Energy vs Heat

You found my old blog. Thanks for visiting! For my new writing, visit

I want to share some techniques for sex magick, along with some testing I’ve done. But before I can do that, we need to introduce another concept into our model of energy: Activation.

I think of energy like hot water, flowing through pipes, heating the pipe and whatever’s around it. (The pipes are the connections and pathways that energy flows through.)

But sometimes, you don’t want hot water. You want a hot something else: A hot car engine, or a hot mental muscle, or a hot… some other structure. And sometimes, you just want to talk about heat.

I call that heat “activation.” Like heat, you can’t have a gallon of activation, but you can have hot matter, and activated magickal structure. Activation makes the difference between active and inactive structures, and the particular signature of the activation determines how that structure behaves.

Energy is a a flow of hot / activated particles. But you can also have other hot / active structures, like a highly-activated connection. And that activated connection will transmit the activation to whatever it touches, similar to how a hot wire would transmit heat. You can create and send activation with only connections and other structures, without using energy.

Why would you want to do such a thing? And why bother adding this additional concept to my model? Why bother even making that distinction? Because it’s useful for techniques I’ll share later this week. And because it impacts shielding, and the “impure junk” Yvonne asked about, and a bunch of other techniques I won’t even get to for months.

For now, just think about activation: The heat transmitted by magickal energy.

If you liked this post, consider visiting my current blog at

Tags: ,

2 Responses to “Energy vs Heat”

  1. Yoseqlo says:

    Did the structures activate with any kind of energy or only reacts to an specific signature due to each design of structure?

    • Good question! It takes a fair grasp of the model to think to ask that.

      Structures have particular signatures they respond to. When you activate a structure, you pick one of those signatures to activate. So, it seems perfectly reasonable to think of activation as having a signature.

      (Alternately, you could think of the structure as having a signature, and the activation as taking on the signature of the parts of the structure it activates. Both descriptions predict the same things, so it’s just whether you like to think of activation as a thing itself, having its own signature, or as a property of a structure, where the signature lives in the structure.)

      But back to the simple answer: The structure would only respond to some signatures of energy or activation.

Leave a Reply