For quite a while I have been interested in Robert Cochrane's craft his writings and trying to work out just what he was on about. It takes a while to get into the Poetic inference so can be a bit hard going really.
anyway I have heard many folks say "oh he was just using Wicca but added a darker aspect to it" "He's a fake and not trad craft at all" Personally I do see quite a bit of Wicca in the "published" articles and writings by him, and, to a degree others of the CoTC BUT his tradition (Clan of Tubal Cain) was and still is "closed" order for want of a better term, much of the core practices of the group and Cochrane himself remain Sub Rosa (hidden) to all but initiates of the trad so it's unfair for an outsider to say "oh he's just wicca with a twist" they do not know the full rites and rituals and can't really make that sort of generalisation.
There were a few big names from the pagan community who worked with him for a while, Doreen Valiente was a member of the clan for a while, and Marian Green also worked with them too in fact Marian Green had the following to say about Robert Cochrane

Just from the above snippet it sounds like he and the workings the group did had a very profound and powerful effect, and I would go so far as to say that he must certainly have been onto something with the way he did things. Also from that description it doesn't sound like anything Wiccan that I have come across (though admittedly my experience there is limited)

I was wondering what do others think of Cochrane and his writings.

Well hopefully tubals_forge will pop in and add his £0.02 because I bet he has a few insights. I would also recommend having a look at Witchcraft - A Tradition Renewed, as that was written by Evan John Jones, who worked with him. I also like the chapter 'Bill and the Witches' in 'The Old Sod' (about Bill Gray and his workings with Cochrane amongst others). There is also a chapter about him in Triumph of the Moon (Prof Hutton) and the Rebirth of Witchcraft (D Valiente). Pretty good going for someone who only lived 33(?) years.

My personal take on Roy is that he was a genius and, like most geniuses, was flawed. I don't agree with his change in policy regarding Maids, as it smacks too much of Gardners desire for a younger HPs, notwithstanding how much he owed to Doreen. I think he was arrogant, testy, and a liar. He pretty much caused the rift between TIW and BTW which has yet to heal. However, his rituals are inspired, as is his writings, and the whole concept of grey magic is something I find very interesting. It is a shame though that I have had less luck in admiring some of his followers.

He was a complex character, which is no bad thing. I wish he had lived longer.

An awful lot of the folk who persistently yelp on about "Trad Craft" wouldn't know it if it leapt up and bit them on the bum!

If it feels right for you, then just accept it and take from it what you will. Witching isn't about fitting in.

I was under the impression that Herne was just asking about people's thoughts on Robert Cochrane. I haven't noticed anyone 'yelping' about TIW lately.

I have the EJ Jones book and found it to be an interesting read It was the first book I ever got on the subject of witchcraft, but it was a while later before I realised just how useful it was to me.
I think you are right with your summing up of him, or at least that is the impression I get from what I have read about him. I too find the concept of Grey Magic to be very interesting and it is something I have tended to do much of my life really, well at least in the sense of revealing little of myself and leaving folks guessing what i'm all about, (okay not so much these days, but certainly when I was younger and less self confident, not that I am that self confident now) it proved to be useful.

What little I have read of current followers has left me a little disappointed to be honest, the rift between CoTC groups being one example. (I do not want to bring that to the forums though, I am not connected to any group so it would be wrong to comment on it as such and I certainly do not want to bring the disagreements to UKP, it is for those groups to work out between them).




I know I myself go on a fair bit about "Trad Craft" simply because it is something that interests me greatly, and yeah maybe I wouldn't know if it leapt up and bit me on the bum, though I think I am able to separate at least some of the wheat from the chaff. I love researching things and the subject is something that involves not only a lot of that, but also a lot of personal reflection and discovery too. Since I became interested in more Trad craft practices I have changed and grown greatly My own path I am walking along has adapted to incorporate some of what I have learnt and as it works for me I see nothing wrong with that, okay I may not be following what others would call a trad path, but it is one that takes concepts from such and is based around those practices. (does that make sense ) I was just interested in folks opinions of Cochrane, I've kind of made my own mind up on him in a sense. and My feeling is that okay he may not of had the Craft origins he stated, his form of craft isn't as old as some would suggest, but I do think that what he did, his methods, worked and are certainly interesting to look at and I would like to know and learn more.

Oh believe me I know it isn't about fitting in. I have never felt that it is. For me it is a very personal and individual practice, and I really do not care what others think about what I do practice and my beliefs. They work for me and that is ultimately what matters.

I agree. I only put that bit in because so many people have used Roy's propensity for riddling and diversion as a way to 'get one over' people who may not be as au fait with TIW. There are always bad apples, in every barrel.

Yes I have seen that side of it too, though admittedly in a limited way through different places on line since I am not aware of interacting with anyone I know who follows his writings in the real world.

It is always a shame when someone comes along and pulls the elitist card and feels it necessary to belittle and undermine someone else in order to make themselves feel and seem more important than they are. As you say there are always some bad apples in Every Barrel, Any path has the same problem.

Ok... going to be controversial here. *puts on tin hat and flak jacket*

I think the whole lot is a pile of bollocks.

I cant connect with any of it. Covens, maids, ritual. I dont understand ANY of it. It all feels wrong. I dont understand what ANY of it has to do with magick, or witchceraft. To me its all Emperors New Clothes. Its all... grown ups playing pretend. I dont see the difference between this and people playing Dungeons and Dragons and believing they are Elf Lords.

Dont get me wrong. I believe magick can be weilded in this way. I believe you can perform group magick. I suppose.... there may even be a use for it. I dont understand why anyone thinks there is a need to witches to be "in groups" it baffles me. As for higherarchy Sure, respect from the young for the older. Im all for that, but it all feels like a perversion of reality to make a club.

Maiden, mother, crone, does not mean you need one of each, its an analogy of life and the life cycle, of what we all go through. Sun and moon, earth and water and air are aspects of life. Nothing more.

Why do people feel the need to be a part of a group? I dont get it. I dont understand. None of it makes sense to me.

I personally think that, without Modern Witchcraft being revived by groups like the New Forest Coven and the Clan of Tubal Cain, we wouldn't have the freedom to practice unmolested as witches in the open.

I would have loved to have been asked to join a group, but as the years went by and the realisation it would not happen grew stronger, I decided to work alone. Probably for the best. But that doesn't mean groups have any less entitlement to the name.

Having spent a weekend with the Derbyshire Pagans, I can see the energy that can be raised when people work together. It didn't seem like pretend to me.

I do agree with the fact that it can get very cliquey though.

See its this whole "being revived bit" revived from what excaclty? It never went away.

As for practicing in the open... if you mean, practicing without the fear of being jumped on by some over zealous christians, then sure... why not. They made it known to the many brainwashed masses that witchcraft was not the "devils" work. Thank you very much! *thumbs up* IF however you mean practicing in groups, in covens... I just dont buy that, that.. is what witchcraft was.



I never said they couldnt call themselves witches. They can call themselves what they like.

It feels to me that these groups, all come from the same place. They want to practice magick and they want to give it the gravitas of Druidry, they want to make it earth based and tie it in with a form of religion and structure so they bung the two together and say... "oooh we are reviving something ancient and old and hidden"



Again, like I said.. I didnt say it doesnt work! But you can bung any group together and with the right tweaking of the atmosphere... build energy.

Ever been to a Xtain manafest? People chanting, hands in the air... energy building, is it prayer or magick? WHAM!!! "Can you feeeeel the spirit, can you feeeel the holy ghost in the rooom!?!?" Uhhh.... yeah. Course you can. Well you think you can, you've just whipped people into a trance, just like weaving a spell. Its NO different, except christains turn it in on themselves and pagans tend to release it. Its energy... Its the basis of all magick, miracles, prayer, it just needs soneone who knows how to control and manipulate it.

So yes, there are scraps of reality in behind the smoke and mirrors. Thats why people believe it.

Where is the need to connect with it? I no more connect with it than I do with some guy in a dress standing behind an altar breaking a wafer and saying to a bunch of people ++And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.++

And what do coloured eggs have to do with a resurrected prophet myth?

It's part of someone else's religion or beliefs.

Having said that, there were also people of that religion that believed that only by being on their own could they find their 'path', such as a religious hermit or anchoress.

Also there is this. Different kinds of people. Some choose beliefs which foster social gatherings as a pivotal part of it because they feel more comfortable in a group and some choose not to because they just don't feel like mixing their beliefs with a group.

There is nothing that says I have to hold to the tenets of another belief system , even a pagan one.

Marto

Witchcraft is not a belief system.

Witchcraft is not a religion.

Your point I feel, is invalid.

My whole point is that I do not understand why any witches need structure or groups. There is an attempt in all of these practices to make witchcraft into some sort of club, cult, religious group... I dont understand the need beyond the male requirement to make everything he gets involved with into some sort of exclusive club.

I've never actually seen a definition of 'witch' that means anything other than the specific cultural attributes attached to the word. Now, before you say " but that is the same with anything", it's not if one is discussing something that some people wish to build a cohesive 'belief system' on or act on and give it that name. A 'witch' means something very different in the U.K. than in Gabon.

I agree with you. My point wasn't that it WAS a 'belief system OR a religion but that some people take the word to mean one. And given that they do, there is still no need to feel it applies to anybody else other that those that decide to believe that.

I mean hell, Scientology is considered a 'religion'. Thetans , anyone?

People can call themselves what they want. Everybody has an image of 'self' and what that self 'means' in this world , doesn't mean that image is an independent reality admitting of no ( or little) doubt like that tree outside my window, or even that it has to have any 'truth' to it outside of their own head or social circle.

So it means nothing to me.If someone tells me that they are a witch, or socialist or has an imaginary friend, then I believe that they believe that and if that's how they want to be defined, what does it matter? It's all subjective.

However, if someone says " You may not call yourself a witch or a socialist or have an imaginary friend because you don't follow these rules or beliefs", then I have to deny them the right to impose those beliefs on to me . As long as somebody doesn't ask me to be beholden to their subjective perceptions of the world I could care less about how they use semantics regarding themselves. Therein may be the difference.

Marto

I just wanted to addend a point to my last post. If something does have an operational definition, I would expect someone to know something about it and operate within it's strictures if they are to have me believe they know what they are on about. The term 'Witch' is mutable - it is a term with many variations depending on when and where it is used. So, anybody can call themselves a 'witch' - there is no criteria. However, if you call yourself a Christian, you should be familiar with the general ethos and propositions. Same if you (the impersonal you ) call yourself 'Wiccan', which does have an operational definition whether one agrees with it or not. Having said that, I know that there are many schisms withing that 'religion' , for instance, the refusal of some to recognize Alex Sanders branch as a legitimate form of Wiccanism. Also, the never-bloody-ending arguments about 'Eclectic Wiccans' and so forth. The only thing about that religion that ever annoyed me was the insistence by many Wiccans I have conversed with that' only a Wiccan is a witch'. But that falls into the last paragraph of my last post regarding others telling people that they have to 'walk this way' to take the name of something which is mutable in meaning to begin with.

Marto

I've been fascinated by Cochrane ever since I first heard of him some years ago, probably an article in The Cauldron. Since then I've read and re-read anything that becomes available.

Sometimes I know I am on the edge of understanding what he was about, but at the moment of truth it just slips away. So maddening !!!!


Yours
Don't know why a good Heathen boy is bothering head about this anyway.

More like it never actually existed, unless used as a curse, an accusation, or a villain for someone's story. There is not one instance of a good witch written down anywhere until Dr Murray came along, and even then she was putting witchcraft forward as an ancient religion, an idea that Gardner seized upon. Even 'Discoverie of Witchcraft' was written to prove to people that witches couldn't exist. Not Scot's fault if it became an important text for cunningfolk.

If we assume that neo-pagans have a great deal of paleo-pagan material in their work (and I see no reason why we should not, seeing as the Golden Dawn and OTO also have a part to play in the history of witchcraft) then group witchcraft has more right to the name than solitaries. The ancient Greeks had large rituals. They even pinched a goddess for witchcraft from the Syrians (I think). Roman ritual was either a family affair or a great big state affair, but they were still groups doing this thing.



What's wrong with that? Witchcraft should be hidden. The phrase is 'to know, to will, to dare, and to be silent', not to blab everything to anyone who doesn't need or care to know about it. And yes, it does seem a little 'boys club', but why not? Modern witchcraft is descended from the Freemasons, just about the most boys club you can get.

Put aside the idea that pagan witches were practicing magic alone for centuries. Cunningmen were, and so were village wisewomen, but they woiuld have been horrified to be called witches. It was dangerous. Witches in paleo-paganism and mezzo-paganism were always in groups. It is only because of the Repeal of the Witchcraft Act that we can practice in the open, and it is only because of Gardner, Valiente, Cochrane, Crowley et al that we have anything to practice in the first place.

ooooh I LOVE a good debate!

Some really interesting points being made here.



That is a perfectly valid point. However. We were asked our opinion on what we thought of him and his writings and his beliefs and this point you make, and this one by WW...



Are I feel, linked.

I could not disagree more when you say it is only down to these people we have anything to practice in the first place. I was practicing my craft LONG before I had even heard of these people. Now yes, you are right, I would not have attributed the lable "witch" to what I did and yes, you are also quite right in making the comment about village cunning folk, but it doesnt change what they were. We use the term Witch now because it fits, it could be another term completely, Im not arguing over the lable used Im arguing about the practices.

I can not fit what they do or practice in with anything (apart from the actual physical magick, although not how it is practiced) that I do. I dont believe for a second that these practices allow us anything appart from the ability to sit together here and natter openly with each other. As in, witches are now "out".

*sigh* Im not explaining myself very well.

Ok... bottom line. I dont think that "Gardner, Valiente, Cochrane, Crowley et al" have ANYTHING to do with modern witchcraft apart from the fact that somewhere along the line, one of them, somehow knew something about witchcraft. Probably Valiente. She took that, and her need to work out who and what she was and handed it over to someone who wanted what witchcraft/magick/cunning offered. And after a few years in a dark room and a good imagination, out they popped. Its like anything. Some truths make the untruths believable.

That doesnt mean that there isnt some underlying ability in some of the people who write/wrote about how their craft was plied. Magick works. As soon as you have grasped how to manipulate that force, you're off. You can teach it to anyone, anyone can work magick.

Herne asked us what we thought of it. I think its codswallop. I think if you take it as a stand alone practice, thats fair enough, but I dont think it has any real relevance to witches day to day. Only to them, only to their followers. Oddly, its like saying Presbeterians or Methodists are Christians. They arent. Their practices follow some of the truths of Christianity, (and only some because all of them believe different things) falling into that group does NOT make you a christian. Accepting God or Christ or whatever it is they do makes them a Christian. You can believe in "God" and never set foot in a church. Never follow doctrine. You will pray, because its how you connect with your god, but you dont have to have structured prayer... Meh... I dont know If I am making myself understood.

Cochrane and the rest of them are a group of people who hamfisted some stuff together and presented it as something else. It doesnt make it something it isnt.

Since 1735 then

I shall qualify, smartypants.

The last Repeal of the Witchcraft Act.

Xalle, this looks like it may turn into an interesting debate but I am supposed to be packing for my trip to Rhodes so will have to leave it to others. Just a couple of points.


I disagree. If you read 'The Essential Guide to Witchcraft and Wicca' by Isaac Bonewits (much easier on the eye and brain than Triumph of the Moon) then it is clear that these people, plus Graves, Frazer and Murray, are the guiding forces behind modern witchcraft. That is, the path that most of us practice now. Yes, Gardner and Cochrane mixed in country lore and folklore, so we can never be sure of how old some parts are. But the structured path that is modern day paganism (which my kind of witchcraft evolved from) owes a lot to them all.


I both agree and disagree with this. I think it does have relevance to us now, but only because we don't know the whole story. We only know what has been published. And of course it will mean more to the followers - that is because they are following it.

Don't get me wrong here. I don't think that insular, initiatory witchcraft is the answer. I don't believe in their gods or methods. What I am defending is their right to practice that way, as I would defend a chaote, CM, heathen or any other. To them, it isn't codswallop, and if you research the history of witchcraft, then it is a fine line between who is right or wrong.

I do respect your opinion. I just don't agree with it.

Stands up and gives Xalle a HUGE round of applause.

This is EXACTLY how I feel and although I have been a member of certain groups, none were "witchy" and I soon left anyway because doing things the way someone else tells me to feels wrong.

It amuses me that people who blather on about this tradition or that tradition are missing the point because they are following the teachings of another persons ideal and not being from their own hearts.

I hear people spout great tomes of info on traditional witchcraft (or whatever) and appear very intelligent and well versed in magic. However all they are is a glorified IRAB (I read a book)

They profess to be magically adept, yet surely they are merely memorising someone else words and someones elses beliefs. To become proficient in any craft or art takes years and years and simply following someone elses tradition (to me) simply makes you a sheep

Right now, having said all that I must admit that Cochrane seems to be following me around lately, and I think I might have to bite the bullet and take a look. I would be quite happy to entertain certain things now I know who I am, and what I am. That way I am more than capable of cutting out the crap.

I also accept that there is a need for certain traditions, and if it works for you then great carry on

But what I despise is the fact that many people who follow them are incredibly holier than thou about it and yet they dont have the gumption or balls to think for themselves.

I've said it many many times "there is nowt wrong with being a Bogstandard witch"

Do you know, my personal curse is at it again - lol. I can see both sides to this This topic is also very poignant to me at the moment.

I agree with Xalle, I dont see the need for hierarchy, and its one thing that has always got me about Wicca, because in that sense its just like Christianity - needing someone to speak to the gods on your behalf. I do quite well with that aspect on my own, thanks.

However, as to Cochrane himself - up until very recently he was just a name that I knew as some kind of rival to Gardner, but its not Cochrane's name that has been following me around, as it has with Comf - it's the imagery and phrases within what Cochrane writes about that have been leaping out the woodwork shouting "BOO" at me for months now, and its only very recently that I have started to investigate him and his work.

And you know what - I think can see what Herne means.

If you can put aside the critique of the man, which is something an awful lot of people dont seem to be able to do, and I see it all the time when talking about witchcraft and the personalities within it - it's almost as if they have been set an essay question "evaluate the role of ......in modern day witchcraft" " Compare and contrast etc etc" .

Study should not, in my opinion, just be about learning and analysing - it should be about understanding and application

But putting aside the methodology of group work/initiatory paths etc - it is really alien to me at this point in my life, so for now I really do have to put it to one side - putting away the differences in practice - or as Comfrey so accurately put it, cutting through the crap - there is alot in what I have read so far (which isnt alot, I admit) that makes sense to me as a bog standard witch.

This alone - not how his rituals might have been, or what he achieved, or who he worked with, or what his credentials were - but this aspect of what he himself termed 'Truth' is what has caught my interest and means I will be finding out alot more - well, doing alot more reading, anyway.

Its the resonances with what I already know, already feel, and the confirmations of some things that i already 'suspect' that speaks to me about Cochrane's work. And no other 'character' in witchcraft, apart from Marion Green, if I am honest, has ever achieved that for me.

So amny other people's work that I have read about just leaves me feeling that they 'missed the point'.

And for some bizarre reason 2 lines from the poem The Invitation spring to mind

"It doesn't interest me where or what or with whom you have studied.
I want to know what sustains you from the inside when all else falls away.

its the what sustains you part in all this, the core of what's under the frills and flounce and terminology that I am interested in, and it doesnt matter about the 'politics' surrounding it - its the resonances I am after, in everything, and at the moment, I am just following my nose

Quote Moongazer
"its the what sustains you part in all this, the core of what's under the frills and flounce and terminology that I am interested in, and it doesnt matter about the 'politics' surrounding it - its the resonances I am after, in everything, and at the moment, I am just following my nose"
Quote

This is so spot on for me. Looking into various things out there, studying and learning, seeking the things that resonate with how you feel and how you understand things to work. This takes you through many different areas and leads to different peoples views, all in the search for understanding.

A quote that springs to mind is one heard only recently "A teacher can teach us no more than that which we already know. They merely unlock our understanding of the knowledge."

I cant believe you're quoting from the Invitation. You know that only I'm allowed to do that

Seriously though I do agree with what you're saying, but I think Trad Craft (or 1734 Trad) along with many other forms of neo witchcraft have been abused by the very people who purport to follow and study it.

From the small amount I've read, I quite agree that Cochrane seems to have cut through most of the crap already, and like you I DO have an interest.

But I am stopped from looking further by the sheer amount of utter twonks who quote him and other "more intellectual" teachings verbatim.

Being able to quote from someone else, no matter how intelligent and how well read a person is, is still taking anothers ideas.

In theory it is no different from someone reading Silver Raven Wolf and claiming to follow her path (if she had one) The only difference is the level of academia required

Modern day paganism, structured path, I never thought I'd see the day when those words were used in the same sentence.

I know! It is so nice to eb able to have a debate where we can actually debate, disagree and still feel we are gaining something from it! We dont have to agree to learn from each other. Thankfully!



How exactly are they the guiding forces? I dont really understand that. Im not being facetious, it is a genuine question. They are people I had never even heard of till I was in my late twenties, they inform nothing of what I do and I know I am not on my own. Structured practice has nothing to do with witchcraft (in my opinion).

I have no problem with their practice, what they do, who or what they call themselves, but as to what they have to do with witchcraft. I cant work it out. I dont for a moment think that anyone practicing the craft, ever did so in a group. How could they? This whole notion of drawing quarters, moons, wheels of years, Chalices, athames, goddesses, structure... urgh... its all so.... alien and unreal to me.

You say Modern Witchcraft. Like its something different from witchcraft. It isnt. Withcraft, or whatever you want to call it has always been the same thing. Yes, it has adapted as people have, it has changed somewhat, we now live in houses with electricity, we dont cook in cauldrens any more, we incorporate practices from other countries much as witches from before would have incorporated practices from other witches. But covens? I mean what is that? WHERE did that come from? Witches get together when they HAVE to. Not for pleasure, not for structure and certainly not for learning.

What they do is fine, it is what it is. And I am not denying that they have valid practices, or rather, valid forms of magick that work. But they no more inform or are connected to modern witchcraft than Mormonisim connects with Christianity. They took aspects of things, and made something new.

So when Herne asks "what do we think of Cochrane" I think... interesting reading. But about as relevant to me and witchcraft as Silver Ravenwolf!

This is my point too Xalle. Do you know until I came on line about 10 years ago, I'd barely heard of Wicca let alone all the other "Traditions". Does that mean then, that for the decades before this event I wasn't practising the craft?

Some would say no and that I am deluded, but I cannot for the life of me think of another way to describe what it is I'm about. People dont believe me when I say all this came from within myself, but I'm pretty sure thats what you are saying too Xalle.

It has been a purely instinctual thing for me and I have been doing what I do, no matter what you call it, for years before I heard of these people. Does that make me worse than someone who has studied these "experts"

It would seem that many think that way certainly. Its just utter snobbery.

I accept that over the years I've talked with other people and chewed over ideas and perhaps chipped bits off and added bits on to what I do, but the basics remain the same. I have worked with other witches. Helped others and been helped by others, but still my "stuff" comes almost exclusively from me.

But why should Xalle and myself be made to feel lacking because we dont pay any heed to these "names".

I dont get it at all. Maybe I'm just thick or something.

It sprung to mind, Comf. You should be more surprised I remembered enough to know it fitted my point - LOL.

Xalle:

I think you missed my point. In the U.K., the word 'witch' has many and varied meanings in this time and this place. At other times and places, it would have a very definite meaning indeed.

I think one must tread carefully before making declarative statements like :

"Witchcraft is not a belief system"

"Witchcraft is not a religion"

And then apply it to others who think it may be both. It may and may not - a person can't know they can only have a subjective opinion. It's a bit like asking about whether one agrees with Swift's political allegories in 'Gulliver's Travels' . Actually that would be a bit easier if one understood the political situation at the time he wrote it. Was 'Gulliver's travels' 'true'? No, it was a fantasy, yes, because it was a political satire on actual events, no again if you disagreed with his political views. Which is the 'true' answer? . How about those ideas as applied to today? Very different answers.

By making such declarative statements as ' witchcraft is...., witchcraft is not.....,you are engaging in the exact same process as you object to : that of how someone defines a mutable term.

My point was there is no 'objective' right or wrong in this matter, only opinions. And in the end, if you don't feel you can wear those opinions, that's that. But it is still an opinion, not a fact .If one doesn't like someone else's subjective opinions on a subjective matter it means nowt. Different opinions only serve to identify those who think the same or differently than you ; they are not able to isolate the 'rights' of the matter, IMO.

Marto

Hi Marto

If that is the case, and if I've understood you correctly, that just as Witchcraft is NOT a religion to us, then you are saying it is to some. Yes?

If this is the case can you then explain to me how witchcraft is a religion? Because witchcraft has no dogma, has no need for deity nor followers. Witchcraft is surely, just that, a craft?

Im sorry. I have to stop you there. I understand what you are trying to say. But Witchcraft is NOT a religion or belief system. Witccraft is a practice. It is something that many belief systems and religions around the world incorporate. But no matter where you go in the world, the craft, the actual magick because that is what we are really discussing here, the magick, not the term "witch", is the same. It is a practice.

Everything else that surounds it, or that anyone else surounds it with, goddesses, rites, religion, higherarchy, thats all well and good and fine (like I have already stated its not something I can connect with, but regardless...) but all those other things are not witchcraft. A tree is a tree. I can cut one down and put it in my living room and put baubles and tinsel and pretty lights on it and thats fine, if someone wants to do that to their tree thats ok... but you can strip it all back, and you still have a tree at heart. The decorations do not define the tree. They dont make it what it is.

Hi!

I didn't say *I* believed it was a religion, but there are some who do. YOU can tell a Wiccan what they practice is not a religion, or a Christian that transubstantiation during Eucharist is bogus, but I'm not going to . For some pagans, there is a deity associated with their operational definition of 'witch', ( which would put it smack into the 'religion' category) and some do not claim to work through or with deity.

What I see is some people saying they have the rights of the matter about something which NOBODY has really defined in such a way as this concept, phenomenon - 'thing'? can be immediately recognized and verified. Most witches ARE heavier than a duck , but thats about it as far as I have seen. Also, the moment you talk about different times or places, the word 'moves' with it in meaning.

I'm open to someone showing me the 'proper' attributes and definition of a 'witch' outside of their own opinion and practices from which there would be a universal recognition of what a 'witch' was in much the same way as the definition of a building or road is fairly pan-global and has many shared identifications readily understood by all. (excuse the run-on sentence).

Marto

I'll buy into to the courage of your convictions: Prove what you have just stated . Seriously, I love learning new things and if I have been mistaken in all this, I will gracefully accept that I am wrong and ALL who call themselves 'witches' must believe what you do or I do.

Again, I think you are presuming to speak about something which is a subjective perception ( or a subjective interpretation of a perception of some phenomenon - try saying that fast ) as if it had an objective 'meaning' and can be empirically shown. So - do so. At least, graphically as I can't be there to see the show .

I still think we are in the realm of opinion, not any kind of universally recognized reality. Nowt wrong with that, but one should recognize that, IMO.

Marto

Xalle, I respect that for you, witchcraft is neither a belief system or a religion. I'll be honest, I had the same sort of difficulty getting my head around the concept of atheist witches, until I got to know a few here . My understanding of this is still a bit abstract, to be honest, but that doesn't matter. It works for you.

It seems to me that there are two issues going on here. One is about practice, and the other belief. For me, witchcraft has always been a religion. Deity plays an essential part in my life, I connect daily with my gods and would be lost without their presence in my life. Whch is why at first, the term 'atheist witch' sounded like an oxymoron. Practice, as in magic, divination, etc, is something which I accept can exist independantly from belief. Some people focus on one aspect, some another, and for others (counting myself in this category) the two are inextricably bound together. Having a common belief with other members of a group, ime, serves to bind us closer together in some ways, but has never prevented us from developing our own areas of interest or constrained our freedom of interpretation.

Ok first things first.



Not all witches are wiccans and not all wiccans are witches. Wicca is a religion. SOME wiccans practices witchcraft, in the same way some christains, do or in the same way some heathens do. I cant believe you made that mistake. I apologise, clearly I was presuming too much knowledge.

But dont take my word for that. Ask any of the wiccans here. You have made a mistake, a very basic mistake, however, now you know



Now... what exactly is it you would like me to prove? That you dont know the difference between Wicca and Witchcraft? That witches dont believe witchcraft is a religion? I can do that if you wish. I can get you a VERY eminent.. sorry... several eminent wiccans on here to attest to that. I can also get you several witches to do the same.

Dont worry about it. Its an easy mistake to make. MANY make it.

If thats not what you want me to prove... let me know what is. I'll be happy to try and oblige.

You actually make my point Hedge. The PRACTICE of magick is NOT a religion. It is a practice. The fact that you incorporate it into your religion (as many religions do... LIKE wicca... ) does NOT make Witchcraft, magick itself a religion.

Nice ad hominem attack dodge . I think *I* was presuming too much on your understanding if you transposed what I was saying out of semantic context to make some kind of cheap dig and thus are relieved of having to put your money where your...typing fingers are? That was a rather transparent , I must say.

We are not discussing the Wiccan religion. I was using an EXAMPLE. I used a Christian one as well as I'm sure you noticed.

I would like you to 'prove' , since you state it so authoritatively, that witchcraft is what YOU say it is and not what, for example, Hedgerose thinks it is . She thinks of it as a 'religion'. Are you saying she is wrong to do so and on what empirical grounds would you say it? Should she stop thinking of it in the way she does - why? Show and tell.

Go. *checks watch*

Marto

I am wondering why this is being argued about yet again, as there are multiple threads where this issue of what is a witch/what a witch does etc has been done to death.

And i for one am sick to the back teeth of having to defend my stance. So I can only imagine how Xalle feels

Witchcraft is NOT a religion. It is not even a belief system, like paganism is. Witchcraft is a practice, and art, a craft, even a science (to refer to Cochrane and try to bring this some way back to topic), but it is absolutely NOT a religion.

Religion requires doctrine, it requires structure and a fixed set of practices and beliefs. Witchcraft does not have to have those. If you choose it to, then fine, thats what you choose to do WITH witchcraft.

And - why do people who say that all opinions should be allowed to be heard, then go on to argue the toss with other people who give their opinions that differ and try to shout them down as if they are wrong???

Um. I wasnt making a dig. Im sorry you took it that way! Sincerly.

You made a mistake AND to some extent proved my argument. YOU said to me that I should tell wiccans what they have is not a religion, implying that wicca and witchcraft are one and the same. They arent. The fact that SOME wiccans practice witchcraft doesnt make witchcraft a faith or religion. YOU said, tell a wiccan what they practice isnt a faith... if you know the two are not the same thing, you used a flawed example!

Look... lets take artists as an example. Some artists are religious, some believe it is a part of their faith and some use it to even express their faith. It does not make art a religion.

Now... getting back to what I was saying and proving it. We are using two words interchangeably here. What we are really talking about is magick. What we are I am really saying here is that magick, (witchcraft) isnt a faith OR religion. It is a practical thing, like art, or music, or pottery, it can be intergrated into someones faith, it can even take on religious significance, it does NOT make the practice of witchcraft... magick... a religion. I think even Hedgerose would agree with that!

From my perspective ( just my own, mind) if one is going to debate the merits of someone's writings, it helps to have an understanding of what those writings are about. For example, if one writes a treatise on the certain behaviors among any particular demographic, then one has to define the variables that were used in order to have a better grasp of any findings.

*I* do not feel any need to 'defend' my beliefs, but nor do I make declarative statements about the 'truth' of them: they are subjective. Therefore, though YOU do not think witchcraft is a 'religion', Hedgerose ...does. That is why I think one needs to tread carefully around such concepts - for concepts they are, they are not that whose properties can be writ in stone or empirically tested for all to see and agree upon. Again, this is a personal opinion and the only point I was trying to make.

Some ways of practicing what those involved with it call 'witchcraft' DO have 'doctrine' (or some set of rules), definitely has 'structure and a fixed set of practices. Given this,I'm not sure one could use those examples as defining points. Or, one could but then there would be large groups of people who would dispute it.

What makes debating works on such subjects interesting (or divisive) is this very lack of cohesive definitions which apply in all cases.

If there were a provable 'right' and a 'wrong', there would be no need to debate Cochrane's works, I should think.

Marto

Sigh. I was using a colloquial expression, as in " You can tell that to the hungry lion, *Im* not going to!" . It was a JOKE, not a statement of belief. AND, as I pointed out, I also used a Christian example - you didn't come back with " You made a mistake if you can't tell the difference between a Wiccan and a Christian!".

Oh, I quite agree. Whatever 'magic' is, it is not religion. It can , as you say, be incorporated into religion, but is a stand alone or aside concept. Having said that, one is still faced with the problem of people who use it as the defining concept of witchcraft. Then we are back onto the roundabout regarding stipulative definitions of 'witches' and 'witchcraft' for which there is no real definition that I have found.

I will try not to use anymore levity in my answers. I hope that will suit? You must remember I am new here so must learn the 'forum ethos' . If frivolity is out of order, I will not engage in it.

Marto

Im sorry you took my response to what you said so personally, and Im sorry that I didnt get your humour.



However, just because someone misunderstands your wit, shouldn't dent your ego so that you resort to being pissy about it! How about just doing what I did and explaining that I misunderstood! Or is it that you would rather that I was having a dig and that you would rather make a dig about me not being able to take things with humour! Is it more exciting for you if there is conflict?

If that is the case. Thats your problem not mine. I have no problem with you. I enjoy a debate. Im enjoying the one we are having. The fact that we have misunderstood each other on occasion should not mean you take your ball and go home!

I wont engage in a slanging match. Im prepared to debate this, heatedly if need be. But I wont allow you to turn your interpretation of what I said or how I took what you said make this something it isnt.

So let me make this clear. I do not have a problem with you. I was NOT making a sly dig at you and I was not deliberately misreading your humour. Now... can we move on?

LOL. It would take much more than this to 'dent my ego' as my 'ego' is not invested in it. I do not resort to slanging matches - that is juvenile. Anyone who takes debate personally soon ceases to be an effective debater. Even in my field, while I take things seriously, I would never be so foolish as to take them personally : that would be the death-knell to anyone in my profession I do assure you.

I apologise if I misconstrued your misunderstanding of my phrasing as an ad hominem attack. Even so, I only found it amusing, nothing more.

Also, I see you are a moderator here? One must needs be tread carefully and not upset the hall monitors, yes?

If this be the stuff of conflict, it is very tame indeed and I think I can pretty well hold my water over anything someone could say here. But then, you don't know me so I don't expect you to take my word for that. The ball stays in the field unless you take it away, which is in your power to do. I would hate to blot my copybook so soon. Really. Hence my offering quite sincerely not to make jokes if they are prone to misconstruction. Some places can abide humour, some cannot. One mustn't assume. It was only the courtesy and respect to those here from a newbie to make the offer,nothing more.

Marto

And this tepid reconciliation between Xalle and Marto, concludes the thoroughly hijacked discussion on the Legacy of Robert Cochrane.

Unbelievable

So fire it up! . I'm sure whatever you have to add will be VERY interesting. And I promise not to interfere. Really.

Thread drift happens, but it doesn't have to end the original thread. Please, contribute!

Marto

I'll put in the "Modly" comment here - Mods posting as members (as Xalle) is doing, don't get, or shouldn't get, treated any differently in debate to any other member. Ie, debated with and treated with the same courtesy and respect for their viewpoints which one would expect in return. Their posts are just as much subject to dissection and debate and discourse as all other members since, when they contribute to a debate, that's exactly what they are: site members

So there's absolutely no need to back off because Xalle happens to be a Mod as well as a contributor to this thread. Humour, joust, thrust and parry, all very much acceptable on this forum and very welcome when done in the spirit of mutual sharing and learning

Thank you! That was kindly said! In which case I'll polish my parry and thruster

Marto

Coming from someone whose only contribution thus far to this thread has been that comment above, and particularly considering your background, it's hard to see why you think your comment should be in any way relevant.

If the conversation isn't what you thought it should be, why not actually join in???

Just a thought...

Hi Pomona

My lack of posting could be to do with the fact that I have just returned from The Clan of Tubal Cain's Lammas festivities in Derbyshire, and it's been a tad difficult to get a good internet connection out on the moors

Yeah that is pretty much what I was getting at, though you expressed it far better than I would be able to do. I do feel a certain resonance with Cochranes work (and coincidently Marian Green as well).

Politics behind groups don't interest me it is the practices which I am trying to grasp.
Although Clan Of Tubal Cain (aka The Royal Windsor Coven) is obviously a group and they rites were designed for such, Evan John Jones in 'Witchcraft A Tradition Renewed' expressed the view that he saw no earthly reason against adapting those rites and rituals for solitary practitioners.

Okaay, fair enough, but now you're here, how about a constructive contribution?