PDA

View Full Version : Lack of Alchemical theories and hypotheses



Smoke
03-22-2010, 05:05 AM
Lack of Alchemical theories and hypotheses:
I consider wonderful that Alchemical processes are discussed, analyzed, and (mainly) shared in the Forum. I believe that that is the mechanism that offers greater possibilities to have successful Alchemists here. That is to say; the important part (for me) is about Alchemical technique.

But I believe that it is necessary also to elaborate on hypothesis and Alchemical theory. If we analyze the content of the Web, Alchemical libraries and any other resources, one ends up noticing the lack of theories or at least hypotheses about the mechanisms that make Alchemy to have feet and head from the point of view of laboratory work.
I know that it is very difficult to hypothesize or to theorize on the why's and why nots of Alchemy practices, since it has been traditionally a hidden subject (ignored on purpose) by the classic authors.
But we can assume that they understood the mechanisms that cause that the experiments succeed. We can assume it by the writing declarations, of some of them.

I do not believe that it is appropriate to elaborate hypothesis or theories that takes into account the intervention from the Gods or products from the religious faith, or the evolutionary level of the inner being, because this type of incidence is a factor of uncertainty and ambiguity for any laboratory process, and we will end up supposing that Alchemical processes are subject to the will (whim) of noncontrolable entities, or; that the results do not depend on our actions, but on “who we are”. And this ruins any rational process.
I know that to elaborate a theory in the surroundings of the scientific thought on Alchemy, is too risky, and that the bases to develop it are empirical in the best case. But, although the first theories could be plagued with errors, it would be useful in the way which they become corrected and adapted to reality (imposed by experiments repeated by different Alchemists in different dates and places).
If it is gotten to elaborate a general theory of Alchemy that works, we could be able to invent/discover alternative forms to obtain such same results; better forms, adapted for today Alchemists, working with common components and processes easy to apply
In this point, I believe that is advisable to mention some factors that have to do with this:

1- Verified transmutation of any element by Alchemical via, demonstrates that atomic theory and the forces that govern it, must be changed. The new theory needs concepts and mechanisms that justify those results, and these concepts must be factors of change to the atomic theory from the scientific/Alchemical point of view.

2- Like all good theory; Alchemical theory must be able to predict laboratory results. And that can be possible only with new proposals on the behavior of the atom.

3- To define introduction or the use of terms like “ether”, “spirit” (or similar) -but- as defined and concrete factors to designate forces or operating energies in Alchemical processes, or; discard them and to invent a new nomenclature for these forces or phenomena.

4- Review alternative atomic theories to see if some of them allows the existence of low radioactive emission transmutations, and to take it like reference for the new theory (maybe the plasma theory).

As anecdotal, I request you to review the statements of Fulcanelli on the fast route (dry path), to obtain the Filosofal Stone:
He declares that he never practiced it, but he says that from he's point of view; "anything opposes against it” to the obtaining of the Filosofal Stone by means of the fast route.
It is easy to deduce by he's statements that Fulcanelli understood perfectly the mechanical bases of Alchemy: That is to say; he had a Alchemical theory. By all means, he never write about it. In fact, no Alchemist has written (on my knowledge) about their theories, and is clear that they have them (or they had them). If were not thus, they had not devised different processes to reach same results.

Maybe we should have a forum section or space to discuss theoretical subjects about Alchemy.

Best wishes to all
Smoke

Andro
03-22-2010, 07:25 AM
Alchemy is not a really a science in my view, but as for a theory - the Emerald Tablet serves me well enough.
There is an Art aspect to Alchemy, which no theory can contain.


[...] a factor of uncertainty and ambiguity for any laboratory process.

Your life is your main Alchemical laboratory. I'd love to see you take the uncertainty out of THAT :)


We will end up supposing that Alchemical processes are subject to the will (whim) of noncontrolable entities

How about driving a car? Plenty of noncontrollable entities on the road...

And speaking of driving a car - you do have to take a theoretical test to get your licence, but knowing the theory doesn't in any way guarantee replicating the Great Work on the road every time. (Like getting home safely, for example :D)


The results do not depend on our actions, but on “who we are”.

'Our actions' and 'Who we are' are not two distinct separate entities :cool:


And this ruins any rational process.

If all you have to cling to are 'rational processes', you may be in trouble :eek:

Intuition, instinct and emotion aren't quite rational. Yet, they play an important role in the kitchen and on the road as well as they do in Alchemy and in any Art.

This reminds me of an old road safety slogan in my area:

"It's better to be wise than to be right"

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having a theory. It can be an excellent starting point for beginners.
But having a theory is still a long way from first hand Knowing and Understanding. I hope you can see the difference :cool:

horticult
03-22-2010, 02:53 PM
1. All Adepts agree on God.
Thats /remarkable/ fact. /Pls nobody write stupid comms about yours concept of God or that they did it cuz fear./
2. Alchemy was invented/revealed not 4 Au.
3. Theory is about death & revival. About 1. About cure.


Gardener need no theory & the sillest alchemist has the strongest stone.

Aleilius
03-23-2010, 03:42 AM
Knowledge leads to understanding, and understanding leads to wisdom.

There are many that believe they know the truth, but it is only through failure that they realize the truth of truths. Those that act like they know much, often only know pieces, and those that seem like they know pieces, often know more than what they're telling. Of course, this isn't always the case, but seems to be a general trend.

The first step is to acquire knowledge of the art. Knowledge of the art thus leads to the understanding of nature. The understanding of nature then leads to our hidden temple of wisdom where the divine & sublime light of our invisible lamp shines forever more. This invisible light is none other than our most perfected Stone of the Wise. This is our perfected bride. This is our true heavenly Pandora, fashioned not from earth, but from the divine essence of heaven. She is our heavenly Mary that brings everlasting peace to the soul.

In summation, theory does not always lead to truth, and more often, failure should be our guide.

Smoke
03-23-2010, 08:37 AM
I have the impression that the idea to develop an Alchemical theory is not welcomed. And that's okay for me, if the idea does not please, simply discard it.
Also I have the impression that somehow, the proposal produced more annoyance than sympathy.
Perhaps it is only my impression, or perhaps I proposed it somehow in a pedantic manner, or my idea of not taking in consideration the Gods stuff, is offensive.
If it is thus, my sincere apologizes.
I would like you to knew that it is not my desire to offend anybody, and much less to pretend that I have have the "truth" on anything. I just think that to have an Alchemical theory is something good. And I believe that to theorize on laboratory work is much more easy than theorize on the "truth" or God and things alike.

Intuition:
Intuitive knowledge has been from always an advantage for many scientists (and non scientists). In fact many successful scientific theories began being Intuitive knowledge, and soon theory took shape in the experimental phase. So; if you are intuitive, congratulations! If not; we must work a little more to obtain the knowledge.
But; trying to rationalize everything, is something natural in the human being, our minds tries to find some form of order in the chaos of the perception, and that is not a bad thing.
I imagine that laboratory work can be learned (and understood) faster and easily than trying to understand God, or to have the absolute truth on something.

A theory resides in the mind, and (by all means), it must be corrected on the basis of its failures. Then the theory must be transformed or adapted. If this is not possible, then it must be rejected and we should develop another one (I know that from High school).
Not theory is intended to know everything since Heisenberg formulated the principle of uncertainty (high school too).

I really believe that Alchemy is not in direct conflict with scientific thought, but with the mentality of some scientists. Also I must admit that some Alchemist feel disdain about science, but who knows, maybe with a little openness of mind form the ones, and a little maturity from the others we can have the Chymical Wedding of Rosenkreutz and Einstein!

If it gets to happen (any day), that somebody puts in the forum her or his personal theory on the why's and why not's of the success in the Alchemical lab work, I will read it with far interest, and will be fascinating to read the different points of view from other alchemists.
If they do not want it, I'll regret it, but I respect whatever decision they take (absolutely).

My best wishes
Smoke

Seth-Ra
03-23-2010, 10:12 AM
Alchemical lab theory is simple:

Understand, break down, and recreate.

The understanding takes place within, call it a quantum mechanical effect, or observer effect. What you perceive, or understand, will influence it in some way.

Breaking down, is done in many ways, depending on the matter. Basically break away its current particular shell, opening it up to the new form it needs, via universality.

Recreating it (the One) is achieved by your understanding, grasping how to, and then doing it, once you grasp it from the chaos of the universality (All).

Its pretty straight forward, but the big trick is the Artist's understanding, as Hohenheim (Paracelsus) said, (roughly quoting) "It doesnt mater about the matter, there is no flaw with the processes or the matter being worked on, if it doesnt work, the problem is with the worker." ;)

The big thing, is to craft your understanding properly, so that you can manifest it in the lab, which you'll do anyway, just it will need refining to achieve the Philosopher's Stone. :)

As for God... my position is well known, and ill agree with many of the old authors: He decides if and when one is ready, until then, do your best and stay humble before Him and the Work of Art we set our hands to. :cool:


~Seth-Ra

horticult
03-23-2010, 11:09 AM
Do not worry, not offense at all, it was not personal.
But from scientific view it is weird to throw off element which is in all good alch books.
& there are next similar common Adepts statements:
- alch is a science /& art/, some info in Fulcanelli
- nobody will do IT until done in his mind /lux similar like theory :D /
- we are concealing only regime


& adeptus minor will get no instruction how to make the lamp.

Ghislain
03-23-2010, 11:55 AM
We are all of us on our own journey...we may at times ask for direction,
but that is not to say we are asking the direction to our final destination,
just the next Inn so to speak.

Some will offer you directions, but you must realise that their final destination
may be completely different from your own, thus leading you further away from
your intended path.

Even if each final destination is the same there may be many different paths
to take us there.

Understanding these differences is a most important key to tranquillity.

Ghislain