Here I am, once AGAIN having to catch up on several days of posts! My excuse - visiting my tarophobic parents, and general Holiday Merriment™. I hope you all had great holidays!
zan_chan said:
The movie really hit home to the feeling of undertaking a project, a commitment, that isn't always easy and isn't always fun, but you keep at it and you don't allow yourself to give up. We start this commitment, this intensive study for a reason...
maybe you're using this IDS as an allegory for your whole life, proving to yourself that you can finish something...
The point here is sticking to it, and not giving up... But you (the royal "you" that is, me included) didn't start this IDS because someone told you to. You started it (hopefully) for a purpose...
Find that purpose. Reclaim that purpose. And enjoy, love, grow with the ride that that purpose will take you on...
Please don't get me wrong-- who am i? I'm certainly not in charge here. I'm just another happy follower of the IDS cult of Kat. It's possible that I'm seeing this thing from my own delusional perspective. But when I signed up for this thing, what I thought I was getting into was a group of people who wanted to seriously talk about their intensive, exclusive study of a deck, and everything, the highs and lows, that comes with that.
Zan, I had to quote the meat of what you said because it bears repeating. I have been a "grazer" for most of my life - as a teen/twentysomething I was completely dedicated to music, but I never became the huge success that I craved. Since then I've been dawdling in this and that: tarot, art, astrology, you name it. Now I'm an acupuncturist, and after being out of school for 2 1/2 years, it's time to start studying again. So that is, indeed, my Intensive Study. But... I do want to read the cards, thus my Noblet IDS. Actually, Kat... I'm changing it to a TdM IDS. (going in the opposite direction from emmsma! lol) I think I'll get more out of this (and be more motivated) if I get out the Noblet and the Dodal for compare and contrast.
Wendywu said:
I love Ironwing - the deck is sooo huge. Really - it's huge, massive. So incredibly detailed, so broad in scope...
I don't have a single impulse to use another deck...
The exclusive use of one deck is a terrific focus...
We all have different approaches to our IDS - I think what we need in common is the exclusive use of the one deck, and the intensive use of it. Beyond that how one person relates to their deck is their business. I don't however think that one can be said to be doing an IDS unless it involves regular reading with and study of, that chosen and exclusive deck.
I love how you are becoming so accomplished with the Ironwing! Someday...
In my case, I have to use two historical TdMs, perhaps because the pips are plain. I need more variety to keep my interest.
emmsma said:
I was happy to discover yesterday, when I did my reading, that I am still very happy with my chosen deck...
Then I did the reading and saw, yep the AGM is the deck I want to be using.
As nice as the Noblet is, its the AGM that seems most warm and inviting to me. They are the friendly and welcoming faces that I need to be working with now.
I did slow down some, with the holidays, but I'm ready to dive back into it.
The Noblet is cold - many people have commented on that. I think that the Meneghello Svizzera 1804 is very friendly, too. BTW - you really need to get that deck before it's OOP. I love it!
jcwirish said:
I've been inspired by Zan to give my beloved Golden a name...
The name, Miss Kitty, has been stuck in my head for a few days now. I think it's appropriate in honor of Kat Black. So, Miss Kitty it is!
So now I'm working with the Noblet and the Dodal - both are Jean! I think that Miss Kitty is a great name for the Golden.
Cat* said:
Thanks! I tried googling for that, but still haven't found an online image of that particular lion.
Hmmm. I thought I saw it somewhere, but if you haven't found it, then it's probably not there. Bummer.
Cat* said:
I found it on Amazon but didn't have time to take a closer look, so it's bookmarked for later. Thanks!
You're welcome! I think that book is essential reading for anyone interested in the supposed Paleolithic Goddess worship.
Cat* said:
Yes, I think it was you who mentioned the Auel book series first. I'm through the first one and have started the second one now. I liked the first, especially the detailed descriptions of plant and animal life and of how things were made/done.
There is more of that in subsequent books - there are loads of descriptions of the countryside and plant life in the fourth book, and in the third there are more descriptions of making things.
Cat* said:
I'm not liking the focus on sexuality at the beginning of the second book (Valley of the Horses) - it just doesn't read very believable to me. Not that I'd have any definite idea of Stone Age sexuality, or that I'd generally mind erotic scenes in books - they just bother me in a book that I read for its historical background.
Evidently her books are a must-read for teenagers (tweens now, perhaps?) I've re-read her books several times (got me through a really difficult time), and I just skip over the sex scenes. As others have said, they are frequent, and become more frequent as the books go on. If I read how Jondalar's stupendously huge member fits perfectly in Ayla's girl parts I think I'll scream.
Cat* said:
I should ask my biologist-come-sociologist professor-friend about that. She's done a lot of work on animals and gender and is currently working on the ways we use animals and their behavior to think about human gender and sexuality. Very interesting!
I'd love to hear what she says about the whole human sexual dimorphism thing.
Cat* said:
I'm also not convinced by the idea that within the larger 'Clans' the Neandertals basically lived in small families each of whom cooked for themselves (except for feasts). It seems so much more likely to me that a group of 20 people would cook communally (and do the rest of the work communally, too, at that). It would be so much less work, and would also save resources. Also, it would seem more likely that all men hunted for all women, instead of one man taking care for one woman and her children (and sometimes a grandparent or a rare second woman). More so when the role of men in making babies hasn't been known then. Animals/mammals that live in groups of that size don't mate in stable couples, right? So why would humans if there wasn't any noteworthy property to keep 'in the family'?
That makes sense. But I wonder when our primate ancestors would have found that it made evolutionary sense to eat communally. While wolves and such eat communally at a kill, generally the alpha goes first, etc.
Cat* said:
Don't get me started on that! From what I know about human concepts of gender throughout time and cultures, Auel's version seems a bit too much of a contemporary utopia to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with stuff like that in a fantasy novel or whatever, but that's what I meant above about not finding it believable for the setting. It's not so much the 'equality' that bothers me, it's the way she has her characters
think about gender and sexuality. I'm just waiting until I get so annoyed that I start researching Stone Age genders...
I guess I wasn't critically reading the novels - I didn't see it that way but now that you mention it...
One point that you'll get once you get to book 5 (if you last that long!) is that she is setting these novels in a time where she arbitrarily has set the transition from a Goddess-matrifocal society to a patriarchal one - mostly on the basis of Ayla's understanding that having sex with men = babies. That changes the gender balance, and combined with men's superior strength = the end of utopia. It doesn't actually come to that in the currently-available books, but I think that's where it's going.
Cat* said:
I'm glad you'll stay around for the Greenwood conversation! I'm actually planning to create a huge post over in the Greenwood study group area with links to Greenwood-relevant posts in the IDS threads. We've collected so many great links, thoughts, and insights that it would be a shame if they were lost to others working with the deck!
Oh, I agree! I'm so glad that you decided to take this on. It's like the Ironwing thread where people were sharing their insights on that deck.
sapienza said:
What has happend for me in the past six months is that I'll focus intently on a huge range historical decks and then swing wildly amongst a whole range of modern decks without really achieving anything much with any of them. Since I've basically committed to just the TdM and Thoth I've remained pretty focused and have found it much easier to just leave my other decks alone. It has been working really well for me.
It seems to me that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"! If the 2 systems/decks are working well for you, then I wouldn't change a thing. There is no reason why you can't work with two decks in an IDS. IMO, YMMV and all that.
