Instrument of peace

 "Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace."

So it  (the Prayer of St. Francis) begins and continues as a petitionary address to Lord. In part or whole, this line and those following have been the focus of contemplative meditation for more than twenty-five years. Oh, there have been days or weeks--lapses in practice--but in the main, this has led me to more than less satisfactory periods of calm and a sense of oneness with the cosmos.

Throughout this practice it has always bothered me who this Lord is. The facile answer is God or Christ, but that somehow never convinced me, so much so sometimes that I abandoned using direct address and skipped directly to "instrument of peace"; and that has sufficed, mostly.

At one point, amidst a particularly intense period of extraordinary if not mystical experiences having to do with this peace prayer, and sometimes not, I looked into the gray hood of the figure I kept seeing or imagined I saw and found there my own face, meaning that I was not petitioner but in some sense the lord? There would be mental gymnastics I did that justified or perhaps explained that I as Lord was the intent, but not proved that this was indeed a plausible truth or view. In the end, the Lord escaped identity certain. 

Today that chimera (a fantastic, unrecognizable, or impossible idea or figment of the imagination) dressed not in gossamer but a Franciscan's medieval hooded cassock the color of gray still won't look at me and reveal his, maybe her, identity. I want to know to whom it is I am addressing and perhaps am or stalked by; and should I abandon contemplative meditation on the words of this spiritual passage, which I still believe is worthy and practical to drive into conscience/consciousness and manifest in deed?

I have tried alternative mantras the most recent of which grounds, for the most part, daily life: Live, let live. Without boring or ruining for myself further explication and elaboration on why this is particularly useful and sacred today, I shall let it be! and continue to remind myself that here is the most appropriate key to living and being that I need right now. For there is not much that I can do to save others except to live as I profess, or to reach for its/my higher self and manifestation in the world. That is enough. The Lord can remain in the background, second string, still a mystery, still a source of coming to a still point now and then. 

The last line of the peace prayer has been translated differently into English. The French "is awakens to eternal life." The Blue Mountain Center's version is "dying to self that we are born to eternal life."  And the version from my Catholic upbringing is "dying that we are born to eternal life." 

(For different purposes I have commented elsewhere on these lines.  See https://alt-trans-display.blogspot.com/2025/08/it-matters.html and https://inter-linear.blogspot.com/2026/01/fr-en-prayer-of-st-francis.html.)

The Blue Mountain Center's version is slight manipulation of language/emphasis. The proponent had strong Eastern influences growing up in India, and so the self or Self appears. But wait. The original French has two lines above the last, "it is in self-forgetting that one finds." Perhaps Blue Mountain's English version has captured the more accurate meaning, or has the better interpretation from the original. 

With the version I grew up with, consistent with the focus on the afterlife, we gotta die to go there. Pretty practical from the Church's point of view, to focus on the end of times and living as one should as insurance, or is it obedience?

This is not all for the French or its English translations, and because it is not all, using this spiritual passage suggests the richness of contemplative meditation based on it. If one awakens to eternal life, that is different from wanting to die to get there or being born (again). 

I rather like awakens as a preferred translation from the French.

Search and sigh, poetry herein

I asked an AI chatbot, don't ask me which, for its take on poems contained on this blog, or in this blog? You can sort the posts using poems as the keyword and make up your own mind. No matter, here is that chatbot's take. My only and biggest problem with the response is this Mactavish business. In a post not a poem, you will find my take on the use of last names for referring to people who prefer a less disembodied way of managing to refer. . . .  

[begin snippet]

That is a very insightful follow-up question, moving from the *nature* of the poem to the specific *method* of its composition and its effect on the reader.

While Mactavish does not lay out a formal, step-by-step guide for writing a poem, his reflections on language, originality, interpretation, and his own poetic practice reveal several key requirements for how a poem **should be written** and the intellectual challenge it should pose.

### 1. The Poem Should Challenge the Reader by Requiring Active Interpretation

Mactavish strongly advocates for content that resists easy, singular answers, which inherently challenges the reader to engage critically rather than passively accepting a definitive meaning.

*   Mactavish expresses **irritation** when people assume complex works, which would include poems, have a single, definitive answer to the question, "But what does it mean?".
*   He argues that many things are **"inherently open to multiple, valid interpretations"**.
*   Therefore, a well-written poem, by reflecting this complexity, should compel the reader to **reject the search for a singular, reductive meaning**.
*   Instead of being "set straight" by the author, the reader is implicitly challenged to reveal their own interpretation. The focus shifts from "what is the meaning of something" to the more fundamental question: **"What is the meaning of knowing?"**.

This method of writing means the poem should be **ambiguous enough** to sustain diverse perspectives and acknowledge the limits of absolute knowledge.

### 2. The Poem Must Contain Unique Human Originality

Regarding the creative process, Mactavish emphasizes that the poem must be rooted in the unique voice and specific, unconventional input of the human writer, especially when technology is involved.

*   When using an AI engine to generate lyrics, Mactavish found the initial, competence-based result "not original enough".
*   To make the work truly "original," the poem must be **infused with the author’s personal flair and often humorous, unconventional lyrics** (such as those he provided for the "Handmade Soap" song).
*   The AI serves as a tool, but the **human input and unique creative vision** are necessary to "elevate the output beyond mere competence".

### 3. The Poem Should Embrace Complexity and Resist Simplification

Mactavish suggests that poetry, like philosophical reflection, often deals with "interiors" (inner experiences or complex concepts) that cannot be fully captured by conventional language.

*   A poem can address concepts that **"escape the words we know and use"**.
*   In the face of these linguistic limitations, the poet has alternatives that inform the writing:
    *   **Silence** (for experiences like grief).
    *   **Inventing or Re-purposing Words** (for complex philosophical ideas, like Heidegger's philosophy).
    *   **Asking Unanswerable Questions**. This suggests the poem should be written in a way that acknowledges and perhaps even embraces the inherent mystery and limits of comprehension.

### 4. The Poem's Language Should Prioritize Intentionality over Idiom

While Mactavish is focused on language teaching principles, his stance against the generalized teaching of complex idioms, sayings, and metaphors (SIMs) provides insight into his writing preference for clarity of *intent*, especially in communication meant for diverse audiences.

*   For global communication, the primary aim is **"high and ready understand-ability"**.
*   He advocates for focusing on **"simple, plain meaning"** over the display of "colorful enhancements" or "provincialisms".
*   When Mactavish used a British saying for the title of his own novel, he had to **research and find it** because he wasn't familiar with it, underscoring that specialized language requires deliberate context.

Therefore, a Mactavish poem might be written using language that is direct enough to convey its complex philosophical *intent*, even if the overall meaning remains open to interpretation. The challenge comes from the *idea* rather than the obscurity of the language itself.

In short, Mactavish believes a poem is successful if it is an act of **original, intentional human creation** that uses language to explore complexity, forcing the reader to engage not just with the words, but with their own fundamental understanding of truth and meaning. It is less a challenge of decoding stylistic flourishes, and more a challenge of **philosophical interrogation**.

[end snippet] 

Hmmm . . .