tjj
|
Edited Aug 26, 2013, 21:30
Re: A Very British Witchcraft
Aug 26, 2013, 10:24
|
|
Astralcat wrote: tjj wrote:
I was little perplexed by the programme in some ways - the suggestion that Wicca was 'invented' by Gerald Gardner in the early part of the 20th century seems to airbrush 'witchcraft' out of history. Whether witchcraft it actually existed or was just the general scapegoating of women who were a bit alternative (shall we say) - the history of witch trials in England and Scotland is well documented. I would have liked Ronald Hutton had made some reference to this in the programme but he didn't.
I think it was more of an editing/time limit problem. In his seminal work 'Triumph Of The Moon' he does make the distinctions between modern Wicca and traditional witchcraft etc. Wicca has its roots in traditional witchcraft, as well as other systems. Gardner would have no doubt studied Israel Regardie's writings re. the Golden Dawn rituals. I don't think it really matters really. Buddhism was a construct borne out of Vedanta. I think Gardner's intentions were entirely genuine, and as for the efficacy of magic ? Ronald Hutton himself is respectful and sympathetic these days as a result of his studies. I'm not getting into another game of semantic one upmanship, but I will say that yet again, the proof or not is down to personal experience.
Thanks Astralcat, I don't doubt Ronald Hutton is extremely knowledgeable on his subject and I sure you are right in that he was probably working within time constraints in that particular programme. The persecution of women for the alleged practice of witchcraft is a deep and complex history - in the context of his programme it would be hard to refer briefly to it I imagine.
|
Mustard
|
Re: A Very British Witchcraft
Aug 27, 2013, 09:00
|
|
Astralcat wrote: I'm not getting into another game of semantic one upmanship, but I will say that yet again, the proof or not is down to personal experience. .... or belief ;)
|
nigelswift
|
Re: A Very British Witchcraft
Aug 27, 2013, 09:20
|
|
Astralcat wrote: I'm not getting into another game of semantic one upmanship, but I will say that yet again, the proof or not is down to personal experience.
If you don't want to play semantic one upmanship why toss out a statement you must know most people don't accept? ;)
|
Astralcat
|
Re: A Very British Witchcraft
Aug 27, 2013, 09:25
|
|
nigelswift wrote: Astralcat wrote: I'm not getting into another game of semantic one upmanship, but I will say that yet again, the proof or not is down to personal experience.
If you don't want to play semantic one upmanship why toss out a statement you must know most people don't accept? ;)
.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: A Very British Witchcraft
Aug 27, 2013, 09:35
|
Well that's not an answer is it, a dot. It's more of an admission that yes, you admit you were indulging in semantic oneupmanship while saying you weren't going to!
Oh well, we can all play that game: I think belief is down to personal experience, not proof.
Dot.
|
Astralcat
|
Edited Aug 27, 2013, 09:36
Re: A Very British Witchcraft
Aug 27, 2013, 09:35
|
|
nigelswift wrote: Well that's not an answer is it, a dot. It's more of an admission that yes, you admit you were indulging in semantic oneupmanship while saying you weren't going to!
Oh well, we can all play that game: I think belief is down to personal experience, not proof.
Dot.
Yawn.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: A Very British Witchcraft
Aug 27, 2013, 09:36
|
|
Astralcat wrote: nigelswift wrote: Well that's not an answer is it, a dot. It's more of an admission that yes, you admit you were indulging in semantic oneupmanship while saying you weren't going to!
Oh well, we can all play that game: I think belief is down to personal experience, not proof.
Dot.
Yawn.
QED
|
Astralcat
|
Re: A Very British Witchcraft
Aug 27, 2013, 09:37
|
|
nigelswift wrote: Astralcat wrote: nigelswift wrote: Well that's not an answer is it, a dot. It's more of an admission that yes, you admit you were indulging in semantic oneupmanship while saying you weren't going to!
Oh well, we can all play that game: I think belief is down to personal experience, not proof.
Dot.
Yawn.
QED
TTFN _/\_
|
tjj
|
Edited Aug 27, 2013, 13:40
Re: A Very British Witchcraft
Aug 27, 2013, 09:44
|
|
nigelswift wrote: Astralcat wrote: I'm not getting into another game of semantic one upmanship, but I will say that yet again, the proof or not is down to personal experience.
If you don't want to play semantic one upmanship why toss out a statement you must know most people don't accept? ;)
Sigh! You must know by now I hate arguing with you but ... why not answer the main point AC's post which was well made i.e. that Ronald Hutton probably did not refer to the full history of witchcraft in his programme because there would not have been time to do it justice.
I accept AC's statement that some people have had personal experience of 'magic' in their lives. I (speaking personally) have seen it used by some for the purposes of intimidating others with sub-conscious fear and suggestion. I avoid those sort of people like the plague and for me the real magic in the world is the spring returning each year and the mist lifting to reveal a bright jewel of a day.
I'm sure AC doesn't want me defending him like I'm his over protective aunt or something but he does add a different perspective to discussions - as Bladup did in his time here, and to discourage 'alternative' view points make this forum a poorer place (in my opinion for what it's worth).
|
nigelswift
|
Re: A Very British Witchcraft
Aug 27, 2013, 09:55
|
Oh, and while I'm at it, you shouldn't kid yourself or anyone else that Hutton is sympathetic to the view that there's any efficacy in magic -
Astralcat wrote: as for the efficacy of magic ? Ronald Hutton himself is respectful and sympathetic these days as a result of his studies.
He might be sympathetic to Wiccans but he actually describes Wicca as formed by modern people to express modern myth, which is the exact opposite of believing in magic.
|
