Sorcerers And Sorcery Options

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

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.

Here's an aspect of sorcerers I always associate with the word. The ancient taoists in the mountains of china were often referred to by common folk as "the sorcerers in the mountains". I believe like another in this thread that a sorcerer is a personal experiencer and knower, he is not a part of a coven, cult or tradition - and because of this his power is greater - he is innovative and can do anything withinonly the confines of his own wisdom and knowledge. To me, witchcraft is love spells, healing spells, help spells, and simple things like that. A sorcerer of sorcery is a conjurer, an illusionist, a geomancer, a weathermancer, a divinator. A sorcerer does not need any tools, in an empty room with no clothes or candles he can create a spells and effects using his will power alone. This is my definition of a sorcerer. He is wise enough to lead many religions, yet follows nor leads any, he is skilled with the motion of energy. And unlike witches, he can converse with the evillest and most benign - the compassionate and most benign without a sense of judgement or difference. All beings are his subjects, yet he remains respectful and honourable. A sorcerer is every card in the tarot deck, and then some. And all males have this potential. This is the masculine side of the hidden realms, where as witchcraft is the feminine. IMO.

A sorcerer is every card in the tarot deck, and then some. And all males have this potential. This is the masculine side of the hidden realms, where as witchcraft is the feminine. IMO.

There ARE such things as sorceresses, you know. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)



A woman is every bit as capable of engaging in sorcery as any man. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wizard.gif)






I don't see myself as a witch. I don't work with herbs, roots, etc. I could frankly care less about what phase the moon is in (I most certainly do not let it dictate my spellcraft).


I see myself as a sorceress -- every bit the sorceress as any male sorcerer.

This post has been edited by The Sorceress: Jan 1 2010, 08:41 AM