Path: typhoon.sonic.net!feed.news.sonic.net!HSNX.atgi.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!not-for-mail From: Amanda Walker Newsgroups: alt.magick Subject: Re: Witchcraft Vs. High Magick? Date: 30 Jan 2002 20:57:26 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Lines: 63 Sender: amanda@panix2.panix.com Message-ID: References: <8r0t4u0461d44otb9h74lkgfn86l4r9qef@4ax.com> <1re25uk4gg4ad1679rqr3cq0ml0c0ie1md@4ax.com> <8bmg5uoj1sd16skfeqagimhk3d3kt1tb5g@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news.panix.com 1012442252 21444 166.84.1.2 (31 Jan 2002 01:57:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Jan 2002 01:57:32 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick:285424 Mark Preston writes: > These, of course, are "modern" claims and can be said to be just a few > "cranks" rather than "true witches" - and exactly the same kind of > disparagement was made in the past. OK, there's a middle ground being excluded here. I don't think someone making a modern claim to being a witch is a "crank" by virtue of doing so. In fact, I think that that those who have gone to the effort to turn "witchcraft" from a scary story plot device into a workable, internally consistent religion deserve great respect. I'm not about to tell anyone that they are or are not a "real" witch. However, neither am I willing to accept at face value anyone's claim that they are but that someone else is not. My own understanding of what "witch" means includes "outsider", and I'm not very patient with anyone telling anyone else they're the right sort of outsider. > Their persistence could support > either that there was (and is) a widespread "idea" of witchcraft, as > you said, or that there was (and is) a widespread "tradition" of > witchcraft. There really isn't much difference between them. Yes, there is. The "idea" is defined mainly by non-witches. A tradition would have been held mainly by witches themselves. Very big difference. Another way to phrase it would be to contrast a tradition *of* witchcraft to a tradition *about* witchcraft. There are a great many of the latter: pointy hats, broomsticks, crystal balls, herbs, houses in the woods, eating small children. Going a little farther back, Satanic rituals, belladonna, souring milk, causing miscarriages, shapeshifting, etc. Is this what you mean by a widespread tradition of witchcraft? If so, I'm a little confused, since except as humor I've never met a witch (Gardnerian or not) who actually did these things, or found historical records of anything but accusations of them. > Here, I am in no doubt at all - there never was a "single underlying > tradition" in the way you seem to mean. Simply, everything that we > know from the history of witchraft clearly shows that there _cannot_ > have been - Simon Magus claimed that the "ONLY unifying principle ... > they do not operate within the magic circle".. [my emphasis]. A tradition, though, is a unifying principle. A common practice, a common story, a common text. Put abstractly, a tradition is a piece of shared context. You depend on this in your argument: you argue that there is a common context called "witchcraft" and "wicca", which gardnerians and other modern witches do not share. > But you would not deny that chaos magicians exist. They may practice > their magic in different ways, but you would not deny that they > practice it. They may claim their power comes from different sources, > but you would not deny that they are chaos magicians. They may not > have a "single underlying tradition", but they exist and are a clearly > defined magical group. Chaos magic is clearly defined? Hmm, don't know that I'd agree with that... Amanda Walker