You found my old blog. Thanks for visiting! For my new writing, visit mikesententia.com.
Do you still consider that someone can learn an established style AND direct magic simultaneously (assuming they actually have the time)? Some people argue this kind of thing can confuse a neophyte. I also sometimes feel that trying to focus both on ‘getting things done/getting some results under your belt’ and ‘pure exploration’ can be conflicting for beginner/neophyte- rather like trying to create innovative poetry whilst still learning the alphabet.
I have two answers: Yes, and why?
Yes, You Can
I know you can learn a traditional style and then learn direct magick, because friends have done it. And I know you can learn direct magick and then learn another style, because I’ve learned bits of other styles, and could continue if I wanted to. So, while I haven’t seen anyone learn two styles at once, I don’t see a problem.
As a bonus, both styles will probably teach you a lot of the same skills, like working with energy, making and noticing connections, and communicating with ethereal software, though the other style won’t call it that. So, it won’t take twice the time to learn both styles.
But before long, you’ll notice that the two styles have different worldviews, and it won’t be obvious how to resolve them. Let me give you an example.
In most traditional styles, they assume you’ll only work with the ethereal software associated with that style, so they never dig into other softwares. This lets them dig deep into rituals that communicate instructions to that one software.
Except that the teachers of that traditional style won’t say, “We are using this ethereal software, which responds to these rituals and correspondences.” Instead, they’ll just say, “Copper corresponds to Fire energy, which corresponds to healing, and gold corresponds to water and wealth, and…” Well, they’ll say correspondences that are actually correct, but you get the idea.
Now, with the explanation I gave you above, it’s obvious what’s going on: They’re teaching you how that one piece of ethereal software responds to rituals. You know not to try and place those correspondences into your direct magick, and you know why I don’t find them particularly interesting. But if I hadn’t explained all that, would it be obvious to you? Or would you wonder why I’ve missed all these correspondences? And what about other, more complex disagreements?
These questions may be good. I find that the best way to explore is to find a confusing problem, then tease it apart until it’s not confusing anymore. But realize that it won’t be a simple, direct path, and that you’ll be facing challenges fairly quickly.
Which brings me to my second question:
Why do you want to learn two styles at once? Because I can see at least one good reason, and at least one bad reason.
Good: You want to learn direct magick, but also want to learn a mature style of magick that has definitive answers and techniques, even if they’re answers you’ll eventually discard. In this case, I’d recommend that you learn that mature style, keep reading this blog, and start on direct magick when my book comes out.
Bad: You want to learn everything magick. I know, this sounds good, but it’s probably sending you in too many directions at once. If this is the case, I’d recommend the same thing I did above: Learn one mature style, then pick up direct magick once my book comes out.
Great reason: You want to deeply explore magick from many angles, and think that learning about two conflicting styles sounds like a great way to generate interesting questions. Awesome. I agree. Go for it, right now.
I hope this helps. Got questions? Leave a comment.If you liked this post, consider visiting my current blog at mikesententia.com.