Disce aut Discede
I keep hearing a particular bunch of people forwarding a particular view of a term.
I don’t mind that – the more the merrier.
What I don’t like is sloppy work – especially when it is presented as a fabulous mystery granted from on high to the rest of us wee folk.
I am talking about the misuse of the grammatical use of the term “Witch” by those of allegedly Red Thread background and the others like them.
Now I am not going into the great big holes that have already been blown through such ideas – they are elsewhere go find them for yourself.
Here I am simply pointing out the problems with the use of, (and insistence of the use of) the term “Witch” as a Proper Noun – as if that explained their poor grammar and deliberate archaism as a means to sound mysterious.
Here is the problem.
Technically yes, it is a Proper Noun. In practice however, it is virtually never used such and most certainly not in most ways it is attempted by these people.
If you doubt this, consider:
Usage Frequency: Witch
"Witch" is generally used as a noun (singular) -- approximately 99.17% of the time. "Witch" is used about 602 times out of a sample of 100 million words spoken or written in English. Its rank is based on over 700,000 words used in the English language. Some parts-of-speech are not covered due to the samples used by the British National Corpus. (note: percents less than one-hundredth of one percent have been omitted)
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/Witch
"Witch" is generally used as a noun (singular) -- approximately 99.17% of the time. "Witch" is used about 602 times out of a sample of 100 million words spoken or written in English. Its rank is based on over 700,000 words used in the English language. Some parts-of-speech are not covered due to the samples used by the British National Corpus. (note: percents less than one-hundredth of one percent have been omitted)
It goes on to say that it is used as a Proper Noun at a staggering .5%.
It goes on to say that this means three times in every one hundred million words.
And I will point out this only implies usage – it does not in any way say that all usage is correct – especially in the case of this adopted word whose meaning is currently under constant revision!
A Proper Noun?
The first and simplest definition of a Proper Noun is that it refers to a Noun that is the name of a specific person, place, or thing. So let us look at that.
Proper Noun as Name.
It clearly is NOT a specific name as they relate to people as in say: “John”.
It could indeed, (in this era of daft names that ensure a childhood hell of teasing) be used as such but I have never met one and hope for the kid’s sake I never do!
This usage could be argued as in the name “Smith”. (Let us not forget that the Name system as we know it today is a relatively new usage and not by any means blanket over the world’s languages or cultures!) This could be argued as this name is a designation based in an ancient trade like others such as “Cooper”, “Wright”, “Prentice” and so on. In that sense, “Smith John” could well have been used to denote the Smith whose name was John.
It should be said however that the whole point of that is that eventually this same usage was changed – hence the arrival of John Smith rather than Smith John. Thankfully this has paralleled the change of English syntax otherwise this whole subject could be even more confused. To put it simply, I have met several John Smiths but only one Smith John – and that introduction was a deliberate archaism on behalf of the speaker at the time.
Another tack that can be taken is as in a particular usage that occurs less these days. It is akin to this previous example but sub culturally specific. I bring this up as it brings us to an important consideration and it is usage. Let us consider a compounding of more than one noun which is still considered in the singular.
I refer to the usage seen in statements such as: “This is Witch Hazel”. Now naturally the simple way of seeing this is as in the case of “Smith John” but it can also by way of implication be seen in the sense of “Draught Horse” (and believe me had you met the “Witch Hazel” I had met you would see precisely what I mean!!)
In this case, the word “Horse” is a noun (and in some smaller usage a verb) and “Draught Horse” is also a noun. Both “Horse” and “Draught Horse” can be considered singular but only Horse has a usage that accurately can be referring to plural. In this sense we can consider “Draught Horse” a noun formed of the combination of two nouns. So too is Witch Hazel. In this case “Draught Horse” and “Witch Hazel” can both be considered Proper Nouns. The syntactic usage in both cases, (to be so) must imply a singular object.
It still stands though, that “Hazel” by itself is a Proper Noun, whereas “Witch” is only so if used as such.
In the case of Proper Noun as a Name, “Witch” is only a Proper Noun if it is used as such. It is not by or in and of itself a Proper Noun as such status relies on correct syntax to render it as one. This holds, (as we have seen) whether the Name is formed of one or more than one noun.
The problem with considering a word a Proper Noun simply based on usage is that usage can be incorrect. Moreover, there is a growing inertia of thought which suggests that simply due to the fact that a language can be a thing which evolves, any new usage must be accepted as acceptable if not lauded. Cui prodest scelus is fecit aside, at what point do we interrupt the evolution, (however momentarily) to observe the definition of a word at that point – and what effects must this have especially in the case of words that are not of English origin in the first case and as culturally loaded as this one? Is the definition rendered at a later date by evolution more accurate than that which it originally is?
But to return to the examination, we see also that the Proper Noun may be also a place, or thing.
Proper Noun as Place
“Witch” is not a place.
An amusing assertion I heard from someone years ago was that “Wicca”, (pronounced “Witch” with an aspiration at the the end) was actually a small village and as such the term should most rightly refers to those people living there and so on. Given that this singular instance is the only time I have ever heard of anything of the sort, that no evidence was tendered to the corroboration of this assertion and that no one else seems to know of the place, I think it can be safely discounted.
In any case, the word “Wicca” and “Witch” are not the same word even though they are pronounced virtually identically and the latter is a development of the former.
Proper Noun as a Thing
So what of the idea of a “thing”? Well here we have perhaps the most tantalising support towards the view of “Witch” as a Proper Noun.
Like many other objects, (such as a Telephone, a Camera or a Shirt) the Capitalisation of the initial letter informs us that in this case, a witch may be considered an object. In some languages there are particular rules which separate the usage of animate and inanimate objects and their placement with regard to syntax and suffixes, prefixes etc. Not so in English where context is the overruling modifier of such usage.
In that case I am not a Pen because the context rules out that usage – even though it can be used as a poetic device. I can be a Witch though because the Noun used implies an animate object. There are some half way points that again confuse the issue where I can be a Slug, a Dog, or indeed even a Home (in an abstract sense!)
There is a simple problem to be raised here though and it is an important one as we have seen. In the case of English, context is our clue to usage. For this reason: I can be a witch, I can be a Witch, I am a Witch, (s)he was/is/will be a Witch are all correct and cause little or no contextual jarring, (even with the capitalisation (or otherwise) of the initial letter to denote the implied desired sense the noun should be taken in).
That said, I am/was/will be Witch, (s)he is/was/will be Witch are incorrect just as I am/was/will be Pen, (s)he is/was/will be Telephone would be. This same holds even if we wish to "fudge" ourselves a little and use Proper Nouns that refer to people such as I am Army, I am Teacher and so on.
In this case then, the Noun “Witch” may be considered a Proper Noun in more than simply usage by considering a person as an object as there are no rules that specifically object. This is the best argument so far even though, (as we have seen) this status is still heavily dependant ON the usage to be correct in any contemporary accepted sense.
Now let’s look at some of the more complex ways in which Proper Nouns can be defined.
The names of days of the week, months are Proper Nouns.
“Witch” is neither of these.
The names of Historical documents are Proper Nouns.
“Witch” is not a historical document.
The names of institutions and organisations are Proper Nouns.
In this case we must be careful as there was at least one organisation I can think off right off the cuff which was called W.I.T.C.H but it should be said that this would be something of a long bow due to the fact that this is an acronym – again not the word “Witch”. The same could be said for the more recent use of the acronym.
Of course it could be argued that the word could be used to refer to an ongoing hidden organisation of Witches – but again; aside from fantasy this is a “long bow to pull”. Without actual evidence this again brings us back to the term “fantasy”. We can safely say that “Witch” is not a Proper Noun due to its being the name of an institution or organisation of any recognised sort.
The names of religions, their holy texts and their adherents are all considered proper nouns.
Now we find ourselves in the country that is most often implied by those who insist on the use of the word “Witch” as a Proper Noun. We see this quite explicitly (if fuzzily) in the general ways the term is used such as “the ways of Witch” etc.
I will address each individually.
The Name of a Religion.
Now here we must tread carefully and be sure to be consistent with our approach. When we say “Religion” we are obviously not approaching the subject in the most general sense but rather specifically.
In the modern world we have, (like it or not) a couple of major religions.
Everything else is considered a matter of Heterodoxy. One of the terms most often used by members of those major religions to refer to those not subscribing to their faith is the term “Pagan”.
Whether we like it or not, faith structures other than the majors are considered in this way.
The term “Witch” is not the name of any recognised Religion.
Even the term “Wicca” is not the name of any recognised Religion.
Even if one were to recognise Wicca (as in the Initiatory Mystery based movement initiated by Gerald Gardner) the term “Wicca” is NOT the term “Witch”. Even though the pronunciation sis almost the same it is NOT the same and the two not only had different usages, they also have different meanings, praxis and practices as far as we can ascertain.
If you go looking you will encounter the term “NeoPaganism” which is an umbrella term to include several different views and practices. Even this term is not a Religion – it is a term to cover several differing groups and views.
One last note in this case:
It is occasionally implied by those whose insistence of the Proper Noun usage of the term “Witch” that in saying as such they are expressing their religion. Even given the definitions given on adherents.com and the most generalised dictionaries; (the combination of which gives a very broad scope!) the same cannot be recognised as a religion unless the criteria set forth by such as publicly met.
As so far I am yet to see any disclosure of any information to corroborate the use of the term “Witch” as the term to describe their “Religion” (here meant in the loosest possible sense) – it cannot by definition be considered so.
The name of the holy texts of a Religion may be considered a Proper Noun.
I have not yet seen anyone use the term in this sense so it may be ruled out in this investigation.
The use of the oft repeated phrase “The Ways of Witch” does not satisfy this criterion beyond what may be argued to be so from a standpoint which is purposefully hidden.
I make it a habit not to argue with anyone who does so as I cannot help but see it as a convenient way of changing tack to hide inadequate resource so I won’t enter into that further. Cui prodest scelus is fecit.
The names of an adherents of a Religion.
This is again a slippery one. It is rendered so because those in favour often fudge their definitions and mix their terms desiring the rules to go both ways as they see fit. This most certainly should also be considered to refer to those who would argue the definition of everey other word to their advantage such as: "O but by Religion I take it to mean ..." This is anti productive. If one cannot cope with the actual meaning of a word than all else will fail to gel. It is that simple!
“Witch” is not a term that actually fulfils this criterion as it cannot be satisfactorily ascertained what the religion is.
“Wicca” is not the same term as “Witch”.
AT BEST it may be allowed that some people who wish to term themselves as a “Witch” (note the singular there – plural would be “Witches”!) may consider themselves to belong to some sort of faith that they consider to be religious in nature.
This again is not the same thing.
Lastly, a Proper Noun is also considered to be the opposite of a common noun
This obviously falls under usage and therefore is subject to the same caveats as mentioned earlier.
Conclusion
The upshot of all of this is that; at absolute best, the term “Witch” can be considered a Proper Noun by way of it’s usage. This is especially the case if it objectifies in an almost abstract sense within a context that is at best vague and purposefully generalised or indeed misused. This in no way indemnifies against abuse whether consciously to forward an agenda (either personally or collectively) or unconsciously by way of ignorance being repeated by the ignorant.
Even in such cases, the usages we most see being made use of are still not accurate.
In the case of the wider agenda and (as they have been elucidated thus far) beliefs of those who make most use of such exposition, I admit to what would be considered by most an unexpectedly high amount of agreement. Most of the beliefs put forward, (in as far as their practical application) I tend to see as descriptions of fact. My only objection is to their continued usage as some form of special secret to which no one else is privy as a means of attempted intellectual (or in this case religious) snobbery.
To be blunt, many of the special secret basal tenets that underscore the beliefs shown by those whom I discuss I was taught as a matter of common knowledge. I further aver that as far as the usage is concerned my objection to the insistence of “Witch” as a proper Noun is : if you are going to argue it – do so correctly.
THEORETICALLY yes in certain usages it is so. This is a long way from the implied nonsense we see on most witchcraft lists when dealing with this subject. If one wished to do well by one’s assertion; one would present it as it is – I grow tired of people believing that their position is best served by obfuscation and agenda driven selective information dissemination in order to create implications in others rather than just fronting information that they should have to support their assertions..
Simplest put – there IS a way to argue this stance but it has been covered up by posturing and in so doing you damage your own standing.
I can’t respect that and fail to see why anyone else would.
Disce aut Discede
I don’t mind that – the more the merrier.
What I don’t like is sloppy work – especially when it is presented as a fabulous mystery granted from on high to the rest of us wee folk.
I am talking about the misuse of the grammatical use of the term “Witch” by those of allegedly Red Thread background and the others like them.
Now I am not going into the great big holes that have already been blown through such ideas – they are elsewhere go find them for yourself.
Here I am simply pointing out the problems with the use of, (and insistence of the use of) the term “Witch” as a Proper Noun – as if that explained their poor grammar and deliberate archaism as a means to sound mysterious.
Here is the problem.
Technically yes, it is a Proper Noun. In practice however, it is virtually never used such and most certainly not in most ways it is attempted by these people.
If you doubt this, consider:
Usage Frequency: Witch
"Witch" is generally used as a noun (singular) -- approximately 99.17% of the time. "Witch" is used about 602 times out of a sample of 100 million words spoken or written in English. Its rank is based on over 700,000 words used in the English language. Some parts-of-speech are not covered due to the samples used by the British National Corpus. (note: percents less than one-hundredth of one percent have been omitted)
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/Witch
"Witch" is generally used as a noun (singular) -- approximately 99.17% of the time. "Witch" is used about 602 times out of a sample of 100 million words spoken or written in English. Its rank is based on over 700,000 words used in the English language. Some parts-of-speech are not covered due to the samples used by the British National Corpus. (note: percents less than one-hundredth of one percent have been omitted)
It goes on to say that it is used as a Proper Noun at a staggering .5%.
It goes on to say that this means three times in every one hundred million words.
And I will point out this only implies usage – it does not in any way say that all usage is correct – especially in the case of this adopted word whose meaning is currently under constant revision!
A Proper Noun?
The first and simplest definition of a Proper Noun is that it refers to a Noun that is the name of a specific person, place, or thing. So let us look at that.
Proper Noun as Name.
It clearly is NOT a specific name as they relate to people as in say: “John”.
It could indeed, (in this era of daft names that ensure a childhood hell of teasing) be used as such but I have never met one and hope for the kid’s sake I never do!
This usage could be argued as in the name “Smith”. (Let us not forget that the Name system as we know it today is a relatively new usage and not by any means blanket over the world’s languages or cultures!) This could be argued as this name is a designation based in an ancient trade like others such as “Cooper”, “Wright”, “Prentice” and so on. In that sense, “Smith John” could well have been used to denote the Smith whose name was John.
It should be said however that the whole point of that is that eventually this same usage was changed – hence the arrival of John Smith rather than Smith John. Thankfully this has paralleled the change of English syntax otherwise this whole subject could be even more confused. To put it simply, I have met several John Smiths but only one Smith John – and that introduction was a deliberate archaism on behalf of the speaker at the time.
Another tack that can be taken is as in a particular usage that occurs less these days. It is akin to this previous example but sub culturally specific. I bring this up as it brings us to an important consideration and it is usage. Let us consider a compounding of more than one noun which is still considered in the singular.
I refer to the usage seen in statements such as: “This is Witch Hazel”. Now naturally the simple way of seeing this is as in the case of “Smith John” but it can also by way of implication be seen in the sense of “Draught Horse” (and believe me had you met the “Witch Hazel” I had met you would see precisely what I mean!!)
In this case, the word “Horse” is a noun (and in some smaller usage a verb) and “Draught Horse” is also a noun. Both “Horse” and “Draught Horse” can be considered singular but only Horse has a usage that accurately can be referring to plural. In this sense we can consider “Draught Horse” a noun formed of the combination of two nouns. So too is Witch Hazel. In this case “Draught Horse” and “Witch Hazel” can both be considered Proper Nouns. The syntactic usage in both cases, (to be so) must imply a singular object.
It still stands though, that “Hazel” by itself is a Proper Noun, whereas “Witch” is only so if used as such.
In the case of Proper Noun as a Name, “Witch” is only a Proper Noun if it is used as such. It is not by or in and of itself a Proper Noun as such status relies on correct syntax to render it as one. This holds, (as we have seen) whether the Name is formed of one or more than one noun.
The problem with considering a word a Proper Noun simply based on usage is that usage can be incorrect. Moreover, there is a growing inertia of thought which suggests that simply due to the fact that a language can be a thing which evolves, any new usage must be accepted as acceptable if not lauded. Cui prodest scelus is fecit aside, at what point do we interrupt the evolution, (however momentarily) to observe the definition of a word at that point – and what effects must this have especially in the case of words that are not of English origin in the first case and as culturally loaded as this one? Is the definition rendered at a later date by evolution more accurate than that which it originally is?
But to return to the examination, we see also that the Proper Noun may be also a place, or thing.
Proper Noun as Place
“Witch” is not a place.
An amusing assertion I heard from someone years ago was that “Wicca”, (pronounced “Witch” with an aspiration at the the end) was actually a small village and as such the term should most rightly refers to those people living there and so on. Given that this singular instance is the only time I have ever heard of anything of the sort, that no evidence was tendered to the corroboration of this assertion and that no one else seems to know of the place, I think it can be safely discounted.
In any case, the word “Wicca” and “Witch” are not the same word even though they are pronounced virtually identically and the latter is a development of the former.
Proper Noun as a Thing
So what of the idea of a “thing”? Well here we have perhaps the most tantalising support towards the view of “Witch” as a Proper Noun.
Like many other objects, (such as a Telephone, a Camera or a Shirt) the Capitalisation of the initial letter informs us that in this case, a witch may be considered an object. In some languages there are particular rules which separate the usage of animate and inanimate objects and their placement with regard to syntax and suffixes, prefixes etc. Not so in English where context is the overruling modifier of such usage.
In that case I am not a Pen because the context rules out that usage – even though it can be used as a poetic device. I can be a Witch though because the Noun used implies an animate object. There are some half way points that again confuse the issue where I can be a Slug, a Dog, or indeed even a Home (in an abstract sense!)
There is a simple problem to be raised here though and it is an important one as we have seen. In the case of English, context is our clue to usage. For this reason: I can be a witch, I can be a Witch, I am a Witch, (s)he was/is/will be a Witch are all correct and cause little or no contextual jarring, (even with the capitalisation (or otherwise) of the initial letter to denote the implied desired sense the noun should be taken in).
That said, I am/was/will be Witch, (s)he is/was/will be Witch are incorrect just as I am/was/will be Pen, (s)he is/was/will be Telephone would be. This same holds even if we wish to "fudge" ourselves a little and use Proper Nouns that refer to people such as I am Army, I am Teacher and so on.
In this case then, the Noun “Witch” may be considered a Proper Noun in more than simply usage by considering a person as an object as there are no rules that specifically object. This is the best argument so far even though, (as we have seen) this status is still heavily dependant ON the usage to be correct in any contemporary accepted sense.
Now let’s look at some of the more complex ways in which Proper Nouns can be defined.
The names of days of the week, months are Proper Nouns.
“Witch” is neither of these.
The names of Historical documents are Proper Nouns.
“Witch” is not a historical document.
The names of institutions and organisations are Proper Nouns.
In this case we must be careful as there was at least one organisation I can think off right off the cuff which was called W.I.T.C.H but it should be said that this would be something of a long bow due to the fact that this is an acronym – again not the word “Witch”. The same could be said for the more recent use of the acronym.
Of course it could be argued that the word could be used to refer to an ongoing hidden organisation of Witches – but again; aside from fantasy this is a “long bow to pull”. Without actual evidence this again brings us back to the term “fantasy”. We can safely say that “Witch” is not a Proper Noun due to its being the name of an institution or organisation of any recognised sort.
The names of religions, their holy texts and their adherents are all considered proper nouns.
Now we find ourselves in the country that is most often implied by those who insist on the use of the word “Witch” as a Proper Noun. We see this quite explicitly (if fuzzily) in the general ways the term is used such as “the ways of Witch” etc.
I will address each individually.
The Name of a Religion.
Now here we must tread carefully and be sure to be consistent with our approach. When we say “Religion” we are obviously not approaching the subject in the most general sense but rather specifically.
In the modern world we have, (like it or not) a couple of major religions.
Everything else is considered a matter of Heterodoxy. One of the terms most often used by members of those major religions to refer to those not subscribing to their faith is the term “Pagan”.
Whether we like it or not, faith structures other than the majors are considered in this way.
The term “Witch” is not the name of any recognised Religion.
Even the term “Wicca” is not the name of any recognised Religion.
Even if one were to recognise Wicca (as in the Initiatory Mystery based movement initiated by Gerald Gardner) the term “Wicca” is NOT the term “Witch”. Even though the pronunciation sis almost the same it is NOT the same and the two not only had different usages, they also have different meanings, praxis and practices as far as we can ascertain.
If you go looking you will encounter the term “NeoPaganism” which is an umbrella term to include several different views and practices. Even this term is not a Religion – it is a term to cover several differing groups and views.
In the case of identifying as (not the same as the terms being the same!) “NeoPagan” it ranks in as 19th in a list of twenty two.Neo-Paganism: Neo-Paganism is an umbrella term for modern revivals of ancient ethnic and magickal traditions. These are usually polytheistic, but many Neo-Pagans
consider their faith pantheistic, and many other concepts of deity can be found
among Neo-Pagans as well. Subdivisions within Neo-Paganism include Wicca, Magick, Druidism, Asatru, neo-Native American religion and others.Only recently has Neo-Paganism become a movement of any significant size and visibility. Solid statistics on Neo-Paganism on a worldwide scale are essentially
non-existent, but it is a rapidly growing religion/religious category. Estimates
regarding its worldwide size range widely--from under one hundred thousand to
over four million. Independent surveys and government-based figures are not
indicative of the higher estimates provided by Neo-Pagan and Wiccan organizations, but there may be a variety of reasons for this.…. There were 768,400 Neo-pagans (largest subset were Wiccans) in the U.S. in
the year 2000, according to the Wiccan/Pagan Poll, conducted by the Covenant of the Goddess (CoG) beginning in late July, 1999.[Online source: http://www.cog.org/cogpoll_final.html]
Researchers may also be interested in Isaac Bonewits' succinct web page, How Many "Pagans" Are There? Bonewits identifies reasons for enumeration, difficulties in doing so, and concludes by estimating the Neopagan population at "from half a million to several million people in the USA and Canada."
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Neo-Paganism
One last note in this case:
It is occasionally implied by those whose insistence of the Proper Noun usage of the term “Witch” that in saying as such they are expressing their religion. Even given the definitions given on adherents.com and the most generalised dictionaries; (the combination of which gives a very broad scope!) the same cannot be recognised as a religion unless the criteria set forth by such as publicly met.
As so far I am yet to see any disclosure of any information to corroborate the use of the term “Witch” as the term to describe their “Religion” (here meant in the loosest possible sense) – it cannot by definition be considered so.
The name of the holy texts of a Religion may be considered a Proper Noun.
I have not yet seen anyone use the term in this sense so it may be ruled out in this investigation.
The use of the oft repeated phrase “The Ways of Witch” does not satisfy this criterion beyond what may be argued to be so from a standpoint which is purposefully hidden.
I make it a habit not to argue with anyone who does so as I cannot help but see it as a convenient way of changing tack to hide inadequate resource so I won’t enter into that further. Cui prodest scelus is fecit.
The names of an adherents of a Religion.
This is again a slippery one. It is rendered so because those in favour often fudge their definitions and mix their terms desiring the rules to go both ways as they see fit. This most certainly should also be considered to refer to those who would argue the definition of everey other word to their advantage such as: "O but by Religion I take it to mean ..." This is anti productive. If one cannot cope with the actual meaning of a word than all else will fail to gel. It is that simple!
“Witch” is not a term that actually fulfils this criterion as it cannot be satisfactorily ascertained what the religion is.
“Wicca” is not the same term as “Witch”.
AT BEST it may be allowed that some people who wish to term themselves as a “Witch” (note the singular there – plural would be “Witches”!) may consider themselves to belong to some sort of faith that they consider to be religious in nature.
This again is not the same thing.
Lastly, a Proper Noun is also considered to be the opposite of a common noun
This obviously falls under usage and therefore is subject to the same caveats as mentioned earlier.
Conclusion
The upshot of all of this is that; at absolute best, the term “Witch” can be considered a Proper Noun by way of it’s usage. This is especially the case if it objectifies in an almost abstract sense within a context that is at best vague and purposefully generalised or indeed misused. This in no way indemnifies against abuse whether consciously to forward an agenda (either personally or collectively) or unconsciously by way of ignorance being repeated by the ignorant.
Even in such cases, the usages we most see being made use of are still not accurate.
In the case of the wider agenda and (as they have been elucidated thus far) beliefs of those who make most use of such exposition, I admit to what would be considered by most an unexpectedly high amount of agreement. Most of the beliefs put forward, (in as far as their practical application) I tend to see as descriptions of fact. My only objection is to their continued usage as some form of special secret to which no one else is privy as a means of attempted intellectual (or in this case religious) snobbery.
To be blunt, many of the special secret basal tenets that underscore the beliefs shown by those whom I discuss I was taught as a matter of common knowledge. I further aver that as far as the usage is concerned my objection to the insistence of “Witch” as a proper Noun is : if you are going to argue it – do so correctly.
THEORETICALLY yes in certain usages it is so. This is a long way from the implied nonsense we see on most witchcraft lists when dealing with this subject. If one wished to do well by one’s assertion; one would present it as it is – I grow tired of people believing that their position is best served by obfuscation and agenda driven selective information dissemination in order to create implications in others rather than just fronting information that they should have to support their assertions..
Simplest put – there IS a way to argue this stance but it has been covered up by posturing and in so doing you damage your own standing.
I can’t respect that and fail to see why anyone else would.
Disce aut Discede
posted by BissekArt at 2:08 pm
0 comments
