Post by E on Apr 23, 2009 19:57:24 GMT -5
Original post by Shannon:
Funny how coincidences work...
There's a discussion here about being a witch/not being a witch and the same on another forum. I suppose with the type of forums, it's not that funny that the topic is brought up, but it's got me thinking about it twice in one day.
The topic on the other forum is spellwork, and the general consensus seems to be that a witch is someone who uses practical magic, within whatever other pagan trad they are in.
Thinking on this, if my neighbor went and bought a love spell kit and performed magic, this wouldn't make her a witch by default. There's something more that makes a person a witch. Some sort of connection, awareness that goes beyond a basic practitioner of witchcraft. For that matter, could I with my maybe one spell a year, really be a witch?! Is it the thing in me that claims not to be a witch, but a philisophical pagan, the thing that actually makes me a witch?
I wish I had the patience right now to write out a more thought out post. Hopefully some of you will see where I'm going with this and I'll be able to add more thoughts to it later.
Chill:
Shannon wrote:
QUOTE:
There's a discussion here about being a witch/not being a witch and the same on another forum. <snip>
The topic on the other forum is spellwork, and the general consensus seems to be that a witch is someone who uses practical magic, within whatever other pagan trad they are in.
My short-short definition of a Witch is: A Pagan who works Magick.
Likewise, if someone is a Pagan and does NOT work Magick, they're not a Witch. They are a Pagan only. Witches practice Witchcraft.
And from there, the fun begins because there are many Traditions (or as I call them, "flavors" ) of Witches.
Shannon continues:
QUOTE:
Thinking on this, if my neighbor went and bought a love spell kit and performed magic, this wouldn't make her a witch by default. There's something more that makes a person a witch. Some sort of connection, awareness that goes beyond a basic practitioner of witchcraft.
Well if she's not Pagan, by *my* definition, she's not a Witch. She's just dabbling with magic (notice the missing "k" ).
Shannon continues:
QUOTE:
For that matter, could I with my maybe one spell a year, really be a witch?!
Are ya Pagan? If you are and you only do one spell a year, maybe you're just a lazy Witch
Can someone be a Christian if they only go to church once a year? I would say they can be. So why can't someone be a Witch if they are Pagan, and only do spellwork on rare occasions?
Shannon continues:
QUOTE:
I wish I had the patience right now to write out a more thought out post. Hopefully some of you will see where I'm going with this and I'll be able to add more thoughts to it later.
I look forward to them.
Cheryl
Red Ronin:
I periodically perform workings.
I have done considerable work noting the correspondences and complimentary natures of ki and workings in high magiq.
My definition of myself?
Me.
Matt:
There are certain subjects in the Pagan/Witchcraft community that tend to recycle every now and again. This being one of them.
There is no uniformity in the usage of the word.
A witch is a person who uses magic.
A witch is a woman who uses magic.
A witch is a Pagan who uses magic.
A witch is an initiate of the Witch Cult - in the form of Traditional Initiatory Witchcraft.
A witch is an initiate of the Witch Cult - in the form of British Traditional Wicca.
A witch is an initiate of the Witch Cult - in the form of either TIW or BTW.
To add insult to injury, the word rarely comes up without the word "Wicca" being close on its heels. And it starts all over again!
Any of these (or a combination!) may be employed by different people at different times and places. Frankly it gets confusing. For me, the confusion usually rears its ugly head when talking to others more so than in my private pondering. Contrary to what you may have heard about me, I really take no joy in being contentious! So I find it necessary to understand how the person with whom I'm conversing uses the word. The first definition above would, for example, include Ceremonial Magicians. Call a CM a witch and see how well it is received! Try number two and I'll have to take issue. Try three and you'll find a Voudon practitioner that won't take kindly to it. It is a major case of trying to "please all of the people all of the time". Won't happen.
So here I've thrown out a couple of paragraphs and have done absolutely nothing in the way of providing insight to your conundrum. But I fully agree with you that the moniker doesn't apply to everyone who simply uses magic. I treat the word witch the same way I treat the word Wicca; I know what it means to me and I have a good idea what it means to those around me. I usually politely explain what the word means to me and ascertain if I am correct in my assumption as to how the other(s) is using it. That allows me to hear what they are saying without compromising my own opinion.
Which, ultimately tells you how I use the word when in discussion. I still haven't addressed what makes a person a "witch". I can't. I don't have the answer. I just view the word as being like the practice or practices it represents; something organic...fluid...malleable...moving in and out of forms at different times, different places, and in different situations.
Wishing this helped/Knowing it didn't!,
Matt
Leif Teuspoukt:
So, there's folk who would define, refine Then...CONFINE what it means to express what SHOULD be a Personal Approach/access With DEITY to HELP others? Why not take a look to the term's roots as well as routes?:
www.thefreedictionary.com/witch then... www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE553.html
Yet for the sake of convention alone it seems, it comes down to abiding only one shirt or uniform even among those who claim to be kindred spirits of a sort, at least. Would a type of dogma be more in keeping to put a piece of certified paper on a wall so all who saw could supposedly understand an alleged claim on Wisdom, never minding 'the fact' such wisdom can come from more than one source/ tradition...even to the point Beyond such limitations?
Besides when speaking of a Faith which--it's my extensive experience anyway--choses you, rather then the other way 'round, in the words of Lao Tsu' TAO-TE-CHING, "He who speaks does not know. He who knows does not speak." let your actions rather than words better state Who-You-Can-Be?
Chill:
RedRonin wrote:
QUOTE:
I periodically perform workings.
I have done considerable work noting the correspondences and complimentary natures of ki and workings in high magiq.
My definition of myself?
Me.
Okay, so is that due to you not yet deciding on a definition for yourself? Or do you simply abhor labels as you feel them to be too confining?
Cheryl
Matt wrote:
QUOTE:
There is no uniformity in the usage of the word.
<snip>
Any of these (or a combination!) may be employed by different people at different times and places. <snip> I just view the word as being like the practice or practices it represents; something organic...fluid...malleable...moving in and out of forms at different times, different places, and in different situations.
I put out my "plain vanilla, lowest common denominator" definition of the word Witch -- I *knew* it would be you to add the toppings.
Your post goes into examining what I call the different "flavors" of Witches. Would you see those added flavors as still fitting my definition of a Pagan who works Magick?
Cheryl
Leif Teuspoukt! wrote :
QUOTE:
So, there's folk who would define, refine Then...CONFINE what it means to express what SHOULD be a Personal Approach/access With DEITY to HELP others?
No. I think definitions - words - serve to *clarify*, not confine. Each of us has an individual name to help differentiate us from each other. Could you imagine the confusion if this were not so? I also use the word "woman" when defining myself. Does that limit who I am and what I can be? I think not, it is merely a word to help further others' understanding of who I am. I also use "Hedge Witch". And now you know even more.
Leif Teuspoukt! continues :
QUOTE:
Yet for the sake of convention alone it seems, it comes down to abiding only one shirt or uniform even among those who claim to be kindred spirits of a sort, at least. Would a type of dogma be more in keeping to put a piece of certified paper on a wall so all who saw could supposedly understand an alleged claim on Wisdom, never minding 'the fact' such wisdom can come from more than one source/ tradition...even to the point Beyond such limitations?
Interesting how you view a definition to be a cage, and/or an attempt to prove something. I view them as a clarification to further understanding. If I tell you I have 3 animals, that doesn't give you much information. Saying they're of the order Carnivora tells you somewhat more. Explaining further that they're of the Family Felidae would again narrow it down, but further revealing the Genus Felis and Subspecies F.s. catus would explain fully. AND it would just be a lot easier, more expedient and less pompous to simply tell you "I have 3 cats".
Leif Teuspoukt! continues :
QUOTE:
Besides when speaking of a Faith which--it's my extensive experience anyway--choses you, rather then the other way 'round, in the words of Lao Tsu' TAO-TE-CHING, "He who speaks does not know. He who knows does not speak." let your actions rather than words better state Who-You-Can-Be?
But WHAT Faith "chooses you"? If you consider definitions anathema, how do we communicate our mindsets to each other? Do we have to go through the entire "Scientific Classification" of our individual beliefs so we don't feel confined or otherwise limited, or can we simply tell each other "I have cats?"
Cheryl
Elgin:
The following passage from The Roebuck in the Thicket is very informative:
"Q: When is a witch not a witch? A: When they are a pagan. This was probably the first lesson that Robert Cochrane taught. This is not to say that he belittled paganism in any way, but he accepted it for what it was - something very different from the Craft, even though in the past both had shared common roots.
So what is so different about them? According to Cochrane's definition, paganism is a religious pantheism, an understanding that nature is a reflection of the Hand of God and that god is nature total and complete. Whereas with witchcraft you have an occult science with its own distinct and separate traditions and philosophy. Unfortunately, in its lower stages, the Craft can and very often is confused with paganism. ...
"I suppose that if one had to define the true nature of the witch the most accurate picture would be that of an unlicensed practitioner of the mysteries of witchcraft ...
- The Roebuck in the Thicket: An Anthology of the Robert Cochrane Witchcraft Tradition, Chapter Eighteen, Will of the Gods, pp. 152 - 153; By Evan John Jones & Robert Cochrane, Edited by Michael Howard, Chieveley U.K.: Capall Bann Publishing, 2001, ISBN 186163 155-3
I came in during the '80s. The oft-heard mantra of that era was "All witches are pagans, but not all pagans are witches." Quite a few of the witches I know and respect would indeed consider themselves to be pagan.
Hell, there are more folks than you can shake a stick at calling themselves witches out there who wouldn't recognize true craft if it hit them over the head.
Yet only a decade earlier,that statement was equally phrased as "All Wiccans are Witches, but not all witches are Wiccans.
Interesting, my own belief is stated as: It would be true that most witches are pagans, but not all pagans are witches - there are a lot of folks who do not adhere to the 'one and only God' theory - some agnostic, some athiest and some just farm folk who see more than the average 'joe' - they may not even define themselves as pagans, but they fall into that arena. Then you have the 'white witches' - whatever that means, who say they are Christians. Who knows - I guess we can define ourselves any way we want. What I object to is someone trying to define me.
Blackrose:
Shannon wrote:
QUOTE:
The topic on the other forum is spellwork, and the general consensus seems to be that a witch is someone who uses practical magic, within whatever other pagan trad they are in.
Mostly, I agree with this... tho, being the pedant I am, I am rather prone to want to examine further the notions and types of "practical magic". For instance, part of what is often considered modern witchcraft (casting a circle and what not) is often said to be the mixing in of more ceremonial and ritualistic magics... and ceremonial magics are often more concerened with the higher order of things...
But, pedantics aside, I mostly agree with this...
QUOTE:
Thinking on this, if my neighbor went and bought a love spell kit and performed magic, this wouldn't make her a witch by default. There's something more that makes a person a witch. Some sort of connection, awareness that goes beyond a basic practitioner of witchcraft. For that matter, could I with my maybe one spell a year, really be a witch?! Is it the thing in me that claims not to be a witch, but a philisophical pagan, the thing that actually makes me a witch?
I also agree with this. I do think it's more than simply the working of practical magics, depending... There is a sort of awareness...
I think, perhaps, for me it comes down to a matter of understanding... of learning... of connection, as you say. It's not just following the prescription for a spell... it's understanding things on a deeper level - both intellectual and intuitive. It's connecting with the spirits and/or the energies...
Of course, you can also connect with the energies and not necessarily be a witch, too... Nor do you need to believe in deity to be a witch, per se...
Since I consider witchcraft a sort of profession, liberally speaking, then I often liken it to other professions...
For instance - what makes a poet a poet? If someone writes one or two poems occassionally, does this make them a poet? And does them being a poet in a technical sense make them "a poet"? To me to be a poet is more than scribbling out a poem. (And, admittedly, I like to think that someone has to be good at what they're doing to actually qualify for the moniker - but, that aside) - I also think it's a sort of particular way of seeing the world... but, then, different Poets 'see' different things... but they are all poets...
And then there are those who want to be poets, but aren't... and those who think they are, but aren't... and even those who don't think they are, and perhaps are... sometimes...
Really, it's one of those half-refined and half-ineffable things... you might not be able to put it hard and fast into words, but you know it when you see it... and you know when you don't see it, too...
I know this isn't very helpful, being inherently subjective and open to interpretation and opinion... but, there ya go... Since when do I try to make your life easier?
Chill:
Elgin wrote:
QUOTE:
The following passage from The Roebuck in the Thicket is very informative:
"Q: When is a witch not a witch? A: When they are a pagan. This was probably the first lesson that Robert Cochrane taught. This is not to say that he belittled paganism in any way, but he accepted it for what it was - something very different from the Craft, even though in the past both had shared common roots.
I don't agree with him. I like the dictionary definition of Pagan: "One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion"
Elgin continues:
QUOTE:
So what is so different about them? According to Cochrane's definition, paganism is a religious pantheism, an understanding that nature is a reflection of the Hand of God and that god is nature total and complete. Whereas with witchcraft you have an occult science with its own distinct and separate traditions and philosophy. Unfortunately, in its lower stages, the Craft can and very often is confused with paganism. ...
So he divides the two. Okay his viewpoint, but I don't see it that way.
Elgin continues:
QUOTE:
Interesting, my own belief is stated as: It would be true that most witches are pagans, but not all pagans are witches - there are a lot of folks who do not adhere to the 'one and only God' theory - some agnostic, some athiest and some just farm folk who see more than the average 'joe' - they may not even define themselves as pagans, but they fall into that arena. Then you have the 'white witches' - whatever that means, who say they are Christians. Who knows - I guess we can define ourselves any way we want. What I object to is someone trying to define me.
And I'd agree with your last sentence especially. The problem is, when you give NO definition of yourself, others will give you *some* definition of their own.
Remember the singer/songwriter Prince? He went through this phase where I suppose he felt his name wasn't correctly expressing who he was. So he chose some symbol that was unpronouncable. Because no one could pronounce it, he became known in the media as TAFKAP (The Artist Formerly Known As Prince). I think he's stopped using that symbol as his name now but I haven't paid much attention. It illustrates my point though - if you don't want people defining you, at least decide on what you are. People who get all mystical and assert that they "defy definition" may well be right - but they risk appearing pretentious.
Cheryl
Elgin:
Chill, so very sorry I don't fit into one of your narrow definations of a subject, then you are the one that is so good at dismantling other's post so well.
definition of Pagan: (orig) fr the Latin: pagani: one who lives in the country, a non urban dweller.
(but they risk appearing pretentious.)
you are the one that cross-examines so well others posts.
Elgin;
ps no more as swore never to get in a flame war with a pompous ass ever again.
Blackrose:
chill wrote:
QUOTE:
Remember the singer/songwriter Prince? He went through this phase where I suppose he felt his name wasn't correctly expressing who he was. So he chose some symbol that was unpronouncable. Because no one could pronounce it, he became known in the media as TAFKAP (The Artist Formerly Known As Prince). I think he's stopped using that symbol as his name now but I haven't paid much attention. It illustrates my point though - if you don't want people defining you, at least decide on what you are. People who get all mystical and assert that they "defy definition" may well be right - but they risk appearing pretentious.
Cheryl
Just an FYI:
The Prince name change did not come from an existential crisis from the artist so much as it came from a legal dispute when he was trying to get out of his contract with Warner Bros:
QUOTE:
The first step I have taken towards the ultimate goal of emancipation from the chains that bind me to Warner Bros. was to change my name from Prince to the Love Symbol. Prince is the name that my Mother gave me at birth. Warner Bros. took the name, trademarked it, and used it as the main marketing tool to promote all of the music that I wrote. The company owns the name Prince and all related music marketed under Prince. I became merely a pawn used to produce more money for Warner Bros… I was born Prince and did not want to adopt another conventional name. The only acceptable replacement for my name, and my identity, was the Love Symbol, a symbol with no pronunciation, that is a representation of me and what my music is about. This symbol is present in my work over the years; it is a concept that has evolved from my frustration; it is who I am. It is my name.
He went back to using Prince when his contract with Warner expired.
Just a side-thought, tho... person x will often define person y based on person x's perceptions of person y and not on y's perceptions of him/herself... So, really, people will define you based on their own notions often times regardless of how you define yourself...
Words are useful tools in trying to relate parts of yourself to others... labels are handy shorthand, and I am not anti-label and do see the trend as, well, a trend...
But, that said, people so not necessarily need words to define themselves to themselves... and since people will often see you how they want to see you anyway, maybe some people simply don't care...
I'm a word person, personally... but not everyone is... And if they don't wish to communicate who they are to others, then there's no real need for them to be so...
Chill:
Blackrose wrote:
QUOTE:
Just an FYI:
The Prince name change did not come from an existential crisis from the artist so much as it came from a legal dispute when he was trying to get out of his contract with Warner Bros
Thanks Blackrose I didn't know that. But still, why change it to an unpronouncable symbol, even if it is a Love symbol related to his music? I suppose changing his name to "Bob" wasn't an option? At any rate, I'm glad he went back to using Prince.
Blackrose continues:
QUOTE:
Just a side-thought, tho... person x will often define person y based on person x's perceptions of person y and not on y's perceptions of him/herself... So, really, people will define you based on their own notions often times regardless of how you define yourself...
Words are useful tools in trying to relate parts of yourself to others... labels are handy shorthand, and I am not anti-label and do see the trend as, well, a trend...
I can see your point. But if someone tells me they're a Muslim, or a Christian, or Witch, or Atheist - it helps me to see where they're coming from a little bit better. It's an attempt on my part to get to know people.
Blackrose continues:
QUOTE:
But, that said, people so not necessarily need words to define themselves to themselves... and since people will often see you how they want to see you anyway, maybe some people simply don't care...
I'm a word person, personally... but not everyone is... And if they don't wish to communicate who they are to others, then there's no real need for them to be so...
Point taken. I suppose I'm better off not trying to get to know people here.
Cheryl
Elgin wrote:
QUOTE:
Chill, so very sorry I don't fit into one of your narrow definations of a subject, then you are the one that is so good at dismantling other's post so well.
definition of Pagan: (orig) fr the Latin: pagani: one who lives in the country, a non urban dweller.
(but they risk appearing pretentious.)
you are the one that cross-examines so well others posts.
Elgin;
ps no more as swore never to get in a flame war with a pompous ass ever again.
I'm sorry Elgin it wasn't my intention to offend you. I was just trying to be part of an interesting discussion. I didn't realize that discussing viewpoints and sharing opinions and not just agreeing with you would make me a "pompous ass".
Cheryl
Blackrose:
chill wrote:
QUOTE:
Thanks Blackrose I didn't know that. But still, why change it to an unpronouncable symbol, even if it is a Love symbol related to his music? I suppose changing his name to "Bob" wasn't an option? :lol: At any rate, I'm glad he went back to using Prince.
Apparently he had been using that symbol as a logo for his work for some time... and he said, in the quote, that he didn't want a conventional name... so, no, I guess "Bob" wasn't an option...
QUOTE:
I can see your point. But if someone tells me they're a Muslim, or a Christian, or Witch, or Atheist - it helps me to see where they're coming from a little bit better. It's an attempt on my part to get to know people.
I understand this, as well. Of course, those words also come with baggage... and sometimes people would rather avoid the baggage - an example being how I no longer associate myself as a Neopagan because of all the crap that I feel goes along with it...
Of course, even if a person eschews a label - well, that tells you a little something about them right there... and listening to what else they say about the hows and whys tells you more than a simple label really ever could...
Of course, this would require listening to them and trying to get to truly know them on their own terms, whatever those terms may be and however they may be expressed...
Or you could just write them off as PitAs who aren't worth the time... that's always an option of categorization... *grins*
Shannon:
I don't think Blackrose's intent was to tell you people don't care about this topic, but rather just exploring the wide spectrum of how people view identity, definition and such... I'm not her though, so I could be entirely wrong. Damn x-person perception! ;P
I wish at times that it could just be simple, for christ sake. I wish I could get my point across without worrying about the multitude of different ways people view a phrase. Unrealistic, I know. But we have words for a reason, to express an emotion, sensation, idea, clearly and concisely. Why can't witch be witch like red is red? (Oh shut up, you, who is about to pipe in with maroon and sienna!)
Anyway, back to the point. I understand the definition of witch. But I think it's wrong. Or maybe I don't. I don't know anymore... but there's more to being a witch then the profession of the craft. You can't practice it unless you are actually successful at it, and to be succesful at it there's numerous things that you have to be connected to and aware of. And you can be connected and aware of those things without practicing the magic and still be a witch. It's not the magic that makes the witch, it's how she utlizes the things around her to make the magic happen. Magic is just a side effect of that understanding an awareness- an expression of it.
Oh lordy. I think my definitions/labels/perceptions may suck.
Chill:
Blackrose wrote:
QUOTE:
Of course, even if a person eschews a label - well, that tells you a little something about them right there... and listening to what else they say about the hows and whys tells you more than a simple label really ever could...
Of course, this would require listening to them and trying to get to truly know them on their own terms, whatever those terms may be and however they may be expressed...
Or you could just write them off as PitAs who aren't worth the time... that's always an option of categorization... *grins*
Thanks. Those are the best words of wisdom I've heard in a week.
Cheryl
Shannon wrote:
QUOTE:
It's not the magic that makes the witch, it's how she utlizes the things around her to make the magic happen. Magic is just a side effect of that understanding an awareness- an expression of it.
Oh lordy. I think my definitions/labels/perceptions may suck.
Well for what it's worth, I like your definition.
Cheryl
Red Ronin:
chill wrote:
QUOTE:
RedRonin wrote:
QUOTE:
I periodically perform workings.
I have done considerable work noting the correspondences and complimentary natures of ki and workings in high magiq.
My definition of myself?
Me.
Okay, so is that due to you not yet deciding on a definition for yourself? Or do you simply abhor labels as you feel them to be too confining?
Cheryl
More the second than the first.
Too much rush to hang a label on people as it is. Hell, just watch the political ads now. They're all about labeling the "other guy" as something that would be contrary to the ideals of the voting sheep. Look how much mileage W got out of the phrase "flip-flopper" during the last election. I often wondered if Kerry would have fared better had he grown a set and hung the label "low-rent pickled dumbass" on Bush.
Mostly, though, I just don't see myself as a peg that fits into any particular hole. Can't say I follow any path, since that indicates there's already been so many people walking that way to beat down the grass. I'd rather wander around on my own and see if I can come across things that haven't been discovered or at least over-exposed.
Chill:
RedRonin wrote:
QUOTE:
Too much rush to hang a label on people as it is. Hell, just watch the political ads now. They're all about labeling the "other guy" as something that would be contrary to the ideals of the voting sheep. Look how much mileage W got out of the phrase "flip-flopper" during the last election. I often wondered if Kerry would have fared better had he grown a set and hung the label "low-rent pickled dumbass" on Bush.
LOL! Oh I wish he had -- that idiot SHOULD come with a warning label.....
RedRonin continues:
QUOTE:
Mostly, though, I just don't see myself as a peg that fits into any particular hole. Can't say I follow any path, since that indicates there's already been so many people walking that way to beat down the grass. I'd rather wander around on my own and see if I can come across things that haven't been discovered or at least over-exposed.
I definitely see the attraction in treading the less-traveled road.
"The Road Not Taken"
"I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."
Robert Frost (1874–1963)
Matt:
chill wrote:
QUOTE:
Your post goes into examining what I call the different "flavors" of Witches. Would you see those added flavors as still fitting my definition of a Pagan who works Magick?
The ones listed, sure. But it is far from an inclusive list. And I certainly didn't mean to imply these were definitions *I* use, just some that various people have (and continue to) use.
Blessings,
Matt
Funny how coincidences work...
There's a discussion here about being a witch/not being a witch and the same on another forum. I suppose with the type of forums, it's not that funny that the topic is brought up, but it's got me thinking about it twice in one day.
The topic on the other forum is spellwork, and the general consensus seems to be that a witch is someone who uses practical magic, within whatever other pagan trad they are in.
Thinking on this, if my neighbor went and bought a love spell kit and performed magic, this wouldn't make her a witch by default. There's something more that makes a person a witch. Some sort of connection, awareness that goes beyond a basic practitioner of witchcraft. For that matter, could I with my maybe one spell a year, really be a witch?! Is it the thing in me that claims not to be a witch, but a philisophical pagan, the thing that actually makes me a witch?
I wish I had the patience right now to write out a more thought out post. Hopefully some of you will see where I'm going with this and I'll be able to add more thoughts to it later.
Chill:
Shannon wrote:
QUOTE:
There's a discussion here about being a witch/not being a witch and the same on another forum. <snip>
The topic on the other forum is spellwork, and the general consensus seems to be that a witch is someone who uses practical magic, within whatever other pagan trad they are in.
My short-short definition of a Witch is: A Pagan who works Magick.
Likewise, if someone is a Pagan and does NOT work Magick, they're not a Witch. They are a Pagan only. Witches practice Witchcraft.
And from there, the fun begins because there are many Traditions (or as I call them, "flavors" ) of Witches.
Shannon continues:
QUOTE:
Thinking on this, if my neighbor went and bought a love spell kit and performed magic, this wouldn't make her a witch by default. There's something more that makes a person a witch. Some sort of connection, awareness that goes beyond a basic practitioner of witchcraft.
Well if she's not Pagan, by *my* definition, she's not a Witch. She's just dabbling with magic (notice the missing "k" ).
Shannon continues:
QUOTE:
For that matter, could I with my maybe one spell a year, really be a witch?!
Are ya Pagan? If you are and you only do one spell a year, maybe you're just a lazy Witch
Can someone be a Christian if they only go to church once a year? I would say they can be. So why can't someone be a Witch if they are Pagan, and only do spellwork on rare occasions?
Shannon continues:
QUOTE:
I wish I had the patience right now to write out a more thought out post. Hopefully some of you will see where I'm going with this and I'll be able to add more thoughts to it later.
I look forward to them.
Cheryl
Red Ronin:
I periodically perform workings.
I have done considerable work noting the correspondences and complimentary natures of ki and workings in high magiq.
My definition of myself?
Me.
Matt:
There are certain subjects in the Pagan/Witchcraft community that tend to recycle every now and again. This being one of them.
There is no uniformity in the usage of the word.
A witch is a person who uses magic.
A witch is a woman who uses magic.
A witch is a Pagan who uses magic.
A witch is an initiate of the Witch Cult - in the form of Traditional Initiatory Witchcraft.
A witch is an initiate of the Witch Cult - in the form of British Traditional Wicca.
A witch is an initiate of the Witch Cult - in the form of either TIW or BTW.
To add insult to injury, the word rarely comes up without the word "Wicca" being close on its heels. And it starts all over again!
Any of these (or a combination!) may be employed by different people at different times and places. Frankly it gets confusing. For me, the confusion usually rears its ugly head when talking to others more so than in my private pondering. Contrary to what you may have heard about me, I really take no joy in being contentious! So I find it necessary to understand how the person with whom I'm conversing uses the word. The first definition above would, for example, include Ceremonial Magicians. Call a CM a witch and see how well it is received! Try number two and I'll have to take issue. Try three and you'll find a Voudon practitioner that won't take kindly to it. It is a major case of trying to "please all of the people all of the time". Won't happen.
So here I've thrown out a couple of paragraphs and have done absolutely nothing in the way of providing insight to your conundrum. But I fully agree with you that the moniker doesn't apply to everyone who simply uses magic. I treat the word witch the same way I treat the word Wicca; I know what it means to me and I have a good idea what it means to those around me. I usually politely explain what the word means to me and ascertain if I am correct in my assumption as to how the other(s) is using it. That allows me to hear what they are saying without compromising my own opinion.
Which, ultimately tells you how I use the word when in discussion. I still haven't addressed what makes a person a "witch". I can't. I don't have the answer. I just view the word as being like the practice or practices it represents; something organic...fluid...malleable...moving in and out of forms at different times, different places, and in different situations.
Wishing this helped/Knowing it didn't!,
Matt
Leif Teuspoukt:
So, there's folk who would define, refine Then...CONFINE what it means to express what SHOULD be a Personal Approach/access With DEITY to HELP others? Why not take a look to the term's roots as well as routes?:
www.thefreedictionary.com/witch then... www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE553.html
Yet for the sake of convention alone it seems, it comes down to abiding only one shirt or uniform even among those who claim to be kindred spirits of a sort, at least. Would a type of dogma be more in keeping to put a piece of certified paper on a wall so all who saw could supposedly understand an alleged claim on Wisdom, never minding 'the fact' such wisdom can come from more than one source/ tradition...even to the point Beyond such limitations?
Besides when speaking of a Faith which--it's my extensive experience anyway--choses you, rather then the other way 'round, in the words of Lao Tsu' TAO-TE-CHING, "He who speaks does not know. He who knows does not speak." let your actions rather than words better state Who-You-Can-Be?
Chill:
RedRonin wrote:
QUOTE:
I periodically perform workings.
I have done considerable work noting the correspondences and complimentary natures of ki and workings in high magiq.
My definition of myself?
Me.
Okay, so is that due to you not yet deciding on a definition for yourself? Or do you simply abhor labels as you feel them to be too confining?
Cheryl
Matt wrote:
QUOTE:
There is no uniformity in the usage of the word.
<snip>
Any of these (or a combination!) may be employed by different people at different times and places. <snip> I just view the word as being like the practice or practices it represents; something organic...fluid...malleable...moving in and out of forms at different times, different places, and in different situations.
I put out my "plain vanilla, lowest common denominator" definition of the word Witch -- I *knew* it would be you to add the toppings.
Your post goes into examining what I call the different "flavors" of Witches. Would you see those added flavors as still fitting my definition of a Pagan who works Magick?
Cheryl
Leif Teuspoukt! wrote :
QUOTE:
So, there's folk who would define, refine Then...CONFINE what it means to express what SHOULD be a Personal Approach/access With DEITY to HELP others?
No. I think definitions - words - serve to *clarify*, not confine. Each of us has an individual name to help differentiate us from each other. Could you imagine the confusion if this were not so? I also use the word "woman" when defining myself. Does that limit who I am and what I can be? I think not, it is merely a word to help further others' understanding of who I am. I also use "Hedge Witch". And now you know even more.
Leif Teuspoukt! continues :
QUOTE:
Yet for the sake of convention alone it seems, it comes down to abiding only one shirt or uniform even among those who claim to be kindred spirits of a sort, at least. Would a type of dogma be more in keeping to put a piece of certified paper on a wall so all who saw could supposedly understand an alleged claim on Wisdom, never minding 'the fact' such wisdom can come from more than one source/ tradition...even to the point Beyond such limitations?
Interesting how you view a definition to be a cage, and/or an attempt to prove something. I view them as a clarification to further understanding. If I tell you I have 3 animals, that doesn't give you much information. Saying they're of the order Carnivora tells you somewhat more. Explaining further that they're of the Family Felidae would again narrow it down, but further revealing the Genus Felis and Subspecies F.s. catus would explain fully. AND it would just be a lot easier, more expedient and less pompous to simply tell you "I have 3 cats".
Leif Teuspoukt! continues :
QUOTE:
Besides when speaking of a Faith which--it's my extensive experience anyway--choses you, rather then the other way 'round, in the words of Lao Tsu' TAO-TE-CHING, "He who speaks does not know. He who knows does not speak." let your actions rather than words better state Who-You-Can-Be?
But WHAT Faith "chooses you"? If you consider definitions anathema, how do we communicate our mindsets to each other? Do we have to go through the entire "Scientific Classification" of our individual beliefs so we don't feel confined or otherwise limited, or can we simply tell each other "I have cats?"
Cheryl
Elgin:
The following passage from The Roebuck in the Thicket is very informative:
"Q: When is a witch not a witch? A: When they are a pagan. This was probably the first lesson that Robert Cochrane taught. This is not to say that he belittled paganism in any way, but he accepted it for what it was - something very different from the Craft, even though in the past both had shared common roots.
So what is so different about them? According to Cochrane's definition, paganism is a religious pantheism, an understanding that nature is a reflection of the Hand of God and that god is nature total and complete. Whereas with witchcraft you have an occult science with its own distinct and separate traditions and philosophy. Unfortunately, in its lower stages, the Craft can and very often is confused with paganism. ...
"I suppose that if one had to define the true nature of the witch the most accurate picture would be that of an unlicensed practitioner of the mysteries of witchcraft ...
- The Roebuck in the Thicket: An Anthology of the Robert Cochrane Witchcraft Tradition, Chapter Eighteen, Will of the Gods, pp. 152 - 153; By Evan John Jones & Robert Cochrane, Edited by Michael Howard, Chieveley U.K.: Capall Bann Publishing, 2001, ISBN 186163 155-3
I came in during the '80s. The oft-heard mantra of that era was "All witches are pagans, but not all pagans are witches." Quite a few of the witches I know and respect would indeed consider themselves to be pagan.
Hell, there are more folks than you can shake a stick at calling themselves witches out there who wouldn't recognize true craft if it hit them over the head.
Yet only a decade earlier,that statement was equally phrased as "All Wiccans are Witches, but not all witches are Wiccans.
Interesting, my own belief is stated as: It would be true that most witches are pagans, but not all pagans are witches - there are a lot of folks who do not adhere to the 'one and only God' theory - some agnostic, some athiest and some just farm folk who see more than the average 'joe' - they may not even define themselves as pagans, but they fall into that arena. Then you have the 'white witches' - whatever that means, who say they are Christians. Who knows - I guess we can define ourselves any way we want. What I object to is someone trying to define me.
Blackrose:
Shannon wrote:
QUOTE:
The topic on the other forum is spellwork, and the general consensus seems to be that a witch is someone who uses practical magic, within whatever other pagan trad they are in.
Mostly, I agree with this... tho, being the pedant I am, I am rather prone to want to examine further the notions and types of "practical magic". For instance, part of what is often considered modern witchcraft (casting a circle and what not) is often said to be the mixing in of more ceremonial and ritualistic magics... and ceremonial magics are often more concerened with the higher order of things...
But, pedantics aside, I mostly agree with this...
QUOTE:
Thinking on this, if my neighbor went and bought a love spell kit and performed magic, this wouldn't make her a witch by default. There's something more that makes a person a witch. Some sort of connection, awareness that goes beyond a basic practitioner of witchcraft. For that matter, could I with my maybe one spell a year, really be a witch?! Is it the thing in me that claims not to be a witch, but a philisophical pagan, the thing that actually makes me a witch?
I also agree with this. I do think it's more than simply the working of practical magics, depending... There is a sort of awareness...
I think, perhaps, for me it comes down to a matter of understanding... of learning... of connection, as you say. It's not just following the prescription for a spell... it's understanding things on a deeper level - both intellectual and intuitive. It's connecting with the spirits and/or the energies...
Of course, you can also connect with the energies and not necessarily be a witch, too... Nor do you need to believe in deity to be a witch, per se...
Since I consider witchcraft a sort of profession, liberally speaking, then I often liken it to other professions...
For instance - what makes a poet a poet? If someone writes one or two poems occassionally, does this make them a poet? And does them being a poet in a technical sense make them "a poet"? To me to be a poet is more than scribbling out a poem. (And, admittedly, I like to think that someone has to be good at what they're doing to actually qualify for the moniker - but, that aside) - I also think it's a sort of particular way of seeing the world... but, then, different Poets 'see' different things... but they are all poets...
And then there are those who want to be poets, but aren't... and those who think they are, but aren't... and even those who don't think they are, and perhaps are... sometimes...
Really, it's one of those half-refined and half-ineffable things... you might not be able to put it hard and fast into words, but you know it when you see it... and you know when you don't see it, too...
I know this isn't very helpful, being inherently subjective and open to interpretation and opinion... but, there ya go... Since when do I try to make your life easier?
Chill:
Elgin wrote:
QUOTE:
The following passage from The Roebuck in the Thicket is very informative:
"Q: When is a witch not a witch? A: When they are a pagan. This was probably the first lesson that Robert Cochrane taught. This is not to say that he belittled paganism in any way, but he accepted it for what it was - something very different from the Craft, even though in the past both had shared common roots.
I don't agree with him. I like the dictionary definition of Pagan: "One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion"
Elgin continues:
QUOTE:
So what is so different about them? According to Cochrane's definition, paganism is a religious pantheism, an understanding that nature is a reflection of the Hand of God and that god is nature total and complete. Whereas with witchcraft you have an occult science with its own distinct and separate traditions and philosophy. Unfortunately, in its lower stages, the Craft can and very often is confused with paganism. ...
So he divides the two. Okay his viewpoint, but I don't see it that way.
Elgin continues:
QUOTE:
Interesting, my own belief is stated as: It would be true that most witches are pagans, but not all pagans are witches - there are a lot of folks who do not adhere to the 'one and only God' theory - some agnostic, some athiest and some just farm folk who see more than the average 'joe' - they may not even define themselves as pagans, but they fall into that arena. Then you have the 'white witches' - whatever that means, who say they are Christians. Who knows - I guess we can define ourselves any way we want. What I object to is someone trying to define me.
And I'd agree with your last sentence especially. The problem is, when you give NO definition of yourself, others will give you *some* definition of their own.
Remember the singer/songwriter Prince? He went through this phase where I suppose he felt his name wasn't correctly expressing who he was. So he chose some symbol that was unpronouncable. Because no one could pronounce it, he became known in the media as TAFKAP (The Artist Formerly Known As Prince). I think he's stopped using that symbol as his name now but I haven't paid much attention. It illustrates my point though - if you don't want people defining you, at least decide on what you are. People who get all mystical and assert that they "defy definition" may well be right - but they risk appearing pretentious.
Cheryl
Elgin:
Chill, so very sorry I don't fit into one of your narrow definations of a subject, then you are the one that is so good at dismantling other's post so well.
definition of Pagan: (orig) fr the Latin: pagani: one who lives in the country, a non urban dweller.
(but they risk appearing pretentious.)
you are the one that cross-examines so well others posts.
Elgin;
ps no more as swore never to get in a flame war with a pompous ass ever again.
Blackrose:
chill wrote:
QUOTE:
Remember the singer/songwriter Prince? He went through this phase where I suppose he felt his name wasn't correctly expressing who he was. So he chose some symbol that was unpronouncable. Because no one could pronounce it, he became known in the media as TAFKAP (The Artist Formerly Known As Prince). I think he's stopped using that symbol as his name now but I haven't paid much attention. It illustrates my point though - if you don't want people defining you, at least decide on what you are. People who get all mystical and assert that they "defy definition" may well be right - but they risk appearing pretentious.
Cheryl
Just an FYI:
The Prince name change did not come from an existential crisis from the artist so much as it came from a legal dispute when he was trying to get out of his contract with Warner Bros:
QUOTE:
The first step I have taken towards the ultimate goal of emancipation from the chains that bind me to Warner Bros. was to change my name from Prince to the Love Symbol. Prince is the name that my Mother gave me at birth. Warner Bros. took the name, trademarked it, and used it as the main marketing tool to promote all of the music that I wrote. The company owns the name Prince and all related music marketed under Prince. I became merely a pawn used to produce more money for Warner Bros… I was born Prince and did not want to adopt another conventional name. The only acceptable replacement for my name, and my identity, was the Love Symbol, a symbol with no pronunciation, that is a representation of me and what my music is about. This symbol is present in my work over the years; it is a concept that has evolved from my frustration; it is who I am. It is my name.
He went back to using Prince when his contract with Warner expired.
Just a side-thought, tho... person x will often define person y based on person x's perceptions of person y and not on y's perceptions of him/herself... So, really, people will define you based on their own notions often times regardless of how you define yourself...
Words are useful tools in trying to relate parts of yourself to others... labels are handy shorthand, and I am not anti-label and do see the trend as, well, a trend...
But, that said, people so not necessarily need words to define themselves to themselves... and since people will often see you how they want to see you anyway, maybe some people simply don't care...
I'm a word person, personally... but not everyone is... And if they don't wish to communicate who they are to others, then there's no real need for them to be so...
Chill:
Blackrose wrote:
QUOTE:
Just an FYI:
The Prince name change did not come from an existential crisis from the artist so much as it came from a legal dispute when he was trying to get out of his contract with Warner Bros
Thanks Blackrose I didn't know that. But still, why change it to an unpronouncable symbol, even if it is a Love symbol related to his music? I suppose changing his name to "Bob" wasn't an option? At any rate, I'm glad he went back to using Prince.
Blackrose continues:
QUOTE:
Just a side-thought, tho... person x will often define person y based on person x's perceptions of person y and not on y's perceptions of him/herself... So, really, people will define you based on their own notions often times regardless of how you define yourself...
Words are useful tools in trying to relate parts of yourself to others... labels are handy shorthand, and I am not anti-label and do see the trend as, well, a trend...
I can see your point. But if someone tells me they're a Muslim, or a Christian, or Witch, or Atheist - it helps me to see where they're coming from a little bit better. It's an attempt on my part to get to know people.
Blackrose continues:
QUOTE:
But, that said, people so not necessarily need words to define themselves to themselves... and since people will often see you how they want to see you anyway, maybe some people simply don't care...
I'm a word person, personally... but not everyone is... And if they don't wish to communicate who they are to others, then there's no real need for them to be so...
Point taken. I suppose I'm better off not trying to get to know people here.
Cheryl
Elgin wrote:
QUOTE:
Chill, so very sorry I don't fit into one of your narrow definations of a subject, then you are the one that is so good at dismantling other's post so well.
definition of Pagan: (orig) fr the Latin: pagani: one who lives in the country, a non urban dweller.
(but they risk appearing pretentious.)
you are the one that cross-examines so well others posts.
Elgin;
ps no more as swore never to get in a flame war with a pompous ass ever again.
I'm sorry Elgin it wasn't my intention to offend you. I was just trying to be part of an interesting discussion. I didn't realize that discussing viewpoints and sharing opinions and not just agreeing with you would make me a "pompous ass".
Cheryl
Blackrose:
chill wrote:
QUOTE:
Thanks Blackrose I didn't know that. But still, why change it to an unpronouncable symbol, even if it is a Love symbol related to his music? I suppose changing his name to "Bob" wasn't an option? :lol: At any rate, I'm glad he went back to using Prince.
Apparently he had been using that symbol as a logo for his work for some time... and he said, in the quote, that he didn't want a conventional name... so, no, I guess "Bob" wasn't an option...
QUOTE:
I can see your point. But if someone tells me they're a Muslim, or a Christian, or Witch, or Atheist - it helps me to see where they're coming from a little bit better. It's an attempt on my part to get to know people.
I understand this, as well. Of course, those words also come with baggage... and sometimes people would rather avoid the baggage - an example being how I no longer associate myself as a Neopagan because of all the crap that I feel goes along with it...
Of course, even if a person eschews a label - well, that tells you a little something about them right there... and listening to what else they say about the hows and whys tells you more than a simple label really ever could...
Of course, this would require listening to them and trying to get to truly know them on their own terms, whatever those terms may be and however they may be expressed...
Or you could just write them off as PitAs who aren't worth the time... that's always an option of categorization... *grins*
Shannon:
I don't think Blackrose's intent was to tell you people don't care about this topic, but rather just exploring the wide spectrum of how people view identity, definition and such... I'm not her though, so I could be entirely wrong. Damn x-person perception! ;P
I wish at times that it could just be simple, for christ sake. I wish I could get my point across without worrying about the multitude of different ways people view a phrase. Unrealistic, I know. But we have words for a reason, to express an emotion, sensation, idea, clearly and concisely. Why can't witch be witch like red is red? (Oh shut up, you, who is about to pipe in with maroon and sienna!)
Anyway, back to the point. I understand the definition of witch. But I think it's wrong. Or maybe I don't. I don't know anymore... but there's more to being a witch then the profession of the craft. You can't practice it unless you are actually successful at it, and to be succesful at it there's numerous things that you have to be connected to and aware of. And you can be connected and aware of those things without practicing the magic and still be a witch. It's not the magic that makes the witch, it's how she utlizes the things around her to make the magic happen. Magic is just a side effect of that understanding an awareness- an expression of it.
Oh lordy. I think my definitions/labels/perceptions may suck.
Chill:
Blackrose wrote:
QUOTE:
Of course, even if a person eschews a label - well, that tells you a little something about them right there... and listening to what else they say about the hows and whys tells you more than a simple label really ever could...
Of course, this would require listening to them and trying to get to truly know them on their own terms, whatever those terms may be and however they may be expressed...
Or you could just write them off as PitAs who aren't worth the time... that's always an option of categorization... *grins*
Thanks. Those are the best words of wisdom I've heard in a week.
Cheryl
Shannon wrote:
QUOTE:
It's not the magic that makes the witch, it's how she utlizes the things around her to make the magic happen. Magic is just a side effect of that understanding an awareness- an expression of it.
Oh lordy. I think my definitions/labels/perceptions may suck.
Well for what it's worth, I like your definition.
Cheryl
Red Ronin:
chill wrote:
QUOTE:
RedRonin wrote:
QUOTE:
I periodically perform workings.
I have done considerable work noting the correspondences and complimentary natures of ki and workings in high magiq.
My definition of myself?
Me.
Okay, so is that due to you not yet deciding on a definition for yourself? Or do you simply abhor labels as you feel them to be too confining?
Cheryl
More the second than the first.
Too much rush to hang a label on people as it is. Hell, just watch the political ads now. They're all about labeling the "other guy" as something that would be contrary to the ideals of the voting sheep. Look how much mileage W got out of the phrase "flip-flopper" during the last election. I often wondered if Kerry would have fared better had he grown a set and hung the label "low-rent pickled dumbass" on Bush.
Mostly, though, I just don't see myself as a peg that fits into any particular hole. Can't say I follow any path, since that indicates there's already been so many people walking that way to beat down the grass. I'd rather wander around on my own and see if I can come across things that haven't been discovered or at least over-exposed.
Chill:
RedRonin wrote:
QUOTE:
Too much rush to hang a label on people as it is. Hell, just watch the political ads now. They're all about labeling the "other guy" as something that would be contrary to the ideals of the voting sheep. Look how much mileage W got out of the phrase "flip-flopper" during the last election. I often wondered if Kerry would have fared better had he grown a set and hung the label "low-rent pickled dumbass" on Bush.
LOL! Oh I wish he had -- that idiot SHOULD come with a warning label.....
RedRonin continues:
QUOTE:
Mostly, though, I just don't see myself as a peg that fits into any particular hole. Can't say I follow any path, since that indicates there's already been so many people walking that way to beat down the grass. I'd rather wander around on my own and see if I can come across things that haven't been discovered or at least over-exposed.
I definitely see the attraction in treading the less-traveled road.
"The Road Not Taken"
"I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."
Robert Frost (1874–1963)
Matt:
chill wrote:
QUOTE:
Your post goes into examining what I call the different "flavors" of Witches. Would you see those added flavors as still fitting my definition of a Pagan who works Magick?
The ones listed, sure. But it is far from an inclusive list. And I certainly didn't mean to imply these were definitions *I* use, just some that various people have (and continue to) use.
Blessings,
Matt