Thank you Tom, you are very kind. It was though (competitive) study and experimentation that lead me to that conclusion. As I am sure you have been told and/or have read that one of the key requirements for spellwork is
need. Need (in combination with focus) helps weaken the disbelief that everyone tends to inherit when growing up. It is the components of the spellwork/ritual that helps reinforce focus.
(I wish I knew if I typed "
think" or the spellcheck did that to me again. Since the spellcheck doesn't seem to mind I thin
g I will blame it.
)
I call myself a Witch because i worship a Witch goddess and I accept spellwork as a legitimate aspect of religious faith and practice. I have done spells in the past (successfully), but they have never been a major part of my practice of my faith.
It may seem presumptuous for someone with limited practical experience to suggest an idea that seems to fly in the face of orthodoxy; but I have never felt comfortable with the characterization of need as an essential component of spellwork. I think it's because it smells like a cop-out, e.g. "If it doesn't work, it's because I didn't really need it in the first place." Furthermore, I think desire is a much better reason for effecting change; ultimately, we don't need anything but the divine itself.
As you have characterized its function in successful spellcasting, I see no reason why something else that performs the same function would not work just as well. I like faith/trust or knowledge/certainty -- which are probably the same thing -- better, inasmuch as they are, shall we say, more
wholesomely rooted in desire.
I have another twist on spellwork that I had never heard from another "Witchcraft" source until recently, when I heard that Patricia Telesco had said something very similar. I don't want to put words in her mouth, so I will merely speak for myself here.
The whole idea of spellcasting as "manipulation" of reality is, I think, misconceived. It has often been said that casting spells on people without their permission constitutes "black magic" because it is manipulative, which I rephrase as disrespect of the equal dignity of another consciousness. Well, if this is true of one form of consciousness, why doesn't it apply to all? Isn't treating anything as one's property to be done with as one likes to disrespect it? Isn't that the attitude for which the Judeo-Christian tradition is excoriated by green-minded folks ("Fill the earth and subdue it," Gen. 1:28), and which has allegedly led to the fouling of so many places and species?
What is black in the mundane is also black in the magical, for there is truly no dividing line between them.
So, then, what
is magic? I think it is
co-creation (this is what I heard Telesco had said). The forces with which Witches work are not servants, but partners. It's like a dance in which the Witch leads and the forces work willingly for the joy of creation. In my opinion,
that is Witchcraft.
I'd be interested in your reflections on these ideas.