You found my old blog. Thanks for visiting! For my new writing, visit mikesententia.com.
Where is the heart in all this? This – like connecting to the software hehe ;-) – is all braintalk to me.
In all you have experimented. Have you noticed a difference between just bringing sort the idea of simple deep emotion of “love and light” to a cell then whatever technical precise command you give… ?
(Read her full comment here.)
You’re right, this is different than focusing on love and light. It’s a different way of doing energy healing and magick. It won’t feel easy or intuitive the first time, and it won’t be everyone’s cup of tea. That’s OK.
I want to share the heart of Direct Magick for me. Why I do this. Because this intellectual approach ultimately is in service of love.
Four years ago, one of the loves of my life, Lisa, had chronic hives. She’d had them for 9 months, seen doctors, was taking prescription antihistamines, and she was still getting worse. She told me, “If I knew I’d be like this for the rest of my life, I’d kill myself.” I don’t think that was hyperbole.
My first healing technique failed. So did my second. Hives is simply too complex of an illness to get much result by focusing on love. My unconscious didn’t know the right healing technique to use, so focusing on that intent wouldn’t get us anywhere — my unconscious would say, “Yeah, I get that you want to heal her. I want to heal her too, but I don’t know how.”
But we did succeed. She researched the medical science. I developed energies to target the specific tissues involved. After we got the right technique, her hives stopped literally overnight: We did the healing session after dinner, and the next morning she woke without hives for the first time in months.
I practice magick in this intellectual, problem-solving way because I care about solving problems. Not because that’s clever or cool, but because that’s how I help the people I love.
Another example: Today, a friend has relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. She has mild pain, numbness and odd sensations, but she’s mostly in remission and can live a normal life. But no one knows when it’ll relapse.
Like hives, MS is an autoimmune disorder. Like hives, it’s too complex to get much result just by wanting to, by focusing on intent and love and light. But maybe, if we’re smart and diligent and lucky, we can adapt the healing technique for hives to also help her. I’ve been working on that, on and off, for 8 months, and I’m going to keep at it until we get somewhere.
There are healing techniques I want to get out into the world. One for depression I developed for myself in 2013, which I need to adapt for others. Several for people with chronic joint pain, insomnia, and infections. And other healing techniques for people with pain from chemotherapy and advanced cancer.
Focusing on intent and love is great for communicating your intent to your unconscious. And if your unconscious knows how to solve that problem, then awesome, you’ll get good results. But all those things I just listed? My unconscious didn’t know how to do any of them. Solving those problems required intellect and engineering to develop the techniques.
So the heart of Direct Magick is this: Understand your magick. Research the problem you’re solving. Engineer a new technique. Then use it to help the people you love.
The purpose is love. But the path is science and engineering.
If you liked this post, consider visiting my current blog at mikesententia.com.
Also, a new front page. It’s been on my list, and writing this post finally showed me where to start.
Tags: Healing, ReadersQuestions, Science
I just wanted to say that I appreciate you making this post because you have pointed out what most people gloss over…if the unconscious doesnt know how to do something…like in your case when you wanted to heal your loved one…it didnt happen. I love the fact that you make it known..mixing scientific methods and magickal applications is often the 1-2 punch to make whatever we intend to happen.
Thanks Jerome! Well said.
Thank you for taking the time to clarify this. I appreciate it very much.
What I mean by love and light is, to sort of infuse the cell with these two. Not just focusing on it. Isn’t there just another way to manufacture it? Is there a way to make it to create this kind of …signature?
Is this the way you tried it with your friend?
We had a mediumship group where we had several questions we were given to practice channeling at home. And one of the question was, what was the cause of cancer and if there was a way to heal it.
There were just 2 of us who did the channeling with this question. The answer from both separate channelings in short was, that the cancercell had a lack of love and light and represents part of an aspect of the soul that is rejected by the person itself.
I know this part is not part of magick, but it left me thinking because I have been running into this several times now. I am not the kind of person who believed that love may heal everything. But in some ways it sometimes seems to blast through everything else. There are several levels to it. And I have seen people who seemingly healed their cancer surprisingly one day to another. This is not repeatable because every case is individual and therefor for magick another approach is needed.
So I thought maybe its possible to create that kind of signature.
I am trying to find a path where both models coexist rather then bite each other. Because I believe there has to be a base to everything! If in some way a model does not fit with yet another model and both work in some ways the other doesn’t – there have to be pieces in the whole picture that are just missing.
Maybe there is an approach taking in count the system of beliefs. Rather then thinking, if the Subconsciousness does not know how to solve it, it might be just a question of level. What I am realizing just now,- what seems to be the base beaneath is that, the fuel for fabric of the whole materialistic thing is based on something similar to … well – lets call it “love” and light although if feels like something more… komplex- … while the rest is sort of a camouflage and there is no need to know how the camouflage is set up, if the base or system you refer to for the healing is on a deeper level, then the camouflage itself. This might look like a repeat of “let the system solve it by itself” but it’s not that simple.
I think if I take it from this point it is not contradiction to magick. Maybe it is restricted by the system of belief and level the engine is working in and therefor the magick is addressing to? If this was it, then you would be able to make it reliable by “just” trying to reach and address a *deeper* enginelevel?
It sounds like you’re getting some good healing results by building energy while thinking about love and light. And it sounds like you’ve also gotten some intuitions that this might help other conditions, too. That’s excellent.
Here’s my advice: Think about what happens when you focus on love and light. What type of energy gets produced? How does that energy interact with cells? How could you adjust the energy, to interact with cells slightly differently? What additional conditions could you heal, if you adjusted it a little more?
Those questions are about exploring, pushing the limits of what you do to find ways to help more people. I’m guessing that’s what draws you to this site.
By the way, you might also find my posts on sensory connections useful. It’s the Direct Magick technique for observing energy and ethereal structures. I haven’t written a very clear guide yet, but it’s in the works as I return to my book. For now, these posts will have to do: https://magickofthought.com/tag/sensory-connections/
Thought-provoking as always. And it’s great to read posts where things “get real” and practical, because it makes it clearer what the point of all this really is.
So, I’ve not found it necessary to have a full physical model of something in order to get results, but I have found that you need to have a way of being specific about the act in some way. And being specific requires a “target conceptualisation” of some sort, although it can be from a different perspective, or be quite symbolic (fair enough: scientific concepts are actually metaphors also), rather than scientific as such.
For instance, let’s say I have a friend with a back injury. Sending love or energy or wishes and so on, tends not to do much. I need to take an approach which feels like a specific interaction with the world, even if the representation or aspect of it is different. There are several ways to approach this, I find.
• I can indeed do some research into the physiology of the back, and develop a detailed mental model of the problem. I can then produce some form of mental object (energy or a little machine or whatever) and intend-imagine that interacting with the physical back in an appropriate way, as viewed from an objective perspective.
• I can flip to a subjective perspective. Instead of dealing with physiology and a 3D interaction, I focus on my subjective experience. Conceiving of my ongoing experience as a collection of “moments” or 3D-immersive movie frames across which my attention moves, I create a “moment” containing a scene which implies that my friend’s back is fine and well (perhaps we are playing tennis together). I insert this into sequence.
• I can interact more abstractly but also more directly with the “fact” of my friend’s back condition. In this approach, I pause and I summon or “recall into experience” the current state of my friend’s back, as if selecting that fact or pattern from the background space which contains the current state of the world. One I have a handle on that fact, I “edit” it directly so that rather than “pain” it is “healed”.
• Finally, I can use physical props to assist me. For instance, I can use a couple of glasses, each representing a situation, one full, one not. I attach the label “back-pain” to the first, the other is labeled “back-healed”. I now mentally assert or connect the glasses to their relevant situation. Having made the direct connection, I pour the water from one situation (the current state) to the other (the desired state).
Now, these all seem like quite different approaches, but in fact they are the same: a model or metaphor is embraced which permits the target state to be fully specified while also, in its own terms, establishing a route by which the change takes place. They give you a sensory “handle” onto the facts of the world, and thereby allow you to shift and manipulate those facts.
I see the physiological (or even physical sciences) description as one option, often the most valuable, but the principle that makes it work is actually more general. Which makes sense of course: the imagery of physical concepts is not literally what is there and what is happening; they are essential diagrammatic representations. The “true form” of reality is obviously non-sensory.
Thanks George, those are some great visualizations and metaphors.
I understand why you went to visualizations and metaphors: They’re the standard tools for guiding magick. They’re how we get intent into the unconscious. And if that’s your model of magick, then sure, researching the science and creating a really accurate visualization is just another tool for getting intent into the unconscious.
I want to suggest another way of doing magick. Connect the magick-driving parts of your mind to your conscious mind, instead of your unconscious. Feel how they function: What tissue they connect to, what tissue is next to that, how inflamed tissue feels different than infected tissue feels different than healthy tissue. Find the right tissue to work with, not by visualizing it, but by moving connections around their biofield and feeling the various signatures there. Then feel the difference between that tissue’s current energy and the desired energy, and design a healing to shift it. Instead of visualizing the process, actually feel your ethereal muscles interact with the world, responding and guiding the process in real time.
This is one of the hardest distinctions to communicate, because it’s so easy to interpret Direct Magick as “visualize the desired change more accurately.” This post might help: https://magickofthought.com/2013/03/what-i-use-instead-of-visualization/
Then, once we’re consciously guiding the healing, feeling our way through the biofield and feeling the adjustments as we make them, then we can design new healing techniques that wouldn’t work through intent or metaphor or visualization. Healings that have to be consciously guided, healing that are too complex for the unconscious to handle on its own. That’s the heart of Direct Magick.
Hi Mike, yes I know what you’re going for there. Or I think I do; it doesn’t sound dissimilar, except perhaps the idea of choosing the “framework” you use to interact. I could probably have been a bit clearer…
These are not meant to be visualisations, exactly, because you are not creating or drawing imagery as such. If you do this, then your results tend to be limited, because you are basically playing around in your imagination, without actually connecting to the world. Rather, what you want to be doing is reaching into or feeling out something which is already there – but through a particular perceptual pattern or conceptual framework. This framework only dictates the form it comes to you in, the “handle” you get, the better to work with it; it is not an imposition of a particular image. I actually think we are always doing this anyway, implicitly. It’s just that sometimes it pays to actively choose our framework. (Note: When I use the word “image” I mean in the broadest sense of a sensory experience; it needn’t have a visual aspect at all. The important thing is that your imagery comes to you from a connection; you don’t create it.)
Maybe we could take a particular example and compare?
If we were trying to lower someone’s blood pressure, how would we do it? We could feel about in the body three-dimensionally and try to connect to various parts (getting a “handle” in my version) and that could work. However, blood pressure is also a “global” property, and if we can get a “handle” onto that directly, then it is much more straightforward. In the first approach we are exploring a 3-dimensional body of tissue, that’s our conceptual map. In the second approach, we are exploring a list of properties. Both are felt from a direct connection. We are free to do this because neither are what the body “truly” is, but that doesn’t matter, so long as we are connecting directly to the extended pattern of “the body”, rather than just imagining things in a disconnected fashion.
How would you go about tackling something like high blood pressure?
I haven’t worked with blood pressure, but let me talk about hives for a minute, because that’s something I know about. And because that healing actually used both approaches, first working directly with the tissue, then working in a more abstract way with neurotransmitter reuptake.
If you’re not familiar with this case study, read https://magickofthought.com/books/case-study-healing-chronic-hives-anthology-article/
There were 4 healings total. I want to talk about the second and third here.
The second healing, the one that healed her for 2 weeks, was done directly. I connected to her nerves, adjusted the biofield, healed the itch signal. That was acting on the biofield of the target tissue, a direct interaction, which is where Direct Magick gets its name. Then I programmed the healing technique into some ethereal software, taught her to use the command, and she managed her own healing.
Then that healing stopped working. I asked the ethereal software what happened, and it said that she was having a buildup of neurotransmitters. It gave us a command to heal that. This step was like that second framework you presented: We reached out, felt the connection, gave a command that could be described as “adjusting that property” of neurotransmitter reuptake. And the next morning, she woke without any hives.
So I know what you mean about sometimes working directly with the cells, and other times “affecting properties,” and getting good results with each.
Here’s how I view that: When I’m working directly with the cells, I’m doing my healing directly. And when I’m affecting a property, I’m channeling a force (“ethereal software” in my terminology) and asking it to make whatever changes are necessary to affect that property. And it really does require reaching out, because without that ethereal software, I’m just imagining.
Try this: Do some magick by affecting a property. Then pause midway through and look for any connections going into your mind. Follow them if you can. See if you can find the force that’s responding to your command. If you do, try asking it, “Tell me your basic usage instructions,” which is a command that most ethereal software seems to respond to.
Why does all this matter? Because we can program new commands into ethereal software. I did that with the hives healing, creating that second command that healed her for 2 weeks. I’ve done that since with the overall hives healing, setting it up for readers of my blog. https://magickofthought.com/2015/07/how-a-reiki-master-can-heal-hives-with-direct-magick/
And it matters because, eventually, we will run into problems that our ethereal software can’t handle. Properties we want to change, that the software doesn’t know how to change. I’ve already run into that multiple times. And when I do, when my ethereal software doesn’t know how to influence a property that I really want to heal, I can still figure out how to do the healing directly. I research the condition, connect to the relevant tissues, influence their biofields, and work out a healing. Then, if I want to share it, I program that healing into the ethereal software. And once I do, then everyone else can channel that software and just focus on influencing the property, and the software will handle the details.
I know this is probably different than your experience. Just like most mages leave their magick in the unconscious, most use ethereal software unconsciously too. But try looking for incoming connections next time you affect a property. It just might give you a way to access your tools directly, to explore how they work, and eventually to improve them. And it might help you do something with your magick that’s impossible right now, maybe even heal someone important to you. Which is really the point.
Well, we actually seem quite similar, much of this is in the terminology and how that affects how we conceive of what we are doing. What you are describing, I would think of as being more specific so as to narrow the type of outcomes.
This is the vital quote:
Just as you say, if you not directly connecting, then you are just making independent sensory pictures in your mind. If you are connecting, then are you directly interacting with the world, but at different levels of detail.
The “neurotransmitter uptake” property, for instance, is an example of a pretty broad pattern, which could have quite a broad range of outcomes. It’s like – to be loose here, for illustration – if we changed someone’s “feel good” property, it would surely improve matters in some way, but since we’ve not dictated in what way, exactly, they might just win a holiday, rather than have their disease cured! So instead we shift to a more narrowed approach, based on a more detailed picture of the issue (perhaps by researching the situation more thoroughly, as you say).
Whereas you conceive of there being an intermediary (ethereal software), I see all connected interactions as direct, it’s just that I am interacting with different parts, and different levels of granularity, of the “extended pattern” of the situation. However, implicitly I am doing something similar to ethereal software, whenever I “feel out” for further information within the situation, or in effect issue commands to the situation. It’s just that I am identified with the act – it view it as just “me” rather than “ethereal software”, basically.
It’s actually very nice that the same principles are at work, regardless of the terminology.
Question: What language would you use to describe to someone what a “biofield” is and how you work with it, if they weren’t well-versed in the topic (or even a little wary or dismissive about these things)?
I agree, I think we are pretty close on this. And I think you can get a lot out of Direct Magick, even if you view the more abstract instructions as internal to your mind, rather than handled by ethereal software.
At some point, you may find that an abstract instruction doesn’t work, and you might develop a direct approach (working with just the biofield) to achieve that goal. And at that point, you might want to share that technique with people you’ll never meet in person, to distribute it widely. At that point, come back to this, because that’s one of the functions of ethereal software: It’s external to you, a tool that can be used by other people, and I’ve used it to distribute commands successfully.
Or if you find that you want to activate psychic intuitions, or expand into another field (like medical intuitions), come back to ethereal software also. Because that’s another place where it’s really useful to distinguish information coming from an outside source from information just naturally in your mind.
But unless you’re running into problems like those, you can do pretty much everything else without needing to notice ethereal software separate from yourself.
On explaining biofields, that’s a great question, and I’ll answer it next weekend. Update: Here it is https://magickofthought.com/2015/10/explaining-biofields-to-skeptics/
Thanks for a fun discussion, and for helping me clarify some of my thinking,
As a side note – it’s great that people such as yourself are spending time developing fully-described, self-consistent approaches that are both accessible and powerful. Not an easy balance to get right.
I was pondering recently: I think appearance of chaos magick was a great thing in many ways (it freed people from taking some symbolic stuff as literally physically real), but rather than becoming a catalyst for the investigation and the creation of new methods as promised, it resulted in a decade or two of poorly thought-out ‘magickal soup’.
Over the last few years a small subset of people, having grown weary of this, have at last been spurred on to resurrect the notion of a more structured magick (or should I say magicks), from a fresh baseline unencumbered with all the 20th-century baggage. It’s good to see!
Enjoyable as always – George