-
Hi guest! As you can see, the new Wizard Forums has been revived, and we are glad to have you visiting our site! However, it would be really helpful, both to you and us, if you registered on our website! Registering allows you to see all posts, and make posts yourself, which would be great if you could share your knowledge and opinions with us! You could also make posts to ask questions!
Bias against certain types of magic
- Thread starter qwzxas
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2023
- Messages
- 62
- Reaction score
- 80
- Awards
- 3
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.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2026
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 16
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.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2023
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 52
- Awards
- 1
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.
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:
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.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2026
- Messages
- 214
- Reaction score
- 229
- Awards
- 5
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.
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.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2023
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 52
- Awards
- 1
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
- Joined
- May 9, 2025
- Messages
- 993
- Reaction score
- 546
- Awards
- 6
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.
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.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2026
- Messages
- 214
- Reaction score
- 229
- Awards
- 5
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.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
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.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2025
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1
Pragmatic as heck! I love it
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2026
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 91
- Awards
- 1
I see some people who de-incentivize diving into Chaos Magick as someone's first practice because of it's deconstructive nature. The argument is often in the lines of it being like trying to teach someone to hack a system when they haven't learned basic concepts of how a computer manages memory and what kinds of exploitable vulnerabilities there are. This leads wannabe hackers to enter a phase of being a "script kiddie" where they just copy and execute scripts and other offensive hacking programs blindly until they get a result without really understanding what's going on.
IMO 70% of the problem people have with the Goetia is purely a fear that's born from leftover Christian thinking and pop culture depictions of pacts going wrong. If someone took the time to edit the text to remove any and all mentions to a demonic hierarchy, reframed the spirits as some thing a little more neutral and kept all the potential benefits each spirit could give intact I suspect there would be a massive uptick in people engaging with it. I have heard scarier and more visceral accounts come from people dealing with the angels in Enochian workings that honestly make me think I'd rather try my chances with the demons.
...I think a lot of this one is just prejudice again, mostly of the Christian variety but also old-fashioned racism. Some people will look at the fact that a religion from a different culture has a set of practices for attacking (or more often, defending themselves from) other people via magical means (and that the practitioners aren't afraid to talk about these things openly) and get so bent out of shape they'll forget their holy book has pages upon pages of passages that can be used for the exact same thing.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2023
- Messages
- 89
- Reaction score
- 191
- Awards
- 2
I will cannibalize, modify and assimilate elements of the GD tradition but I absolutely refuse to practice its version of ceremonial magick because I am at variance with its egregore as well as with the worldview which it presupposes. See, when you put all of the elements of Golden Dawn magick together you end up with an ontological machine. In other words, method and metaphysics become fused in such a way that they presuppose each other and reinforce each other as well. The whole, when taken together, has a coherent narrative logic that establishes a self-contained system, and I find it disingenuous to pretend that it does not effect ones entire way of relating to reality, which is to my mind, what it comes down to.
As for the occult authors suggesting that one may want to avoid certain types of magick...well, not knowing which authors, or their reasons why, I will go out from one of the systems named, namely Goetia, and I would agree with them there, because in Goetia symbols are real. They are points of contact, they are doorways. In short, they are how that which they represent actually shows up and they partake of its nature. This is about as far from the post-Enlightenment perspective of Victorian magick as you can possibly get because there symbols are literal. In other words, they stand for something but are not that thing itself. They are operational. They (the symbols) are reduced to teaching tools, maps, psychological triggers, and ways of focusing and manipulating the imagination. Victorian magick uses a psychological model. The Goetia does not, and neither does Brujeria.
Now, if you think you are doing theurgy, never mind classical grimoire magic, but are using a psychological model you are going to run into a spot of trouble when you encounter something that breaks the model because it takes exception to being treated as nothing more than a product of your subconscious. So yeah, if you are aligned with a post-modernist worldview stay clear of the Goetia until you are able to navigate different worldviews without confusing the planes, as in mistaking a psychological projection for a spirit that doesn't give a flying rats ass what you think.
As for the occult authors suggesting that one may want to avoid certain types of magick...well, not knowing which authors, or their reasons why, I will go out from one of the systems named, namely Goetia, and I would agree with them there, because in Goetia symbols are real. They are points of contact, they are doorways. In short, they are how that which they represent actually shows up and they partake of its nature. This is about as far from the post-Enlightenment perspective of Victorian magick as you can possibly get because there symbols are literal. In other words, they stand for something but are not that thing itself. They are operational. They (the symbols) are reduced to teaching tools, maps, psychological triggers, and ways of focusing and manipulating the imagination. Victorian magick uses a psychological model. The Goetia does not, and neither does Brujeria.
Now, if you think you are doing theurgy, never mind classical grimoire magic, but are using a psychological model you are going to run into a spot of trouble when you encounter something that breaks the model because it takes exception to being treated as nothing more than a product of your subconscious. So yeah, if you are aligned with a post-modernist worldview stay clear of the Goetia until you are able to navigate different worldviews without confusing the planes, as in mistaking a psychological projection for a spirit that doesn't give a flying rats ass what you think.
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2024
- Messages
- 680
- Reaction score
- 1,710
- Awards
- 8
That is so well said, it took my breath away for a moment, Lucien. Bravo!!
yeah, I had to burn out my teenager, internalized G.D correspondences from my neurons with fire. I still have their modified Kirchner Tree of Life in the background of my reality-framework thinking, but I have it contained. Back, beastie! Back!
For years, I’ve thought the whole kit-n’-kaboodle of the 20th-century modern magic construct and its offshoots has needed serious unpacking and re-balancing, mostly to put to rest this fraught and haunted (in all the uncool ways) Victorian magical revival effluvia. See Derrida’s Hauntology: modern magic still suffers from a nostalgia for things its practitioners never actually experienced.
And what sniveling, effete coward said to avoid Goetia, Chaos magic, Afro-American religions? I can't take them seriously. Don't listen to them. That's some of the best stuff.