The GOO problem

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 11 May 2005, and now archived in the Forum Library.

hannahma	11 May 2005
I returned to the local Tarot shop today, where the proprietress now recognizes me as a person with a serious Tarot jones and greets me like a prospector who sees a mink stroll into the trap. At any rate, I left with a china hippo, a nice pendant and earrings, and the Triple Goddess Tarot, which I had been drooling over for a while. Turns out it's more of an oracle deck, with some extra cards, 22 major arcana that have almost nothing to do with the usual beginner pics or explanations, and a 200 page book that proudly explains the concepts of the artist and writer (Mara Friedman and Isha Lerner). It's now late at night and I have finished the book, with the divil's own skippin' o' pages by the last hour. What an ordeal! The cards are just as beautiful as I had hoped, if you like that sort of thing (Judy Chicago has a lot to answer for) and I do like it. The book, alas, is solid GOO. GOO could stand for God-Orful Oracle if you want an acronym, but it really stands for sentimental glue that's that's simply hell to wade through. Get a load of this: "...our limitations are only real from a relative standpoint, and many of them are complex figments of our imagination even within the relative context! The human being is fundamentally limitless, even while remaining obedient to the laws of gravity that condense spirit and soul into our earthly experience...Each individual birthed out of the womb of the Great Mother Goddess contains the signature or code of Her expanded awareness and consciousness...At this stage of initiation, the spiritual seeker confronts more and more subtle growth opportunities and challenges, in order that a more permeable and transparent ego identity can be forged beyond the confines of attachment and fear. This stage of life heralds a deep and abiding inner freedom. Reaching this step of evolution, the aspirant is guided toward transformation, and, ultimately, an alchemical life transition offering heightened spiritual perception. In order for this metamorphosis to occur, the individual must align him or herself with the principle of creative chaos and change yadda yadda yadda ..." Now what, pray tell, does any of that mean? Can you guess what card is it is describing? Of course you can't. The card depicts a seated woman showing her open vulva, called Womb of Potential. This is supposed to be congruent to the Wheel of Fortune, believe it or not. I see the Goo problem as one that is all too prevalent in "women's" Tarots, and don't pretend you don't know what I mean. And no, I don't expect every Tarot to rap out a list of divinatory meanings in a Little White Pamphlet -- "Star=Hope. Eight of Wands=Action." A while back I bought a book of poetry featuring dwellers on a nearby island, noted for its back to the land types. All the poetry was awful (except, interestingly enough, one by the island's doctor, whose work gently poked fun at preferring machines to intuition) and the worst of all came from a woman who had included a dopey photograph of herself in a ridiculous costume, and a dopey philosophy which started out, "I am a mystic" and went on from there in blank verse. Believe me, you'd rather be struck blind than read it, but let's say you too would have concluded, "this woman is an idiot". She believes herself to be a deep thinker, but she's a childish solipsist who makes you want to reach for the nearest accounting textbook, or maybe a revolver. I don't really want to be completely disrespectful to someone's genuine attempt to get beyond the mundane daily round. It's not as if the only important questions were when to re-upholster the sofa and what's for dinner. It's just that GOO books spend nearly every word urging me to go for a stroll in the woods and listen to the birds sing, and meanwhile they're clear-cutting the forests and shooting the eagles to sell their feathers to people interested in ripping off Native spirituality. Does anybody else feel like this?

Emeraldgirl	11 May 2005
hannahma wrote: I don't really want to be completely disrespectful to someone's genuine attempt to get beyond the mundane daily round. It's not as if the only important questions were when to re-upholster the sofa and what's for dinner. It's just that GOO books spend nearly every word urging me to go for a stroll in the woods and listen to the birds sing, and meanwhile they're clear-cutting the forests and shooting the eagles to sell their feathers to people interested in ripping off Native spirituality. Does anybody else feel like this? Sometimes. I don't really read the GOO type books as they can annoy me a bit. I also do the stroll and the listen when I have time. It's a pity that's not more often which starts a whole extra ball of bad feeling.

mythos	11 May 2005
GOO ... has now become part of my language ... thank you so much. I get so sick and tired of fluffy bunny ramblings when there is a whole world out there that is in a world of trouble. By all means meditate on world peace and the great ascension of the human spirit ... but take a bag and collect the bottles and other garbage people leave behind while you skip through the forest communing with the birds. I walk with the birds and among trees every day ... helps keep me sane ... but a bit of balance, a pair of rubber gloves, and the odd letter to the local council to remind them that the ducks can't swim in polluted water filled with discarded plastic bags and dead shopping trolley. May the GOO be turned to good balance and good planetary works. Me ... maybe I'm dumb, but I figure I got born here to live and 'work' (in all ways) on this planet and to respect my home - the earth. mythos/wild

Lillie	11 May 2005
"The card depicts a seated woman showing her open vulva, called Womb of Potential. This is supposed to be congruent to the Wheel of Fortune, believe it or not." Strange image, old Shelia. I was once dossing arond glastonbury on a sunny day and we went into a free exibition. It was a 'feminist' 'goddess' exibition, and just about ALL the pictures were badly drawn sheila-na-gig's, some with flowing blood or other body fluids. I ended up standing in the middle of the room and saying, very loudly... "strange, isn't it. When you see pictures like these in porn mags they are said to be degrading to women, but here they are again, exactly the same, and this time they are said to be empowering them! Weird or what?" Only my bloke laughed, but lots of people tutted. Funny old world.

MeeWah	11 May 2005
Hannahma: I acquired the Triple Goddess because of the artwork & the personal interest in the goddess concept. Its title misleading. There is not a triple goddess concept that I can discern but multiple goddesses, most of whom seem obscure (to me). The deck should not be called a Tarot deck because its structure of an oracle or meditative deck. Which is ok, but does not lend to readings as I do them. The book does not enhance the individual cards nor the deck. I stopped reading it after realizing the text provides no clarity nor connection to the cards & most of it of the similar or repetitive.

bodhran	11 May 2005
Hannahma, I felt I had the same experience when I bought "Waking the Wild Spirit." The cards are so vibrant and beautiful, but then I opened the book... I hadn't even gotten through the Magician before I felt a migraine about to blow. The deck looks so "earthy" I guess I thought the book would be more of a practical/environmental/Mother Earth kind of thing. Oh well... I'll still keep the cards :-). Many blessings, Bodhran

ncefafn	11 May 2005
Heresy! Heresy, I say!

hannahma	12 May 2005
/The deck should not be called a Tarot deck because its structure of an oracle or meditative deck. Which is ok, but does not lend to readings as I do them. The book does not enhance the individual cards nor the deck. I stopped reading it after realizing the text provides no clarity nor connection to the cards & most of it of the similar or repetitive.[/quote] You've put it very clearly. The cards don't connect with my life, and the book doesn't connect to either the cards or my life. Today I opened the Tarot of Prague, which I've been carrying around, planning to enjoy it at leisure and show it to my Czech husband. The city of Prague is quite foreign to me, but the cards AND book make an immediate connection, though some of the card pics are sort of shoehorned into the pictures of Prague.

hannahma	12 May 2005
bodhran wrote: Hannahma, I felt I had the same experience when I bought "Waking the Wild Spirit." The cards are so vibrant and beautiful, but then I opened the book... I hadn't even gotten through the Magician before I felt a migraine about to blow. The deck looks so "earthy" I guess I thought the book would be more of a practical/environmental/Mother Earth kind of thing. Oh well... I'll still keep the cards :-). Many blessings, Bodhran Thanks for the warning, Bodhran. As a skeptic and materialist I tend to avoid faery type things anyway, but from the description on the deck section of this site there are some ominous quotes from the book. Maybe Aeclectic.net should put a goo rating as well as a star rating?

mythos	13 May 2005
hannahma wrote: As a skeptic and materialist I tend to avoid faery type things anyway /// Maybe Aeclectic.net should put a goo rating as well as a star rating? Me too ... me too! I would still like the wild spirit deck, but from a painter's view. Does anyone know whether it is possible to get the deck without the book? ... I'm just not interested in reading gooey fluff!

Fudugazi	14 May 2005
Thank you for the new word, hannahma! Goo has now got an additional meaning (not so far away from the original!!) for me ;) It sounds like the nice lady who wrote the book has fallen into the human as god(dess) trap - believing we humans are gods, immortal, limitless, etc. etc. - probably because of the biological evidence of our limits and mortality are too unbearable. It's an old dream.... However, I do think (apart from gooeyness) that our limits are not necessarily where ultra-rationalists say they are. Shamen can travel to other planes of conscience, for example (but shamen will be the first to acknolwedge limits and mortality). But this is another thread entirely! I thought, when I opened this thread, you would be discussing how cards sometimes get sticky (very materialistic, that!) - here I find another kind of stickiness deplored. Your post was a breath of fresh air :)

jumptothemoonyea	14 May 2005
A few quotes first from hannahma: Quote: "this woman is an idiot". Quote: The book, alas, is solid GOO. Quote: Now what, pray tell, does any of that mean? Can you guess what card is it is describing? Of course you can't. Quote: makes you want to reach for the nearest accounting textbook, or maybe a revolver. hmmmm, if you do not understand what it means, if tree is not spelled 't-r-e-e', you call it GOO, call them idiots and grab a revolver?

tarotbear	14 May 2005
GOO - like that! I would have called it 'goobeldegook,' myself. Somewhere once I read where someone kept calling the 'New Age' -"Newage - rhymes with sewage." I thought that was very appropriate. But it isn't just unknown writers who do this kind of stuff - well-known authors do it, too. Sorry, if she's your favorite author, girls, but I can't stomach anything written by Diane Stein, whose writings first proclaim I'M A LESBIAN - CAN'T YOU TELL? in every sentence and you have to dodge the lesbian-esque spellings, syntax, and idioms before you can understand what it is she is trying to say. When your sexuality (and letting everyone know it) is more important than what you have to say .... goobeldegook! Lillie - had to laugh at the sheila-ne-gigs comment. In "the Threepenny Opera" Bertolt Brecht wrote: 'You say that girls may strip - with your permission. You draw the line dividing Art from Sin.' I always thought it odd and funny that naked female statues are always considered the epitome of tasteful sculpture, but naked men had to have have fig leafs over their anatomy. What hypocrasy!

MercyMe	14 May 2005
hannahma wrote: I see the Goo problem as one that is all too prevalent in "women's" Tarots, and don't pretend you don't know what I mean. Oh I do know what you mean and it's all too prevalent in "women's spirituality" in general. As a Christian, I have been very interested in the segments of the various churches that seek to reimage God to include the Goddess, or the divine feminine, or what-have-you. This movement goes beyond mere "inclusive language," and I support and encourage their efforts. However, yeah. This GOO problem is rampant anywhere you find women getting metaphysical. While it's true that metaphysics, like any other area of knowledge, has its own language, there is something a bit too ethereal about the way many women communicate what they're experiencing and learning as they seek the divine feminine. Too airy-fairy. And believe me, I understand all about word-worlds and being too heavenly minded to be of any earthly good. I lived in a theological ivory tower for several years myself speaking a language only a select few could truly understand. I am a radical feminist. For those who think radical means I don't shave my legs or wear a bra, that's not what I mean. Radical means "to the root" and a radical feminist is one who believes that the root of all oppressions we see today is the basic oppression of man over woman. In order to eradicate all oppressions, that root oppression must be dealt with. It is the radical feminist, for example, who sees no good whatsoever in patriarchal institutions, and for the case of this topic, patriarchal religions. (That doesn't mean radical feminists do not work and live and participate in patriarchal institutions, we most certainly do, but we wish we didn't have to and in many cases we agitate from within to change them). Anyway...a lot of this is theory and not reality (yet), but women who have sought to create a woman-focused spirituality have had very little to go on. The ancient history about a time when the Goddess was revered has been all but obliterated by the subsequent phallo-centric religions. We do have some clues -- archeological ones -- but so much has been lost that women have had to weave parts and pieces, fragments, into something that resonates within their souls. It's hard work. I think, too, applying GOO language to these practices and concepts is an attempt to say, "This is serious business." Only, when it's done in the manner you described, it only has the reverse effect. Most people tend to roll their eyes and say, "Oh for the love of Goddess, get REAL!" :rolleyes: Too, for eons women have been taught to feel shame about their bodies, particularly but not exclusively, our sexual parts. There are very real and historical reasons for this, and I know various feminists who work very hard in trying to help women and society at large discontinue the hatred/fetishizing of women's bodies. The open vulva as a symbol of potential is about as blatant as one can get, sure, but like the Vagina Monologues and the now feminist classic book, ****, it's all about reclaiming what is rightfully ours. Which speaks to the art exhibit example and why women would portray themselves in that way. In some ways, when women speak the same thing, it comes across very differently. If we are speaking of our own exploitation and oppression, though the images may look very similar, there is a different message entirely. It's not, "Oooh, look at me, I'm sexeeeee!" It's more, "Look at me. Don't turn your eyes away. See what you have made me." Which is all to say that I AGREE that there is too much fluff and nonsense in so much of so-called "women's spirituality," and it rather embarrasses me, honestly. But I see it as a growing thing. Women's own outward spiritual forms are in an embryonic stage or rebirth. Of course they look and sound kinda funny. I would love to be part of a project that would bring a truly feminist tarot into being. I would love to include women icons of the past and the present, representations that were woman-focused, based on women's realities. It wouldn't have to be "airy-fairy" goo at all. ~Mercy

jumptothemoonyea	14 May 2005
"Too airy-fairy... much fluff and nonsense " is GOOoood, soft fluffy nonsense I like. What would be "to the root" radical regime be like? Instead of 78 cards only 1? No play?

Julien	14 May 2005
Imagine being a social scientist and coming across one of those books... I deal with all sorts of texts that are hard to read all the time in my profession, and I have to move through them. I get into the "Goo" books, and well.... No revolver, and no accounting book, but I do head for a good scholarly history of the Tarot, or if it's not a Tarot book I'm reading, I go for some other work discussing the history of (and new understandings of that history) of spirituality in our society. It's simply what I'm more comfortable with, it's what makes sense to me, and, bottom line, it makes me happy. I think it really depends upon who you are and what speaks to you. I do find such books Goo-ey, and I do think they predominate in "women's spirituality" realms. I've known some wonderfully spiritual women (and a few men) who were very deeply steeped in both the ways of thinking and the language of those books. They find the sorts of books I read "dry" and "boring". Different strokes for different folks -- I look at it this way: I read the dry, boring books for them so they don't have to; and they read the goo-ey books for me so that I don't have to. That way we all help each other out and keep things in balance... Just my two cents. Julien

hannahma	14 May 2005
jumptothemoonyea wrote: A few quotes first from hannahma: hmmmm, if you do not understand what it means, if tree is not spelled 't-r-e-e', you call it GOO, call them idiots and grab a revolver? Well, actually, that was supposed to be ironic. Goebbels once is supposed to have said, "when I hear the word "culture", I reach for my revolver." (An urban myth, apparently). So anyone who reaches for a revolver on hearing something a little too gooey is, shall we say, over-reacting, and I was poking fun at myself. I never said the author of the irritating book was an idiot; however, the island mystic/poet I mentioned WAS an idiot, in my opinion, and I was poking fun at folks who think being mystical is sufficient to make their comments lucid and germane.

Fudugazi	14 May 2005
hannahma wrote: I was poking fun at folks who think being mystical is sufficient to make their comments lucid and germane. I doubt being lucid and germane is the ambition of these folks. I think they aim to be spiritual (catch-all phrase) but often end up being incoherent. It's a shame, because as Mercy wrote, some of them might have something valuable to contribute, and they are feeling their way towards a feminine mysticism that is not in thrall to the patriarchy.

stella01904	14 May 2005
Lillie wrote: It was a 'feminist' 'goddess' exibition, and just about ALL the pictures were badly drawn sheila-na-gig's, some with flowing blood or other body fluids. MM ~ I'm not an ancient Celt, but it's my guess that part of the way that a sheel-na-gig is supposed to work, is that it represents birth, fertility - the opposite of death and decay. And the other part of how it works, is, she makes you LAUGH. Laughing protects, dispels tension, etc. etc. Those big googly eyes and that little body with those hands holding that gaping Grand Canyon open - for Pete's sake! Let's not get all solemn and reverent! They're RUINING it! I will definitely add GOO to my vocabulary - I've about used "fluff" and "woo-woo" to death! BB, Stella

stella01904	14 May 2005
hannahma wrote: As a skeptic and materialist I tend to avoid faery type things anyway, but from the description on the deck section of this site there are some ominous quotes from the book. MM ~ The irony is that Faery lore and Faery energy tends to be quite edgy. The Goosters have "cutsied" them... Quote: Maybe Aeclectic.net should put a goo rating as well as a star rating? Agreed! BB, Stella (who is tired of helium (lighter than air) heads who should be working for Hallmark trying to write about Goddesses, Fays, etc.!)

Mesara	14 May 2005
hannahma wrote: Get a load of this: "...our limitations are only real from a relative standpoint, and many of them are complex figments of our imagination even within the relative context! The human being is fundamentally limitless, even while remaining obedient to the laws of gravity that condense spirit and soul into our earthly experience...Each individual birthed out of the womb of the Great Mother Goddess contains the signature or code of Her expanded awareness and consciousness...At this stage of initiation, the spiritual seeker confronts more and more subtle growth opportunities and challenges, in order that a more permeable and transparent ego identity can be forged beyond the confines of attachment and fear. This stage of life heralds a deep and abiding inner freedom. Reaching this step of evolution, the aspirant is guided toward transformation, and, ultimately, an alchemical life transition offering heightened spiritual perception. In order for this metamorphosis to occur, the individual must align him or herself with the principle of creative chaos and change yadda yadda yadda ..." What the hell? HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Lillie	14 May 2005
MercyMe wrote: ...women who have sought to create a woman-focused spirituality have had very little to go on. The ancient history about a time when the Goddess was revered has been all but obliterated by the subsequent phallo-centric religions. We do have some clues -- archeological ones -- but so much has been lost that women have had to weave parts and pieces, fragments, into something that resonates within their souls. It's hard work. As far as I have seen there is very little evidence, and much of it is to do wit fertilirty, which, to my mind is just another way of objectifying women, in which a woman is just a womb etc., a baby maker. The ancient venus figurines have no faces, almost no heads. They can be interpretted as defining women as objects whoes only purpose is to make babies. Stone age porn, really. Still objectified, just as a different object. This is only one interprettation (and the worst). However, I am putting it forward as an example of the way archaeological evidence has to be interpreted, and that interpretation creates the artefact in the mind of whoever is seeing it, and in the image that they wish to see. This very fluidity is in the nature of archaeology itself. Material culture is silent. Every person makes of it what they wish it to be. There is no right or wrong. There is also no truth. MercyMe wrote: ... for eons women have been taught to feel shame about their bodies, particularly but not exclusively, our sexual parts. There are very real and historical reasons for this, and I know various feminists who work very hard in trying to help women and society at large discontinue the hatred/fetishizing of women's bodies. The open vulva as a symbol of potential is about as blatant as one can get, sure, but like the Vagina Monologues and the now feminist classic book, **** , it's all about reclaiming what is rightfully ours. Which speaks to the art exhibit example and why women would portray themselves in that way. In some ways, when women speak the same thing, it comes across very differently. If we are speaking of our own exploitation and oppression, though the images may look very similar, there is a different message entirely. It's not, "Oooh, look at me, I'm sexeeeee!" It's more, "Look at me. Don't turn your eyes away. See what you have made me." Actually my anecdote was not an example of anything. The original post brought that event to my mind and I thought it amusing enough to share. However, now it has been used as an example, these are my thoughts. To me an open vulva is pretty icky where ever it is displayed. I have got one of my own and if I want to see that sort of thing I can squat and look in a mirror. I've got nothing agains vulvas, they are useful and pleasurable, but personally I do not find it amazingly enjoyable to look at dozens of examples plastered all over the walls. Also a number of women have found posing in porn/fetish mags both useful, profitable and empowering. Who is being used, the woman who takes her clothes off, or the man that pays £50 for the privelege of watching her? I know which one is laughing all the way to the bank. Also women like being admired by men, as men like being admired by women. (as well as some men and women liking being admired by those of their own sex.) This is not to say that it is all I am, or that is all women are for, beautiful objects. But, sometimes it is nice to be admired. (but not especially for my vulva!) I would rather look at the beautiful male nudes tarot bear mentioned (castrated ot otherwise!), the objectification of men! Also I am not what someone has made me, I am only myself. My gripe with this exibition was (apart from the poor quality of the art) that the people who make and show these pictures are very dictatorial in their attitudes. They draw a big fat line and say 'This is good, this is bad, these pictures empower, these degrade'. The brook no objection and no argument, they have decided, and they have decided they are right. It is not always that black and white, but they leave no room for discussion. MercyMe wrote: Which is all to say that I AGREE that there is too much fluff and nonsense in so much of so-called "women's spirituality," and it rather embarrasses me, honestly. But I see it as a growing thing. Women's own outward spiritual forms are in an embryonic stage or rebirth. Of course they look and sound kinda funny. I would love to be part of a project that would bring a truly feminist tarot into being. I would love to include women icons of the past and the present, representations that were woman-focused, based on women's realities. It wouldn't have to be "airy-fairy" goo at all. Isn't this women only thing devisive? Shouldn't we be striving for a world where the male and the female are in balance, where both are represented fairly and equally? I do not write this to be argumentative (please donot take it like that), but rather to be part of what has become an interesting discussion. I would not call my self a feminist, but neither am I not one. I have in my life been a strong and independant woman. For years I lived alone and said that I did not need a man. It was true, I didn't need one. I coped better with life than many women who had men, and far far better than many men (who can be rather useless sometimes). However, I am now in a long term relationship, it's OK, he has to be kept in line, it's nice not to be alone. He cooks and cleans and fixes the car, he accepts me as who I am, but he does like it when I wear high heels. So I do that to make him happy, and I enjoy it too. I never needed to be a feminist, because I always knew I was better at most things than most of the men I knew (who were a pretty useless bunch). I didn't need to prove it, or show it, I just was. Most of them knew it too. I find all this open vulva thing, and the 'reclaiming what is ours' thing very strange and rather unnessecary. Just be, whoever you are, whatever sex you are, just be yourself. No one is better than you. You don't need a feminist manifesto, or a women only tarot to tell you that.

Moongold	15 May 2005
hannahma ~ There is much richness in women's spiritual writing. You have encountered a badly written book. I have not seen the deck to which you are referring but why not write your own commentary using the many wonderful, powerful and beautifully written accounts of women's spirituality readily available in books and on the Internet? Writing like quote you gave us can overtake the best of us on a bad day :) I was disappointed in the quality of the handbook to the Goddess Tarot, which I really love. I thought it was a chance to write something quite powerful but it is almost like a little white book. Perhaps it is a matter of resources for the women who design these tarots? I am continually delighted in revisting old texts by women and by men too, and finding much of beauty and value there. Even for lesbian women, tarotbear :). The poems of Sappho are quite beautiful indeed. Awed by her splendor Stars near the lovely moon cover their own bright faces. ..............when she is roundest and lights earth with her silver. Now that is a positive take on the Moon and the High Priestess as well. And again ~ You may forget but Let me tell you this; someone in some future time will think of us. and many do :)

Dark Inquisitor	15 May 2005
GOO is not limited to women's spirituality .( And, I hesitate to say, you may have just stepped into one of the biggest GOO repositories on the internet. ) Men are full of GOO as well, they just package it a bit differently and apply it to different things. And when we read their GOO, we are used thinking it means they're smart. They know this, and that is why they keep doing it. And why we keep imitating them. Religion is particularly full of GOO. It lends itself easily to all manner of projections and slippery opportunities to expound on the depth of whateverness. The more you argue, the deeper the GOO gets. People spend a lot of time and money in school developing their GOObility and will not like you talking about it in this disrespectful manner. Someone will be along shortly to accuse you of being anti-intellectual. Repent now and save yourself . Don't tell anyone I told you this.

firemaiden	15 May 2005
I love the new terminology I'm learning on this thread -- "goo", "goosters", "goo-rating". Is this the same as "mystic babble?"

Moongold	15 May 2005
Dark Inquisitor wrote: Religion is particularly full of GOO. It lends itself easily to all manner of projections and slippery opportunities to expound on the depth of whateverness. The more you argue, the deeper the GOO gets. People spend a lot of time and money in school developing their GOObility and will not like you talking about it in this disrespectful manner. Someone will be along shortly to accuse you of being anti-intellectual. Repent now and save yourself . Don't tell anyone I told you this. firemaiden wrote: I love the new terminology I'm learning on this thread -- "goo", "goosters", "goo-rating". Is this the same as "mystic babble?" [/i] I think we can add GOOLIBILITY to the lexicon now and also GOOGLE-EYED. Both apply to those who are taken in by by the mystique of language and who are blinded by babble.

Fudugazi	15 May 2005
Can one be blinded by babble? I am frequently deafened by it ;) Well, I suppose we all have our areas of goo. I goo openly and without shame in front of a beautiful work of art. I am no art historian and I am happy to let Titian's Danae speak to me in a gooey manner. Besides, one person's goo is another person's lyricism. I remember at university being told off by a particularly dry tutor (I was studying history) who thought my writing style full of "flights of fancy". And so it is, but then I do not aim to write textbooks, and I don't think I ever let those flights cut into the historical analysis of sources. Truth emerges in many ways, and least of all, it seems, from textbooks (it is important not to confuse truth with facts, though they sometimes meet). What does get to me - and what I would personally call goo - are flights of fancy, mystial visions, call them what you like - disguised as intellectual and psychological analysis. That's what the text quoted in the first post was doing. But a text written in a lyrical vein with no pretensions to analyse is fine by me, so long as it has some literary merit. Just think of Dame Julian of Norwich! "And all will be well, and all manner of things will be well." A vision of mystical union can be very powerful and beautiful - and liberating for those who read or hear it. Some spiritual women's writings - Moongold quoted Sappho - has been enriching men and women for millenia. Now you will say that it is possible for women and men to be mystical, or whimsical, and analytical: in Tarot I would say Robert Place can be both, as can Rachel Pollack. But generally not at the same time. In the first post I think there were two subjects: one was goo (mystic babble, whatever) which - as I believe, only qualifies as goo when it pretends to be analytical; and one is poor writing, like that poet ("the woman is an idiot") - which is another matter entirely - though unreadable too!

MercyMe	15 May 2005
Lillie wrote: However, I am putting it forward as an example of the way archaeological evidence has to be interpreted, and that interpretation creates the artefact in the mind of whoever is seeing it, and in the image that they wish to see. This very fluidity is in the nature of archaeology itself. Material culture is silent. Every person makes of it what they wish it to be. There is no right or wrong. There is also no truth. I agree. However, what has been sorely lacking for many years until fairly recently was the archeological interpretation from the female perspective. Now that women have a stronger voice in archaeology, we are now seeing women's interpretations entered into the mix. It doesn't mean those women who argue for a "golden age of the goddess" are accurate, but it does give an alternative history to consider seriously. Many refuse to even consider it because it flies in the face of "traditional" (read: patriarchal) theories of ancient civilizations. There's a really good book that traces the most compelling evidence and uses sound logic and very little to no "goo" regarding these woman-cntered interpretations of history. It's called Who Cooked The Last Supper? by Rosalind Miles. Otherwise known as The Women's History of the World. Quote: Actually my anecdote was not an example of anything. The original post brought that event to my mind and I thought it amusing enough to share. I recognize that, but it got me thinking about how women are trying to create something out of nothing, and my heart goes out to them even when I may find what they do distasteful or even dangerous. Quote: To me an open vulva is pretty icky where ever it is displayed. I have got one of my own and if I want to see that sort of thing I can squat and look in a mirror. I've got nothing agains vulvas, they are useful and pleasurable, but personally I do not find it amazingly enjoyable to look at dozens of examples plastered all over the walls. Heh. I share your unenthusiastic response to walls plastered with vulvas. I have never once attended The Vagina Monologues and I don't intend to. Not my cuppa Tetley, honestly. But for some women it can be an empowering experience, especially if the shame and female body-hatred rampant in this culture has been internalized to a degree that it has held a woman in contempt of her parts and pieces. I mean, a seemingly benign "feminine hygeine" advertisement can wreak havoc on a girl's body image. The influx of breast augmentations has made it so that many young girls do not even know what natural breasts look like and believe theirs are misshapen. The same follows for the vulva. There are now plastic surgeries that nip and tuck women's vaginal lips in order to adhere more to the porn standard. Not to mention most women's vulvas in porn are shaved. There is a website somewhere...I've long since lost the url...that was all about women's natural bodies and it wasn't designed for fetishizing but for women to have a look and see that they weren't so disfigured after all. Sometimes these exhibits (and I really can't speak to the one you attended, I'll take your word for it that it was poorly done and not very worthwhile) do serve a very useful purpose, at least for those that need it. That's all I was pointing out. Quote: Also a number of women have found posing in porn/fetish mags both useful, profitable and empowering. Who is being used, the woman who takes her clothes off, or the man that pays £50 for the privelege of watching her? I know which one is laughing all the way to the bank. If women's bodies were not considered a product, a commodity that is to be bought and sold, there would be no high-priced demand for said commodity. Men have set the standard here, declared women's bodies to be valued primarily for their sexual appeal, and they've put their money on that product. So, even though a woman may profit monetarily from this system, the end result is still her oppression in that her body is still considered useful only in terms of how it serves men. I think some women are trying to reclaim their bodies from the hands of the pornographers and advertisers and decide for themselves how and when and where their bodies will be displayed and for what purpose and women do this in various ways. Some ways may work better than others, but I see them all as fledgling attempts to get free. Quote: Also I am not what someone has made me, I am only myself. Of course you are. We are all unique individuals, ourselves. However we are also informed and influenced by the cultural soup in which we swim. We can't help but be. Quote: My gripe with this exibition was (apart from the poor quality of the art) that the people who make and show these pictures are very dictatorial in their attitudes. They draw a big fat line and say 'This is good, this is bad, these pictures empower, these degrade'. The brook no objection and no argument, they have decided, and they have decided they are right. It is not always that black and white, but they leave no room for discussion. I agree that is a wrongheaded attitude to take, especially where art is concerned. I think that art issupposed to open dialogue and inspire new ways of seeing and what good does it do to shut down alternative perspectives? There most certainly IS room for discussion. Within the feminist community, for example, there is much discussion, a lot of it heated, about this topic. Some feminists think any display of women's bodies in a space where men can look is harmful to women. Some see it as taking back control. Some seek to find liberation though this. The discussion really does run the entire spectrum with those on opposite poles calling each other names, but nonetheless discussion is encouraged. Usually. Depends on who is in the room at the time. LOL. Quote: Isn't this women only thing devisive? Shouldn't we be striving for a world where the male and the female are in balance, where both are represented fairly and equally? Yes. Ultimately that would be the goal. But the scales have long been imbalanced on the male side and you know how it works when you add weight to the other side, the balance tips more to that side. Women do need their own spaces, their own things. Because for so long women have been so informed by patriarchal values and meanings, we haven't had the opportunity, as a whole, to understand what our own values and meanings are. Having our own spaces helps us to figure this stuff our for ourselves, to separate that which we've been taught by patriarchy and that which we truly know in ourselves. Quote: I would not call my self a feminist, but neither am I not one. I do because it's shorthand, a political/worldview designation. But it seems when I do, it requires explanation, so maybe it's not shorthand after all! LOL Quote: I find all this open vulva thing, and the 'reclaiming what is ours' thing very strange and rather unnessecary. But it is necessary for many women, especially women who have been raped, abused, and whose lives have been appropriated by men, and there are a great many women like that. I prefer not to go the "displaying of the vulva" route myself, but I do understand what those women are attempting to accomplish even though I myself find no need to go there. I would enjoy a feminist tarot because it would speak in a language different from other decks. Just as pagan and Wiccan tarot readers may prefer a deck with non-Christian imagery and themes, a feminist or lesbian may like a deck that is woman-centered. So far, I haven't found one that is relatively devoid of "goo" and if the art appeals to me, the "goo" doesn't. But that is my problem, I guess.

ncefafn	15 May 2005
I have a painting of a vulva over my fireplace. It's by Georgia O'Keeffe, only she called it a calla lily. It doesn't strike me as particularly GOO-ey, but then I never claimed to be an art critic. Kim

MercyMe	15 May 2005
Helvetica wrote: In the first post I think there were two subjects: one was goo (mystic babble, whatever) which - as I believe, only qualifies as goo when it pretends to be analytical; and one is poor writing, like that poet ("the woman is an idiot") - which is another matter entirely - though unreadable too! I like the way you've made this distinction and I think it's important. Lyrical, mystical writing can be wonderful in its own right. I can be transported on its cadence and imagery. When it pretends to be analytical, you're right, then it slides into "goo." Poor writing is just poor writing and throwing in a metaphysical phrase or two doesn't legitimize it in the least. ~Mercy

MercyMe	15 May 2005
ncefafn wrote: I have a painting of a vulva over my fireplace. It's by Georgia O'Keeffe, only she called it a calla lily. It doesn't strike me as particularly GOO-ey, but then I never claimed to be an art critic. Kim LOVE Georgia O'Keeffe! :) Sensual and tasteful art epitomized...is it a flower? Then why am I blushing? LOL! ~Mercy

Lillie	15 May 2005
Hi Mercy. I agree with you more than was probably apparent in my earlier post. I was rust rambling really, thinking aloud. The archaeology thing. I am not an archaeologist, but I did my degree in it. the sort of archaeology I did was primarily 'theoretical archaeology' which, although I have forgotten all the names and fancy words, seemed to be drawing from both sociology and philosophy and saying that the the interpretter of an artefact (or book, or picture...) is actually it's creator through the process of looking, reading whatever. Their interpretation is as valid, if not more so, than the originator. Now, back then I took that to mean, 'there is no real truth other than what you want to make of it'. And although that is the gist of it in a very basic nutshell, it is a little more complicated than that. However, under this way of seeing things, the past from a womans perspective is as valid and as necessary as any other. But still, only one of an infinite number of perspectives. I also agree with many of the points you make about how women see their bodies. I agree the breast implants and such like have a very destructive effect upon womens body images. But I do find that many men, especially teenage boys, are also finding themselves under similar pressures. And I see this not as a women's problem, but a problem that afflicts our society in general. My son, not long out of his teenage years, struggling with a face and body that are less than perfect, dealing with rejection, wanting to be different from how he is, has taught me that this is more than just a women thing. (poor little sod, I think he is lovely, but he sees all the perfect people on the TV and compares himself to them!) Do women not fetishise men? I have heard women drooling over some bloke because he has a fancy car! It is different from fetishizing a body part, but still somewhat similar. A man has become an object whoes value to the women is dependant upon his ability to provide material goods and status. He is not percieved as a person, only as a 'big fat wallet'. And of course, the flasher his car is, the more women fancy him and want to have sex with him. Of course I am not talking about all women, or all men, but the situation I have discribed is quite common. I agree that it is a patriachal world, and has been for a long time, and although I have been lucky and never really felt that it has affected my life in a bad way, it is never the less there in the background, and yes, I agree that it is good, right and proper for women to gain more control over their bodies, their lives, their selves and their destinies. I just try to look for similarities rather than differences. in the end we are all people and we are more alike in many ways than we are different. Lastly. I suppose not all vulvas are icky. I have seen pictures where they were quite beaitiful, but when I see a room full of pictures of them half of me goes 'yuck', and the other half just falls down laughing. And also a room of po faced feminists (I don't mean you, Mercy, if you were like that you wouldn't have listened to what I had to say!) in a room full of vulva pictures just really, really brings out the worst in me. I guess I am just a sad case that can't take some things seriously!

Fudugazi	15 May 2005
Personally, I loved the Vagina Monologues. I saw the original, with Eve Ensler, in London, back when. They are funny and sad and shocking and beautiful and very astute. Not icky. Just good - and that goes for literary merit as well, although I suppose they must lie rather flat on the page. Men and women inthe audience loved them, so Eve must have been doing something right. Not goo, at any rate!

Fairawen	16 May 2005
I dunno how we got on the subject of vaginas and vulvas (eewww! Ain't some people ever heard of modesty???) but I'm back to the Goo. Yes, when I first saw this thread, I thought it was about cleaning your deck. *lol* And I was to be surprised by opening the last page and being assulted with ideas about vulvas... My opinion is be modest. Nobody has modesty anymore. Oh, I'm not saying be ashamed, simply modest. Don't hate your body, but it's something that should be kept under wraps (except in certain *special* occasions, :P) Modesty. How rare is it these days? Must be pretty rare... Back to the GOO! I've been following the thread, and have noticed that people are getting the wrong ideas about GOO! GOO (I dunno if it should be all capitilized like that... oh well!) is nonsense. Not fanciful. I like fanciful! Dreamy, poetic, ect. That's alright with me. However, there is a line, and not all so thin of a line, between poetic stuff and just pure nonsense. Poetic stuff actually has some reference to what your talking about. A poem about the Moon should make you think of aspects of the Moon. White hills that look like elephants, however, does not make you immediatly think of abortion, does it? No, it doesn't. "Silvery silk in the velvet sky"= Poetic. "White hilltops that are elephants pass by my window in the evening"+"The writer is talking about abortion"= GOO!!! Or a big pile of poodoo. :) BIG DIFFERENCE! Sorry, I just thought that quite a few of you were getting a little confused betwen what is poetic, and what is Goo. :) As you can tell, I don't like Goo either!!! And where did somebody get the idea that Goo was created by women? My gosh! No way! I seen PLENTY of Goo made by men, it's just not exactly the same as Goo made by women. Oy. How did this thread become a sex determined thing? Dudes, Goo is Goo. Men AND women make it. Ok, now that that is settled... continue with the mindless ramblings. :) Oh, wait, that's what I was doing... nevermind! :P ~Fairawen~

hannahma	16 May 2005
>The poems of Sappho are quite beautiful indeed. I think I've got that translation. From memory: He must be as happy as the gods That man who sits beside you, looks down into your face and hears you laugh. For when I am with you, I can't speak, my tongue faints, a thin fire runs over my limbs, I turn pale as dry grass. At such times death isn't far from me. And of course this one: I hear that Myrto, that hick with her hick ways, has put a torch to your heart-- and she without even the art of lifting her skirt over her ankles! I know I haven't gotten the name right, but I love that poem. I had a man once who loved Greek and Roman poetry as much as I did, and we bombarded each other with different translations...

Fairawen	16 May 2005
That is some nice stuff. Not the best I've heard, but pretty good all the same. Actually, depends on what they're talking about... *lol* I've written some poetry in my time, so I'm used to it by now. That's why I got all aggrivated when people confused poetry with Goo. How insulting. ~Fairawen~

Fudugazi	16 May 2005
Oh Fairawen, I am sure Sappho must be delighed by your praise, despite her efforts not being the best you've heard ;) (or is it the translation not the best you've heard?) If any other poet - male or female - can last as long as that lady, they will not be writing goo, most definitely! Modesty is different for different people and in different places. In the South of France it is not immodest to sunbathe topless, whereas on the Florida beaches it is. In some countries it is immodest for a woman to show her hair, whereas in others, men and women walk around quite modestly with nothing but a cache-sexe on. I met some warriors in Congo who were naked, painted white and hung with fetiches: they did not consider such get-up (or get-off, whatever you call it) to be immodest. My body is not an object of shame. That is not goo to say so.

stella01904	16 May 2005
Lillie wrote: As far as I have seen there is very little evidence, and much of it is to do wit fertilirty, which, to my mind is just another way of objectifying women, in which a woman is just a womb etc., a baby maker. The ancient venus figurines have no faces, almost no heads. They can be interpretted as defining women as objects whoes only purpose is to make babies. Stone age porn, really. Still objectified, just as a different object. This is only one interprettation (and the worst). MM ~ I don't think the primal cultures were as BENT as people are nowadays. Even now in some parts of the world (the rainforest comes to mind) a woman can go about her business topless and no one gives it a second thought. It is only in "civilised" culture that we hitch our boobs up to our collarbones or get water balloons implanted surgically. All this makes for crazy, no-good people. Quote: Who is being used, the woman who takes her clothes off, or the man that pays £50 for the privelege of watching her? I know which one is laughing all the way to the bank. Neither. The publishing company, porno company, whatever. That's who's cleaning up. Quote: My gripe with this exibition was (apart from the poor quality of the art) that the people who make and show these pictures are very dictatorial in their attitudes. They draw a big fat line and say 'This is good, this is bad, these pictures empower, these degrade'. The brook no objection and no argument, they have decided, and they have decided they are right. It is not always that black and white, but they leave no room for discussion. I am familiar with the She Woman Man Hater's Club. ;) Quote: Isn't this women only thing devisive? Shouldn't we be striving for a world where the male and the female are in balance, where both are represented fairly and equally? When you take a pendulum, and pull it waaaaay over to the male side and let it go, it will swing waaaay over to the female side, and back and forth, before it finally settles in the center. We are in the wildly swinging stage now, which gives us porno and the Old Boys Network on the one hand, and the aforementioned S.W.M.H.C., on the other. Quote: I would not call my self a feminist, I've done that myself, qualified what I was about to say with "I'm not a feminist". An attempt to distance myself from hairy legs, "Free To Be You And Me" (who the heck wants to operate a forklift?) and people who hang their walls with giant vulvas ;) . But maybe I'll cut that out. Who cares what anybody thinks, anyway. Rush Limbaugh calls feminists "Femi-nazis", anything he doesn't like is cool, IMHO. Quote: but neither am I not one. Good! Quote: Just be, whoever you are, whatever sex you are, just be yourself. No one is better than you. You don't need a feminist manifesto, or a women only tarot to tell you that. Well said! BB, Stella PS Sappho was definitely NOT GOO.

Fudugazi	16 May 2005
LOL Stella! I'm a stilletto-wearing feminist ;)

Leo62	16 May 2005
The question is whether a psychospiritualsexual matrix of femininity is a sufficient paradigm for a structural appreciation of the instinctive nature of the woman-centred, womb-centred de-emasculated signifier within the context of a metatextual definition of oracular instinctivity on a deepbloodlevel with a truly moondefined protocultural locus of meaning circling, circling, circling and pointing to a primal orallyfixated countercultural bonfireofthevanities without the resultant phallocentric penetrative uprush of liquifying para-naricissism... ...or not...})

Fudugazi	16 May 2005
:rolleyes: Leo, have you been using mirrors on your **** ? }) Pick up an old Viz mag, quick!

Leo62	16 May 2005
Helvetica wrote: :rolleyes: Leo, have you been using mirrors on your **** ? }) Pick up an old Viz mag, quick! Helvetica I have no idea what you're talking about....;)

Lillie	16 May 2005
I have never before heard or read any of Sapphos poetry, (although I was aware of who she was.) Those 2 poems were both very beautiful, the second is wonderful. Thank you for showing them to me. Hairy legs. Mine are hairy, unless He wants them smooth, in which case I give Him the honour of waxing them for me. :D

Fairawen	16 May 2005
Lille- HA. Mine are hairy, unless I plan on wearing shorts, dress, or skirt. 'Course, you all didn't need to know that... *blush*

Lillie	16 May 2005
:) Of course we need to know! It's important information.

Julien	16 May 2005
Ah Leo62... Wow. My only concern is that I actually understood what you had written there and that's a language I prefer to leave at the office... I could use that passage on an exam and see if my grad students will understand it. I'd say the odds are 50/50. Sappho is beautiful. But I don't understand how she could have come into this discussion as the GOO that we started with was nothing like poetry. I have been working the last few days and had lost track of this thread. I agree with Fairawen and others -- there's a difference between GOO and fanciful/poetic writing. The original post didn't seem particularly fanciful or poetic. And I do think there's an awful lot of attempts at beign fanciful and poetic that fail miserably. They are GOO, as far as I'm concerned. I also think there's many attempts made to sound like an intellectual that fail woefully. They, too, qualify for GOO. In both cases, I fault the writers for trying to be other than they are. To thine own self be true, in writing as in other things. Oh, and on the Vagina Monologues. Hysterically funny -- I've seen two university productions, one on the east coast and one in the midwest -- and the students did a brilliant job both times. They clearly find the dialogue inspiring and thought provoking, and enjoy producing it for charity. It's rather extraordinary to watch them come out of the cocoons with that play -- and I whole heartedly endorse the activity every year. There's nothing icky about it, and it's a far cry from the sort of "art" exhibit described earlier in the thread. Julien

Ankou	16 May 2005
Stella, I like driving forklifts and skid steers and manlifts (woman lift in my case) :) But I think I like big toys cause they make me feel less girllly, Then I go and refer to my skid steer as a "little bumble-rumble".... is that in the goo catagory?????

Julien	16 May 2005
Your "little bumble-rumble"? That's so awesome... It's poetic, I'd say. I like to work in the yard -- not weeding plants or picking flowers, but operating the mower and the weedwacker. The latter I refer to as my little buzby. ;) I'm a girlie girl most of the time... One of them stiletto wearing feminists of the third wave... Julien

Ankou	16 May 2005
I don't think I fit in any of the waves but I like wind surfing :) In truth and metaphor... (I'll have to send that metaphor to my feminist non lable liking girl...)

Red Emma	16 May 2005
Helvetica wrote: I think they aim to be spiritual (catch-all phrase) but often end up being incoherent. It's a shame, because as Mercy wrote, some of them might have something valuable to contribute, and they are feeling their way towards a feminine mysticism that is not in thrall to the patriarchy. I've written before about my disappointment with this deck, and Hanna pretty much nailed it with her description of the accompanying book. "Feeling their way toward a feminine mysticism" is another 'right on.' I just wish they had finished the journey before I bought this deck.

Fudugazi	16 May 2005
Red Emma wrote: "Feeling their way toward a feminine mysticism" is another 'right on.' I just wish they had finished the journey before I bought this deck. Emma, not for the first time you have given me a real belly-laugh! You are soooooo right (not that I have bought the deck lol). I'm not sorry I supplied you with the right cue - though I meant to play nice and see the good side of such gush ;)

hannahma	16 May 2005
Red Emma wrote: "Feeling their way toward a feminine mysticism" is another 'right on.' I just wish they had finished the journey before I bought this deck. ROTFL! Too true. I was a feminist when half the gang here were in diapers, and I dig feminine mysticism all right, but torturing a Tarot into heap of goo....

mythos	17 May 2005
hannahma wrote: ROTFL! Too true. I was a feminist when half the gang here were in diapers, and I dig feminine mysticism all right, but torturing a Tarot into heap of goo.... Me too ... but here in Australia we call diapers nappies. Totally beside the point, I agree. I don't shave my legs ... but I don't show 'em either. Spent 48 weeks sticking needles into my stomach and taking anti-virals for Hep C ... was left with scars from hives all over my legs and elsewhere. Now, if I could afford to join the dots ... tattoo-wise with ivy and flowers ... I'd shave and show my pins - unless the hairy bits could be included as flower cilia. Of course, all of this has nothing to do with goo ... except that my legs look pretty damn gooey ... and I won't use goo wax ... and I loathe fluffy feminine mysticism, combined with new-age reductionism. Gross!

Ulfdis	18 May 2005
My wife and I shave our legs so we don't stick together like velcro. We have also come to the conclusion that not all men are evil, but they do smell funny. As for forklifts, I know a forklift operator who used to be a (sometimes nude) model, and take it on my very good authority that, even though she's a year older than my mom, she is a total hottie.

feticeira	18 May 2005
I know a lot of people like it, but... is there anyone besides myself who thinks the Osho Zen deck is precisely a pile of goo? At least the accompanying book is. I can´t stand that deck!

Fudugazi	18 May 2005
I shave my legs; I wear stilletos and dresses and lipstick. I like lingerie. I love perfume. I love to flirt with men. I like it when they open the door for me. I also open the door for them ;) But I am a feminist and I hate goo - particularly tarot goo (which is more difficult to avoid than other goo, because as you've found out, you buy a deck you like and get served goo in the companion book!)

Alta	18 May 2005
feticeira wrote: I know a lot of people like it, but... is there anyone besides myself who thinks the Osho Zen deck is precisely a pile of goo? At least the accompanying book is. I can´t stand that deck! This to me is an interesting point. Sort of a 'one persons GOO is another person's spiritual meat and drink'. (that is quite a bad paraphrase I realize). GOO often strikes me as well. But I really had to laugh at one thing I read. From the mid eighties to early nineties, I was enamoured of Carl Jung. (In fact via a roundabout route that was how I got back to tarot, but that's another story.) Jung's writing can be obtuse, to say the least, and often I read his books with a big dictionary beside me. He also makes a lot of mysterious glancing references and speaks of spiritual development matters especially related to alchemy. Several years after I finished I read a comment, not complimentary, that Jung always made sure his prose was 'darkly significant'. I suspect that if he had been writing now he would have said 'Jung is full of GOO.' But, to me Jung is very significant. I also like the Osho Zen book and get a lot out of it. *shrugs* But, I see your point. :)

mythos	18 May 2005
Marion wrote: Jung's writing can be obtuse, to say the least, and often I read his books with a big dictionary beside me. He also makes a lot of mysterious glancing references and speaks of spiritual development matters especially related to alchemy. Several years after I finished I read a comment, not complimentary, that Jung always made sure his prose was 'darkly significant'. I suspect that if he had been writing now he would have said 'Jung is full of GOO.' But, to me Jung is very significant. :) To me too! I'm surprised that it has been said that Jung always made sure his prose was 'darkly significant'. It seems so contradictory to the way he writes, and his frequent comments that his findings are to be tested and not taken at face value. I guess that I didn't find Jung's references to alchemy to be particularly mysterious ... but then I had read a lot of the alchemical documentation (stuff from the middle ages, earlier and later) that he refers to in Psychology and Alchemy and Alchemical Studies. This helped no end. He is obtuse, but I think that this in part reflects the fact that, with the exception of Man and His Symbols, he was writing for a specific audience - psychiatrists and psychologists - rather than us less specialised people - though I did do undergrad and post grad psych studies. But of course, he is still considered a bit lunatic fringe by psychologists - too spiritual and philosophical ... and is considered too psychological and scientific by philosophers. Another problem with his writing, I suspect, is that we are not reading it in its original language. The piece he wrote in Man and His Symbols, he wrote in English - otherwise, he wrote in German. Then when you throw in the Latin and the Greek ... the brain does start to melt and dribble out your ears. Moreover, his language is beginning to show the effects of time. Language is so fluid ... one only needs to read a novel from the 1960's for example, and then one from this century to see how rapidly language changes. He also wrote within his zeitgeist ... and that is becoming more and more apparent. Mind you ... while I don't always agree with his conclusions, I do love reading his stuff. For me, as he works his way through an issue, explicating his process, I feel like I am reading a who dunnit ... and can't wait to find out what happens next. Oh ... and I really am not into the Osho Zen deck ... but I am aware that I am very biased because of a couple of friends who are Osho devotees ... and rabid about it. I get the GOO shudders when anyone bombards me with their particular brand of the 'truth', dismissing anything else as wrong, misguided or worse still ... they feel the need to save me from myself. Arrrrgggghhhh! I really should look at it more objectively. mythos

hannahma	19 May 2005
I just got the Ironwing Tarot in the mail, and I am delighted with it. The discussion in the accompanying book is enlightening without a trace of Goo. Lorena Moore's take on the cards is heavy with shamanism and, yes, Goddess imagery/female power, but she avoids the trap of sentimentality. Yippee! Must be because she's a blacksmith.

feticeira	19 May 2005
I like Jung too! But I do see the "darkly significant" comment making sense in the works of different writers, scholars, artists, etc. some that I like, some not. Or even some I don´t like but respect very much. For example, anyone here listen to Tool? Rabids fans claim all about their musical dexterity and intelligent lyrics, that to them make Tool an enlightening band to listen to . And I love Tool, however the "darkly significant" thing completely applies to them. There´s an arrogance coupled with a very planned thinking there that I wouldn´t deny, regardless how much I like them which is a lot. And so on with other works of different kinds. Mythos hit the nail with the *being saved from oneself* idea that many organizations and "spiritual teachers" promote. I see that in the Osho Zen deck, notice I didn´t say with Osho. I think that´s crucial- Osho´s philosophy I think has been somewhat manufactured for western mindsets, which are way different from eastern mindsets. I see that deck as a good idea cut into pieces and modeled into an easy-to-digest selfhelp soup, or in my perspective, goo.

stella01904	19 May 2005
hannahma wrote: I just got the Ironwing Tarot in the mail, and I am delighted with it. MM ~ I would give my eyeteeth for an Ironwing...! BB, Stella

Fudugazi	19 May 2005
hannahma wrote: I just got the Ironwing Tarot in the mail, and I am delighted with it. The discussion in the accompanying book is enlightening without a trace of Goo. Lorena Moore's take on the cards is heavy with shamanism and, yes, Goddess imagery/female power, but she avoids the trap of sentimentality. Yippee! Must be because she's a blacksmith. oh tell us more! open a thread in the decks section! A blacksmith! How wonderful! (I have a special thing for blacksmiths, and am very glad to hear of female blacksmiths).

Ankou	19 May 2005
Tarot, TOOL, Blacksmiths, Forklifts, stillettos, philosophy, feminists... sigh, this is what the world should be like all the time :) And all these beautiful connections started from the Goo, sounds like evolution folks...

hannahma	19 May 2005
Ankou wrote: Tarot, TOOL, Blacksmiths, Forklifts, stillettos, philosophy, feminists... sigh, this is what the world should be like all the time :) And all these beautiful connections started from the Goo, sounds like evolution folks... Let's just pray the powers that be don't squish us for not discussing tarot enough!

Fairawen	20 May 2005
hannahma wrote: Let's just pray the powers that be don't squish us for not discussing tarot enough! Then WE'LL be goo! Oh my gosh, I'm sorry, ROFL I just had to say that, it was faaar too inviting... ~Fairawen~

full deck	22 May 2005
Perhaps GOO-ey-ness is like that of those individiuals that try to do and think like Christians, (or whatever belief), simply because of what they believe is needed to maintain this Christian-ness idea. They end up further from grace because they are enamoured with the label or percieved correctness of the image but do not realize that it is the honest effort, aided by a careful critical sense, that is invaluable. It is not a pursuit of goals and fixed results, rather is a pursuit of effort that is perhaps endless and never completely pre-determined. I always remember that story about the pious Jews that would not allow their rabbi to wed a certain couple on the Sabbath, only to learn that the couple was the Messiah and the Shekinah and that their marriage would bring about the realization of God that was at the core of their devotion. They were a bit more interested in the correct ritual and their GOOey self-image than the physics of their efforts. Likewise, if anyone ever considers a "Our Body, Our Selves" Tarot, I could never puke as hard as I would like to.

stella01904	23 May 2005
full deck wrote: Likewise, if anyone ever considers a "Our Body, Our Selves" Tarot, I could never puke as hard as I would like to. MM ~ ROFLMAO - neither could I! Now let's let that go before they get any ideas! BB, Stella

hannahma	23 May 2005
full deck wrote: . Likewise, if anyone ever considers a "Our Body, Our Selves" Tarot, I could never puke as hard as I would like to. Ha ha ha!!! Rich opportunities for GOO there. Diaphragms, Tampons, Speculums and Pills? Heirophant= Gynecologist? Reminds me of the essay about the Seven Menstrual Dwarfs-- Crabby, Messy, Puffy, Crampy, Spotty, Paraphernalia, and Doc. On the other hand, there are deep spiritual meanings around childbirth, and when I spent years being obsessed with natural childbirth (anyone want to buy three crates of books about it?) the birth section of OBOS was the only one I ever reread. A birth Tarot, now... my half-formed scheme for a Comox tarot, with the Knights on skis, would feature a local midwife as the Empress. With all the folderol about women's spirituality, there seems to be precious little about birth, the one thing that gay men don't bother to steal from us. (Don't mean anything nasty by that... just that lipstick and bras and high heels and skirts are feminine, but birth and lactation are female.) On another topic, I spent the evening poring over my new Tarot de Paris. The pictures, lovely and meaningful; the book, pure Goo. A lot of gobbledegook about ley lines and numerology. The young Napoleon as King of Swords. Urk!!

Fudugazi	23 May 2005
hannahma wrote: On another topic, I spent the evening poring over my new Tarot de Paris. The pictures, lovely and meaningful; the book, pure Goo. A lot of gobbledegook about ley lines and numerology. The young Napoleon as King of Swords. Urk!! Hey, don't knock the ley lines of Paris. My sister lives on one and swears it has great power (she's not goo-ey, just super-perceptive and naturally "knowing" - without an epidural ;)). Boney as King of Swords? Not King of Wands? - that would be more appropriate. But King of Swords??? Robespierre or St Just maybe...or St Louis if the creators went Medieval. Love your comment about birth - I haven't given birth to any children, but I have birth dreams and visions, very vivid, and I consider it a full part of my feminity and my mysticism. I also give birth to creative children - entirely natural and occasionally painful births! (sometimes I wish there was a writing epidural).

Emeraldgirl	23 May 2005
hannahma wrote: Ha ha ha!!! On another topic, I spent the evening poring over my new Tarot de Paris. The pictures, lovely and meaningful; the book, pure Goo. A lot of gobbledegook about ley lines and numerology. The young Napoleon as King of Swords. Urk!! Totally agree on that one

DarkElectric	26 May 2005
I actually believe that the preponderance of GOO comes more from trying to "Gild the Lilly" as me granny used to say. Maybe these authors think that by dressing up the concept they're presenting in layers of GOO, it'll be MORE mystical, MORE enlightening, MORE...bla, bla. Jargon has been traditionally used to de-simplify concepts which are, in fact, beautiful in that very simplicity. I think that instead of just showing the thing in itself for what it actually is, there's a tendency to slop on the GOO, specifically so people will say..."OOOOOOOOOOOh, it's so much more MYSTICAL than anything I could come up with. It may also be a way for the authors of such GOOey tracts to set themselves slightly above any of us non-gooey folk, because, well, we simply wouldn't understand. This is the express purpose of jargon, in any profession. Ever notice how technical manuals, Scientific dissertations and memos from the CEO all share the same GOO factor, but the subject matter is distinctly different?

stella01904	26 May 2005
MM ~ True. Remember the pre-internet days, when everyone was just beginning to learn computers? You'd run across a term like "CRT" and have to look it up: cathode ray tube. Then you'd have to look THAT up, and it was simply the screen. Why didn't they say "screen" in the first place? Were we supposed to be intimidated by that? HA! This does play a part in Goo. Another thing that plays a big part is the self-obsession and psychobabble. Around the same time that I was first punching the keyboard, there was a television show that was hugely popular (don't know why) called "Thirtysomething". Bunch of well-to-do people with no real problems who agonised over every little thing, like which tie to wear. Then I guess they heard about that so they started having "Very Special Thirtysomethings" - in other words, they gave one of the characters terminal cancer. I had stopped trying to watch the show long before that since it had all the appeal of fingernails on a chalkboard but couldn't escape hearing about it, it was treated like some important cultural event. I think Goo must have truly come into its own in the mid to late 80's. Ack. BB, Stella

mythos	26 May 2005
DarkElectric wrote: Jargon has been traditionally used to de-simplify concepts which are, in fact, beautiful in that very simplicity. I'd argue (if I was the arguing type - which I'm not) that jargon, otherwise known as Goo, technical launguage, metaphysical fluff etc has traditionally been designed to mystify - create 'in' groups and 'out' groups .... those in the 'know' against the plebs! The 'see-I'm-special' state , and you're not! ... or as Jung would call it: 'psychic inflation' or others 'spiritual ambition'. "I'm more spiritual than you mind set". Uggggghhhhh! Why not just call a spade a spade and not a garden implement. Of course, jargon is wonderful for hiding a lack of knowledge and understanding of your subject matter. Goo-hater who has been known to use it frequently - mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, mythos

rosesred	01 Jun 2005
But I like GOO... :( Granted, very often it is counterproductive mumbling of people who do not spend enough time in the real world to know that the twinge of goddess-presence in their all encompassing femininity is actually pms, but sometimes it is very useful. Jargon creates words for terms that take paragraphs to describe, and mystic mumbling allows people to read their own interpretation, instead of somebody elses. As a philosophy student, I have actually written sentences like: The dialectic dialogue is not coherent enough to be experienced as anything but a heuristic interpretation of the fundamental nature of being. Since this particular essay was written for a professor who’ve written numerous books on the subject, it was actually a very sussinct way of summing up a complex problem that would take pages to explain in normal language. Mystic mumbling imho is better than some of the books for tarot beginners: 3 0f swords = sadness, 2 of cups = a great love approaching. These interpretations leave no room for any individual thought. Goo might be sticky, but at least it does not glue you into one place.

Emeraldgirl	01 Jun 2005
mythos wrote: Of course, jargon is wonderful for hiding a lack of knowledge and understanding of your subject matter. I have always found that those that rely on jargon and little sayings in conversation and when explaining/teching things are the ones with the least to say or who are completely out of their depth and have no idea and are just repeating someting that someone else told them wothout understanding the meaning behind the words.

stella01904	02 Jun 2005
MM ~ Like those people who speak at meetings at work. I used to like words like "empower" until they ruined them...BB, Stella

wizzle	02 Jun 2005
mythos wrote: Of course, jargon is wonderful for hiding a lack of knowledge and understanding of your subject matter. mythos So true, so true. It also has a magical ability. Once you have named or described something, you can delude yourself and your audience into believing that you understand said something whether or not you do. GOO, IMHO, falls into this category along with a lot of Golden Dawn/Crowley type babble. What scares me is that I'm begining to understand stuff I thought was GOO 30 years ago. Emeraldgirl wrote: I have always found that those that rely on jargon and little sayings in conversation and when explaining/teching things are the ones with the least to say or who are completely out of their depth and have no idea and are just repeating someting that someone else told them wothout understanding the meaning behind the words. As a non-scientist who worked with some of the most cutting edge guys in the USA, I found it was only the most brilliant who could explain their extremely difficult concepts in layman's terms. Average PhD's, though bright, had to rely on their jargon. I remember a wonderful explanation about platform instability as it affected a tricky problem in laser pointing optics; he concluded by saying "this is like trying to score free throws in a swimming pool while standing on a rubber mattress."

hannahma	07 Jun 2005
I would love to be part of a project that would bring a truly feminist tarot into being. I would love to include women icons of the past and the present, representations that were woman-focused, based on women's realities. It wouldn't have to be "airy-fairy" goo at all. ~Mercy[/quote] I've been pondering this. I have just studied the Shining Path tarot, which the author reworked after having some people misunderstand the first incarnation, Shining Woman tarot, as a women-only type of deck. She meant it to be more inclusive than that. However its book contains a lot more GOO than feminism. Many of the celtic wisdom type of decks seem to be goo-feminism too, with a lot of song and dance about Queens and Banshees and so on... and the Housewife Tarot has a delightfully ironic take on that aspect of womanliness. I like your idea about a genuine feminist Tarot. I'd see portrayals of, say, Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman as people who had not only a race analysis but also a class analysis AND a gender analysis-- and how rare that is! I'd see a midwife as the Empress, handing a mother her infant. I'd see Lookism (i.e. you're judged by your beauty) as the Devil, with the grieving woman seeing an ugly face in the mirror. Talk about bondage to the material. I'd see Marie Curie and her daughter Irene, mother-daughter Nobel winners, somewhere in there... High Priestess perhaps? No, better a real high priestess, at Delphi or Eleusis... ideas?

MercyMe	07 Jun 2005
Catherine MacKinnon -- Justice or The Emperor Andrea Dworkin -- Queen of Cups Gloria Steinam -- Queen of Wands Germaine Greer -- The Fool ( or Shulamith Firestone) MMMMmmmmm...really gets one thinking.... Actually, you know who would make a great Empress is Elizabeth Cady Stanton. She not only helped birth First Wave Feminism but had a bunch of kids, too. :) See, if it was an ancient women focus, there are tons of goddess and warrior women, sheroes, if you will, stories and myths as well as historical figures that could be used. If it was a modern feminist focus, the icons would be more from the 1st, 2nd. & 3rd waves. But I think to mix them might be too much. ~Mercy

WolfSpirit	07 Jun 2005
hannahma wrote: Many of the celtic wisdom type of decks seem to be goo-feminism too, with a lot of song and dance about Queens and Banshees and so on... What decks do you mean, hannahma ? The Celtic Wisdom tarot does not strike me as particularly feminist or woman-only, there are quite some heroic and legendary men in the deck, and I know men who love and use the deck. I have never viewed my other celtic decks (de Burgh and Celtic Dragon) as feminist either, there are quite some men in the cards and not in negative roles.

hannahma	08 Jun 2005
Wolf Spirit, I spoke too soon (as is my wont) because I was annoyed by the Faery Wicca Tarot I just got. I dig Irish legend, being half Irish -- odd that the author is named Kisma Stepanich, not a name you see a lot on the rolls at Trinity. Anyway, it's a bit gooey, and it seems to be aimed squarely at women, for all there are plenty of male heroes in the deck. I have ordered a couple of other Celtic tarots and look forward to examining them. I'm also plowing through Feminitude (see http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASIN/2840582430/aeclecticta06-21/ or just look it up on the French Amazon site, Amazon.Fr). My French is pretty shaky but I can slowly puzzle out the book, and I emerge from these sessions covered in French goo. There seems to be a card devoted entirely to the wonders of menstruation. As for me, if I were the praying sort I would pray to the Crone everyday in thanks for the wonders of menopause. But I digress. Just look at those fabulous pix.

WolfSpirit	08 Jun 2005
That Feminitude deck looks beautiful, lovely warm colours. Thanks for showing us. I agree about the Faery Wicca - an Irish woman (who spoke Irish) said she found the titles on the cards confusing, as they were half in Irish and half in English. It reminds me of some American covens who claim Irish or Welsh heritage and want to come across as so authentic when noone in Ireland or Wales has actually heard of them.

Fudugazi	08 Jun 2005
Thanks for the link! I like the names of the cards: "La Renarde", "La Chasseresse", "L'Accueillante", "La Séductrice", "La Sorcière", "La Tisseuse", "La Lumineuse" = The She-Fox, The Huntress, The Welcoming, The Seductress, The Witch, The Weaver, The Luminous. I'll see if I can read extracts from the book to identify levels of goo :) By the way - thank you for the Ironwing recommendation. I have given myself a present ;) - and not a trace of goo. Since I am working strongly at the moment with the blacksmith/alchemist archetype, and have started a journey with shamanic practices, it came at the right time. I don't read with it, but I love looking at those hypnotic images and use them for meditation.

Ross G Caldwell	08 Jun 2005
Thanks for posting about the Feminitude book and deck. Looking at the pictures on the cover, I think I dreamt about these cards just a few days ago - at least they looked and felt like that in the dream. I'm going to go looking for it this afternoon (there are a few bookstores in Béziers that might have it). I'll report back with my impressions if I find it. When I follow my inner woman, I tend to do okay. At least, that's what she tells me.

janstar17	08 Jun 2005
mythos wrote: GOO ... has now become part of my language ... thank you so much. I get so sick and tired of fluffy bunny ramblings when there is a whole world out there that is in a world of trouble. By all means meditate on world peace and the great ascension of the human spirit ... but take a bag and collect the bottles and other garbage people leave behind while you skip through the forest communing with the birds. I walk with the birds and among trees every day ... helps keep me sane ... but a bit of balance, a pair of rubber gloves, and the odd letter to the local council to remind them that the ducks can't swim in polluted water filled with discarded plastic bags and dead shopping trolley. May the GOO be turned to good balance and good planetary works. Me ... maybe I'm dumb, but I figure I got born here to live and 'work' (in all ways) on this planet and to respect my home - the earth. mythos/wild hear, hear...you rock!

The The GOO problem thread was originally posted on 11 May 2005 in the Talking Tarot board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Talking Tarot, or read more archived threads.