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

 

[Kepler]

Pact magic was a type that I was reactively against due to the hostility and attacks encountered from those that practiced it when blocking their influence on myself.

Identifying pact given psychic powers as a pathology from being unnatural to their development. Dragging down others with their own eventual downfall, like disease carriers.

As my model of reality changed and expanded so did my view. Not that it suggests making pacts as beneficial for anyone but the one granting powers. In light of that, with more ethical and beneficial evaluation to confirm, if it's possible and able to find the receptive I'm considering granting psychic gifts until their death in that lifetime to those that "sell their soul" to me.

 

[Durward]

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

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

First, your post repeats itself, and is likely a poor copy/paste because it appears to be A.I. slop that regurgitates modern psychology nonsense, which is to blame for so much of the issues people suffer with. It is mostly all blah blah talk instead of proper treatment or healing.
Not seeing illness as illness is an illness.
Being tolerant of aberrant nonsense and fabricated hallucinations of the ignorant masses, as if they ALL have merit, is an illness.
Acting like ALL subjective regurgitated nonsense is perfectly acceptable is nonsense.
This is my opinion, and I will not accept the words of failed shrinks as if that is the law and fact.
These shrinks usually have no abilities, and no idea how to deal with actual phenomena that affects patients who aren't actually suffering from anything but actual Psi phenomena.
Modern psychiatry and psychology are an illness that simply milks the gullible public while over-medicating and coddling people.

The world at large exists the way it does without the input of any human being, and is not dependent on the observations or subject reality of anyone to continue on in the same format.
The human ego is the biggest issue, and the universe does not rotate around human beings.
Most of the content involved in all things occult and esoteric is drivel, and a very large part of the problem is that people think they have to tolerate drivel in order to support freedom of thought, or not judge religions, and to allow the human right to insanity. Religions are the cause of most world problems, death, and wars. That is what tolerating becomes.
This world has limits and borders, done.
This world also has people/places/objects/things/entities and portals, etc., that connect to other realms. These connections are all there is to most esoteric or occult things.
Fantasy nonsense, aberrant nonsense, and mental health problems are rampant in this area and have very little actual connection to anything of value, and most of these same children can't even manage this world, much less other realms.

A fair bias is a justifiable critical stance based on actual real evidence that anything you do or believe in has any value or produces any actual results.
That bias has nothing to do with how bat shit crazy you are, or aren't. If anyone bat shit crazy tries to tell me some occult or esoteric secret without demonstrating that it actually has any value, then the only ingredient left is bat shit crazy, and they are then a worthless, powerless, and aberrant nut job... aka just clogging up the world with nonsense and BS. When they then publish this garbage and get followers, of course I'm going to remain biased, because I'm not a lemming, or ignorant, and I can see what is, and isn't, of value simply by the results.
Most of the practices produce nothing of value to anyone and waste peoples' precious time.
So, I'm biased, get over it and stop analyzing me with fake psychology and bully claims of projection. What a load of garbage that is.