Quick note, Etsy’s back up so everything’s been confirmed to having been shipping out.

You can find me on my wordpress blog. I’m not closing my tumblr blog nor will I stop blogging. I’m just concentration my attention elsewhere. I’ll still be making posts although many of them will first appear on my wordpress blog first. 

(Also, I’m amazed three people bailed on the blog already. I didn’t say I was leaving for good! Hell, the queue is still going. I’m just not going to be watching my dash so closely. I’ll likely have new exciting shit to post about readily by next week.)

Etsy’s down. I don’t mean by shop but the site itself is down for me. It’s acting very strangely and won’t load any pages. I’m working on getting it back up.

For those who placed orders and expected them to be out today; they are on their way or are waiting to be sent via etsy. I literally keep getting the 404 page.

I’ll make a post when I get it back up and running. I’m really sorry for the inconvenience. 

I’m going away for a little while.

Tumblr’s been… frustrating (not just the argument with Bones but other things). I will likely make a random post or two but I’m pretty much done with the nonsense.

There are no more conversations. There are no more discussions. There are simply argument and fights. No one wants to share information any more. That’s fine, you don’t have to. Everyone’s got their own shit going on. And sometimes those sorts of debates aren’t wanted.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t post much like that myself. But my practice is boring. No, really. It’s practical, logical, and boring. I don’t worship gods and don’t focus on historical or traditional witchcraft. I have nothing scholarly to add. 

My time can be better spent elsewhere then trying to open up conversations or discussions that only fall flat. Maybe that’s my fault. I’ll take the blame for it either way. But if I’m getting nothing out of tumblr, I’m not going to waste my time on it. I’ve a Wordpress blog to fill, a shop to run, and books to write. I’ll go manage those instead.

Because apparently my personal blog needs a disclaimer

bonesofaphoenix:

Apparently people can’t distinguish between “fact” and “how I do or define shit”.

Unless I explicitly state that something as fact and provide sources to back up my claims, everything here is written from my personal perspective and reasearch. Especially if it can be found on my “What Bones Does” page and pertains to my personal practice, beliefs, definitions, etc.

DUH.

There. 

A Disclaimer can now be found in my description.

Happy now?

Yes.

Why are you getting so upset? People are reblogging your posts as fact. As “this is what X means for everyone”. You offer them to newbies information. That post wasn’t written for you, it was written for others. What did you expect when you don’t state it as an opinion as an opinion and get called out on it?

I don’t understand why it’s so fucking hard to put a quick disclaimer on post that you KNOW is going to get reblogged? It’s your space, yes, but when you make posts to inform people and they’re you’re beliefs, just say so. This ENTIRE argument would have been averted if you’d done so.

I’m stopping there

bonesofaphoenix:

Because that’s NOT, in any way shape or form, what I am saying, at all.

You need to actually READ what I have said to you, and the modifications I have made to the original post.

Actually, you didn’t understand a thing I said.

I said I agree to disagree. You kept responding after I said that twice.

Furthermore, you kept saying the same thing over and over and not realizing what I was saying is your definition is wrong. Because that’e not what magic is in some paradigms. Paradigms aren’t practices. It’s reality, literally the way the world fucking works. 

Again, for the last time. I agree that your definition, by the paradigm that you seems to be working under is accurate, for you. But stop speaking for everyone else.

What is Magic and Witchcraft?

bonesofaphoenix:

thiscrookedcrown:

bonesofaphoenix:

thiscrookedcrown:

bonesofaphoenix:

[snipped for readability]

Actually, that’s not how I define magic at all. So that’s not a universal definition.

Your definition runs off the paradigm that you NEED intent. That’s also not universally true or believed. Here’s an example of why some would argue against the “intent = magic” paradigm. Do you count prophecy and divination as magic? Because we can use tools and put ourselves into a state with the intention of getting a vision. But, under that belief, sudden visions wouldn’t count, because we didn’t intend on them occurring  Another example comes from the animistic belief that things have souls or energy. Many witches operate on the belief that things such as plants or rocks are inherently magical. If you operate under the paradigm that magic=intent when those things can not by your very definition be magical. So is intent really all that important if things come to us without it? Is intent really magic if there are things out there that do not need intent to operate?

You’re saying there’s differently theories on how magic works. I agree but that’s not what I’m arguing here. Here I’m stating that magic itself may not be defined as intent, manipulation, or what-have-you. Some people define it as life itself, others such as myself consider science magic. Intent has nothing to do with that and yet it can still be described as magic. 

Magic itself is not the intent, but when you raise or use energy or commit actions with the intent to make changes, or manipulate that energy raised to a specific purpose, etc.

Everything we do- subconsciously, or consciously- is done with intent and contains or requires energy of some form, even if your intent is “because I can”, “just to see what happens”, or “to have fun”, etc. It doesn’t mean you need specific intent, or that your intent has to be conscious or blatantly obvious. You don’t have to go “well, I want this to happen, and this specifically”, the intent can just be something as simple as “I’m going to do this, let’s just see what happens”. That is the intent of the energy raised and your actions done to raise it, and the energy you put into doing those things, etc.

Now, the end result of your intent may vary, you may subconsciously hope for a specific outcome, or not care about it at all…  But the goal (or intent) is still the same: to make something happen, in some way, shape, or form, with the energy you raised- thus making that energy Magic (if you choose to consider it such). 

The energies raised with anything you do can be considered magic if you want it to under this definition. Under this definition, anything anyone wants to consider magic IS magic, and anything you don’t want to consider magic ISN’T. 

There’s also a difference between “Magic” and “Magical”.

Magic is energy raised with intent (whatever that intent it). “Magical” denotes that you think something is a product OF magic. Whose magic? That doesn’t matter. You still think that souls, life, science, nature, etc, are a product of SOMEONE’S magic, and are therefore MAGICAL, but that doesn’t mean that it is magic itself.

That doesn’t mean you can’t call it magic though, and if you choose to call it magic, well then that’s your choice and it’s still correct under YOUR practices and beliefs.

No. You are missing my point.

You’re still defining magic as energy raised with intent and that is not universally true or believed. End of story. This has gone into the realm of UPG. Your world-view and belief may be derived by the idea that magic is energy raised with intent but that is NOT universally true and you should stop promoting it as such. Because what you’re saying is “magic is energy raised with intent and while you think it might be something else it isn’t”. You might not be meaning to say it that way but you are. You’re literally telling people what magic is when that is something that is undefinable and is widely varied by culture and belief. I  would go so far to say that magic is MORE undefinable than even paganism. You’re trying to define something while at the same time invalidating other beliefs. 

While you aren’t saying it, you’re implying it is a FACT that magic is energy raised with intent. And that’s just not true. Magic isn’t fact driven. You can’t prove it. You can give me evidence of it. Matter of fact several witches on this site have gone out of their way to do spells without intent just to see if they worked. Some did, although I can’t speak for all of them. 

Are you saying that the spells that worked even when they were cast without intent aren’t magic? Then what were they? Circumstance? Chance? What governs those? Where does someone draw the line in what’s circumstance, chance, and intent when someone does a spell with intent? Or does a spell without intent?

I agree to disagree on this topic.

“Because what you’re saying is “magic is energy raised with intent and while you think it might be something else it isn’t””

I’ve bolded the appropriate paragraph above.

If you perform a spell, with the intent to let it out and see if it works, you still have intent in there somewhere, therefore if you choose to consider that energy magic, you can, and therefore it is.

That’s what magic is. Whether you choose to recognize what you do with intent as magic or not is what makes it magic for YOU. Magic is energy raised with intent IF you choose to recognize that energy raised with intent AS magic. No one said you HAD to recognize everything you do AS magic just because there’s intent behind it, but it allows for the inclusion of those who DO.

Also, spells are not inherently magical if you don’t want them to be. Witchcraft does not automatically mean the use of Magic. You don’t have to recognize it as Magic. You don’t have to recognize the magical portions of it… Or you can. Again, that’s up to you.

I can get up and go get a glass of water, and the energy I raise and put into getting that glass of water can be magic to me if I choose to recognize it as such because I’m raising some form of energy with some kind of intent and using it to exact a change of some sort… But someone else might not think that’s magic at all, and that’s OK. If they don’t consider that as magic to THEM, that’s their prerogative and that’s neither correct nor incorrect, but it doesn’t change the fact that, under the definition, I, personally, do have the right to consider it magic if I choose to consider it such.

Again, that is the point of this definition. To make ALL energy raised inherently Magic, so that no one’s right or wrong and people can define what the PRACTICE (how it’s raised, how you put it out there, etc) of magic is for them, personally, and how they choose to recognize something as Magical.

I am not talking about the practice. I’m talking about your definition being narrow-minded. You are saying magic is energy raised with intent. That is not how I or other people define magic. It’s not about practice or beliefs. It’s literally you saying that your definition is the only one that’s correct. And that’s not true. You’re trying to include everyone by saying, “well your practice says this and that’s OK but magic is energy raised with intent.” You’re saying that wants are magic. You’re saying that someone wishing their boss dead for being a nag is magic. That’s what you’re saying. You’re saying thoughts are magic because for a moment you subconsciously intended something. So everyone’s thoughts are magic now. Everyone’s intents are magic. That even if someone doesn’t call it magic it’s still magic. That’s like saying just because someone practices superstitions their using witchcraft. 

You’re still running off the paradigm that magic = energy with intent. There are other paradigms out there that in direct conflict with that. You stating that all magic is energy with intent, even if it’s defined differently means you are denying the possibility of other paradigms. Or, more accurately from what I’m reading that even under other paradigms and definitions magic still mean energy with intent. I don’t think that’s your intent but that’s exactly what you’re doing. 

In the end it comes down to this, we can’t prove it. So you stating that something is a FACT. That something that is measurable must be X is a logical fallacy. We can’t measure magic. We can’t measure intent in a beaker. Until we can we can’t prove either of our definitions are true. Hence why I’m agreeing to disagree.

If that’s your personal definition and paradigm fine, but state it as that. As I read it, you were defining magic for everyone out there and clearly from our debate it’s not universally accepted.

What is Magic and Witchcraft?

bonesofaphoenix:

thiscrookedcrown:

bonesofaphoenix:

[snipped for readability]

Actually, that’s not how I define magic at all. So that’s not a universal definition.

Your definition runs off the paradigm that you NEED intent. That’s also not universally true or believed. Here’s an example of why some would argue against the “intent = magic” paradigm. Do you count prophecy and divination as magic? Because we can use tools and put ourselves into a state with the intention of getting a vision. But, under that belief, sudden visions wouldn’t count, because we didn’t intend on them occurring  Another example comes from the animistic belief that things have souls or energy. Many witches operate on the belief that things such as plants or rocks are inherently magical. If you operate under the paradigm that magic=intent when those things can not by your very definition be magical. So is intent really all that important if things come to us without it? Is intent really magic if there are things out there that do not need intent to operate?

You’re saying there’s differently theories on how magic works. I agree but that’s not what I’m arguing here. Here I’m stating that magic itself may not be defined as intent, manipulation, or what-have-you. Some people define it as life itself, others such as myself consider science magic. Intent has nothing to do with that and yet it can still be described as magic. 

Magic itself is not the intent, but when you raise or use energy or commit actions with the intent to make changes, or manipulate that energy raised to a specific purpose, etc.

It doesn’t mean you need specific intent, or that your intent has to be conscious or blatantly obvious. You don’t have to go “well, I want this to happen, and this specifically”, the intent can just be something as simple as “I’m going to do this, let’s just see what happens”. Everything we do- subconsciously, or consciously- is done with intent, even if your intent is “because I can”, “just to see what happens”, or “to have fun”, etc. That is the intent of the energy raised and your actions done to raise it. Now, the end result of your intent may vary, you may subconsciously hope for a specific outcome, or not care about it at all…  But the goal (or intent) is still the same: to make something happen, in some way, shape, or form. 

The energies raised with anything you do can be considered magic if you want it to under this definition. Under this definition, anything anyone wants to consider magic IS magic, and anything they don’t want to consider magic ISN’T. That way, it doesn’t invalidate anyone’s ideas of what is or isn’t magic. 

There’s also a difference between “Magic” and “Magical”.

Magic is energy raised with intent (whatever that intent it). “Magical” denotes that you think something is a product OF magic. Whose magic? That doesn’t matter. You still think that souls, life, science, nature, etc, are a product of SOMEONE’S magic, and are therefore MAGICAL, but that doesn’t mean that it is magic itself.

That doesn’t mean you can’t call it magic though, and if you choose to call it magic, well then that’s your choice and it’s still correct under YOUR practices and beliefs.

No. You are missing my point.

You’re still defining magic as energy raised with intent and that is not universally true or believed. End of story. This has gone into the realm of UPG. Your world-view and belief may be derived by the idea that magic is energy raised with intent but that is NOT universally true and you should stop promoting it as such. Because what you’re saying is “magic is energy raised with intent and while you think it might be something else it isn’t”. You might not be meaning to say it that way but you are. You’re literally telling people what magic is when that is something that is undefinable and is widely varied by culture and belief. I  would go so far to say that magic is MORE undefinable than even paganism. You’re trying to define something while at the same time invalidating other beliefs. 

While you aren’t saying it, you’re implying it is a FACT that magic is energy raised with intent. And that’s just not true. Magic isn’t fact driven. You can’t prove it. You can give me evidence of it. Matter of fact several witches on this site have gone out of their way to do spells without intent just to see if they worked. Some did, although I can’t speak for all of them. 

Are you saying that the spells that worked even when they were cast without intent aren’t magic? Then what were they? Circumstance? Chance? What governs those? Where does someone draw the line in what’s circumstance, chance, and intent when someone does a spell with intent? Or does a spell without intent?

I agree to disagree on this topic.

What is Magic and Witchcraft?

bonesofaphoenix:

Witchcraft and Magic are a lot easier to define than Paganism, that’s for sure.

“So What is Witchcraft?”

Witchcraft is the Witch’s Craft. It is a secular (non-religious) craft that utilizes charms, spells, etc. It’s… Basically no different than Painting, Cooking, or any other non-religious practice.

Witchcraft is not religious by nature and doesn’t have any ties to any specific religious system. You can work with it separate to your religion, alongside it, or as a part of your religion, but the practice of Witchcraft is only religious IF you choose to make it religious, or unless you join a religion that utilizes it as a base practice (like Huntwitch does).

“Are there any Requirements for Witchcraft or to be a Witch?”

There is no “you have to know Herbs”, or “you have to work with Gods”, or “you have to know how to use Crystals”, etc; You don’t have to be religious, you don’t have to work with nature, you don’t have to follow any set moral code of philosophy. The list goes on.

Outside of practicing spells, charms, and other things that generally fall under the practices usually contributed to Witchcraft, and being respectful of other people and practices and you choosing to identify as a Witch, there are no requirements to be a Witch or practice Witchcraft.

Anyone who tells you there are needs to be drop-kicked in the face.

“So then what is Magic?”

Magic is nothing more than energy raised with Intent- be that intent for a specific purpose, or just a “let’s see how things go”- to do, change, or manipulate something to a desired result; usually the result is obtained through the use of Witchcraft, but neither Witchcraft nor magic are reliant on or require one another. 

There are several different theories on how magic may be raised and used, and how and why it works. All of them are correct.

“But wait, aren’t they the same thing?”

There are a few similarities, yes.

Some may say that by doing spells and charms you are inherently raising and gathering energy with intent- and therefore, Magic, etc… Or that by raising magic you are doing Witchcraft. There are also practices and religions who consider Magic and Witchcraft to be the same thing or use the terms interchangeably. This is also correct (for their practices).

However, at their base, outside of those specific philosophies, religions and practices who choose to define them as the same, dependent on, or synonymous with each other? They are not inherently the same thing and are not reliant on each other to function all the time. Witchcraft doesn’t have to use Magic, and not all Magic is Witchcraft. Magic and Witchcraft aren’t interchangeable words and they don’t always go hand in hand. 

Just because New-Age spirituality 1 over here believes that a person’s Spirit and their Energy are the same thing and are synonyms that can be used interchangeably, doesn’t change the fact that each one of those things has its own definition which may or may not be similar, but also contains differences and aren’t the same.

This is called conflation. Conflation occurs when two or more individuals, concepts, things, places, etc that share some common characteristics seem to be or become defined as a single identity and the differences become lost or are glossed over or ignored.

See?

Simple.

Actually, that’s not how I define magic at all. So that’s not a universal definition.

Your definition runs off the paradigm that you NEED intent. That’s also not universally true or believed. Here’s an example of why some would argue against the “intent = magic” paradigm. Do you count prophecy and divination as magic? Because we can use tools and put ourselves into a state with the intention of getting a vision. But, under that belief, sudden visions wouldn’t count, because we didn’t intend on them occurring  Another example comes from the animistic belief that things have souls or energy. Many witches operate on the belief that things such as plants or rocks are inherently magical. If you operate under the paradigm that magic=intent when those things can not by your very definition be magical. So is intent really all that important if things come to us without it? Is intent really magic if there are things out there that do not need intent to operate?

You’re saying there’s differently theories on how magic works. I agree but that’s not what I’m arguing here. Here I’m stating that magic itself may not be defined as intent, manipulation, or what-have-you. Some people define it as life itself, others such as myself consider science magic. Intent has nothing to do with that and yet it can still be described as magic. 

la-meilleure-amie:

Everyone SAYS they want a fairytale wedding but when I show up and curse their firstborn suddenly I’m a jerk.