From: Kai Mactane Area: MagickNet To: Mindrimmer 17 Jun 94 03:53:18 Subject: Re: definitions UpdReq -=> Joseph Max's words of 06-12-94 14:39 echo back across the Net: JM> Let's see if I can cough up a few short definitions, and JM> the other folks here can argue about my accuraccy... JM> JM> Enochian: A specific system of magical procedure... Looks close enough as makes no difference. JM> OTO: A magical organization operating along the lines... JM> Thelema: (greek for "Will") - a system of philosophy... JM> Crowley-ites: Perhaps a somewhat disparaging term... These all also look not only good, but better than most. (Example: most folks think Crowley started the OTO, ignore the details about the *True* Will in the Thelemic Law, etc.) Again, there may be teeny quibbles -- maybe Crowley became the OTO's leader before 1900, not after -- and actual members of said groups might think the emphases should be different, but there were no actual *errors* that I noticed. And, before I go on, may I congratulate you on the clarity, accuracy and (most of all!) *brevity* of your definitions? I am most assuredly NOT about to match you! :) Here, I can and will pick nits (though small ones, I admit!) JM> Wicca: A revivalist movement of pagan Goddess worship begun JM> in the 1950's by British author Gerald Gardener, and Full name w/correct spelling: Gerald Brousseau Gardner. JM> expanded upon by many, many others since then. Garderner JM> claimed to have found the "roots" of old Celtic paganism JM> as the basis of his system, but there is no records in JM> existance to back up his claim, although he's generally JM> accepted to have been not far off the mark in his modern JM> reconstruction... Actually, his claim to have been initiated into a coven of really old folks operating in the New Forest, UK in 1939 has been checked by Doreen Valiente. She details what's known as "The Search for Old Dorothy" (that is, Dorothy Clutterbuck, who Gardner claimed as his initiatrix) in _The_Rebirth_of_Witchcraft_. The practical upshot of the thing is that such a woman did exist, and it's quite probable that she was a member of a coven. However, "coven" here seems to mean, "a group of people practicing fragmentary and corrupted rituals handed down in *very* inaccurate form from... somewhen, quite possibly as long ago as the Burning Times." Gardner himself wrote (somewhere, I forget the exact place) that the New Forest coven seemed headed toward certain extinction. In other words, claims that it reached back to the Burning Times *may* be accurate (and are conceivable, though by no means certain!), but only in the most rudimentary fashion. In no way were they practicing pristine, authentic, well-preserved Medieval rituals! This is all just nit-picking to show that Gardner didn't invent the *whole* thing, only about 75-90% of it. JM> ...I'd suggest getting someone who is a Wiccan JM> practitioner to expound on the different stripes besides Gardernarian JM> (Alexandrian, Ancestral, Dianic, et al) since I'm NOT JM> Wiccan and wouldn't want to offend any witches.... I should mention here that I'm no longer a "Wiccan practitioner," having moved over to a more Celtic path, but I used to be, so what the heck... Gardnerian Wicca is a very structured system, based on three "degrees" and tracing lineage (that is, successive initiations) back (theoretically) to Gardner (I say "theoretically" because some folks could have lied and followed the rituals well enough to pass, thus violating the usual "descent"). Gardnerian Craft also has a "Holy Writ" of sorts -- the "Book of Shadows" (BoS), which contains all the rituals and stuff that they're supposed to do. I have seen Gardnerians quibble over abstruse (from my Eclectic viewpoint, anyway; see below) points of whether or not something was in the BoS. It's weird for a supposedly freewheeling and anarchic religion. :) Gardnerian Craft is sort of the Catholicism of Witchcraft, in that it's structured, hierarchical, not as amenable to change (that "Holy Writ" again) and has history (fifty years' worth, which is a lot for the Craft! :) behind it. Alex Sanders was a guy who tried to get into Gardnerian Wicca way back when, couldn't find anyone to initiate him, and so bought/borrowed/stole (not sure which) a copy of the Gardnerian BoS, made a few alterations, threw in a lot of Ceremonial Magick stuff and called it a new tradition (Alexandrian). Sanders was a good showman, claiming to have been initiated by his grandmother in a sexually-based ceremony at age eight. He got publicity, his "trad" flourished, and the Craft evolved. His stuff is about as structured as Gardner's, but gets flack for being "derivative" (polite for "stolen"). This ignores the fact that it works just as well (which any real Eclectic would say is the important part). Eclectic Craft started in the late Sixties, when a lot of people decided the few who had initiations shouldn't have a monopoly on the Craft, and so people started calling themselves Witches *without* having gotten initiations from the accepted Alexandrian/Gardnerian (now abbreviated "AlGard") in-group. They were partly taking a cue from Gardner himself, who is said to have said/written: "A good Witch is eclectic; she'll steal from anything that works." (A side note: I had to just about wear that phrase out to get some fellow-Pagans to accept my research into ceremonial magick! Calling yourself Pagan/Wiccan/whatever doesn't automatically grant a tap on the head by the Tolerance Fairy. :) Eclectic Wicca puts a high (some would say "extreme" :) emphasis on personal choice, the individual practitioner's right/ responsibility to decide what elements work/don't work for him/her, etc. Accordingly, it has far less structure, no coherent rank system -- in fact, no coherent order or system at all. It's just a bunch of people inventing religion as they go. This, of course, has both its up-side and its down-side. No one can tell you what to do or how to do it, but it's not as stable or cohesive as an AlGard coven. (BTW, Eclecticism is more-or-less standard here in the U.S. In the U.K., Gardnerianism is the standard.) Once a bunch of Eclectics had made headway into the Craft, the doors were thrown wide to Dianic, Feminist, Faerie, Shamanic, and whatever kind of Craft anyone could think of and get others to join. The question from any serious person isn't (or shouldn't be, IMNSHO) "How much history do you have?" but "Does your stuff work? Will it help me find the Goddess?" Dianics are the second-to-last major division. The term has come to mean those who place a greater, primary or sole emphasis on the Goddess and the feminine aspects of nature (especially in contrast with those that give the Goddess and God equal time). They may include women only or be open to men, and certainly need have no hatred toward males (though they certainly get their share of jokes!). Finally, there are FamTrad (short for "Family Tradition," also called "Ancestral" and suchlike). These are other folks like the New Forest coven: ones who have had the Craft handed down in their family for generations. Most of them are still *very* big on secrecy (hey, wouldn't _you_ be? :) and are not hooked in to the Pagan community-at-large. Of course, it can be really hard to tell if they're telling the truth or not, but I feel that the Eclectic explosion has pretty much made the need to claim, like Sanders, that "my granny initiated me" (sort of an in-joke among Pagans/Witches) unnecessary. Why manufacture lineage when you can get along without it? JM> Norse/Celtic - these are old pagan traditions of god and JM> goddess worship, reconstructed with varying accuracy and JM> success by various groups in operation today. Stick JM> around, I'm sure they'll speak up... Aaaagh! I've written too much already tonight! (Remember, I practice Celtic now? :) If you really want to know about that, ask me in another couple of days, but Joe Max had it basically right. People started wanting to do pre-Wiccan stuff, like the Germanic or Celtic tribes would have practiced before the coming of Christianity. Contrary to what you may hear, WICCA ISN'T THAT! Wicca is (at best) a *reconstruction or revision of* practices that date to the Middle Ages, and which are based on folk survivals of the older Teutonic/Celtic faiths (and that's just in the British Isles!). Reconstructionism tries to go back further, to "purer" stuff. And, lest you think that by "purer" I mean "better," let me hasten to add that it just ain't so! I am a Techno- Pagan through and through, and if you gave me the real, original and true Celtic practices on a silver (or oaken) platter, I'd probably look at them and go, "Hey, where do computers fit in all this?". Then I'd alter the sh*t out of it to make it work for the modern world. Why do it then (reconstruction, that is)? Because we feel like it. For the same reason that some people like chocolate ice cream while others prefer butter pecan. The attempts to reconstruct the "pure" (and please note that I'm putting it in quotes, because it's just a hypothetical ideal!) practices (at least in the mind's eye) are really more for intellectual exercise and as a springboard than anything else. That is, *before* we alter to take account for 486s and modems, we'd at least like to be sure of what we're altering. Damn, I started rambling again. --Kai MacTane. ... I can't believe I wrote that whole thing. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Thomas Izaguirre Area: MagickNet To: All 17 Jun 94 05:19:28 Subject: New issue of GNOSIS UpdReq The theme is The Esoteric in Popular Culture and contains many articles and interviews, making it one of the heftiest issues in memory. Subjects include Genesis P-Orridge and a dual interview of Rachel Pollack and Neil Gaiman, creator of Sandman. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718