PDA

View Full Version : Success and Failure



Axismundi000
03-28-2017, 08:41 AM
I thought I would put this as a separate thread to avoid derailing. There are different opinions on how much practical failure should be expected before succeeding in Alchemical work. It seems to me I have had a much higher success rate then some contributors to the forum view as normal. I suspect the reason for this is that so far most of my work has been Spagyric and I have had access to modern more practical and less symbolic sources.

A brief outline of work so far done and if I consider success or failure in chronological order:

Melissa (so called ens) oil extraction 6 runs about 50% success. N. (this is a failure do to the overall thing being flawed).
Onion basic Spagyric fail, did not calcinate Sulphur enough. N
Clary sage basic Spagyric success but lost some material. Y
Lavender basic Spagyric success but didn't efficiently get all salts. Y
Mint basic Spagyric success. Y
Rosemary basic Spagyric success Y
Basil basic Spagyric success. Y
Lemon Balm basic Spagyric success Y
Small willow flower Basic Spagyric success. Y
Lemon Balm test stone success but too small an amount to multiply. Y
Rainwater gur fail not enough 'jelly' only 4 gallons rainwater collected N
Rosemary Magister Spagyric success, very potent compared to basics Y
Kerkrings menstrum success each time. Y
Acetate oil from Cerrusite and vinegar,fail, product burned. N
Acetate oil and alcohol extraction of stannite success, simplicity! Y


So from completed projects 4 failures out of 15 according to some practitioners this is the wrong way around. My view is employ established procedures before starting to innovate and allow for the possibility of initial failure as the methodology is developed. I humbly advocate two aphorisms to anyone starting Lab Alchemy.

1. The method of science the aim of religion.
2. The '6P' rule: Proper planning prevents piss poor performance.

I'm sure you will understand that I will not discuss current works that are not complete. I think the obvious thing I observe from above is start with more basic stuff especially Spagyrics to develop skill sets for the overall Alchemical pursuit. Also for safety start with plants not metals.

Axismundi000
03-28-2017, 11:07 AM
Perhaps I should add that I came to Alchemy after successfully performing the Alchemical Ritual by the late Francis King. It was succesfull due to magic but the effectiveness of the material gradually faded away before it could be tested. Being able to evoke entities to visible appearance (or thinking you can) means i 'know' that many things can be achieved in Alchemy so a carefull methodical approach is favoured and there is no impatience. One other thing I tried at the beginning was the dew with salt thing ( whilst I was still getting equipment). I didn't expect much from it but it was interesting how the salt behaved going through putrefy and whitening cycles.

JDP
03-28-2017, 01:25 PM
The problem is that none of the objectives mentioned in this thread as "successes" is actually "alchemical". As you point out yourself, you are talking about "spagyrics", which was a "chymistry" centering around medicinal preparations. When I talk about the high degree of failures that all seekers will naturally be confronted with before they might start finding some successes I am talking about alchemy and transmutational chymistry. These are the subjects that are a veritable minefield of traps, lies, exaggerations, errors, phony processes, obscurities, etc. and therefore the seeker will naturally have to wage a heck of a "battle" before he starts to taste some success.

Axismundi000
03-28-2017, 01:56 PM
What you say may well be true JDP. I think that these more straightforward Spagyric works are necassary for people who haven't used lab equipment since school (like me). They provide proficiency and many of the needed skills without which Alchemy is both difficult and dangerous.

zoas23
03-28-2017, 02:03 PM
The problem is that none of the objectives mentioned in this thread as "successes" is actually "alchemical". As you point out yourself, you are talking about "spagyrics", which was a "chymistry" centering around medicinal preparations. When I talk about the high degree of failures that all seekers will naturally be confronted with before they might start finding some successes I am talking about alchemy and transmutational chymistry. These are the subjects that are a veritable minefield of traps, lies, exaggerations, errors, phony processes, obscurities, etc. and therefore the seeker will naturally have to wage a heck of a "battle" before he starts to taste some success.

I would not discard "basic spagyrics"... it doesn't give a philosophical understanding of alchemy, but it's a GREAT school for avoiding a LOT of technical mistakes when you move to alchemy.
(i.e, you can learn how not to break a vessel, how to do a distillation without having leaks, etc).
A wild metaphor is that it's like the Primary School and alchemy is like the University... If you skip the primary school, then the University will be by far harder.
The "Philosophical mistakes" are one of the BIG challenges of alchemy... but the "technical mistakes" are a challenge too.
It is also a GREAT school for learning how to deal with the failures (expecting something and seeing that it does not happen and thinking WHY it didn't happen).
At least my experience if that the often repeated phrase that doing these experiments is simply a waste of time is false. It's not alchemy, but it does provide a lot of things (getting used to handling the equipment, learning how to avoid frustration, being free to make some mistakes without destroying something that was TOO worthy, etc).

Axismundi000
03-28-2017, 06:39 PM
I was just thinking JDP. If success in Alchemy were an entirely empirical exercise then only chemists with an encyclopaedic knowledge of both chemistry and Alchemical texts would have a chance to succeed. Only a chemist would be able to unpick the processes in the old texts comparing them to each other and re-search the common empirical basis which could then be experimented with. Anyone else like me for example who thinks they receive Alchemical instruction from 'Angels' that appear to them haven't got a hope. In fact any non-chemist would be at a very severe disadvantage because both advanced chemical knowledge/expertise and intense research of Alchemical manuscripts (including knowledge of Classical Greek, Arabic and Latin) would be the two essential ingredients for success?

Aham
03-28-2017, 08:50 PM
Hi AM,

That's quite a list. I have a more fundamental question so that I can understand what you're saying - what was your definition of success and what was your definition of failure. So, how did you know you had succeeded and what criteria did you establish to define success.

I'm asking because I'm thinking about doing some spagyric tests as well and wondering how will I know if my test worked. For example, if I used Mint and the ens is supposed to look Green and looks Green after the test is complete, then is my test successful or do you look for something more, like I didn't die or get severely ill from taking the ens so that's goodness and a success :D

PS - I know I like to joke about everything but this is actually a serious question

TIA

JDP
03-28-2017, 09:19 PM
I was just thinking JDP. If success in Alchemy were an entirely empirical exercise then only chemists with an encyclopaedic knowledge of both chemistry and Alchemical texts would have a chance to succeed. Only a chemist would be able to unpick the processes in the old texts comparing them to each other and re-search the common empirical basis which could then be experimented with. Anyone else like me for example who thinks they receive Alchemical instruction from 'Angels' that appear to them haven't got a hope. In fact any non-chemist would be at a very severe disadvantage because both advanced chemical knowledge/expertise and intense research of Alchemical manuscripts (including knowledge of Classical Greek, Arabic and Latin) would be the two essential ingredients for success?

Most chemists do not meet that criterion even by a long shot. They too would fail to properly investigate the subject. In fact, most of them just assume that alchemy is "impossible" since they are heavily indoctrinated by their academic mentors into thinking such a thing. This supposed "impossibility" of theirs is not based on a systematic empirical investigation of the subject, no siree, Bob! but on their theoretical assumptions (which they pass as "laws") regarding matter in general. Since these theoretical assumptions of theirs dictate that so-called elements cannot be transformed one into another by what they call "chemical reactions", therefore they just conclude that alchemy must be "impossible" and do not bother to investigate the subject any deeper and try to interpret it according to the simple vulgar reactions they know about. In their version of things, then, alchemy becomes merely a "precursor" to the ordinary chemistry they know and practice. A nice and very convenient fairy tale. Almost as naive and hopeless as the "mystical" version of the subject, whereby a hypothetical "supreme being" (that no one has ever seen or found any proof whatsoever that "He" actually exists in the first place, mind you, so we are talking about a premise based on a huge assumption here) supposedly has nothing better to do all day than see who will "He" capriciously and arbitrarily give this "gift" to. Nice fairy tale, but it just ain't going to happen either, not even if you lived to be 1000 years old. You might as well sit down for the rest of your life and keep on waiting on those "angels" to bring you down the winning lottery numbers.

elixirmixer
03-28-2017, 10:15 PM
A nice and very convenient fairy tale. Almost as naive and hopeless as the "mystical" version of the subject, whereby a hypothetical "supreme being" (that no one has ever seen or found any proof whatsoever that "He" actually exists in the first place, mind you, so we are talking about a premise based on a huge assumption here) supposedly has nothing better to do all day than see who will "He" capriciously and arbitrarily give this "gift" to. Nice fairy tale, but it just ain't going to happen either, not even if you lived to be 1000 years old. You might as well sit down for the rest of your life and keep on waiting on those "angels" to bring you down the winning lottery numbers.

Speak for yourself....

And of course, naturally, without faith in Him, you will recieve diddily squat. Less than. In fact long term, a lack of faith is indeed punished because it is considered the deepest of stupidities.

'Angels' often come in the form of inspiration via our intuition. Or as a revelation given through much meditation, prayer and/or study.

SUCCESS... IMO is measured based on whether or not you have made a transformation internally, as a result of practising Spagyrics or alchemy.

I actually haven't seen any evidence that a single person here has even completed the Minor Opus, so it's no surprise that we are still struggling with the Magnus.

May I recommend Axis, that instead of moving down into metallic Spagyrics, you take a step back and complete an alchemically prepared vegetable stone.

Alchemical, here, referring to the manipulation and purification of the four elements, rather than "The three essentials" that we find in Spagyrics.

It may also pay to reference that the 'three essentials' drastically change form when moving into alchemical works.

elixirmixer
03-28-2017, 10:27 PM
Axis.. Was your lavender basic drinkable?

Axismundi000
03-28-2017, 10:39 PM
Hi AM,

That's quite a list. I have a more fundamental question so that I can understand what you're saying - what was your definition of success and what was your definition of failure. So, how did you know you had succeeded and what criteria did you establish to define success.

I'm asking because I'm thinking about doing some spagyric tests as well and wondering how will I know if my test worked. For example, if I used Mint and the ens is supposed to look Green and looks Green after the test is complete, then is my test successful or do you look for something more, like I didn't die or get severely ill from taking the ens so that's goodness and a success :D

PS - I know I like to joke about everything but this is actually a serious question

TIA

Success with the basic Spagyric was when the alcohol (considered as the Mercury) was coloured by the two salt after this had been incubated for at least 1 philosophical month. Here is the basic method I did:

http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4333-Basic-Spagyric-Elixir-Albertus-approach

I would say these days not use the blowtorch on the 'Salt' just go to around 550 Centigrade.

I think if you learn how to use a soxhlet Albertus's Alchemists handbook is an easier method then the one I do here. Soxhlet's tend to fuse together if you apply to much heat I shall perhaps get another at some point I killed mine.

Axismundi000
03-28-2017, 10:44 PM
Axis.. Was your lavender basic drinkable?


The Lavender and the others are drinkable,, all the basic Spagyrics have the smell of the plant in the liquid because I was carefull not to overcalcinate the Sulphur.

I appreciate your comments Elixirmixer I work in both plant and metal now and in both instances a lot of time and patience is needed so multiple projects.

zoas23
03-28-2017, 11:08 PM
Most chemists do not meet that criterion even by a long shot. They too would fail to properly investigate the subject. In fact, most of them just assume that alchemy is "impossible" since they are heavily indoctrinated by their academic mentors into thinking such a thing. This supposed "impossibility" of theirs is not based on a systematic empirical investigation of the subject, no siree, Bob! but on their theoretical assumptions (which they pass as "laws") regarding matter in general. Since these theoretical assumptions of theirs dictate that so-called elements cannot be transformed one into another by what they call "chemical reactions", therefore they just conclude that alchemy must be "impossible" and do not bother to investigate the subject any deeper and try to interpret it according to the simple vulgar reactions they know about. In their version of things, then, alchemy becomes merely a "precursor" to the ordinary chemistry they know and practice. A nice and very convenient fairy tale. Almost as naive and hopeless as the "mystical" version of the subject, whereby a hypothetical "supreme being" (that no one has ever seen or found any proof whatsoever that "He" actually exists in the first place, mind you, so we are talking about a premise based on a huge assumption here) supposedly has nothing better to do all day than see who will "He" capriciously and arbitrarily give this "gift" to. Nice fairy tale, but it just ain't going to happen either, not even if you lived to be 1000 years old. You might as well sit down for the rest of your life and keep on waiting on those "angels" to bring you down the winning lottery numbers.

True, most chemists will never understand alchemy, it's a completely different mindset and they are lost there.
I remember to have discussed some things with a friend who is a remarkable chemist. It was this experiment:
https://s13.postimg.org/4l1zcovdj/Captura_de_pantalla_2017-03-28_a_las_7.52.01_p.m.png

It was a powder that "ate" the gold... a semi-success, because it refused to give it back.
My friend thought that I was joking with him or crazy or confused. It didn't "match" what he knew. So his conclusion was "it's not possible".

[My lab partner and I gave up this path because we didn't manage to go to the next step... so it was only a solid powdered gold-eater].

As for your ideas about what mysticism REALLY is... you are as lost there as a modern chemist is when it comes to alchemy.

Other than that, you have a very clear definition of what is alchemy and you don't really need any mysticism to achieve what you want... but your understanding of mysticism is quite bizarre (in a previous post you gave some tips about the "traps" of mysticism that were hilarious -almost mistaking mysticism with schizophrenia).

JDP
03-29-2017, 12:38 AM
Speak for yourself....

And of course, naturally, without faith in Him, you will recieve diddily squat. Less than. In fact long term, a lack of faith is indeed punished because it is considered the deepest of stupidities.

'Angels' often come in the form of inspiration via our intuition. Or as a revelation given through much meditation, prayer and/or study.

SUCCESS... IMO is measured based on whether or not you have made a transformation internally, as a result of practising Spagyrics or alchemy.

I actually haven't seen any evidence that a single person here has even completed the Minor Opus, so it's no surprise that we are still struggling with the Magnus.

May I recommend Axis, that instead of moving down into metallic Spagyrics, you take a step back and complete an alchemically prepared vegetable stone.

Alchemical, here, referring to the manipulation and purification of the four elements, rather than "The three essentials" that we find in Spagyrics.

It may also pay to reference that the 'three essentials' drastically change form when moving into alchemical works.

"Faith" means blindly believing in things that there is no proof whatsoever for them. Now that is truly the deepest of all stupidities. But keep on "believing" in things you just wish were true but don't really have any proof that they are. You will never get anything with that. And if you do ever get anything positive regarding alchemy it will be because of your own hard work and ingenuity in discovering it, not some unproven hocus-pocus in the sky.

JDP
03-29-2017, 12:53 AM
True, most chemists will never understand alchemy, it's a completely different mindset and they are lost there.
I remember to have discussed some things with a friend who is a remarkable chemist. It was this experiment:
https://s13.postimg.org/4l1zcovdj/Captura_de_pantalla_2017-03-28_a_las_7.52.01_p.m.png

It was a powder that "ate" the gold... a semi-success, because it refused to give it back.
My friend thought that I was joking with him or crazy or confused. It didn't "match" what he knew. So his conclusion was "it's not possible".

[My lab partner and I gave up this path because we didn't manage to go to the next step... so it was only a solid powdered gold-eater].

As for your ideas about what mysticism REALLY is... you are as lost there as a modern chemist is when it comes to alchemy.

Other than that, you have a very clear definition of what is alchemy and you don't really need any mysticism to achieve what you want... but your understanding of mysticism is quite bizarre (in a previous post you gave some tips about the "traps" of mysticism that were hilarious -almost mistaking mysticism with schizophrenia).

How did you determine that the "powder" solvent "refused to give back" the gold that it had dissolved? Did you conduct more than one test to try to recover the gold?

What's there to be "lost" about regarding mysticism? It is no better than organized religions. It's all based on blind faith in things nobody has any proof whatsoever they are actually real. It all rests on assumptions. Just look at all the definitions of "mysticism" to plainly see it for what it is:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mysticism

1 : the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics

2: the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)

3
a : vague speculation : a belief without sound basis
b : a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power

In other words: beliefs, speculations, uncorroborated self-reported claims, vague unproven notions...

Aham
03-29-2017, 01:14 AM
What's there to be "lost" about regarding mysticism? It is no better than organized religions. It's all based on blind faith in things nobody has any proof whatsoever they are actually real. It all rests on assumptions. Just look at all the definitions of "mysticism" to plainly see it for what it is:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mysticism

1 : the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics

2: the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)

3
a : vague speculation : a belief without sound basis
b : a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power

In other words: beliefs, speculations, uncorroborated self-reported claims, vague unproven notions...

JDP,

I'd like to understand your perspective a bit better - if your perspective is that mysticism (let's use connection with the divine as one example) unnecessary, then what is your end goal with alchemy? If it's to make the PS, what do you do once you have it?

The reason I'm asking is because I've read other people's opinion that personal transmutation and connection with the divine is also an objective of alchemy but in your case that may not be the case so want to understand all perspectives.

TIA

JDP
03-29-2017, 01:20 AM
JDP,

I'd like to understand your perspective a bit better - if your perspective is that mysticism (let's use connection with the divine as one example) unnecessary, then what is your end goal with alchemy? If it's to make the PS, what do you do once you have it?

TIA

Easy: you make gold and silver and become financially secure for the rest of your life. Then you also try to determine if its reputed medicinal and life-prolonging properties are as powerful as is said they are. What else do you think alchemy is all about? People who want to see "something else" in alchemy other than the above are simply deluding themselves. You won't find anything else in alchemy. That's what it's all about: wealth & health & longevity (three of humanity's most basic needs and desires.) It will not give you any proof of any "transcendental" beliefs.

elixirmixer
03-29-2017, 01:29 AM
'Belief' - is the whim you get, when you agree upon/in something that you do not understand.

'Faith' - is the action one takes, towards the unknown, so that it may become known.

'Knowledge' - is the resultin effect from the action of faith.

JDP, without belief, you will never understand the word 'faith' since they are not the same.

Belief is reserved for Sunday Bound religious people.
Faith is reserved for that valiant soul out in the desert fasting and praying to the Godhead
Knowledge of God, is that valiant souls reward for having persevered through all the doubt, through all the lies, through the veil, so to speak.

I don't 'believe' in God JDP, I have accessed some of his principals, in faith, and recieved KNOWLEDGE of Him.

'Belief' is a crock pot of shit, that 98% of Christians sit in, waiting for a secret hell to overcome them.

You don't see the modern day Christian, forsaking all he has, fasting endlessly, in the wilderness, in a HOPE to find God.

FAITH, is the action one takes when one has HOPE that they may find the LOVE of God.

Belief, is the word you use, when you don't know god, not anything about him, but you still want soup on Sundays.

You cannot know God, without first accessing FAITH. In fact, it's quite impossible.

JDP
03-29-2017, 01:43 AM
'Belief' - is the whim you get, when you agree upon/in something that you do not understand.

'Faith' - is the action one takes, towards the unknown, so that it may become known.

'Knowledge' - is the resultin effect from the action of faith.

JDP, without belief, you will never understand the word 'faith' since they are not the same.

Belief is reserved for Sunday Bound religious people.
Faith is reserved for that valiant soul out in the desert fasting and praying to the Godhead
Knowledge of God, is that valiant souls reward for having persevered through all the doubt, through all the lies, through the veil, so to speak.

I don't 'believe' in God JDP, I have accessed some of his principals, in faith, and recieved KNOWLEDGE of Him.

'Belief' is a crock pot of shit, that 98% of Christians sit in, waiting for a secret hell to overcome them.

You don't see the modern day Christian, forsaking all he has, fasting endlessly, in the wilderness, in a HOPE to find God.

FAITH, is the action one takes when one has HOPE that they may find the LOVE of God.

Belief, is the word you use, when you don't know god, not anything about him, but you still want soup on Sundays.

You cannot know God, without first accessing FAITH. In fact, it's quite impossible.

Faith and belief are inseparable. The very definition of "faith" involves blind belief in things no one has any proof for:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

2:
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

Aham
03-29-2017, 01:44 AM
Easy: you make gold and silver and become financially secure for the rest of your life. Then you also try to determine if its reputed medicinal and life-prolonging properties are as powerful as is said they are. What else do you think alchemy is all about? People who want to see "something else" in alchemy other than the above are simply deluding themselves. You won't find anything else in alchemy. That's what it's all about: wealth & health & longevity (three of humanity's most basic needs and desires.) It will not give you any proof of any "transcendental" beliefs.

Ok, so in your mind the goal is truly materialistic with any other benefits as icing on the cake. Generally (not always), I would equate materialistic tendencies with a modern chemistry oriented mindset yet here you are practicing alchemy where presumably some reactions and interactions between materials cannot be explained by our current understanding but in your mind, you believe that it doesn't matter how transmutation works as long as it works. Not trying to put words in your mouth but would you be comfortable with that summary?

Good thing it's 3AM in the morning in Germany or Andro would be looking to move this portion of the thread somewhere else... :D

JDP
03-29-2017, 01:59 AM
Ok, so in your mind the goal is truly materialistic with any other benefits are icing on the cake. Generally (not always), I would equate materialistic tendencies with a modern chemistry oriented mindset yet here you are practicing alchemy where presumably some reactions and interactions between materials cannot be explained by our current understanding but in your mind, you believe that it doesn't matter how transmutation works as long as it works. Not trying to put words in your mouth but would you be comfortable with that summary?

Yes, mostly correct, only that it is not "in my mind", it just is what it is, and it always was. The alchemists, of course, had a strong tendency to pepper their empirical science with all sorts of grandiloquent claims, like supposed "Divine Permissions/Gifts/Revelations", but they are uncorroborated boasts to impress the more gullible and less critically-minded among their public. What truly matters are the empirical facts that they discovered. Everything else is just arbitrary "cultural baggage" from past centuries, which has no place in our modern pragmatic mentality. It should be relegated to the pages of history and not be taken as some sort of "fact". The alchemist had no more proof of "divine/supernatural" things than we do, so they obviously were just trying to give an air of authority to their assumptions and beliefs about such things by trying to attach them to the empirical facts they discovered.

elixirmixer
03-29-2017, 02:01 AM
I'm not sure we should be trusting the oxford definition, considering that it was written by atheists.

You believe that belief and faith are inseparable, while I believe that belief and faith are never found in the same room together. You have one, or you've upgraded to the other.

I believe Axis' view of success is a merited one. I'm sure he did himself and others a great service by procuring those medicines.

As has been suggested, a certain skill set has been gained that he will require in order to further his alchemical development.

JDP, do you run a practical alchemy laboratory?

Do you have any recommendations as to where I could read about the Minus Opus?

Aham
03-29-2017, 02:19 AM
Yes, mostly correct, only that it is not "in my mind", it just is what it is, and it always was. The alchemists, of course, had a strong tendency to pepper their empirical science with all sorts of grandiloquent claims, like supposed "Divine Permissions/Gifts/Revelations", but they are uncorroborated boasts to impress the more gullible and less critically-minded among their public. What truly matters are the empirical facts that they discovered. Everything else is just arbitrary "cultural baggage" from past centuries, which has no place in our modern pragmatic mentality. It should be relegated to the pages of history and not be taken as some sort of "fact". The alchemist had no more proof of "divine/supernatural" things than we do, so they obviously were just trying to give an air of authority to their assumptions and beliefs about such things by trying to attach them to the empirical facts they discovered.

Thanks for clearing that up. Now if we don't see any lab pics how will we know that some empirical work is being done? :D

Aham
03-29-2017, 02:28 AM
Axis,

Apologies for hijacking your thread. You opened a new thread to talk specifically about success and failure in practical alchemy and here we are out in left field... I'm sure it will be "remediated" in the morning :) Andro, TIA

zoas23
03-29-2017, 03:13 AM
How did you determine that the "powder" solvent "refused to give back" the gold that it had dissolved? Did you conduct more than one test to try to recover the gold?

Yes, I don't remember the quantity of powder in grams (10 to 15 grams maybe, it was quite light)... but it had absorbed 2 grams of 24K gold.
To be honest, I am NOT a "dry pather"... and my lab partner is not one either (though he was more used to some experiments with it)... but it was not our "strong area" (in my own case, after having experimented with him a few version of the dry path, I would confess that I do not like it and my reasons for not liking it are quite aesthetic, which may sound silly).

So we arrived to the point of making the solvent eat plenty of (almost) pure gold... and since we are not really very much into the dry ways, I suggested to make a "pizza" (this specific path became for us, informally, the "path of the pizza"). The pizza meant that we divided what we had in some 5 or 6 equal portions and we did something quite different with each portion.
We got different results with each portion of our "pizza", but I'd say that the MOST interesting thing that happened is that the powder ate the gold.

I suggested my lab partner to discard the Dry Paths afterwards (though we did a few more "versions" of it) because it was quite obvious that we were a bit far from our "comfort zone" and our "zone of knowledge".

Since I like metaphors, I would say that we are decent skateboarders and we were suddenly playing golf... So I thought that it was better to focus on "skateboarding" than learning how to play golf.

I don't discard the idea of returning to a dry path in the future, but it won't be in the near future. I do not discard at all that the ONLY reason that we didn't even manage to recover the gold was our own "stupidity", but we were working very very far from our area of knowledge, which isn't a very bright idea.


What's there to be "lost" about regarding mysticism? It is no better than organized religions. It's all based on blind faith in things nobody has any proof whatsoever they are actually real. It all rests on assumptions. Just look at all the definitions of "mysticism" to plainly see it for what it is:

A dictionary definition, really?
My favorite mystic is Plato... who has something to do with what we call Philosophy.
But discussing the issue with you is spinning in circles that go nowhere, I'd rather discuss some issues in which we can understand each other... i.e, alchemy.

black
03-29-2017, 03:46 AM
Without having an understanding of the spiritual aspect, you will find no
success in Alchemy.

MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU...JDP

Without it all is lost and total confusion !!!

JDP
03-29-2017, 04:26 AM
Without having an understanding of the spiritual aspect, you will find no
success in Alchemy.

MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU...JDP

Without it all is lost and total confusion !!!

So to succeed in something real (i.e. alchemy) one needs something ("spiritual aspect") which is totally unproven to even exist in the first place? Keep on thinking. You are falling for uncorroborated assumptions and taking them as if they were facts and necessities.

JDP
03-29-2017, 04:38 AM
Yes, I don't remember the quantity of powder in grams (10 to 15 grams maybe, it was quite light)... but it had absorbed 2 grams of 24K gold.
To be honest, I am NOT a "dry pather"... and my lab partner is not one either (though he was more used to some experiments with it)... but it was not our "strong area" (in my own case, after having experimented with him a few version of the dry path, I would confess that I do not like it and my reasons for not liking it are quite aesthetic, which may sound silly).

So we arrived to the point of making the solvent eat plenty of (almost) pure gold... and since we are not really very much into the dry ways, I suggested to make a "pizza" (this specific path became for us, informally, the "path of the pizza"). The pizza meant that we divided what we had in some 5 or 6 equal portions and we did something quite different with each portion.
We got different results with each portion of our "pizza", but I'd say that the MOST interesting thing that happened is that the powder ate the gold.

I suggested my lab partner to discard the Dry Paths afterwards (though we did a few more "versions" of it) because it was quite obvious that we were a bit far from our "comfort zone" and our "zone of knowledge".

Since I like metaphors, I would say that we are decent skateboarders and we were suddenly playing golf... So I thought that it was better to focus on "skateboarding" than learning how to play golf.

I don't discard the idea of returning to a dry path in the future, but it won't be in the near future. I do not discard at all that the ONLY reason that we didn't even manage to recover the gold was our own "stupidity", but we were working very very far from our area of knowledge, which isn't a very bright idea.



A dictionary definition, really?
My favorite mystic is Plato... who has something to do with what we call Philosophy.
But discussing the issue with you is spinning in circles that go nowhere, I'd rather discuss some issues in which we can understand each other... i.e, alchemy.

But how did you test whether the gold could be recovered or not?

You keep attributing a fake ignorance to me, as if I did not know what "mysticism" was. Now even the people in charge of defining words apparently are also ignorant and you are the only person on the planet who supposedly knows what it is.

Much of philosophy is empty wind, BTW. Again, uncorroborated assumptions & speculations, not facts. There is a reason why philosophy has been relegated to deal with things like "metaphysical" questions and not scientific questions.

black
03-29-2017, 04:44 AM
So to succeed in something real (i.e. alchemy) one needs something ("spiritual aspect") which is totally unproven to even exist in the first place? Keep on thinking. You are falling for uncorroborated assumptions and taking them as if they were facts and necessities.

Unproven to you... perhaps.

But Alchemy is about evolving something that is unmanifest (SM)
to becoming manifest.

JDP
03-29-2017, 05:09 AM
I'm not sure we should be trusting the oxford definition, considering that it was written by atheists.

It is written by linguists, no matter what they believe.


JDP, do you run a practical alchemy laboratory?

Yes. And "practical alchemy" is redundant, BTW. There is no other "alchemy". All other supposed "alchemies" are gross modern misunderstandings of the subject or deliberate attempts at hijacking the subject by people with mystical inclinations, who find that making gold & silver and even curing diseases and prolonging life is just too "mundane" for their tastes, so they must distort the subject to fit their agendas/beliefs.


Do you have any recommendations as to where I could read about the Minus Opus?

There is no such "Opus Minus" in proper alchemy. Alchemy just deals with the Philosophers' Stone/Elixir. Most alchemists utterly rejected all other claims and branded as "fools" or liars anyone who claimed to have found other ways to achieve transmutations. Rest assured that they were dead wrong on this. I myself fell for this error many years ago, when I still had much empirical experience to gain and was too trusting of the alchemists' claims and assurances about the exclusivity of the subject, until I discovered the empirical reality of some "particulars". Your outlook will change dramatically when you hold in your hands even a small amount of artificial silver or gold made with your own hands and through methods that the alchemists kept blasting as supposedly "false" and "sophistical". I then realized how mistaken both alchemists ("only the Philosophers' Stone can make real gold/silver") and ordinary chemists ("transmutation by means of reactions between substances is impossible") really are with their respective stubborn denials and mistaken agendas.

JDP
03-29-2017, 05:12 AM
Unproven to you... perhaps.

But Alchemy is about evolving something that is unmanifest (SM)
to becoming manifest.

Unproven to the whole world, including you. If you really had proof of it you could just go ahead and demonstrate it to the whole world and silence the "doubting Thomases" once and for all. But you can't. No one can.

SM = yet another unproven speculation. As it happens to countless people, you need to learn how to separate facts from speculation/theories/beliefs.

elixirmixer
03-29-2017, 05:15 AM
Unproven to you... perhaps.

But Alchemy is about evolving something that is unmanifest (SM)
to becoming manifest.

The processes of alchemical transformation exist as an archetypical principal in our local universe. It's fractal nature causes in-numerous correspondences throughout our local reality

There are different 'notes' you can play, from saint, to criminal and everything in between. Some of us believe that the highest representation of the alchemical principals occurs within the human vessel, and through this process, there are many 'initiations' that PROVE to the subject, the realistic comprehesion, through logic and reasoning, of things that are not seen.

On a slightly lower note we talk about the encaptulating of SM into a flask. On the highest we talk about the encaptulating of the Holy Ghost within the man.

These things are real, far more in my opinion than the concept of financial salvation through my scientific inginuity.

Before I fasted with the purpose of knowing God, I believed in Him, while I was fasting for God, I had faith in Him, when I had finished fasting for God, I knew of Him in certainty.

If you chase away the Holy Ghost, which is indeed the invisible light you seek to capture, how will you ever catch Her?

And then, know, that it is the desire to know God, that invokes the Holy Spirit, most particularly, the desire to help others because of, and to honour Him/Her/Son, The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who are ONE :)

Now... About that vegetable stone... ;)

elixirmixer
03-29-2017, 05:52 AM
@ Axis

My apologises? For my part in hi-jacking your originally beautiful thread. Congratulations on your success!! Want to trade elixirs? :cool:

Axismundi000
03-29-2017, 06:22 AM
I do not consider the thread hijacked because I posted to JDP about this issue here. It was not deliberate but the effect seems to be like lighting the blue touchpaper. It helps to identify what is success or failure and what the objectives are.

Elixirmixer I will check with my Alchemical/magical partner what she thinks about swapping elixirs. I rely on her intuition and ability to 'see far' on such issues.

Andro
03-29-2017, 08:33 AM
SM = yet another unproven speculation. As it happens to countless people, you need to learn how to separate facts from speculation/theories/beliefs.'Spiritus Mundi' in not an invention/fabrication/speculation originating from this or that forum or person. It is quite widely mentioned in R+C literature/manuscripts, dating at least a few centuries back. It is also noticeably present in the 'Golden Chain of Homer'.

In the particularly generous works of St. Didier and the Recreations/Cyliani/ICH lineage (among others), it is mentioned either as 'Astral Spirit' or 'Astral Gold' (the latter term comes from St. Didier, when describing the 'three kinds of gold' - 'metallic', 'elemental' and 'astral' - the second kind being a 'magnet' for the third, by natural affinity). There are even quite a few 'devices' depicted in alchemical images/engravings, devices for capturing/condensing this 'Astral Spirit', usually with the help of specially prepared 'magnet' matters.

Should we conclude that ALL the above-mentioned authors were "speculating" ?

The only author (that I know of) who openly declares 'Spiritus Mundi' to be of no use in preparing the stone, is Urbigerus in his 'Circulatum Majus' aphorisms. Nevertheless, he does acknowledge its existence. Regarding this rather (IMO) bold statement, I am (admittedly) speculating/theorizing that Urbigerus may have been practicing the extraction of the 'Mercury' of bodies, without realizing the connection between his mineral/metallic (or vegetable) "Mercuries" and what we are referring to as "Astral Spirit", "Astral Gold", "Spiritus Mundi", etc...

I warmly suggest to go to the FAQs page of Iulia Millesima (https://www.labyrinthdesigners.org/faqs/) (not her real name) and study some of the concepts presented there.

The lady is a practicing alchemist and she knows what she's talking about. I have been fortunate enough to correspond a bit with her in the past and discuss some of her work as well as share some of my own.

And she's quite science & empiricism friendly :)


✂------------------------------------------------

black
03-29-2017, 11:23 AM
Unproven to the whole world, including you. If you really had proof of it you could just go ahead and demonstrate it to the whole world and silence the "doubting Thomases" once and for all. But you can't. No one can.
.



It's not my job to silence the doubting Thomases, it is their CHOICE
to evolve or not.

I can see from what you have written that I also, some years ago
thought the way that you do now.

I considered those that believed in God, Angels, The Force, etc
just needed some sort of backup because they were weak minded religious
and poor souls who were afraid of death...or life.


Prior to me having any involvement in alchemy I spent some years in trying to
prove that the Spirit World or The Force did not exist.

Luckily The Force was trying to show me that IT did exist.
This was a life changer !!!

After some time I was given a choice...money or the box scenario, it took me
a few months to make up my mind and choose the box.
I was then directed to Alchemy.

A bit like Blue Pill, Red Pill, there is no going back...just deeper down
the Rabbit Hole of Truth.

It is very clear to me that Alchemy is not just a hobby to you.
The huge amount of time, lab work, and the study you have done is most
evident.

Perhaps if you put some time into debunking the SPOOKS, ETC, who knows
what might transpire.

SUCCESS or FAILURE.........

Awani
03-29-2017, 12:29 PM
I considered those that believed in God, Angels, The Force, etc
just needed some sort of backup because they were weak minded religious
and poor souls who were afraid of death...or life...

It was the same for me.

While it can be true, what you say, regarding people who have faith due to law, parents, culture or fear... it is not true for those that get "touched".

I agree with everything Richard Dawkins says when he makes fun of the Pope, Our Lord and Priests and Imams. I agree because I KNOW that those people are the same as the logic driven science sceptics.

If you have never fallen in love, you cannot know what it feels like.

Same thing.

To know about god/force/afterlife etc is the opposite of being weak and having fear. Rather it is empowering and creates fearlessness.

The only failure is not trying. In the last moment of this life what will you consider to be your success?

:cool:

zoas23
03-29-2017, 02:04 PM
But how did you test whether the gold could be recovered or not?

Oh... When we did what we did with this specific experiment, we made a "pizza"... we divided what we had in some 5 or 6 equal portions and we followed different procedures with each portion which didn't have the aim of recovering the gold, but to "evolve" what we had to the next step; expecting something VERY specific to happen. What we had ended up being as inert as it gets, so none of the portions reacted in a favorable way (the most interesting one created a sticky brown jelly that looked similar to what you get when you distill wine and you get a sticky earth that looks like honey).

AFTER the 5 or 6 failures we tried to at least recover the gold by different means, but we honestly failed to do it. I am not saying that it was impossible, I am saying that WE couldn't do it.

MAYBE if we had insisted and insisted with this specific path we would have had better results (or maybe not... hard to tell). But, honestly, none of us really LIKED this path.... and it was VERY far from our usual ways... So we arrived to a point in which we were acting in an idiotic way without much philosophy.

I've learned that it's not an amazing idea to work with paths in which you don't have a solid philosophy. I can repeat my metaphor, we were to "skateboarders" trying to play "golf"... too far from our area of knowledge, which is probably why we decided to give up this path which we didn't even like.


You keep attributing a fake ignorance to me, as if I did not know what "mysticism" was. Now even the people in charge of defining words apparently are also ignorant and you are the only person on the planet who supposedly knows what it is.

I am far from being the only person who knows what it is... Though I mentioned Plato as an example because his ideas are relevant to alchemy and the history of alchemy (at least "occidental alchemy")


Much of philosophy is empty wind, BTW. Again, uncorroborated assumptions & speculations, not facts. There is a reason why philosophy has been relegated to deal with things like "metaphysical" questions and not scientific questions.

O.K.... the point of view of Wittgenstein.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=628eVJgHD6I

He had a similar point of view, though he was open to the mystical experience (though he definitely considered that it was NOT philosophical, but above philosophy).
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6s.htm)

So, following his advice, I will remain silent.



It is written by linguists, no matter what they believe.

LOL... maybe that's the problem... though I am being Wittgensteinian too.


There is no such "Opus Minus" in proper alchemy. Alchemy just deals with the Philosophers' Stone/Elixir. Most alchemists utterly rejected all other claims and branded as "fools" or liars anyone who claimed to have found other ways to achieve transmutations.

There IS an "Opus Minus" in alchemy... Andro brought the example of Urbigerus for some other reasons, he clearly speaks of a Minor Circulation and a Major Circulation...
And an example with an absolutely different approach can be the Speculum Sophicum Rhodostauroticum (which follows the idea of creating a "Parergon" as the ONLY way to arrive to the "Ergon").
The two examples are VERY different, but in both cases you have an "Opus Minus".

JDP
03-29-2017, 03:30 PM
Oh... When we did what we did with this specific experiment, we made a "pizza"... we divided what we had in some 5 or 6 equal portions and we followed different procedures with each portion which didn't have the aim of recovering the gold, but to "evolve" what we had to the next step; expecting something VERY specific to happen. What we had ended up being as inert as it gets, so none of the portions reacted in a favorable way (the most interesting one created a sticky brown jelly that looked similar to what you get when you distill wine and you get a sticky earth that looks like honey).

AFTER the 5 or 6 failures we tried to at least recover the gold by different means, but we honestly failed to do it. I am not saying that it was impossible, I am saying that WE couldn't do it.

MAYBE if we had insisted and insisted with this specific path we would have had better results (or maybe not... hard to tell). But, honestly, none of us really LIKED this path.... and it was VERY far from our usual ways... So we arrived to a point in which we were acting in an idiotic way without much philosophy.

I've learned that it's not an amazing idea to work with paths in which you don't have a solid philosophy. I can repeat my metaphor, we were to "skateboarders" trying to play "golf"... too far from our area of knowledge, which is probably why we decided to give up this path which we didn't even like.



I am far from being the only person who knows what it is... Though I mentioned Plato as an example because his ideas are relevant to alchemy and the history of alchemy (at least "occidental alchemy")



O.K.... the point of view of Wittgenstein.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=628eVJgHD6I

He had a similar point of view, though he was open to the mystical experience (though he definitely considered that it was NOT philosophical, but above philosophy).
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6s.htm)

So, following his advice, I will remain silent.




LOL... maybe that's the problem... though I am being Wittgensteinian too.



There IS an "Opus Minus" in alchemy... Andro brought the example of Urbigerus for some other reasons, he clearly speaks of a Minor Circulation and a Major Circulation...
And an example with an absolutely different approach can be the Speculum Sophicum Rhodostauroticum (which follows the idea of creating a "Parergon" as the ONLY way to arrive to the "Ergon").
The two examples are VERY different, but in both cases you have an "Opus Minus".

You still have not answered what exactly is it you did to your "pizza" to try to recover the gold. Maybe you were just following the wrong assaying procedures and the gold in reality is still there and perfectly capable of being recovered. This is just one more example of how people can prematurely reach the wrong conclusions and make incorrect claims, exactly the same as "Spiritus Mundi" and the like uncorroborated claims which in the minds of some people were "logical explanations" for observed phenomena but which to our modern ears are most definitely hardly proven at all.

You seem to be, since you keep contradicting and denying normal definitions of "mysticism".

There is no mention of any "Opus Minus" in the older alchemical literature. These are misconceptions of more modern writers. Anything that did not have to do with the Philosophers' Stone/Elixir and the secret solvent/"water"/"mercury" used in making it was branded as nothing but "sophistry" and nonsense by the bulk of alchemists.

JDP
03-29-2017, 03:49 PM
'Spiritus Mundi' in not an invention/fabrication/speculation originating from this or that forum or person. It is quite widely mentioned in R+C literature/manuscripts, dating at least a few centuries back. It is also noticeably present in the 'Golden Chain of Homer'.

In the particularly generous works of St. Didier and the Recreations/Cyliani/ICH lineage (among others), it is mentioned either as 'Astral Spirit' or 'Astral Gold' (the latter term comes from St. Didier, when describing the 'three kinds of gold' - 'metallic', 'elemental' and 'astral' - the second kind being a 'magnet' for the third, by natural affinity). There are even quite a few 'devices' depicted in alchemical images/engravings, devices for capturing/condensing this 'Astral Spirit', usually with the help of specially prepared 'magnet' matters.

Should we conclude that ALL the above-mentioned authors were "speculating" ?

The only author (that I know of) who openly declares 'Spiritus Mundi' to be of no use in preparing the stone, is Urbigerus in his 'Circulatum Majus' aphorisms. Nevertheless, he does acknowledge its existence. Regarding this rather (IMO) bold statement, I am (admittedly) speculating/theorizing that Urbigerus may have been practicing the extraction of the 'Mercury' of bodies, without realizing the connection between his mineral/metallic (or vegetable) "Mercuries" and what we are referring to as "Astral Spirit", "Astral Gold", "Spiritus Mundi", etc...

I warmly suggest to go to the FAQs page of Iulia Millesima (https://www.labyrinthdesigners.org/faqs/) (not her real name) and study some of the concepts presented there.

The lady is a practicing alchemist and she knows what she's talking about. I have been fortunate enough to correspond a bit with her in the past and discuss some of her work as well as share some of my own.

And she's quite science & empiricism friendly :)


✂------------------------------------------------

What you are mentioning are indeed nothing but theoretical musings of some writers, hardly proven at all. Let me give you a hypothetical example of how easily could some people from centuries past have fooled themselves into thinking that something like "Spiritus Mundi" was real:

Suppose that you took a mineral and assayed it, and you find that it does not contain any gold or silver in it. Now you take a sample of the exact same mineral, you grind it into powder and then leave it exposed to the atmosphere for several months. When you assay this exposed mineral now you find a small amount of gold and silver in it. WOW! What a remarkable thing. Now, to the mentality of an alchemist who entertained Aristotelian or Neo-Platonic ideas about nature, this might be explained by such a concept as an "Spiritus Mundi" out there having had enough time to act on the mineral. Considering that people back then had very vague notions about the air, this might seem like a "logical" conclusion to them. But to a better informed person, who knows very well that air is not any homogeneous effluvium or "element" but actually a complex mixture of gases, the answer to the observed empirical fact might be quite different and not warrant the existence of any such "Spiritus Mundi". In order to test this, he could take samples of the ground mineral and put them inside glass bells where the air is evacuated by means of an air pump and then fill the glass bell with isolated samples of the gases contained in the atmosphere in order to try to determine which one is it that is causing the remarkable effect on the mineral. In other words, a process of elimination of all possibilities, instead of jumping to conclusions regarding some unproven "Spiritus Mundi" assumption. Suppose that after testing the mineral exposed to diverse gases, it is determined that it was the carbon dioxide that cause the mineral to partly mutate into silver and gold. The "mystery" is resolved. No need for any "Spiritus Mundi" assumption. It turns out it was a well-known gas that performed the remarkable effect on the mineral. This is how science works. The above indicated methodology would have been impossible to carry out for an alchemist of, say, 800 years ago, simply because it was totally unknown to him that air is a complex mixture of well-defined gases, but to an alchemist of roughly 200 years ago it would already have been possible to determine the actual cause of the observed phenomenon if he decided to investigate the matter in a more exhaustive manner. My point, again, is that you should always know the difference between an empirical fact and a theoretical idea designed to try to "explain" that observed fact. In the hypothetical case above, the two alchemists would have been observing the exact same empirical fact, but the one from 800 years ago reached a totally erroneous "explanation" for the observed phenomenon, while the one from 200 years ago was able to reach a more logical conclusion thanks to having access to more accurate information which allowed him to more thoroughly investigate the observed phenomenon.

Awani
03-29-2017, 05:19 PM
There is no such thing as an empirical fact. An experience can not be objective and unbiased. It is impossible. Facts can - in theory - be true or probable. This is not some New Age philosophy, rather it is scientific theory. Yes theory.

All science is theory or model. Any scientist that proclaim they have the final answer to something is a joke in any respectable scientific community.

Finally most of the greatest scientific "answers" arrived to the scientist through dreams, imagination, philosophy and even psychedelics... followed by trial and error. Philosophy is the foundation of science. And I am talking about some of the most famous scientists and discoveries. Amen.

:cool:

JDP
03-29-2017, 06:20 PM
There is no such thing as an empirical fact. An experience can not be objective and unbiased. It is impossible. Facts can - in theory - be true or probable. This is not some New Age philosophy, rather it is scientific theory. Yes theory.

All science is theory or model. Any scientist that proclaim they have the final answer to something is a joke in any respectable scientific community.

Finally most of the greatest scientific "answers" arrived to the scientist through dreams, imagination, philosophy and even psychedelics... followed by trial and error. Philosophy is the foundation of science. And I am talking about some of the most famous scientists and discoveries. Amen.

:cool:

This brings us back to the issue of: then why don't you just jump down a cliff? According to your strange conceptions, who knows what might happen, you in fact might just float around by flapping your arms real hard. But common sense, logic and empirical experience can easily predict what really will happen: gravity will take over and you will plummet straight to your death. So yes, you bet there are such things as empirical facts. Anyone trying to dispute this is simply living in La-La Land.

Awani
03-29-2017, 06:56 PM
Why did not Einstein travel back in time? The fact he did not does not prove he is wrong. Also his ideas came from daydreaming.

You said you can predict what will happen if I jump of a cliff. LOL.

Predict = prophesy, foretell

So you think some of the smartest scientists of many different fields are in La La Land? If you are saying that you are correct. Like I said many important discoveries of the normal world was done in the paranormal.

:cool:

JDP
03-29-2017, 07:00 PM
Why did not Einstein travel back in time?

You said you can predict what will happen if I jump of a cliff. LOL.

Predict = prophesy, foretell

So you think some of the smartest scientists of many different fields are in la la land? If you are saying that you are correct. Like I said many discoveries of the normal world was done in the paranormal.

:cool:

It's more of a "guarantee" that you will plummet to your death. But we can always try it and see who is right or wrong. Let me know what cliff you want to perform the "experiment" at. I am 99.999999999999999999999999999999% confident of what the outcome will be if you jump down the cliff. Wanna bet some money on it?

Awani
03-29-2017, 07:06 PM
You fail to grasp what I am saying.

Also why would I fly my own airplane when I do not know how to do it? Does not mean airplanes cannot fly, simply means I cannot.

You keep wanting others to give proof. Why don't you supply some real proof of your own? You cannot. All you have is theory, as do I. But if you want to show me the "fact" that you cannot defy gravity be my guest.

:cool:

z0 K
03-29-2017, 07:38 PM
Easy: you make gold and silver and become financially secure for the rest of your life. Then you also try to determine if its reputed medicinal and life-prolonging properties are as powerful as is said they are. What else do you think alchemy is all about? People who want to see "something else" in alchemy other than the above are simply deluding themselves. You won't find anything else in alchemy. That's what it's all about: wealth & health & longevity (three of humanity's most basic needs and desires.) It will not give you any proof of any "transcendental" beliefs.

I can agree with the pragmatic utilization of the PS. We can discuss the success and failure of our endeavors in reference to progress revolving around those three goals of alchemy you have given: wealth, health and longevity. None of it is easy.

Deciding which of the three goals to focus on first is very important. Do you strive to make gold and silver for financial security first. Or do you attempt to prolong your life first then look into making gold and silver now that you have time enough. Perhaps if you are young and impatient you might want to focus on financial security since you're not worried about dying of old age yet. On the other hand if you are pushing 70 you might wish to prolong life because it is more precious than gold.


Unproven to the whole world, including you. If you really had proof of it you could just go ahead and demonstrate it to the whole world and silence the "doubting Thomases" once and for all. But you can't. No one can.

SM = yet another unproven speculation. As it happens to countless people, you need to learn how to separate facts from speculation/theories/beliefs.

No need for me or anyone else to demonstrate SM to the world. You have the proof JDP. You demonstrate it very well. You are alive I presume based on your intelligent posts at this forum. Even if sometimes I may not agree with what you say you are alive like me. What makes us alive is still a mystery. Those that explore the mystery of life often become mystical. No one can really say what that mystery of life is but we seem to know that we are alive. Lively people are often spoken of as having spirit. Dead people demonstrate no more of that spirit. It is gone from that body. And the personality that was there is gone too. It is no longer in the world. It has become unmanifest spirit of the world.

When that spirit is manifest in the world always something is there at the manifestation. The manifestation is always unique. That uniqueness of the manifest phenomenon is the soul of it in the world. The fact that it is determined to exist demonstrates it has sufficient spirit to do so. You could say the spirit is energy; it really doesn't matter.

Whether you apprehend the spirit in your own life or not will affect your lab practice. Every alchemist is the observer in the experiments. What do you observe and what are you looking for in the experiment? Something interesting I think:) Something unusual might be even better. Interesting and unusual would be checked against what you would expect from the standard chemistry and physics understood today perhaps.

It is not essential to be aware of Spiritus Mundi in your lab to experiment alchemically. It is there anyway. Once I became aware of it operational protocols and paradigms changed for me. The molecular chemistry in the bottle becomes less important compared to Philosophical elements in the feces that chemists would throw away or destroy in further harsh probes into the atomic structure.

The Philosophical elements in the feces are the gateway to the PS that JDP has outlined I believe. My focus is on health and longevity not chrysopoeia. Right now I'm having good success with that. The Vegetable Stone is very effective in that endeavor so far. The work is not easy and requires much diligence, perseverance and a year's work in the lab.

I really do not believe that anyone will be able to make the PS with Au or any other metal until they know how to prepare the philosophical mercury and sulfur into the basic starting menstrum. Weidenfeld compiled a lot of good stuff about philosophical menstrums. The trouble is that even with the right mercury and sulfur further manipulations lead to different results. Trial and error eat up loads of time in the lab. So one better have as much time as possible:)

zoas23
03-29-2017, 09:13 PM
You still have not answered what exactly is it you did to your "pizza" to try to recover the gold. Maybe you were just following the wrong assaying procedures and the gold in reality is still there and perfectly capable of being recovered. This is just one more example of how people can prematurely reach the wrong conclusions and make incorrect claims,

The procedure was simple: we invoked Alchemichael, who is the Angel of Alchemy, and we told him that we are mystics and asked him to give us back our gold, but Alchemichael said that we had to use our secret mystical powers and wait till Jesus Christ and Cthulhu descended to our flask (by the grace of god), so we decided to levitate and our vessel became a purple gnome and said: "the gold is mine, but if you follow the yellow brick road you shall find the Wizard of Oz and he will give you what you want".

O.K... that was a joke.

The truth is that since it was divided in portions a LOT of procedures were followed. Whatever you can imagine, it has been done (LOL... even something as simple as putting it in distilled water and doing as the miners do when they have a mix of gold and a powder of rocks.... the use of the typical acids... the list of what we didn't do would be shorter).
I never claimed that it is IMPOSSIBLE to recover the gold, I simply said that we worked with our pizza for some 4 or 5 months and then we said "let's not do it again". We were too far from our area of knowledge and scratching our heads.

My ONLY conclusion is: "Don't go too far from your area of knowledge or you'll crash against a wall" (which is what happened to us). LOL, I can even say that it was stupid to do what we did.

Other than that, we became disenchanted with the dry ways... aesthetic reasons.

Probably there is a way to recover the gold and I can state that we do not care. I've learnt my lesson. This is about success and failure, right? The road of ignorance leads to the palace of idiocy... that lesson, I've learnt it very well. It was not a good idea to "play" with a path that was so FAR from what we were used to.

We could have taken a VERY different road and begin to study the dry paths cautiously, but we decided not to do it.
(i.e, you can know the basics of painting and paint some paintings and one day an idea comes to your head: "I will make a statue"... but the result is VERY poor and you also realize that you don't enjoy being a sculptor... so you return to painting).


exactly the same as "Spiritus Mundi" and the like uncorroborated claims which in the minds of some people were "logical explanations" for observed phenomena but which to our modern ears are most definitely hardly proven at all.

Rouse, rouse thine ears! Spiritus mundi is a word used to define a touchable substance... which has certain effects. I am not in love with the expression "Spiritus Mundi" and I prefer other alternative names it has received. It can be isolated and its qualities do not really match any other substance, thus the need to give it a name.

Your idea is that maybe it's a weird allotrope of something, or maybe it is a chemical substance that confuses a lot of persons... O.K.... the idea doesn't make a lot of sense mostly due to empirical facts, but you have the right to think whatever you want to think.


You seem to be, since you keep contradicting and denying normal definitions of "mysticism".

You contradict and deny normal definitions of chemistry... which were probably written by linguists... and yet you are right when you do it. Are we even?


There is no mention of any "Opus Minus" in the older alchemical literature. These are misconceptions of more modern writers. Anything that did not have to do with the Philosophers' Stone/Elixir and the secret solvent/"water"/"mercury" used in making it was branded as nothing but "sophistry" and nonsense by the bulk of alchemists.

a LOT of texts divide the process in 2 parts:
1) Arriving the the matter that you are going to use
2) Working with that matter...

Whist other texts give a very different definition and it's not "2 parts" of a single process, but two different processes.

So you have 2 definitions. The first one doesn't contradict your statement at all actually... So I don't get why you reject it so strongly (and in the first definition it is more a semantic discussion than a discussion on facts... it is the same than discussing if the Divine Comedy is 3 books or 1 book... semantics).

Awani
03-29-2017, 09:31 PM
You contradict and deny normal definitions of chemistry... which were probably written by linguists... and yet you are right when you do it. Are we even?

Spin-off post/comment: here (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4989-NDE-The-Dead-Saints-Chronicles&p=48853#post48853)

:cool:

JDP
03-29-2017, 10:08 PM
I can agree with the pragmatic utilization of the PS. We can discuss the success and failure of our endeavors in reference to progress revolving around those three goals of alchemy you have given: wealth, health and longevity. None of it is easy.

Deciding which of the three goals to focus on first is very important. Do you strive to make gold and silver for financial security first. Or do you attempt to prolong your life first then look into making gold and silver now that you have time enough. Perhaps if you are young and impatient you might want to focus on financial security since you're not worried about dying of old age yet. On the other hand if you are pushing 70 you might wish to prolong life because it is more precious than gold.



No need for me or anyone else to demonstrate SM to the world. You have the proof JDP. You demonstrate it very well. You are alive I presume based on your intelligent posts at this forum. Even if sometimes I may not agree with what you say you are alive like me. What makes us alive is still a mystery. Those that explore the mystery of life often become mystical. No one can really say what that mystery of life is but we seem to know that we are alive. Lively people are often spoken of as having spirit. Dead people demonstrate no more of that spirit. It is gone from that body. And the personality that was there is gone too. It is no longer in the world. It has become unmanifest spirit of the world.

When that spirit is manifest in the world always something is there at the manifestation. The manifestation is always unique. That uniqueness of the manifest phenomenon is the soul of it in the world. The fact that it is determined to exist demonstrates it has sufficient spirit to do so. You could say the spirit is energy; it really doesn't matter.

Whether you apprehend the spirit in your own life or not will affect your lab practice. Every alchemist is the observer in the experiments. What do you observe and what are you looking for in the experiment? Something interesting I think:) Something unusual might be even better. Interesting and unusual would be checked against what you would expect from the standard chemistry and physics understood today perhaps.

It is not essential to be aware of Spiritus Mundi in your lab to experiment alchemically. It is there anyway. Once I became aware of it operational protocols and paradigms changed for me. The molecular chemistry in the bottle becomes less important compared to Philosophical elements in the feces that chemists would throw away or destroy in further harsh probes into the atomic structure.

The Philosophical elements in the feces are the gateway to the PS that JDP has outlined I believe. My focus is on health and longevity not chrysopoeia. Right now I'm having good success with that. The Vegetable Stone is very effective in that endeavor so far. The work is not easy and requires much diligence, perseverance and a year's work in the lab.

I really do not believe that anyone will be able to make the PS with Au or any other metal until they know how to prepare the philosophical mercury and sulfur into the basic starting menstrum. Weidenfeld compiled a lot of good stuff about philosophical menstrums. The trouble is that even with the right mercury and sulfur further manipulations lead to different results. Trial and error eat up loads of time in the lab. So one better have as much time as possible:)

You pretty much admit yourself that you haven't really got tangible proof of a "Spiritus Mundi" but that you simply accept that "it is there" whether you are aware of it or not. That is a big assumption many of us are not quite willing to accept. We require more substantial proof.

Biological death is still not fully understood, but that doesn't mean it won't be one day. No need to try to bring uncorroborated "mystical" notions here either. In fact, advocates of cryogenics are so convinced that medicine will eventually "conquer" death as well that they commit their dead bodies (specially the brain, which is who you are, and once it is gone you are gone forever too) to be preserved by being kept in controlled low temperatures, waiting for the day that medicine will be advanced enough to be able to "cure" death (yes, they consider death to be simply just another "disease" to be "cured".) And I agree with them. In fact, when the day comes, I will join them. Think about it. What is the alternative? Allow your body/brain to be munched on by worms and bacteria? Does anyone in their right mind prefer that than to have another very possible shot at living at some point in the future? The answer is very clear if you have a pragmatic and realistic view of life (if you are the kind of person who uncritically accepts the claims of religions, for which there is no proof whatsoever, of course it won't matter what happens to your brain since you just assume that you will somehow survive death; but many of us do not like to gamble with uncorroborated claims and go for the surer and more logical things in life.) And since you seem to be very interested in health and longevity I think you will be interested in cryogenics too. No need for assuming any "Spiritus Mundi" here either.

Awani
03-29-2017, 10:16 PM
...but many of us do not like to gamble with uncorroborated claims and go for the surer and more logical things in life...

Seems to me people who live life in the way you do, that is doing the most gambling. ;) No one with some intelligence accepts the claims of any religion, only claims made by direct experience and empirical evidence (which is experience/observation).

But there is no point really in the debate if you say things like: What is the alternative? Allow your body/brain to be munched on by worms and bacteria? Does anyone in their right mind prefer that than to have another very possible shot at living at some point in the future?

:cool:

elixirmixer
03-29-2017, 10:45 PM
Seems to me people who live life in the way you do, that is doing the most gambling. ;)

:cool:

"All in" - :cool:

JDP
03-29-2017, 10:45 PM
T
The truth is that since it was divided in portions a LOT of procedures were followed. Whatever you can imagine, it has been done (LOL... even something as simple as putting it in distilled water and doing as the miners do when they have a mix of gold and a powder of rocks.... the use of the typical acids... the list of what we didn't do would be shorter).
I never claimed that it is IMPOSSIBLE to recover the gold, I simply said that we worked with our pizza for some 4 or 5 months and then we said "let's not do it again". We were too far from our area of knowledge and scratching our heads.

My ONLY conclusion is: "Don't go too far from your area of knowledge or you'll crash against a wall" (which is what happened to us). LOL, I can even say that it was stupid to do what we did.

Other than that, we became disenchanted with the dry ways... aesthetic reasons.

Probably there is a way to recover the gold and I can state that we do not care. I've learnt my lesson. This is about success and failure, right? The road of ignorance leads to the palace of idiocy... that lesson, I've learnt it very well. It was not a good idea to "play" with a path that was so FAR from what we were used to.

We could have taken a VERY different road and begin to study the dry paths cautiously, but we decided not to do it.
(i.e, you can know the basics of painting and paint some paintings and one day an idea comes to your head: "I will make a statue"... but the result is VERY poor and you also realize that you don't enjoy being a sculptor... so you return to painting).


You keep "trivializing" this. Do you realize how important it would be if you really had discovered a solvent from which the metals dissolved in them cannot be recovered? There is a reason why that chemist guy did not believe you. This topic in fact fills hundreds of pages of alchemical & chymical books. This is why I keep asking you what you keep avoiding to clearly explain: how did you reach the conclusion that the gold could not be recovered from the dissolving "powder"? The above "explanation" is hardly very revealing. What "typical acids"? What are you referring to by "as putting it in distilled water and doing as the miners do when they have a mix of gold and a powder of rocks."? Are you talking about "panning"?


Rouse, rouse thine ears! Spiritus mundi is a word used to define a touchable substance... which has certain effects. I am not in love with the expression "Spiritus Mundi" and I prefer other alternative names it has received. It can be isolated and its qualities do not really match any other substance, thus the need to give it a name.

Claims about supposedly "condensing" or "attracting" this hypothetical substance have been around for a few hundred years. Of course, no one has been able to prove that any of them actually work and produce what they claim. It is very safe to conclude, then, that either such proposed methods are not described in full and some important information has been withheld, or that the people who wrote them were either having a big laugh by deluding others into believing such things or were themselves deluded and simply assumed that such methods would work.


Your idea is that maybe it's a weird allotrope of something, or maybe it is a chemical substance that confuses a lot of persons... O.K.... the idea doesn't make a lot of sense mostly due to empirical facts, but you have the right to think whatever you want to think.

Makes much more sense and is much more likely to be the case than to assume that this substance actually exists.


You contradict and deny normal definitions of chemistry... which were probably written by linguists... and yet you are right when you do it. Are we even?

I don't deny normal definitions of chemistry. I just say that this science is wrong regarding transmutation.


a LOT of texts divide the process in 2 parts:
1) Arriving the the matter that you are going to use
2) Working with that matter...

Whist other texts give a very different definition and it's not "2 parts" of a single process, but two different processes.

So you have 2 definitions. The first one doesn't contradict your statement at all actually... So I don't get why you reject it so strongly (and in the first definition it is more a semantic discussion than a discussion on facts... it is the same than discussing if the Divine Comedy is 3 books or 1 book... semantics).

What alchemical text talks about two different processes? There are alchemical texts (Weidenfeld's, for example) that talk about a plurality of alchemical "tinctures" (both of the transmuting & medicinal varieties) derived from many different matters, but they are all prepared by means of the secret solvent, without which these writers say you are hopelessly lost and will never achieve anything. So this does not count. These other alchemical products still are related to the making of the Philosophers' Stone via the secret solvent. Now, compare that claim to chymical texts like those of Glauber or Becher, where no such limitation/condition is accepted (these writers speak of a bunch of different processes using all sorts of different starting substances, which can achieve transmutation or remarkable medicinal effects, and which have no relationship with either the Stone/Elixir or even among themselves; it goes without saying that most of these "chymical" processes are in fact phony baloney, but rest assured that some of them are very real and do deliver what they promise. Finding them out, however, is a royal pain in the neck that requires much patience and effort, as they are buried amidst a chaos of false processes.)

JDP
03-29-2017, 10:53 PM
Seems to me people who live life in the way you do, that is doing the most gambling. ;) No one with some intelligence accepts the claims of any religion, only claims made by direct experience and empirical evidence (which is experience/observation).

But there is no point really in the debate if you say things like: What is the alternative? Allow your body/brain to be munched on by worms and bacteria? Does anyone in their right mind prefer that than to have another very possible shot at living at some point in the future?

:cool:

And yet you keep believing in things that no one has ever proved and accepting them as if they were facts :)

Also, the quote that seems to amuse you so much is about a case where you have no other choice but to "gamble": and you obviously will do better to choose the option that has the highest chances of working out.

JDP
03-29-2017, 11:01 PM
You fail to grasp what I am saying.

Also why would I fly my own airplane when I do not know how to do it? Does not mean airplanes cannot fly, simply means I cannot.

You keep wanting others to give proof. Why don't you supply some real proof of your own? You cannot. All you have is theory, as do I. But if you want to show me the "fact" that you cannot defy gravity be my guest.

:cool:

You keep misunderstanding this: it is not just you, it's everyone. You are not a plane. Neither is anyone else. You or anyone else jumping down a cliff will always result in the same outcome: death. Why? Well, because gravity is an empirical fact. It doesn't care what you think of it, it just "is", and it will always pull you down towards the center of the planet, no matter what you do.

Awani
03-29-2017, 11:22 PM
And yet you keep believing in things that no one has ever proved and accepting them as if they were facts :)

Also, the quote that seems to amuse you so much is about a case where you have no other choice but to "gamble": and you obviously will do better to choose the option that has the highest chances of working out.

Huh?

Prove to me you are not a homosexual in any way or form.


You keep misunderstanding this: it is not just you, it's everyone. You are not a plane. Neither is anyone else. You or anyone else jumping down a cliff will always result in the same outcome: death. Why? Well, because gravity is an empirical fact. It doesn't care what you think of it, it just "is", and it will always pull you down towards the center of the planet, no matter what you do.

Everyone... LOL.

Empirical? You mean evidence based on observation and experience. Ok. Yes that is also what all my arguments are based upon.

It seems to me that you should have picked a more logical hobby than alchemy...

:cool:

elixirmixer
03-30-2017, 05:59 AM
I think what Dev is getting at, is that the nature, understanding, and acceptance of "God"(it's so stupid I even have to do the "" marks but whatever) is that, this type of knowledge is ONLY known through direct experience.

We can not prove to you, JDP, that a supernatural force exists... But we CAN show you how to experience it yourself, if you are willing.

As far as what JDP is discussing with Zoas, I can see his enthusiasm, considering that Zoas did, perhaps my conviously, make some rather large claims. Such as "what ever you can think of, we've done it."

As far as I can tell, JDP has a quite supieror 'scientific' knowledge than the rest of us.

I dare say he could think and write down about a 1000 different ways to try to extract that gold.

And yes, yor right Zoas, once you move TOO FAR from that which we understand, you will quickly become lost, which is where, very techincacally modes people like JDP come into the light.

At the end of the day...

What I've observed from alchemyforums....

Is that either, they have the stone as don't say shit, but for the rest of us, we ought to e workin together, or there is simply no hope.............

JDP, you don't have enough lifetimes to wait for EVERYTHING to manifest itself physically.

It will simply not do that in your lifetime.

Learn from these spiritually minded people.

And then, those spiritually minded people, learn from Zoas and his pizza.... You can have a decent crack at making the stone, but at the end of the day, there are far too many variables, to EMPIRICALLY, work out this 'problem'

Angels, men. We all work together. The day that we don't, that's the last day my friend.

I haven't seen God, but I HAVE spoken to Him.

That wasn't something I read.

That wasn't something I experienced on drugs.

That wasn't some psyco-desperation that manifested a lie that I ran with.

It was everything I am.

It was everything I preach.

It was the One I work for.

My King.

I would give up every drop of blood without a second thought, for that "force".

People don't get the passion ad determination and diligence, for a 'dream', a 'whim' a story....

Fuck the churches.

Go ad talk to God yourself mate.

Find out for yourself.

God is beyond anything that can be explained "empirically"

The idea of empires comes from His vibration, for He Is King.

JDP makes some good points here too.

We can't sit around and 'wait' for the stone.

So maybe, we shoul all stop being secretive, greedy, opinionated, prideful doouch bags, and actually help each other.

We will all progress faster.

Garanteed.

We all have different strengths.

Obviously.

So why are we in debate, since we all have,

The same goal.....

Grow up everyone, and jut start helping people.

You shits.

Love you all :cool: dickheads :p

JDP
03-30-2017, 06:49 AM
I think what Dev is getting at, is that the nature, understanding, and acceptance of "God"(it's so stupid I even have to do the "" marks but whatever) is that, this type of knowledge is ONLY known through direct experience.

We can not prove to you, JDP, that a supernatural force exists... But we CAN show you how to experience it yourself, if you are willing.

As far as what JDP is discussing with Zoas, I can see his enthusiasm, considering that Zoas did, perhaps my conviously, make some rather large claims. Such as "what ever you can think of, we've done it."

As far as I can tell, JDP has a quite supieror 'scientific' knowledge than the rest of us.

I dare say he could think and write down about a 1000 different ways to try to extract that gold.

And yes, yor right Zoas, once you move TOO FAR from that which we understand, you will quickly become lost, which is where, very techincacally modes people like JDP come into the light.

At the end of the day...

What I've observed from alchemyforums....

Is that either, they have the stone as don't say shit, but for the rest of us, we ought to e workin together, or there is simply no hope.............

JDP, you don't have enough lifetimes to wait for EVERYTHING to manifest itself physically.

It will simply not do that in your lifetime.

Learn from these spiritually minded people.

And then, those spiritually minded people, learn from Zoas and his pizza.... You can have a decent crack at making the stone, but at the end of the day, there are far too many variables, to EMPIRICALLY, work out this 'problem'

Angels, men. We all work together. The day that we don't, that's the last day my friend.

I haven't seen God, but I HAVE spoken to Him.

That wasn't something I read.

That wasn't something I experienced on drugs.

That wasn't some psyco-desperation that manifested a lie that I ran with.

It was everything I am.

It was everything I preach.

It was the One I work for.

My King.

I would give up every drop of blood without a second thought, for that "force".

People don't get the passion ad determination and diligence, for a 'dream', a 'whim' a story....

Fuck the churches.

Go ad talk to God yourself mate.

Find out for yourself.

God is beyond anything that can be explained "empirically"

The idea of empires comes from His vibration, for He Is King.

JDP makes some good points here too.

We can't sit around and 'wait' for the stone.

So maybe, we shoul all stop being secretive, greedy, opinionated, prideful doouch bags, and actually help each other.

We will all progress faster.

Garanteed.

We all have different strengths.

Obviously.

So why are we in debate, since we all have,

The same goal.....

Grow up everyone, and jut start helping people.

You shits.

Love you all :cool: dickheads :p

To paraphrase James Randi or George Carlin (I forget at this moment which one was it who said it): "I don't doubt that you talk to the dead, what I doubt is that they answer you."

I understand that this subject is very sensitive because it touches upon many peoples' deep seated beliefs and assumptions about life itself, but it is absolutely necessary to remain rational and realistic about it, at least for some of us. The cold, hard fact is that there is no proof whatsoever about any "God", or any "angels", "spirits", "demons", etc. Lest you think I am an "atheist": I am not denying that such things might exist, all I am saying is that there is no proof that they do exist, and therefore it currently boils down simply to assumptions and beliefs until someone can actually prove any of it. I am not an atheist, I am an agnostic. An atheist just assumes that such things do not exist, so he is the reverse side of the coin of a religious person. He too assumes things (in his case "gods/spirits/demons/ghosts/etc. do not exist, period!" is his assumption, for which he too has no proof whatsoever, he simply believes it.) Agnostics make no assumptions of any kind. We just point out the lack of evidence either way and wait for any to come up.

Since there is no evidence either way, it is therefore quite moot to try to "explain" alchemy by means of something which itself has no proof of existing in the first place. As Chaucer (basing himself on a passage from an alchemical work by Ibn Umail) says regarding the meaning of certain "decknamen" in alchemy: "This is ignotum per ignotius!" (i.e. this is explaining the unknown by means of the more unknown!)

Axismundi000
03-30-2017, 06:59 AM
The advantage with JDP's empirical view is that no-one is in some way spiritualy forbidden to share findings (photo's, method etc). In fact openly showing results for inspection and re-testing is a cornerstone of empiricism. Yet so little is actually openly shared here, mainly basic Spagyrics and mostly by me. I appreciate the view that there are spiritual states required to achieve Alchemy the same is true for many of the more remarkable achievements in magic. Yet us magicians are able to share methodology. I personally find it absurd that 'God' would forbid certain Alchemical phenomena in a lab being shown but groups of people seeing an Angel is OK. I appreciate that some spiritual paths are more solitary then others yet the paradigms of making a philosophers stone and angels appearing visibly do overlap I feel.

So I say to the empirical Alchemists show your findings even those that don't work see we can inspect them maybe even try them also. What have you to hide, God is not mocked you don't believe in him.

To the Alchemists who see the Work is Holy and Sacred (as I do), I say surely there must be some 'crumbs from the Lab table' that you can share without profaning the sacred? I look at the fuss and bother when I have shown Spagyric stuff which is not operator dependant like Alchemy. Even this gives people 'issues' sometime, like yes jolly good pat, pat, pat but it is not Alchemy so I shall quote some cheesy aphorisms perhaps one day you will understand. Speaking for myself having had an experience similar but more positive to that of the final scene of the raiders of the lost ark film I just find this laughable and terribly conceited. Alchemy was given to us by God via his Divine Angels, they continue to do so and you do not need to be a special person for this. In fact you do not need to do magic for this just pray and work!.

Rest assured I will continue to show step by step explanations of my work success or fail, the method of science the aim of religion. I look forward to the possibility of more of the same from others, I mean hey it's just a forum you know.

JDP
03-30-2017, 07:01 AM
Huh?

Prove to me you are not a homosexual in any way or form.

Huh? How about the fact that I am not attracted to men? Now prove to me that you are not a Martian in any way or form.


Everyone... LOL.

Empirical? You mean evidence based on observation and experience. Ok. Yes that is also what all my arguments are based upon.

It seems to me that you should have picked a more logical hobby than alchemy...

:cool:

You can't prove the strange things that you claim (like "out of body" experiences.) How are they then based on observation and experience? If they were, you should be able to prove them.

zoas23
03-30-2017, 09:04 AM
You keep "trivializing" this. Do you realize how important it would be if you really had discovered a solvent from which the metals dissolved in them cannot be recovered? There is a reason why that chemist guy did not believe you. This topic in fact fills hundreds of pages of alchemical & chymical books. This is why I keep asking you what you keep avoiding to clearly explain: how did you reach the conclusion that the gold could not be recovered from the dissolving "powder"? The above "explanation" is hardly very revealing. What "typical acids"? What are you referring to by "as putting it in distilled water and doing as the miners do when they have a mix of gold and a powder of rocks."? Are you talking about "panning"?

Hmmm.... a lot of things to clarify.

1) What my chemist friend didn't believe was that a solid solvent can eat the gold or even dissolve it, specially not in the way it happened.... We didn't even discuss the issue of "recovering it".

2) Whatever process you can imagine to recover the gold was done (from panning to using nitric, chloridric and Regia and many other methods without any success).

3) We didn't manage to make it "evolve" into a transmutation stone (or we did, but one that eats gold but doesn't react in the expected way with other metals).

4) We worked with a path that is not "familiar" to us and such thing was a mistake, probably our ineptitude made us unable to go further, but we didn't want to spend YEARS with this path due to a lot of reasons (we both have the most precious Stone that a person can have, which is a couple... and the path was a bit dangerous... we both prefer safer ways and this is mostly because of love). It didn't make a lot of sense to use to go further and further into a road that is not OUR road.

5) A perfect success would have lead to a PARTICULAR Stone, but NOT to an UNIVERSAL one (and I already get that you probably don't even "believe" in Universals and Particulars, but we do... but it's not a belief).

6) We are not really in love with the dry path and we wanted to keep on exploring other paths instead of visiting this area that was somehow beyond our usual ways... and where our philosophical understanding was quite crippled.

7) My lab partner is not into this forum, but would behead me if I give more details... The two of us have very different personalities and ideologies (which is good), but we both prefer Universals to Particulars (even if such thing does not make sense to you).

8) The ONLY person with whom my Lab partner would probably allow me to completely share the "recipe" would be less than absolutely not interested and he has his very solid reasons... and it's a person who can teach me, I doubt I can offer him something that he doesn't already know. A true philosopher (and I consider myself an aspirant and quite far from his knowledge). My guess is that he would laugh and ask me why the hell I am doing such thing... and he would be right.

9) Whilst VERY interesting things happened, I do consider this specific experience as a "failure" (even if it involved a "success", but not the BIG success... far from it... very far from it).

10) I do not feel the need to demonstrate anything. I brought the subject simply as an experience of failure and tried to explain the reasons.

11) A "perfect success" would have NEVER arrived to a "medicinal stone" due to the nature of the proceedings (actually it would have been a strong poison without any health benefits).

12)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vVDWQlHLOE

13) I learnt a lot from this "success" & "Failure"... the most important lesson was not that if you do not LOVE a path, it doesn't make sense to insist with it if you have others at hand and you enjoy them. To be honest, it had absolutely no elegance, no charm, no beauty.

14) Succeeding in something that you do not LOVE is one of the biggest failures.


Claims about supposedly "condensing" or "attracting" this hypothetical substance have been around for a few hundred years. Of course, no one has been able to prove that any of them actually work and produce what they claim. It is very safe to conclude, then, that either such proposed methods are not described in full and some important information has been withheld, or that the people who wrote them were either having a big laugh by deluding others into believing such things or were themselves deluded and simply assumed that such methods would work.

You have a weird understanding of some things... specially the idea that the main intention of most authors was to mislead and lead people to failures because they are evil and naughty... My understanding is different and I shake hands with those authors, I consider them my "friends", not my "enemies" and I gladly accept their help and I am thankful to them. I would define them as "very kind"... my friends, not my enemies.


Makes much more sense and is much more likely to be the case than to assume that this substance actually exists.

Its existence is an empirical fact... a touchable and visible fact. O.K... you can claim that its nature or definition is a "chemical confusion" AND state that it is actually an unusual allotrope of "something"... I doubt it, but If you were right, then it would make no difference.
I have remembered a conversation with a quite orthodox muslim friend who explained me his vision of the universe that was quite odd for me. Why does sugar get wet when you add water to it? His idea was simple: "because Allah wanted it to be this way". A modern chemist would discard such explanation and offer a different one... and yet they would have a perfect agreement about an empirical fact: the sugar gets wet when you add water to it. Maybe you get what I mean.


I don't deny normal definitions of chemistry. I just say that this science is wrong regarding transmutation.

And yet chemistry combined with physics have recently produced real transmutations by using a logic that is a bit far from the usual logic of alchemy.


What alchemical text talks about two different processes? There are alchemical texts (Weidenfeld's, for example) that talk about a plurality of alchemical "tinctures" (both of the transmuting & medicinal varieties) derived from many different matters, but they are all prepared by means of the secret solvent, without which these writers say you are hopelessly lost and will never achieve anything. So this does not count. These other alchemical products still are related to the making of the Philosophers' Stone via the secret solvent. Now, compare that claim to chymical texts like those of Glauber or Becher, where no such limitation/condition is accepted (these writers speak of a bunch of different processes using all sorts of different starting substances, which can achieve transmutation or remarkable medicinal effects, and which have no relationship with either the Stone/Elixir or even among themselves; it goes without saying that most of these "chymical" processes are in fact phony baloney, but rest assured that some of them are very real and do deliver what they promise. Finding them out, however, is a royal pain in the neck that requires much patience and effort, as they are buried amidst a chaos of false processes.)

I already answered this question.... you didn't like the answer... O.K... I won't get into a "yes", "no", "yes", "no", "yes", "no" endless discussion.
Our ideas are often a bit different, but I respect your knowledge (I admire your knowledge) and you will probably get what you want... which makes me happy. I learn a lot from you, even if we sometimes disagree.
I am not really interested in winning debates.... and I prefer to find the zones in which we both agree, which are many.

Awani
03-30-2017, 10:54 AM
Huh? How about the fact that I am not attracted to men? Now prove to me that you are not a Martian in any way or form.


You can't prove the strange things that you claim (like "out of body" experiences.) How are they then based on observation and experience? If they were, you should be able to prove them.

I hope everyone else can see how you answer your own questions and prove my point. LOL.

That you SAY you are not attracted to men is what? Is that proof? Not proof for me... what is it then? Oh, wait it is YOUR experience. So if you tonight have an OBE you cannot prove it to me... but you will finally understand what I am saying.

:cool:

elixirmixer
03-30-2017, 02:37 PM
Proof: (IMO) is the inexplicable knowing of something as truthful fact.

I can already tell, just from MY OWN EXPERIENCE that certain peeps, such as Dev, Andro, Axis, as well as many others, have EXPERIENCED the REALITY of the Omnipotent energy that gives birth to life.

I'll repeat, that through MY experience, I know for CERTAIN, that these peeps, are not on a psycodelic, bullshit rant, because it makes them feel 'good' or 'at ease' or 'fills the hole of there over-ambitious, traumatised, non-atheist lives'. In fact, I'm again, CERTAIN, that it was not weakness at all, bu rather a strong moral resolve, that allowed these individuals to discover and EXPERIENCE for themselves.

That, to me, is an empirical fact, considering it fits very snuggly into a rational position in relation to all other information that my mind has been exposed too.

JDP, you have so much to offer this group, and it is indeed in relation to your empirical thinking, but to undervalue, the effort, diligence, sacrifice, and self-critisism, that these people have ha to endure, in order to reach these higher knowledges, shows a (sorry to say) 'pretty deep' spiritual blockage, one that you will only achieve by matching some of these selfless virtues, that these others have done to obtain their position (not to take away from selfless acts of your own, nor to portray our friends here as saints, they all still have much to learn, all of us)

The way I look at things, is tht the SUCCESS of Alchemyforums, is truly and only measured on how many peoples lives are freed from suffering as a result.

You may feel like 'learning' is in, and of itself, a success, but if it didn't heal anyone, what good was it really?

We are all friends here, we share a similar brain frequency that draws us all to the hermetic arts.

Let us break the pattern of history, and actually make good of what has been given to us.

Please. For humans sake.

Axis, many crumbs are lying hid in this forum, which is why these men grow weary of our questioning.

What they do not take into account, is that we have better things to do, than pick through crumbs on the floor, like raise kids, and heal old ladies.

I'll say the same thing to you focks that I did to the Mormons.

"If it's not us that fixes the planet, who will?"

So then, if you are a servant of God or humanity, then the purpose is clear, if your for yourself, this art will likely only speed your demise anyway.

Why be scared of sharing? These are the last days my friends. Good luck, Godbless, and for fuck sake can we just get to making some fucking medicine already!?

JDP
03-30-2017, 03:58 PM
Hmmm.... a lot of things to clarify.

1) What my chemist friend didn't believe was that a solid solvent can eat the gold or even dissolve it, specially not in the way it happened.... We didn't even discuss the issue of "recovering it".

He must not be a very experienced person if he thought that a solid substance cannot corrode or dissolve another one. What an experienced person will likely question is that there is any solvent that will not allow metals dissolved in them to be brought back to their metallic state, as this would indeed be most unusual (and why this topic fills so many pages in the old literature.)


2) Whatever process you can imagine to recover the gold was done (from panning to using nitric, chloridric and Regia and many other methods without any success).

Panning would not work since the gold would be combined with whatever the dissolving agent is. Panning only works when gold in its metallic state is mixed with other less dense materials (like rocks or sand.) Nitric and hydrochloric acids do not normally have any effect on gold. Aqua Regia does, but since your gold is combined with who-knows-what it might not have been able to act upon in. What you should have done is a more "destructive" assay of whatever gold compound was it that was likely formed with your "powder" solvent. Fuse your "pizza" with 3 or 4 times its weight of a mixture of 3 parts litharge and 1 of silica and keep it in strong fusion for an hour or so in a thick assaying crucible (so that the crucible walls resists the corrosive action of the molten litharge.) Then add a large iron nail to the fused mass and let it be there for another hour or so (this will reduce the lead in the litharge and whatever gold is found in your "pizza", which should be thoroughly mixed with molten lead-glass, will be absorbed by the molten lead that falls down to the bottom of the crucible.) Then let the crucible cool, break it, take the lead "regulus" at the bottom and cupel it. I strongly suspect that you will get most of your gold back. If it doesn't, then you truly have a remarkable solvent in your hands and should not trivialize the results so much.


You have a weird understanding of some things... specially the idea that the main intention of most authors was to mislead and lead people to failures because they are evil and naughty... My understanding is different and I shake hands with those authors, I consider them my "friends", not my "enemies" and I gladly accept their help and I am thankful to them. I would define them as "very kind"... my friends, not my enemies.

I am hardly the only or first person who has pointed out what you think is my "weird understanding". There was a guy in the 17th century, for example, who under the pseudonym "Anti-Glauberus" wrote an entire book ("Glauberus Refutatus") devoted to accusing Glauber of writing mostly lies when it comes to transmutation and special medicines. Friedrich Roth-Scholtz pointed out that 2/3 or more of the processes contained in Becher's huge compendium of transmutation processes ("Chymischer Glücks-Hafen") were worthless. Weber reports that his friend, professor Friedrich Schröder of Marburg, spent 2/3 of his fortune testing transmutation processes, and he only found a few that really worked and produced positive results (thus the bulk of them were total phonies; I can vouch for the old professor's assessment!) Weber himself tested many processes, and his opinion of most of such claims is also negative (but he certainly was convinced of the reality of transmutation too, since he knew some of the minority of them that actually work.) Moving on to the alchemists, properly: the autobiographical accounts of alchemists like Bernard Trevisan and Denis Zachaire are full of complaints of how much time and money they wasted on false and misleading claims. The alchemists themselves often got blasted by their critics for writing mostly obscurities & riddles and misleading people into wasting their time and money. So there is nothing "new" in what I am saying and pointing out. You just are not as familiar with the subject. When you have tested loads of processes and claims, and seen that most of them were nothing but a monumental waste of your time and money, you come back to me and tell me about how you feel then. Somehow I think your judgement of those guys and their tactics & methods of exposition will not be as "friendly" and much more critical.


Its existence is an empirical fact... a touchable and visible fact. O.K... you can claim that its nature or definition is a "chemical confusion" AND state that it is actually an unusual allotrope of "something"... I doubt it, but If you were right, then it would make no difference.

Nope. No one has proven that such a thing actually exists. All published processes pretending to produce such a thing are either incomplete and do not work as written or total lies designed to fool others into wasting time and money in things that will never happen.


I have remembered a conversation with a quite orthodox muslim friend who explained me his vision of the universe that was quite odd for me. Why does sugar get wet when you add water to it? His idea was simple: "because Allah wanted it to be this way". A modern chemist would discard such explanation and offer a different one... and yet they would have a perfect agreement about an empirical fact: the sugar gets wet when you add water to it. Maybe you get what I mean.

Not "maybe", this is in fact what I have been repeating all over the place: there is a fundamental difference between observed FACTS and THEORIES/SPECULATIONS designed to supposedly "explain" them. Your favorite "Spiritus Mundi" is nothing more than one of these theories/speculations, not some proven fact.


And yet chemistry combined with physics have recently produced real transmutations by using a logic that is a bit far from the usual logic of alchemy.

Yes, they have different methods to achieve the goal, and their quantitative results are, to be perfectly honest, laughable. I have made more gold and silver with some "chymical" processes (as relatively small as the yields are in the positive processes I have discovered so far) than these guys have made with their dinosaur-sized and energy-vampire particle smashers.


I already answered this question.... you didn't like the answer... O.K... I won't get into a "yes", "no", "yes", "no", "yes", "no" endless discussion.

No, you didn't really do so. And no, I did not like the "answer" either, because it is wrong.

JDP
03-30-2017, 04:00 PM
I hope everyone else can see how you answer your own questions and prove my point. LOL.

That you SAY you are not attracted to men is what? Is that proof? Not proof for me... what is it then? Oh, wait it is YOUR experience. So if you tonight have an OBE you cannot prove it to me... but you will finally understand what I am saying.

:cool:

You keep missing the point that the burden of proof is ON THE CLAIMANT. It is up to you to provide the proof of your claims, not your critics.

Awani
03-30-2017, 04:33 PM
LOL. I don't claim anything really. What I am saying is very fluid and in flux.

You however have statements carved in rock that applies to everything and everyone.

How much do you feel a need to prove to me that you are not a homosexual? I feel as much need to prove anything to you.

Finally: you have a tendency to ignore (or fail to grasp) the content of what I said, and I know this because your replies reveal that

:cool:

z0 K
03-30-2017, 06:59 PM
You pretty much admit yourself that you haven't really got tangible proof of a "Spiritus Mundi" but that you simply accept that "it is there" whether you are aware of it or not. That is a big assumption many of us are not quite willing to accept. We require more substantial proof.


I have made no such admission at all. You are my tangible proof of Spiritus Mundi, that is if you will admit that you are alive. Are you aware that you are alive? I think you do believe that you are alive even though you may not want to admit it for the sake of my analogy. You are my substantial proof. All that is required is that you are willing to accept that you live!


Biological death is still not fully understood, but that doesn't mean it won't be one day. No need to try to bring uncorroborated "mystical" notions here either. In fact, advocates of cryogenics are so convinced that medicine will eventually "conquer" death as well that they commit their dead bodies (specially the brain, which is who you are, and once it is gone you are gone forever too) to be preserved by being kept in controlled low temperatures, waiting for the day that medicine will be advanced enough to be able to "cure" death (yes, they consider death to be simply just another "disease" to be "cured".) And I agree with them. In fact, when the day comes, I will join them. Think about it. What is the alternative? Allow your body/brain to be munched on by worms and bacteria? Does anyone in their right mind prefer that than to have another very possible shot at living at some point in the future? The answer is very clear if you have a pragmatic and realistic view of life (if you are the kind of person who uncritically accepts the claims of religions, for which there is no proof whatsoever, of course it won't matter what happens to your brain since you just assume that you will somehow survive death; but many of us do not like to gamble with uncorroborated claims and go for the surer and more logical things in life.) And since you seem to be very interested in health and longevity I think you will be interested in cryogenics too. No need for assuming any "Spiritus Mundi" here either.

Biological death? Now you are on to something concerning the Spiritus Mundi. Otherwise why would you make the distinction about death by separating biological death from mineral death, or separate death from annihilation. A thing has to be alive before it can die. That much is understood. Anything can be annihilated, but only living things can die. The big Mystery is what is it that dies rendering the once living body into a rotting carcass to be fed upon by carrion eaters. Call it what you will.

I beg to differ with you about the brain being who you are. If that is all that you are to yourself then perhaps you are not alive after all but are a machine, cogs and wheels so to speak intelligently designed operating on heuristic algorithms. My machine kind of works that way except I am not the CPU. I am the Information System that runs it.

My alternative to being munched upon by worms and bacteria is to live in a continuous personal evolution moment by moment, one to the next leaving death between them. Death is not a disease though disease may cause death. Better to focus attention on the nature of disease and neutralize it then live on!. After that all you have to do is not get hit by a falling piano.

I don't think cryogenics has anything to do with attaining health and longevity through alchemical means. Cryogenics as you have described it is really a desperate belief system based upon blind faith in science that gives one hope in the face of death.

When death comes deal with, it until then live on! I'm going for the limit:) That takes a continuous supply of Spiritus Mundi.

zoas23
03-30-2017, 08:54 PM
He must not be a very experienced person if he thought that a solid substance cannot corrode or dissolve another one. What an experienced person will likely question is that there is any solvent that will not allow metals dissolved in them to be brought back to their metallic state, as this would indeed be most unusual (and why this topic fills so many pages in the old literature.)

As a chemist he is more than VERY experienced. He recently moved to Brazil after applying for a job (the technical-chemical director of an international company from Switzerland. which according to him is the "alpha and omega" of chemistry). There were some 1,000 postulants and he was the chosen one. So I would say that he is experienced as a modern chemist... and above the "average" modern chemists.


Panning would not work since the gold would be combined with whatever the dissolving agent is.

Such thing was uncertain, so we wanted to give it a try (maybe it was powderized, but not "combined")... though we ended up arriving to the idea that it was an homogeneous powder... so you are right. We had to give it a try though.


Nitric and hydrochloric acids do not normally have any effect on gold.

That's the point... the idea was to try to see if any of these two acids could create a solution with "everything else" and leave a gold precipitate.... though it didn't happen (we got a precipitate of everything as if it was water instead of a strong acid). So we worked in "the other way", which was trying to "recover" everything else except the gold, which WOULD have been the same... if only it had worked.


Aqua Regia does, but since your gold is combined with who-knows-what it might not have been able to act upon in.

We had our reasons to give this method a try.


What you should have done is a more "destructive" assay of whatever gold compound was it that was likely formed with your "powder" solvent. Fuse your "pizza" with 3 or 4 times its weight of a mixture of 3 parts litharge and 1 of silica and keep it in strong fusion for an hour or so in a thick assaying crucible (so that the crucible walls resists the corrosive action of the molten litharge.) Then add a large iron nail to the fused mass and let it be there for another hour or so (this will reduce the lead in the litharge and whatever gold is found in your "pizza", which should be thoroughly mixed with molten lead-glass, will be absorbed by the molten lead that falls down to the bottom of the crucible.) Then let the crucible cool, break it, take the lead "regulus" at the bottom and cupel it. I strongly suspect that you will get most of your gold back. If it doesn't, then you truly have a remarkable solvent in your hands and should not trivialize the results so much.

Something similar was done, though without silica and with another metal, not iron... We ended up with more powder.

You are more enthusiast with this experiment than I am... To be honest, the ONLY point was to bring a case of failure and explain which one is one of the BIG reasons that may lead to a failure:

Visiting a path in which you don't have a strong philosophical foundation and in a naive or silly way playing the "mad scientist" without understanding quite well what you are doing. As you may guess, "recovering the gold" was NOT the point, such thing only happened when we concluded that we didn't know how to take this path further and that it was more rational to stop and return to other paths which made more sense to us.

I have absolutely ZERO problems in stating very openly that we failed because of our idiocy and lack of knowledge and lack of experience with this path. It is almost a "miracle" that we went so "far", but we ended up crashing against a wall and this wall was created by our own IGNORANCE.

So, rather than focusing on this path (which I can state that I do not consider too worthy), I wanted to focus on the idea of WHY we failed... and state that a philosophical understanding comes first. "ora, lege, lege, lege, relege, labora et invenies" is the right formula. "What we did is "lege, labora and crash against the wall of your own ignorance". I've learnt that lesson... a very useful one and very related to the topic of this thread (rather than discussing a specific experiment).

I can, however, agree with you somehow: wishful thinking is not the key.


I am hardly the only or first person who has pointed out what you think is my "weird understanding".

A different attitude... I do not like the idea of "fighting" with a text, but becoming his "lover" and doing my best to understand.... it's an attitude, not a method.
This means that your mind can imagine that the author is your "enemy" and is hiding something from you because he is a bad person and naughty... or you can become his "friend" and understand him as your friend.


Nope. No one has proven that such a thing actually exists. All published processes pretending to produce such a thing are either incomplete and do not work as written or total lies designed to fool others into wasting time and money in things that will never happen.

Consider the myriad of texts that suggest NOT to spend a lot of money (the examples are countless). A right philosophical understanding leads to saving a lot of money (which is why visiting the glassware supplier and saying "give me one of each thing, please" is NOT a very sane method... stories of persons who spent a LOT of money in glassware just to find out years later that such thing was stupid are countless too -I have incredibly complex devices which are VERY expensive and completely useless).


Not "maybe", this is in fact what I have been repeating all over the place: there is a fundamental difference between observed FACTS and THEORIES/SPECULATIONS designed to supposedly "explain" them. Your favorite "Spiritus Mundi" is nothing more than one of these theories/speculations, not some proven fact.

O.K... I promise to inform the Spiritus Mundi that it doesn't exist, that it is a speculation and not an empirical fact. Though it would be the same than telling a chair: "you are not a chair, it's not a proven fact that I can sit on top of you, if I can see you it's only because I'm wrong, you are not real and you are probably a table and I am confused!".
I would be acting like my chemist friend though... the "powder" didn't make sense to him, so he simply stated that it couldn't be real.


Yes, they have different methods to achieve the goal, and their quantitative results are, to be perfectly honest, laughable. I have made more gold and silver with some "chymical" processes (as relatively small as the yields are in the positive processes I have discovered so far) than these guys have made with their dinosaur-sized and energy-vampire particle smashers.

It is still interesting that they did it.
A lot of roads lead to Rome (LOL.. I do prefer the roads that keep me away from Rome though!).


No, you didn't really do so. And no, I did not like the "answer" either, because it is wrong.

"yes", "no", "yes", "no", "yes", "no" leads nowhere.... Can we avoid that vicious circle?

Since the subject is "success and failure". then I would like to ask you a simple question: which ones are, according to you, the KEYS that lead to a success? Which ones are the important things to have in mind? Which ones are the things that create the "typical" mistakes or failures?

black
03-30-2017, 11:56 PM
Hi JDP

With all the study that you have done, how did you miss this ???

Many or most of the old masters at some point in their writings clearly
state that if you do not attain to the results that they have described
so openly, then do not blame them as the fault lies with you.

For it is true what they state, you will not have the understanding of what
they write until you have the eyes to see or the ears to hear.

Alchemy is not to be read VERBATIM.

Hence SUCCESS and/or FAILURE.

Aham
03-31-2017, 02:46 AM
The way I look at things, is that the SUCCESS of Alchemyforums, is truly and only measured on how many peoples lives are freed from suffering as a result.
...
We are all friends here, we share a similar brain frequency that draws us all to the hermetic arts.
...
Let us break the pattern of history, and actually make good of what has been given to us.
...
Why be scared of sharing? These are the last days my friends. Good luck, Godbless, and for fuck sake can we just get to making some fucking medicine already!?

I agree... IMHO, if we redirected our energies on collaboration and publishing our lab methodologies and results we would/could be so much further along as a group.

Peace

Axismundi000
03-31-2017, 11:18 AM
From a purely empirical perspective JDP is simply presenting provable facts and challenging those that disagree to provide verifiable facts that show the contrary. It is well established that if someone holds a view that a certain thing is true but they are unable to give actual evidence; then repeatedly 'hitting them over the head' with facts and evidence whilst challenging them to provide actual verifiable evidence themselves is the reasonable and proven approach.

Actual evidence or even possible evidence in support of a theory allows for actual examination of what is valid. As the late Sir Karl Popper identified, things must be 'refutable' (open to actual empirical examination to over simplify Poppers philosophy of science). So for example me saying I have visibly seen Angels is not 'refutable' it remains in the realm of ideas only, not proven fact. So I cannot then go on from this 'Angel statement' and start offering value judgements to others about what is right or wrong. This is the same with SM or Universal Mercury as I refer to it. It is in the realm of ideas not open to refutation or empirical examination. If people have it they do not show it due to its sacredness.

I offer the above as an aid to help avoid the continuing of a circular exchange where people make genuine open assertions about SM (Universal Mercury) and then the empiricist wacks them over the head with evidence and challenges them to present their own evidence in the customary manner.

Andro
03-31-2017, 11:59 AM
Personally, I don't have any doubts that Axis has experienced something truly unique which he has named "Angel". He also doesn't have to prove it to anyone. His word is good enough for me and he has no reason to lie. I have also experienced things that are 'logically inexplicable', and I also don't need to prove them to anyone (although sometimes this is inevitable, because the effects of my shamanic work are often clearly observed and sometimes even clinically/medically measurable - but that's another story...)

The case with what we refer to as "Spiritus Mundi" may be somewhat different. Also, I will here refrain from calling it so, and will use the term "Universal Mercury" instead. More 'palatable' for some, perhaps :)

This is an actual, tangible substance that can be extracted/isolated/condensed/rectified/etc and it has unique properties that can be empirically tested and proven in a laboratory environment. For the sake of this discussion, I think it would be maybe more 'productive' to set aside our preferences regarding how to call it. For some it may be a 'secret' preparation of a chemical compound (it isn't, but let's say it could be, for the sake of this discussion :)), for others it's of a rather 'different' origin. Regardless, it has the Qualities and the Virtues attributed by the classic authors to their 'First Mercury'.

And this "Mercury", or however we want to call it, is what (IMO) makes THE difference between Success and Failure in Alchemy.

This being said, I personally very much doubt that whoever does not inner-stand the Nature and Origin of this "First Mercury" will be able to 'isolate' it without direct guidance/instructions from someone who has already done so, because no book plainly reveals it.

JDP
03-31-2017, 04:39 PM
From a purely empirical perspective JDP is simply presenting provable facts and challenging those that disagree to provide verifiable facts that show the contrary. It is well established that if someone holds a view that a certain thing is true but they are unable to give actual evidence; then repeatedly 'hitting them over the head' with facts and evidence whilst challenging them to provide actual verifiable evidence themselves is the reasonable and proven approach.

Actual evidence or even possible evidence in support of a theory allows for actual examination of what is valid. As the late Sir Karl Popper identified, things must be 'refutable' (open to actual empirical examination to over simplify Poppers philosophy of science). So for example me saying I have visibly seen Angels is not 'refutable' it remains in the realm of ideas only, not proven fact. So I cannot then go on from this 'Angel statement' and start offering value judgements to others about what is right or wrong. This is the same with SM or Universal Mercury as I refer to it. It is in the realm of ideas not open to refutation or empirical examination. If people have it they do not show it due to its sacredness.

I offer the above as an aid to help avoid the continuing of a circular exchange where people make genuine open assertions about SM (Universal Mercury) and then the empiricist wacks them over the head with evidence and challenges them to present their own evidence in the customary manner.

You had the right ideas until you hit on the "Spiritus Mundi" claim: proving something like an "angel" seems impossible, unless said "angel" wants to make itself known to everyone. It is beyond the power of the claimant to force this unknown allegedly intelligent entity to show itself to the rest of the world and prove its existence. Therefore this type of claim are simply impossible to prove, and that is why they will likely remain unproven forever. But something like "Spiritus Mundi", which is of a more material and substantial nature, is quite different. Here the claimant is fully in control of the situation since he claims he can produce this substance at will: he knows the supposed secret of producing this alleged all-pervading substance. So the reason why nobody can show it and prove it is simply because no one has really got any proof that it exists in the first place. It's a theoretical assumption of some old writers. Those who claim they have "tangible" proof of such a substance are more than likely confusing some more "mundane" substance as if it was the genuine article.

An analogous situation to help visualize how easily people in past centuries could reach the wrong conclusions despite observing actual facts: For hundreds of years people, including the alchemists themselves, thought that combustion was caused by an escaping "sulfureous principle", which nobody had really seen or isolated, yet they found it very convenient to assume its existence in order to try to "explain" why things burned or were calcined. This theoretical assumption culminated in the "Phlogiston" theory of the late 17th and most of the 18th century. Most of the greatest scientists of the age swore by it and just assumed that this "thing" was very real, despite the fact that none of them had ever actually seen it or isolated it. All manner of bizarre and contradictory "explanations" were thought up to try to rationalize why nobody could isolate this "thing". It was by having access to more accurate information about the actual composition of our atmosphere and more suitable experimental techniques for investigating this phenomenon that Lavoisier finally debunked this old concept and showed that burning/calcining substances were in fact absorbing "something" from the surrounding air, not ejecting it from inside their bodies. Now, if the alchemists and even the "chymists" of the 17th & 18th century totally failed to discover something as "mundane" as oxygen (the "thing" that Lavoisier proved was actually causing the phenomenon), which they were in contact with every single day of their lives and on which many of the reactions they knew about depended, do you seriously think that they would have been capable of discovering something even more difficult to figure out how to isolate as a supposed "Spiritus Mundi"??? Folks, face the cold, hard facts: the experimental techniques known to the alchemists & chymists would not have enabled them to discover any such thing. They worked with mixtures of solid & liquid substances, and paid little attention to gases. Their experimental methods would never allow them to discover something even as common as oxygen, a very real substance that they were in contact with every single day of their lives, so let alone some supposed "Spiritus Mundi". On the other side of the coin, the actual methods and techniques (specially the solid state reactions between some substances, which is what alchemy & transmutational chymistry depended mostly upon) of the alchemists & chymists are not as well known to our modern ordinary chemists as they would like to think. That's why ordinary chemistry has itself miserably failed in discovering the empirical reality of transmutation by means of reacting substances and thinks it is "impossible". It has nothing to do with any bizarre hypothetical & universal "thing" that nobody has ever really seen or isolated. In fact, if transmutation really depended on such a universal "principle" as a "Spiritus Mundi" we should not expect such a humongous degree of failure. Most reactions simply fail to alter any of the metals involved in them. There's only a comparative few that do work. Why? If something like "Spiritus Mundi" was really real and the key to success depended on it, we should expect virtually ALL reactions to work, as this alleged "Spiritus Mundi" is supposedly all over the place. But this is hardly the case and most reactions miserably fail in doing anything to metals except superficial changes. Face it, folks: there is NO SHRED OF EVIDENCE that any such thing as a "Spiritus Mundi" actually exists. Do not confuse the theoretical musings of some alchemists & chymists from past centuries as if they were actual proven facts. They are NOT.

JDP
03-31-2017, 04:53 PM
Hi JDP

With all the study that you have done, how did you miss this ???

Many or most of the old masters at some point in their writings clearly
state that if you do not attain to the results that they have described
so openly, then do not blame them as the fault lies with you.

For it is true what they state, you will not have the understanding of what
they write until you have the eyes to see or the ears to hear.

Alchemy is not to be read VERBATIM.

Hence SUCCESS and/or FAILURE.

Apparently you seem to have missed that the above statements are simply a very convenient excuse concocted by the alchemists to put the blame of failure on the "unworthy" seekers and not on themselves and their convoluted & tricky manner of exposition. It's as if a doctor wrote you a prescription for a medicine with a garbled and barely intelligible handwriting, and then blamed you for not being able to read it! In other words, the fault is not with his awful handwriting & writing style, which is what caused the whole problem to begin with, but with your eyes... Yeah, right!

JDP
03-31-2017, 05:28 PM
I have made no such admission at all. You are my tangible proof of Spiritus Mundi, that is if you will admit that you are alive. Are you aware that you are alive? I think you do believe that you are alive even though you may not want to admit it for the sake of my analogy. You are my substantial proof. All that is required is that you are willing to accept that you live!

Yes, you have. Your above statements confirm it, again. You are just assuming that life has anything to do with this "Spiritus Mundi". But you have no actual proof it does. Your example is as faulty as me saying that the fact that you are alive is proof that Eric Clapton is "God" (like the old graffiti proclaimed.) Hmmm... how so? Where is the proof of this? It's just a gratuitous assumption.



Biological death? Now you are on to something concerning the Spiritus Mundi.

How so? You might as well say that now I am on to something concerning Eric Clapton being "God". It's apples and oranges. There is no proof anywhere. You are dealing with assumptions.


Otherwise why would you make the distinction about death by separating biological death from mineral death, or separate death from annihilation.

Perhaps because there is no such thing as "mineral death", at least not in a literal manner. I said "biological death" because that is what happens when living organisms cease to live. It's what we usually think of by "death". But "death" can also be metaphoric (as in the case of "mineral death", or Punk Rock or Disco supposedly "dying", and so forth.)


A thing has to be alive before it can die. That much is understood. Anything can be annihilated, but only living things can die. The big Mystery is what is it that dies rendering the once living body into a rotting carcass to be fed upon by carrion eaters. Call it what you will.

According to science, nothing can really be "annihilated", just "transformed". Everything tangible goes somewhere in one way or another.


I beg to differ with you about the brain being who you are. If that is all that you are to yourself then perhaps you are not alive after all but are a machine, cogs and wheels so to speak intelligently designed operating on heuristic algorithms. My machine kind of works that way except I am not the CPU. I am the Information System that runs it.

Not a valid analogy. Machines, like computers, are not self-conscious and are quite incapable of thinking on their own. They are computing machines. They need the guiding hand of the programmer to work. And the identity of the programmer is his brain, which the computer does not really have. It blindly follows what the programmer tells it to do. Plus computers also can recover from "death": their "memories" can be restored. So far medicine does not know how to do this with human brains. But it doesn't mean that one day won't figure it out.


My alternative to being munched upon by worms and bacteria is to live in a continuous personal evolution moment by moment, one to the next leaving death between them. Death is not a disease though disease may cause death. Better to focus attention on the nature of disease and neutralize it then live on!. After that all you have to do is not get hit by a falling piano.

Biological facts are not going to stop by the above "plan". When you "die", the bacteria and worms are still going to eventually rot & munch your brain into oblivion (as well as what makes you "you" along with it.) The only way to stop it is by postponing the biological process of decay from happening in the first place. The only way discovered so far to do this (without permanently damaging the brain/body beyond repair) is through cryogenics.


I don't think cryogenics has anything to do with attaining health and longevity through alchemical means.

No, but unlike alchemical means, which are still limited (unless you believe in the claims of the Chinese alchemists), cryogenics might eventually really offer the ability to actually live "forever" (of course, short of accidental deaths that would destroy your brain beyond repair, like your example of a piano falling on your head. )


Cryogenics as you have described it is really a desperate belief system based upon blind faith in science that gives one hope in the face of death.

It sure beats a desperate belief in a supposed "spiritual life after death" by means of blind faith in unseen "beings" that no one really knows if they really exist or not. At least we know how real medical science is, and the amazing progress it has made through centuries of accumulated experience. Think of cryogenics as the "surest bet" in this unavoidable "gamble".


When death comes deal with, it until then live on! I'm going for the limit:) That takes a continuous supply of Spiritus Mundi.

It helps to be prepared beforehand. Once you are "dead", you won't be able to "deal with it" since you will be... well, "dead". Surest bet in this forceful "gamble" that we all will have to go through: save & preserve your brain at all costs. Once it is "gone", you are "gone" with it and nobody will ever hear or see you again, very likely including yourself. Welcome to "oblivion" and "nothingness", embrace it! Hmmm... no thanks! I think I will pass if I have a choice. And cryogenics is a very plausible choice. In fact, it is the only alternative yet found to certain "eternal death".

JDP
03-31-2017, 05:46 PM
LOL. I don't claim anything really. What I am saying is very fluid and in flux.

You however have statements carved in rock that applies to everything and everyone.

How much do you feel a need to prove to me that you are not a homosexual? I feel as much need to prove anything to you.

Finally: you have a tendency to ignore (or fail to grasp) the content of what I said, and I know this because your replies reveal that

:cool:

Your above post in fact shows that not only it is you who ignores or fails to grasp my posts, but also you seem to do the same with your very own posts. You haven't made any claims? I just reminded you of some of your unproven claims, like OBE. So you do make claims that either you don't want to prove or that can't be proved.

Hellin Hermetist
03-31-2017, 06:40 PM
It was by having access to more accurate information about the actual composition of our atmosphere and more suitable experimental techniques for investigating this phenomenon that Lavoisier finally debunked this old concept and showed that burning/calcining substances were in fact absorbing "something" from the surrounding air, not ejecting it from inside their bodies.

The burning/calcining substances still eject heat. The fact that they combine with atmospheric oxygen solved the problem of the weight increase during calcination, didnt reveal to us the real nature of heat, and I believe that the theory of latent heat of Dr Black - and maybe even the one of caloric - stands as well today as it standed some hudrend years ago.

JDP
03-31-2017, 07:20 PM
As a chemist he is more than VERY experienced. He recently moved to Brazil after applying for a job (the technical-chemical director of an international company from Switzerland. which according to him is the "alpha and omega" of chemistry). There were some 1,000 postulants and he was the chosen one. So I would say that he is experienced as a modern chemist... and above the "average" modern chemists.

Like I said, if his refusal to believe your account was based on the fact that a powder was able to corrode and dissolved another substance, then he is not as experienced as he thinks he is. I thought his refusal was based on your assumption that the gold could not be recovered, in which case he would have a more valid excuse.



Something similar was done, though without silica and with another metal, not iron... We ended up with more powder.

What exactly was tried? The silica is there to avoid too much corrosion on the crucible walls. If you fuse litharge by itself it will "eat" its way through the crucibles walls too fast and the molten mass will spill out. You want to contain it long enough for the litharge to act on the substance you are assaying, in this case, your "pizza". The iron is ideal for reducing the lead because it does not melt under the normal temperatures used in assaying and is also more reactive than most metals, so it will reduce them from their compounds.


You are more enthusiast with this experiment than I am... To be honest, the ONLY point was to bring a case of failure and explain which one is one of the BIG reasons that may lead to a failure:

Because if it really does not allow for metals dissolved in it to be reduced back to their metallic form then you have an unusual solvent there. What I find amazing is that you try to "trivialize" this, when in fact it forms such a fundamental part of alchemical debates through the centuries. If I were you I would more thoroughly investigate this and make sure that I have performed proper assays on the "pizza" to make sure that the "missing" gold is really "missing" and totally assimilated into a new form with its solvent, and not just lurking underneath simply as a gold compound, like it happens with "vulgar" solvents.


A different attitude... I do not like the idea of "fighting" with a text, but becoming his "lover" and doing my best to understand.... it's an attitude, not a method.
This means that your mind can imagine that the author is your "enemy" and is hiding something from you because he is a bad person and naughty... or you can become his "friend" and understand him as your friend.

He was hiding that info from you because, in his mind, you were "unworthy" of knowing it. This is hardly what you can really call "your friend". What "friend" has no second-thoughts about making you waste your time and money in things that won't work as literally written??? One only has to see how the alchemists refer to most people as "fools", "sophists", "the vulgar" and so forth to understand their elitist mindset. In their minds misleading people they considered as such was perfectly "fine" and "fair".


Consider the myriad of texts that suggest NOT to spend a lot of money (the examples are countless).

That originally referred to the substances that were used in composing the Stone, not the apparatuses used in the process. It was later on that some writers distorted things (either maliciously on purpose or because some of them did not understand the earlier assertions about the low cost) and invented the "one vessel only" nonsense (alongside the "one matter only" death-trap.)


O.K... I promise to inform the Spiritus Mundi that it doesn't exist, that it is a speculation and not an empirical fact. Though it would be the same than telling a chair: "you are not a chair, it's not a proven fact that I can sit on top of you, if I can see you it's only because I'm wrong, you are not real and you are probably a table and I am confused!".

Like I told you, you are very likely just confusing something else for this "Spiritus Mundi" and why you have sought to convince yourself that it is "real". It wouldn't be the first time that something like it has happened. It won't be the last either.


I would be acting like my chemist friend though... the "powder" didn't make sense to him, so he simply stated that it couldn't be real.

Wrong analogy. Many "powders" can corrode and dissolve other substances. It has been known since antiquity, for example, that mixtures of clay and salt corrode and separate silver from gold (a classic assay test known as "cementation".) Your "chemist" friend is simply quite inexperienced and thus thought that a "powder" cannot perform such things. How is this comparable to the strange claims about "Spiritus Mundi", which, I repeat, no one has actually seen or isolated? We are talking about well-known facts vs uncorroborated claims here.




Since the subject is "success and failure". then I would like to ask you a simple question: which ones are, according to you, the KEYS that lead to a success? Which ones are the important things to have in mind? Which ones are the things that create the "typical" mistakes or failures?

The alchemists worked by mixing substances (solids with solids, solids with liquids, and/or liquids with liquids; gases were largely ignored before the 17th century, and only became the subject of prominent investigation during the 18th century. In fact, you can with much justification say that "chemistry" was truly born out of the investigation of gases and is what separated the subject from the earlier "alchemy" and "chymistry") and heating them together and then "see what happens". Through sheer empiricism and trial & error (though many of them would not admit it, since they were touched by the "philosophy" bug and tried to "rationalize" their findings with theories/speculations about matter, the universe, "God", nature, etc.), they discovered a very unusual "solvent", or "water", or "mercury", or whatever you want to call it, that works as they describe, and under proper treatment it "coagulates" into that unusual substance usually known as the Philosophers' Stone or Elixir. There is nothing more to it. Anyone who wants to see "Divine Revelations/Gifts/Permissions", "spiritual/psychic powers", "Spiritus Mundis", "The Moon is Made of Cheese" and what have you in alchemy is simply deluding himself. Alchemy affords no proof whatsoever regarding any of that stuff. Therefore, investigate their actual "modus operandi" and you will see what they were possibly doing. Forget about "condensing" or "materializing" things from thin air. The alchemists could not even discover something as "mundane" and common as oxygen, for crying out loud! Their methods of experimentation simply would never allow them to discover such a thing, so let alone a supposed "Spiritus Mundi". Alchemy involves very real flasks, retorts, cucurbits, alembics, crucibles, furnaces, etc. and its operations are very real and substantial and the substances it uses are also very real. No need for invoking weird speculative "stuff" that no one has ever seen or isolated.

JDP
03-31-2017, 07:25 PM
The burning/calcining substances still eject heat. The fact that they combine with atmospheric oxygen solved the problem of the weight increase during calcination, didnt reveal to us the real nature of heat, and I believe that the theory of latent heat of Dr Black - and maybe even the one of caloric - stands as well today as it standed some hudrend years ago.

Lavoisier himself was a proponent of "caloric". But modern chemistry has rejected it. Heat now is considered a form of energy and a byproduct of such reactions.

Hellin Hermetist
03-31-2017, 07:36 PM
Lavoisier himself was a proponent of "caloric". But modern chemistry has rejected it. Heat now is considered a form of energy and a byproduct of such reactions.

This doesnt say much. How do the modern science define energy? Can the modern scientists give a fair and accurate description of that term, or only describe the phenomena using mathematic formulas?

JDP
03-31-2017, 07:48 PM
This doesnt say much. How do the modern science define energy? Can the modern scientists give a fair and accurate description of that term, or only describe the phenomena using mathematic formulas?

According to modern science, energy and matter are actually two manifestations of the same thing. And yes, they use much "mathematical formulas" and abstract concepts in trying to prove their theories, which to empiricists like me (and I assume you as well) do not sound very convincing either. Many assertions of modern science sound a bit too speculative/theoretical to me.

Illen A. Cluf
03-31-2017, 08:25 PM
I'm not sure why it's even important to try to "prove" metaphysical experience. Science only deals with the material aspects of existence and uses labels to "explain" away anything that's not really definable from an empirical point of view - like "energy". It's measurable, but when it comes to explaining what it really is, Science is at a complete loss. It's obvious as well that matter and energy convert into each other, but nobody really knows how - just that it does.

I'm from a very strong scientific background. My father, brother, son, father-in-law, and brother-in-law are all Engineers. I also have three years of university Engineering. My daughter has a Ph D. in particle physics. Thus science is my family.

But, despite all this, I have had metaphysical "experiences" that not only defy explanation, but defy odds to such an enormous probability that they would normally be considered impossible. Not just once, or twice, or even three of four times, but about 5-10 times. Combining the probability of all those odds is totally unimaginable and equates many more times to impossible. yet they happened to me and to at least two other observers in some of those instances. They only happened in a unique way once each time, and each was a totally unique experience. I'll never be able to "prove' any of them - because they were unique and not repeatable as Science requires. To my own scientific mind at the time, I denied them each time they happened, until after several times I had to admit that Science cannot yet explain everything, and is totally inept at even attempting to explain anything metaphysical, because it is not even on their radar.

So, what constitutes "proof"? We all know that snow leopards exist, but how many people in the world have actually seen them? Only less than a handful in the world. Yet it seems that their testimony is enough to constitute scientific 'proof" that they exist. However the testimony of thousands and thousands of people who have experienced metaphysical experiences seems to count for nothing! Why? Because it doesn't 'fit' the scientific criteria for physical "proof" and repeatability. It never will, so there's no need to even worry about proof. And who of those who have had such experiences really cares? The experiences are likely meant to be personal for instructive purposes and thus have little value for others who need to address their own experiences in order to learn from.

I personally believe that these unique metaphysical experiences are not really meant for everybody but only for the person(s) experiencing them. Why? Because I think there's far more to life than most people realize. To even begin to explain myself would lead to multiple attacks by those who seem not to have remembered unusual experiences happening to themselves. I personally know from experience that people tend to immediately 'block" any such experiences from their minds soon afterwards, because their minds are conditioned to not accept them under any circumstance. This happened to a friend. Three of us experienced something absolutely explainable. To of us remembered the experience to this day (I even wrote it down shortly afterwards just in case). The third person totally denied it two months after it happened. Thus two of us, at least, know that at least some people DO experience unusual events but block it ENTIRELY fro their minds soon afterwards due to societal conditioning. We are conditioned to believe that metaphysical experiences only happen to lunatics, and to even admit it you are a lunatic. What a ridiculous criteria which ALWAYS automatically denies anything that is outside the bounds of scientific rationale, and prevents many people from explaining their unusual experiences! I personally believe that almost everybody has had unusual experiences, but that perhaps 90% are brainwashed to immediately deny them. Many of the remaining 10% stay quiet because of societal pressure.

Yeah, I'm still a scientifically-minded person, but at the same time, I'm one of the few who care less what others think of me, so I don't always keep quiet.

I've often stated this, but found that almost 100% of the time, people will read this and immediately dismiss if from their minds.

I'm thus not even sure why I'm even mentioning this. I'm not into forcing the knowledge gained on my experiences onto others just as I'm not into forcing my unique understanding of alchemy onto others.

Oh well. That's just me rarely opening up for no useful purpose, it seems. We could learn so much from each other, but that will seldom happen because we're all too busy trying to deny each others' unique experiences in order to find a single common, meaningless connection based on very limited physical criteria. Spiritual uniqueness intimately combined with the physical in an act of pure penetrating love is really only what exposes us as truly human, but that's not what we want to hear. We'd much rather focus on the separation than the hieros gamos of existence. Carry on.

Awani
03-31-2017, 08:28 PM
I agree with Illen's position.


Your above post in fact shows that not only it is you who ignores or fails to grasp my posts, but also you seem to do the same with your very own posts. You haven't made any claims? I just reminded you of some of your unproven claims, like OBE. So you do make claims that either you don't want to prove or that can't be proved.

There is no point in keeping up the debate when you avoid the discussion.

"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there." - Rumi

:cool:

Aham
03-31-2017, 08:44 PM
Someone quickly close this thread so we can all stop kicking a dead horse...

z0 K
03-31-2017, 10:15 PM
Yes, you have. Your above statements confirm it, again. You are just assuming that life has anything to do with this "Spiritus Mundi". But you have no actual proof it does. Your example is as faulty as me saying that the fact that you are alive is proof that Eric Clapton is "God" (like the old graffiti proclaimed.) Hmmm... how so? Where is the proof of this? It's just a gratuitous assumption.



No, you are quite mistaken. As long as you continue to respond to my replies demonstrating you are intelligent you remain tangible proof of Spiritus Mundi. I do not assume that life has anything to do with Spiritus Mundi. You have exhibited no information whatsoever about your belief in what it is, that something tangible to you, demonstrating a thing is alive.

You are wrong again. Of course the fact that you are alive is proof that Eric Clapton is God. The only problem with that ratiocination is proving you are alive without assumptions.


How so? You might as well say that now I am on to something concerning Eric Clapton being "God". It's apples and oranges. There is no proof anywhere. You are dealing with assumptions.

I think you are onto something concerning Eric Clapton is God. It is not apples and oranges it is fruit. Is it fresh or rotten. What's the difference? I'm asking you!


Perhaps because there is no such thing as "mineral death", at least not in a literal manner. I said "biological death" because that is what happens when living organisms cease to live. It's what we usually think of by "death". But "death" can also be metaphoric (as in the case of "mineral death", or Punk Rock or Disco supposedly "dying", and so forth.)

Well, saying biological death is what happens when living organisms cease to live says nothing about what it is to be alive other than comparing it to being dead. That is similar logic to saying that darkness vanishes in the presence of light, or darkness appears when light vanishes. The information is of limited usefulness.


According to science, nothing can really be "annihilated", just "transformed". Everything tangible goes somewhere in one way or another.

According to alchemy one thing is transformed into another to perpetrate the miracles of heaven and earth in the three parts of the philosophy of the world. Certainly everything tangible goes somewhere in one way or another for It will overcome all subtle things and penetrate every solid thing. Wonderful adaptations will emerge it is the Way.


Not a valid analogy. Machines, like computers, are not self-conscious and are quite incapable of thinking on their own. They are computing machines. They need the guiding hand of the programmer to work. And the identity of the programmer is his brain, which the computer does not really have. It blindly follows what the programmer tells it to do. Plus computers also can recover from "death": their "memories" can be restored. So far medicine does not know how to do this with human brains. But it doesn't mean that one day won't figure it out.

You were doing pretty good with the self conscious material then you got to the big assumption the identity of the programmer is his brain. Does your brain tell you what to do? Computers can recover from the "death" you've outlined and open files again. They cannot recover from being annihilated. Everything is lost; nothing is gained. Where are the memories?

There is no proof that unfreezing a human brain under any conditions will restore the consciousness and memories of the previous user. That is all speculation in the vicinity of metaphysics.


Biological facts are not going to stop by the above "plan". When you "die", the bacteria and worms are still going to eventually rot & munch your brain into oblivion (as well as what makes you "you" along with it.) The only way to stop it is by postponing the biological process of decay from happening in the first place. The only way discovered so far to do this (without permanently damaging the brain/body beyond repair) is through cryogenics.

We all will become death eventually. I practice alchemy because it gives me good results thus far for health and longevity. When death becomes me freezing my body won't make a difference. This thread is about success and failure. My successes are predicated on being alive not dead. However I'm not against suspended animation:)


No, but unlike alchemical means, which are still limited (unless you believe in the claims of the Chinese alchemists), cryogenics might eventually really offer the ability to actually live "forever" (of course, short of accidental deaths that would destroy your brain beyond repair, like your example of a piano falling on your head. )

Cryogenics as a form of immortality seems pretty farfetched to me however people practicing alchemy have varying beliefs. I will stay with the Chinese alchemists that ponder the Way of Tao in the practice of the Inner Circulation to prolong life as long as possible.


It sure beats a desperate belief in a supposed "spiritual life after death" by means of blind faith in unseen "beings" that no one really knows if they really exist or not. At least we know how real medical science is, and the amazing progress it has made through centuries of accumulated experience. Think of cryogenics as the "surest bet" in this unavoidable "gamble".

I might prefer cryogenics over your other option about blind faith in unseen "beings" whose existence is questionable. Fortunately other options are available like alchemy.


It helps to be prepared beforehand. Once you are "dead", you won't be able to "deal with it" since you will be... well, "dead". Surest bet in this forceful "gamble" that we all will have to go through: save & preserve your brain at all costs. Once it is "gone", you are "gone" with it and nobody will ever hear or see you again, very likely including yourself. Welcome to "oblivion" and "nothingness", embrace it! Hmmm... no thanks! I think I will pass if I have a choice. And cryogenics is a very plausible choice. In fact, it is the only alternative yet found to certain "eternal death".

I agree with you! Preserve the brain don't let it die. When it does the rest of the body may still go on functioning for a long time thanks to modern medicine. A person was alive in that body. You could tell by absence of the spirit that used to be exhibited when that person was alive and operating that body if you knew them well. What happened to that person and that spirit once shared with the world around them? Oblivion...? Nothingness... embrace it! You cannot run from it when you are out of time... So even if you are frozen for 10,000 years and are restored to perfect health by little gray aliens the clock starts ticking again for you. And death will be coming your way once again; eventually the piano will fall.

Hellin Hermetist
03-31-2017, 10:21 PM
According to modern science, energy and matter are actually two manifestations of the same thing. And yes, they use much "mathematical formulas" and abstract concepts in trying to prove their theories, which to empiricists like me (and I assume you as well) do not sound very convincing either. Many assertions of modern science sound a bit too speculative/theoretical to me.

If energy and matter are two manifestations of the same thing, then energy is nothing more than matter in motion, which brings us back to good old caloric. If, on the other hand, science says that this one thing isnt matter or energy, but manifests itself some times as energy, sometimes as matter, then it describes a substance same as the spiritus mundi of Androgynous and the others here, and maybe even more metaphysical. Of course if you ask a scientist if energy and matter is the same thing, most probably he will say yes. If after that you tell him: "Light is a material substance then?" "No", he will answer, "its a form of energy". And unfortunately most ppl will call that answer a scientific one.

Awani
03-31-2017, 11:44 PM
I just reminded you of some of your unproven claims, like OBE. So you do make claims that either you don't want to prove or that can't be proved.

After my last comment I sat down and watched Dr. Strange. There is a scene in the beginning bit of the film when Dr. Stephen Strange meets his Teacher. He tells her that he does not believe in spirit and that the only thing real is matter (JDP-style)... then the Teacher pushes him in the chest and he exits his body for a moment and then comes back.
From then on Dr. Strange has no more doubt about the non-material world. Why?

Because he had the experience. And until a person experience the paranormal as normal, it will remain paranormal.

:cool:

Kiorionis
04-01-2017, 02:22 AM
Because he had the experience. And until a person experience the paranormal as normal, it will remain paranormal.

:cool:

There is a curious thing which goes along with this, that I have seen and agree with you (dev) with -- that some people experience the paranormal regularly but still maintain that it is not normal. All the world is 'para' normal -- being greater than or equal to normal haha.

zoas23
04-01-2017, 04:01 AM
The case with what we refer to as "Spiritus Mundi" may be somewhat different. Also, I will here refrain from calling it so, and will use the term "Universal Mercury" instead. More 'palatable' for some, perhaps :)

LOL... My neurotic side makes me dislike that name. JDP has other very different reasons.
In my own case, it is simply because it is too generic (the Golden Chain of Homer ends up talking about "Spiritus Mundi Volatilis Incorporeus", "Spiritus Mundi Acidus Corporeus", "Spiritus Mundi Alcalicus Corporeus", "Spiritus Mundi Concentratus Fixus", etc). So it may lead to confusion... It's a bit like saying "human"... but a "human" can be a "foetus", "baby", "kid", "teen", "adult", "old aged", etc... So you can show a "baby" and say "this is a human"... but if you use the word "baby", then you are giving more information. That's my ONLY objection.


This is an actual, tangible substance that can be extracted/isolated/condensed/rectified/etc and it has unique properties that can be empirically tested and proven in a laboratory environment. For the sake of this discussion, I think it would be maybe more 'productive' to set aside our preferences regarding how to call it. For some it may be a 'secret' preparation of a chemical compound (it isn't, but let's say it could be, for the sake of this discussion :)), for others it's of a rather 'different' origin. Regardless, it has the Qualities and the Virtues attributed by the classic authors to their 'First Mercury'.

Hahaha... OK... I will use the name Spiritus Mundi and put my neurotic side in a closed box.


And this "Mercury", or however we want to call it, is what (IMO) makes THE difference between Success and Failure in Alchemy.

I couldn't agree more! I would even say that it re-defines the idea of "success". This is how I see a "success":


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49FlVvyQGKo


This being said, I personally very much doubt that whoever does not inner-stand the Nature and Origin of this "First Mercury" will be able to 'isolate' it without direct guidance/instructions from someone who has already done so, because no book plainly reveals it.

I specially like the Speculum Sophicum Rhodostauricum because it gets QUITE close.... and the explanation of its origin is there (under a Christian Symbolism): http://atrightanglestoreality.blogspot.com.ar/2016/03/the-mirror-of-wisdom-of-rosy-cross-by.html

It also shows VERY clearly a comment you made somewhere... LOL, I will publicly confess that I was AMAZED when I saw the not so tiny detail and related it to your idea.
Some "help" is often a key... though it's only possible to help someone who CAN be helped.


Because if it really does not allow for metals dissolved in it to be reduced back to their metallic form then you have an unusual solvent there. What I find amazing is that you try to "trivialize" this, when in fact it forms such a fundamental part of alchemical debates through the centuries. If I were you I would more thoroughly investigate this and make sure that I have performed proper assays on the "pizza" to make sure that the "missing" gold is really "missing" and totally assimilated into a new form with its solvent, and not just lurking underneath simply as a gold compound, like it happens with "vulgar" solvents.

I clearly trivialize it.... because I understood that even if everything had gone perfectly well (which was certainly NOT the case), then what I would have had would not have been VERY worthy to ME (though I must accept that with my poor understanding of this specific path, it would have been a biblical miracle if I had achieved what I intended to achieve... and right now I don't even get WHY I intended to achieve such thing).
I could have chosen to "go on" and dedicate my time to this path that I do not like... due to personal reasons I decided not to do it.

It happened to me 2 times in my life: a real billionaire woman decided that I was the most interesting thing in the universe and wanted to be with me... I could have CHOSEN that path (with 2 different person actually) and have a mansion on each country you can name, a car made of solid gold (it would look a bit kitsch though!), a yacht as big as the Titanic to sail the seas and a few private airplanes... I was not in love with them, I was not in love with that path.... and some years later I found a girl, a lovely girl, whose only possession was a sax, a few books and the first time I had a date at her house we had to share the glass to drink water because she only had one (and the food would have been OK, even if it was only white rice, though we couldn't eat it because her dog ate it when we got distracted with each other's smiling face.... so we ate a tangerine that we shared with love). I love her and she gives me something that the other two person I've mentioned would have never been able to give me. That's how I am. We all choose... I know what I have chosen and I am happy with it, I do not have the need of making you happy with MY choice.

And you may ask yourself, "How do I work this?"
And you may ask yourself, "Where is that large automobile?"
And you may tell yourself, "This is not my beautiful house"
And you may tell yourself, "This is not my beautiful wife"

Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
Into the blue again after the money's gone
Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGofoH9RDEA

JDP
04-01-2017, 05:09 AM
I'm not sure why it's even important to try to "prove" metaphysical experience. Science only deals with the material aspects of existence and uses labels to "explain" away anything that's not really definable from an empirical point of view - like "energy". It's measurable, but when it comes to explaining what it really is, Science is at a complete loss. It's obvious as well that matter and energy convert into each other, but nobody really knows how - just that it does.

I'm from a very strong scientific background. My father, brother, son, father-in-law, and brother-in-law are all Engineers. I also have three years of university Engineering. My daughter has a Ph D. in particle physics. Thus science is my family.

But, despite all this, I have had metaphysical "experiences" that not only defy explanation, but defy odds to such an enormous probability that they would normally be considered impossible. Not just once, or twice, or even three of four times, but about 5-10 times. Combining the probability of all those odds is totally unimaginable and equates many more times to impossible. yet they happened to me and to at least two other observers in some of those instances. They only happened in a unique way once each time, and each was a totally unique experience. I'll never be able to "prove' any of them - because they were unique and not repeatable as Science requires. To my own scientific mind at the time, I denied them each time they happened, until after several times I had to admit that Science cannot yet explain everything, and is totally inept at even attempting to explain anything metaphysical, because it is not even on their radar.

So, what constitutes "proof"? We all know that snow leopards exist, but how many people in the world have actually seen them? Only less than a handful in the world. Yet it seems that their testimony is enough to constitute scientific 'proof" that they exist. However the testimony of thousands and thousands of people who have experienced metaphysical experiences seems to count for nothing! Why? Because it doesn't 'fit' the scientific criteria for physical "proof" and repeatability. It never will, so there's no need to even worry about proof. And who of those who have had such experiences really cares? The experiences are likely meant to be personal for instructive purposes and thus have little value for others who need to address their own experiences in order to learn from.

I personally believe that these unique metaphysical experiences are not really meant for everybody but only for the person(s) experiencing them. Why? Because I think there's far more to life than most people realize. To even begin to explain myself would lead to multiple attacks by those who seem not to have remembered unusual experiences happening to themselves. I personally know from experience that people tend to immediately 'block" any such experiences from their minds soon afterwards, because their minds are conditioned to not accept them under any circumstance. This happened to a friend. Three of us experienced something absolutely explainable. To of us remembered the experience to this day (I even wrote it down shortly afterwards just in case). The third person totally denied it two months after it happened. Thus two of us, at least, know that at least some people DO experience unusual events but block it ENTIRELY fro their minds soon afterwards due to societal conditioning. We are conditioned to believe that metaphysical experiences only happen to lunatics, and to even admit it you are a lunatic. What a ridiculous criteria which ALWAYS automatically denies anything that is outside the bounds of scientific rationale, and prevents many people from explaining their unusual experiences! I personally believe that almost everybody has had unusual experiences, but that perhaps 90% are brainwashed to immediately deny them. Many of the remaining 10% stay quiet because of societal pressure.

Yeah, I'm still a scientifically-minded person, but at the same time, I'm one of the few who care less what others think of me, so I don't always keep quiet.

I've often stated this, but found that almost 100% of the time, people will read this and immediately dismiss if from their minds.

I'm thus not even sure why I'm even mentioning this. I'm not into forcing the knowledge gained on my experiences onto others just as I'm not into forcing my unique understanding of alchemy onto others.

Oh well. That's just me rarely opening up for no useful purpose, it seems. We could learn so much from each other, but that will seldom happen because we're all too busy trying to deny each others' unique experiences in order to find a single common, meaningless connection based on very limited physical criteria. Spiritual uniqueness intimately combined with the physical in an act of pure penetrating love is really only what exposes us as truly human, but that's not what we want to hear. We'd much rather focus on the separation than the hieros gamos of existence. Carry on.

The analogy is not valid. Snow leopards are well known to exist and there are even pictures, films and captured specimens that anyone can see with their own eyes. It does not require any leap of faith to be aware of their reality. But all these metaphysical/supernatural/paranormal claims are hardly proven. And it is not like you say for lack of interest or lack of trying. For decades skeptics like Randi have been offering large prizes for anyone able to demonstrate any of these claims under controlled conditions (so no cheating can take place.) After hundreds and hundreds of trials by all sorts of claimants over the years, the number of them who have actually passed even the preliminary tests (which they agreed beforehand with the testers that they were fair and would demonstrate the reality of their claims) is a whopping ZERO. It just doesn't look like the "paranormal front" has been doing a good job at providing any shred of evidence for its beliefs and claims. So naturally scientists & skeptics remain, well, skeptic. Until someone can bring forth any actual evidence to corroborate any of such claims.

JDP
04-01-2017, 05:54 AM
No, you are quite mistaken. As long as you continue to respond to my replies demonstrating you are intelligent you remain tangible proof of Spiritus Mundi. I do not assume that life has anything to do with Spiritus Mundi. You have exhibited no information whatsoever about your belief in what it is, that something tangible to you, demonstrating a thing is alive.

You are wrong again. Of course the fact that you are alive is proof that Eric Clapton is God. The only problem with that ratiocination is proving you are alive without assumptions.

I think you are onto something concerning Eric Clapton is God. It is not apples and oranges it is fruit. Is it fresh or rotten. What's the difference? I'm asking you!

All the above = assumptions. No shred of evidence that "Spiritus Mundi" or Eric Clapton being "God" (as the old graffitti proclaimed) are facts in any way, shape or form. You need proof, actual proof, not beliefs.


Well, saying biological death is what happens when living organisms cease to live says nothing about what it is to be alive other than comparing it to being dead. That is similar logic to saying that darkness vanishes in the presence of light, or darkness appears when light vanishes. The information is of limited usefulness.

It means that the organism stops functioning and starts to decay. Here at this point you have two options: let the decay set in and eventually end up "dissolving" the organism back into simpler forms of matter, or stop the decay in its track and see if medicine one day will be able to restore life to it.


According to alchemy one thing is transformed into another to perpetrate the miracles of heaven and earth in the three parts of the philosophy of the world. Certainly everything tangible goes somewhere in one way or another for It will overcome all subtle things and penetrate every solid thing. Wonderful adaptations will emerge it is the Way.

So according to alchemy there really is no "annihilation" either.


You were doing pretty good with the self conscious material then you got to the big assumption the identity of the programmer is his brain. Does your brain tell you what to do?

Your brain tells your body what to do. With your brain you explore the world around you and learn about everything. If your brain is gone, you are gone.


Computers can recover from the "death" you've outlined and open files again. They cannot recover from being annihilated. Everything is lost; nothing is gained. Where are the memories?

Computers have the advantage that their memories can actually be copied, replicated. So they can technically survive "annihilation", if its owner has taken measures to make backups of said memories. A computer's memories can technically "reincarnate" in another one, so to speak. Unfortunately, medical science has not advanced as much as computer science and cannot do similar things with our brains/memories... yet.


There is no proof that unfreezing a human brain under any conditions will restore the consciousness and memories of the previous user. That is all speculation in the vicinity of metaphysics.

The freezing part is just to preserve the structure of the brain so that biological decay does not damage it. The "restoring" life and all that it carries with it to the brain will be the job of medical science, which at this point in time does not know how to do this, but that doesn't mean that, say, 200 years from now it won't be able to.

Regarding whether your memories, personality & consciousness will be retained after being "revived": people who have been clinically "dead" have "revived" and their memories are still there, even after several hours of being technically "dead", and they don't seem to have "lost" any of them or their personality or consciousness. Whether or not this condition remains for indefinite amounts of time after "death" is yet to be determined, but so far it looks like it might be possible that these things remain as long as the brain itself remains.


We all will become death eventually. I practice alchemy because it gives me good results thus far for health and longevity. When death becomes me freezing my body won't make a difference. This thread is about success and failure. My successes are predicated on being alive not dead. However I'm not against suspended animation:)

I might prefer cryogenics over your other option about blind faith in unseen "beings" whose existence is questionable. Fortunately other options are available like alchemy.

Yes, but like I said, even alchemy has limitations. How many alchemists from, say, 300 or 400 years ago are still around? That's right, none. Most alchemists in fact did not believe in immortality and only thought that you could prolong your life until a certain point (usually a supposedly predetermined time of your death, allegedly set in place by a hypothetical "Creator", which, of course, they had no shred of proof whatsoever that actually existed in the first place, but they just assumed "He" did.) Supposing that cryogenics/cryonics and medicine advance enough in the foreseeable future, technically it should be possible to live for hundreds, maybe even thousands, of years! (provided of course that a falling piano does not smash you into a bloody pulp one day.)



I agree with you! Preserve the brain don't let it die. When it does the rest of the body may still go on functioning for a long time thanks to modern medicine. A person was alive in that body. You could tell by absence of the spirit that used to be exhibited when that person was alive and operating that body if you knew them well. What happened to that person and that spirit once shared with the world around them? Oblivion...? Nothingness... embrace it! You cannot run from it when you are out of time... So even if you are frozen for 10,000 years and are restored to perfect health by little gray aliens the clock starts ticking again for you. And death will be coming your way once again; eventually the piano will fall.

Yes, but then you can just repeat the process when that time of your "death" comes again. And this time you won't have to wait "10,000 years" since the technology will already be in place. You might be "revived" again in just a matter of days. And this process is continued until the day that a piano falls on your head and turns your brain into mash-potatoes and no longer can be "revived", which unfortunate accident might take 10,000 years to happen or it might take place the next day, who knows, but at least you had more than one shot at living.

JDP
04-01-2017, 06:13 AM
I clearly trivialize it.... because I understood that even if everything had gone perfectly well (which was certainly NOT the case), then what I would have had would not have been VERY worthy to ME (though I must accept that with my poor understanding of this specific path, it would have been a biblical miracle if I had achieved what I intended to achieve... and right now I don't even get WHY I intended to achieve such thing).
I could have chosen to "go on" and dedicate my time to this path that I do not like... due to personal reasons I decided not to do it.


You keep failing to understand the importance of your accidental "discovery" (if it turns out that the gold is indeed not recoverable.) It is bizarre, to say the least, that someone trying to bring about alchemical results could so casually trivialize the effects of a solvent that would do that, because, like I told you, it is in fact an issue that kept coming to the surface in the alchemical & chymical literature. One of the sure signs that you were stumbling upon big "secrets" regarding alchemy/chymistry was in fact the production of a solvent that would not give the metals it dissolved back in their metallic state and would be "radically" assimilated to the special solvent. The effects of such a special solvent were contrasted with the "vulgar" solvents, like aqua regia or aqua fortis, which could not perform such a feat and you could always recover the dissolved metals back from them.

Axismundi000
04-01-2017, 08:25 AM
A lot of the comments here are interesting. However the cycle of genuine opinion followed by demanding of actual evidence and the 'hitting over the head' with facts continues as predicted.

Frater Albertus warned about showing this SM or Universal Mercury, although I think I read somewhere that he did show it on television but was mocked and laughed at.

In terms of success or failure I listened to Mark Stavish on the natural born Alchemist podcast and he makes the concise observation to the effect that something in the lab flask is more tangible and verifiable than 'seeing Angels'.

So the obvious question is why isn't anyone showing it. I think the reason for this is that this is linked to the difficulty of isolating this material and the spiritual mindset associated with making it.

The Pearl before swine phrase I used recently seems relevant, if Albertus did show it and was ridiculed that explained his recorded view about demonstrating its properties.

elixirmixer
04-01-2017, 12:16 PM
This thread feels a little different.

I can't help but consider the magicka skills of the one who opened it.

I cannot help but consider the freedom driven spirit, with which this forum was began.

I cannot help consider, the intellectual property, of all the members who are currently partaking...

Could this be a cross roads for alchemy forums?

Is there a choice to consider amongst ourselves?

Will there be a modern alchemical renosounse?(?)

We all are seeking growth, are we not?

Surely, in this day and age, we can see the clear path of acceptance, intergration, unity, development, ingenuity, enlightment....

We are a group of gifted, good hearted people.

Let's prove it to the world now,

And argue about who's smartest later ;)

Keep the love flowing.

In sacred moderation :)

PS: medicine.

Illen A. Cluf
04-01-2017, 12:24 PM
The analogy is not valid. Snow leopards are well known to exist and there are even pictures, films and captured specimens that anyone can see with their own eyes. It does not require any leap of faith to be aware of their reality. But all these metaphysical/supernatural/paranormal claims are hardly proven. And it is not like you say for lack of interest or lack of trying. For decades skeptics like Randi have been offering large prizes for anyone able to demonstrate any of these claims under controlled conditions (so no cheating can take place.) After hundreds and hundreds of trials by all sorts of claimants over the years, the number of them who have actually passed even the preliminary tests (which they agreed beforehand with the testers that they were fair and would demonstrate the reality of their claims) is a whopping ZERO. It just doesn't look like the "paranormal front" has been doing a good job at providing any shred of evidence for its beliefs and claims. So naturally scientists & skeptics remain, well, skeptic. Until someone can bring forth any actual evidence to corroborate any of such claims.

But that's just my point. The paranormal experience doesn't lend itself to scientific proof as it is applied today. As mentioned, each occurrence is unique and cannot be repeated at will. Also, some of the experiences often do not involve a purely physical manifestation. For me it's not even important that others believe in these experiences, because I believe that they are meant to occur to each individual to help in their spiritual development. It is enough for me that several of these occurrences were witnessed by at least one other person - two others in one occasion. I also have a most unusual and impossible photograph of one location where an unusual occurrence happened. But unlike snow leopard pictures which 'fits" expectations and will not be easily denied, I'm sure that this photograph, which doesn't fit expectations, will be constantly denied as real.

So what I'm really saying is that the very process of "proof" itself is not objective and lends itself strongly to expectations. Fifty photos of a snow leopard is enough 'proof' for scientists because it meets their foregone expectations. Yet, for example, 5,000 or more photographs and sightings of UFO's, including many more than 50 by respected professionals, pilots and astronauts will never constitute enough proof for scientists, and will always be debunked, because it doesn't meet their foregone expectations of 'reality'. Thus why even bother worrying about trying to prove something that does not meet expectations? It's an exercise of pure futility.

To show an example of how incomplete the process of scientific proof can be, let any scientist try to show proof that the "life" essence really exists and explain what it actually is. We all seem to "know" that life exists, but show me the proof. Show me all the scientific measurements that differ between a body which is alive one minute, and that very same body which is dead a minute later. Explain what this life essence is - how does it look, feel, how does it 'measure', what colour is it, is it warm, cold, wet, humid, etc. Of course you can't - even Randi can't. Yet this "life" essence which is scientifically accepted by everyone, is just as metaphysical/supernatural/paranormal and explainable as many reports of such occurrences which do not lend themselves to proof in the same way.

Of all the many thousands of reports of metaphysical/supernatural/paranormal events there are likely many hundreds of times of these number of occurrences that people don't even bother reporting for these very reasons. It's only the very insecure and immature, who need to be convinced of what they experienced and demand that others believe them. Often when they come forward, their experiences are so rejected and ridiculed by others' expectations that they later begin to deny their very own experiences. It is this constant denial, ridicule and rejection that prevents us from ever truly trying to come together openly and try to understand what these experiences really mean. Until then, they remain in the closet.

zoas23
04-02-2017, 03:52 AM
You keep failing to understand the importance of your accidental "discovery" (if it turns out that the gold is indeed not recoverable.) It is bizarre, to say the least, that someone trying to bring about alchemical results could so casually trivialize the effects of a solvent that would do that, because, like I told you, it is in fact an issue that kept coming to the surface in the alchemical & chymical literature. One of the sure signs that you were stumbling upon big "secrets" regarding alchemy/chymistry was in fact the production of a solvent that would not give the metals it dissolved back in their metallic state and would be "radically" assimilated to the special solvent. The effects of such a special solvent were contrasted with the "vulgar" solvents, like aqua regia or aqua fortis, which could not perform such a feat and you could always recover the dissolved metals back from them.

For humility's sake, I should clarify that it was not MY discovery. There are some things I can't say because they involve other persons... but the short story would be that it was not MY discovery.

I can also clarify that whilst you are not wrong that this issue covers a LOT of pages of alchemical books, I was not interested in this specific way of doing it.
It is quite far from being the most relevant thing I saw at a lab... and thus I focus myself on what is relevant to ME.

I get it that the idea of "universals" and "Particulars" doesn't make any kind of sense to you... it does for me. So this "amazing" powder is simply a mix of different "particulars" and such thing made me be not too interested in it.

The son "Once in a lifetime" was somehow an explanation of why I do not want to go further with this path:
And you may tell yourself, "This is not my beautiful house"
And you may tell yourself, "This is not my beautiful wife"

So, what is relevant to me?


Does death come alone or with eager reinforcements?
Death is centrifugal
Solar and logical
Decadent and symmetrical
Angels are mathematical
Angels are bestial
Man is the animal
Man is the animal

The blacker the sun
The darker the dawn
Flashes from the axis
Flashes from the axis
On the hummingway to the stars

Holy, holy
Holy, holy fire of the mind agitating the atmosphere.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMk5NQ-cBfk

I am VERY happy with what I have chosen... I do not need you to be happy with MY choice, but if you are happy with your choices, then I am happy for you. Maybe you can feel happy with knowing that I have been able to choose what I love.

I get your points, JDP... it's just that it's not the path that I LOVE to follow. I get it that it get closer to some ideas of yours... but I honestly brought it here as an example of a FAILURE...


A lot of the comments here are interesting. However the cycle of genuine opinion followed by demanding of actual evidence and the 'hitting over the head' with facts continues as predicted.

(...)

So the obvious question is why isn't anyone showing it. I think the reason for this is that this is linked to the difficulty of isolating this material and the spiritual mindset associated with making it.

That's not the reason. The reason is that there is no need to demonstrate some things in public and doing such thing would be idiotic.

It's a touchable philosophy... I would say a philosophy made flesh, but that's a metaphor. Showing the flesh only shows the flesh, not the philosophy. So it's somehow obscene, pointless, silly.

If someone does it and is mocked, then it is somehow deserved.

JDP
04-02-2017, 04:46 AM
But that's just my point. The paranormal experience doesn't lend itself to scientific proof as it is applied today. As mentioned, each occurrence is unique and cannot be repeated at will. Also, some of the experiences often do not involve a purely physical manifestation. For me it's not even important that others believe in these experiences, because I believe that they are meant to occur to each individual to help in their spiritual development. It is enough for me that several of these occurrences were witnessed by at least one other person - two others in one occasion. I also have a most unusual and impossible photograph of one location where an unusual occurrence happened. But unlike snow leopard pictures which 'fits" expectations and will not be easily denied, I'm sure that this photograph, which doesn't fit expectations, will be constantly denied as real.

So what I'm really saying is that the very process of "proof" itself is not objective and lends itself strongly to expectations. Fifty photos of a snow leopard is enough 'proof' for scientists because it meets their foregone expectations. Yet, for example, 5,000 or more photographs and sightings of UFO's, including many more than 50 by respected professionals, pilots and astronauts will never constitute enough proof for scientists, and will always be debunked, because it doesn't meet their foregone expectations of 'reality'. Thus why even bother worrying about trying to prove something that does not meet expectations? It's an exercise of pure futility.

To show an example of how incomplete the process of scientific proof can be, let any scientist try to show proof that the "life" essence really exists and explain what it actually is. We all seem to "know" that life exists, but show me the proof. Show me all the scientific measurements that differ between a body which is alive one minute, and that very same body which is dead a minute later. Explain what this life essence is - how does it look, feel, how does it 'measure', what colour is it, is it warm, cold, wet, humid, etc. Of course you can't - even Randi can't. Yet this "life" essence which is scientifically accepted by everyone, is just as metaphysical/supernatural/paranormal and explainable as many reports of such occurrences which do not lend themselves to proof in the same way.

Of all the many thousands of reports of metaphysical/supernatural/paranormal events there are likely many hundreds of times of these number of occurrences that people don't even bother reporting for these very reasons. It's only the very insecure and immature, who need to be convinced of what they experienced and demand that others believe them. Often when they come forward, their experiences are so rejected and ridiculed by others' expectations that they later begin to deny their very own experiences. It is this constant denial, ridicule and rejection that prevents us from ever truly trying to come together openly and try to understand what these experiences really mean. Until then, they remain in the closet.

But in the case of snow leopards the pictures and films are beyond question real. Plus there's actual captured specimens and skeletal remains from dead specimens that reinforce said pictures/films as real. It is just not comparable to the very "iffy" claims about UFOs, "Big Foot", ghosts and the like claims, where most of the alleged photos/films have proven to be forgeries. And needless to say no one has actually captured any of these things/beings to corroborate the alleged sightings.

I disagree with your assessments on how scientists and skeptics act regarding such claims. I think it's rather the opposite. They have very patiently given plenty of chances to the people making these paranormal/psychic/supernatural/occult claims to prove them. Plenty of them have accepted the offer and they all have failed.

JDP
04-02-2017, 05:02 AM
For humility's sake, I should clarify that it was not MY discovery. There are some things I can't say because they involve other persons... but the short story would be that it was not MY discovery.

I can also clarify that whilst you are not wrong that this issue covers a LOT of pages of alchemical books, I was not interested in this specific way of doing it.
It is quite far from being the most relevant thing I saw at a lab... and thus I focus myself on what is relevant to ME.

I get it that the idea of "universals" and "Particulars" doesn't make any kind of sense to you... it does for me. So this "amazing" powder is simply a mix of different "particulars" and such thing made me be not too interested in it.

The son "Once in a lifetime" was somehow an explanation of why I do not want to go further with this path:
And you may tell yourself, "This is not my beautiful house"
And you may tell yourself, "This is not my beautiful wife"

So, what is relevant to me?


Does death come alone or with eager reinforcements?
Death is centrifugal
Solar and logical
Decadent and symmetrical
Angels are mathematical
Angels are bestial
Man is the animal
Man is the animal

The blacker the sun
The darker the dawn
Flashes from the axis
Flashes from the axis
On the hummingway to the stars

Holy, holy
Holy, holy fire of the mind agitating the atmosphere.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMk5NQ-cBfk

I am VERY happy with what I have chosen... I do not need you to be happy with MY choice, but if you are happy with your choices, then I am happy for you. Maybe you can feel happy with knowing that I have been able to choose what I love.

I get your points, JDP... it's just that it's not the path that I LOVE to follow. I get it that it get closer to some ideas of yours... but I honestly brought it here as an example of a FAILURE...

But how in blazes can it be a "failure" when in fact (supposing proper assaying was performed) you have "destroyed" a metal (in this case, gold) by making it irreducible to its metallic state??? It makes one wonder what kind of a world are you living in that this could possibly be considered a "failure". It certainly isn't our reality, that's for sure. Tell any chemist worth his salt about your experiment and of course he will refuse to believe it. There is a reason why: it's not as your clearly inexperienced friend thought was impossible (i.e. a "powder" corroding and dissolving another substance, which is hardly anything to write home about), but that chemistry has no idea about the existence of any such solvent that can perform such a remarkable feat as making a metal irreducible to its metallic form, therefore it simply will demand proof before accepting it does exist. Yes, that's how unusual such a result is. But if you think this is too "mundane" for your taste I suppose that you are trying to make a magical genie, golem or homunculus in a bottle that grants you 3 wishes or something outlandish of the sort. No wonder, then, that you would think that destroying a metal constitutes a "failure"! I think that you need to set the bar a bit lower, like in the more "real life" level.

zoas23
04-02-2017, 08:57 AM
But how in blazes can it be a "failure" when in fact (supposing proper assaying was performed) you have "destroyed" a metal (in this case, gold) by making it irreducible to its metallic state??? It makes one wonder what kind of a world are you living in that this could possibly be considered a "failure". It certainly isn't our reality, that's for sure. Tell any chemist worth his salt about your experiment and of course he will refuse to believe it. There is a reason why: it's not as your clearly inexperienced friend thought was impossible (i.e. a "powder" corroding and dissolving another substance, which is hardly anything to write home about), but that chemistry has no idea about the existence of any such solvent that can perform such a remarkable feat as making a metal irreducible to its metallic form, therefore it simply will demand proof before accepting it does exist. Yes, that's how unusual such a result is. But if you think this is too "mundane" for your taste I suppose that you are trying to make a magical genie, golem or homunculus in a bottle that grants you 3 wishes or something outlandish of the sort. No wonder, then, that you would think that destroying a metal constitutes a "failure"! I think that you need to set the bar a bit lower, like in the more "real life" level.

HORATIO

O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!

HAMLET

And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6tc-GKP4-g

I am looking at the contract that that they wanted me to sign when I was born, but none of the clauses says that I HAVE to be interested in this specific path.

Yes, you are right, a compound matter without incredibly strange elements which are not very hard to get can be turned into a powder by using a somehow repetitive and long destructive process that involves other substances... and this powder will eat the gold. And I should add that there's probably more than a few ways to do it, not just ONE (and if you are VERY interested in this path, which I am NOT, then you are 100% right... a compound matter and not "one matter" -the vessel can be only one though).

I do not know of ANY solvent that can corrode the bars of the cage that you built for yourself... So I can simply wish that you will get all the gold you want as to decorate it as you please.