PDA

View Full Version : Is alchemy sacred?



JDP
10-18-2015, 03:55 AM
Spin-off from this thread (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4528-Ozone-as-the-Prima-Materia&p=39373#post39373)...


And by believing in the Stone you are creating the Stone... so in a sense it is the Stone.

Countless people through history have believed in the Stone, yet they failed in preparing it. On the other hand, a good number of people who at first did not believe in it actually saw it and handled it and became convinced of its reality. So the Stone's "being" is quite independent of what either the seeker or the observer believes. Like everything else that exists, it does not really care what one thinks of it, it just "is". There are people out there who amusingly don't believe in gravity either, yet for all their denials they still get killed like everyone else when they fall down a precipice or a piano falls on their heads from a 10 story building. Gravity does not give a dime what they think of it. Neither does the Stone.


Why do alchemists always think the Stone is in physical form? ;)

:cool:

Because that is how it is described in the texts and how historical witnesses describe it. And if it was not physical, then no one would be able to prove its existence. Its alleged existence would solely be a matter of "faith". Alchemy would basically be another religion, not a science or an "art".

Awani
10-18-2015, 04:15 AM
Gravity does not give a dime what they think of it.

I am not sure about that.


Its alleged existence would solely be a matter of "faith".

Which it is. The physical Stone is only a microcosm of the macrocosm non-physical Stone... the practical work is a representation of the internal work. Materialistic alchemy is a dead end street IMO, but it can be a good inspiration.

If you want to keep a person a secret call the person a God... if you want to keep a non-physical force a secret call it a Grail. Then watch the people looking for it.


Alchemy would basically be another religion, not a science or an "art".

Religion = "respect for what is sacred"
Science = "know"
Art = "work/craft"

So yes it is.

:cool:

JDP
10-18-2015, 04:28 AM
Which it is.

If it really was then there would not have been countless failures in preparing it. All that would be required is for one to believe in it, and presto, you got the Stone no matter what you do. At the same time, there should not be skeptical historical witnesses of it, since they had no "faith" in it. Obviously the Stone wasn't bothered at all by what any of these believers and non-believers thought about it. It just "is", whether you accept it or not is irrelevant for physical reality.


If you want to keep a person a secret call the person a God... if you want to keep an non-physical force a secret call it a Grail. Then watch the people looking for it.

Unfortunately, no one has seen the "grail", it makes its appearance only in legends, unlike the Stone, so the analogy is not quite the same.


Religion = "respect for what is sacred"
Science = "know"
Art = "work/craft"

So yes it is.

:cool:

That is not how the dictionary and most people define those words:

Religion: the belief in a god or in a group of gods. : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods.

Science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

Art: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation

So no, it is not.

Awani
10-18-2015, 04:38 AM
http://www.etymonline.com


religion (n.)
c. 1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-French religiun (11c.), Old French religion "piety, devotion; religious community," and directly from Latin religionem (nominative religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods; conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation; fear of the gods; divine service, religious observance; a religion, a faith, a mode of worship, cult; sanctity, holiness," in Late Latin "monastic life" (5c.).

BOLD = fits alchemy pretty good

As far as the others words you are wrong because science means knowing/knowledge and art means craft.

So no, it is yes.

By the way I am not saying alchemy is a religion, but alchemy is a sacred art... for a reason. ;)

:cool:

JDP
10-18-2015, 07:38 AM
http://www.etymonline.com



BOLD = fits alchemy pretty good

As far as the others words you are wrong because science means knowing/knowledge and art means craft.

So no, it is yes.

By the way I am not saying alchemy is a religion, but alchemy is a sacred art... for a reason. ;)

:cool:

The definitions you are quoting are from the point of view of the origins of the words in the Middle Ages, not more contemporary ones. Plus notice that the "belief" and "faith" part, which is what you should have put in bold, was already there.

All the definitions I quoted are from Merriam-Webster.

So no, it is no.

Many alchemists liked to pretend and think that there is something "sacred" about alchemy, which is a very different thing from actually being so. When they actually bothered to go into explanations of why they did not want to reveal how to make the Stone to the whole world, the reasons they adduce are usually of a more substantial and mundane nature, and also of a "personal-advantage" point of view: nobody will want to do other kinds of work than make gold and silver and become rich, there no longer will be a division between rich and poor, which will upset production of basic goods necessary for human life (like agriculture, which requires hard work for rather small monetary rewards) and commerce, thus the "normal" way of life and the "natural" order of things will be altered, gold and silver might end up losing their value, etc.

Awani
10-18-2015, 01:00 PM
The definitions you are quoting are from the point of view of the origins of the words...

Exactly!

Nothing is sacred, everything is sacred. The respect you put into it, is the respect you get out of it.

But don't get me wrong, I would be the first person here to say "fuck alchemy"... but that would only be confusing if I did.

Only "poor" alchemists are interested in making gold... quicker to buy a lottery ticket. And "rich" alchemists are interested in prolonging life. LOL! And some both. No wonder alchemy has a bad reputation in mainstream science.

:cool:

archerner
10-18-2015, 02:05 PM
Copper is more beautiful to me than gold or silver, so even if the process for the stone was made public tomorrow I would carry on with experimentation. Why does everyone care about gold and silver so much! Its a very mundane and animalistic thing to prize these metals as the goal of alchemy, and is the very lie that helps keep it from the masses.

Yes I agree with dev that everything is sacred, but at the same time I don't believe everything is non sacred. Without the word sacred everything would be as it is now and doesn't need human classification to get along. The same goes for alchemy, it is nature which proceeds without words save only the calls and howls of living things.

All of this just makes me think how anthropocentric man is, this life is a gift as are the world of things that fill it.

nav2010
10-18-2015, 07:06 PM
Unfortunately, no one has seen the "grail", it makes its appearance only in legends, unlike the Stone, so the analogy is not quite the same.
That would only be apparant if you knew for sure what the Grail is. Unless you know what you are looking for, one cannot claim whether they've seen it or not!
The same goes for the Philosopher's stone, if you don't know what the stone is, then how can one determine whether or not one has seen it?
Personally, I don't go for the sacred, philosophical and religious aspects of it anymore. I used to do, but learned not to go there anymore. The reason being it justs fills your head full of shit and clouds your judgement, not just in Alchemy but in life generally. I'm big on what I can see, if I see it then I believe in it.
Life is sacred. My life, my wifes life, my childrens life, my grandchildrens life and the life of every soul that walks this Earth. The tools and medicines we use to preserve such life are not sacred, they are tools we use in order to protect our sacred lives.

All the folks that believe in the philosophical stuff, good luck but I ain't buying into that shit anymore. That doesn't mean that I don't accept that there are things in this world that can't be explained, it just means I don't buy into stoneage philosophical Alchemy no more.

Awani
10-18-2015, 07:24 PM
...it justs fills your head full of shit and clouds your judgement...

For some yes it might, for others quite the opposite.


Unless you know what you are looking for, one cannot claim whether they've seen it or not!

Exactly.

:cool:

nav2010
10-18-2015, 07:44 PM
For some yes it might, for others quite the opposite.



Exactly.

:cool:

So, what is the Grail and what is the stone? Or are they indeed one and the same?

Sometimes in life, if you allow yourself to drift away from what is important, you can end up letting the things which are not important cloud your judgement of those things which are. In other words, it is easy to allow yourself to be become convinced of many things that may not be true but when the shit hits the fan and you need an helping hand, the things that are untrue will not help you. Only the truth can ever help you. Life is sacred and truth is the only help that life will get. In my humble opinion of course!

Awani
10-18-2015, 08:00 PM
Truth is relative. But yes the Grail is just another word for the Stone IMO.

:cool:

nav2010
10-18-2015, 08:26 PM
Truth is relative. But yes the Grail is just another word for the Stone IMO.

:cool:

Why do you think the Grail and Stone are the same?

Truth is relative? Truth is everything. If you're lied on your back with cancer like my mother was before she died, prayers ain't gonna help ya, God ain't gonna help ya, only truth will help you.
If your looking for for the means in which to cure melanoma, philosophical writings and beliefs ain't gonna help ya either.
There comes a point where you need to strip the shit from this art, because while ever you are rolling in the shit, the truth will always escape you. There is no point talking in riddles like fucking Yoda thinking your some kind of spiritual Massiah who is enlightened with spiritual knowledge, it ain't gonna help you, your family or anyone and at the end of the day we are here to help each other.

JDP
10-18-2015, 08:27 PM
Exactly!

Exactly, and that is why it is better to quote a more contemporary definition, as that is what we are talking about. And notice that "faith" and "belief" were already there from the very start, so that hasn't changed at all. Religion relies on faith, sciences and arts do not.


Nothing is sacred, everything is sacred. The respect you put into it, is the respect you get out of it.

"Sacred" is a relative term. Example: for many of the native indigenous peoples of the New World their gods and human sacrifices were "sacred", while for the European conquerors of these lands such things were a blasphemy that had to be eradicated only to be replaced with the claims of their own religions.


But don't get me wrong, I would be the first person here to say "fuck alchemy"... but that would only be confusing if I did.

Only "poor" alchemists are interested in making gold... quicker to buy a lottery ticket. And "rich" alchemists are interested in prolonging life. LOL! And some both. No wonder alchemy has a bad reputation in mainstream science.

:cool:

Alchemy has a bad reputation in mainstream science not because of that but because modern science claims that both transmutation through "chemical" reactions and a "cure-all" type of medicine are simply impossible. So it is by denying that the objectives of alchemy are possible that modern science has given us the popular image of the alchemist as a self-deluded fellow seeking after unattainable things. Notice that modern science kept on investigating such objectives on its own terms, only to finally declare them "impossible". It is not, therefore, the objectives themselves that bother modern science, but their supposed "impossibility" and that the alchemists still declared themselves successful nonetheless. This is what truly irritates them, not that the alchemists wanted to make gold & silver or live for a long time.

JDP
10-18-2015, 08:46 PM
That would only be apparant if you knew for sure what the Grail is. Unless you know what you are looking for, one cannot claim whether they've seen it or not!
The same goes for the Philosopher's stone, if you don't know what the stone is, then how can one determine whether or not one has seen it?

I don't see how can you not know what each of these things are. The grail is supposed to be the vessel that Jesus drank from during the Last Supper. The Stone is a substance that has the property of changing many times its own weight of base metals into silver or gold and, according to certain others, to cure practically all diseases and prolong life. These are not vague distinctions but very clear ones. From a historical and a pragmatic perspective, there is also hardly much comparison between the two. Drinking vessels are a dime a dozen, very common things, so any charlatan on the face of the Earth could go around claiming to have the "real" grail. Some of these false claims and forgeries were so clever or apparently convincing that until relatively recent times spotting and exposing them for what they really are was quite hard. On the other hand, a substance that can change many times its own weight of base metals into silver and gold is something extremely unusual. You can't just go to the local market or bazaar and purchase it. Plus you can actually put it to the test quite easily, it does not require radioactive isotopes, spectroscopes or anything fancy. Simple assaying tests known from 2000+ years ago more than suffice to know whether it has really worked as claimed or not.

Awani
10-18-2015, 08:47 PM
Why do you think the Grail and Stone are the same?

"The Holy Grail is a dish, plate, stone, or cup that is part of an important theme of Arthurian literature. According to legend, it has special powers, and is designed to provide happiness, eternal youth and food in infinite abundance." - source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Grail)

It is an archetype. In fact the only reason I am even into alchemy in the first place is because I was doing Grail research... and it kind of led me to alchemy many years ago.


Exactly, and that is why it is better to quote a more contemporary definition, as that is what we are talking about.

Well I wasn't talking about anything contemporary. For me this shit is timeless. And the origin of the word is the soul of the word.


"Sacred" is a relative term.

Indeed.


There is no point talking in riddles like fucking Yoda thinking your some kind of spiritual Massiah who is enlightened with spiritual knowledge, it ain't gonna help you, your family or anyone and at the end of the day we are here to help each other.

LOL! Yes, I claim that title all the time. But seriously this is my opinion/knowledge on the matter... truth is relative. I agree compassion is the key, but claiming that spiritual knowledge won't help the suffering of my family is silly. I am not saying I have spiritual knowledge... I am only defending that spiritual knowledge can do good. More so than any concotion... it depends on what kind of gnosis we are talking about I guess.

:cool:

JDP
10-18-2015, 09:23 PM
Well I wasn't talking about anything contemporary. For me this shit is timeless. And the origin of the word is the soul of the word.

We are not living 800+ years ago so the discussion was about our contemporary point of view. And still notice that "faith" and "belief" were part of the definition even from old times. Some things never change.



But seriously this is my opinion/knowledge on the matter... truth is relative.

According to the definition of "truth" as "facts", then no, it is not "relative" but the same for everyone. Unlike things like "sacred", which are purely subjective.

Awani
10-18-2015, 11:56 PM
Once it was fact that the Earth was flat. This is what I mean with relative truth. Science decree that ghosts don't exists = truth... but a person who has seen ghosts knows that they exist... again relative. Truth can only go as far as direct experience...

And direct experience can also be put into question. To continue with the ghost example; perhaps the person seeing the ghost was insane... so then even that persons direct experience can be questioned.

This then all goes back to "faith" and "belief"... all truth is belief.

Sure we can talk about the truth of gravity, but I "believe" that all natural laws evolve just as we do... and some people have been able to defy gravity, but we cannot make it fact/truth unless we experience it first hand.


We are not living 800+ years ago so the discussion was about our contemporary point of view.

This was never decreed, regardless alchemy is 800+ years old... and in my opinion the alchemist is an heir to the shaman... and the shaman created religion.

We can also get confused because this discussion is based on what we think alchemy is.

For me it is about transformation/transmutation of the self into a higher state... now this is what a Buddhist monk tries to achieve... so in a sense it is a religious endeavor. I am not a proponent of religion. But I do think that when we approach something in a sacred way, whatever we may be approaching, it will be more accessible in the long run than if we approach it in a non-sacred way. You can be an alchemist and an atheist. You can be an alchemist and an agnostic, a believer in God etc... I know. I have gone through all those phases.

I am not telling anyone what to do. I am only stating what I think about the matter. I cannot claim what I say to be truth. The only thing I can claim is that whomever says that X is the truth and nothing but the truth, well then I can claim that it probably ain't.

We don't know more than what we have experienced, and even those experiences can be questioned. So what's the point?

Well in my opinion the point is a personal affair.

:cool:

JDP
10-19-2015, 07:36 AM
Once it was fact that the Earth was flat. This is what I mean with relative truth.

No, that was never a "fact", that was a belief, and it was proven to be quite mistaken by more careful observations. Even as far as the ancient Greeks many people already knew that the Earth was indeed not flat at all. Empirical observation of certain things, like the angles of shadows at different locations separated by certain distances and during the same time of the day, made it clear that it could not be. Modern science has even provided us with pictures of the planet to confirm this very old known fact.



Science decree that ghosts don't exists = truth... but a person who has seen ghosts knows that they exist... again relative. Truth can only go as far as direct experience...

Yes, and since science has never been able to observe, capture or study any such thing as a ghost therefore it is awaiting for someone to prove that they actually do exist.


And direct experience can also be put into question. To continue with the ghost example; perhaps the person seeing the ghost was insane... so then even that persons direct experience can be questioned.

Direct experience can be questioned in isolated cases, like the fellow you are using as an example who says he saw a ghost but he might very well not have really seen it because it was all the product of his insane imagination, or maybe he is sane but got confused with something else and thought he saw a ghost. But then there is the collective and repeatable experience, which is hardly questionable. If I tell you that if you jump from the top of the Empire State building without any means of slowing down your fall you will certainly kill yourself, I don't think you would question this deduction based on accumulated collective observation and experience. People throughout history have been observing how other people get killed when they fall from great heights and nothing slows down their fall. It goes without saying that this is a solid fact, observed over and over by countless people, always with the same result. On the other hand, the majority of people do not see "ghosts", and when some do the phenomenon is non-repeatable. No one seems to be able to conjure up a ghost when desired. But anyone can jump from the top of a building when they feel like it. The ghost thing is therefore virtually impossible to be the subject of careful observation and investigation, while people jumping down to their deaths has happened and been observed a whole bunch of times, always with the exact same result. Collective accumulated repeatable experience = the truth, facts. Individual experience = may be true or may not be; it is open to question until it becomes collective accumulated repeatable experience.


This then all goes back to "faith" and "belief"... all truth is belief.

Using the example you gave above: people who believed that the Earth was flat, no matter how convinced they were of this, did not alter the truth that it is not flat. It doesn't matter how much faith you have in something, if it is not true it will not magically become so just because you believe it. If one day you happen to be facing a firing squad, convince yourself real hard that bullets do not exist, or that your chest is covered with a thick layer of solid steel which will stop the bullets. We will see if it really can alter the fact that bullets are very much real and that they will go right through your chest like a hot knife through butter. Thinking that if you really believe something it will just become the "truth" sounds like something that belongs in an episode of The Twilight Zone, not in the real world we live in.


Sure we can talk about the truth of gravity, but I "believe" that all natural laws evolve just as we do... and some people have been able to defy gravity, but we cannot make it fact/truth unless we experience it first hand.

The only person I ever saw who seemed to defy gravity was Michael Jackson while performing Smooth Criminal, and it is well known that he used physics tricks to give that impression (he patented the special stage shoes he used for this illusion.) No one has really been able to defy it yet (I mean with anti-gravity or "magic" or what have you, not with other normal physical forces.) It pulls down on everything and everyone. If you exist you have mass, if you have mass you are subject to gravitational pull.


This was never decreed

I think it was clearly implied.


We can also get confused because this discussion is based on what we think alchemy is.

For me it is about transformation/transmutation of the self into a higher state... now this is what a Buddhist monk tries to achieve... so in a sense it is a religious endeavor. I am not a proponent of religion. But I do think that when we approach something in a sacred way, whatever we may be approaching, it will be more accessible in the long run than if we approach it in a non-sacred way. You can be an alchemist and an atheist. You can be an alchemist and an agnostic, a believer in God etc... I know. I have gone through all those phases.

I am not telling anyone what to do. I am only stating what I think about the matter. I cannot claim what I say to be truth. The only thing I can claim is that whomever says that X is the truth and nothing but the truth, well then I can claim that it probably ain't.

I don't get it why so many people nowadays seem so hell-bent on trying to hijack alchemy. They want it to be anything except what it always was: making the Stone and transmuting base metals into silver and gold with it. We don't see people trying to hijack medicine or mechanics and say they are really some sort of strange and hardly well-defined mental or spiritual quest. The only way alchemy could be so flexible as to accommodate all such strange notions is if the Stone really did not exist, which would mean that alchemy would basically be a sham since it can't deliver what it promises, so anyone could take over it and claim it is whatever they wanted it to be. But if the Stone exists, then it is simply absurd to try to hijack it and give it other meanings. You might as well try to hijack physics or chemistry itself and claim it is really something else entirely different than what everyone thinks. But no, all these disciplines are well defined and everyone knows and accepts their subject matter. Alchemy is no different. It is not some nebulous and ill-defined subject that anyone can hijack at their whim and fancy and claim it is what they say it is.

nav2010
10-19-2015, 10:19 AM
I don't get it why so many people nowadays seem so hell-bent on trying to hijack alchemy. They want it to be anything except what it always was: making the Stone and transmuting base metals into silver and gold with it. We don't see people trying to hijack medicine or mechanics and say they are really some sort of strange and hardly well-defined mental or spiritual quest. The only way alchemy could be so flexible as to accommodate all such strange notions is if the Stone really did not exist, which would mean that alchemy would basically be a sham since it can't deliver what it promises, so anyone could take over it and claim it is whatever they wanted it to be. But if the Stone exists, then it is simply absurd to try to hijack it and give it other meanings. You might as well try to hijack physics or chemistry itself and claim it is really something else entirely different than what everyone thinks. But no, all these disciplines are well defined and everyone knows and accepts their subject matter. Alchemy is no different. It is not some nebulous and ill-defined subject that anyone can hijack at their whim and fancy and claim it is what they say it is.
Now I understand your objective nature, you tried to make the stone yourself and failed therefore it cannot exist unless it is you that finds it. Speaks volumes about you.

JDP
10-19-2015, 10:46 AM
Now I understand your objective nature, you tried to make the stone yourself and failed therefore it cannot exist unless it is you that finds it. Speaks volumes about you.

I suggest you read the post you are quoting more carefully because the line which you put in bold was from a part that was speaking hypothetically ("...IF the Stone really did not exist etc.") I am neither denying nor confirming alchemy. I take a very pragmatic view of things and I consider the pros and cons of any given situation or topic. Since the Stone may or may not be real one needs to consider all the possibilities. So there is a possibility that alchemy is a sham. It needs to be considered and acknowledged. It doesn't necessarily mean I believe it is so. But since so far I have no definitive proof on the subject, I must consider both possibilities.

Plus so far you have also failed in making the Stone yourself. How do I know? Well, the fact that you haven't been able to continue with your ozonised water claims for lack of funds pretty much betrays that you do not have it either.

nav2010
10-19-2015, 11:25 AM
I suggest you read the post you are quoting more carefully because the line which you put in bold was from a part that was speaking hypothetically ("...IF the Stone really did not exist etc.") I am neither denying nor confirming alchemy. I take a very pragmatic view of things and I consider the pros and cons of any given situation or topic. Since the Stone may or may not be real one needs to consider all the possibilities. So there is a possibility that alchemy is a sham. It needs to be considered and acknowledged. It doesn't necessarily mean I believe it is so. But since so far I have no definitive proof on the subject, I must consider both possibilities.

Plus so far you have also failed in making the Stone yourself. How do I know? Well, the fact that you haven't been able to continue with your ozonised water claims for lack of funds pretty much betrays that you do not have it either.

Like I said, because you havn't succeeded then no one else will regardless and you are prepared to go as far as calling people liars to maintain your stance.
Only time and truth will be a judge of whether anyone has succeeded in this art, you will be a judge of nothing. The only value on these forums that you add is not of truth but of hatred, scorn and jealousy.

JDP
10-20-2015, 06:09 AM
Like I said, because you havn't succeeded then no one else will regardless and you are prepared to go as far as calling people liars to maintain your stance.
Only time and truth will be a judge of whether anyone has succeeded in this art, you will be a judge of nothing. The only value on these forums that you add is not of truth but of hatred, scorn and jealousy.

Your responses are typical of a person who does not like criticism of his claims. If you don't like it, then don't post sensationalist claims in a public forum.

zoas23
10-20-2015, 06:21 AM
I am not sure about that.

Which it is. The physical Stone is only a microcosm of the macrocosm non-physical Stone... the practical work is a representation of the internal work. Materialistic alchemy is a dead end street IMO, but it can be a good inspiration.

If you want to keep a person a secret call the person a God... if you want to keep a non-physical force a secret call it a Grail. Then watch the people looking for it.
:cool:

My answer is "Yes", but because of the "mirror effect" that alchemy has.
Alchemy is somehow like a "factory of miracles", but these miracles take place in life, not in flasks.

During my life, I've witnessed many "miracles" related to alchemy... or things that happened in my life that "mirrored" what I was doing with "flasks".

(And I don't even consider myself an "advanced practitioner"... but even the most basic procedures, something incredible simple, like preparis a Spiritus Vini, can create miracles in your own life).

Awani
10-26-2015, 12:46 PM
No, that was never a "fact", that was a belief, and it was proven to be quite mistaken by more careful observations. Even as far as the ancient Greeks many people already knew that the Earth was indeed not flat at all. Empirical observation of certain things, like the angles of shadows at different locations separated by certain distances and during the same time of the day, made it clear that it could not be. Modern science has even provided us with pictures of the planet to confirm this very old known

Yes, and since science has never been able to observe, capture or study any such thing as a ghost therefore it is awaiting for someone to prove that they actually do exist.

Direct experience can be questioned in isolated cases, like the fellow you are using as an example who says he saw a ghost but he might very well not have really seen it because it was all the product of his insane imagination, or maybe he is sane but got confused with something else and thought he saw a ghost. But then there is the collective and repeatable experience, which is hardly questionable. If I tell you that if you jump from the top of the Empire State building without any means of slowing down your fall you will certainly kill yourself, I don't think you would question this deduction based on accumulated collective observation and experience. People throughout history have been observing how other people get killed when they fall from great heights and nothing slows down their fall. It goes without saying that this is a solid fact, observed over and over by countless people, always with the same result. On the other hand, the majority of people do not see "ghosts", and when some do the phenomenon is non-repeatable. No one seems to be able to conjure up a ghost when desired. But anyone can jump from the top of a building when they feel like it. The ghost thing is therefore virtually impossible to be the subject of careful observation and investigation, while people jumping down to their deaths has happened and been observed a whole bunch of times, always with the exact same result. Collective accumulated repeatable experience = the truth, facts. Individual experience = may be true or may not be; it is open to question until it becomes collective accumulated repeatable experience.

Using the example you gave above: people who believed that the Earth was flat, no matter how convinced they were of this, did not alter the truth that it is not flat. It doesn't matter how much faith you have in something, if it is not true it will not magically become so just because you believe it. If one day you happen to be facing a firing squad, convince yourself real hard that bullets do not exist, or that your chest is covered with a thick layer of solid steel which will stop the bullets. We will see if it really can alter the fact that bullets are very much real and that they will go right through your chest like a hot knife through butter. Thinking that if you really believe something it will just become the "truth" sounds like something that belongs in an episode of The Twilight Zone, not in the real world we live in.

The only person I ever saw who seemed to defy gravity was Michael Jackson while performing Smooth Criminal, and it is well known that he used physics tricks to give that impression (he patented the special stage shoes he used for this illusion.) No one has really been able to defy it yet (I mean with anti-gravity or "magic" or what have you, not with other normal physical forces.) It pulls down on everything and everyone. If you exist you have mass, if you have mass you are subject to gravitational pull.

I think it was clearly implied.

I don't get it why so many people nowadays seem so hell-bent on trying to hijack alchemy. They want it to be anything except what it always was: making the Stone and transmuting base metals into silver and gold with it. We don't see people trying to hijack medicine or mechanics and say they are really some sort of strange and hardly well-defined mental or spiritual quest. The only way alchemy could be so flexible as to accommodate all such strange notions is if the Stone really did not exist, which would mean that alchemy would basically be a sham since it can't deliver what it promises, so anyone could take over it and claim it is whatever they wanted it to be. But if the Stone exists, then it is simply absurd to try to hijack it and give it other meanings. You might as well try to hijack physics or chemistry itself and claim it is really something else entirely different than what everyone thinks. But no, all these disciplines are well defined and everyone knows and accepts their subject matter. Alchemy is no different. It is not some nebulous and ill-defined subject that anyone can hijack at their whim and fancy and claim it is what they say it is.

I cannot be bothered to engage in this back and forth, right/wrong (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4536-Belief-amp-Fact), on petty aspects of the core issue. Let's say you are right and leave it at that.

:cool:

zoas23
11-16-2015, 09:25 AM
I don't get it why so many people nowadays seem so hell-bent on trying to hijack alchemy. They want it to be anything except what it always was: making the Stone and transmuting base metals into silver and gold with it. We don't see people trying to hijack medicine or mechanics and say they are really some sort of strange and hardly well-defined mental or spiritual quest. The only way alchemy could be so flexible as to accommodate all such strange notions is if the Stone really did not exist, which would mean that alchemy would basically be a sham since it can't deliver what it promises, so anyone could take over it and claim it is whatever they wanted it to be. But if the Stone exists, then it is simply absurd to try to hijack it and give it other meanings. You might as well try to hijack physics or chemistry itself and claim it is really something else entirely different than what everyone thinks. But no, all these disciplines are well defined and everyone knows and accepts their subject matter. Alchemy is no different. It is not some nebulous and ill-defined subject that anyone can hijack at their whim and fancy and claim it is what they say it is.

I strongly agree and disagree with you... !!! ;)

I think the "old" alchemists tried to do a lot of things... The things you mention are SOME of them, but I feel it is a mistake to narrow a truthful definition of "alchemy" to ONLY these few concerns.

But I agree with you that some ideas are absurd. Carl Jung is the perfect example for me.... I do not question the idea that using alchemical metaphors can be interesting for psychology, but I do question the idea that using alchemical metaphors for psychology is "alchemy" or even the idea that such thing is related to "alchemy". In my opinion, it is not.
(Also, my girlfriend is a psychologist... I think she's a good one. She studied for some time with a Jungian group and also studied lab alchemy... her own conclusion on Jung was that whilst he was an interesting character, his ideas have absolutely no worth when Psychology is understood as a "therapy" to heal the suffering of a patient, specially a patient with a serious problem like psychosis... She explained me that the method of Jung is unable to help any person with a serious problem and that it can be maybe "interesting" for a person who is not having a problem and suffering because of it as a way of maybe being a bit more creative or playful with his mind... but that such thing isn't "psychology" -I'm just quoting her opinions, I am not a psychologist like her).

I still think that your definition of "classical alchemy" is maybe too narrow.

A book I like a lot is "The chemical wedding of C.R."

I am sure you know it and you've read it.

What I like about this book is that the plot is about a lot of stories happening all at once.
ONE of those stories is the story of the "contest" that has a "prize" to the ones who win the contest.

As you know, C.R. "wins" the contest, but some of the other "players" (guests) are told that they won and they are taught to transmute base metals into silver and gold.

But the organizers of the contest tell C.R. that he's the only true "winner" and that the other players were deceived... and received a "fake prize" (the "recipe" that will allow them to transmute base metals into silver and gold)...

And then C.R. gets the TRUE prize, which is completely unrelated to transmuting base metals into silver and gold.

What's your opinion about this story?

Awani
11-16-2015, 01:17 PM
Psychedelics make psychologists irrelevant.

:cool:

zoas23
11-16-2015, 02:20 PM
Psychedelics make psychologists irrelevant.

:cool:

This is very off topic, but I used to have VERY negative opinions about psychology before meeting my girlfriend.
She works at a public hospital with the most extreme cases, this often means "psychosis" and persons who don't have the luck of having an "organized" mind... and with conflicts that don't look at all like the conflicts that we may see in a Woody Allen movie (obsessive neurotics), but sometimes persons who believe that God and Satan live in their anus and they speak "aloud" with lots of insults or try to convince them that all the food is made with human flesh, even the vegetables.

And I've seen her doing "miracles", this means helping them to stop suffering without using any kind of psychiatric medication... and getting them out of their own "hell" and bringing them to a life that they actually enjoy.

I don't think that psychedelics are a good idea for a person whose mind has an absolute lack of any kind of "organization".

So I've learnt to admire what she does... for me, she is sacred.

I do not deny the possibility that a "typical" neurotic person may experience positive results with entheogens, but I don't think they are an "universal treatment" for any type of psychological trouble that makes a human suffer.

Awani
11-16-2015, 04:23 PM
90 % of people who go to a therapist just need to eat some mushrooms and shut the fuck up. ;)

There are always exceptions.

:cool: