| |
|
Why do you consider the charging of a sigil a misnomer?
Because I’m not convinced it’s the best or most accurate way of describing the actual processes that seem to go on when you interact with a visual representation of a statement of intent. It implies that the sigil is somehow energised or filled with “stuff” generated via an intense state of consciousness, as if, say, the human orgasm produces some unquantifiable “energy” that somehow floods into the little picture you’ve drawn and makes magic happen. I’m really not convinced that’s what happens when you work sigil magic. For instance, there’s an alternative model of sigil sorcery that posits that the sigilised intent imbeds itself in your deep mind when your conscious mind is otherwise distracted by an excitatory or inhibitory state. Which is quite a different sort of process...
I’m not 100% convinced that either model is entirely accurate, but I’d speculate that talking about “charging sigils with gnosis” is just simplified babytalk for something else, and as such it tends to dissuade practitioners from looking more closely at what that something else might conceivably be. Linguistically, it tends to create a model of magic that is functional and mechanical, rather than creative and interactive. As if all you need to do is follow steps A, B, and C in order to produce effect Z, without any thought, imagination or emotional investment feeding into the process. I don’t personally think that magic works like that, it’s a far more twisty and unpredictable beast. I think that a lot of the time people seem to shoehorn their results to fit this model just because it is repeated in a lot of books and on a lot of websites, as opposed to looking objectively at what is actually happening and building a personal model of magic based on that experience.
I want to create a viral sigil in the tradition of the Macdonalds M that will encourage people to buy the product to which it is attached.
Quit the magic and get a job in marketing. |
|
|
