PDA

View Full Version : Philosophy and Alchemy



solomon levi
04-06-2010, 08:07 PM
I read a book years ago - I think it was called "Alchemy, child of Greek Philosophy" - and then I was just reading something else that reminded me of it.
I haven't seen anything like it posted here so i thought I'd share a bit. It's often
thought that part of the difficulty of understanding alchemy is the different ways
we perceive the world now than they did in the past.

One may have wondered - "Why is it called the Philosophers' Stone?"
Well, some think it was people like Plato and Aristotle who first discoursed on
the composition of matter, so it helps to understand their philosophy.

For Aristotle, pure matter is incorporeal. They divided what we call matter into
matter (Hyle) and form (Eidos). These are the alchemists mercury and sulphur.
Salt is the material world that we see all around us, the corporeal. It is the union
or product of matter and form, hyle and eidos.

You can research some of these terms yourself, or check out the book. I'll try to
add more later. But you should understand that mercury is not corporeal - it is
spirit, as sulphur is soul, and salt body/corporeal.

This matter/mercury that is not corporeal they (beginning with Thomas Aquinas, I think)
called Prime matter, and matter we can see and touch they called Second Matter (our Salt).

horticult
04-06-2010, 11:23 PM
NB that salt appears in alch worx since Paracelsus, no b4.

teofrast40
04-07-2010, 05:29 PM
NB that salt appears in alch worx since Paracelsus, no b4.
hi,
it' true. in some texts we have arsenic instead of salt, but most talk only of sulphur and merkur.
regarding philosophy, all the classics consider Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle as adepts. namely, Plato's Thymaeus is quite important to alchemy's background. you have expressed here all the metaphysics that lie behind every later alchemic treatise. the four elements, the four qualities, the anima mundi, the archeus etc.
medieval alchemy had to do mostly with aristotle as plato was reintroduced in the west only during reinassance. but platonism and expecially neoplatonism had a deep influence on alchemy.
also we should distinguish between hermetism and alchemy which are often wrongly considered as the same thing. alchemy seem to be a much more ancient and universal tradition, that in western culture married with neoplatonic and hermetic symbolism during hellenism in the wonderful cultural crucible that was Alexandria of Egypt.
with humility
t

solomon levi
10-26-2011, 05:37 AM
From Plotinus, The Enneads

THE ORIGIN AND ORDER OF THE BEINGS. FOLLOWING ON THE FIRST.

1. The One is all things and no one of them; the source of all things is not all things; all things are its possession- running back, so to speak, to it- or, more correctly, not yet so, they will be.

But a universe from an unbroken unity, in which there appears no diversity, not even duality?

It is precisely because that is nothing within the One that all things are from it: in order that Being may be brought about, the source must be no Being but Being's generator, in what is to be thought of as the primal act of generation. Seeking nothing, possessing nothing, lacking nothing, the One is perfect and, in our metaphor, has overflowed, and its exuberance has produced the new: this product has turned again to its begetter and been filled and has become its contemplator and so an Intellectual-Principle.

That station towards the one [the fact that something exists in presence of the One] establishes Being; that vision directed upon the One establishes the Intellectual-Principle; standing towards the One to the end of vision, it is simultaneously Intellectual-Principle and Being; and, attaining resemblance in virtue of this vision, it repeats the act of the One in pouring forth a vast power.

This second outflow is a Form or Idea representing the Divine Intellect as the Divine Intellect represented its own prior, The One.

This active power sprung from essence [from the Intellectual-Principle considered as Being] is Soul.

Soul arises as the idea and act of the motionless Intellectual-Principle- which itself sprang from its own motionless prior- but the soul's operation is not similarly motionless; its image is generated from its movement. It takes fulness by looking to its source; but it generates its image by adopting another, a downward, movement.

This image of Soul is Sense and Nature, the vegetal principle.
Nothing, however, is completely severed from its prior. Thus the human Soul appears to reach away as far down as to the vegetal order: in some sense it does, since the life of growing things is within its province; but it is not present entire; when it has reached the vegetal order it is there in the sense that having moved thus far downwards it produces- by its outgoing and its tendency towards the less good- another hypostasis or form of being just as its prior (the loftier phase of the Soul) is produced from the Intellectual-Principle which yet remains in untroubled self-possession.

MarkostheGnostic
10-26-2011, 11:18 AM
In 1975, when every other student had dropped out of a course on mysticism, my professor, Dr. David Leahy, gave me a tutorial on The Enneads of Plotinus. Before the semester ended, he had me read The Divine Names and The Mystical Theology by Dionysus the Areopagite, the Christian NeoPlatonist, and compare. I still have the paper that he allowed me to hand-write. I was at the peak of my psychedelic exploration, practice of Yoga, and search for late adolescent identity in my last semester as a philosophy major. He influenced my decision to take a seminary degree, where I remained incorrigibly mystical in an otherwise banal, Methodist world of social gospel and biblical tradition. The ministry was not for me, even though I was invited to take a doctorate in the grad school. I moved on to the secular world of psychology, and sought the gold of Jungian and Transpersonal thought in that pile of dung.

I bought a small book on Plotinus, by his biographer, Porphyry, a couple of years ago. I still want to read Iamblichus. Thanks for posting!

http://books.google.com.my/books/about/Novitas_mundi.html?id=5qu4qx57ERIC

Albion
10-26-2011, 12:32 PM
In 1975, when every other student had dropped out of a course on mysticism, my professor, Dr. david Leahy, gave me a tutorial on The Enneads of Plotinus.

The same David (D.G.) Leahy who wrote Novitas Mundi: Perception of the History of Being, Foundation: Matter the Body Itself, Faith and Philosophy: The Historical Impact, and A Cube Unlike All Others?

"He was tenured in Classics and has taught Religious Studies at New York University and is former Distinguished Visiting Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University Maryland" - and is old enough to have taught in the mid '70's - although I don't believe he had books published until around the turn of the century.


"The author has a story to tell, and that story is a particular history of Western philosophy from Aristotle to the pragmatism of Peirce, and then onwards to what he calls the ‘new thinking’ which is emerging in this new millennium, a ‘new thinking’ focused on the notion of ‘beginning’ rather than on either being or non-being."

"For those willing to persevere with long quotations and dense reasoning, this book will be thought-provoking. Readers will be left with a deeper sense of the ‘abyss’ which Kierkegaard and Nietzsche have laid bare, and of the difficulty of climbing out of it; they will be left pondering the possibility that the notion of ‘beginning’ might form a new episode in the story."

"A philosophy of ‘beginning’ could be politically revolutionary, whereas American pragmatism is essentially conservative. An exploration of the political consequences of a ‘beginning’ philosophy would be interesting to see."

MarkostheGnostic
10-26-2011, 09:26 PM
My copy of Novitas Mundi: Perception of the History of Being, was published in 1980. I left C.W. Post/L.I.U. in December 1975. In an earlier course I took with him, in which we read Feurbach's The Essence of Christianity and Kant's Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone. Back then, I was more interested in Feuerbach. You seem familiar with this theologian, are you?

MarkostheGnostic
10-26-2011, 09:27 PM
The same David (D.G.) Leahy who wrote Novitas Mundi: Perception of the History of Being, Foundation: Matter the Body Itself, Faith and Philosophy: The Historical Impact, and A Cube Unlike All Others?

Check the link and the books at bottom. http://books.google.com.my/books/about/Novitas_mundi.html?id=5qu4qx57ERIC

MarkostheGnostic
10-26-2011, 09:52 PM
In 1975, when every other student had dropped out of a course on mysticism, my professor, Dr. David Leahy, gave me a tutorial on The Enneads of Plotinus. Before the semester ended, he had me read The Divine Names and The Mystical Theology by Dionysus the Areopagite, the Christian NeoPlatonist, and compare. I still have the paper that he allowed me to hand-write. I was at the peak of my psychedelic exploration, practice of Yoga, and search for late adolescent identity in my last semester as a philosophy major. He influenced my decision to take a seminary degree, where I remained incorrigibly mystical in an otherwise banal, Methodist world of social gospel and biblical tradition. The ministry was not for me, even though I was invited to take a doctorate in the grad school. I moved on to the secular world of psychology, and sought the gold of Jungian and Transpersonal thought in that pile of dung.

I bought a small book on Plotinus, by his biographer, Porphyry, a couple of years ago. I still want to read Iamblichus. Thanks for posting!

http://books.google.com.my/books/about/Novitas_mundi.html?id=5qu4qx57ERIC

This conversation reminded me of a saying by the yogi, Baba Hari Das, who, in his Yellow Book, wrote "There is no present, only the past repeating. try to understand this.''
Then, in looking for an answer to an inquiry in another thread here, I came upon one of my own posts at the shroomery.org in '06, which sort of illustrates Baba's statement: http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/6191859#6191859 Note the link to Plotinus.

Albion
10-26-2011, 11:01 PM
My copy of Novitas Mundi: Perception of the History of Being, was published in 1980. I left C.W. Post/L.I.U. in December 1975. In an earlier course I took with him, in which we read Feurbach's The Essence of Christianity and Kant's Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone. Back then, I was more interested in Feuerbach. You seem familiar with this theologian, are you?

Somewhat. :)

Well, the story is: around four months ago, I was reading the reviews for some theory-of-everything sort of book and one of the reviewers mentioned D.G. Leahy’s writings. So I looked up his books, his website, and a full text on GoogleBooks. I was intrigued/impressed enough by a number of his propositions to feel prompted to purchase four of his books so as to one day ferret out whatever ideas might be meant to broaden my conceptual palate. I rarely, if ever, take on a philosophical presentation as a package deal, but I’d like to imagine I can learn something from anyone who has a new or creative slant to offer. Also, around 15 years or so ago, I had immersed myself in Kierkegaard’s writings and was interested in reading more about D.G. Leahy’s possible success in taking certain of his ideas further [such as mentioned here: http://dgleahy.com/pap.html ].

Really, I haven’t read the books yet - just a few pages here and there. Intuition just tells me that (someday) something in those books will prove useful to me - perhaps just to cancel out or balance some other more shop-worn philosophical premises - or to encourage me in a new direction I see opening up - with some helpful conceptual-language/cartography tools.

Very interesting/fun coincidence (to me) that you were a student of his - given how few people in the world are likely ever to have heard of him. :cool:

Website of D.G. Leahy: http://dgleahy.com/

MarkostheGnostic
10-27-2011, 12:06 AM
THANKS! I've wanted to thank HIM for 36 years for his influence on me. I'm going to write to him. I haven't read his book either, but I wanted to see where he went after I graduated.

MarkostheGnostic
10-28-2011, 12:43 PM
THANKS! I've wanted to thank HIM for 36 years for his influence on me. I'm going to write to him. I haven't read his book either, but I wanted to see where he went after I graduated.

I made contact, and Dr. Leahy sent me the following note. Thanks again for the link!


"Dear Mark,

Thank you very much for your email and the pleasure your account of our relationship so long ago gives me. I'm generally not much given to nostalgia, but I am quite touched by your reminiscence.

And thanks for the pictures! I recognize the young you with fondness and I'm happy to see the continuity in your mature visage -- including the hair!

Thanks again. Don't hesitate to be in touch should the occasion arise.

Dave"

Albion
10-28-2011, 03:47 PM
That's very gratifying to read, MarkostheGnostic. Also pleasant to see him compose such a warm personal note - when all I'm otherwise familiar with is his incredibly intricate and dense (albeit brilliant) philosophical writing style [not that it's either particularly cold or ill-suited to his goals, just, you know, a very different/specialized form of expression].

MarkostheGnostic
10-28-2011, 09:17 PM
That's very gratifying to read, MarkostheGnostic. Also pleasant to see him compose such a warm personal note - when all I'm otherwise familiar with is his incredibly intricate and dense (albeit brilliant) philosophical writing style [not that it's either particularly cold or ill-suited to his goals, just, you know, a very different/specialized form of expression].

I feel ya. He was incredibly formal as a prof in the early 70s. Mr. So-and-So, unlike the first names all my other profs used. But, his intellect was all spit-n-polish. He really knew his material, though he would not share personal beliefs.

Albion
10-29-2011, 03:32 PM
I feel ya. He was incredibly formal as a prof in the early 70s. Mr. So-and-So, unlike the first names all my other profs used. But, his intellect was all spit-n-polish. He really knew his material, though he would not share personal beliefs.


I had a professor like that*. Hailing from England, he held to the classic, old-school distinction between teacher and student wherein the agreed-upon contextual framework for effectual learning implied the superior status of the one offering the valuable information [Neither moral or genetic superiority was implied], who, in no uncertain terms, occupied the parental role. Other than during the post-lecture question & answer session, only the three TA’s were permitted to interact with him. One had to learn to aspire towards excellence for its own sake and to cultivate, or interweave, their own internal network of motivational prompts, because it simply wasn’t the task of the instructor to hold one’s hand or take on the role of emotional nursemaid.

Such an arrangement may well have its limitations and drawbacks - especially if taken to an extreme. But I’d say we were, by and large, all willing to adapt as we felt it a rare privilege to be able to learn from him on his terms.
_____________________________________

*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Bateson

http://www.anecologyofmind.com/gregorybateson.html

http://www.collectivedynamics.org/SDES_2010/Readings_files/Bateson_MindNature.pdf

http://www.stanislavgrof.com/pdf/Gregory_Bateson.pdf

Bateson/Plotinus:

http://books.google.com/books?id=1PwTZPW1ohQC&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=Gregory+bateson+Plotinus&source=bl&ots=RpNPu2E4Xu&sig=FyW0ZOUlQBAVgILg5Pm3lb2JfFQ&hl=en&ei=dFOrTuYchY_RAaz89YEP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Gregory%20bateson%20Plotinus&f=false

“Prospero says, "We are such stuff as dreams are made on," and surely he is nearly right. But I sometimes think that dreams are only fragments of that stuff. It is as if the stuff of which we are made were totally transparent and therefore imperceptible and as if the only appearances of which we can be aware are cracks and planes of fracture in that transparent matrix. Was this what Plotinus meant by an "invisible and unchanging beauty which pervades all things?" -Gregory Bateson, "Mind & Nature, A Necessary Unity"

Andro
10-29-2011, 04:00 PM
"Prospero says, "We are such stuff as dreams are made on," and surely he is nearly right. But I sometimes think that dreams are only fragments of that stuff. It is as if the stuff of which we are made were totally transparent and therefore imperceptible and as if the only appearances of which we can be aware are cracks and planes of fracture in that transparent matrix. Was this what Plotinus meant by an "invisible and unchanging beauty which pervades all things?" -Gregory Bateson, "Mind & Nature, A Necessary Unity"

He sounds like my kind of guy :)

Is he only a Theoretician, or does he also 'Walk the Walk', so to speak?

MarkostheGnostic
10-29-2011, 06:14 PM
Of course I know Gregory Bateson! Not personally, of course, but through anthropological studies in grad school. Lucky you! :)

Albion
10-29-2011, 08:22 PM
He sounds like my kind of guy :)

Is he only a Theoretician, or does he also 'Walk the Walk', so to speak?


Well, he’s long since walked off the stage, but, those who knew him well usually mentioned his Zen master-ish tendency to ask difficult, penetrating questions.

I only had one private encounter with him during which I was popped into a space that was highly uncomfortable but deeply instructive. I think he was more interested in using that brief window of opportunity in helping me to see than filling it with conventional chit-chat.

I happened to run into him one day at the Santa Cruz bus station and so, emboldened by recent praise from the TA, and hoping to garner some manner of positive feedback from him, I introduced myself and inquired as to whether he’d had the chance to read my papers.

“The one’s signed “Your Friend?” he replied.

“Yes.”

“You mean, your imaginary friend?”

Surprised, puzzled, and disappointed, I just stared out the window while, on another level, began processing what he said, which, like the penetrating quip or staff-blow of a Zen master, was, I believe, intended to snap me out of a particular species of delusion.

While I sat there, utterly nonplussed, he silently perambulated the small station for about 10 minutes, at which point he turned to me with searching gaze, faint smile, a nod, and… left to catch his bus.

Although it could be interpreted that he was merely reaffirming formal distance between us, based on my understanding of him and his writings, I believe he took the risk of bluntly helping me to recognize something about the role of imagination in my psyche that I had to face.

So, anyway, I would say that he definitely “cultivated” in the sense that his mental work was not merely the rearranging of ideas but that he was actively surrendering it all to the greater mystery in the process, as a sort of Jnana Yoga or (attenuating into) Prajna wisdom.

I appreciate the distinction you have raised, and the location in which you’ve raised it, but perhaps you could elaborate a little on what “Walk the Walk” means to you. I don’t say that as some sort of challenge - I’d just be happy to hear more from you on this. Otherwise, I’ll say that, although I’m not sure he Walked the Walk, I do believe that he more or less Walked his Talk.

Earlier in the conversation, MarkostheGnostic referred to D.H. Leahy as a “Theologian” - a term which, though understandable and not unapplicable, nevertheless triggered a bit of an inward groan in me because I thought of how often it has been used (glowingly or disparagingly) as a title for those who, functioning simply as religious apologists, have spent the bulk of their lives merely rearranging pre-determined terms around the surface of the generally agreed-upon parameters of their respective religious game-boards. This in contradistinction to those ponderers, philosophers and mystics - who, as true explorers, have operated on the far borderlands of the particular spiritual-conceptual arena with which they, at least initially, had identified, who, in rigorous self-honesty and deep surrender, opened themselves up to a degree of comprehension and revelation which, had it been successfully fed back into the original system on a grander scale, would have brought it pitilessly through its own death & resurrection.

Leahy, for example, though ostensibly a Christian, seems, in his explorations and writings, to open up a revelatory space that is so far beyond convention you can’t even hear the choir singing “Gimme That Old-Time Religion” in the distance. Terms such as Zero, Not Zero, the Void, and Beyond the Void, feature frequently enough throughout his writings to at least pique my interest. It seems to me that, to some degree at least, he must be cognitively entering those spaces (going forth/beyond) even if they are then fed back as concepts into his overall ordering of ideas.

MarkostheGnostic
10-29-2011, 08:53 PM
Dr. Leahy taught theology at my college, and, I believe that he was trained as a theologian in some Catholic university. However, when I last saw him, he had just made contact with Thomas J.J. Altizer, the 'Death-of-God' theologian whose work and theological movement was introduced to the USA in the April 8, 1966 issue of Time Magazine. I remember the stir that caused, and I was only in the 8th grade.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_God_Dead%3F Dr. Leahy apparently moved in one of the directions suggested in the linked article, namely: "formulate a new image and concept of God using contemporary thought categories." I haven't read his work, but it has been a great intellectual pleasure to have happened upon this level of discourse with everyone participating here, and I will, as I wrote to Dr. Leahy, endeavor to read his books, beginning with the one I ought out of nostalgia (something he usually doesn't experience).

Andro
11-01-2011, 03:13 AM
I appreciate the distinction you have raised, and the location in which you’ve raised it, but perhaps you could elaborate a little on what “Walk the Walk” means to you. I don’t say that as some sort of challenge - I’d just be happy to hear more from you on this. Otherwise, I’ll say that, although I’m not sure he Walked the Walk, I do believe that he more or less Walked his Talk.

One would have to live with him, I guess, to answer this question with best integrity. I'd bet he's not the easiest to be around... But from the bus stop encounter, I would deduce he is definitely a 'Walker'...

He wasn't lecturing in front of an audience, he wasn't writing a book - he was at the bus station, in the middle of the most 'random' circumstances - and he did NOT 'default' on 'What-Would-Have-Been- Expected'.

He indeed 'Walked his Talk', which to me is the same thing as 'Walking the Walk'.

Yes, I would say, definitely a 'Walker' :)

And definitely my kind of guy :)

Albion
11-01-2011, 01:46 PM
Androgynus wrote:
He indeed 'Walked his Talk', which to me is the same thing as 'Walking the Walk'.

Yes, I would say, definitely a 'Walker' :)

And definitely my kind of guy :)

Well, a man could scarcely ask for a finer tribute.
___________________________________

In appreciation of all those who,
by word and example, continue
to inspire and edify each of us
through this, the greatest of challenges:
embarking upon the new.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp2oxWdRMuk
___________________________________

MarkostheGnostic
11-03-2011, 09:18 PM
Somewhat. :)

Well, the story is: around four months ago, I was reading the reviews for some theory-of-everything sort of book and one of the reviewers mentioned D.G. Leahy’s writings. So I looked up his books, his website, and a full text on GoogleBooks. I was intrigued/impressed enough by a number of his propositions to feel prompted to purchase four of his books so as to one day ferret out whatever ideas might be meant to broaden my conceptual palate. I rarely, if ever, take on a philosophical presentation as a package deal, but I’d like to imagine I can learn something from anyone who has a new or creative slant to offer. Also, around 15 years or so ago, I had immersed myself in Kierkegaard’s writings and was interested in reading more about D.G. Leahy’s possible success in taking certain of his ideas further [such as mentioned here: http://dgleahy.com/pap.html ].

Really, I haven’t read the books yet - just a few pages here and there. Intuition just tells me that (someday) something in those books will prove useful to me - perhaps just to cancel out or balance some other more shop-worn philosophical premises - or to encourage me in a new direction I see opening up - with some helpful conceptual-language/cartography tools.

Very interesting/fun coincidence (to me) that you were a student of his - given how few people in the world are likely ever to have heard of him. :cool:

Website of D.G. Leahy: http://dgleahy.com/

Apparently, Dr. Leahy put me on his contact list and sent this today:


Friends,

I came upon this delightful and richly intelligent musical exposition of Christianity at http://vimeo.com/9003546.

I've never before heard a sermon quite like it. Jugglers have to learn to let go.

I recommend it to you.

Dave

P.S. Those of you who are students of the thinking now occurring will recognize the consonance therewith of the seven key notes at the end.


--
D.G. Leahy
http://dgleahy.com
http://newyorkphilosophy.org

Ghislain
11-04-2011, 03:30 AM
MarkostheGnostic

I really enjoyed the sermon in the link. Many of the things said rang true for me; some quite
profoundly.

He (Begbie) played Fur Elise, which I’m sure most people are familiar with. He went on to remark to
the audience after this...I can’t remember the actual words, but something like...,”Fur Elise you
probably know it. It is that piece you learn to play just before you give up piano”...

I just did that!

On juggling, when he said, “it’s about letting go”...I have been trying to learn to juggle off and on for
years. Still can’t do it; looking at my juggling balls on the shelf as I write :( Maybe I need to let go.

Most profound for me was this:

“The modernist self is the prima donna who sings solo and drowns everybody out with fortissimo
confidence and then collapses with exhaustion. The post modernist self wonders whether her voice
is anything more than the creation of her last singing teacher because she sung every part from base
to Coloratura and still doesn’t know who she is”.

I sometimes wonder do I speak from the self or the gathered knowledge of others...who am I?

The sermon was called, “The Sense of an Ending”, and I do sense an ending, however it is not a finale
but a new beginning.

Thanks

Ghislain

MarkostheGnostic
11-05-2011, 03:59 AM
Glad it spoke to you. I am not a musician, and so much of it was not relevant to my path. However, it IS fascinating how the dots have been connected here! :)

solomon levi
11-23-2011, 03:33 AM
Alchemists are said to be most illusory when they appear to speak plainly, and vice versa.
One of the terms tossed about so frequently is "Philosopher" or "philosophical" matters.
Somehow people have chosen to interpret this instead of taking it plainly. For example,
some think philosophical nitre is that retrieved from dew or urine as opposed to some
commercial source that is impure or treated with fire or acids, etc. In essence, this interprets
"philosophical" as having to do with purity or being derived from nature, disregarding
altogether the possibility of something completely non-physical, i.e. philosophical, idea,
intellectual, mind, form, seed, root, etc.
I have already mentioned my views on alchemy being transformed by reading the Philosophers.
Especially significant IMO are Pythagoras' and Plato's insistence on number and geometry:
"Everything is number."
The sal harmoniac is another philosophical aspect that is very significant. It is our prima materia.
It is signed by a six (Fulcanelli), six being the first perfect number and representation of equilibrium/
harmonia. The 6th sephiroth belonging to tiphareth and the sun/gold.
Consider that every manifest thing exist because it exist in equilibrium, a balance of implosion and
explosion, saturn/contraction and jupiter/expansion, centripetal and centrifugal forces, etc.
In light of that fact, would you imagine there is some matter, a mineral or otherwise, that has
more equilibrium than another - is more manifest than another? Consider also that the perfect balance
of the elements or gunas results in no manifestation at all! Quintessence, aether, vacuum - something
unseen by the eye, yet existing everywhere; the true root of every thing.
What's amazing is that this no-thing actually has geometry. Consider that the point, the line and the plane
do not possess "thingness", that is, 3-d, until we arrive at volumes - cubes, spheres, etc, the tetrahedron
being the smallest volume (assigned to fire by Plato) and the sphere being the largest.

Anyway, there are a lot of secrets here which I would encourage you all to explore.
The egg, the serpent/wave/spiral, the fish/vesica pisces, the net, etc all have geometric correspondences.
In the late 1500s, an alchemist/philosopher by the name of John Dee contributed the Monas Hieroglyphica.
He became famous for his involvement in angel magic, creating or transcribing an alphabet and sigils...
again, nothing to do with mineral alchemy but geometry.
Masonry, the building of temples and cathedrals and pyramids - sacred geometry... the "dwellings of the philosophers".

Ghislain
11-23-2011, 06:30 AM
Sol,

Looking at the Christian fish symbol;

http://jesuz.com/Christian-fish-symbol__red.jpg

it could just as well be part of the Flower of Life.

http://genius.toucansurf.com/flower%20of%20life.jpg


Not exactly the best fit but im sure you get my drift :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZvGbjeUymo&list=PL3C09A8FFFED18CEC&index=1&feature=plpp_video

and thats just part 1



Ghislain

solomon levi
11-23-2011, 07:09 AM
Hi Ghislain.
Yes, the flower, and seed, of life are related to it.
One circle surrounded by six; one sphere surrounded by 12, just like Jesus
and his disciples, the sun and the zodiac, etc.

Are you aware of the vector equilibrium?

https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSgEVDZV4RdAB6kRBU6yGcho-_NHk4gmvMnyZjDbi4o9jObOEUIgQ

MarkostheGnostic
11-23-2011, 02:12 PM
I saw these shewstones, crystals, and wax pentacles at the British Museum a dozen years ago, and took a picture or two, but this brief vid shows more detail. I have read a basic book on Enochian Magick, but I have assiduously avoided getting pulled into that fascinating labrinthe. The entities ('angels'), are highly suspicious to me. Their insistence on wife-swapping (Dee's much younger wife was a hottie, and Kelly obviously wanted her), is immediately suspect, and so are the eventual fates of Dee and Kelly (I've read and own books on Dee, and have The Alchemical Writings of Edward Kelly). When I was in London, staying just outside the city, we used to walk to the Underground, and we passed by Mortlake Drive, which intrigued me, since Mortlake is where Dee's home was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbnUvpciM_U

solomon levi
01-10-2012, 05:04 PM
"One of the most outstanding Gnostics is Basilides. According to Basilides, the first is the unspeakable God, theós arretos, the Ain Sof of the Kabbalah, which as tó ón, o ón [Being] is nameless ('anonómastos), and immediate, as with Philo.

Second is noús (spirit, mind), the first born, Logos Sophía (Wisdom), the active dynamis (power) which differentiates more precisely into justice (dikaiosyne), and harmony (eiréne). These are followed by further developed principles which Basilides calls Archons, the heads of the spirit realms. A central issue in this schema is again the return, the soul's process of clarification, the economy of purification, oeconomía katharoeon, from the hyle (materia). The soul must return to Sophía and harmony. The primeval essence contains all perfection within itself, but only in potentia; the spirit (noús), which is the first born, is only the first manifestation of what is veiled, and created beings can only obtain true justice in harmony with it through connection to God.

The Gnostics, for example Markos, call the first the unthinkable, anennóetos, and even non-existence, anoúsios. It is that which proceeds into the determinate, monótes. They also call it the pure stillness, sigé (silence). From it proceed Ideas, angels and the aeons. These are the roots and seeds of the particular fulfillment: lógoi (words), rízai (roots), spérmata (seeds), plerómata (plenitudes), karpoí (fruit); and each aeon contains its own world within itself.

According to other Gnostics, for example Valentinus, the first principle is also called Aeon or the unfathomable, the primeval depth, the absolute abyss, bythos, in which everything is sublimated (aufgehoben) before the beginning (proárche) or before the Father (propátor). Aeon is the activator. The transition or unfolding of the One is diáthesis (arrangement), and this stage is also called the self-conceptualizing of the inconceivable (katálepsis toú akataléptou), which we have encountered in Stoic philosophy as katálepsis (grasping, conceiving). These concepts are the Aeons, the particular diáthesis, and the world of the Aeons is called the pléroma (plenitude). The second principle is called the hóros (boundary), the development of which is to be grasped in contraries, the two masculine and feminine principles. The one is the pléroma of the other, and the plerómata (plenitudes) emanate from their union, syzygía. The union is the foremost reality. Each opposite has its own integral complement, syzygos; the sum of these plerómata is the entire world of Aeons all together, the universal pléroma of the bythos (abyss, depth). The abyss is thus called Hermaphrodite, the masculine-feminine, arrenóthelys."

http://www.american-buddha.com/nazi.kabbalahgnoshegel.htm

solomon levi
01-10-2012, 05:11 PM
You may compare the above to this... look at the terms used by Blavatsky and Paracelsus:
http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy/ww/setting/paracelsusone.html

Andro
01-10-2012, 10:20 PM
"the Prima Donna who sings solo and drowns everybody out with fortissimo
confidence and then collapses with exhaustion. The post modernist self wonders whether her voice
is anything more than the creation of her last singing teacher because she sung every part from base
to Coloratura and still doesn't know who she is".

I do sense an ending, however it is not a finale but a new beginning.

It ain't over till the 'Fat Lady' sings...

Prima Donna... First Matter... Fat Lady... Fat Water...

A whole different take on the phrase :)