Patrons of the Sacred Art

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 31 of 40 FirstFirst ... 21 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 393

Thread: One Matter - One Vessel - One Fire

  1. #301
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    It is a malicious device intended to mislead those considered "unworthy" (from the point of view of the alchemist who invented this misleading statement), no matter how one wants to look at it. "One matter only" means exactly that: JUST ONE THING (whatever it is, even if it is really a compound of several), but if you tell this statement in an alchemy treatise without clarifying what you really mean, you are misleading readers into thinking that they literally have to use this "only one thing" from the very beginning of the work. Since this would imply that you CAN'T USE ANYTHING ELSE but this "one thing" from the very beginning of the operations, then you are therefore forced to try to look for this "one thing" in nature, as if it already existed ready for you to just pick it up, put it in a vessel and "cook it" all by itself. It is a trap devised to make you waste time and money in a hopeless search for something that does not exist unless you purposefully make it out of several things (but it is right away misleading you into thinking that you SHOULD NOT MAKE IT. That's what the "trap" is all about.)

    PS: Bergson is not an alchemist.
    I see it in an opposite way, JDP... what if it's not a trap but a HUGE hint?
    The idea that "ONE MATTER" can't be a compound is your own interpretation.
    The idea that this "ONE MATTER" involves the idea that you can find it ready-made in nature is also your own interpretation.

    z0 K brought an amazing quote by Hollandus:“Therefore, no danger will befall this work. It is nothing but a woman’s work and merely child’s play. Ignorant men cannot understand this simply because this work is so easy."

    A dear friend used to show alchemical engravings to her little daughter (who is a teen nowadays) and ask her about what she could understand by watching the "drawings". He often tells me the story of what happened when he showed him one of the most famous engravings by Maier:



    He asked her: "What do you think that the person who did this drawing wanted to tell us?"
    Her daughter replied: "That the paint of wall has been scratched"
    He asked: "And who scratched it?"
    She replied: "Someone who wanted to play with the paint".

    Her answer was like an epiphany for him... Maybe it's good to go back to our inner child and see things as a child sees them.
    I admire your erudition, which is remarkable... but sometimes you have to open your mind (I hope this comment doesn't offend you, it's not the intention and I am aware of the fact that you are a true scholar on the subject -and there's no sarcasm in those words).

    Bergson wasn't an Alchemist... Plato wasn't an Alchemist either, same thing goes for Artistotle... same thing goes for Empedocles... but I'd say that they have a lot of food for thought to offer to those who are interested in Alchemy.

    Bergson mostly created a theory that said, quoting a comedian that some people here likes: "that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves"... and that we can accept what was given to us from "above" (like "letting a spring roll") or modify our "below" and thus modify the "above"... and that the separation of the objects is an issue of perception, not a reality, since All is One (yeah, the old "Hen to Pan").
    I don't dare to say that his ideas are completely unrelated to Alchemy.

    What if the answer is to be playful like a child, thinking outside the box, getting out of the flask (assuming that everything is connected to everything)... and understanding that the Logic created by Aristotle is not necessarily the only possible logic.

    Other than that: this isn't a confrontation, but an exchange of ideas. I learn a lot from your erudition and views... and I am certainly glad that you are here. Those rigid strict rules about what "ONE MATTER" means... could it be that it may mean something else?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghislain View Post
    lol I don't know if two people can see different pictures Illen, but I just see some blobby holes
    with maybe one on the right I could describe as a penguin. Perhaps I'm tired.
    Those 3D images drive some people crazy and others can see them easily (I belong to the last group, but it's not really a very useful skill!)... but it's definitely a group of Penguins, not blobby holes.

  2. #302
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by zoas23 View Post
    I see it in an opposite way, JDP... what if it's not a trap but a HUGE hint?
    The idea that "ONE MATTER" can't be a compound is your own interpretation.
    The idea that this "ONE MATTER" involves the idea that you can find it ready-made in nature is also your own interpretation.

    z0 K brought an amazing quote by Hollandus:“Therefore, no danger will befall this work. It is nothing but a woman’s work and merely child’s play. Ignorant men cannot understand this simply because this work is so easy."

    A dear friend used to show alchemical engravings to her little daughter (who is a teen nowadays) and ask her about what she could understand by watching the "drawings". He often tells me the story of what happened when he showed him one of the most famous engravings by Maier:



    He asked her: "What do you think that the person who did this drawing wanted to tell us?"
    Her daughter replied: "That the paint of wall has been scratched"
    He asked: "And who scratched it?"
    She replied: "Someone who wanted to play with the paint".

    Her answer was like an epiphany for him... Maybe it's good to go back to our inner child and see things as a child sees them.
    I admire your erudition, which is remarkable... but sometimes you have to open your mind (I hope this comment doesn't offend you, it's not the intention and I am aware of the fact that you are a true scholar on the subject -and there's no sarcasm in those words).

    Bergson wasn't an Alchemist... Plato wasn't an Alchemist either, same thing goes for Artistotle... same thing goes for Empedocles... but I'd say that they have a lot of food for thought to offer to those who are interested in Alchemy.

    Bergson mostly created a theory that said, quoting a comedian that some people here likes: "that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves"... and that we can accept what was given to us from "above" (like "letting a spring roll") or modify our "below" and thus modify the "above"... and that the separation of the objects is an issue of perception, not a reality, since All is One (yeah, the old "Hen to Pan").
    I don't dare to say that his ideas are completely unrelated to Alchemy.

    What if the answer is to be playful like a child, thinking outside the box, getting out of the flask (assuming that everything is connected to everything)... and understanding that the Logic created by Aristotle is not necessarily the only possible logic.

    Other than that: this isn't a confrontation, but an exchange of ideas. I learn a lot from your erudition and views... and I am certainly glad that you are here. Those rigid strict rules about what "ONE MATTER" means... could it be that it may mean something else?
    What I said about the "one matter" is simply the result of logic. If it is really just "one matter" from the very beginning of the work (and this is the sense used by those who use this axiom to mislead others, while those who are more honest actually bother to clarify or at least imply that they mean the "matter" of the Stone AFTER IT HAS BEEN PREPARED OUT OF SEVERAL MATTERS BY THE OPERATOR HIMSELF), then there is no other source for it other than nature itself. Where else are you going to get this "one matter only" from? It has by force to be a natural product since the axiom is FORBIDDING YOU TO COMPOSE IT OUT OF SEVERAL MATTERS. Remember, those who make this absurd claim want you to reject "multiplicity", so taking several ingredients as the starting materials is a no-no if you are to follow this ruse to the letter. So there is no other choice but something already found made by nature. If you can't follow this logical conclusion, then I can't help you any further. You are obviously not understanding what the "one matter only" ruse obviously implies when taken fully to the letter.

    The engraving in Maier's book is in reference to the old "squaring of the circle" geometrical problem (considered as technically impossible nowadays, only approximations can be achieved), but being applied to alchemical imagery:

    http://unurthed.com/2007/10/21/geome...us-alchymicum/

    http://www.magia-metachemica.net/upl...ta_fugiens.pdf

    pp. 56-57 for Maier's discourse relating to this image.

    Maier wasn't really thinking of anything else here, at least most certainly not anything about "scratching the paint". In fact, Maier did not even make the famous engravings that accompany his texts. Things have to be seen in their appropriate context.

    Bergson's ideas are too recent to have been known to the alchemists.
    Last edited by JDP; 09-21-2016 at 05:48 AM.

  3. #303
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    If you can't follow this logical conclusion, then I can't help you any further. You are obviously not understanding what the "one matter only" ruse obviously implies when taken fully to the letter.
    I'm very familiar with classical logic and modern logic (I've studied Philosophy, JDP... Logic is not my passion, but I am very familiar with it because my University was VERY focused on Logic).

    "When taken fully to the letter" is an interesting phrase... What makes you think that the idea has to be followed in a literal way?

    actually, we are saying the same thing. We simply have a different understanding of two terms: "Unity" and "Multiplicity".

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    The engraving in Maier's book is in reference to the old "squaring of the circle" geometrical problem (considered as technically impossible nowadays, only approximations can be achieved), but being applied to alchemical imagery
    Yes, JDP... I know very well the idea of Squaring the Circle and I would gladly write a rant about what Squaring the Circle means and the different solutions that different thinkers gave to this problem... I'll save you from reading my rant, because I am aware of the fact that what I can say on the subject is probably the same that you already know.

    HOWEVER, that's why I mentioned this story of my friend and his little daughter.
    WE see this image and OUR interpretation is very basic, we go directly to its most obvious and explicit reference (Squaring the Circle -though I think there is a second Geometrical allegory there, related to the triangle and the division of the circle in 6 by its radius).

    So I mentioned the case of a child who had the imagination to see something else, a detail that goes unnoticed... the "Purloined Letter" of Poe... the detail that is in front of our eyes, but it's so OBVIOUS that we do not see it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Bergson's ideas are too recent to have been known to the alchemists.
    If we were talking about "An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness" (his discussion with Einstein about the notions of Time and Duration in physics and Philosophy), then I would strongly agree with you.

    But if we are talking about "Matter and Memory" and "Creative Evolution"... then rather than seeing a huge leap between his ideas and classical Alchemy, I see there two books which perfectly follow the Hermetic Tradition.

    It may never happen due to geographical circumstances and life itself, but I would love to meet you and have a friendly face to face conversation with you. At least for me, such thing would be quite interesting.

    Other than that, the whole point here is to think collectively, even with disagreements, but with the intention of clarifying our ideas, notions, views, interpretations... and not a contest to see who "wins" (it's more interesting if we all "win").

    Be well! And I want to say it again, since English is my second language, I sometimes sound a bit harsh when I disagree (probably due to my lack of nuances when I write)... but it's a privilege for me to have this conversation with you (well, not just you, but everyone here).

  4. #304
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by zoas23 View Post
    I'm very familiar with classical logic and modern logic (I've studied Philosophy, JDP... Logic is not my passion, but I am very familiar with it because my University was VERY focused on Logic).

    "When taken fully to the letter" is an interesting phrase... What makes you think that the idea has to be followed in a literal way?

    actually, we are saying the same thing. We simply have a different understanding of two terms: "Unity" and "Multiplicity".
    That is how 99% of the people read, since most literature is written to be taken literally. Average readers (you and I included) tend to take everything to the letter since most writers write what they mean. But the literature of alchemy is a bit more complicated. The alchemists knew this, they were pretty good observers (it is in fact the only connection that alchemy has with psychology), so they knew very well that most of their readers would take everything they wrote to the letter. Why do you think there are so many warnings in alchemical literature not to take every single word written by the "sages" 100% literally? Despite these warnings we see over and over again seekers literally taking wine, for example, and submitting it to all kinds of operations, simply because many alchemical texts seem to openly describe operations with this substance. So when some mischievous alchemist first concocted the "one matter only" axiom he knew very well that countless readers would take this assertion to the very letter and would spend the rest of their days going around seeking this "one matter" somewhere in nature. Of course, they would never find it, since nature does not make this "one matter", the alchemist does, and he uses several substances to compose it. It is a very malicious trap. It is telling a "lie" by telling a "truth" in a purposefully misleading manner. You should watch those "Wishmaster" and "Warlock" Hollywood movies to get an idea of what kind of malice we are talking about here. When the unsuspecting victim of the Djinn or the Warlock make a wish, they are always tricked by these two malicious creatures and end up getting horrifying deaths. But the Djinn and the Warlock only grant their wishes, technically, they are not violating the agreement, even though the wishers obviously did NOT really mean or want to end up the way they ended up. By either taking their wishes in a very literal manner, or by twisting what they say due to the vague way the wish was formulated, they can literally get away with murder, but technically speaking they still did grant the person's wish, so they can always wash their hands clean and still be within the terms of the agreement with the wisher.

    Yes, JDP... I know very well the idea of Squaring the Circle and I would gladly write a rant about what Squaring the Circle means and the different solutions that different thinkers gave to this problem... I'll save you from reading my rant, because I am aware of the fact that what I can say on the subject is probably the same that you already know.

    HOWEVER, that's why I mentioned this story of my friend and his little daughter.
    WE see this image and OUR interpretation is very basic, we go directly to its most obvious and explicit reference (Squaring the Circle -though I think there is a second Geometrical allegory there, related to the triangle and the division of the circle in 6 by its radius).
    Maier seems to be referring to a possible way of solving the problem involving triangles that was adopted by some. Of course, this is all done with the intention of actually representing alchemical concepts, like the "4 elements" (the square) and the "3 principles" (the triangle).

    So I mentioned the case of a child who had the imagination to see something else, a detail that goes unnoticed... the "Purloined Letter" of Poe... the detail that is in front of our eyes, but it's so OBVIOUS that we do not see it.
    But this example actually shows the danger of trying to interpret these images without knowing what ideas/concepts were used for composing them, and what their purpose was, and therefore taking them totally out of context. In other words, this example actually shows WHAT NOT TO DO. Since your friend's daughter (a young child, so she is excused) was not better informed about the background of the image in question, she reached a totally erroneous conclusion. This is in fact very much what Jung and his followers (who are NOT young children, therefore they have no valid excuse) have done, and not only with alchemical imagery but even with the alchemical texts themselves.

  5. #305
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Maier seems to be referring to a possible way of solving the problem involving triangles that was adopted by some. Of course, this is all done with the intention of actually representing alchemical concepts, like the "4 elements" (the square) and the "3 principles" (the triangle).
    Yes, that's obvious... our interpretation of the image is identical and if we ask a third person here, this third person will have the same interpretation (probably).
    So maybe the question is: Is there something that is NOT obvious there? Is there a "Purloined Letter"? (i.e, like in the tale by Poe... something so easy and simple that our complex minds don't even see).

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    But this example actually shows the danger of trying to interpret these images without knowing what ideas/concepts were used for composing them, and what their purpose was, and therefore taking them totally out of context. In other words, this example actually shows WHAT NOT TO DO. Since your friend's daughter (a young child, so she is excused) was not better informed about the background of the image in question, she reached a totally erroneous conclusion. This is in fact very much what Jung and his followers (who are NOT young children, therefore they have no valid excuse) have done, and not only with alchemical imagery but even with the alchemical texts themselves.
    I don't like Jung either, JDP (so we can save ourselves from the boring conversation about if Junk was right or wrong).
    I know you are a translator of some alchemical texts (at least that's what I understood in another thread)... If that's the case, since translating involves a special kind of attention, you are for sure aware of the fact that several classical texts have a very interesting use of the language: I mean words with two meanings which have been used intentionally.
    I am inventing a phrase... i.e, I can write a text and say: "and now we are going to talk about the sun in a parabolical way".
    And thus we are going to understand that what comes next is an "allegory" about the sun.
    And yet it also means that we are going to talk about the parabola (curve) of the sun.

    I think we often face a palimpsest of meanings... and sometimes the "trap" is not seeing the palimpsest and only read/see the most obvious meaning.
    My example involved two words which are synonyms... but this same thing happens in a different way in engravings... or the use of some words.
    My understanding of "One Matter" is that it has more meanings that go beyond its most obvious interpretation.

  6. #306
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,404
    Blog Entries
    1
    This is an image that was posted earlier on this thread:



    A suggestion would be to compare it with Bacstrom's Aphorism & Process.

    The 'calcination'/opening/sublimation/spiritualization can definitely occur by means of the matter's own 'waters', provided they contain (or attract) enough of the Humid Radical, and only if the there's neither too much nor too little of these 'waters' inside the flask. This is verified by lab experience.

    Still, if this be the case, it is only the 'matter' being rendered here, and we still need its 'Secret Fire' counterpart to 'cook' it. See Pontanus for reference.

  7. #307
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    This is an image that was posted earlier on this thread:

    So, what are we looking at?


    The OP says this picture was taken after achieving the blackest of the black.

    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?
    He says that there are 3 matters we can visually see in this picture.

    You can see three matters in the image. The fourth, black matter is missing. It has been cut off
    The white "snow" salts are regenerated matter. The yellow "ascended" salts are up top.

    These white salts are regenerated matter. The common white ammoniacal salts are saturated with a yellow oil in this image. To be precise, these white salts are the second white salts which arrive after/during the fading black of blacks putrefaction.


    Later, the OP posted this picture



    He says that the salts have now turned into a white grease or "cream".

    The salts have basically turned into a white "grease" as opposed to the black, opened and putrefied bituminous matter. The iris got me to thinking of the peacocks tail.
    Then goes on and details the image further...

    This image is taken as the matter is exiting the black of blacks stage or the reign of Saturn. It signifies the triumph of antimony. Notice what is depicted as a "starry sky", the coating of the glass. Again, the circular iris are reminiscent of the caudal pavonis features.
    We can see that his starting matter has separated into two polarities.

    These two polarities later go on to generate a new matter.




    Finally, OP leaves us a suggestion before getting banned.

    I've basically put the true meanings of the texts on a platter.

    Reread my posts along with your favourite text.

  8. #308
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    I don't know why people assume that this "one matter" is supposed to be readily found in nature and subsequently cooked "as is".

    It isn't. That's the whole point.

    Yes, "our" matter is one.

    No, it is not something you just find in nature, readily available to be taken and cooked to perfection.

    Yes, "our" matter is physically tangible.

    Alchemical "mining" (separation) is performed to such a high degree of rectification (and often with different lab tools than common distillation), that the product no longer possesses (all or most of) the qualities or characteristics of the mine. That's one reason some people refer to it as "universal" spirit - it no longer resembles the "mine" it was taken from.


  9. #309
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,913
    Blog Entries
    65
    So we are looking at the sublimed salts. Are both salts required? Or do they need physical separation from the Artist.

    Also, in the purist method, what is the process that allows for self generation of the red? Is it fermentation or circulation?

    The shapes of the vessels. Could you please explain WHY you find the oyster/clam shell to be significant?

    After the salts have sublimed, do we then remove the black feces? I dont expect anyone to answer these (it would be great if you could) these are just the ideas I'm going to investigate.

    I think I will take the sublimed salts and physically separate them from one another. I will take o ly the clear white salts, and then put them in circulation....

    I believe if the timing and apparatus is right, this should re-sublime the salts, and after several sublimations a redness should start to appear, as a sign of a saturation of corporeal fire.

    I'm very interested in this path. I'm going to practice using a homogenized GW, but then my real attempt shall be with Adam. (And then a completely purist method)

    Shocking to see some of the behaviours around here BTW. Chasm was spot on with most of what he said, IMO, and I personally found his discussion quite clear and even helpful.

    Its as JDP has said a million times, Alchemy is about the secret solvent. The Universal Solvent IS the 'one thing' and the universal solvent separates, on its own accord, into everything you need for the Medicine. No Gild or other sulfurs required, although you could use other sulfurs if your feeling lazy. Gold is used for transmutations as some of you well know, but SM is the beginning and the end. Never found on Earth in its natural form, although I wouldn't say never found in nature. Otherwise there wouldn't be an earth.

    The super secret solvent is not a composite of chemicals, sorry JDP. That path is never gonna happen. You'd be better off on the urine path then on some modern-periodic decoding. The universal solvent is a special isotope of some variety that does not exist on our periodic table. It is one thing. It has nothing else in it. However, it changes and evolves, creating new things as it goes, hence out of one, three and from three, back to one.

    Andro couldn't have made it any clearer that the easiest place to obtain this stuff is from the human being himself, albeit, in a very impure form, more impurities means more steps, more potential for mistakes, aka, its harder, however, obviously the purist method requires a higher degree of hermetic understanding.

    It is a testament to God's divine hand at play, because despite how often the purist method is mentioned throughout this forum, there are still those who have not reached its manifestation, and this, IMO is often associated with pride more than anything.

    I'm speaking from personal experience, the experience of reading a decade worth of valueless bickering that didn't help any of you forge the Stone.

    I love the 1/1/1 concepts because to me it represents the awesome simplicity and power of God, it teaches the student how the entire universe works, and it gives us the most powerful form of Stone, the one that will no doubt kill you for three days while it radically changes your entire bodies biological processes.

    I have not yet begun the work, I'm in the prepatory stages ATM. Really interested in 'shapes' for the apparatuses. Thank you for any who have been helpful is shedding light on this path.
    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

  10. #310
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by elixirmixer View Post
    The super secret solvent is not a composite of chemicals, sorry JDP. That path is never gonna happen. You'd be better off on the urine path then on some modern-periodic decoding. The universal solvent is a special isotope of some variety that does not exist on our periodic table. It is one thing. It has nothing else in it. However, it changes and evolves, creating new things as it goes, hence out of one, three and from three, back to one.
    It is infinitely more realistic and based on actual empirical facts (who can doubt the existence of actual tangible substances???) that anyone can potentially discover than the imaginary "SM" that you keep talking about, which no one has ever seen, touched, smelled, etc., yet you still have a blind faith in its unproven existence. You might as well follow the "Tooth Fairy Path". Same thing. No difference. No one has ever seen her, touched her, etc., yet millions of children still believe in her unproven existence because of what their parents told them to believe in. Blind faith in unproven things.

+ 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