PDA

View Full Version : Speculum Sophicum Rhodostauroticum



JDP
05-05-2017, 08:30 PM
This is a spin-off thread from: (non)Mineral (non)Metal (non)Magnet (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?5247-(non)Mineral-(non)Metal-(non)Magnet)


Yes, your "stumbling block" is hardly surprising, it is indeed THE "stumbling block".
There is a text I like a lot and I have linked several times: Speculum Sophicum Rhodostauroticum: http://atrightanglestoreality.blogspot.com.ar/2016/03/the-mirror-of-wisdom-of-rosy-cross-by.html

I don't know why, it doesn't say much of anything. In fact, the criticisms he complains about are straight to the point and right on target regarding how much time & space the author wastes on useless "advice" that never got anyone anywhere, and his mendacious answer to the criticisms is no less amusing:

"I know now that many who read this my brotherly admonition and the recently published "Pandoram" will hold this against me; thinking to himself: "Thou hast promised before in thy 'Speculo pandoram ante publicata' to explain thoroughly, but all thou dost is to go on singing the old song about knowing God and thyself." To him I give this answer: "If only thou knewest, dear brother, how much store the work of the brethren sets not only on thee as a philosophus, but on all and every individual human being thou wouldst not take exception to these my repetitions; other words I cannot use unto thee in this, only the 'Parergon' as thou shalt hear more extensively of."

LOL! It is great to see that critical thinkers were no less present in those times than they are now, ready to point out nonsense and empty words that don't mean a thing in reality when they saw them.

zoas23
05-06-2017, 03:50 AM
I don't know why, it doesn't say much of anything.

It is a magnificent text actually. It is also a strange one, because MOST books on Alchemy explain a whole path, whilst this one only explains the first part and leaves the second part somehow unexplained. It has a BIG problem though, I know it, a mistake that can't be forgiven: it doesn't match your beliefs, so it's an insane book.


In fact, the criticisms he complains about are straight to the point and right on target regarding how much time & space the author wastes on useless "advice" that never got anyone anywhere, and his mendacious answer to the criticisms is no less amusing:

"I know now that many who read this my brotherly admonition and the recently published "Pandoram" will hold this against me; thinking to himself: "Thou hast promised before in thy 'Speculo pandoram ante publicata' to explain thoroughly, but all thou dost is to go on singing the old song about knowing God and thyself." To him I give this answer: "If only thou knewest, dear brother, how much store the work of the brethren sets not only on thee as a philosophus, but on all and every individual human being thou wouldst not take exception to these my repetitions; other words I cannot use unto thee in this, only the 'Parergon' as thou shalt hear more extensively of."

I don't see a problem there. The early Rosicrucian texts had a HUGE Lutheran influence... Some Lutheran ideas were repeated again and again... I don't have much problems with such thing (Needless to say that the Parergon is equal to the Parakletos, which is part of the sub-text there).


LOL! It is great to see that critical thinkers were no less present in those times than they are now, ready to point out nonsense and empty words that don't mean a thing in reality when they saw them.

Yeah, it's called the eternal recurrence.

Besides from the mention of God (which you don't like), what's wrong with the path that the book explores?

Kiorionis
05-06-2017, 03:55 AM
The early Rosicrucian texts had a HUGE Lutheran influence... Some Lutheran ideas were repeated again and again.

One symbol in particular is especially alchemical, from the Lutheran church I grew up in:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/99/16/5c/99165c8f7ab001214722782a7f041ec4.jpg

Used to sit in church and ignore the service while contemplating this symbol, and the altar as a symbol as well. The whole ritual actually.
Never really cared for what was said during the service haha. I probably missed out quite a bit.

JDP
05-06-2017, 05:21 AM
It is a magnificent text actually. It is also a strange one, because MOST books on Alchemy explain a whole path, whilst this one only explains the first part and leaves the second part somehow unexplained. It has a BIG problem though, I know it, a mistake that can't be forgiven: it doesn't match your beliefs, so it's an insane book.



I don't see a problem there. The early Rosicrucian texts had a HUGE Lutheran influence... Some Lutheran ideas were repeated again and again... I don't have much problems with such thing (Needless to say that the Parergon is equal to the Parakletos, which is part of the sub-text there).



Yeah, it's called the eternal recurrence.

Besides from the mention of God (which you don't like), what's wrong with the path that the book explores?

The point is that he complains that his critics say that he promised to explain things thoroughly but instead he is just repeating same old songs, like knowing "god and yourself", which really don't resolve anything. And they were right. This guy was making big boasts and promises he simply did not keep. And he wasn't the only one, BTW. A lot of alchemical authors say rather little or nothing of substance and go on endlessly repeating useless things that would never help anyone understand the subject matter any better.

zoas23
05-06-2017, 10:19 AM
One symbol in particular is especially alchemical, from the Lutheran church I grew up in:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/99/16/5c/99165c8f7ab001214722782a7f041ec4.jpg

Used to sit in church and ignore the service while contemplating this symbol, and the altar as a symbol as well. The whole ritual actually.
Never really cared for what was said during the service haha. I probably missed out quite a bit.

Probably nothing of importance was missed. Listening to preachers talking is not exactly interesting. I am a bit lost about WHAT this thread is about... if it's about "Limonite", then it probably went off topic since the first page (I try to stay "on topic", but in this thread I don't even know which one is the topic right now... which is not a big issue for me as long as the conversation is interesting).

I like it that you brought the Chi Rho... It is not truly Lutheran (I think that probably all the Christian denominations use it in a way or other). What I find interesting is the Rosicrucian "Law" of using the letters "C. R." as a seal of identification. I think the Chi Rho monogram is probably what they had in mind.

As for the "Lutheran Influence", I simply meant that there was a very explicit Lutheran enthusiasm in the early texts (and a very bad prediction, which was the idea that the Roman Catholic church was going to fall down and a "third age" was coming soon -this was partly based on the visions of Tobias Hess). The general idea was that Lutheranism was going to bring "religious freedom" to the world. The prediction couldn't have been more inaccurate, since by 1619 the Lutheran Church decided that "Rosicrucianism" was a crime and began several trials against suspected Rosicrucians (the conflicts with Catholicism got worse and the Lutheran Church decided to create a more homogeneous catechism and strict rules... and began to fight "the enemy within" creating a bizarre witch hunt).

The "Lutheran Influence" can also be seen in the obsession that the Bible contains ALL the answers... and a lot of the symbolism was somehow created to somehow demonstrate such thing. There is an obvious Gnostic influence too, but VERY far from any classical Gnosticism (i.e, the "Rosicrucian God" in this early phase of rosicrucianism was definitely Jeohovah / YHVH ... which is quite atypical in probably all the other forms of Gnosticism).


The point is that he complains that his critics say that he promised to explain things thoroughly but instead he is just repeating same old songs, like knowing "god and yourself", which really don't resolve anything. And they were right. This guy was making big boasts and promises he simply did not keep. And he wasn't the only one, BTW. A lot of alchemical authors say rather little or nothing of substance and go on endlessly repeating useless things that would never help anyone understand the subject matter any better.

I spent the last months reading the early rosicrucian texts again and again... and I arrived to my own conclusions:

1. One of the BIG concerns was to demonstrate that there was actually a Rosicrucian Order... My own conclusion is that there was one, mostly because the diversity of texts show always the same path and the same type of vocabulary. Then again, this "Order" could have simply been a bunch of alchemists working with a similar path and not much more than that.

2. The texts always show the same path... Some of them are more explicit than Speculum Sophicum... some others are quite "tricky" and somehow funny... and they show that they were looking for alchemists who were already working with that specific path (i.e, Ara Foederis Theraphici shows the same path, though it's by far more allegorical). The ONLY exception I found is the 40/50 Emblems by Daniel Cramer, which is consistent with the "ideology" of the other texts, but the "methodology" doesn't seem to match.

3. You are stubborn with a set of ideas and any path that is slightly different from your perspectives is systematically rejected by you... That's not my problem.

4. The text actually provides SEVERAL hints which are very useful, but it does not "complete" the description of the path. It was clearly written as "propaganda" to attract alchemists who were already into that path and it had an odd promise (odd promise = that the ones who complete the first half of the path will be contacted and will receive explanations of the second half).

5. Other early texts go further in the requirements and ask the readers to complete the WHOLE path (instead of the first half) as to be "accepted"... i.e, "GRÜNDTLICHER BERICHT VON DEM VORHABEN, GELEGENHEIT UND INNHALT DER LÖBLICHEN BRUDERSCHAFFT DEẞ ROSEN CREUɮES" does such thing.

6. In a strange way "The Chemical Wedding of C.R." is nowadays the "famous" Rosicrucian Manifesto (though it's actually a novel, not a Manifesto)... It is interesting to see how in this early phase The Chemical Wedding was certainly NOT considered a valuable text (most of the other texts completely ignore that one... there are very few exceptions).

7. Alchemy is simply a mix of different matters that create a compound that is called "Universal Solvent", this compound has to be created following strict proportions and the raison d'ętre of alchemy is to create gold as to purchase a bigger TV and have vacations in one of the hotels of Donald Trump. Well... These authors had a very different idea. This idea contradicts your empirical and rational and idiosyncratic view of alchemy... and there is a XIII century text that shows that you are right... OK.

8. The existence of a Universal Physis and a Particular Physis is probably the sub-text of all these texts. The imitation of nature was always related to the Universal one. Your empirical and rational and objective experience shows that there is no such thing as a Universal Physis / Nature... OK. The influence of some late neo-platonic philosophers if quite obvious in their ideas (this is especially true for Proclus and his undefined and uncreated One).

9. There are no Universal substances, they are simply "impurities" badly identified... OK, I know your idea.

JDP
05-06-2017, 08:21 PM
Probably nothing of importance was missed. Listening to preachers talking is not exactly interesting. I am a bit lost about WHAT this thread is about... if it's about "Limonite", then it probably went off topic since the first page (I try to stay "on topic", but in this thread I don't even know which one is the topic right now... which is not a big issue for me as long as the conversation is interesting).

I like it that you brought the Chi Rho... It is not truly Lutheran (I think that probably all the Christian denominations use it in a way or other). What I find interesting is the Rosicrucian "Law" of using the letters "C. R." as a seal of identification. I think the Chi Rho monogram is probably what they had in mind.

As for the "Lutheran Influence", I simply meant that there was a very explicit Lutheran enthusiasm in the early texts (and a very bad prediction, which was the idea that the Roman Catholic church was going to fall down and a "third age" was coming soon -this was partly based on the visions of Tobias Hess). The general idea was that Lutheranism was going to bring "religious freedom" to the world. The prediction couldn't have been more inaccurate, since by 1619 the Lutheran Church decided that "Rosicrucianism" was a crime and began several trials against suspected Rosicrucians (the conflicts with Catholicism got worse and the Lutheran Church decided to create a more homogeneous catechism and strict rules... and began to fight "the enemy within" creating a bizarre witch hunt).

The "Lutheran Influence" can also be seen in the obsession that the Bible contains ALL the answers... and a lot of the symbolism was somehow created to somehow demonstrate such thing. There is an obvious Gnostic influence too, but VERY far from any classical Gnosticism (i.e, the "Rosicrucian God" in this early phase of rosicrucianism was definitely Jeohovah / YHVH ... which is quite atypical in probably all the other forms of Gnosticism).



I spent the last months reading the early rosicrucian texts again and again... and I arrived to my own conclusions:

1. One of the BIG concerns was to demonstrate that there was actually a Rosicrucian Order... My own conclusion is that there was one, mostly because the diversity of texts show always the same path and the same type of vocabulary. Then again, this "Order" could have simply been a bunch of alchemists working with a similar path and not much more than that.

2. The texts always show the same path... Some of them are more explicit than Speculum Sophicum... some others are quite "tricky" and somehow funny... and they show that they were looking for alchemists who were already working with that specific path (i.e, Ara Foederis Theraphici shows the same path, though it's by far more allegorical). The ONLY exception I found is the 40/50 Emblems by Daniel Cramer, which is consistent with the "ideology" of the other texts, but the "methodology" doesn't seem to match.

3. You are stubborn with a set of ideas and any path that is slightly different from your perspectives is systematically rejected by you... That's not my problem.

4. The text actually provides SEVERAL hints which are very useful, but it does not "complete" the description of the path. It was clearly written as "propaganda" to attract alchemists who were already into that path and it had an odd promise (odd promise = that the ones who complete the first half of the path will be contacted and will receive explanations of the second half).

5. Other early texts go further in the requirements and ask the readers to complete the WHOLE path (instead of the first half) as to be "accepted"... i.e, "GRÜNDTLICHER BERICHT VON DEM VORHABEN, GELEGENHEIT UND INNHALT DER LÖBLICHEN BRUDERSCHAFFT DEẞ ROSEN CREUɮES" does such thing.

6. In a strange way "The Chemical Wedding of C.R." is nowadays the "famous" Rosicrucian Manifesto (though it's actually a novel, not a Manifesto)... It is interesting to see how in this early phase The Chemical Wedding was certainly NOT considered a valuable text (most of the other texts completely ignore that one... there are very few exceptions).

7. Alchemy is simply a mix of different matters that create a compound that is called "Universal Solvent", this compound has to be created following strict proportions and the raison d'ętre of alchemy is to create gold as to purchase a bigger TV and have vacations in one of the hotels of Donald Trump. Well... These authors had a very different idea. This idea contradicts your empirical and rational and idiosyncratic view of alchemy... and there is a XIII century text that shows that you are right... OK.

8. The existence of a Universal Physis and a Particular Physis is probably the sub-text of all these texts. The imitation of nature was always related to the Universal one. Your empirical and rational and objective experience shows that there is no such thing as a Universal Physis / Nature... OK. The influence of some late neo-platonic philosophers if quite obvious in their ideas (this is especially true for Proclus and his undefined and uncreated One).

9. There are no Universal substances, they are simply "impurities" badly identified... OK, I know your idea.

Response to your post can be found here:

http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?5247-(non)Mineral-(non)Metal-(non)Magnet&p=49650#post49650

zoas23
05-07-2017, 05:44 AM
Response to your post can be found here: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?5247-(non)Mineral-(non)Metal-(non)Magnet&p=49650#post49650

OK, I am bringing it here because it's unrelated to "Limonite".


1- The whole "Rosicrucian" movement was a farce, started by Andreae as a JEST

2- The author of the "Speculum Sophicum" hardly says anything of substance and instead keeps repeating old & tired mantras that never really helped anyone discover anything, as his critics pertinently pointed out. He is hardly unique in this, though, plenty of other authors do pretty much the same.

3- All possible "paths" in alchemy depend on the secret solvent or "water", which is prepared out of a concrete and specific combination & interaction of a very real and tangible set of substances, therefore any claim that deviates from this and instead tries to obtain this "water" from very unlikely sources (such as out of thin air, or out of "one matter only") through strange or too simplistic methods is obviously to be strongly suspected as very improbable or just flat out false; if you cannot plainly see this, it is not my problem. Some of the best advice that can be given on this: read many of the older Greek and Arabic texts, where they keep on discussing and referring to the COMPOUND OR MIXTURE, often called "Magnesia", from which the solvent/water and the "earth", "sulphur", "tincture" or "soul" of the Stone are prepared. Many of these older texts are quite daring, sincere and plain in openly declaring that the supposed "one matter only" of many malicious/envious alchemists is ACTUALLY COMPOSED FROM SEVERAL SUBSTANCES.

4- You have to distinguish between the obsolete and quaint theoretical/speculative ideas of many of these writers from past centuries and what they were ACTUALLY DOING in their labs. You keep taking their conjectures as if they were actual facts, when in fact they were only attempting to "rationalize" some observed empirical facts. Some of these "rationalizations" are too fantastic and improbable to our better-informed ears to take them seriously in this day and age. If you cannot understand this, it is not my problem either. The best advice that can be given on this subject: reject the obsolete theories/speculations, keep the empirical facts! It is the one thing that truly remains, forever. An empirical fact is a fact, yesterday, today and tomorrow. Theories & speculations are fleeting and sooner or later doomed to be rejected, discarded or modified, as other empirical facts come to the surface that were previously unknown or not taken into account when the theories/speculations were formulated. The best way to illustrate this, again, is with the example of gravity: it has been observed by thinkers for thousands of years, yet none of the theories from past centuries trying to "explain" it have survived to our times since they became obsolete, as other human fields of knowledge also evolved and changed, so the theories seeking to "explain" gravity became "unsatisfactory", but the exact same gravity (i.e. the empirical fact in question) is still here and just as observable as back then. The empirical fact did not "vanish" with the old theories/speculations trying to "rationalize" it; nope, we can still observe it today, and "it" doesn't give a hoot about what we think of it; gravity will continue to exist and do its "thing" no matter how we seek to "explain" it. Same thing with alchemy, its solvent and its "Stone". The true value in alchemical texts comes from their hints and descriptions (either clear or semi-veiled) of the actual substances and reactions used in the process of making the Stone, not from the theories and speculations about matter that the alchemists often injected into the same texts. It is some of these descriptions that will allow you to identify (if you are a very experienced experimenter) some of the substances and processes used, not the tedious dissertations about the "four elements", or the "two principles", and the like theoretical/speculative musings.

1-Andrade claimed to have written the "Chemical Wedding", he never claimed to have written "Fama" or "Confessio"... if you go to the early sources you will find something amusing. So far I have been able to find only ONE text that comments the "Chemical Wedding of C.R." ("Practica Leonis Viridis" by C.V.M.V.S.)... the other early texts systematically make a "canon" of two texts: Fama and Confessio and completely ignore the "Chemical Wedding", though some of them talk about a "well known book" that was falsely attributed to the Rosicrucians. The "false" book is certainly the "Chemical Wedding", no other book meets the requirements. So it was a "controversial" book way before Andrade claimed that he was the author and somehow mocked the Rosicrucian tradition (and yet I have my serious doubts about his self-mockery... Have in mind that by 1619 the Lutheran Church began a witch hunt of Rosicrucians... and Andrade had his "Christianopolis" which was certainly VERY influenced by Rosicrucian ideas... so it could have been a strategy). Other than that, the early documents show that the "Chemical Wedding" was NOT part of the "canonical" texts of the Rosicrucians... and it was systematically ignored (The speculum Sophicum doesn't mention it, Ara Foederis theraphici doesn't mention it, Maier's "Themis Aurea" doesn't mention it, etc).

2- He says a lot actually, he gives very precise details about the first half of the work with the Spiritus Mundi, providing a method that became quite typical (not my favorite one, but a valid one... and even gives some technical ideas of how to improve it which I have not seen in any other text). Sincerus Renatus "True preparation of the Philosopher's Stone", written almost a century after the Speculum Sophicum is giving almost the same beginning in the first 2 chapters (with a minor variation).

3- I have no doubts that it's possible to make a solvent that eats the gold using a composed matter... I did it at home actually. So I don't criticize the idea.
It is ALSO possible to do it with ONE matter... If you prefer to do it using a "mix" or "compound", that's fine. It is actually very similar.

4- Science, the most unfortunate lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kva36wgybNg

JDP
05-07-2017, 06:36 AM
OK, I am bringing it here because it's unrelated to "Limonite".



1-Andrade claimed to have written the "Chemical Wedding", he never claimed to have written "Fama" or "Confessio"... if you go to the early sources you will find something amusing. So far I have been able to find only ONE text that comments the "Chemical Wedding of C.R." ("Practica Leonis Viridis" by C.V.M.V.S.)... the other early texts systematically make a "canon" of two texts: Fama and Confessio and completely ignore the "Chemical Wedding", though some of them talk about a "well known book" that was falsely attributed to the Rosicrucians. The "false" book is certainly the "Chemical Wedding", no other book meets the requirements. So it was a "controversial" book way before Andrade claimed that he was the author and somehow mocked the Rosicrucian tradition (and yet I have my serious doubts about his self-mockery... Have in mind that by 1619 the Lutheran Church began a witch hunt of Rosicrucians... and Andrade had his "Christianopolis" which was certainly VERY influenced by Rosicrucian ideas... so it could have been a strategy). Other than that, the early documents show that the "Chemical Wedding" was NOT part of the "canonical" texts of the Rosicrucians... and it was systematically ignored (The speculum Sophicum doesn't mention it, Ara Foederis theraphici doesn't mention it, Maier's "Themis Aurea" doesn't mention it, etc).

2- He says a lot actually, he gives very precise details about the first half of the work with the Spiritus Mundi, providing a method that became quite typical (not my favorite one, but a valid one... and even gives some technical ideas of how to improve it which I have not seen in any other text). Sincerus Renatus "True preparation of the Philosopher's Stone", written almost a century after the Speculum Sophicum is giving almost the same beginning in the first 2 chapters (with a minor variation).

3- I have no doubts that it's possible to make a solvent that eats the gold using a composed matter... I did it at home actually. So I don't criticize the idea.
It is ALSO possible to do it with ONE matter... If you prefer to do it using a "mix" or "compound", that's fine. It is actually very similar.

4- Science, the most unfortunate lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kva36wgybNg

The author of "Speculum sophicum rhodostauroticum" hardly says anything useful but keeps on singing "old songs" that never helped anyone get anywhere in this subject, as his critics correctly pointed out, much to his anger.

The point is not just to "eat" gold. That is not what the alchemical solvent is only about. And no, you can't obtain it from "one matter only", and no, you can't make it appear from "thin air" either, we are talking about REAL, PHYSICAL, TANGIBLE SUBSTANCES here, not flim-flam & hocus-pocus. You want flim-flam & hocus-pocus, study "magic/sorcery", not alchemy. And no, you are not convincing me or any other sane and experienced person in these matters that you have "condensed" any such "Spirit" in your flasks. Why? Because some of us actually have real experience with all manner of reactions and know how outlandish such a claim is. The only way you will convince any sane person of such a claim is if you agree to perform the supposed preparation of "Spiritus Mundi" UNDER CONTROLLED CONDITIONS (so that you can't cheat and "slip in" some volatile substance while no one is watching and then claim "success") being carefully observed and filmed on all sides. Or even better, within the confines of a glass booth (so you can't have access to any of the instruments/apparatuses being handled) give instructions to a skeptical operator so he can carry out the preparation. Let's see then how much of your "Spiritus Mundi" can you "condense" out of nowhere and demonstrate the reality of to an entire panel of skeptical witnesses.

zoas23
05-07-2017, 09:11 AM
Under VERY CONTROLLED CONDITIONS the message may get straight to your ears...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP7k6vO-Nw4

I don't have ANY interest in demonstrating anything to you or anyone. I like the paths that use the Spiritus Mundi in a direct way and I enjoy to exchange ideas with persons who also like that path without caring how far they have gone into it. This is getting IMPOSSIBLE in this forum because a LUNATIC is interrupting all the time and singing the same song of his compound matter and screaming “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the stone except through me."

I have no interest in demonstrating ANYTHING, I simply want to talk peacefully with persons working in a similar path without the LUNATIC (yes, that's you) interrupting all the time.

I would gladly put you in that glass booth, but no solvent seems to be strong enough as to dissolve your endless interruptions.

We REALLY REALLY REALLY get that you don't like the idea of the Spiritus Mundi. The forum gives you the option of having a signature, so please make yourself one stating "the solvent is a compound matter and the Spiritus Mundi is bullshit"... and STOP interrupting EVERY damn constructive conversation.

I have absolutely no interest in your "I know everything" idea that you have of yourself, you have no clue of what the Spiritus Mundi is and your objections are not simply absurd, but also INTERRUPTING the otherwise pleasant conversations and constructive exchange of ideas.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQtq81cWElw

Other than that, your stupid idea of the glass booth would be incredibly easy for lots of persons and I don't even know a way to "cheat" (considering that cheating would involve introducing a substance that acts exactly like the spiritus mundi, I would say that a "cheater" would actually be a damn genius... I am sadly not so smart as to know how to "cheat"... nor I have the interest of demonstrating anything).

Please, create your own thread, call it "a compound matter, because the Spirit is for assholes" and play the game of your soliloquy there... Probably nobody will disturb you... and you'll make ALL the gold you want whilst all the other idiots will be peacefully talking about invisible elves that float in the air and have gold in their pockets whilst you are in a tropical island with all your gold drinking a compound cocktail of you preferred drinks.

As the artist formerly known as dev* says: YA BASTA!

*Sorry for the joke, I forgot the new name, gotta get used to it.

JDP
05-07-2017, 10:49 AM
Under VERY CONTROLLED CONDITIONS the message may get straight to your ears...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP7k6vO-Nw4

I don't have ANY interest in demonstrating anything to you or anyone. I like the paths that use the Spiritus Mundi in a direct way and I enjoy to exchange ideas with persons who also like that path without caring how far they have gone into it. This is getting IMPOSSIBLE in this forum because a LUNATIC is interrupting all the time and singing the same song of his compound matter and screaming “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the stone except through me."

I have no interest in demonstrating ANYTHING, I simply want to talk peacefully with persons working in a similar path without the LUNATIC (yes, that's you) interrupting all the time.

I would gladly put you in that glass booth, but no solvent seems to be strong enough as to dissolve your endless interruptions.

We REALLY REALLY REALLY get that you don't like the idea of the Spiritus Mundi. The forum gives you the option of having a signature, so please make yourself one stating "the solvent is a compound matter and the Spiritus Mundi is bullshit"... and STOP interrupting EVERY damn constructive conversation.

I have absolutely no interest in your "I know everything" idea that you have of yourself, you have no clue of what the Spiritus Mundi is and your objections are not simply absurd, but also INTERRUPTING the otherwise pleasant conversations and constructive exchange of ideas.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQtq81cWElw

Other than that, your stupid idea of the glass booth would be incredibly easy for lots of persons and I don't even know a way to "cheat" (considering that cheating would involve introducing a substance that acts exactly like the spiritus mundi, I would say that a "cheater" would actually be a damn genius... I am sadly not so smart as to know how to "cheat"... nor I have the interest of demonstrating anything).

Please, create your own thread, call it "a compound matter, because the Spirit is for assholes" and play the game of your soliloquy there... Probably nobody will disturb you... and you'll make ALL the gold you want whilst all the other idiots will be peacefully talking about invisible elves that float in the air and have gold in their pockets whilst you are in a tropical island with all your gold drinking a compound cocktail of you preferred drinks.

As the artist formerly known as dev* says: YA BASTA!

*Sorry for the joke, I forgot the new name, gotta get used to it.

It doesn't surprise me that you do not understand how impossible it would be for someone to cheat being locked inside a glass booth, where he is not only prevented from cheating by a PHYSICAL BARRIER that would not allow him to get his hands on the instruments used for the test, but on top of that can be watched and filmed the entire time the experiment goes on, considering that you actually think that "condensing" this "thing" out of thin air is a "fact". That pretty much says it all. You should better study how to be the next David Copperfield instead of alchemy. Hey, I saw him "materialize" an elephant apparently out of "nowhere", you know. It's 100% true, I tell you! I saw it with my own eyes. Of course, if you locked Mr. Copperfield inside a glass booth and did not allow him to put any of his TRICKS into place beforehand, I think he would have a very hard time pulling such things off. Do yourself a favor and read about how James Randi's 1 million dollar "paranormal" challenge worked, and how all charlatans and boasters who tried to get their way to the prize money were foiled from doing so precisely because of this type of preventive measures against cheating. After thousands of applicants tried to beat the challenge, NO ONE was able to win the prize and demonstrate the alleged reality of any "paranormal" claim. You can't fool an old savvy magician like Randi. He knows all the tricks himself.

Kiorionis
05-07-2017, 02:40 PM
Let's try to remember the Rules and Guidelines (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/announcement.php?f=2&a=3) set down.

Thread closed.