Coven experience?

The Cauldron's server is expensive and requires monthly payments. Please become a Bronze, Silver or Gold Donor if you can. Donations are needed every month. Without member support, we can't afford the server.

Or donate directly via Paypal

This message board is The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum's SMF Archive Board. It is closed to new memberships and to posting, but there are over 250,000 messages here that you can still search and read -- many full of interesting and useful information. (This board was open from February 2007 through June 2011).

Our new vBulletin discussion board is located at http://www.ecauldron.com/forum/ -- if you would like to participate in discussions like those you see here, please visit our new vBulletin message board, register an account and join in our discussions. We hope you will find the information in this message archive useful and will consider joining us on our new board.

[Marilyn (ABSENTMINDED)]

That seems rather defensive.

It is.  I'm not usually so knee-jerk about it, so I apologize.  It struck me very strongly like a self-satisfied preacher telling us (tribal us) that our religion was the same as his, just we had a few underlying wrong assumptions that he would condescend to correct for us, and thus 'absorb' those that preferred their own names and concepts.  Basically saying that we didn't know what the things we did and believed 'really' meant.

All points of view do not, however, correspond equally with reality. The Earth is not flat.

I don't think the arguments against your points are equivalent to saying the earth is flat.  They are, however, pointing out that your position may not correspond to reality as well as you think.

Many people nowadays seem to think it's bad manners to suggest that there is a reality, and even worse manners to try and find it. I think they fail to distinguish between ethnocentrism and simple thought, and self-lobotomize in an effort to appear fair and trendy. However, the Earth is not flat; and it's not unenlightened to say so.

Again, I don't think this a fair description of the people who disagree with you in this thread.  And while it may be true that there is a 'base' reality, what people think that is will depend on their personal criteria.  'The One' is a central concept to you - that it is not to others is neither trendy nor evidence of lobotomy.  Suggesting and defending alternatives is not arguing that the earth is flat.

And while I don't find your points ethnocentric, except in the spot where my knee jerked (for which I do apologise), I do find them system-centric.  You seem willing to accept a heirarchy in Streghe (what is your source for that, by the way?) because of its perceived age and 'real-witchyness', but reject a conscious, organized heirarchy in modern witchcraft and think that people will instinctively 'know' who to look to for what.

I'm new here. Is Joseph Campbell the new red-headed stepchild?

Not new.  He and a few others (Frazier, Murray) have been that for quite a while in academic circles.  Even in my Folk Anthro back in the eighties they were taught as 'flawed'.

Absent

[Purplewitch]

I don't think the arguments against your points are equivalent to saying the earth is flat. 

I would have to agree with that - the shape of the earth is a lot less subjective since it can be seen from space for starters, than where magic stems from, which, yes, makes me one of those who doesn't consider that all magic comes from the divine, so not all witchcraft is, or has anything to do, necessarily, with religion.

[rodney]

It struck me very strongly like a self-satisfied preacher telling us (tribal us) that our religion was the same as his, just we had a few underlying wrong assumptions that he would condescend to correct for us, and thus 'absorb' those that preferred their own names and concepts.  Basically saying that we didn't know what the things we did and believed 'really' meant.

Wow. You've really laid some baggage on me, Marilyn. I have some ideas I'm fond of, yes, but I'm open-minded. I told Jenett earlier -- did you read back? -- that she had made me seriously re-examine my position for the first time in a long time. Does that sound like someone descending from the clouds in self-righteous glory to drop a few pennies of wisdom into the cups of the poor, unenlightened hoi polloi?

Is it a sin for someone to think he might have discovered something? Is it a sin to propose it? Is it a sin to answer objections to it? I thought that was one of the ways we refine our ideas, how we discover new things. Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis; you know, the Hegelian trinity.

I don't think the arguments against your points are equivalent to saying the earth is flat.  They are, however, pointing out that your position may not correspond to reality as well as you think.

I admit it. Do you? Or do you think it's presumptuous, proud and condescending to voice any idea about the way things *really* are?

I like the idea of discovering new things about the way things *really* are. Not because I'm in love with myself, but because I love the discovery. I like to share what I find, or think I find, because I want other people to have the same thrill. I assume we're all seeking the same thing, that we all have a thirst for wonder. Perhaps that's naive.

Again, I don't think this a fair description of the people who disagree with you in this thread.

I wasn't trying to describe everyone who disagrees with me in this thread.

Suggesting and defending alternatives is not arguing that the earth is flat.

My idea is an alternative, too.

You seem willing to accept a heirarchy in Streghe (what is your source for that, by the way?) ...

I believe the word I used was distinction, not hierarchy. My source is the Words of Aradia, as rendered in Raven Grimassi's Ways of the Strega, under the heading, "Concerning Worship," where it says, "And you who are priests and priestesses ..."

... because of its perceived age and 'real-witchyness', but reject a conscious, organized heirarchy in modern witchcraft and think that people will instinctively 'know' who to look to for what.

Don't you think "instinctively" is hyperbole here? I think there's a bit more rational thought involved than that.

Contrary to what you seem to think, I don't think I'm better than anyone else. But I don't apologize for trying to discover truth, or having or voicing my opinions about it.

I would have to agree with that - the shape of the earth is a lot less subjective since it can be seen from space for starters, than where magic stems from, which, yes, makes me one of those who doesn't consider that all magic comes from the divine, so not all witchcraft is, or has anything to do, necessarily, with religion.

I used the idea of the Earth being flat to show that, although all sincerely held points of view are equal in dignity, they are not all equally representative of reality. It's an illustration.

[RandallS]

I believe the word I used was distinction, not hierarchy. My source is the Words of Aradia, as rendered in Raven Grimassi's Ways of the Strega, under the heading, "Concerning Worship," where it says, "And you who are priests and priestesses ..."

Warning, Grimassi's info of "Strega" is highly suspect. Real Strega in Italy disown his version of their beliefs, for example.

[Purplewitch]

I used the idea of the Earth being flat to show that, although all sincerely held points of view are equal in dignity, they are not all equally representative of reality. It's an illustration.

I know, I just don't think it's a comparable example. Not that I have a more comparable illustration handy

With magic and/or religion there isn't One specific point of view or way of doing things that is necessarily more 'real' than another. There are different ways, and different combinations of magic and religion that are effective for different people. One way works for one person, another for another. Both ways produce effective results so both are reality - for the person concerned.

[Darkhawk]

You're kidding, right?

Nope.  "Label" means "adjective or descriptive noun".  I fail to see how any useful conversation can be had without having words for what things are or their traits.

[rodney]

Warning, Grimassi's info of "Strega" is highly suspect. Real Strega in Italy disown his version of their beliefs, for example.

Yes, thanks for the warning. I have seen some of the criticism; and I don't believe everything I read, anyway.

Grimassi has "Wiccanized" Stregheria for popular consumption. But the Words of Aradia, like the Charge of Aradia, I consider more substantial than his other material, because it is more or less hereditary. I suspect him and/or others of some editing of what was passed down within his family; but I also know that there are original texts. I happen to know something personal about the author that confirms this for me.

With magic and/or religion there isn't One specific point of view or way of doing things that is necessarily more 'real' than another.

Yes, I know. The key word here is "necessarily." It is one thing to say that any given point of view, or interpretation, or understanding, is useful for A and not for B. It is another to say that no point of view can be useful for both A and B. The first proposition recognizes that, as you say, different people may find different conceptualizations useful. The second proposition alleges that there can be no agreement between people who begin with differing points of view.

If A and B are irreconcilable as to any point upon which they differ, why discuss these points at all? Why not just stand on opposite sides of the river, smile, wave, and go our separate ways?

There's a difference between believing that a Reality exists that we can discover as a joint and ongoing enterprise, and believing there is One True Way. Must we be so careful avoiding the latter that we must avoid the former as well?

[Marilyn (ABSENTMINDED)]

Grimassi has "Wiccanized" Stregheria for popular consumption. But the Words of Aradia, like the Charge of Aradia, I consider more substantial than his other material, because it is more or less hereditary. I suspect him and/or others of some editing of what was passed down within his family; but I also know that there are original texts. I happen to know something personal about the author that confirms this for me.

I haven't read much of Grimassi's work, although I did add my bit to a debate with him on a message board once - I abandoned the effort when he brought in sockpuppets.  I am surprised to hear that 'Aradia' is something hereditary in his family, though.  I had thought it was written by Charles Leland in the (late?) 19th century.

Absent

P.S. I'm not ignoring your post to me.  Some of it is justified and some isn't and I'm trying to decide whether to respond on certain minor points or stop cluttering the thread with my personal baggage.  Your points are indeed simply alternatives and any tone or condescension I detect is my own problem, and a common one in asymmetrical online conversation (forum speak)

[rodney]

I haven't read much of Grimassi's work, although I did add my bit to a debate with him on a message board once - I abandoned the effort when he brought in sockpuppets.  I am surprised to hear that 'Aradia' is something hereditary in his family, though.  I had thought it was written by Charles Leland in the (late?) 19th century.

Leland collected the source material for his book, Aradia: the Gospel of the Witches. Aradia was, or may have been, a historical person who appeared in 14th century Tuscany and revived Witchcraft. She left teachings behind that were passed down. Grimassi claims his family preserved these; and I'm sure he isn't saying only his family did this. He's just the only one sharing. I wouldn't mind hearing from another source, but there don't seem to be any publishing at the moment.

Your points are indeed simply alternatives and any tone or condescension I detect is my own problem, and a common one in asymmetrical online conversation (forum speak)

Fair enough. Thanks.

[Rowanfox]

That would depend on the knowledge and intentions of the people involved. The system would not be Gardnerian, of course, but anyone with sufficient "occult" knowledge and experience could set up a working degree system. In a group of all beginners, it would be almost impossible. However, they could borrow one of the training systems that are public knowledge as a starting point. If there is someone in the group with a good amount of experience, it would be easier to accurately evaluate how successful people are of course. But there are a number of successful magical and religious systems out there that were created by people pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps.

IMHO, More likely from Freemasonry which also has three degrees. Ceremonial systems in Gardner's day generally had many more degrees.

Well, I did say "group of seekers", I was implying beginners. And, one could, and probably has, argued that Gardner himself did that bootstrap thingie.

Well, of course, I didn't mention the other 27 degrees of Gardnerianism..... that's a trad secret. Shhhhhh

[Rowanfox]

The issue isn't about whether or how to talk about learning energy work, or ritual design, or anything else. The issue is whether you get a title for doing so.

I guess this is where we (Gards) differ. 1st, 2nd & 3rd degree are not titles, they are discribers for your place on the path. The same way child, teen, adult and senior are not titles.

They may be lables, but only due to the limitations of human communication. As Darkhawk pointed out, we need a point of reference.

I would personally suspect any group of dysfunctionality that used degrees as ego boosters, power tools or notches on a belt.

I don't think most degree systems use their degrees to divide and segregrate, but rather to identify and recognize.

Teri

[Jenett]

The issue isn't about whether or how to talk about learning energy work, or ritual design, or anything else. The issue is whether you get a title for doing so.

And the point that some of us are trying to get at is this: presuming that there *is* someone (or someones) ultimately in charge of certain roles, doesn't it make a lot of sense to have an agreed-upon noun to use to refer to them?

Sometimes those roles are about specific ritual acts (HP, HPS, summoner, tyler, handmaiden, etc.) But sometimes they're about broader roles within the group (which is where degree labels get handy, for the people who know what they cover.)

I know you're ready to drop this - but I'm really struggling with the fact that you're apparently completely fine with the idea that the roles exist - but it's the fact that they're called specific things, and designated in a consistent (at least internally) way that you feel is so problematic. And that's the part I really truly don't get. I have a far easier time getting the "I don't like heirarchy, I want to decide everything by consensus, with everyone having an equal chance to share their thoughts and contribute to the decision." That's not the way I prefer to work, mostly because I've found it's terribly inefficient in groups of more than about 4. But at least it's a consistent approach as far as I can see.

[Jenett]

We inquire a little further and she admits she's a "seeker" in Trad X. If she'd been a third degree, that would have really caused our opinion of Trad X to plummet once we'd seen her lack of skills, but we wouldn't hold Trad X accountable for the bad behavior of someone they never even initiated. Degree systems allow you to calibrate expectations based on skills and reputation.

Exactly - and very well said.

Or, take the recent conversation thread on here about online schools. For those who didn't read it, I was trying, among other things, to calibrate where the experiences of people trained in those schools fell in comparison to what I've done. We used the same general label (2nd degree), but it became clear we'd had some different experiences in getting there - and definitely that we articulated them differently. 

No big deal -  that gives me both some calibration on the individual, and a place to start with any further interactions with the online school in question. But I've also seen situations like Joshua's where someone has claimed training from X group, and upon checking up on it, they mean "Well, I read their webpages and attended one short non-trad-specific class with them three years ago." or something similar.

You'd think this might be a failure of the label system - but I actually see it as a success, because by having to *pick* a label (i.e. being aware they're claiming activity in a system where the label is used), it's much easier to figure out that someone's stretching their experience (or outright lying, even) faster.

Frankly, the biggest objections I've seen to assessing rank in my own community come from folks who want to be powerful or respected based on nothing but their charm and a line of BS. The folks in my community who actually have the skills and experience aren't generally threatened by ranks, even if they find them irrelevant to their own practice.

Exactly.

[Jenett]

I guess this is where we (Gards) differ. 1st, 2nd & 3rd degree are not titles, they are discribers for your place on the path. The same way child, teen, adult and senior are not titles.

I'm in pretty much the same boat - though I try not to refer to it in the sense of an automatic progression (rather something like "red, green, and purple" where there's no automatic progression from point A to B implied. though even colors do that for some people.) Different levels of commitment and responsibility taken on.

I think my closer parallel might be like the school I work at, so I'm going to throw it out in case it helps.

I'm a paraprofessional currently, while I look for a professional librarian job to go with the shiny new degree. I have far less formal responsibility than most of the faculty and administrators. (I get paid a whole lot less. On the other hand, I don't have to stay late for faculty meetings, I don't have to do a lot of sometimes tedious discussion about latest new educational method, and I can hand off problems with individual students to my boss or their grade dean without a lot of compunction if I want.)

Now, I've been at this job for 6+ years now: I do a *lot* of stuff that's not in my job description, I'm reliable, I'm helpful, and people who know I'm looking keep telling me they'll be sorry to lose me. But, fundamentally, I have not yet taken on those additional responsibilities of being faculty or administrative roles. And while I might well choose to stay late, or to help someone with something outside my responsibilities, I don't actually have to.

Say I get a faculty level job - like my boss or like a teacher. They have additional responsibilities (besides the actual formal teaching duties, they're expected to be at faculty meetings, participate actively in professional development, take roles on committees, take a turn in supervising extra-curricular activities if possible, and so on. More pay and therefore more benefits in some ways - but also more responsibilities, more things that affect other parts of their schedule, and more limitations.

And administrators are even more so. They get a few nice perks (ours have very pleasant offices, for example), and better pay. But they work a longer work year, they need to be available for early morning or late afternoon meetings, sometimes. They have to deal far more regularly with unhappy parents or kids - or even really serious things like suicide concerns, drugs, alcohol, and all the other stuff that can be part of life for 500 teenagers.  And again, there are even more limitations to go with the greater responsibilities.

Who's got the 'best' job? Depends. What does the person in that role actually value the most? We've had administrators step down to faculty level because they wanted more time (and less stress) to be with their families. We also obviously have people wanting to move up a step in the ranks.

The other thing I've noticed, though, is that at the 'lower' levels (by all outward appearances), there's more freedom to do things. It was hard for me to go to grad school part time while working full time (duh, really), but it's even harder for faculty, who have assignments to grade. Many of our faculty have graduate degrees - but if they get them while working, they do them either really slowly (one class at a time) or are forced to apply for sabbaticals or other resources to do it. Many admit they have to come in on the weekend to keep up - where I can devote my weekend time to religious teaching and training.

One of the things I've been committed to since my own student year has been giving any Dedicant students I work with the gift of being able to focus on their training and their own growth during that year - and I've had the gift from my teachers of them waiting before they threw me in the deep end as I've wanted to go further. Having the gift of time *without* taking on additional responsibility can be really hard (especially for people who have been taught over and over that worth is measured by achievement) but it's also a really potent lesson: that some things can't be rushed, that the gift of time is one that's worth treasuring, and that it's not a race to see who reaches the highest degree fastest.

It's a *totally* foreign way of working compared to much of mainstream culture. But hey, isn't that true of so much else we do as Pagans? Why should this be that much different? Learning to rethink the degrees, and what they imply - and what they *don't* actually contain - has been really powerful.

[edited to remove quoted material I didn't delete originally]

[RandallS]

Well, of course, I didn't mention the other 27 degrees of Gardnerianism..... that's a trad secret. Shhhhhh

Do they get to dress up as clowns and ride around in little cars in parades like the Shriners? 

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- About The Cauldron ----------------------------- => Rules and Regulations => Cauldron Announcements ===> Volunteers Needed: Site Assistants and Projects => Introductions => Board Questions, Suggestions, and Feedback => Chat and CauldronMUX Support => Test Board ----------------------------- Religion and Philosophy ----------------------------- => Paganism For Beginners => Books and Other Resources => Pagan Religions => Pagan Spirituality => Gods, Goddesses, and Mythology => Worship and Ritual => Holidays and Festivals => History and Religion => Faith in Everyday Life => Philosophy and Metaphysics => Non-Pagan Religions and Interfaith Discussions => Miscellaneous Religious Discussions ----------------------------- Magic and the Occult ----------------------------- => Magic and the Occult for Beginners => Witchcraft, Hoodoo, and Folk Magic => The Western Magical Tradition => Chaos Magic => Lodges and Other Magic Organizations => Miscellaneous Magical Discussions ----------------------------- Special Interest Groups & Special Discussions ----------------------------- => Special Topic Discussions => Chavi Memorial Chronic Illness SIG => General SIGS ===> College Pagans SIG ===> Cooking SIG ===> Divination SIG ===> Home and Garden SIG ===> Pagan Parents SIG ===> Teen Pagans SIG => Religious SIGS ===> Asatru and Heathenry SIG ===> Cauldron Cill ===> FlameKeeping SIG ===> Hazel and Oak: A Celtic Polytheism SIG ===> Neo-Druidry SIG ===> Reformed Kemeticism SIG ===> Ta Hiera Hellenic Polytheism SIG => Book/Media Discussion Boards ===> Academic Book Discussions ===> Pagan Religion Book Discussions ===> Magick Book Discussions ===> Fiction Book Discussions ===> DVD/Video Discussions ----------------------------- Life, the Universe, and Everything Else ----------------------------- => Pagan Announcements => Prayer and Energy Requests => News and Politics ===> Religious News ===> Non-Religious News ===> Political Discussions => Social Discussion Boards ===> Art, Poetry and Writing ===> Books ===> Computers and the Internet ===> Crafts and Hobbies ===> Family Life ===> Gaming ===> Health and Medicine ===> Humor and Quizzes ===> Music, Television, and Film ===> Pets ===> Science and Technology ===> Sports and Recreation