You found my old blog. Thanks for visiting! For my new writing, visit mikesententia.com.
Rune Soup has an interesting post on manifesting. Mostly, he talks about doing the non-magickal work, instead of relying on your magick entirely. (For example, before manifesting for a job, write a good resume.) I agree 100%.
There’s one thing that doesn’t fit for me, though. He talks about “road openers,” meaning magick that creates options which you can then pursue. For example, getting an invitation to the right party is a “road opener”: It doesn’t get you a new job itself, but it creates an opportunity for you to network and solve your own problem more effectively.
For talking about what magick does at a high level, so outsiders can understand manifesting, this sounds like a useful term. But I don’t think it’s a useful model of manifesting for talking to other mages, because I don’t see the inherent distinction between opening a road (getting you invited to the party) vs causing other events. Let me explain.
Imagine two manifestings. In one, I influence a person’s decision to cause them to invite me to a party. In the other, I influence a person’s decision to cause them to hire me. Both manifestings acted in the same way — they influenced a single decision — and so I don’t see the point in calling one a road opener and the other a “problem solver” (or whatever you want to call it).
Now imagine two road openers. The first one still influences a person’s decision to invite me to a party. But imagine this party also has tickets raffled off with powerball machines, and in the second manifesting, I influence tiny air currents in the powerball mixer to make my number come up. The magick is very different — one influenced decisions, the other influenced air currents — and so it feels odd to call them both “road openers.”
In the end, I think it comes down to what part of magick you focus on. If you view magick based on what it does for you — from a human-scale perspective, with the end goal in mind — then terms like “road opener” make sense. But if you view magick based on the steps it takes to cause those changes — the implementation, rather than the result — then those terms just feel odd. And since we need to understand magick’s implementation to grow it into a modern, reliable field of study, I want to move us toward implementation-focused terms, rather than results-focused ones.
Now, the question for me: Since most people will naturally view magick from a human-scale perspective, how do I move them to implementation-focused terms? Thoughts?If you liked this post, consider visiting my current blog at mikesententia.com.