PDA

View Full Version : insight into alchemy



solomon levi
11-08-2010, 12:01 AM
Well, I've been having fairly consistent realizations and epiphanies on true alchemy - that is, evolving
out of and away from my old spagyric-archemical understanding, and I find myself writing posts all
over the place which seem to fit different topics but are actually about this One Thing. So I wanted a
place where i can compile these under one heading, and I will use this topic for that.

If anyone is interested in following this, I've already dropped some pieces of the whole in threads like:
Ouroboros, YHVH and the Tree of Life, The Field, Solve-Coagula and Perception...

To begin I would like to try to compile some evidence for the need to come to alchemy with a different
mind than you would chemistry, because we are so often looking for things, concrete substances -
an ore, a mineral, a salt... whatever. Allow me to repeat here a summation of the words of Sendivogius:

We require a Mercury that is Homogenous, having no opposite nature, undetermined to mineral, animal or vegetable kingdoms.

"... a certain Truth, that God the great architect of all things did create the whole material world (for this we are now only to speak of and not of your antetype or intellectual world) out of nothing and in Time, yet not so that all your parts of this world thus directly were created, but only your first Matter, and that she hath been produced out of meer nothing, out of which afterwards the most principle bodies and that they by way of separation were produced and out of them were made all kinds of mixed bodies and that by way of composition."

"But the Cabal which from God hath recieved your Light of undoubted Truth, and knows your genuine sense of your [placed] Genesis, and keeps with Her, its true interpretation, she, though she doth admit three divers acts of creation equal to the forsaid acts received in the common schools viz:
1. A Production of Matter out of Nothing which probably is Creation.
2. The Division of the same Matter into single Bodies.
3. The Fabrication of the mixture out of those divers simple Bodies."

Notice what i put in bold this time - our antetype and intellectual world! This is the dualistic mind which is
not suitable for alchemy. We need a mind devoted to God - that is Oneness - not religion or dogma.
Listen to the words of the great Qabalist Carlo Suares, and believe it when they say alchemy, kabbalah and
the study of stars go hand in hand.

"I begin our study by saying that the Qabala is a science and that The Sepher Yetsira is a precise and accurate treatise on the structure of cosmic energy, written in hidden code...
The mystery of the Qabala is simply due to the fact that the cabalists are not aware of what its language is, and to their ignorance both of the analogical
mode of thought characterising this language... In studying the Qabala, and The Sepher Yetsira in particular, one must be prepared to think in a new way,
entirely different from one's usual, habitual manner, because its language is analogical and inclusive."

I had a teacher who used this very word - analogical - to teach of the two minds which we possess. It may
be best understood in contrast to the rational, dual mind. The dual, or binary, mind perceives an object
separate from itself, whereas with analogical mind subject and object are one - instead of seeing and thinking
about a goat, for example, you are the goat, perceiving as it perceives. I've called this "green mind" at times.

VandenBroeck repeats the same themes which he observed under Schwaller:
"true knowledge is inaccessible to the rational mind."
"Thus he (Schwaller) actively believed in oral transmission of a kind of knowledge best called 'gnosis'."

In alignment with the hermetic axiom, "As above, so below" (and vice-versa), we must also think of solve-coagula
as "the hidden and the revealed". And you must know that gnosis is acquired through experience/initiation.
Knowledge is to Gnosis as rational mind is to analogical mind; as head is to heart, etc.

The best way I've heard it put, and this may be bumping it up a level, that really helps me to see it is
by my friend Androgynus - what is human want compared to the Void's need/thirst/vacuum...

We'll come back to that when we discuss Genesis, which, as Suares tells us, is the recounting of the
Involution/Evolution of the infinite unmanifest into manifest, spirit into mass. I will tell you the secret to
understanding these things. You have to realise that the Bible code, just as the alchemy code, just as the
mythology code... is not talking about many characters/matters, but about the involution/evolution of
the One Thing. So we are back to Sendivogius' something from nothing.

If there were a beginning and a creator, then it had to create from itself since there was nothing else and it was/is omnipresent.
So matter is "god". Substance/salt is congealed soul/sulphur, which is congealed spirit/mercury.
At the high/short/subtle/fast frequency end of the electromagnetic spectrum, we call it spirit. At the low/long/dense/slow end we call it mass/matter.
But this is One Thing - Ouroboros; a Rainbow Serpent, a Tree of Life...

So when you contemplate Our Sea (R.C.), Al-khem - transcend the four qualities/elements and go to the black, infinite "Void" -
Castaneda's "Dark Sea of Awareness". Recall Genesis: "And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be Light."
Now we're talking real alchemy. This is Universal Mercury, Aqua Vitae, Chaos of the Wise...
Thus John Reid says, "For our immediate purposes then, we will consider the energy of the sun and stars as the power outlets of God."
And Moby says, "We are all made of Stars."
:)

III
11-09-2010, 05:43 PM
Well, I've been having fairly consistent realizations and epiphanies on true alchemy - that is, evolving
out of and away from my old spagyric-archemical understanding, and I find myself writing posts all
over the place which seem to fit different topics but are actually about this One Thing. So I wanted a
place where i can compile these under one heading, and I will use this topic for that.

If anyone is interested in following this, I've already dropped some pieces of the whole in threads like:
Ouroboros, YHVH and the Tree of Life, The Field, Solve-Coagula and Perception...

To begin I would like to try to compile some evidence for the need to come to alchemy with a different
mind than you would chemistry, because we are so often looking for things, concrete substances -
an ore, a mineral, a salt... whatever. Allow me to repeat here a summation of the words of Sendivogius:

We require a Mercury that is Homogenous, having no opposite nature, undetermined to mineral, animal or vegetable kingdoms.

"... a certain Truth, that God the great architect of all things did create the whole material world (for this we are now only to speak of and not of your antetype or intellectual world) out of nothing and in Time, yet not so that all your parts of this world thus directly were created, but only your first Matter, and that she hath been produced out of meer nothing, out of which afterwards the most principle bodies and that they by way of separation were produced and out of them were made all kinds of mixed bodies and that by way of composition."

"But the Cabal which from God hath recieved your Light of undoubted Truth, and knows your genuine sense of your [placed] Genesis, and keeps with Her, its true interpretation, she, though she doth admit three divers acts of creation equal to the forsaid acts received in the common schools viz:
1. A Production of Matter out of Nothing which probably is Creation.
2. The Division of the same Matter into single Bodies.
3. The Fabrication of the mixture out of those divers simple Bodies."

Notice what i put in bold this time - our antetype and intellectual world! This is the dualistic mind which is
not suitable for alchemy. We need a mind devoted to God - that is Oneness - not religion or dogma.
Listen to the words of the great Qabalist Carlo Suares, and believe it when they say alchemy, kabbalah and
the study of stars go hand in hand.

"I begin our study by saying that the Qabala is a science and that The Sepher Yetsira is a precise and accurate treatise on the structure of cosmic energy, written in hidden code...
The mystery of the Qabala is simply due to the fact that the cabalists are not aware of what its language is, and to their ignorance both of the analogical
mode of thought characterising this language... In studying the Qabala, and The Sepher Yetsira in particular, one must be prepared to think in a new way,
entirely different from one's usual, habitual manner, because its language is analogical and inclusive."

I had a teacher who used this very word - analogical - to teach of the two minds which we possess. It may
be best understood in contrast to the rational, dual mind. The dual, or binary, mind perceives an object
separate from itself, whereas with analogical mind subject and object are one - instead of seeing and thinking
about a goat, for example, you are the goat, perceiving as it perceives. I've called this "green mind" at times.

VandenBroeck repeats the same themes which he observed under Schwaller:
"true knowledge is inaccessible to the rational mind."
"Thus he (Schwaller) actively believed in oral transmission of a kind of knowledge best called 'gnosis'."

In alignment with the hermetic axiom, "As above, so below" (and vice-versa), we must also think of solve-coagula
as "the hidden and the revealed". And you must know that gnosis is acquired through experience/initiation.
Knowledge is to Gnosis as rational mind is to analogical mind; as head is to heart, etc.

The best way I've heard it put, and this may be bumping it up a level, that really helps me to see it is
by my friend Androgynus - what is human want compared to the Void's need/thirst/vacuum...

We'll come back to that when we discuss Genesis, which, as Suares tells us, is the recounting of the
Involution/Evolution of the infinite unmanifest into manifest, spirit into mass. I will tell you the secret to
understanding these things. You have to realise that the Bible code, just as the alchemy code, just as the
mythology code... is not talking about many characters/matters, but about the involution/evolution of
the One Thing. So we are back to Sendivogius' something from nothing.

If there were a beginning and a creator, then it had to create from itself since there was nothing else and it was/is omnipresent.
So matter is "god". Substance/salt is congealed soul/sulphur, which is congealed spirit/mercury.
At the high/short/subtle/fast frequency end of the electromagnetic spectrum, we call it spirit. At the low/long/dense/slow end we call it mass/matter.
But this is One Thing - Ouroboros; a Rainbow Serpent, a Tree of Life...

So when you contemplate Our Sea (R.C.), Al-khem - transcend the four qualities/elements and go to the black, infinite "Void" -
Castaneda's "Dark Sea of Awareness". Recall Genesis: "And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be Light."
Now we're talking real alchemy. This is Universal Mercury, Aqua Vitae, Chaos of the Wise...
Thus John Reid says, "For our immediate purposes then, we will consider the energy of the sun and stars as the power outlets of God."
And Moby says, "We are all made of Stars."
:)



Hi Solomon,

I have no idea of what you will make of the following. Any wording is, at absolute best, an incomplete approximation. In order to have some reasonable way to speak of all this and the "energy information", or maybe "unspoken teachings" that goes with it. The programming archetypes I have are such that these alchemical matters are more easily spoken using computer archetypes. And in going to an object oriented type language, the object can be defined separately from what is being said about it. Further it gives me an entire library of ideas already defined, many ideas that were not available past about 25 years ago or less. I can easily say all sorts of things that no archetype 100 years ago. For instance consider "holodeck" or "virtual reality". That is technology so much in advance of the culture that it is magic 100 years ago. 50 years ago it would be assumed to be some kind of electronic device even if like nothing ever seen. When do we get the "indistinguishable from reality" nerve induction varieties?.

My term of "Cosmic Assembly Language" as the programming language doesn't say anything about it's characteristics except that it is a low level language used for programming other objects. The nature of the language itself is more difficult to describe as it is more like series of gestalt ideas. Let us say that we want to encapsulate 1 "frame". In that frame we have all possible versions for all possible chambers a person might be in while in that frame and suitable memories and understandings for that "frame", say 1/60th second or whatever of whatever previous frame one thinks that one came from. There is also entry state and exit state data within that frame and any changes within the frame appear to be treated as a series of morphs that are synthesized by our brains. The frame itself carries a very simple form of the information, hardly more than wireframe to suggest the scene with all the details filled in by our parameters. Just as quantum theory suggests it is the interaction with consciousness that cuases specific details and forms. Since it is all written in the same CAL is the reason one can load animal forms, plant forms and other people though recognizing (mapping) the sensory information can be a little tricky the more different the things is. What does it feel like to be a jelly fish?

With these types of linguistic - conceptual tools available I am able to describe things differently and I think more easily understood, advancing Alchemy.

If there were a beginning and a creator, then it had to create from itself since there was nothing else

I find it very difficult to pick out any one quote to respond to here. ALL exists in the same cosmic instant. Even the creation of the creation exists right NOW. Sure there have been endless blossomings of the creation along the axis of the cosmic tic (Breath of Brahma) or maybe called something else. However, the current version of that creation is there to be seen (experienced?) by those skilled in the art. It is possible to go and see for ONE's self. Let's go back to OOM for a moment. The entire COS (Cosmic Operating System) is written in what might be called Cosmic Assembly language (CAL). It underlies all of everything in a sense it is THE WORD or maybe better said as "the WORD is written in CAL). As it underlies all of us and every thing that appears to happen in this creation it is universally understood to the extent each being possesses the multi-dimensional cosmic decoder ring. Even without understanding it one can't avoid being acted upon by it. It is the language that everything, including our "self" is written in.

So when one goes to the root node of the tree, from which all things branch, there is massive crude unformed consciousness. However, there is nothing at all to be conscious of, it isn't conscious of it's "self" as it doesn't have one.Then something happens, there is a split. There is great surprise, astonishment. Then the two halves of this consciousness, connected but somehow separate a little, sort of started twiddling it's metaphorical thumbs. It enjoys that and suddenly decides to split again and then several more splits in rapid succession. From there games of many sorts develop and things build rapidly as more and more splits occur. As there are more splits there are more pixels and more details and complication possible. This is the very earliest part of the long path that leads to us.

black, infinite "Void"

From my experience "black" is not an attribute of the void. Color doesn't apply. The void is "unformed infinite possibility". It is no "thing". The void is not observed with the eyes or what passes for eyes metaphysically. It is in a sense a complete lack of applicable archetypes.


Let's consider now some descriptions of structure. These are based on my own experiences of many kinds and combined with things I have read or heard from many others. "Sex" as such has very little to do with this except to be able to work with some of it as one of many tools. So what is a human? In this discussion let's consider humans to be a semi-discrete set of memories and experiences that shape our CPU and the microcode in the CPU with which we think. This "human" is then part of a larger macro-being. In my observation this macro-being might have hundreds or thousands of humans within itself. As this macro-being is outside our local time, from it's point of view all of it's human segments are deployed all at the same instant. As far as concurrency in our earthly time goes, many of these human segments may exist in the same time segments on earth. There might be any number of humans very much like me with variations all living on Earth at the same historical time.

As we expand our "self" our self becomes more inclusive of otherwise divergent sections of the macro-being. So in climbing the tree we can have the experience of having to negotiate differences in our "selves" before we can settle in at the next larger level. If we do this well, it's our version of self that eventually comes to dominate the macro-being. This macro-being is a small segment of an even larger macro-being.

An aspect of both our selfs and the macro-being is that we have more than just a few dimensions that we can access. Let's use 16 as a convenient number of dimensions. Going with a customary description of a dimension is that each dimension has an axis. Let's whip out Excel-16 (dimensions). If we start out with our small self being a unity, 1, and we then expand that to 10 across in one direction, we now occupy 10 cells and each one is a little different providing a somewhat different understanding. If we expand that 10 cells along another axis we then would have 100 cells, adding a third in the same way 1000, then 10,000, then 100,000 etc. If we do that for 16 dimensions, we end up with a whole lot larger being with 10^16 cells. Each of the cells is a slightly different variation of our CPU and each comes up with a different answer. The result is that when we think about things we can see more variations of how we might understand something. Each step on each axis makes a noticeable difference in how it affects us, how we think or understand. Each axis affects a different aspect. So each step along an axis might increase or decrease "emotionality" intensity. Another might affect the tendency for a specific emotion. So an emotional or cognitive response might be affected in each of 16 ways so within this very small model we have 10^16 possible variations of self in taking all combinations. This means basically 10^16 major variations in this small model, of this life are possible of being lived. If a person has constructed this with very little variation in some dimensions and extreme variation in other dimensions, then a person can turn out very unbalanced. This is a well known hazard of alchemy. After we then have created our basic 16 dimension CPU, that entire CPU once again becomes "One" and can go through the expansion process all over again. It's like the lizard brain sitting inside of our mammal brain sitting inside our human brain.n Even the old lizard visual area is still active and usable though difficult to learn to access.

This is a "multi-processor" architecture rather than one huge monolithic CPU. Just as Cray wasn't even able to find one taker for his last designed monolithic CPU supercomputer, that kind of architecture doesn't work so well metaphysically either. Macro-beings designed monolithically tend to become insane. Metaphysics evolves

Added on top of all these variations we have "imperative" processing. This imperative processing is a kind of exception processing that preempts normal processing. So fears and "have-to-be"s and other causes put in place blocks to normal processing causing a specific response short circuiting normal responses. These basically serve to keep us out of chambers that are already otherwise included in our self definition and distorting everything. Seeing one's self is quite impossible with all these in place. They throw out Truth and substitute beliefs or fantasies.

I could go through and map to many of the things you quoted.

It's interesting that in 3rd grade I wanted to find either some Alchemists or a Kabala group, just as a comment in passing.

So now a couple of questions for you Solomon, and any others willing to answer. It is quite possible to never have seen any of these things or perhaps to realize what one was seeing if one didn't have any archetypes that even approximately fit.

1 - Are you from a version of creation in which the tree of life (crystal grid in some terminologies) has a broken section or is fully intact or it's condition is unknown?
2 - Are you from a creation in which monolithic macrobeings predominate, some of them quite mad such as the "mad demiurge" described by the gnostics and most of them none too bright or from one in which multi-cpu designs predominate.
3 - What is the current state right now that you observe of the tree and of the macrobeings?

Andro
11-09-2010, 06:09 PM
...more easily spoken using computer archetypes. I can easily say all sorts of things that no archetype 100 years ago.

There are no "computer" Archetypes. Archetypes applied to computers - yes.

There isn't such a thing as an Archetype that wasn't available 100 years ago. Archetypes are abstract and omnipresent, and can only be studied/recognized by their applications, which applications will of course vary infinitely across the In-Between.


The Void [...] is in a sense a complete lack of applicable archetypes.

That's the greatest misconception and the greatest trap of all in our Art - and in everything else.

I regret that I cannot say more at this point. I will also not argue this point at all.

III - If I have somehow misquoted or misinterpreted you, I apologize in advance.

III
11-09-2010, 08:17 PM
There are no "computer" Archetypes. Archetypes applied to computers - yes.

There isn't such a thing as an Archetype that wasn't available 100 years ago. Archetypes are abstract and omnipresent, and can only be studied/regognized by their applications, which applications will of course vary infinitely across the In-Between.



That's the greatest misconception and the greatest trap of all in our Art - and in everything else.

I regret that I cannot say more at this point. I will also not argue this point at all.

III - If I have somehow misquoted or misinterpreted you, I apologize in advance.


Hi Androgynus,

If I have somehow misquoted or misinterpreted you, I apologize in advance

Actually I must thank you for being willing to engage in some semantic debuggery.


There are no "computer" Archetypes. Archetypes applied to computers - yes.

Certainly, Archetypes that are applied to computer or computer inspired ideas..

There isn't such a thing as an Archetype that wasn't available 100 years ago. Archetypes are abstract and omnipresent, and can only be studied/regognized by their applications, which applications will of course vary infinitely across the In-Between.

As the Archetypes (say as Archetype.dll continuing to use a computer analogy) are outside of local space-time so of course if one ever exists it always exists. However, archetypes for which one has no basis of understanding, interpreting or sensing in any way are generally perceived as noise. So to describe a "virtual full sensory holodeck" is something that is easily said and understood pretty well in 4 words circa 2010 could require a hundreds of pages of dense circumlocutions 2000 years ago trying to describe the experience of the "Kingdom" and how it could exist all around us and that we are part of it and not even aware of such. Must be magic or God or something. So in designing one's own internal architecture what are the design advantages and disadvantages of using binary trees versus multipath trees, or some combination. The archetypes of both exist in the common library. Of course one can and does use them without really understanding them but that kind of usage is often very limited.


The Void [...] is in a sense a complete lack of applicable archetypes.
That's the greatest misconception and the greatest trap of all in our Art - and in everything else.

Don't you just love indefinite pronouns. They help keep a high level of uncertainty about anything.that might be said, implied or suggested.

I have done plenty of void[] gazing. It is distinctly difficult to describe as it is everything unmanifest. It has no attributes such as "black" and can be the source of endless illusions if one so chooses. Beyond that I have a very difficult time saying anything about it as appears evident in everything I have ever read about the void by anybody. As one supremne court justice said of pornography "I know it when I see it".

I regret that I cannot say more at this point. I will also not argue this point at all.

Hmmmm! You don't need to take me so seriously. Don't turn down a straight line. Have fun with this dialog though maybe you are. We can all point at points at which we can't point at any more points so I suppose I get the point. Are those "air points" or points you can point at if your point pointing capacities have not lost their point? At some point we can point at language getting downright silly.

Now that makes semantic debugging difficult.

As the problem lies in the wording of attempting to describe an observed situation, the appearance of any trap may be more of an illusion than an actuality and may actually be self illustrative of the trap of false assumptions about limited understandings of some archetypes. It is quite easy to speak what appears to be total gibberish when the hearer is merely unfamiliar with the archetypes.

Alfred Korzybsky said that "IS" is the most dangerous word in our language since it creates identifications, false or not, and appears to be the same usage in "I am tired" as "I am human".

I use a meaning of archetype that perhaps doesn't coincide very closely with the one you choose to use, that again is influenced by a systems analysis frame of mind which differs considerably from theology, law, science, math and other modes of thought. It doesn't even use Latin which is good in my mind since I can't pun in Latin. Now the Professor Urth stories by Asimov are masterpieces of multipath multilingual puns including Latin. Of course when I went to Hiram College I did conjugate the name much to most everybody's evident distress, or occasionally, amusement..

Nasrudin was questioned on his reasons for riding his ass into town while facing backwards.

Andro
11-10-2010, 12:09 AM
...to describe a "virtual full sensory holodeck" is something that is easily said and understood pretty well in 4 words circa 2010 could require a hundreds of pages of dense circumlocutions 2000 years ago trying to describe the experience of the "Kingdom" and how it could exist all around us and that we are part of it and not even aware of such.

Virtual full sensory holodeck = Shamanic Lucid Dreaming.
Basically the same archetype, with different temporal/local/cultural applications or implementations.

If you wish to convey this Archetype to a 2010 Westerner (preferably familiar with Star Trek) - you use the "holodeck" application. 2000 years ago you use the 'lucid dream' application.
Focusing on form and wording diminishes the ability to distill the spirit behind the letter. If one wishes to illuminate an archetype inside oneself, one should IMO avoid the bias of time/space/culture-stamped interpretations.

There is an Universal Language which will remain beyond our reach for as long as we are over-specified. Over-specification generates subjectivity and flawed communication.

The Void [...] is in a sense a complete lack of applicable archetypes.
Once again, the above statement is the greatest misconception and the greatest trap of all in our Art - and in everything else.

Think "infinite data compression". Then try considering the opposite of your previous statement. Try to ride your ass into town while facing backwards.

Instead of 'a complete lack of applicable archetypes', try to 'view' what you perceive as 'Void' as an infinite bounty of applicable archetypes :)

How much storage space on your hard drive does an archetype require? The archetype itself, not its applications :)

solomon levi
11-10-2010, 02:43 AM
Greetings III.

Well, everything can be argued. So we must choose our battles wisely.
I don't see any real disagreement in calling the Void black.
It wasn't me that named "alchemy", "Kali", Osiris and Isis, etc.
And you know well that there are those who do not consider black a color,
but the absence of color, just as Pythagoreans would argue that 1 is not a number.

I agree with you - I've been in the Void as well and it is not black.

But black is really perfect for describing alchemy -
black: absorbs light, no color...
iris/peacock: a spectrum/octave of colors...
white: reflects light, the spectrum/octave combined/unified.

This is a fair description, in my experience, of the progress of the work,
with the rainbow as a bridge.


More and more I see that everything is alchemy. I doubt that there is anything that
cannot be used as a language of alchemy. As above, so below; as below, so above.
The computer is also very much like the brain or DNA...
of course, the brain and DNA created the computer, so why not.



1 - Are you from a version of creation in which the tree of life (crystal grid in some terminologies) has a broken section or is fully intact or it's condition is unknown?


I am (we are) the One, the All. Variety/interpretation comes about by different frequencies
of the One communicating with eachother. Some of these communications give the appearance
of separation, cracks, fractures, etc. I am all versions/potentials, and I am no "version" (That which Is).
So it depends who you are asking - the one that is typing these words, or The One?


2 - Are you from a creation in which monolithic macrobeings predominate, some of them quite mad such as the "mad demiurge" described by the gnostics and most of them none too bright or from one in which multi-cpu designs predominate.


Again, depends who you are asking. You'll have to be more specific to whom you are adressing for me to answer accurately.
Such a reality does exist, but it is not the All. Same for the first question.


3 - What is the current state right now that you observe of the tree and of the macrobeings?


If i answer you literally - "current", "right now" - I do not observe a tree or macrobeings. I observe thinking and a computer.
Or are you asking my current understanding of those things?

I'm sure you know I am not being evasive or difficult.
I see that you can be very detailed (as in the "color" black) so I truly need more info to answer you accurately.

Your friend in the alchemist/kabalah group. :)
solomon

solomon levi
11-10-2010, 03:21 AM
Continuing some insight.

In regards to changing our thinking, or the way we interpret - to come to alchemy with a new mind (or perhaps an old one).

Keep in mind that this is the Philosophers' stone.
And apply that to Philosophical mercury, P. sulphur, P. Wine....

Without writing pages on the subject, in brief I will refer you to Aristotle and Plato and their conception of form and substance/matter.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Form_and_matter

Also:
Plato's theory of Forms or theory of Ideas asserts that non-material abstract (but substantial) forms (or ideas), and not the
material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality.

Consider also how "removed" Prakriti (prime matter/undifferentiated substance) is from the senses.
And the Philosophers always tell us that their four elements are not those we perceive with our senses.

More later...

Andro
11-10-2010, 08:46 AM
I don't see any real disagreement in calling the Void black.
It wasn't me that named "alchemy", "Kali", Osiris and Isis, etc.
And you know well that there are those who do not consider black a color,
but the absence of color, just as Pythagoreans would argue that 1 is not a number.

I agree with you - I've been in the Void as well and it is not black.

But black is really perfect for describing alchemy -
black: absorbs light, no color...

The Void is definitely not 'colored black', but this is a good example of allegorical/archetypal wording, and we need to move beyond our programmed biases to extract the philosophical meaning of 'black'.
In Alchemical writings, black is not refered to as an actual 'color'. The example of the 'Black Madonna' comes to mind. Or the 'Black Sun'.

A certain humanoid lifeform once 'advised' me to use words in their 'common' sense. I find this to be a very sillly piece of advice, especially since what he perceives as 'common' sense is actually vulgar sense.
One's 'vulgar sense' is another's 'vulgar nonsense'.

If that particular humanoid can't see what I'm saying, let him insert a babel-fish in his ear (so that he may comprehend the true meaning of 'common'), instead of giving me silly 'advice' to compensate for his limited and biased perception.

Just an example: Many 'recipes' mention common sea salt. Those who interpret this to the letter and actually take vulgar sea salt (mostly Sodium Chloride) are usually in error, because common (Universal) Salt is the Salt of our Philosophical Sea, and not at all vulgar sea salt.


I see that you can be very detailed

Focusing on too much detail (over-specification) can lead one to a condition where one 'can't see the forest for the trees'. Widespread phenomena in decyphering Alchemical writings...

vega33
11-10-2010, 09:40 PM
Without writing pages on the subject, in brief I will refer you to Aristotle and Plato and their conception of form and substance/matter.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Form_and_matter


Aristotle's ideas are very important to Alchemy. He was the one who first fleshed out the idea in Greek philosophy (repeated in the Splendor Solis) that "the corruption of one thing is the generation of another" (Corruptio unus est generatio alterus). The Greek, as it is translated by MIT, uses terms "coming-to-be" and "passing-away" for generation and corruption. The whole text (on Corruption and generation) is long and hard to follow, but it is clear that Heidegger derived much of his thesis by studying this text.

The idea of this mutual corruption between bodies is important, that in being born we (the hermetic parents) die every day, that is, the acting and receiving (passive) principles die to their old life to create a different form. The conception is one of the Universe' struggle to attain equilibrium, compared to the desire of the One to create to begin with (creation "ex nihilo"). Back in times before Christ, Aristotle pondered over these questions of why do things come to be or pass away, what sustains their existence? His ideas (http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/gener_corr.1.i.html) taken on by later philosophy helped to define the precise nature of alchemy and help to explain, upon a simple meditation, why alchemy is seen as the art of music, and the true meaning of the Golden Chain.

horticult
11-10-2010, 10:30 PM
So the salt = true ERD of All.

lydite

solomon levi
11-11-2010, 01:24 PM
I was looking for an image to explain my statement:

"Consider also how "removed" Prakriti (prime matter/undifferentiated substance) is from the senses.
And the Philosophers always tell us that their four elements are not those we perceive with our senses."

And I found this page which does so, but also shows a view of Ouroboros as "Evolutes" from Prakriti
and a system of meditation to return to one's nature.

http://www.swamij.com/prakriti-purusha-sankhya.htm


Interesting again, referring to Philosophical... Prakriti means "nature" (really "begining/origin" of "form/formation"
which recalls the Sefer Yetsirah "Book of Formation") and for the "western" mind nature is not primordial substance
but rather plants and animals and weather...


Yoga sutras of Patanjali :
Yogash chitta vritti nirodhah. Tada drashtuh svarupe avasthanam.
"Yoga is the mastery of the activities of the mind-field.
Then the seer rests in its true nature."

You may recall an old thread on the etymology of the word "dragon" and its connection with the eye and seeing.
Drashtuh, the Seer (from the above sutra), is thus connected to the alchemists' Dragon and first matter.

III
11-11-2010, 07:38 PM
Virtual full sensory holodeck = Shamanic Lucid Dreaming.
Basically the same archetype, with different temporal/local/cultural applications or implementations.

If you wish to convey this Archetype to a 2010 Westerner (preferably familiar with Star Trek) - you use the "holodeck" application. 2000 years ago you use the 'lucid dream' application.
Focusing on form and wording diminishes the ability to distill the spirit behind the letter. If one wishes to illuminate an archetype inside oneself, one should IMO avoid the bias of time/space/culture-stamped interpretations.

There is an Universal Language which will remain beyond our reach for as long as we are over-specified. Over-specification generates subjectivity and flawed communication.

The Void [...] is in a sense a complete lack of applicable archetypes.
Once again, the above statement is the greatest misconception and the greatest trap of all in our Art - and in everything else.

Think "infinite data compression". Then try considering the opposite of your previous statement. Try to ride your ass into town while facing backwards.

Instead of 'a complete lack of applicable archetypes', try to 'view' what you perceive as 'Void' as an infinite bounty of applicable archetypes :)

How much storage space on your hard drive does an archetype require? The archetype itself, not its applications :)

Hi Adrogynus,

Words are a trap. If a person is trapped in the words they miss the meaning. Words are at best an approximation of meaning. Studying alchemy academically is worthless. One can't learn anything of use or meaning in that way. I spoke with Elaine Pagels one time when she was in SLC speaking at a College about her recent book THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS. I suggested that the GOSPEL OF THOMAS could be read as an arcana, with each phrase being associate with a specific energy and that if one performed the sequence of energies correctly one would find oneself in an area of higher understanding.. The problem here then, is how does one help another come into CHRIST.CONSCIOUSNESS[]? How does one tread the maze to make it into that set of chambers? How does one change one's self so that ones base of operations is CHRIST.CONSCIOUSNESS[]?

The Void [...] is in a sense a complete lack of applicable archetypes.
Once again, the above statement is the greatest misconception and the greatest trap of all in our Art - and in everything else.

Think "infinite data compression".

it is everything unmanifest

I think that about says it. I don't see any disagreement except about the words used. As said about Americans and Brits, "Two people separated by a common language". It is no "THING"" in particular. As you say, approximately infinite data compression, as fractal I would say, so that a single unit "pixel" when expanded at the speeed of light unpacks to a huge amount of perceivable information. Every pixel at every level has this characteristic. So if one dives into a pixel and finds an entire world therre and dives into another pixel on that worlds
and finds yet again an entire world and so on, is that infinite enough data compression? If one comes back into this world on a grazing vector and passes through a whole lot of "frames" in a compressed manner one might perceive a flash of light and thunderclap as some years of sensory information attempts to load and run in a fraction of a second. I have experienced this over and over at all types of vectors and velocities. So calling it VOID[] seems to work though many others have called it CHAOS[] or PRIMORDIAL.CHAOS[].

Attempting to understand it from the written description is the trap. Describing it after the experiences is always at best a not very good approximation. However, one who experiences it can't be trapped by any attempted description unless they choose to believe the approximation is actually the complete whole.

If you wish to convey this Archetype to a 2010 Westerner (preferably familiar with Star Trek) - you use the "holodeck" application. 2000 years ago you use the 'lucid dream' application.

If I were talking about the applications SHAMANIC.VOYAGING[] or LUCID.DREAM[] I might agree with you. As I am talking about this world (HOLODECK.EVERYDAY.EARTH[] which is a subfunction of HOLODECK.KUNDALINI.UNIVERSE[], this earth in it's every day apparantly solid and existent form along with everything we see at all scales, as being the full sensory virtual holodeck in question, I don't see how your suggestion applies. In GOSPEL OF THOMAS, the disciples are informed that what they have been awaiting has already happened and that they were already in the Kingdom if only they would open their eyes and see. So in that sense KINGDOM[] might be an acceptable functional substitution excecpt that it carries a lot of baggage with it that could make it an unacceptable definition to many that could accept a less "loaded" definition.

Focusing on form and wording diminishes the ability to distill the spirit behind the letter.

Such can be the problem when one focuses on the words and misses the meaning entirely, which is why the unspoken teachings need to be given with the spoken making the spoken portion only a key into the greater understanding. An Arcana illustrates that quite well. As words alone, they mean very little. If one instead uses each phrase as a key if one can follow it, there is an ascent in a specific knowledge/understanding/experience.

I have had the repeated experience of doing PRAYER ABSOLUTE (EJ Gold, The Hidden Work) in a group. I have had the same experience in groups of 3 or 4 as with groups of 300. One person speaks the instructions. If one stays focused on the words and their meaning that is all they get, words and no experience. If one does as the words suggest with single pointed attention it functions as an Arcana and they have an experience but no memory of the words at all.


If one wishes to illuminate an archetype inside oneself, one should IMO avoid the bias of time/space/culture-stamped interpretations.

As far as I can tell that is not possible in attempting to communicate. Every word or image used carries with it a whole lot of cultural baggage and assumptions. That's why so many have said that the teaching needs to be given anew to each culture and generation in terms they can understand. I know what I am doing and am quite experienced. Even with that I find many older works to be quite impenetrable even knowing what they appear to be attempting to convey. So a non-theistic oriented person would choke on KINGDOM[] (of God) as might a non-Christian choke on CHRIST.CONSCIOUSNESS[]. So, is CHRIST.CONSCIOUSNESS[], BUDDHA.CONSCIOUSNESS[] and KRISHNA.CONSCIOUSNESS[] all the same and these are just culturally oreinted words or are they each specifying something actually different?


How much storage space on your hard drive does an archetype require? The archetype itself, not its applications

If you mean how much room does storing archetypes in my own "pearl" or self defining storage space require, the answer is none. The archetype is part of the collective background for all and isn't stored in my or anyone's self definitional fractal, nor are the application. None of these things are exclusive to anybody and are not and can not be secret. They are all there for all with eyes to see.

III
11-16-2010, 02:57 AM
Greetings III.

Well, everything can be argued. So we must choose our battles wisely.
I don't see any real disagreement in calling the Void black.
It wasn't me that named "alchemy", "Kali", Osiris and Isis, etc.
And you know well that there are those who do not consider black a color,
but the absence of color, just as Pythagoreans would argue that 1 is not a number.

I agree with you - I've been in the Void as well and it is not black.

But black is really perfect for describing alchemy -
black: absorbs light, no color...
iris/peacock: a spectrum/octave of colors...
white: reflects light, the spectrum/octave combined/unified.

This is a fair description, in my experience, of the progress of the work,
with the rainbow as a bridge.


More and more I see that everything is alchemy. I doubt that there is anything that
cannot be used as a language of alchemy. As above, so below; as below, so above.
The computer is also very much like the brain or DNA...
of course, the brain and DNA created the computer, so why not.




I am (we are) the One, the All. Variety/interpretation comes about by different frequencies
of the One communicating with eachother. Some of these communications give the appearance
of separation, cracks, fractures, etc. I am all versions/potentials, and I am no "version" (That which Is).
So it depends who you are asking - the one that is typing these words, or The One?



Again, depends who you are asking. You'll have to be more specific to whom you are adressing for me to answer accurately.
Such a reality does exist, but it is not the All. Same for the first question.

If i answer you literally - "current", "right now" - I do not observe a tree or macrobeings. I observe thinking and a computer. Or are you asking my current understanding of those things?

I'm sure you know I am not being evasive or difficult.
I see that you can be very detailed (as in the "color" black) so I truly need more info to answer you accurately.

Your friend in the alchemist/kabalah group. :)
solomon


Hi Solomon,

Did you have a good Gunpowder Day?

1 - Are you from a version of creation in which the tree of life (crystal grid in some terminologies) has a broken section or is fully intact or it's condition is unknown?

I am (we are) the One, the All. Variety/interpretation comes about by different frequencies
of the One communicating with each other. Some of these communications give the appearance of separation, cracks, fractures, etc. I am all versions/potentials, and I am no "version" (That which Is). So it depends who you are asking - the one that is typing these words, or The One?

2 - Are you from a creation in which monolithic macrobeings predominate, some of them quite mad such as the "mad demiurge" described by the gnostics and most of them none too bright or from one in which multi-cpu designs predominate.

Again, depends who you are asking. You'll have to be more specific to whom you are adressing for me to answer accurately. Such a reality does exist, but it is not the All. Same for the first question.


I'm sure you know I am not being evasive or difficult. I see that you can be very detailed (as in the "color" black) so I truly need more info to answer you accurately.

I do not think you are being evasive or difficult. The "detailed" is so that something is sufficiently pinned down as to distinguish to which dimensional groupings the description might apply to. As most all questions and answers are temporary and local and apply only at very specific transitory states in eternity, the answers you gave were not unexpected and were satisfactory.

From some points of view the ALL is quite helpless, pinned down in a creation that occurs quite reflexively, like a sneeze and quite unable to effect it's own evolution. So some portions of consciousnesses within the creation do whatever they do and these things get worked out in the system without any TOP-DOWN direction as such and there is only "NOW", no history of what had been. Everything that is now has always been.even though in space-time there is before and after etc.

On the other hand, humans are time bound and aware of what occurred previously and how something had changed. So humans might perceive a temporary crack or fracture as the disruption of up/down tree communication for most of human history and perceive a "mad demiurge" at the root of the tree segment that is at the top of what might be seen as a temporary fracture. In any case when the tempory fracture heals and light/knowledge/understanding start flooding into the world much upheaval happens as people dodge and weave to avoid finding out anything.as is happening now. The "slow burn" we on earth are collectively undergoing currently is a change from the blowup that might have happened.. Of course it could all be an illusion, as it is a fleeting image in a virtual holodeck. We could talk all year about what is "real" and never get anywhere. After all, tying any thing in space-time to something eternal is tenuous at best. However, as I have been in these space-time regions for long periods punctuated by returns to the eternal, I have seen large changes in the eternal. Meaning is always more difficult.

So now the question, from the POV of the ALL is there even any need for Alchemy or anything else? We find that there are semi-separated perceptions of "self". These can grow and evolve into separate conscious beings that can maintain "self" first inside this incubator and then outside. Whether the use of this pathway is a "purpose" or not , I can't tell you. From a systems point of view when a l see so much code devoted to this pathway that so few choose to take, it appears to be significant.

So here we are, self designing/evolving intelligent beings. So few ever make use of that potential. Many who think they are interested turn out not to be when they find out what it really means. It is NEVER what any body expects. Even a Yogi friend of mine could not find anybody currently alive in his order able to discuss higher metaphysics with him or go with him and verify his findings. Every now and then I get a nudge from the system and asked if I will take on Work with somebody. Such nudges have been given in many ways such as a pair of Yogi saints showing up and telling me the situation and assignment, if I should choose to accept it. The message always is temporary. The person shows up shortly there after.and are almost always stuck in their Work and need anything from some hints to becoming a student or even Alchemical partner. John Lilly coined the term "Coincidence Control" to describe all sorts of things of this sort.

So the question that comes to me is WHY? These people led to me have been of varying abilities and needs but each one has specific needs for certain evolutionary information. If the purpose of this incubator mechanism isn't for the production of "conscious individualities" as one author called it, why does it behave in this way. Robert DeRopp described things in THE MASTER GAME that approximates the schema I have found. There is a series of consciousness levels and a person can be guided through these things with appropriate experiences. While the experience of KNOWING in the ALL is part of what is found, that is only part of it.. Such experiences are less than helpful to the student as they are rarely able to retrieve useful information for directing their own evolution.

My interpretation may not hold water, but I haven't seen one that fits all the data and my experiences better.As changes are made in the COS regularly by those who (understand? know?) the system best as determined by the system which itself which evolves in this manner.something that appears eternally static does in fact change, suddenly and instantly. The results of such changes however echo through this incubator, this virtual holodeck, asynchronously, as we have what appears to be two levels of speed of light compression ratios. The "debugging" and evolution of the COS is an eternally ongoing process.

I can't think of a single reason you ought to "believe" anything I say about this. Go look for yourself and see if what I say might fit. After a multitude of "recurrence" events I found that I could come up with a working system only by considering them to be a normal operating of the system rather than some kind of rare event.exception.processing. Things kept hitting me over the head, so to speak, until I got each message.

Finding out what happens 2 speed of light barriers from here isn't very helpful if one doesn't know the basic mysteries of life and death. Until one can go see for themselves it is all theoretical. And at all times the most important information is that which allows the next step, not the big things that most everybody seeks. For most living their lives here, what keeps their blocks in place is the most vital information.

III
11-16-2010, 06:36 AM
The Void is definitely not 'colored black', but this is a good example of allegorical/archetypal wording, and we need to move beyond our programmed biases to extract the philosophical meaning of 'black'.
In Alchemical writings, black is not refered to as an actual 'color'. The example of the 'Black Madonna' comes to mind. Or the 'Black Sun'.

A certain humanoid lifeform once 'advised' me to use words in their 'common' sense. I find this to be a very sillly piece of advice, especially since what he perceives as 'common' sense is actually vulgar sense.
One's 'vulgar sense' is another's 'vulgar nonsense'.

If that particular humanoid can't see what I'm saying, let him insert a babel-fish in his ear (so that he may comprehend the true meaning of 'common'), instead of giving me silly 'advice' to compensate for his limited and biased perception.

Just an example: Many 'recipes' mention common sea salt. Those who interpret this to the letter and actually take vulgar sea salt (mostly Sodium Chloride) are usually in error, because common (Universal) Salt is the Salt of our Philosophical Sea, and not at all vulgar sea salt.



Focusing on too much detail (over-specification) can lead one to a condition where one 'can't see the forest for the trees'. Widespread phenomena in decyphering Alchemical writings...

Hi Androgynus,


Focusing on too much detail (over-specification) can lead one to a condition where one 'can't see the forest for the trees'. Widespread phenomena in decyphering Alchemical writings..

That is a widespread problem not at all limited to Alchemical writings. On the other hand underspecification often leads to total and complete misunderstandings, as is so often evidenced by lawyers fighting over what a law actually means for decades or all the dodges health insurance companies are employing currently in the USA because of all the loopholes and ambiguities in the law passed.. When voyaging in a multidimensional labyrinth one can end up in a totally different chamber than the one intended due to underspecification. As I mentioned in my introduction I might be more of an Alchemical engineer than you might be familiar with. And as I am not spending any time at all trying to read old Alchemical writings and make sense of them it matters little.

It is really much more effective to learn the language in which the whole thing is written so that one doesn't have to take any body's opinion about how the system works. It works in highly specific ways that appears proportionately responsive to precision.. Underspecification just leads to sloppy interpretation of how the system works and then it doesn't. Detailed and specific understanding allows it to work. Understanding the expected inputs allows one to give them allowing much more predictable results. In programming incorrect syntax doesn't work. Improperly specified variables don't give desired results. Magic and Alchemy require every bit of the maximum precision one can give them or all one gets are sloppy and unpredictable results. Simple misspellings can lead to celibate duds! instead of celebrate dudes!. Many are still paying the price of sloppy thinking and language in earlier metaphysics just as we are in medicine. I have read lots of research and I am appalled to see sloppy mistakes in research that costs lots of lives in reports that would have flunked a high school chemistry lab.

One can be quite precise without at all limiting possibility. Bridge is bid totally by "convention" rather than rules and it can be really amusing when the partner of the opposition totally misunderstands the meaning of his partner's bid, such as jumping into slam in response to a negative bid by partner. When one is trying to conceal as well as reveal, often under pain of potential torture and death, things are often said in an intentionally ambiguous and puzzling manner. At least some literature is only puzzling due to cultural unfamiliarity of euphemisms and linguistic shifts of 500 or 2000 or whatever years ago.

That being said, now students don't need to drop out of alchemical studies for not getting a clue if taught in a direct manner. Instead they drop out when they start getting results and it scares the pre-compost out of them. It's really quite easy to teach a person to the point of dawning knowledge. However, when they get that first good look at themselves most turn tail and run because they don't really want to KNOW. They don't really want to wake up out of their dream. When they start removing all the obvious impediments to waking up and KNOWING is when you can see what they are really made of.

How many do you think discovered nitroglycerin before someone survived to write down the recipe? I don't know the answer to this but I would suppose quite a few. In college I remember a small crater blown into the football field by those who should have known better.

If that particular humanoid can't see what I'm saying, let him insert a babel-fish in his ear (...), instead of giving me silly 'advice' to compensate for his limited and biased perception.

Exactly! I'm just trying to come up with a modern precise technical language description of Alchemy making a clean break with all the nonsense and bad metaphysics of the dark ages and middle ages descriptions of Alchemy and metaphysics of a society that has made any such knowledge punishable by torture and death, while maintaining the required operational compatibility even with the flaws. As the patches are applied in eternal chambers there must be full backwards compatibility so as not to break working code. It's a tough analysis and programming contract specification, and the system itself can't tell the difference, which is how so much bad code and really bad code has crept into the system over the millennia.as various mystics attempted to give themselves and their belief systems a very egotistical advantage.

Actually it is not just ass backwards but upside down and backwards.

Andro
11-16-2010, 06:53 PM
The following text is copied and pasted from this website (http://www.nothing.net/deult.html), and it is most relevant to this thread:
__________________________________________________ ___________________________


NOTHING YOU CAN BELIEVE IN

We believe in nothing, and we think you should too. We have our workers doing nothing around the clock, finding new ways to package nothing, new problems to confront (in our big 32 page manual which is offered free with every purchase), or doing literally nothing just to waste time. Right now we are drastically understaffed, but we aren't in a hurry because we want to make sure we get nothing right.

NOTHING IS BIG

"Nothing is bigger than cyberspace, the Internet, and the NFL site on the world wide web." - Microsoft.

People all over the world are talking about nothing. It doesn't matter what language you speak or even if you can't speak. Nothing's the same everywhere you go. Almost the entire universe is made up of nothing. Philosophers think and talk about nothing until they die. "It's" that important!

THE CUSTOMER IS #1

We know that you work hard for your money, so we are working overtime to develop our customer image. We'll do nothing to help you right from the start. If you don't like our service, we'll do nothing until we get it right. Anyone can offer nothing, but we'll deliver. Others may stop at nothing to get a satisfied customer, but to us nothing is just the beginning.

ALL THAT YOU EVER WANTED IN A CONCEPT ... AND LESS

We have nothing to do, nothing to eat, nothing to wear, nothing to say, and many other concepts. We are pleased to announce that nothing is available at this time! We are so excited about nothing that we can't wait to tell everyone about "it". Order Today!

Wondering what to get the man who has everything?

http://i861.photobucket.com/albums/ab172/androgynus_album/nosomething.jpg

Nothing seems good enough.

GIVE THE GIFT OF NOTHING!

Testimonials:

"I have absolutely nothing to say to you." - Peggy S. C. RN

"i just want to say that i am very satisfied with your delivery. I really got nothing. thanx for nothing. " - FireSe7en

"Thank you so much for nothing. I thought I would buy something for my friend but having gone to your site, I realize that nothing is better than something. After all, everyone has SOMETHING. How many people can honestly say they have NOTHING?" - Judy

"I was just wandering around on the net, and found nothing, I was wandering if nothing is really something?
Either way its cool." - Roman

"I found nothing to be very informative. I thought you might like to know that when people ask me what do I do for a living my reply is NOTHING! And without hesitation they always say “Come on, really now?” I then tell them it is true. I get paid to do nothing. In fact there is so much nothing to do that it consumes my entire day doing it there are some days that I do not finish doing nothing. I am seriously considering hiring someone to help me with doing nothing but the pay is not so great for them. It is exactly nothing." - D. C.

"We were using a search engine and my wife was getting tired of the computer stuff. I asked her what she wanted to look for next, she said nothing, so I found nothing. I think I want a t-shirt that says nothing, but first I'm going to wear nothing and see if anyone (or no one) notices." - Scott D.

“I guess nothing comes easy to me.” - Xymyl

"Nothing is bigger than cyberspace, the Internet, and the NFL site on the world wide web." - Microsoft

"Thanks for nothing! Later," - T. M.

" " - Carla L.

"Thought you might be interested in putting this on your web page.. which, by the way, kicks all ass.

"What's greater than God, more evil than the devil, the rich need it, the poor have it, and if you eat it, you die?"

the answer........ "nothing."

Frequently Asked Questions:

Q: 1. What if the mail man delivers my nothing when I am not home, how will I know where he left it? 2. How much is shipping and handling on nothing?
A: 1: This should never happen. If the mailman delivers nothing please contact us via e-mail. 2: Nothing.

Q: "Do you ever actually receive orders? I must say I am slightly intrigued to see if anyone is truly that dumb. Thank you for your time."
A: No. We send the orders. (Because of the negative content of this e-mail we posted it on our site.)

Q: "Why?"
A: Because "it" isn't there.

Q: "Really, if I order nothing, what do I get?"
A: Nothing, and our big (actually small, but infinitely larger than nothing) instruction manual.

Q: "And what's in the instruction manual?"
A: Great tips, detailed instructions, recipes and more!

Q: "Can you give me any good reason why I should spend $5 on nothing?"
A: No.

Q: "Is nothing real?"
A: No, but we are selling "it".

Q: "Can I really buy it or is it just a hoax?"
A: This is not a hoax. When we say we'll send you nothing we mean nothing! Remember, you can also buy tee-shirts which are something.

Q: "What the hell are you guys talking about?"
A: Nothing.

"Did you know that Snapple stold your concept?"
A: Yes, but what can you do? (A: Nothing.)

Q: "You want us to send 20.00 for a t-shirt that says nothing on it??? What's the point, if it doesn't say anything, what do I do with it. Use it as a washcloth??!!"
A: 1: The shirt actually does say something, the word "nothing", but it is printed in the same color as the shirt. 2: Yes, using the shirt as a washcloth is a great suggestion. Alternately, you could do nothing with the shirt.

Q: "I'm very intrigued, what do you consider nothing?"
A: Nothing.

Q: "Why are you trying to sell me nothing for something?"
A: No reason.

Q: "Would you really get something when you pay for nothing?"
A: You get what you pay for.

Q: "Do you really deliver nothing?"
A: Yes.

Q: "Are you ever gonna do e-mail forwarding, or the Like?"
A: We've been thinking seriously about it for about 4 years. Not sure.

Q: "How Many Orders of Nothing do you receive daily?"
A: We are not equipped to process orders of nothing. However, we do receive numerous orders for nothing.

Q: "Can i have your children? Please."
A: No. Nothing personal.

Albion
11-17-2010, 01:25 AM
http://www.victorianweb.org/art/illustration/tenniel/alice/6.5.jpg
...

III
11-20-2010, 01:30 AM
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
Of cabbages—and kings—
And why the sea is boiling hot—
And whether pigs have wings."

-Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
____________________________________

So what… is your definition of “a thing?”

We are both trained, and hardwired to objectify - so that, at the very least, we might be functional and able to integrate with other members of society. Some objectifications such as “that is a tree” may well serve us our whole life, whereas other objectifications may need to be reexamined and dismissed. So, for some of us, begins the long process of reprogramming.

And, yes, because the tree is itself a temporal knot of processes, of interwoven threads of elemental currents, held in place by a code and a supportive system, it’s “thingness” is not absolute. The code itself is in flux, was originally imagined, and is imagined as “a tree” for sake of convenience, utility, and further study of both a category as well as a specific type. The tree also serves as a metaphor for comprehending or explaining that which is tree-like yet incorporeal.

Out of the plenum there appear to be things. One can miss the plenum for the trees, as it were, and be rather lost, for a time, in a forest of things. Yet, having gained a more exalted perspective above & beyond that forest, where Dynamic Quality overtakes Quantity [or “static quality” as Pirsig would say] is the world of things, and the process of objectification to be therefore despised?

With a world of things in an articulated system there is a context for learning real lessons - whatever the relative unsubstantility of the material might be. That learning can take place implies that the system has a positive purpose.

I once had this experience: I saw so thoroughly that all that I knew in this realm was, in some sense at least, illusory that I was hovering at the point of leaving the body behind for good because, as it seemed to me at the time, one must be willing to hold onto an illusion or two to sustain embodiment, and therefore I had a choice to make in that moment - and I [or my “higher self”] chose life "here". Why? A sense of unfinished business [such as character improvement, for example :-)], I guess, or further lessons I needed to learn here. Perhaps the need to work through my ingrained illusions [and many re-emerged from programming layers soon enough thereafter - as some, no doubt, remain to this day], gradually, one false presupposition (and/or layer thereof) at a time. Perhaps to learn to integrate the two perspectives and to delve more deeply into an understanding of the nature of the activity of creation.

Hi Albion,

Some of the things you have been through are quite familiar to me. All perceptions of everything at all levels is equally illusion as far as I can tell. Fundamental consciousness, of no thing at all, is all that comes built in. Every interpretation at every level from the extreme micro to any perception of the ALL or any part thereof is an illusion so I don't know what the fuss is about. If one is conscious eternally one might as well be conscious of something. As Descartes said "I think, therefore I am". Boredom appears to be the entire cause of the creation. As far as that primordial consciousness is concerned becoming self aware was the greatest thing even though of course it is no thing at all. I choose to spend much of my duration of consciousness living inside this incubator, this generator of evolution and consciousness. The "Age of True Man" seen as on the verge of starting by the old Mayans has a supposed duration of 143 nonillion year (nonillion comes after octillion). It is rarely mentioned as the duration seems so long as to seem ridiculous in terms of a 4 billion year old planet. However, in this non-physical virtual holodeck 143 nonillion years is not even a blink in eternity. Consider what you want to do with 143 nonillion years of consciousness, during this next period. The "2000 year old man" is a mere child compared to what can occur in this environment. Doing nothing at all for that kind of duration seems rather laughable.Sitting in "no-mind" for 143 nonillion years seems rather pointless.

I had to consider why I might want to spend indefinite time HERE rather than an eternity of non-physical experience in which nothing can change and if it does, it does so instantly and it isn't noticed. I did that for a long long long duration of experience and came back HERE to have another chance to evolve based on what I had learned in the non-physical I suppose the question has to come up as to whether some level is inherently superior to another.As one has a lot of freedom of where and how to spend eternity once one is free I can't say that non-physical is inherently superior. Yes, it gets out of the possible miseries of physical life which used to dominate. A good dentist can prevent an awful lot of misery. This life isn't the automatic misery it used to be before decent medical and dental care..

For me, I have found being here more interesting than many other places or non-places. I help folks who are trapped here, lost in unconscious dreams generally, get unblocked and attain freedom. Why so many of our fellow humans use their abilities to keep most folks trapped, repeating essentially the same narrowly defined life with almost no changes over and over and over, slowing the usual rate of evolution to a near standstill I don't know. Of course it may all be accidental that many ways to access higher information are blocked off by law, by cultural conventions, by ridiculous belief systems, by wholesale murder and genocide, by the blocking of knowledge blocking the knowledge of the blocking of the knowledge etc. The main obstacles these days are not our own but rather those imposed upon us and unconsciously adopted over and over again.

I once had this experience: I saw so thoroughly that all that I knew in this realm was, in some sense at least, illusory that I was hovering at the point of leaving the body behind for good because, as it seemed to me at the time, one must be willing to hold onto an illusion or two to sustain embodiment, and therefore I had a choice to make in that moment - and I [or my “higher self”] chose life "here". Why? A sense of unfinished business [such as character improvement, for example :-)], I guess, or further lessons I needed to learn here. Perhaps the need to work through my ingrained illusions [and many re-emerged from programming layers soon enough thereafter - as some, no doubt, remain to this day], gradually, one false presupposition (and/or layer thereof) at a time. Perhaps to learn to integrate the two perspectives and to delve more deeply into an understanding of the nature of the activity of creation.

The better you learn" the nature of activity of creation" the more freedom you have. As far as the traditional goal of Alchemy, "eternal life", it is the one thing that is a practical outcome. It isn't what you think. Nothing is. However, it is a significant option. BE IN LOVE.

Ghislain
11-22-2010, 04:03 AM
I would like to pose a question I have borrowed from an EBook by Dr Thomas Chalko
which is available HERE (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?1835-The-
Freedom-of-Choice&p=11694#post11694)


Do you know how much is 2 + 2 ?

Is it 4 ?

Are you sure?

Can you PROVE it ?

Are you SURE that you can prove that

2 + 2 = 4 ?

Please make sure that you can prove it before moving to the
next post.

Ghislain
11-22-2010, 04:04 AM
Can you prove it to a chicken?

If intellect cannot comprehend the analysis – no proof is possible.

I find this thread interesting, but confusing. I am that chicken! :(

I have just returned from Peru where I partook of some ayahuasca at The Temple of
the Way of Light. Here I had an experience, for want of a better word, where I broke
through to a place where I was looking down on the world, among like beings however
not just among but at one with them...knowing with them. I have been pondering how
one would convey this feeling with others in a way they may fully understand the
experience. It felt utopian, I wanted to stay but somehow knew I had to return to the
game we created, that which we call reality. By some weird happenstance someone
wrote very close to what I would say. It is quoted as Albion but posted by III and I
cannot find the original...perhaps III could shed some light on its origin.


I once had this experience: I saw so thoroughly that all that I knew in this
realm was, in some sense at least, illusory that I was hovering at the point of leaving the body
behind for good because, as it seemed to me at the time, one must be willing to hold onto an
illusion or two to sustain embodiment, and therefore I had a choice to make in that moment -
and I [or my “higher self”] chose life "here". Why? A sense of unfinished business .

People, would it be possible to convert your argument to that which I may fully
comprehend?

Now there’s a challenge :)

Ghislain

Albion
11-22-2010, 01:38 PM
By some weird happenstance someone
wrote very close to what I would say. It is quoted as Albion but posted by III and I
cannot find the original...perhaps III could shed some light on its origin.


After two days I replaced that post [quoted in its entirety by III] with the fading Cheshire smile because I was concerned that it might be killing an otherwise enjoyable and edifying thread. Apparently, at the same time, III had the un-refreshed page up when he was composing his fine response. That new context, reflected back on the Cheshire cat, seemed to imply it was reappearing from its indeterminate state.

A bit wyrd for me is your mention of 2 + 2 = 4 as I had just submitted a post to another forum using that phrase in an explanatory device.

Andro
11-22-2010, 02:12 PM
A bit wyrd for me is your mention of 2 + 2 = 4 as I had just submitted a post to another forum using that phrase - albeit in a different context.

:)



None is One and One is None,
Two is Three, and Tree is One
One and Two and Three and Four
Equal One, n'Evermore.

Oh, Matter-Matics...

Albion
11-22-2010, 03:13 PM
Originally Posted by Androgynus
None is One and One is None,
Two is Three, and Tree is One
One and Two and Three and Four
Equal One, n'Evermore.

Oh, Matter-Matics...

In other words: The activity of either addition or multiplication is actually one of fractional/fractal division?

I love Two, because with Two there is dialog.
And I love Three because Three, [making both Two sets of Two plus the greater operative dynamic] makes for a forum with additional corrective, balancing perspectives.
And if Two & Three were not also in and of the superessential, non-numerical [in the sense of not being one "thing"] One, communication would not have a medium.

To me, any fundamental infinity of primary potential/actuality, zero/one has irrevocably sponsored a multi-phonic number of personal infinities/potentials/awareness perspectives - each with their own qualitative signature vibe - well beyond the local mind‘s ego identifications, human role-playing, etc. - but never to be one day utterly dissolved into mere indistinct oneness without acknowledgement of others. The reality of “others” has a living ground in the one “not-other-than” but in Love many & one both have validity.

And all that is, from one perspective, illusory, also partakes of reality to varying degrees, so that the dichotomy of real/illusory is itself just a tool of the mind for comparing that which is relatively real to that which is relatively unreal. If there is Absolute Reality on one end of the spectrum, and utter illusion/delusion on the other end, one could just as well define that spectrum by the substantial term and not the relatively insubstantial one. In other words, couldn’t one just as well say “it’s all relatively real?”
_____________________________________

Ones & zeros. Pixels on a screen. Pixels forming words, words arranged into meaningful text, voila: a play by Shakespeare. You read a passage, your heart is moved. You learn something. You perceive a Quality that engenders a response, and which reveals, or draws out some corresponding facet of light. Was that real? If you simply reduce it all to the level of pixels or ones & zeros, or, lower still, a quantum maelstrom where no “thing” is real, per se, then what has actually taken place in the reading and metabolizing of the meanings and reverberations of the texts, wherein quality was conveyed and an individual was inspired? Even though, in this case, the passage that moved you was:

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts…”

...and it was your imaginative faculty that brought it to life, and you would be hard pressed to say, in quantitative terms, just what has been added, can it not be said that your life is better for having had the experience?
_____________________________________

Once upon a time, a Puppet-President of a collectively imagined institution known as "a country" had a dream.

His imaginative interpretation of the dream compeled him to initiate a war and further augment his already oversized role.

In the theatre of war many, who would not otherwise ascribe particular validity to either the original dream or the mind of its dreamer, are nevertheless now put in a position of having to make moral choices in an ambiguous context. Someone makes what they would later, in retrospect, consider to have been rather poor choices and, in the deep angst of self-re-evaluation “wakes up” from one or more levels of various dramas they had allowed themselves to be a part of.

So an absurd, incendiary dream sold to and amplified among fellow dreamers [who were prepped to receive and nurture it], when carried to a point of even greater absurdity in its application, yet serves to startle some people awake to a degree they had not previously enjoyed.

Beyond questions of good or evil, amidst a complex [in the minds of the participants] web of relative illusion, a learning seems to have taken place as the information-cloud of an individual is severely overhauled for the better. I see this as a net gain. Yes, when he was three years old he harbored none of the illusions he would voluntarily buy into as his enculturation progressed [unless you include a trust in parental figures that would serve as a naive receptive matrix], but now he has gained a degree of wisdom from experience and so stands in a better place from which he is better able to evaluate the relative deceptiveness of incoming propositions from the social sphere.
___________________________________

Though often poorly or unconsciously employed, Imagination is a wonder.

“Imagination is the real and eternal world of which this vegetable universe is but a faint shadow.” - William Blake

Albion
11-23-2010, 04:11 PM
AEnigma Philosophicum

There is no light, but what lives in the Sunne;
There is no Sunne, but which is twice begott;
Nature and Arte the Parents first begonne:
By Nature ‘twas, but Nature perfects not.
Arte then what Nature left in hand doth take,
And out of One a Twofold worke doth make.

A Twofold worke doth make, but such a worke
As doth admitt Division none at all
(See here wherein the Secret most doth lurke)
Unlesse it be a Mathematicall.
It must be Two, yet make it One and One,
And you do take the way to make it None.

Lo here the Primar Secret of this Arte,
Contemne it not but understand it right,
Who faileth to attaine this formost part,
Shall never know Artes force nor Natures might.
Nor yet have power of One and One so mixt,
To make by One fixt, One unfixid fixt.


D.D. W. Bedman.