Just what is a witch anyway?

[TeaDidikai]

Cyrus the Elder

This is where sleep deprivation starts to thwack me over the head screaming "IT'S 4:25AM GO TO ******** SLEEP"

I'm not trying to be subjective or anything, it's more a matter of "Even if it looks like X, I need to know if it quacks like X and walks like X". Something may appear to be witchcraft to me, yet, at its core, wouldn't meet the criteria I'd apply to it. For instance, rituals as honorifics may appear, to me, to be witchcraft, however, when looked at in proper context (why is this being done? Why is it being done the specific way it's being done? etc.) it may very well not be. Intent and reasons behind something can change what that something is to the point where it's not what it appears to be on the external.

In short, I guess what I'm trying to say is, I try not to judge books by their covers. Unless it reads "Silver Ravenwolf" on the cover, then I'm going to set fire to it ninja

I think I understand what you're saying. My problem is that it rests on your personal discretion after seeing if it fits other criteria you have.

What I'm trying to get at is that you and I aren't in a position to tell folks like Poe that she practices witchcraft. You and I wouldn't say that to Poe, because we know Poe. But if someone else has a similar standard of application that you do- they might.

Did that make sense?  

[Cyrus the Elder]

TeaDidikai

Cyrus the Elder

This is where sleep deprivation starts to thwack me over the head screaming "IT'S 4:25AM GO TO ******** SLEEP"

I'm not trying to be subjective or anything, it's more a matter of "Even if it looks like X, I need to know if it quacks like X and walks like X". Something may appear to be witchcraft to me, yet, at its core, wouldn't meet the criteria I'd apply to it. For instance, rituals as honorifics may appear, to me, to be witchcraft, however, when looked at in proper context (why is this being done? Why is it being done the specific way it's being done? etc.) it may very well not be. Intent and reasons behind something can change what that something is to the point where it's not what it appears to be on the external.

In short, I guess what I'm trying to say is, I try not to judge books by their covers. Unless it reads "Silver Ravenwolf" on the cover, then I'm going to set fire to it ninja

I think I understand what you're saying. My problem is that it rests on your personal discretion after seeing if it fits other criteria you have.

What I'm trying to get at is that you and I aren't in a position to tell folks like Poe that she practices witchcraft. You and I wouldn't say that to Poe, because we know Poe. But if someone else has a similar standard of application that you do- they might.

Did that make sense?

Well, Context would sorta cover that, guess I should have expanded on it though.

By context, I mean, more specifically, how it is or isn't contextually classified as witchcraft in its own tradition, and the reasoning behind it. Now, in the end, my definition doesn't trump that of the tradition itself, which is a rather important point that I hold onto like it's the last cupcake at a buffet table.

There was a saying going around for a while "Ask 5 people for the definition of witchcraft, and you'll get 15 answers".

When it boils down to it, my classification of something being witchcraft or not is based, primarily, on the path's classification itself.

Which is why I only really chime in when something is undecided at its core 3nodding  

[TeaDidikai]

Cyrus the Elder

Well, Context would sorta cover that, guess I should have expanded on it though.

By context, I mean, more specifically, how it is or isn't contextually classified as witchcraft in its own tradition, and the reasoning behind it. Now, in the end, my definition doesn't trump that of the tradition itself, which is a rather important point that I hold onto like it's the last cupcake at a buffet table.

There was a saying going around for a while "Ask 5 people for the definition of witchcraft, and you'll get 15 answers".

When it boils down to it, my classification of something being witchcraft or not is based, primarily, on the path's classification itself.

Which is why I only really chime in when something is undecided at its core 3nodding

Cool. This brings it back from the realm of twitchy.

So what I would argue is that instead of relying on personal interpertation, we set up clear and objective standards by which we can weigh if something is witchcraft or not. Hence why I would argue for stance on linguistics involved.

The reason I'm having a hard time grasping some of this is because when people like Edian McCoy call something Irish Witchcraft, and even if the people who are practicing the tradition explain that the concept of Witchcraft isn't present in their tradition, the linguistic equivocation that takes place seems to remove the practice from it's context in order to be examined by someone from the outside.

It's a subtle difference in concern- I don't know if I expressed it correctly or not.

I'm not worried about you telling Poe she's a witch, but instead, I would be worried about people starting to call things that aren't witchcraft that have no name yet Witchcraft for the sake of convenience.  

[Recursive Paradox]

Cyrus the Elder

Recursive Paradox

@Cyrus:

I actually tend to dislike words that have a given specific context they apply in being applied to me through somewhat subjective reasoning.

There are a few people in the GD witchcraft thread that have insisted that I am a witch using a sort of general context based subjective viewpoint and it is... irritating.

I'm an energy channeler and an Etherist. Neither of these really mesh with what witchcraft is and to lump people like me into that category really reduces the usefulness of the word.

sweatdrop I think...there might have been a slight miscommunication in one of my last posts.

Context is important, not so I can subjectively brand things, but so that I can view traditions from their own points of view, see why they do or do not define something as witchcraft, and then judge based upon that. If that makes any sense sweatdrop

Keep in mind I'm sleep deprived too so it's possible you put it up really nicely and my brain just self destructed mid sentence. That seems a lot more reasonable although it still gives me a bit of x_O feeling.

TeaDidikai

I'm not worried about you telling Poe she's a witch, but instead, I would be worried about people starting to call things that aren't witchcraft that have no name yet Witchcraft for the sake of convenience.

This. This was what I was trying to express in my sleep addled state.  

[Cyrus the Elder]

TeaDidikai

Cyrus the Elder

Well, Context would sorta cover that, guess I should have expanded on it though.

By context, I mean, more specifically, how it is or isn't contextually classified as witchcraft in its own tradition, and the reasoning behind it. Now, in the end, my definition doesn't trump that of the tradition itself, which is a rather important point that I hold onto like it's the last cupcake at a buffet table.

There was a saying going around for a while "Ask 5 people for the definition of witchcraft, and you'll get 15 answers".

When it boils down to it, my classification of something being witchcraft or not is based, primarily, on the path's classification itself.

Which is why I only really chime in when something is undecided at its core 3nodding

Cool. This brings it back from the realm of twitchy.

So what I would argue is that instead of relying on personal interpertation, we set up clear and objective standards by which we can weigh if something is witchcraft or not. Hence why I would argue for stance on linguistics involved.

The reason I'm having a hard time grasping some of this is because when people like Edian McCoy call something Irish Witchcraft, and even if the people who are practicing the tradition explain that the concept of Witchcraft isn't present in their tradition, the linguistic equivocation that takes place seems to remove the practice from it's context in order to be examined by someone from the outside.

It's a subtle difference in concern- I don't know if I expressed it correctly or not.

I'm not worried about you telling Poe she's a witch, but instead, I would be worried about people starting to call things that aren't witchcraft that have no name yet Witchcraft for the sake of convenience.

I generally try to keep to some guidelines regarding calling something witchcraft. Generally, someone would have to ask me, it would have to be in their own practice, they would have to be ambiguous about what it is and what it isn't, and I would need to know why there is ambiguity.

For instance, if someone asked me "Hey, is what I'm doing here witchcraft?" I'd comment with a short disclaimer that it's merely personal opinion on my own definition of witchcraft. What I would not comment on would be things like "In path X is practice Y witchcraft?" or "Is what person X is doing, witchcraft?"

Also, I try to steer clear of already established paths unless I've had a chance to look into them a fair bit to see if something is or isn't defined as witchcraft, and why it is or isn't defined as witchcraft.  

[TeaDidikai]

Cyrus the Elder

I generally try to keep to some guidelines regarding calling something witchcraft.

~nods~ You were able to communicate that clearly.

Quote:

Generally, someone would have to ask me, it would have to be in their own practice, they would have to be ambiguous about what it is and what it isn't, and I would need to know why there is ambiguity.

These standards don't cut it for me, because they read as what makes you willing to comment, not on the actual nature of the tradition and the validity in calling it Witchcraft.

Quote:

For instance, if someone asked me "Hey, is what I'm doing here witchcraft?" I'd comment with a short disclaimer that it's merely personal opinion on my own definition of witchcraft.

And that's what I want to avoid. I don't want disclaimers and personal opinions. I want something that is concrete.

Instead of relying on personal conjecture- I want enough of a standard that no matter who balked, we could argue it's accuracy.  

[Cyrus the Elder]

TeaDidikai

These standards don't cut it for me, because they read as what makes you willing to comment, not on the actual nature of the tradition and the validity in calling it Witchcraft.

Actually, they're guidelines to hold any statement on the matter at all, either internally or externally. There's no point in me trying to come to a conclusion about something I haven't got a clue about, it's a fundamental lack of information which can too easily breed misunderstanding and perpetuate falsehoods, so instead of addressing whether or not it's witchcraft, to myself or others, I just shrug and say "Dunno, I'd have to look into it"

Quote:

And that's what I want to avoid. I don't want disclaimers and personal opinions. I want something that is concrete.

Instead of relying on personal conjecture- I want enough of a standard that no matter who balked, we could argue it's accuracy.

At the end of the day, I think what we've got here are crossed-purposes. I'm addressing a rather specific situation, one of being asked if something, on the surface, appears to be witchcraft or not, hence why there are disclaimers as I may or may not know enough about the subject to classify it competently enough to not be breeding misunderstanding.

When it all comes down to it, if I know enough about the culture/tradition, I'll happily comment in a concrete fashion, however, if I do not, I will do what I can to make it clear that I could be wrong because of an unforeseen misunderstanding with my lack of knowledge on the subject.

And that is exactly why I try not to address things that I'm not certain about, i.e. "Is tarot witchcraft?" "Is what Tea does witchcraft?" etc.  

[TeaDidikai]

I can understand your reluctance to comment on things you have no/not enough information on. That's completely respectable.

But I think the point of this thread is to establish what objectively stands as witchcraft.

twisted I pity the person who tries to prove I'm either a pagan or a witch.  

[Cyrus the Elder]

TeaDidikai

I can understand your reluctance to comment on things you have no/not enough information on. That's completely respectable.

But I think the point of this thread is to establish what objectively stands as witchcraft.

twisted I pity the person who tries to prove I'm either a pagan or a witch.

Personally, I'd stick with my previous statement about criteria, including, most importantly, context (which in itself includes cultural context and the like) 3nodding  

[TeaDidikai]

Cyrus the Elder

Personally, I'd stick with my previous statement about criteria, including, most importantly, context (which in itself includes cultural context and the like) 3nodding

But I want it to be wrapped up in a pretty bow! gonk

What commentary would you offer on my first post of the thread?  

[Cyrus the Elder]

TeaDidikai

Cyrus the Elder

Personally, I'd stick with my previous statement about criteria, including, most importantly, context (which in itself includes cultural context and the like) 3nodding

But I want it to be wrapped up in a pretty bow! gonk

What commentary would you offer on my first post of the thread?

I'd say that wraps it up pretty effectively, but that I was addressing the question brought in later "What is witchcraft?" xd  

[TeaDidikai]

Cyrus the Elder

TeaDidikai

Cyrus the Elder

Personally, I'd stick with my previous statement about criteria, including, most importantly, context (which in itself includes cultural context and the like) 3nodding

But I want it to be wrapped up in a pretty bow! gonk

What commentary would you offer on my first post of the thread?

I'd say that wraps it up pretty effectively, but that I was addressing the question brought in later "What is witchcraft?" xd

The magical craft of the witches. sweatdrop  

[Cyrus the Elder]

TeaDidikai

Cyrus the Elder

TeaDidikai

Cyrus the Elder

Personally, I'd stick with my previous statement about criteria, including, most importantly, context (which in itself includes cultural context and the like) 3nodding

But I want it to be wrapped up in a pretty bow! gonk

What commentary would you offer on my first post of the thread?

I'd say that wraps it up pretty effectively, but that I was addressing the question brought in later "What is witchcraft?" xd

The magical craft of the witches. sweatdrop

I just know someone's going to bitchslap me for this, but....

 

[TeaDidikai]

It's not really circular logic. See- circular logic is designed to generate a cause and effect that cycles.

In the case of cultural practices, an identified group is defined by it's practices and while sometimes those practices are implemented outside of that group- they are expressed in a characteristic way within the group.

This is one of the places where humans don't fit into a logical framework perfectly because humans not always being logical develop social structures and patterns that exist outside of logically predictable bounds. 3nodding

It would have been more accurate to list examples, but I was feeling cheeky.  

[Cyrus the Elder]

TeaDidikai

It's not really circular logic. See- circular logic is designed to generate a cause and effect that cycles.

In the case of cultural practices, an identified group is defined by it's practices and while sometimes those practices are implemented outside of that group- they are expressed in a characteristic way within the group.

This is one of the places where humans don't fit into a logical framework perfectly because humans not always being logical develop social structures and patterns that exist outside of logically predictable bounds. 3nodding

It would have been more accurate to list examples, but I was feeling cheeky.

Why is this reminding me of the time I looked up "Practical joke" in my dictionary, and it said "See prank" and I looked up prank and it said "see practical joke" ninja