The Laws Of Magick, Concepts under review. Options

The Laws of Magick are the basis for most spellwork and sorcery as far as the majority of us are concerned. These concepts are the longstanding observations from, well, probably as long as humans are capable of accurately recounting. I am starting a journal/grimoire to put my own observations in. I am taking the Laws of Magick and reviewing them to see what all needs replaced or removed, or quite possibly, added. I have already started and quite honestly I am not sure how to proceed. Any ideas on magickal testing to prove or disprove any Laws without associating any of the other Laws would be most helpful. If testing these Laws proves impossible without associating any other laws, please at least keep the use of other laws at a minimum. And if it really does prove impossible to keep other Laws unassociated within the testing of the various laws, then i will proceed as if I were facing the world's greatest Rubik's Cube. Trial and error, time and time again... and when I'm done(who knows how many years from now) I will be sure to report my findings to these forums so that everyone may question it, confirm it, ponder at it, or whatever the case may be. Thank you for at least reading, even if you think that I'm wasting my time.

It would be tricky. I'm not exactly a 1-paradigm sort of girl... so, most of what I practice or theorize is already pretty heavily scoured for crossover concepts and hidden similarities with "most" other paradigms. And I don't just use a single conglomerate paradigm, but move within a sort of subset of paradigms.

If there is one aspect of my magick which differs from the traditional western esoteric approach more than others, it would be my general love for very 'direct' magick. The western system, for the most part, is based on summoning (not all of it is, but it is the mainstream method). Western esoteria seems fairly strongly represented on this forum, so that might make a decent point at which to contrast. While the summoner looks to solicit an entity's assistance, I myself look to try to do (myself) that bit of magick which the summoner was hoping the entity would do for him/her. I have an innate sense that relying on entities to do all the work is somewhat self neglecting, dependent, and disempowering. Of course that is a matter of perspective. But when I *do* engage in summoning, whatever it is that I want to do, is never actually as important to me as knowing how to do it. So I lean *heavily* on the old motto "Give a Kate a fish and she eats for a day, Teach a Kate to fish and she eats for life". So I seek to be taught how to "do" things rather than seek to have things done for me.

I do feel that there is a difference between basic mechanisms such as direct magick, evocation, sigilization, invocation, etc. now this invocation and that invocation, while wildly different in ritual style, may actually be very similar, but it still seems different to me compared to say... I dunno, 'candle magick'. bad example perhaps, since you can clearly use candles in invocation, but hopefully the jist of what i'm saying is getting across.

I'll try to describe a specific example of a specific working later, I am afraid a lack of sleep is catching up with me at the moment.