Obviously
there
> >are biblical or theological references in the majority of the things he
has
> >sung or written from "Gospel Plow" to "Love Sick". But just because he
has
> >made such references does not mean that everyone who has a theological
view
> >must plug their view into Dylan's lyrics as if that is what Dylan
"really
> >meant".
>
> Now, you have read more into mention of the Jehovah Titles than I have
read
> into Changing of the Guards. What "theological view" has been expressed?
Your view is one of many. Recently we have seen another person give a
"tarot reading" of COTG and that stuff (which is in a larger sense another
"theological view") has just as much validity as your stuff. Both only
offer speculation about what Dylan "really meant"...
> We're talking about a song that alludes in theme, paraphrase, or quotes
of
> phrases, to Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Joel, John &
Revelation,
> (there may be more that escape me now.) "Eden is burning" is from Joel
2:3,
> the "wheels of fire" is from Daniel 7:9. "Good Shepherd" is from John
10:11.
More true in that song perhaps, and especially true to you since that stuff
pops out for you because of your theological bias. But it does not follow
that just because he talks about love in songs that it's out of Song of
Solomon, that when he speaks about social injustice that it comes from
Isaiah, that when he tells us about his 115th Dream that it comes from
Daniel etc, etc. You are "reading back" into the Dylan text what you want
to see, making some rather doubtful connections as you go. Are there many
actual biblical allusions in Dylan's work? Of course, everyone know that.
But someone out there has the "theological view" that the numbers in
RDW#12&35 refer to (and I quote):
_That's pretty obvious: 12 = 5 + 7 and 35 = 5 x 7
Five is the number of Jesus and seven is the number of the Allmighty_
I can only hope they were joking! So, the problem doesn't just relate to
COTG.
> Given the number of Biblical thematic references, it is reasonable to
expect
> & find an allusion to the Sacred Name in the introductory verse.
That's your view and you're welcome to it. But people with hammers only
look for nails and ignore tape, screws, staples, rivets, etc etc. Some have
mentioned 16 relates to the number of albums he had produced up to that
time, and this speculation carries the same weight as your view. It's all
very interesting.
> Defining whatever "theological view" is expressed by the song is another
> matter. One might be wise to consult the prophets referenced for answers.
Or better yet, Dylan, if he was taking questions. IMO, Dylan has been
pretty upfront in letting us know he has been influenced by Civil Religion,
American Fundamentalism, Judaism, the Occult, Hedonism, and the Cult of
American Culture. The prophets you mention are not going to be able to give
us the full answer.
Don
johnhenry
ssc...@uvic.ca (Maureen & Stephen Scobie) writes:
van...@gate.net (johnhenry) wrote:
>> SIXTEEN is called the number of love in the study of symbolic
>> Biblical numerics. >[remainder snipped]
>For what it's worth -- and since I earlier today posted a response which
>might be seen as against john henry -- I have to say that I find his
>exposition here quite convincing.
I did not perceive your earlier post as contrary, but merely inquisitive.
(Unless I've missed one, in which case nonperception is especially valid?)
>I've always noticed the "sixteen years/sixteen banners" as being possibly a
>reference to the fact that it was sixteen years (and/or sixteen albums)
>since Dylan's first recording, and it always struck me as a possible and
>suggestive reading of that opening --
>-- but it always bothered me that then it went nowhere: that is, that the
>interpretation of the first two lines in this context did very little, if
>anything, for the interpretation of the rest of the song.
>To return to an earlier point, I am *not* arguing here in terms of
>authorial intention. It doesn't matter a whole lot to me whether or not
>Dylan intended "sixteen years" as an autobiographical/autodiscographical
>reference. What matters is what makes sense of the text as we have it.
>And in this context, I think the Biblical reference is more productive of
>meaning than the autobiographical one. So the autobiography is, at best, a
>pleasant accidental bonus, which may be allowed to play a minor part in our
>response to the song, but not a definitive one. >Stephen
Couldn't decide what to cut :-) I hope we all agree Changing of the Guards
is worth the space. Just want to add I think "sixteen years" may well be an
autobiographical mention, as if to say, "Sixteen years & here's my story now."
I also want to add I think the waitress scene in Highlands is an expression
of the artist's view on authorial intention, among other things of course.
I will also add that approaching all the Biblical texts involved as a story,
rather than as any familiar religious doctrine, is the productive way to
continue from here. Imagery & theme connected from book to book are
better noticed this way. Like a Dylan song, or vice versa, the texts do not
always announce changes of speaker or subject, but simply change.
When the text is read thoroughly enough to sense structure & observe
returns of themes within the larger scheme, the Book may come alive.
-johnhenry
dh
Mark Moore <mmo...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.98050...@godzilla2.acpub.duke.edu>...
> On 3 May 1998, dh wrote:
>
>
> > I think it's pretty clear that what I said from the beginning is
accurate
> > -- only Bob Dylan can "explain" what Bob Dylan meant in his songs.
Others
> > can only "interpret" what they think he meant. Why do you have
difficulty
> > understanding that, Slick?
>
> <snip> I just vehemently disagree...<snip>
Obviously. And there is no point in trying to continue a discussion with a
person so dogmatically entrenched. So I leave this discussion, not out of
matters of right and wrong, but out of boredom...
Don
Mark Moore
On Sun, 3 May 1998, Maureen & Stephen Scobie wrote:
> My contention, of course (which is "postmodernist," and proud of it) is
> that (1) no text can be confined to a singular, exclusive meaning; and (2)
> that the meaning of a text *always* exceeds the intention of the author.
Who argues for a singular, exclusive meaning? Nobody.
The original intention of the author is less important than the
imaginative realization of the author. The created work carries his
vision (however imperfectly), and the meaning is found within. Even if
the reader/listener creates some other private meaning in his own mind,
the author's vision remains intact waiting discovery.
> This does *not* imply (as you tiresomely insist on insisting) that the
> intentions of the author are irrelevant. It simply contends that, while
> the intentions of the author (insofar as they are knowable - always a
> problem) are always of interest, they are never absolute, never definitive,
> never unproblematic.
Once again you misrepresent my position. I haven't insisted that you
or any postmodernist/poststructuralist critic believes anything, and I
believe that authorial intent is just a beginning, not an end.
dh
Mark Moore <mmo...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.98050...@godzilla4.acpub.duke.edu>...
> On Sun, 3 May 1998, Maureen & Stephen Scobie wrote:
>
> The original intention of the author is less important than the
> imaginative realization of the author. The created work carries his
> vision (however imperfectly), and the meaning is found within.
Gnosticism never goes away, does it?
Don
(Ooops! Sorry, forgot to stay away from this silliness).
Chiarot
> no text can be confined to a singular, exclusive meaning; and
does the claim include your "text" above? If yes, the claim is self-defeating.
If no, it is also self-defeating.
Maureen & Stephen Scobie
In article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.98050...@godzilla4.acpub.duke.edu>, Mark
Moore <mmo...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>
> Who argues for a singular, exclusive meaning? Nobody.
I'm glad to hear this. My impression had always been that you did. If
this is not the case, then welcome, postmodernist Mark!
>
> The original intention of the author is less important than the
> imaginative realization of the author.
Uh, I suspect I need more clarification of what you mean by this distinction.
> The created work carries his
> vision (however imperfectly), and the meaning is found within. Even if
> the reader/listener creates some other private meaning in his own mind,
> the author's vision remains intact waiting discovery.
Sounds to me as if we are back at the "singular, exclusive meaning" which
you just disavowed.
> I believe that authorial intent is just a beginning, not an end.
I agree. But I really do not see how this statement is consistent with all
your previous posts. Either I have radically misunderstood you, or else
you have totally changed your position.
Stephen
tierna...@ucg.ie
In article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.98050...@godzilla4.acpub.duke.edu>#1/1,
Mark Moore <mmo...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> Who argues for a singular, exclusive meaning? Nobody.
Well, um, you do, don't you Mark? Particularly when it comes to
"explaining" the bible.
> and I
> believe that authorial intent is just a beginning, not an end.
>
Even when it's the bible that's on the table?
Tiernan
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
nate
>>mmo...@acpub.duke.edu says...
>>>Stephen Scobie wrote:
ah, summer must be on its way!
;-)
- nate
(...or winter, for you .au, .nz types)
johnhenry
"dh" <thea...@xtra.co.nz> writes:
>> >johnhenry <van...@gate.net> wrote:
>> We're talking about a song that alludes in theme, paraphrase, or quotes
>> of phrases, to Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Joel, John &
>> Revelation, (there may be more that escape me now.) "Eden is burning" is
>> from Joel>2:3, the "wheels of fire" is from Daniel 7:9. "Good Shepherd" is
>> from John 10:11.
>More true in that song perhaps, and especially true to you since that stuff
>pops out for you because of your theological bias.
"That stuff pops out for me" because of scriptural knowledge. I've studied
texts the author is quoting & paraphrasing for a number of years. It is
difficult (& really unnecessary) to take seriously the complaints of people
who have not made similar study. The stuff also pops out because Dylan
has written Biblically based works over several decades, which tends
to alert an interested listener to observe them for understanding.
>But it does not follow
>that just because he talks about love in songs that it's out of Song of
>Solomon, that when he speaks about social injustice that it comes from
>Isaiah, that when he tells us about his 115th Dream that it comes from
>Daniel etc, etc. You are "reading back" into the Dylan text what you want
>to see, making some rather doubtful connections as you go. Are there many
>actual biblical allusions in Dylan's work? Of course, everyone know that.
If you seriously want to debunk a point of view, putting words in someone's
mouth is not the way to do it. Explain the basis on which connections I've
made are doubtful? You might also identify or qualify the "theological view"
I am expressing? Otherwise, I do not have time for idle squawking.
>But someone out there has the "theological view" that the numbers in
>RDW#12&35 refer to (and I quote):
>_That's pretty obvious: 12 = 5 + 7 and 35 = 5 x 7
>Five is the number of Jesus and seven is the number of the Allmighty_
>I can only hope they were joking! So, the problem doesn't just relate to
>COTG.
What has this "problem" to do with anything I have written? The numerical
definitions are somewhat in error. 5 is the number of grace & 7 of perfection
(meaning by these definitions the numbers have a much wider application
when exploring the texts.) I resent the connection you make to my words.
>> Given the number of Biblical thematic references, it is reasonable to
>> expect & find an allusion to the Sacred Name in the introductory verse.
>That's your view and you're welcome to it. But people with hammers only
>look for nails and ignore tape, screws, staples, rivets, etc etc. Some have
>mentioned 16 relates to the number of albums he had produced up to that
>time, and this speculation carries the same weight as your view. It's all
>very interesting.
I never look for anything. I hear scripture in the work because I know
scripture & Dylan does too, & scripture is there. That's fact, not opinion.
I do not recognize only quotations, but themes, which I think you are
mistaking for "theological views." I do not recall saying that other sources
or themes are not present or possible in this song. Rather, the implication
of Biblical themes established renders the others subservient to larger
prophetic themes because the song concludes with a declaration that is
a verbal snapshot of prophecies of the end of the age written in Daniel &
Revelation. This view is well supported by the fact Dylan went on to write
a variety of songs that elaborate various aspects of the same prophecies.
>> Defining whatever "theological view" is expressed by the song is another
>> matter. One might be wise to consult the prophets referenced for answers.
>Or better yet, Dylan, if he was taking questions. IMO, Dylan has been
>pretty upfront in letting us know he has been influenced by Civil Religion,
>American Fundamentalism, Judaism, the Occult, Hedonism, and the Cult of
>American Culture. The prophets you mention are not going to be able to give
>us the full answer.
Occasionally Dylan does take questions. You really need to make a study of
his interviews over a number of years, including the Rolling Stone interviews.
However, unless you also study the Bible, you may miss many of his allusions.
You also need to read more carefully & stop wasting time with presumptive
arguments. I choose words carefully when I write & expect better than this.
If you disagree with a post, why not write a dissenting view independently?
It is not necessary or even effective to leap upon other people's writings,
especially in matters of faith, to declare them invalid point by point. One
can respect the rights of others to their view by writing one's own thoughts
separately & allow whatever persuasion might result to run a natural course.
You will then be free to ramble on without any discipline whatsoever.
-johnhenry
Mark Moore
On Wed, 6 May 1998, Maureen & Stephen Scobie wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.SOL.3.91.98050...@godzilla4.acpub.duke.edu>, Mark
> Moore <mmo...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > Who argues for a singular, exclusive meaning? Nobody.
>
> I'm glad to hear this. My impression had always been that you did. If
> this is not the case, then welcome, postmodernist Mark!
Unless "singular" and "exclusive" means something different to you
deconstructionists than the commonly understood meaning, these ideas did
not originate with postmodernism and very few "nonpostmodernists" would
disagree with them.
> > The original intention of the author is less important than the
> > imaginative realization of the author.
>
> Uh, I suspect I need more clarification of what you mean by this distinction.
The created work is not always what the author originally intended in
his mind prior to creation, but it still carries his vision, including
subconscious elements as well as unconscious (or "pre-conscious") intuitive
insights.
>
> > The created work carries his
> > vision (however imperfectly), and the meaning is found within. Even if
> > the reader/listener creates some other private meaning in his own mind,
> > the author's vision remains intact waiting discovery.
>
> Sounds to me as if we are back at the "singular, exclusive meaning" which
> you just disavowed.
Multiple definite meanings are possible as are multiple indefinite meanings.
Layers of meaning can coexist.
> > I believe that authorial intent is just a beginning, not an end.
>
> I agree. But I really do not see how this statement is consistent with all
> your previous posts. Either I have radically misunderstood you, or else
> you have totally changed your position.
You must have radically misunderstood me since my view hasn't changed, or
you might be associating my views with someone else's.
Mark Moore
On Wed, 6 May 1998 tierna...@ucg.ie wrote:
> Mark Moore <mmo...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>
> > Who argues for a singular, exclusive meaning? Nobody.
>
> Well, um, you do, don't you Mark? Particularly when it comes to
> "explaining" the bible.
Tiernan, there is no way I could explain the Bible.
> > and I
> > believe that authorial intent is just a beginning, not an end.
> >
>
> Even when it's the bible that's on the table?
Even the Bible.
johnhenry
"They shaved her head, she was torn between Jupiter and Apollo..."
Jupiter is the Roman name for Zeus, also known as Jove (& some scholars
of ancient history note the phonetic resemblence between Jove & Jehovah,
encouraged also by characteristic parallels.) Bullfinch's Mythology describes
Jupiter as the "father of the gods and men," (though nothing is really that
simple in classical mythology.) The Comprehensive Dictionary of Classical
Mythology by J.E. Zimmerman calls Jupiter (Zeus): "The most powerful of all
the ancient Greek gods; ruler of heaven and earth, of all gods and men."
Bullfinch & Zimmerman record Apollo as a late name for Hyperion or Helios,
the sun-god, (clearly claiming a smaller realm of jurisdiction than Jupiter?)
Bullfinch's states: "Hyperion was the father of the Sun, Moon, and Dawn.
He is therefore the original sun-god, and is painted with the splendour and
beauty which were afterwards bestowed on Apollo." Zimmerman's dictionary
records all three names as interchangeable, (each having different stories
& lineage depending on which classical author is referenced.) Zimmerman's
entry on Apollo states he is: "Also called Helios, Helius, Hyperion, Phoebus,"
& turns readers to Helios (sun) for definition or description which follows:
HELIOS - Also Helius, Hyperion, Apollo. Son of Hyperion (a Titan) and Thia.
Sometimes called the Titan sun-god. Known by the names Sol (Roman);
Mithras (Persian); Baal (Chaldean); Moloch (Canaanite); Osiris (Egyptian);
Adonis (Syrian). Homer calls him Helios Hyperion, the sun god. (Odyssey xii).
As always, it appears Dylan chose his words with loving care. -johnhenry
Maureen & Stephen Scobie
SS wrote:
> > I agree. But I really do not see how this statement is consistent with all
> > your previous posts. Either I have radically misunderstood you, or else
> > you have totally changed your position.
Then MM wrote:
>
> You must have radically misunderstood me since my view hasn't changed, or
> you might be associating my views with someone else's.
And we do seem to be remarkably closer to agreeing with each other than
ever before, though both of us profess not to have changed our minds. The
differences that remain between us may well be shifts of nuance and
emphasis rather than gaping chasms.
>
> The created work is not always what the author originally intended in
> his mind prior to creation, but it still carries his vision, including
> subconscious elements as well as unconscious (or "pre-conscious") intuitive
> insights.
OK. So: If some elements of what the author intended are indeed
sub/un/preconscious, then by definition the author cannot be conscious of
them. So any statements an author makes about what he "intended" are
necessarily incomplete. In this respect, the author is no more
"authoritative," as a source for interpretation, than any other reader.
Indeed, other readers are probably *more* likely than the author to be able
to perceive these layers of meaning.
> Even if
> the reader/listener creates some other private meaning in his own mind,
> the author's vision remains intact waiting discovery.
Two comments:
(1) Readers' interpretations are never *entirely* private. Insofar as it
is an interpretation, it will be limited by the pre-existing range of
meanings and connotations culturally associated with the words of the text.
"Meaning" may be the product of a complex interaction between author and
reader, but the text always does exist as a limit and a mediation.
(2) The author's vision remains "intact" only in a highly hypothetical and
idealised sense, which has no real relevance to the everyday process of
interpretation. Its "intactness" is already compromised (as you noted
above) by the presence of unconscious elements. As soon as it comes into
contact with something else (the text; another reader; the passage of
time), it is further contaminated. I really doubt whether any such thing
as an "intact vision" ever exists; even if it does, I have no way of
knowing about it or talking about it.
>
> Multiple definite meanings are possible as are multiple indefinite meanings.
> Layers of meaning can coexist.
>
Right. And one of the great pleasures of reading is weaving back and forth
between them all.
Stephen
PHyatt1962
Changing of the Guards,
Series of Dreams...
they are draws.
PH
johnhenry
A QUESTION for the forum of scholars of literature - how might Dylan's
mid-80s statement that he believed, or thought, he had written Desolation
Row "in the spirit" apply to issues of "authorial intention" currently under
the microscope? Aside from whatever mechanics are necessary to define
"in the spirit" for purpose of discussion, would it be immediately agreed
one cannot intend to be there, or be there by intending to be "in the spirit?"
In the opening chapter of Revelation, John the Apostle states: "I was in the
Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet."
John was there given vision of things to come, & words to embody vision.
I understand this as personal translation beyond constraints of time & place
physically determined, into the dimension that includes, but is not limited by,
laws that govern this world of cyclic birth, life, & decay to which the vision
is delivered, where by virtue of origin it outlives every element passing
time therein, including any author, who could not possibly by any act of will
accomplish the effect, since it is unimaginable, being beyond one's time?
Is there ever a "will" to write Scripture, or is Scripture produced by will?
I think not, but I believe there is personal will to express the spirit within
that is as powerful as will to satisfy physically bound appetites. We have
only physical desire to subject towards this expression? Imprisoned until
spirit assumes control of all will & we call the event dream in hindsight?
(Lacking better words, we call what is not dream a dream of awakening).
& none of it is under anyone's control, except so far as one being willing?
So I was wondering how the spirit might elude definiton by will of its own?
expressing, as it must, that which is unknown to the dimension wherein we
study or observe the work of spirit, which is yet manifest in so many ways.
Work accomplished in the spirit, if we can call it work, might refuse our eyes,
unless we open to the terms of the origin of the work, & join it elsewhere?
-johnhenry
Dave Palmer
johnhenry wrote:
> Anything is possible, including direct apprehension of a Dylan song
> as it is. Under the right circumstances, many unlikely things become
> extremely probable. What is impossible is proving the same to anyone
> else without the clear second witness of Dylan himself. (Why would
> anyone want to try?)
This is very much true, and I'd just like to add that with the
incredible diversity of interpretations of Dylan's songs, it seems as
though it ought to be statistically likely that SOMEBODY has it right.
A million monkeys with a million typewriters, or something like
that...
Anyhow, if one accepts that Dylan's songs deal ultimately with things
which are real and have value, then it is not as essential to
understand the particular contents of Dylan's mind as it is to know
what is real and has value. Most people THINK they know what is real
and what has value. If one accepts that there is ANYTHING which is
real and has value, then sooner or later, one of us must know what it
is.
--dave
Dave Palmer
johnhenry wrote:
> "They shaved her head, she was torn between Jupiter and Apollo..."
> Jupiter is the Roman name for Zeus, also known as Jove (& some
> scholars of ancient history note the phonetic resemblence between
> Jove & Jehovah, encouraged also by characteristic parallels.)
According to Robert Graves, Apollo is the Greek analog of the child
Horus, wheras Jupiter/Zeus represents Osiris. Graves' theory is that
early agricultural societies were ruled by women. The queen took a
different mate every year. At the end of the summer, as the power of
the sun with which the king was identified began to wane, he would be
ritually murdered during orgiastic harvest celebrations. In the
spring, the queen would claim a new mate, who was symbolically the son
or the resurrection of the old king. At some point, however, the
pre-Hellenic agricultural tribes were conquered by the male-dominated
Hellenic nomad tribes. Zeus, which was a common title for the ritual
king, became the name of the nomads' thunder-god, who took on many of
the symbolic characteristics which the ritual kings had represented.
The Egyptian Osiris and Horus would presumably have a similar origin.
The conception of Apollo through Zeus' rape of the nymph Leto
(daughter of the Titans, the gods which preceeded Zeus) was symbolic
of the Hellenic conquest of the original female-dominated society and
the subjugation of its religion.
For what it's worth, after writing the book in which he put forth
these ideas, Graves took them all back, and said instead that the
origin of Greek mythology lay entirely on eating the right kind of
mushrooms.
--dave
Mark Moore
On Thu, 7 May 1998, Maureen & Stephen Scobie wrote:
> And we do seem to be remarkably closer to agreeing with each other than
> ever before, though both of us profess not to have changed our minds. The
> differences that remain between us may well be shifts of nuance and
> emphasis rather than gaping chasms.
Maybe you are becoming a post-postmodernist.
> > The created work is not always what the author originally intended in
> > his mind prior to creation, but it still carries his vision, including
> > subconscious elements as well as unconscious (or "pre-conscious") intuitive
> > insights.
>
> OK. So: If some elements of what the author intended are indeed
> sub/un/preconscious, then by definition the author cannot be conscious of
> them. So any statements an author makes about what he "intended" are
> necessarily incomplete. In this respect, the author is no more
> "authoritative," as a source for interpretation, than any other reader.
> Indeed, other readers are probably *more* likely than the author to be able
> to perceive these layers of meaning.
In the case of sub/un/preconscious elements (or the application of the
particular to the universal, or vice versa), this is possible, but the
author is the most authoritative interpreter concerning his conscious
design and intended meaning. The author lives. Chaos does not reign
(unless the author is insane).
> > Even if
> > the reader/listener creates some other private meaning in his own mind,
> > the author's vision remains intact waiting discovery.
> (2) The author's vision remains "intact" only in a highly hypothetical and
> idealised sense, which has no real relevance to the everyday process of
> interpretation. Its "intactness" is already compromised (as you noted
> above) by the presence of unconscious elements. As soon as it comes into
> contact with something else (the text; another reader; the passage of
> time), it is further contaminated. I really doubt whether any such thing
> as an "intact vision" ever exists; even if it does, I have no way of
> knowing about it or talking about it.
Language is the primary means by which we communicate mental images and
abstract ideas, as well as emotion. I would not use the word
"contaminated" as you have to describe what is essentially a breakdown in
communication, and the presence of unconscious or semiconscious elements
would not necessarily "contaminate" the vision but would more likely give
it greater power. It seems to me that you are doubting the possibility of
any real communication between human beings and even the possibility of
one understanding one's own thoughts and feelings.
I will just simply say that vision requires vision to be seen. Consider
these lines from William Blake's Jerusalem:
If Perceptive Organs vary: Objects of Perception seem to vary:
If the Perceptive Organs close: their Objects seem to close also
The fundamental argument I have with your literary/philosophical
theories, as well as postmodernist theories in general, is the negation
of the spiritual basis of art and thought.