New "American Council of Witches"

[X-Yami-no-Ko-X]

Vagabond8

Lol I've learned at least most of the ins and outs of wicca-I'm sure I get the picture.

I'd love to know what you know about Wicca.  

[Morgandria]

Vagabond8

Lol I've learned at least most of the ins and outs of wicca-I'm sure I get the picture.

As Yami has already done, I invite you to share with us your understanding of Wicca. That way we might see where we stand collectively on the subject.

I invite this because it's difficult to know the ins and outs of Wicca when one is not an initiate, and what one assumes may be very different from the reality therein.  

[Kelsey MacAilbert]

Vagabond8

Lol I've learned at least most of the ins and outs of wicca-I'm sure I get the picture.

Okay, I'll bite. Can you give me the beginner's version?

This is going to be good.  

[too2sweet]

Vagabond8

Lol I've learned at least most of the ins and outs of wicca-I'm sure I get the picture.

Have you actually read the thread that's been linked? Because I can guarantee, that what you think you know about Wicca, probably has very little to do with what Wicca actually is. Hence the thread.  

[Ren Tohimaru]

too2sweet

Vagabond8

Lol I've learned at least most of the ins and outs of wicca-I'm sure I get the picture.

Have you actually read the thread that's been linked? Because I can guarantee, that what you think you know about Wicca, probably has very little to do with what Wicca actually is. Hence the thread.

Actually I do know all about the aspects of wicca listed in that thread.  

[Kelsey MacAilbert]

Vagabond8

too2sweet

Vagabond8

Lol I've learned at least most of the ins and outs of wicca-I'm sure I get the picture.

Have you actually read the thread that's been linked? Because I can guarantee, that what you think you know about Wicca, probably has very little to do with what Wicca actually is. Hence the thread.

Actually I do know all about the aspects of wicca listed in that thread.

Just for clarification, could you type out what you know so that we may see precisely what it is?  

[X-Yami-no-Ko-X]

Vagabond8

too2sweet

Vagabond8

Lol I've learned at least most of the ins and outs of wicca-I'm sure I get the picture.

Have you actually read the thread that's been linked? Because I can guarantee, that what you think you know about Wicca, probably has very little to do with what Wicca actually is. Hence the thread.

Actually I do know all about the aspects of wicca listed in that thread.

Then why didn't you answer the question when asked?  

[Ren Tohimaru]

I've studied Wiccan rituals and history leading all the way back to Gardner. I know some on Gods/Goddesses etc. I know about most elemental correspondences,etc. I understand spellwork and the basic tools of Wicca. Yes, most of what I know is Scott Cunningham, but I know all about how traditional wicca works as well, and no, I never did get initiated into a coven, so i probably am missing key points, but I found out quite a bit by myself.  

[Esiris]

Vagabond8

Yes, most of what I know is Scott Cunningham, but I know all about how traditional wicca works as well, and no, I never did get initiated into a coven, so i probably am missing key points, but I found out quite a bit by myself.

Scott Cunningham never broke his oaths to my knowledge- he wrote on Standing Stone, but not Wicca since Wicca is oathbound. I'm not sure if it was him or his publisher who published the books under the name Wicca- but it isn't.

Also- Wicca only has one God and one Goddess- so that shows that a lot of the stuff isn't Wicca but Standing Stone.  

[Ravynne Sidhe]

Esiris

Vagabond8

Yes, most of what I know is Scott Cunningham, but I know all about how traditional wicca works as well, and no, I never did get initiated into a coven, so i probably am missing key points, but I found out quite a bit by myself.

Scott Cunningham never broke his oaths to my knowledge- he wrote on Standing Stone, but not Wicca since Wicca is oathbound. I'm not sure if it was him or his publisher who published the books under the name Wicca- but it isn't.

Also- Wicca only has one God and one Goddess- so that shows that a lot of the stuff isn't Wicca but Standing Stone.

I think it was him who published it as Wicca. He was very much against Gardner and Traditional Wicca. It was his way of trying to change the system. He even wrote a book called "The Truth about Witchcraft Today"  

[Morgandria]

Try thinking of Wicca like this, Vagabond:

Let's say a coven is a theater troop. They really want to be able to perform their rituals for the eyes of others, but they equally don't want to break the oaths they took. Showing a non-initiate, even someone they like and who is very interested in Wicca, would break their oaths. You can't present anything properly Wiccan to the public, period.

So they do what all kinds of theatrical groups do - they 'gaff' it. In this instance, I use the term 'gaff' as a stage illusionist would. A 'gaffed' prop is something that has been altered or changed for a purpose, but actually looks as if it is perfectly normal and ordinary, when used.

Gaffing a ritual means changing the oathbound attributes - taking out key phrases or names, changing hand gestures or body movements, using tools in a different manner than is usual, setting up the altar differently, etc. It becomes a non-denominational neo-pagan ritual, albeit one with a 'flavour' of Wicca. It is Wiccans performing public rituals. It is not Wiccans performing Wiccan rituals in public.

(A metaphor about 'Wiccan-flavoured' rituals:
Let's say you were a cook. You wanted to make Moroccan soup, but the people you're cooking for can't have Moroccan soup. Perhaps adding a sprinkle of cumin to a bowl of soup they can have, might be enough to be evocative of Morocco, without rendering the soup inedible for them.)

To an outsider, the ritual that emerges seems to them as Wiccan as anything else they've ever seen or participated in. Only the insiders, the initiated Wiccans, know what's different. They're still performing the original rituals backstage, behind closed doors. Open ritual is absolutely a stage show - still sincere, still meaningful, still powerful - but it may exaggerate certain aspects of a rite to be more dramatic, while placing less or even no emphasis on the subtle things initiates understand and recognize within rites.

So. The idea is to give an outsider a taste of Wicca without breaking oaths. Some of those outsiders may end in being proper people, and join a coven, and learn what's changed and why over time. But not everyone who or participates in these public rituals are in a position to join the coven theater, and practice alone. They really like what they saw, so they decide to go home and recreate it, not understanding that what they have seen isn't the whole deal. Without a background in the underpinnings of the gaffed rite, they don't know what's been changed, or why. And so they fill in the gaps with their knowledge with guesses of varying accuracy, or they continue to change the rite in a way that makes sense to them. In some cases, it changes so much it can't even begin to resemble the original ritual.

(Back to the soup metaphor:
Flavour evokes sense memory and imagination. You might put cumin into a bowl of soup thinking to evoke Morocco...and someone else is reminded of Mexico. It's not a precisely controlled thing..and some people will make associations or assumptions that weren't the intended ones. So that person goes around telling everyone what a wonderful Mexican soup it was.)

And that's what's happened with Eclectic Neo-Paganism. There are plenty of kinds of ENP that seek to emulate what they've seen publicly of Wicca, without understanding that essentially it's a stage show. They basically imitate or ape what they've seen, heard, or been told is Wicca, without having any way (or in some cases, interest) in verifying its' veracity. People can and do make huge leaps of logic about what Wicca's focus is, or what can be considered Wiccan, simply by how they have interpreted personally the flavour of public, altered rites. And they write books. And found traditions.
And make websites.

For whatever reasons - sometimes it's ignorance, sometimes it's greed, sometimes it's an attempt to mislead - people still insist that these mutated, altered versions of a gaffed, public ritual run by a Wiccan coven that someone once attended , are exactly the same as the rites Wiccans properly do.
There's nothing wrong with what they do, but there is a terrible flaw in the logic that what they do is properly called Wicca.

It's like saying you've read and analyzed Victor Hugo's Les Miserablés, to the point of total comprehension and mastery of the work, because you've seen the musical. The musical is fantastic and entertaining, but really is not the whole of the story.

It's like watching a ballet, and then heading to a dance and slamming your way through a mosh pit in a tutu, and calling it 'Ballet by Frank". They're both forms of dance, with some of the same props, but they are not the same.

It's like soup. (Last one, I promise!) The taste of cumin can lead a person to seeking out the cuisines that embrace it as a soup flavour, and to master those cuisines. It can also lead to a person going "Cumin = Moroccan" and declaring that sprinkling cumin on any dish, not just soup, makes it automatically authentically Moroccan.

Wicca has suffered similar interpretations.

Ultimately my point here is that you've scratched the surface of what Wicca is. You've seen the flash on the surface, what is put out for public consumption. The rest is hidden, oathbound, and isn't for public eyes. People who don't get that, or don't accept that, have run off on all kinds of tangents, and made all kinds of assumptions, and put them out there using 'Wicca' as a label. You have tasted something of Wicca's 'flavour' - but without the skills, knowledge, and experience initiated Wiccans have to put that flavour in its' proper, full context.  

[Esiris]

Ravynne Sidhe

I think it was him who published it as Wicca.

All I know is that Wiccans have said he regretted it.

Quote:

He was very much against Gardner and Traditional Wicca.

I never got that impression- he was an initiate and everything, if he was so against it, why would he go through with his initiation?

Quote:

He even wrote a book called "The Truth about Witchcraft Today"

Gardner wrote "Witchcraft Today" and the Farrars wrote "The Witches Way" etc- authors and publishers take liberties in titling their books.  

[Ravynne Sidhe]

Esiris

Ravynne Sidhe

I think it was him who published it as Wicca.

All I know is that Wiccans have said he regretted it.

Quote:

He was very much against Gardner and Traditional Wicca.

I never got that impression- he was an initiate and everything, if he was so against it, why would he go through with his initiation?

Quote:

He even wrote a book called "The Truth about Witchcraft Today"

Gardner wrote "Witchcraft Today" and the Farrars wrote "The Witches Way" etc- authors and publishers take liberties in titling their books.

It's unknown if he did. He died in 1993.

It's probably why he left some years after his initiation. I just recall some bits and pieces in both his solitary book and Living Wicca.

I tried findining a pdf version of the book, but all I found was a preview of the book for four chapters :s And it didn't even get to the initiations and stuff.  

[Ren Tohimaru]

Morgandria

Try thinking of Wicca like this, Vagabond:

Let's say a coven is a theater troop. They really want to be able to perform their rituals for the eyes of others, but they equally don't want to break the oaths they took. Showing a non-initiate, even someone they like and who is very interested in Wicca, would break their oaths. You can't present anything properly Wiccan to the public, period.

So they do what all kinds of theatrical groups do - they 'gaff' it. In this instance, I use the term 'gaff' as a stage illusionist would. A 'gaffed' prop is something that has been altered or changed for a purpose, but actually looks as if it is perfectly normal and ordinary, when used.

Gaffing a ritual means changing the oathbound attributes - taking out key phrases or names, changing hand gestures or body movements, using tools in a different manner than is usual, setting up the altar differently, etc. It becomes a non-denominational neo-pagan ritual, albeit one with a 'flavour' of Wicca. It is Wiccans performing public rituals. It is not Wiccans performing Wiccan rituals in public.

(A metaphor about 'Wiccan-flavoured' rituals:
Let's say you were a cook. You wanted to make Moroccan soup, but the people you're cooking for can't have Moroccan soup. Perhaps adding a sprinkle of cumin to a bowl of soup they can have, might be enough to be evocative of Morocco, without rendering the soup inedible for them.)

To an outsider, the ritual that emerges seems to them as Wiccan as anything else they've ever seen or participated in. Only the insiders, the initiated Wiccans, know what's different. They're still performing the original rituals backstage, behind closed doors. Open ritual is absolutely a stage show - still sincere, still meaningful, still powerful - but it may exaggerate certain aspects of a rite to be more dramatic, while placing less or even no emphasis on the subtle things initiates understand and recognize within rites.

So. The idea is to give an outsider a taste of Wicca without breaking oaths. Some of those outsiders may end in being proper people, and join a coven, and learn what's changed and why over time. But not everyone who or participates in these public rituals are in a position to join the coven theater, and practice alone. They really like what they saw, so they decide to go home and recreate it, not understanding that what they have seen isn't the whole deal. Without a background in the underpinnings of the gaffed rite, they don't know what's been changed, or why. And so they fill in the gaps with their knowledge with guesses of varying accuracy, or they continue to change the rite in a way that makes sense to them. In some cases, it changes so much it can't even begin to resemble the original ritual.

(Back to the soup metaphor:
Flavour evokes sense memory and imagination. You might put cumin into a bowl of soup thinking to evoke Morocco...and someone else is reminded of Mexico. It's not a precisely controlled thing..and some people will make associations or assumptions that weren't the intended ones. So that person goes around telling everyone what a wonderful Mexican soup it was.)

And that's what's happened with Eclectic Neo-Paganism. There are plenty of kinds of ENP that seek to emulate what they've seen publicly of Wicca, without understanding that essentially it's a stage show. They basically imitate or ape what they've seen, heard, or been told is Wicca, without having any way (or in some cases, interest) in verifying its' veracity. People can and do make huge leaps of logic about what Wicca's focus is, or what can be considered Wiccan, simply by how they have interpreted personally the flavour of public, altered rites. And they write books. And found traditions.
And make websites.

For whatever reasons - sometimes it's ignorance, sometimes it's greed, sometimes it's an attempt to mislead - people still insist that these mutated, altered versions of a gaffed, public ritual run by a Wiccan coven that someone once attended , are exactly the same as the rites Wiccans properly do.
There's nothing wrong with what they do, but there is a terrible flaw in the logic that what they do is properly called Wicca.

It's like saying you've read and analyzed Victor Hugo's Les Miserablés, to the point of total comprehension and mastery of the work, because you've seen the musical. The musical is fantastic and entertaining, but really is not the whole of the story.

It's like watching a ballet, and then heading to a dance and slamming your way through a mosh pit in a tutu, and calling it 'Ballet by Frank". They're both forms of dance, with some of the same props, but they are not the same.

It's like soup. (Last one, I promise!) The taste of cumin can lead a person to seeking out the cuisines that embrace it as a soup flavour, and to master those cuisines. It can also lead to a person going "Cumin = Moroccan" and declaring that sprinkling cumin on any dish, not just soup, makes it automatically authentically Moroccan.

Wicca has suffered similar interpretations.

Ultimately my point here is that you've scratched the surface of what Wicca is. You've seen the flash on the surface, what is put out for public consumption. The rest is hidden, oathbound, and isn't for public eyes. People who don't get that, or don't accept that, have run off on all kinds of tangents, and made all kinds of assumptions, and put them out there using 'Wicca' as a label. You have tasted something of Wicca's 'flavour' - but without the skills, knowledge, and experience initiated Wiccans have to put that flavour in its' proper, full context.

Well then, I'll stop arguing with the experts.  

[Talesofbiro]

Morgandria, do Wiccans announce to the non-initiates that the ritual isn't actually a Wiccan ritual? Or does it depend on the coven and those who attend? I'm assuming it'd help stop some misinformation if people were aware of that fact, that's excluding the people who are purposely misleading of course.