I have a soft spot for the title Sorcerer and the art of such called Sorcery.
And yeah, I'll admit it, it goes back to that infamous Apprentice by the name of Mickey Mouse.

What I have noticed over the years in various occult literature is the use of terms mostly has been to derogate whatever magickal approach for which the writers gave low regard.

What disappoints me is: regardless of how cool the terms are, the fact remains that there really is not a specific kind of magickal approach associated with them. I do not mean one particular universal paradigm here. I mean a kind of flavor that when tasted with one's meta-sensibilities clearly indicates a Sorcerer and Sorcery just as much as certain spices, herbs, and sauces clearly indicate unique ethnic cooks and their respective cuisines.

My preference would be for Sorcery to reference pathways that lay between the traditional old school and the modern new school - brushing shoulders with the nature-based and rubbing elbows with the technological - enabling group participation and allowing fierce independence - etc...

Regardless of my preference, however, I remain surprised that no one has been able to do for Sorcerers and Sorcery what Gardner (and Alexander, Buckland, et.al.) did for Witches and Witchcraft.

Note: make no mistake with that last parallel. I am not saying that Sorcery should end up exactly like Witchcraft today. The point of making that parallel is: those authors took those terms and dared to cook and to create memorable meals for a magickal approach that has a consistency, fragrance, flavor, and ambiance not only unique - but also very recognizable - compared to non-Witchcraft approaches ... even with all the diversity within Witches and Witchcraft.

This post has been edited by Praxis: Dec 4 2008, 12:40 PM