new and a question

[WhiteRaven]

hi. I am me. I was curious of the difference between omnimancy and direct magic.

[FireEssence]

You'll more than definitely get a better answer if you define what you mean by direct magic.

[WhiteRaven]

I'll let tomekeeper tell you

As a matter of definition, Direct Magic is the application of a specified type of energy to mystically perform a task. It should be noted from the outset, however, that energies of any sort are not intelligent and will perform in a dumbfire manner, thereby relying on the magician to coordinate them in a meaningful way to achieve a desired effect.

here is tomekeeper's site:

http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/tomekeeper/index.html

[Obsidian]

So Tomekeeper defines Direct Magic as directly using magical energy to accomplish a task...

That's Tomekeepers definition. What's your definition?

[LordArt]

Unfortunately, the TomeKeeper definition you presented is a rather poor definition, because depending on how strict or open of an interpretation of their definition (especially using technicalities), you can fit pretty much any magical system into their definition of Direct Magic, which therefore makes the catagory pointless (at least for catagorisation purposes).

Ceremonial magic could easily fit into their definition, which is not what I think of as Direct Magic.

All I can do is give you my definition of Direct Magic and see if you agree. Direct Magic would be the techniques of using magical energy to perform a task without the use of placebo foci (ie. physical tools). This would include the vaste set of energy magics, will based magics ("I want it done therefore it happens"), and mentally symbolic magics (perhaps certain forms of hermetics).

To answer your original question based on the above definition, Omnimancy fits in the middle somewhere. It would certainly be classified as a Direct Magical system (by both definitions). Direct Magic isn't a magical system. Kinda of like saying Paganism is a regileon. It's simply an umbrella term to classify things.

I know there is a lot of stuff to read on the site, but you might wish to look at the Overview on the main website and some of the other topics here that also might answer your questions about what Omnimancy is.

[WhiteRaven]

"Direct Magic would be the techniques of using magical energy to perform a task without the use of placebo foci (ie. physical tools)."

I see direct magic as being magic without rituals. physical tools? are you talking about wands and amulets? wands I will accept, but amulets are physical objects that you use to store energy. there is nothing placebo about them. supposedly wands are meant to focus energy to a certain point, but... I can't see how that would be impossible or even difficult to do with one's will alone.

[FireEssence]

"Direct Magic would be the techniques of using magical energy to perform a task without the use of placebo foci (ie. physical tools)."

I see direct magic as being magic without rituals. physical tools? are you talking about wands and amulets? wands I will accept, but amulets are physical objects that you use to store energy. there is nothing placebo about them. supposedly wands are meant to focus energy to a certain point, but... I can't see how that would be impossible or even difficult to do with one's will alone.

Well actually, more classically, I was under the impression that amulets/talismans were first and foremost meant to be magical in and of themself, like the ABRACADABRA talisman. (Not to say they were or can be, just saying that's what I remember the consensus being on their use and such) Over the years it seems there became a desire to have them consecrated or enchanted aside from their own 'magical' qualities thus the modern use of rituals or magical work on physical items to make them amulets or talismans but to 'begin with' talismans and amulets were just magical by their physical nature.

Now, as for physical tools, in general that is anything done or used physically in a magical working. The 'placebo' concept is the idea that all ritual and tools in magic, only serve to help ones mind/subconcious/whatever to perform the energetic working that results in the magical act. Praying to a god, to raise energy, or aiming a staff/sword/wand, to direct energy, or using a picture or physical representation, to provide a focus. Using symbolism to help fill in the gaps so the magical work can take place.

Tomekeeper's site keeps the focus on use of 'magical energies' and purports that that is what causes magical effects. Whether this is true or not, based on that notion, direct magic is magic that involves ONLY the use or manipulation of magical energy. No wands, no pentagrams, etc. Of course it allows for loopholes like, enchanted items (AKA spells housed with physical vessels) but in general, the magic is done without any physical items.

Just my 2 cents. (Although after re-reading not too sure it adds anything at all to the discussion, hehe)

[LordArt]

I see direct magic as being magic without rituals.

Well, that's why we need to define terms or else a discussion is pointless. Obviously, our definitions differ which is to be expected.

physical tools? are you talking about wands and amulets? wands I will accept, but amulets are physical objects that you use to store energy. there is nothing placebo about them. supposedly wands are meant to focus energy to a certain point, but... I can't see how that would be impossible or even difficult to do with one's will alone.

I'm talking about any physical object for the use of magic, which includes wands and amulets, but includes other things too.

As for amulets, they CAN be used to store energy, the physical component is not needed at all. The same spell/preperation/consacration/whatever you use to make the amulet/talisman in the first place can operate perfectly well without it being locked to a physical object, which at best operates as a incidental command for the containment spell (ie. "follow this object for X effect"). Therefore, it's a placebo foci.

Making magical "batteries" was one of the first things I learned before I knew about ley lines and other power sources. They were always "free standing" in blocks(well, my early ones were...Now they are...different...when I find a need for them).

As far focusing energy without a wand, yes, that's easily done too, as you've mentioned. Hell, the earliest "amp" in Omni is effectively based on that principle, and is common in many magical systems in one form or another.

I fully acknowledge that the physical tools in magic DO help the practioner that believes that they need them. And if their goals are simply to do magic, then what difference does it make if they use tools or not, as long as it works for them. But one shouldn't make the assumption that they are required, or enhance beyond the psychological effect, the practioner's efforts (which can be enough in some cases).

I suppose getting back to the original point, using your definition of direct magic, the difference between Direct Magic and Omnimancy is omnimancy doesn't require ANY physical objects what-so-ever (although they still CAN be used, but is considered pointless). The benefits and uses of that can been seen in other posts and what is on the site that I won't repeat here.

I hope the above has answered your question.