Patrons of the Sacred Art

Can't log in? Contact Us

OPEN TO REGISTER: Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 17 of 40 FirstFirst ... 7 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 27 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 393

Thread: One Matter - One Vessel - One Fire

  1. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    I find it quite impossible to defend such a claim, for the very simple reason that such a "only one matter" that performs everything the alchemists describe does not exist in nature. It has to be made by the alchemist himself, and to do this you actually have to use several substances. So the "only one matter" axiom is a big misleading statement, just like the "only one vessel" or the "only one fire". No matter how one wants to see it, all of them are misleading statements. Countless seekers through the centuries took such "axioms" to the letter and went around heating any single, naturally-occurring substance (ex: all manner of minerals, resins, gums, flowers, eggs, hair, feces, etc.) that fell in their hands and observing if all the reactions and color changes described by the alchemists would manifest themselves. Of course, they found nothing. As the more honest alchemists imply, or even explicitly say, the matter of the Stone is a composite. The older alchemists often called this compounded matter "Magnesia", and always talk about its composition in a not too clear manner. Figuring out what are its components, and in what proportions, is the pivotal point in alchemy. It is from this man-made (not natural) composite material that you get the "Water" and the "Earth" to make the Stone. Without it you will never be able to make it.
    This is why I dig you. Your argument is near perfect. It's beautiful. It's an argument that I'd love to make myself; in this case, there's an oversight. The one matter is not found in its required state naturally. This magnesia is found nowhere. In fact, the starting matter isn't found either without manipulation. And were I to tell you that all the differing compounds spoken of are actually derivations of this "one" matter; would you see it as being possible? Consider:
    Take the note middle C , scale it up 3dozen octaves, would you agree that the note has not changed, yet the tone has increased in pitch and its sound seems rather different?
    What would this sound look like in material form as compared to the original middle note?

    This is the mindset you are omitting. It would change your argument no?

  2. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by Dwellings View Post
    Did your matter "Urinate" in the begining of the work?

    I am not able to understand which path you are using.
    Sure did! I'm using the same method this thread speaks of. Ok, I won't play dumb. You guys are very clever here. I know what I'm looking at. It's the land of milk and honey philosophically speaking. I'm curious if anyone has gotten this far. I want to discuss everything about this 1/1/1

  3. #163
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Chasm View Post
    This is why I dig you. Your argument is near perfect. It's beautiful. It's an argument that I'd love to make myself; in this case, there's an oversight. The one matter is not found in its required state naturally. This magnesia is found nowhere. In fact, the starting matter isn't found either without manipulation. And were I to tell you that all the differing compounds spoken of are actually derivations of this "one" matter; would you see it as being possible? Consider:
    Take the note middle C , scale it up 3dozen octaves, would you agree that the note has not changed, yet the tone has increased in pitch and its sound seems rather different?
    What would this sound look like in material form as compared to the original middle note?

    This is the mindset you are omitting. It would change your argument no?
    I am afraid I can't agree. The analogy does not quite work. Music is an abstract concept, it does not compare well with actual substances. If I had to apply such musical analogy to actual substances, I could reach such erroneous and confusing conclusions as saying that common salt as found in nature ("note middle C" in your analogy) is the same and yet not the same as after it has been calcined ("note middle C, scaled up 3 dozen octaves"). But the calcination only removes its superfluous humidity, it does not do anything else to it and the salt remains the same. How would that help in any way? Nothing has been done except remove a totally accidental feature in the material, everything else remains as it was. That's just one example of the multitude of errors one would fall into by following such arguments.

    Single naturally-occurring substances will never work, no matter what you do to them. Besides the fact that countless "puffers" failed to obtain any results by taking such an approach, chemistry has also been around for 250 or so years and it has examined virtually all natural substances found on our planet. It too never stumbled upon any such single substance that will do everything the alchemists describe. That should tell you something. The reason why alchemy is so difficult to discover is actually because it is not as simple as just finding some already nature-made substance and submitting it to heat in a closed flask. If it was really this simple it would have ceased to be a mystery a long time ago, and even chemists and physicists would not deny that the Stone exists and think that alchemy is (at best) a "dream".

  4. #164
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by Chasm View Post
    Sure did! I'm using the same method this thread speaks of. Ok, I won't play dumb. You guys are very clever here. I know what I'm looking at. It's the land of milk and honey philosophically speaking. I'm curious if anyone has gotten this far. I want to discuss everything about this 1/1/1
    Have you cut the head of the crow?

    The color that your attachment is showing can only happen post that but that still does not expalin two different colors in your setup.

  5. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    I am afraid I can't agree. The analogy does not quite work. Music is an abstract concept, it does not compare well with actual substances. If I had to apply such musical analogy to actual substances, I could reach such erroneous and confusing conclusions as saying that common salt as found in nature ("note middle C" in your analogy) is the same and yet not the same as after it has been calcined ("note middle C, scaled up 3 dozen octaves"). But the calcination only removes its superfluous humidity, it does not do anything else to it and the salt remains the same. How would that help in any way? Nothing has been done except remove a totally accidental feature in the material, everything else remains as it was. That's just one example of the multitude of errors one would fall into by following such arguments.

    Single naturally-occurring substances will never work, no matter what you do to them. Besides the fact that countless "puffers" failed to obtain any results by taking such an approach, chemistry has also been around for 250 or so years and it has examined virtually all natural substances found on our planet. It too never stumbled upon any such single substance that will do everything the alchemists describe. That should tell you something. The reason why alchemy is so difficult to discover is actually because it is not as simple as just finding some already nature-made substance and submitting it to heat in a closed flask. If it was really this simple it would have ceased to be a mystery a long time ago, and even chemists and physicists would not deny that the Stone exists and think that alchemy is (at best) a "dream".
    Ok, I thought my analogy was pretty good. All things are reducible to nothingness given the correct vibration. When you used salt to counter my musical analogy, you'd of been more correct if you'd have suggested that I concentrate the salt via distillation 3dozen times rather than jump to a vulgar calcination which would make you correct.
    What I wanted to float at you is that, after being concentrated, as the note c is done through octave potentiation, the salt in your analogy, after such a potential increase, through concentration, may resemble an acid as opposed to just salt; ie The nature of the subject changes . Like putting pure carbon crystal under extreme pressure until it turns into diamond. You can find carbon crystal a plenty, but the diamonds, although being just pressurized carbon crystals are rare.
    The secret of the alchemists would then turn into a word game. You agree?

  6. #166
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In-Between
    Posts
    5,893
    Blog Entries
    1
    One thing that JDP is very right about is that this ("our") matter is NOT readily found as physically occurring in nature, anywhere.
    ____________________________

    "Our" matter is not physical, hence it needs to be corporified via the Alchemical process. And not only does it need to be "corporified", but in order for it to remain in the physical realm, it needs an "anchor" to bind with, an anchor of the material/physical/chemical variety. If we wish to go beyond spagyrics, that is. This "anchor" can be more or less subtle (chemically speaking), but it is nevertheless physical, as opposed to "our" matter with which it will have to bind.

    It's not different from magickal spells (for example), mostly needing a physical object to "anchor" the spell in order for it to have an effect in the physical realm. The same rules apply...

    Urine can be used, yes. So can other matters, for that matter. But "our" matter is not physically present in the urine. I remember having this HUGE a-ha moment with a few fellow Alchemist friends (in the lab), a few years ago, when we realized that certain 'salts' which manifested were actually "new matter", not formerly physically present in the physical matter(s) we were studying.

  7. #167
    Quote Originally Posted by Dwellings View Post
    Have you cut the head of the crow?

    The color that your attachment is showing can only happen post that but that still does not expalin two different colors in your setup.
    This is good Dwellings. This is what I'm looking for. My image is taken as is for a reason.
    I have many images of the crow. The blackest of black. This picture comes after that yes, but how? What is this image signifying?

  8. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    One thing that JDP is very right about is that this ("our") matter is NOT readily found as physically occurring in nature, anywhere.
    ____________________________

    "Our" matter is not physical, hence it needs to be corporified via the Alchemical process. And not only does it need to be "corporified", but in order for it to remain in the physical realm, it needs an "anchor" to bind with, an anchor of the material/physical/chemical variety. If we wish to go beyond spagyrics, that is. This "anchor" can be more or less subtle (chemically speaking), but it is nevertheless physical, as opposed to "our" matter with which it will have to bind.

    It's not different from magickal spells (for example), mostly needing a physical object to "anchor" the spell in order for it to have an effect in the physical realm. The same rules apply...

    Urine can be used, yes. So can other matters, for that matter. But "our" matter is not physically present in the urine. I remember having this HUGE a-ha moment with a few fellow Alchemist friends (in the lab), a few years ago, when we realized that certain 'salts' which manifested were actually "new matter", not formerly physically present in the physical matter(s) we were studying.
    Now this is exactly what I am talking about Andro. What would you say is the cause of this centrepital action that causes this substance to attract itself? Do you feel that it comes in through the glass? Or does it perhaps exist as a polarity within itself? Somewhat like the discordant note of the scale that leads into the higher octave.

  9. #169
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Chasm View Post
    Ok, I thought my analogy was pretty good. All things are reducible to nothingness given the correct vibration. When you used salt to counter my musical analogy, you'd of been more correct if you'd have suggested that I concentrate the salt via distillation 3dozen times rather than jump to a vulgar calcination which would make you correct.
    What I wanted to float at you is that, after being concentrated, as the note c is done through octave potentiation, the salt in your analogy, after such a potential increase, through concentration, may resemble an acid as opposed to just salt; ie The nature of the subject changes . Like putting pure carbon crystal under extreme pressure until it turns into diamond. You can find carbon crystal a plenty, but the diamonds, although being just pressurized carbon crystals are rare.
    The secret of the alchemists would then turn into a word game. You agree?
    But to distill salt you need other substances, salt will not distill by itself. It will sublime if you heat it strong enough, true, but the result is just the same salt. Nothing else. See? The analogy does not work that way either.

    I chose simple calcination because I wanted to keep up with the simplistic "only one matter" approach. What else can you possibly do in such a situation where nothing else but one substance is supposedly used? The only thing you can do is heat the substance in question. But since no naturally-occurring substance will display all the reactions the alchemists describe by merely heating it, the only possible logical conclusion is that this statement is a malicious "philosophical" trap. Sure, the "one matter" (in appearance) does exist, but only after the operator makes it out of several substances. This last crucial "detail" is the one that many authors maliciously omit to clarify, thus sending "unworthy" seekers into wild-goose chases for some mysterious naturally-occurring substance that simply put inside a flask and heated will display all the things the alchemists describe. Obviously they never find such a substance, simply because nature does not make such a thing.

    The diamond analogy is also faulty because the change is only one of appearance, the composition of the diamond is still in fact just carbon, the difference is only that its composing carbon corpuscles ("atoms") are put together differently than in graphite or coal. Unless you are suggesting that the Stone is really just a very unusual form of some common substance found in nature, which I would find very hard to believe.

  10. #170
    JDP wrote:
    But to distill salt you need other substances, salt will not distill by itself. It will sublime if you heat it strong enough, true, but the result is just the same salt. Nothing else. See? The analogy does not work that way either.
    Ok, the ecclesiastical which came first. Suppose we began with salt water and gathered our starting matter, salt, from there. At some point the brine will be supersaturated and "the water of crystallization" will dry up. This same water which was and then wasn't, is easily brought back about by use of common heat. Can we agree on this?

    Now, if we were to enclose the salt and its water of crystallization if a flask and allow it to circulate, well this is what I'm talking about. This is how crystals are purified. I've done this with many compounds for profit.
    I wouldn't want to burn anything per se but rather to calcinate in the alchemistic way.

    As for the diamond, more than just the appearance changes. Most of its characteristics change. It's measure of hardness is altered, it's melt point, it's refractive index, etc. In a nutshell, the dimensions (Walter Russell) change.
    JDP wrote:
    Unless you are suggesting that the Stone is really just a very unusual form of some common substance found in nature, which I would find very hard to believe.
    Well my friend, this is what I'm getting at. It's what the sages mean when they say the matter is common. It really is. Atoms are common, but just finding one isn't that easy until you invent an advanced microscope. It's word play. Are we finding common ground?

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts