You found my old blog. Thanks for visiting! For my new writing, visit mikesententia.com.
I’m going to end this series where I should have started it, with a simple question: Why bother exploring magick’s implementation?
Originally, I did it out of curiosity. See, I simply refuse to believe that physics has a special case for human lips saying a certain incantation, or for ink on paper forming a particular rune. The fundamental laws of physics can’t possibly treat one set of air vibrations so differently from all other air vibrations, and they can’t possibly have some connection between these particular air vibrations and distant events in a job search, and those fundamental laws cannot possibly apply only when the person saying those words is initiated into the right social group, and only when wearing a ring made of silver rather than gold, and only when the moon is positioned such that the earth sees only 1/4 of it lit up, and only when …
There’s just no way that set of circumstances exists as a fundamental law of physics, as a special case that the universe singles out and says, “When you get all of this right, then and only then, you can find your lost jewelry.”
These complex behaviors must emerge from some edifice. Something programmed to recognize those inputs as a key of sorts, that when triggered, responds by influencing events. That “something programmed” must operate on some laws that are more fundamental than the particular rituals we use to operate it.
Originally, I explored magick’s implementation because I was curious. I wanted to understand all of that: The fundamental laws governing magick, the “something programmed” that responds to particular rituals, and how it actually influences events. All of it.
In the past few years — ever since getting good healing results, really — I’ve become less focused on curiosity, and more focused on how magick can improve peoples’ lives. To me, that means developing new techniques that produce better results, because magick just isn’t mature enough yet to go mainstream.
(If magick were already widely accepted, some of the results we have today would be quite useful. But to become widely accepted, we need techniques with clearer, more obvious results.)
I don’t think we’ll find those techniques by accident, or by trying things until one works. The problems are just too complex, and the steps required too precise and unintuitive, to think we could stumble upon them.
Solutions like this have to be designed. And you can only design based on what you understand. If you understand the runes and incantations and other traditional aspects of magick, you can design a new request for that “something programmed.” But once you understand the fundamental laws of magick — the laws that the “something programmed” uses to influence events — you can design a fundamentally better way of doing magick.
How? For one, the magick done by that “something programmed” is probably nowhere near the fundamental limits of magick. Now, if we only make requests of that “something,” we’re limited by what it’s programmed to do. No combination of incantations and runes and other traditional methods can cause that “something” to do something it’s not programmed to do. But once we understand the fundamental laws, we can build new techniques on our own, without needing that “something” to already know how to do them.
That’s why I still work on magick’s implementation: Because it lets me peek into the fundamental laws and, eventually, build a better way of doing magick.If you liked this post, consider visiting my current blog at mikesententia.com.