Bias against certain types of magic

[qwzxas]

Recently I have seen occult authors speak about avoiding certain types of magic (Example: Goetia, Chaos magic,
Afro-American religions).

 

[Yazata]

And? Do you now want to know if someone agrees with unnamed authors, or disagrees, and why, etc? What's your own opinion on the matter and why?

 

[Emperor Time]

I agree with you there. Since I am not sure what this discussion should be about unless we're supposed to agree or disagree with them. But we don't even know who they are or why there against them either. So have no idea what to discuss in this thread either.

 

[Treanty]

It seems sensible to me, I myself avoid anything than has to do with necromancy, demon calling or binding , or anything than has to do with Crowley (I just don't like him). I have a lot more pet peeves in the arcance little world but at the end of it its you who has to decide what to do.

 

[Queenofallwitches]

For me, I avoid the Lovecraft/Necronomicon magick path. It doesn't sit right. I’ve always under the impression it was created to troll people, no idea if that's real or fallacy. When I learnt about Discordianism, I started to sit with me that it might be a form of this.

People also genuinely follow these style with elements from a chaos magick or Typhonian current, but that’s not what I’m talking about, I'm talking about summoning deities from a fictional universe built by H.P. Lovecraft, based on the “mysterious grimoire” that appeared decades later and treating it as an absolute tradition in the concrete sense.

Post automatically merged: Today at 12:37 AM

For me, I avoid the Lovecraft/Necronomicon magick path. It doesn't sit right. I’ve always under the impression it was created to troll people, no idea if that's real or fallacy. When I learnt about Discordianism, I started to sit with me that it might be a form of this.

People also genuinely follow these style with elements from a chaos magick or Typhonian current, but that’s not what I’m talking about, I'm talking about summoning deities from a fictional universe built by H.P. Lovecraft, based on the “mysterious grimoire” that appeared decades later and treating it as an absolute tradition in the concrete sense.

The Simon grimoire which is what I am referring too claims that Lovecraft’s "Great Old Ones" are supposed to be from Mesopotamian mythology according to some sources.
And navigating the gate system between our world and the "Outside."
It feels like cosmic horror role playing to me and a recipe for a “cataclysm”.
Feel free to convince me otherwise.

 

[Durward]

Some bias is very simple. That loser who was such a heroin and cocaine addict, and comes up with magical nonsense in a wasted state of mind, is a total waste of time to anyone who isn't mentally unwell, or those on heroin and cocaine that can relate to that kind of brain damage. Those programs written by people with mental health issues like schizophrenia, which can be many of them these days, are for people with schizophrenia who can relate. There are a ton of these that don't even need a bias, just a sound mind, and likely 99 percent of the materials out there are total garbage and useless to the average practitioner. Superstition and mental health are the likely number one reason they exist.
So, bias or not, reality might be a bias worth your while. In reality, we have a bunch of posers and wishful thinkers, mental health problems, blind fanatics, and so much more. Pick your poison, or pick what works. Oh, how do we know what works? Simple, they get results. Real results. Not synchronicity, not fuzzy connection, but actual results.

 

[Queenofallwitches]

Some bias is very simple. That loser who was such a heroin and cocaine addict, and comes up with magical nonsense in a wasted state of mind, is a total waste of time to anyone who isn't mentally unwell, or those on heroin and cocaine that can relate to that kind of brain damage. Those programs written by people with mental health issues like schizophrenia, which can be many of them these days, are for people with schizophrenia who can relate. There are a ton of these that don't even need a bias, just a sound mind, and likely 99 percent of the materials out there are total garbage and useless to the average practitioner. Superstition and mental health are the likely number one reason they exist.
So, bias or not, reality might be a bias worth your while. In reality, we have a bunch of posers and wishful thinkers, mental health problems, blind fanatics, and so much more. Pick your poison, or pick what works. Oh, how do we know what works? Simple, they get results. Real results. Not synchronicity, not fuzzy connection, but actual results.

First, the idea of a “sound mind” is not as objective as it is often treated.
In clinical psychology, mental health is typically assessed based on functionality (e.g., ability to maintain relationships, work, self-care) and distress, not on whether someone’s worldview aligns with a dominant cultural norm.

What is considered “sound” is therefore subjective and not absolute, shaped by individual, cultural, historical, and systemic standards.

This introduces a theory called normative bias, which is the tendency to treat the majority experience as inherently correct or superior, even when human cognition and perception exist on a wide and diverse spectrum.

Your point claiming exclusive access to “real results” reflects another important bias here called the self-enhancement bias or illusory superiority bias

This is where individuals overestimate the validity or uniqueness of their own experiences while dismissing others.

In social psychology or group or belief-based contexts, this can evolve into a form of identity-protective cognition, where maintaining one’s status as “real” “authentic” or “advanced” becomes psychologically important.

while dismissing others as mentally ill, delusional, fraudulent, fantasists, or inferior then serves to reinforce that identity to protect one’s own identity.

There’s also a layer of projection involved.

When someone strongly criticises others as mentally ill, addicts, delusional, or somehow deficient, they may be externalising their own uncertainty or seeking a deeper need for validation.

In psychological terms, this is called a defense mechanism. Projection. Simplistically, that is protecting one’s internal sense of certainty by discrediting alternative perspectives.

Ultimately, what you’re attempting to highlight is a tension between subjective experience (no results) and claims of objective authority (real results, but with self proclaimed exclusions focused on stereotypes, prejudice and assumption).

Psychology tends to be cautious of any framework, magickal occult or otherwise, that asserts universal standardised validity while dismissing others outright, you speak on fanatics, but the definition of fanaticism comes close to this.

interesting to note that stance itself often reveals more about the individual’s cognitive and emotional needs than about the absolute truth-value of the system they’re defending, or proclaiming adepthood in.

So in psychological terms, and FTR psychology and spirituality are entwined, as psychology was intended to be the “study of consciousness” and social psychology dives into the realm of “bias” in depth.

the most grounded, balanced and nuanced position is one that allows for an equilibrium, variability, remains aware of personal bias, can hold dialectics (two opposing perspectives at one time), explore the shades of grey, and can avoid conflating personal differences in opinion with absolute dysfunction or condemnation of those who differ in their practice.

Psychology would instead point to a concept called cognitive pluralism which is the recognition that different individuals construct meaning in different ways, influenced by personality, upbringing, culture, and temperament.

What “works” for one person (whether in spirituality, ritual, magick, or belief) can not be generalised as an absolute to others, not because one is true and the other false, but because human perception and interpretation are inherently subjective NOT objective.

just food for thought

Some bias is very simple. That loser who was such a heroin and cocaine addict, and comes up with magical nonsense in a wasted state of mind, is a total waste of time to anyone who isn't mentally unwell, or those on heroin and cocaine that can relate to that kind of brain damage. Those programs written by people with mental health issues like schizophrenia, which can be many of them these days, are for people with schizophrenia who can relate. There are a ton of these that don't even need a bias, just a sound mind, and likely 99 percent of the materials out there are total garbage and useless to the average practitioner. Superstition and mental health are the likely number one reason they exist.
So, bias or not, reality might be a bias worth your while. In reality, we have a bunch of posers and wishful thinkers, mental health problems, blind fanatics, and so much more. Pick your poison, or pick what works. Oh, how do we know what works? Simple, they get results. Real results. Not synchronicity, not fuzzy connection, but actual results.

First, the idea of a “sound mind” is not as objective as it is often treated.
In clinical psychology, mental health is typically assessed based on functionality (e.g., ability to maintain relationships, work, self-care) and distress, not on whether someone’s worldview aligns with a dominant cultural norm.

What is considered “sound” is therefore subjective and not absolute, shaped by individual, cultural, historical, and systemic standards.

This introduces a theory called normative bias, which is the tendency to treat the majority experience as inherently correct or superior, even when human cognition and perception exist on a wide and diverse spectrum.

Your point claiming exclusive access to “real results” reflects another important bias here called the self-enhancement bias or illusory superiority bias

This is where individuals overestimate the validity or uniqueness of their own experiences while dismissing others.

In social psychology or group or belief-based contexts, this can evolve into a form of identity-protective cognition, where maintaining one’s status as “real” “authentic” or “advanced” becomes psychologically important.

while dismissing others as mentally ill, delusional, fraudulent, fantasists, or inferior then serves to reinforce that identity to protect one’s own identity.

There’s also a layer of projection involved.

When someone strongly criticises others as mentally ill, addicts, delusional, or somehow deficient, they may be externalising their own uncertainty or seeking a deeper need for validation.

In psychological terms, this is called a defense mechanism. Projection. Simplistically, that is protecting one’s internal sense of certainty by discrediting alternative perspectives.

Ultimately, what you’re attempting to highlight is a tension between subjective experience (no results) and claims of objective authority (real results, but with self proclaimed exclusions focused on stereotypes, prejudice and assumption).

Psychology tends to be cautious of any framework, magickal occult or otherwise, that asserts universal standardised validity while dismissing others outright, you speak on fanatics, but the definition of fanaticism comes close to this.

interesting to note that stance itself often reveals more about the individual’s cognitive and emotional needs than about the absolute truth-value of the system they’re defending, or proclaiming adepthood in.

So in psychological terms, and FTR psychology and spirituality are entwined, as psychology was intended to be the “study of consciousness” and social psychology dives into the realm of “bias” in depth.

the most grounded, balanced and nuanced position is one that allows for an equilibrium, variability, remains aware of personal bias, can hold dialectics (two opposing perspectives at one time), explore the shades of grey, and can avoid conflating personal differences in opinion with absolute dysfunction or condemnation of those who differ in their practice.

Psychology would instead point to a concept called cognitive pluralism which is the recognition that different individuals construct meaning in different ways, influenced by personality, upbringing, culture, and temperament.

What “works” for one person (whether in spirituality, ritual, magick, or belief) can not be generalised as an absolute to others, not because one is true and the other false, but because human perception and interpretation are inherently subjective NOT objective.

just food for though