100% agreed!
Modern occultism has needed some serious unpacking for the 10 seconds it's been around. . Shoving it all under the word 'magic' just encourages mass ontological hallucination, and nominal solutionism.
When I use the word " magic" I usually only mean for sorcery. Spiritual elevation I file under Mysticism and Mystical Theology, and I have other practices for those. Both are great , but post Reformation and post 1899, something happened to confuse the two.
I've been mapping WTF happened to "Magic" post 1899 for a few years. While some of the practices have great use, most the categories are made up modern New Age ideas .
Take MacGregor Mathers. Stephen Skinner said Mather loved and used the grimoires, but also gave us a very useful, if Neo-Theosophical, construct in the Golden Dawn, which is much closer to Chaos Magic than people realize (and I love Chaos Magic, so no slam).
Move from Crowley,. I blame much of the New Age neo-Wiccanisms on Gerald Gardner, who made up paganized New Thought by taking American Mind Mysticism and smushing it together with Victorian pastoral poetry and academic consensus hallucination to make up Wicca.
I admit I'm low-level irritated by this - he appropriated the tools of what is MY STUFF, Goetia, and used smeared it over the top of his New Thought techniques. I dislike it mostly becsue it range-limits people and makes them arrogant . It's all window dressing to jazz up flagging Brit imaginations. (Again, from a New Thought perspective, rock on! Great stuff). The addition of bottom paddling was his kink.
The "confusing the planes" happened ways back with Theosophy, but was compounded but it just gotten worse since hen . Now when someone uses the word "magic" to "explain" or categorize a complex field or phenomenon, but then indexes ideas and practices that don't actually map onto most of what historically they're trying to describe... I think, " Hmm, commercialized self-important shenanigans are afoot."
I did not care for many years, but in the past decade it gotten baaaaaad.
You can tell when they treat the word as if the very naming something constitutes understanding it or solving it - when really they've just created is a semantic illusion.
Then comes the ontological misdirection. By invoking "Magic" and or even "occultism - even more vague - " without presenting any defintions, but some obvious new halluciations, they paint a picture of a fake unity or simplicity to what's actually quite complex , with a specific lineage.
Again, I love much of the new stuff, but it's mostly stolen valor, taking Traditional Western Magic and Sorcery (nee" Witchcraft") and piggybacking on practtices their's have no real connection to. And i think they actually make it harder for newcomers.
Not that Western Magic is without it's own skeletons, but if is looks like Neo-Theosophy fundamentally , then it IS Neo-Theosophy, no matter how they dress it up, or until their clarify their terms more accurately... or even at all.