| Title: | Naturism |
| Notice: | Site report index is in topic 7 |
| Moderator: | GENRAL::KILGORE |
| Created: | Tue Jan 26 1988 |
| Last Modified: | Wed May 07 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 457 |
| Total number of notes: | 3687 |
As I said in the Roll Call note, I have a topic to create, that
is not strictly about naturism ... or is it?
For many years now I have studied The Old Religion - Wic'ca - and
I also regularly give Tarot readings for various people - usually
friends, but occasionally friends of friends, or people who have
heard about it second hand. I have a reputation for accuracy (I
once surprised a colleague by telling her she was pregnant - she
came back a week later and told me that indeed she was pregnant).
Now the peculiarity: initially I told the Tarot in much the same
way as I read the Runes - as part of Wic'can festivals. And of course
both myself and the subject would be naked at that time, since that
is how we communicate / supplicate with the Gods.
Now I don't want to discuss the religious implications of my earlier
contacts with Wic'ca, but I have found over the years that I get
a much clearer reading of the cards if the reading is carried out
in the nude. It is as if the clothing somehow blurs the image.
One possible explanation is that Tarot is a form of empathetic link
between the reader and the readee, and that indeed clothing impedes
the link.
Anyway I wonder if the readership have any comments.
Also I wonder (and this is why it is here and not in DEJAVU) if
whatever makes this link happen is present in the "communing with
nature" experience that so many of us enjoy when nuding. It is after
all at least possible, since it seems to be the reason for the nudity
in Wic'can festivals.
/. Ian .\
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 155.1 | InterPERSONAL Communication | HPSTEK::SHERMAN | Fri Apr 14 1989 17:33 | 50 | |
It is with caution that I reply to this. But reply I will.
While to the casual "Opt" (he/she who opts for clothing when it
is a stated option) may wonder at what you wrote, I am beginning
to understand something parallel to what I think you were getting
at. At any rate it is what I am getting at.
During my several hours of helping loving couples create body maps
in a formal way to a long-term positive attempt to stay ahead of
skin cancer (and other types palpable from the outside), I learned
a lot.
As the contacts increased and we worked together, it became very
evident that the outside of the human container bore little importance
to the kind of relationship we developed during those moments together,
there at Atika.
Believe it or not, by the end of the first day, I could look at
a human, male or female, and relate to the person inside ... because
that was what I trying to preserve.
There are only two types of humans: Female and Male. I have that on
good authority (mine ... by golly ... because I've looked! There ... I
said it!). The person inside is real. The person inside has two
functions: (1) to be a good human being and (2) take part in
reproducing the human race occasionally.
When each of us was at the point of becoming alive, some mechanism or
someone (and I use that terms to be very non-commital) flipped a coin
and we became either male or female as a result. We then grew up and
took part in the world.
I will tell you this. Had I not been fortunate enough to stumble
cold-turkey into Moonstone Beach, I would have never had that beautiful
opportunity to reach the point where "looking over the fence" so
to speak to reach the person, did not get all tangled up with whether
or not the person was a she or a he. And always wondering what
was under all that clothing.
You soon get past all those awful thoughts that press down on our
neighbors the opts. How sad for them not to share the freedom of
experiencing fellow humans in the real sense and not all fussed
up with covering -- both textile and psychological.
So your ancient communicators knew what they were doing. Now neat
it would be to know for sure.
Stan/
| |||||