There’s a lot that I initially love about this book: it is very clearly coming from a female perspective, which is always so refreshing and nurturant … how I love to be held in Her womb, experience and name the creativity of the Cosmos from within Her/her: that too is my chosen perspective and priority. The bibliography is impressive, including a good range of feminist Goddess people, and some female scientists. The Preface is good, the position explained well. I love the introduction of new words, which comes when the story is told from a female view, and portals may open, after millennia of her/our exclusion from naming phenomena: for example, “evolution” may become “vulvalution”, and our origins are described as an ova/vulva/lution, rather than a “big bang”. I myself have described those mysterious parthenogenic origins as an Original Ovulation, or a big O (orgasm). This is women seeing and expressing/naming our knowings and observations of the world/cosmos from within our own skins, from within our valued experience. In the Introduction there is a good analysis of the traumatic childhoods of Western icons such as Descartes and Newton, how that affected their methods and conclusions: this is so rarely taken into account in the acceptance of their work. They are assumed to be “objective”, which many are aware is actually never the case. Later in Part II, there is further good critique of the often flagrant misogynist perspective of Euro-Western icons such as Plato, Aristotle, Freud, Einstein and more: and Leslene tells it with some humour at times (well there are those of us who would find it so).There are many who remain unaware of this hatred at the base of Euro-Western philosophy and sciences, and how it has affected the very structures and perceptions of our everyday lives.
But the thing is, for me: while Leslene often found mainstream science boring, as she states on p. xxii, it was never boring for me, it was indeed a passion for me, fired me up, and for the last few decades, with the help of science, I have understood that the universe is alive, sentient, and connected; without naming it as “Electric.” While Leslene wants to push aside or diminish the theory/concept of gravity, I personally love it, understanding it as I do, as a primordial alluring power of the Cosmos. I feel it as a power with which Earth holds me, and with this same power Earth is held in orbit around Sun, Moon around Earth … and I can feel it! It is a power that cosmologist Brian Thomas Swimme names as Allurement, and he speaks about it as love “in its cosmic dimension,” as “the basic binding energy found everywhere in reality”, and as “the primary allurement that all galaxies experience for all other galaxies”.[i] He says: “Allurement evokes being and life”, and “love is a word that points to this alluring activity in the cosmos. This primary dynamism awakens the communities of atoms, galaxies, stars, families, nations, persons, ecosystems, oceans, and stellar systems … Think of the power of this alluring activity – its immensity.”[ii] I do however appreciate the attention given in this book to the “Electric Universe”: we can and do have both, I am sure. Leslene supposes that only an electric universe is about “connection and reciprocity”, “synonymous with femaleness”,[iii] whereas I find gravity to be all of that. I refer to the work of philosopher Linda Holler who describes the sensual, embodied effect of gravity on thinking: how space becomes “thick” as this “relational presence … turns notes into melodies, words into phrases with meaning, and space into vital forms with color and content, (and) also holds the knower in the world.”[iv]
Leslene loses me a little early on in the book, in some places where there is much conjecture: for example, on p.xxxviii where she refers to Talbot and Thornhill’s ideas about the origins of the ubiquitous cross-cultural presence of snakes and dragons in numerous mythologies. I do not think there is any need to postulate about cataclysmic events visible in the solar system as the source for such images though they may well have occurred, and I do not think it is productive for an argument for a female cosmology. I much prefer a more organic explanation, which seems so obvious to me: that is, all humans across the globe dwell on this earth, and most with reptiles, birds and many animals in common. All humans across the globe dwell within very similar bodies, sharing very similar fundamental needs and desires – elemental, emotional, and social. There is no necessity to look outside the everyday experience of being/becoming in a human body on this Planet, to understand the cross-cultural sharing of ubiquitous images, metaphor, stories and rituals. Joseph Campbell speaks to this specifically in his book The Inner Reaches of Outer Space: Metaphor as Myth and as Religion, the Prologue title being “Myth and the Body”, and the title of the first chapter being “Cosmology and the Mythic Imagination”. Much has been expressed in common across the Planet with the power of the poetic mind.
I argue with the premise “that most myths are born of celestial events that have shaped culture.” This is not to deny the influence of celestial events and archaeoastronomy, and that it has often been neglected, and needs to be recognised and included as a source; but there is so much in the human embodied sensual and social experience that is organically formative. Let’s not deny the body again in the haste to admit the significance of our interactions with celestial events. Celestial events may have re-iterated realities and prejudices that were already present for more organic reasons, and been interpreted accordingly: for example, on page 13 Leslene refers to celestial events that are said to have “caused women to lose status in Mesopotamia and Egypt.” To my mind this is far too simplistic, and seems to deny the primacy of the organic and social experience and unfolding. We do not have to rely on celestial events to explain the ubiquity of mythologies and metaphor: not only do we humans share a common body, and common complexities and unskilful behaviour, it is common throughout recorded history for ideas to arise at the same time in different parts of the globe: that is, without mediated presence or relying on celestial events. Leslene loses me a little here, and others might abandon here, which is unfortunate; proceeding is worthwhile.
I disagree in part with the author’s assertion that the male-dominated anthropomorphic myths that have been the foundation of Western civilization tell the stories of catastrophic events that were “seen in the skies”. My disagreement is not to deny that catastrophic events may have been seen in the skies, but to affirm that catastrophic and transformatory events also happened here on Earth, with complex causes and unfolding, being traced by inter-disciplinary researchers including anthropologists, geneticists, and archaeologists, and of both sexes. I agree that there were most probably actual catastrophic celestial events, but it is far too simplistic in my opinion, to say that these gave rise to the embedded misogyny, as Leslene asserts; the myths were as much the product of misogyny, and a re-iteration of it, from very complex causes that varied across cultures. They could well have been re-iterated in the skies: I have no problem with the occurrence of such phenomena, but there was much going on, on the ground in social/cultural interactions that gave rise to the misogyny we experience and witness.
I concur with the author’s assessment of the erasure of female genius from the cosmos across the millennia, as “out of control” and even “demonic”[v]: this is a clarity of vision, and I feel it as healing to have the situation described so powerfully. In many places she successfully puts holes in much that was/has been accepted as science and sometimes still is, exposing its essential misogynism: for example, the impact that spermism has had on the field of embryology, and its osmosis into naming the theory about life existing throughout the Universe as a “panspermia” hypothesis[vi]. In part II Leslene continues to put the case well in my opinion, for the recognition of the holocaust against femaleness and Nature. Some may feel this has been done before by foremothers, but Leslene’s take on it in these times is refreshing, and synthesized with more developments in science.
There is a lot I argue with in Part III. Again, Leslene states her experience of science as boring and adds that she was more excited by hallucinogens as a method of learning “about energy, life, and the living universe”[vii]. That is all well and good as her personal experience, but it does not provide a basis for composting all science, and or grounds for the reader’s confidence in her excitement about an electric universe. I too explored transpersonal psychologies without hallucinogens, via embodied and ceremonial methods, and I loved science which had for some decades been breaking new ground with the inclusion of consciousness: the quantum world had been blowing the minds of physicists, philosophers, theologians, historians and many non-academics. It was not mechanistic. There were/are plenty of scientists who were/are “outside the box”[viii]: one example being evolutionary biologist Dr. Elisabet Sahtouris, who wrote poetically of the great relational organism, Gaia, whom we live within in the late 1980’s, and was very familiar with Indigenous wisdoms[ix]. There are many scientists and others who do not accept the big bang theory, nor agree to its name. The theory was composed by Georges Lemaitre in 1927, who did not name or imagine it as a “big bang”. This was before Hubble’s observation that the galaxies were moving away at high speeds (1929). It was others who some decades later took Lemaitre’s theory and named it according to their androcentric and war stories[x]. We are free to re-name it and re-imagine it without throwing everything out. Leslene discounts the theory with: “there is nothing female about it”[xi], but this is just not necessarily so. The vision of the image of the Cosmic Background Radiation (that is, the leftover radiation from when the Universe began) may be storied as a Cosmic Egg, and resonates with many Indigenous and matricentric cosmologies.
We do not need an Electric Universe to story the parthenogenetic nature of cosmic creativity, as Leslene postulates[xii]: the Mago story from Old Korea as interpreted by the work of Helen Hye-Sook Hwang tells of parthenogenesis, and it is also already told in the presently accepted story of cosmogenesis/evolution as I understand and interpret it. Leslene later discusses this Mago cosmology, and admits that it doesn’t need “the electrical plasMA discharges between planets”[xiii].
Leslene quotes snippets from scientists such as Mae-Wan Ho and Fritjof Capra who were doing cutting edge science late last century (and thus they were framing new perspectives), to support her naming of all science as mechanistic, misogynist and unworthy. I too have referred to their work, but for the purpose of noting that science supports a female and gynocentric cosmology; and which does not necessarily need to include a totally electric universe[xiv], though it could. To my mind, Leslene’s references to various scientific arguments that would discount so-called big bang theory, is not necessary to understanding or storying the Universe as an essentially female organism. While these references are informative, her conclusion is arbitrary: it may be her personal feeling, but not a matter of absolute or unbiased truth, as she frames it.
The book is composed of six parts, the first two parts setting much of the premise for “the electric plasMA universe.” By time I got to parts III and IV, I had a deal of resistance to much of that premise, which is a pity, because I feel that some of the ideas introduced are worthy of consideration. Much of part VI which is Female Cosmology would be revelatory for many, who may not have heard or read little about the actual existence of such gynocentric cosmologies. It would be revelatory for those who have not been able to articulate their feeling about male-centred bias of the cosmologies that they were/are offered. Personally, I did not need much of the first five parts to arrive at female cosmologies, and indeed the female cosmologies themselves did not require it: that is, the examples given were formed by diverse organic processes that stand by themselves. For many however part VI would expand the real possibilities and make a desired mindshift.
This book is a monumental work, that deserves reading, but there is way too much conjecture for my taste, and often much of the author’s personal reaction. Most female scientists, and some male scientists, know the patriarchal bias built into the whole premise and system, and it is useful to have it spelled out, but ironically, it is a disservice to do so without more acknowledgment that it is the story/spin that matters most. I totally agree that it is She who spins the coils of creation, but Her methods are diverse: She also allures with Her desire, which may be what is named as “gravity”, and remains ultimately mysterious. In my opinion, Leslene is correct when she says that “a new paradigm in cosmology describing a connected and reciprocal universe will bring us into unity,” and correct to question “mainstream male-dominated science – astronomy, physics, and astrophysics,”[xv] but in my opinion, I find it myopic to focus so much on problems with so-called “big bang” theory, the necessity of an electric universe for a female cosmology, together with the author’s particular subjective interpretation of it. Others will find it very helpful however.
To purchase a copy of Leslene’s book: She Who Spins the Coils of Creation: Sacred Female Cosmology in the Electric PlasMA Universe
NOTES:
[i] The Universe is a Green Dragon (Sante Fe: Bear & Co., 1984), 45.
[ii] Ibid., 49.
[iii] 153.
[iv] “Thinking with the Weight of the Earth: Feminist Contributions to an Epistemology of Concreteness”, Hypatia, Vol. 5 No. 1, 2, referred to by Glenys Livingstone in PaGaian Cosmology: Re-inventing Earth-based Goddess Religion(Nebraska: iUinverse, 2005), 253.
[v] 12.
[vi] 17-18.
[vii] 151.
[viii] 152.
[ix] Gaia:the Human Journey from Chaos to Cosmos (New York: Pocket Books, 1989), re-published as Earthdance: Livings Systems in Evolution (Lincoln Nebraska: iUniverse, 2000).
[x] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp27bi.html
[xi] 152.
[xii] 156-157.
[xiii] 358.
[xiv] PaGaian Cosmology: http://pagaian.org
[xv] 158.
References:
Campbell, Joseph. The Inner Reaches of Outer Space. New York: Harper & Row, 1986.
Holler, Linda. “Thinking with the Weight of the Earth: Feminist Contributions to an Epistemology of Concreteness” in Hypatia ,Vol. 5 No. 1, Spring 1990, 1 – 22.
Livingstone, Glenys. PaGaian Cosmology: Re-inventing Earth-based Goddess Religion. Nebraska: iUniverse, 2005.
Sahtouris, Elisabet. Gaia:the Human Journey from Chaos to Cosmos (New York: Pocket Books, 1989).
Swimme, Brian. The Universe is a Green Dragon. Santa Fe: Bear & Co., 1984.
Can I please get some help? Someone contacted me and said she has been trying to post a comment here and it has not yet been posted. What does she need to do in order to comment? I told her she needed to subscribe which she did. But I am not sure what esle she needs to do? Thanks.
Hi When someone is new to WordPress or to our RTME as a commenter, she will have to be approved. Once approved, she doesn’t need approval. That is the way that RTME screens spammers. Thank you for understanding.
Thanks. Yes, they are different and since I was told about the “arm’s length” as well as that the author should not know the reviewer I found that confusing. Yes, agree clarifications are important.
Talk about “damned with faint praise.” I read Ms. Livingstone’s review of She Who Spins the Coils of Creation by Leslene della-Madre with dismay. This is not a review, it is an argument that needlessly misses the point and power of the book being reviewed.
As a frontline organizer for the Women’s Spirituality Movement and avid reader, I consider She Who Spins to be one of the three most important books published from this movement in the last 40 years. I consider She Who Spins is a companion piece to Great Cosmic Mother, which I continue to view as the “Bible” of the Women’s Spirituality Movement.
Similarly, I found much of what is said by Leslene della-Madre to be from a mythic-poetic perspective, and while much of what she has to say is fact and/or historically based, I felt a good portion of it was essentially channeled. Consequently, I do not consider it to be a work of science, and welcome it as a valuable and even brilliant speculation into why? and how? with a major effort made by the author to identify and gather evidence to support the revelation: The Universe is Female.
Now, I am not a scientist, but I do know much of what has been put out as “science” is downright speculative, and we need look no farther than the Big Bang Theory itself for an example. As a priestess and big fan of Elisabet Sahtouris, my cosmology has been based on the Gaia Hypothesis. How exciting to expand my own belief, thanks to Leslene della-Madre, now to include the construct that the whole Universe, not just Earth herself, is Female! This is the most salient point in the whole book, and I think she makes a case for it. It is why I am recommending it to every woman I think might be interested, and what Ms. Livingstone missed.
I don’t much care whether gravity or electricity or both or neither is significant, but I can understand plasma, and why it is a connector and how it would be a property of a female construct. I really am fascinated to contemplate that, of course, civilizations that watched the night sky would be influenced by what they saw there, and have tried to record dramatic occurrences in the means available, like stone. I found the premise that patriarchy and misogyny are rooted in astrophysical displays in the skies in an ancient time that changed humanity’s relationship to deity as worthy of contemplation as any of the other theories I have heard propounded over the years.
And I liked della-Madre’s use of vocabulary, so reminiscent of much beloved Mary Daly. I especially appreciated hearing about “genova” and “genovi,” noted by della-Madre as attributable to Irene Coates. As I even wrote and produced a play based on Emily Martin’s work on the egg and the sperm, it was exciting to see her work, and the work of Judy Grahn noted. And, this book gave me a new and positive perspective on Magoism.
When my feminist goddess book club read She Who Spins the Coils of Creation, we were collectively stunned, some by the science, as Crescent, one of our book group members, shared her thoughts about the book: “This is one of those books that changes your life. Although completely different, it has had similar effect on me to The Great Cosmic Mother. The ideas presented within the book were previously unknown to me. Della-Madre talks about the theory that the universe is electrical, and that electricity, specifically plasma, is far more important than gravity. She blends the electric universe theory with archaeology and the presumed mythology/religion/spirituality of paleolithic and neolithic cultures. Della-Madre makes a good case for the universe itself being female on many levels and also addresses the limitations of science in acknowledging what is clear, but unconventional or goes against current dogma.“
Others of us, like myself, were stunned at the theory and evidence presented that the Universe is Female. But the one thing we all agreed on should be noted by every woman in this community, “this is one of those books that changes your life.”
It stands to reason that different publications would have different guidelines. S/HE is an academic journal, RTM is a blog, very different kinds of publications. Yes, it’s always good to clarify guidelines.
I was specifically told that the author should not know reviewers when I made some suggestions about other reviewers. I did not agree that Glenys was the best one to review my work. Glenys and I have been friends for years. That said, perhaps it is good to clarify guidelines so that further confusion doesn’t happen? Are there different gidelines for RTME than for S/HE?
It’s wonderful that the author has the opportunity to respond to this thoughtful review of her book. I think she misunderstands the meaning of “arm’s length” in this case. It means that the author and the reviewer aren’t close friends, or that there is no recent professional relationship between them (e.g., supervisor-student, recent research collaborator). Researchers with similar interests are often acquainted with each other.
I read and wrote a blurb for Leslene’s book. I found it to be mind-expanding and well researched. It is a valuable contribution to work that explores the nature of the Matriverse. I highly recommend it.
Just an addendum: I was told the guidelines for reviewers for S/HE by Francesca. It seems that they don’t apply to RTME?
There is a backstory to the situation with this review. Originally it was for S/HE. I was told a review was in the works for months but never heard anything. Then I heard back from Francesca that Glenys was reviewing the book for S/HE. The guidelines in S/HE as were explained to me for reviewers included that a reviewer should be “at arm’s length” from the author and should not be someone the author knows and that any potential conflicts of interest should be stated by the reviewer. Then the actual review was sent to me. That was an error, of course, but on the other hand I felt it was the universe giving me a chance to see what was being written about my work that was an endeavor of over 8 years of research on a topic that is not known by many–The Electric Universe and PlasMA (my spelling) Cosmology and the goddess. Since I saw the review beforehand, I wrote to Francesca giving her my sense of how the content of my book was not accurately represented because Glenys did not understand Electric Universe/plasMA cosmology. Even though Glenys’s field of expertise is cosmology, which I respect, it is not Electric Universe cosmology. I felt that Glenys was interjecting too much of her own views about cosmology and not really understanding mine. One example is her stating that it seemed that I pushed gravity aside, which goes against her view of gravity. However, I wrote significantly about gravity in the Electric Universe in the book and felt what I wrote was overlooked and that statement that I pushed it aside is totally incorrect. So I had to ask myself why would Glenys make that statement when my views on gravity are evident. Glenys felt a need to state her own views on gravity. That was very confusing to me because this was supposed to be a review on my views. I will take back “wholly inadequate” and just say that I felt some of the review was reductionist.
I appreciate that Glenys took much time in reading the book. Liking a book and agreeing and disagreeing are all a part of doing reviews. But I feel a reviewer cannot agree or disagree with specific content they are critiquing if they don’t have enough knowledge to do so. Writing about what a book says is one thing, but going into agreeing/disagreeing is another. For example, I don’t understand String Theory cosmology or M Theory cosmology and even though I am a cosmologist, I would not review books on those subjects as a colleague because I have not studied those topics. I could write a review on what those theories say, but I could not debate them. I felt Glenys was debating my cosmology views in portions of her review rather than reviewing what my views are. Plus, given the guidelines, Glenys and I are friends, not arm’s length, and I felt there were conflicts of interest because my cosmology views contradict hers. Simply, the Electric Universe view on cosmology does not support a gravity-driven universe. Glenys’s cosmology views are based on a gravity-driven universe. At any rate, I was told the review would not be published. Since I did not know that didn’t apply to RTME, I asked for it to be removed.
Of course I would not expect everyone to agree with what I write. That is not the point in my view. I appreciate that Glenys did make some positive and supportive points but I think it would have been a more fair review had Glenys had knowledge of Electric Universe and plasMA cosmology since her choice was to critique the cosmology paradigm itself rather than reviewing what it is about. The EU community has been publishing for decades with many scholars, scientists, physicists, cosmologists, astrophysicists, plasma cosmologists, etc. A founder of that community told me I “was the one” to write a book about EU cosmology and the goddess. So, I have been honored by that and am grateful that he could see the worth in bringing this work forward and expanding it into other communities.
I appreciate this platform to discuss here and I am trusting this process and am glad that there is inspiration to read my book. Thank you.
Thank you so much for sharing your book review. Doing a book review is an act of generosity and connection on your part, dear Glenys. This is a very comprehensive review and I believe you have helped a lot for the publicity of this book and the topic that the book treats, which is enriching and inspiriting. Love, Helen
For what it’s worth, I was not aware of Leslene’s book before reading Glenys’s review this morning. Reading the review made me want to read the book! I’ve been much more drawn to the galactic and cosmic mysteries as of late and am intrigued by the marriage of these realms with Goddess Feminist sensibilities. I was excited to learn, via this review, of the existence of this intriguing work. I take to heart Glenys’s closing statement, “This book is a monumental work, that deserves reading,” and that many will find it very helpful. I imagine I might agree with some of Glenys’s comments and disagree with others, and am certain I would learn much in the process.
It is extremely vulnerable to put one’s work and words out into the world, especially in this current climate of high reactivity and the high-speed, dehumanizing nature of communicating through computer screens. I applaud Leslene and Glenys, as well as Helen and so many others in this community, for choosing that vulnerability and courage. We face an enormous challenge in fostering honest dialogue and respectful disagreement. Patriarchal constructs want to pit us against one another and academia in particular can lean to heavily towards disproving and invalidating others and defending one’s position. On the other end of the spectrum, I’ve known some Goddess spaces to be actively discouraging of authentic discourse and healthy challenge. I think the skill we are all attempting to learn is how to hold disagreement with kindness and respect.
I want to offer appreciation and care to everyone connected with this dialogue (including all observing) as we continue to forge new ways of communicating and connecting that promote authenticity, respect and kindness.
Dear Leslene, I do not understand why you are so upset about my review. I never required everyone to agree with everything I wrote in my books – not even my doctoral examiners would do that, let alone an independent reviewer. I have made many positive statements about your book and indeed people should read it for themselves. I hope that many more will do so, as a result of my review and publicity about it. Some/many may disagree with me, and some do already. Others have thanked me for this “excellent review”. It need not be hurtful to you or your scholarship: it is simply a statement of points of disagreement, that I felt (and feel) needed to be pointed out. You are free to disagree with me, but not free to insist that I not speak, or that I am not qualified to understand your book. I have the perfect qualifications to write a review, since cosmology is indeed my field. It would be remiss of me not to read your work and respond honestly.
Please calm down – you have much to offer, and so does your book. Many will enjoy it.
with love and care, Glenys
I asked that this review not be published and was told it would not. This review is wholly inadquate and is written by a reviewer who does not understand my premise. A reviewer should not agree to review a topic she does not understand and should not interject her own views on cosmology into a review about another book. I am upset that this inadequate and actually disparaging review got published anyway. I told the review team that publishing this would cause me harm. It also does not follow the guidelines of reviewers. I am profoundly disappointed that my request was not honored or respected. I want it taken down. Thank you.
Hello Leslene, as I wrote to you, the RTME (Return to Mago E-Magazine) is a different venue than the S/HE Journal, which you are talking about here. No RTME co-editors or Glenys herself agreed or was told not to publish it because it is just a new material to us.
Now I understand that Glenys the book reviewer and Leslene the author of the book reviewed do not aggree strongly. Leslene, please explain why it is wholly inadequate so that Glenys and others can understand.
BTW, this is not true. Book reviewers have the right to review a book from their own perspectives. I find Glenys’ review is legitimate. It is another thing that the author likes it or disagree with it. That is how book reviews are practiced insofar as the S/HE Journal and RTME are concerned. And that is the common practice outside our circles.
“A reviewer should not agree to review a topic she does not understand and should not interject her own views on cosmology into a review about another book.”
Leslene, please explain further what makes you say so. Our readers may be interested in listening to you.
Glenys, please listen to Leslene, although you might not agree with her, and respond to her with care and respect.
I believe you two are using emails to clarify. This is the time I hope you two demonstrate how Materiveral Feminists can talk and arrive at mutually-agreeable and world-serving conclusions/words/actions. Wisdom, willingness, and generosity will help on both parties. And this issue should be primarily resolved between the two of you. Many thanks, love, and cheers.