4 Techniques for Grounding: Conclusion

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

Looking back on this series, three ideas stand out. First, there is no simple magick. Second, writing helps me learn magick. And third, developing techniques is the main way to test models.

There is No Simple Magick

I thought grounding was simple. It’s one of the first things we teach beginners, and we explain it simply: You just built energy, excess energy gives you a headache,  so release it into the ground.

Now I’m realizing, no magick is simple when you get into how it really works. Grounding is less complex than energy healing, or manifesting, or shielding, or most of the other things we do with magick. But understanding grounding still requires understanding energy signatures, how they mix, how to subtract one signature from another, and how to build energy that, when added to other energy, produces your normal energy signature.

None of that is simple, because at its heart, magick is complex. That’s the price we pay for accuracy.

Writing Helps Me Learn Magick

I developed two techniques in the course of writing this series.

Technique #4 (grounding by building more energy) came to me on the train. It was the morning after seeing my friend use technique #3 (grounding via ethereal software), and the only reason I was thinking deeply about grounding was to prepare for this series. If it weren’t for this blog, I wouldn’t have thought hard enough to see the technique.

And the good version of technique #1, energy flushing? I thought of it as I wrote that post. I was testing the basic, release-your-energy version of grounding, and realized that building energy as I released it would probably flush the unhealthy signature out. That technique, which is now my preferred grounding method for beginners, came from writing that post.

To anyone considering starting a blog: Writing forces you to revisit old problems, and re-solve them with the tools and skills you have today. It helps me learn magick, and it will probably help yours, too.

Test Models by Developing Techniques

The testing in this series is how I generally test new models of magick: I find a technique that the new model says should work, and the old model says should fail, (like building more energy to ground), and I try it. When it works, I figure the new model is on to something, and I start using it.

I also look for techniques the new model says should work particularly well, that the old model wouldn’t single out as anything special, like building more energy as you ground. The standard model doesn’t necessarily suggest it would fail, but it definitely doesn’t predict the technique will work better than just releasing your energy. And when the new model is right again, I become more confident in it.

I build confidence in the new model by using it, by seeing it accurately predict more non-obvious techniques. (“Non-obvious” meaning that the old model either said it would fail, or didn’t consider it particularly special.) There’s never one single test that makes me say the new model is correct, but the more I use it, and the more it’s right, the more confident I become. Until eventually, it’s just easier to speak as though the new model is correct, at least, until a better model comes along.

Other posts in this series: If you liked this post, consider visiting my current blog at mikesententia.com.

Tags: , ,

7 Responses to “4 Techniques for Grounding: Conclusion”

  1. John W. A. says:

    I’ve noticed writing helps me in the same way too.

    Very good. Although I have a question; about 6 to 8 months ago I read up on something called “Models of Magick” on a site called Chaos Matrix, I think by Frater U.D. (or something like that).

    Anyways, I’ve found the Information Model to be very useful, although I’ve noticed you often use the Spirit or Energy Models in your techniques.

    Have you tried to a pure version of Information Model yet? After all, comparing different models of Magick in your techniques of Direct Magick would be very interesting.

    • I discussed the information model a bit in 2011:



      I’d say, I don’t really subscribe to any of the standard models of magick. Energy, for me, is one component of a model, not a model in itself. And yes, I believe you can ask spirits for help, but that seems like one method among many, rather than a model of magick.

      Maybe I’ll post on those models — other readers, if this interests you, let me know.

      • John W. A. says:

        Well… the Meta Model (which uses whatever model is appropriate for the task at hand) would be what you seem to be explaining, and in the “Models of Magick” on the Chaos Matrix website, it explains that.

        And, although your links do seem useful, I’m not entirely sure you’re talking about the same Informal Model I’m used to using.

        Although programming is important, the Information Model I’m used to considers the world like game memory in a computer; thus, changing the “memory” (or Information) in the “RAM” (or present) of the game (or reality) would either give you a successful use of magick, or a failure. A failure could be considered an “incorrect insertion or hack of the memory”, or a “failed memory compilation before it was assimilated into active memory”.

        Another way to consider the Information Model would be to consider magick as “reality hacking”. Also, one way I perform magick using the Information Model is to visualize the desired outcome, align myself with said outcome (so every part of my mind is properly focused on it in the correct way), and then release the desire/intentions into the world, and lastly forget about it (so I don’t micro-manage my spell or give it conflicting instructions due to post-casting intervention due to anxiousness, reminiscing over the spell or over-thinking possible outcomes).

        I think there are many different variants and approaches to the Information Model you haven’t considered. I’m not sure if that helps, but I think exploring variants of the same general type of model might be interesting; I’d be interested, at the very least.

        (Also, maybe you could explain your current “full models” or “full methods” in a post, or maybe an overview? How about a post about how you perform magick currently, and how it’s evolved over the years?)

  2. Stormmer says:

    Thankies for the advice. Indeed, writing seems to explain things to me more than expected. I suppose that it is due to me trying to order my ideas, thus actually gaining a bit of experience by applying the categorization , everything, in a certain pattern. Thank you yet again.

    • Glad I could help. And your blog says you’re a teen, writing and practicing magick. Awesome, I wish I was blogging that early. Keep writing and practicing, and good luck!

Leave a Reply