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 39 of 40 FirstFirst ... 29 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 393

Thread: One Matter - One Vessel - One Fire

  1. #381
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by tAlchemist View Post
    What does the word MATTER mean to you JDP? What is Matter, and what is One Matter? Let's see if we can come to am understanding.
    It means what it literally says: one matter, one substance, 1. It doesn't mean "several matters/substances" or greater than 1. If you start giving it other arbitrary meanings other than what normal, literal parlance means, then you are being tricky. That's exactly what many alchemists were doing with this whole "one matter only" claim. You need to be familiar with their mentality and their theoretical ruminations & assumptions to understand why they could find it justifiable to declare A MATTER COMPOSED OUT OF SEVERAL SUBSTANCES as "only one". Many of the more generous and honest alchemists actually bothered to explain what this "trap" consists of. These last ones are to be praised. The others should be utterly condemned.

  2. #382
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    In the zone
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    It means what it literally says: one matter, one substance, 1. It doesn't mean "several matters/substances" or greater than 1. If you start giving it other arbitrary meanings other than what normal, literal parlance means, then you are being tricky. That's exactly what many alchemists were doing with this whole "one matter only" claim. You need to be familiar with their mentality and their theoretical ruminations & assumptions to understand why they could find it justifiable to declare A MATTER COMPOSED OUT OF SEVERAL SUBSTANCES as "only one". Many of the more generous and honest alchemists actually bothered to explain what this "trap" consists of. These last ones are to be praised. The others should be utterly condemned.
    out of curiosity,

    what do you think of the alchemists who claim that their fire is actually water? How would this water as fire be used in the analysis? Does you believe that these alchemists lied about this fiery water?

    Can you name any one matter that isn't a composite of some type containing earth, water, air, and fire,

    If matter consists of substances, then an olive branch, under analysis by fire will yield 1. A water, 2. An acid, 3. An alkaline salt, 4.a sulphurous oil, 5. A black empyreumatic oil, and finally 6. A white insipid earth.

    All of these substances come from that one matter called an olive branch.
    It is one specified type of matter that produces olives.

    is a grape not a thing even though it's mainly composed of water, sugar, earth and oil

    According to Keely and Walter Russell, as well as the alchemists, matter is infinitely divisible

    Do you know if all of your empiricists were able to work their matters using the secret alchemical fire.

    Can you say that the correct procedure was used by all those whom you claim failed?

    note; Im on mobile, so i am having a very hard time quoting, but this is basically my questions based on what youve said to me in the past regarding One Matter, our last conversation a few months ago, i just cant for the life of me quote right now, but i take it you might remember.

  3. #383
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by tAlchemist View Post
    out of curiosity,

    what do you think of the alchemists who claim that their fire is actually water? How would this water as fire be used in the analysis? Does you believe that these alchemists lied about this fiery water?
    No, but it's just an analogy. Some alchemists also called acids "fire against nature", for example. Obviously that the secret solvent or "water" of the alchemists and common acids are not really any "fires", they just seem to have an analogy with it due to their action upon some substances, like metals, for example. Such analogies have even survived into our modern world. A popular brand of sulfuric acid used by plumbers is in fact called "LIQUID FIRE"!:



    Little do most people nowadays suspect that such an analogy has deep roots in alchemy.

    Can you name any one matter that isn't a composite of some type containing earth, water, air, and fire,
    Trick question! No, because such "elements" do not exist outside the imagination of Aristotle and his followers (which includes the majority of alchemists, who quite uncritically accepted and adopted his speculations about matter.)

    If matter consists of substances, then an olive branch, under analysis by fire will yield 1. A water, 2. An acid, 3. An alkaline salt, 4.a sulphurous oil, 5. A black empyreumatic oil, and finally 6. A white insipid earth.

    All of these substances come from that one matter called an olive branch.
    It is one specified type of matter that produces olives.

    is a grape not a thing even though it's mainly composed of water, sugar, earth and oil
    In reality those are complex mixtures of complex organic compounds, not "single/one" anythings like some alchemists envisioned. Now try to do the same with a metal, or even many minerals! This speculative "philosophy" will not work here because we are now talking about simpler inorganic substances that will not decompose with heat, and those that do decompose give less complex products/byproducts. So, in summary, the whole thing is nothing but a trick: trying to fool unwary people into actually working with a single substance (whether a complex organic mixture or simpler substances like minerals), nothing else, from the very beginning, and then trying to make the Stone with it. And I have very bad news for you and anyone falling for this old ruse: it just ain't gonna happen, buds! 2000+ years of accumulated empirical experience with all manner of single naturally-occurring substances denounce such an idea as pure BALONEY.

    According to Keely and Walter Russell, as well as the alchemists, matter is infinitely divisible

    Do you know if all of your empiricists were able to work their matters using the secret alchemical fire.
    Since the alchemists themselves were empiricists (no matter how much they also pretend to be "philosophers" and came up with various edifices of theoretical speculation), yes, obviously that they all worked with that "fire" (i.e. the secret solvent.)

    Can you say that the correct procedure was used by all those whom you claim failed?
    Huh? You ask some weird and self-answering questions. If they failed, then obviously it follows that they weren't using "the correct procedure". Elemental, my dear Watson!

  4. #384
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    8,551
    Blog Entries
    2

    Mod post

    Don't cross post and spew same view point in every single thread.

    Use this thread: 'One Matter' - Empiricism & Alchemy - Discerning Truth from Deception

    Don’t let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.


  5. #385
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,055
    Blog Entries
    81
    I logged on; and immediately pissed myself laughing.

    I love this zone.... Hahhah well done Awani. Go JDP!!! Hahaahahahahahahaahahahah. Lovin it.
    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

  6. #386
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,531
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    No, but it's just an analogy. Some alchemists also called acids "fire against nature", for example. Obviously that the secret solvent or "water" of the alchemists and common acids are not really any "fires", they just seem to have an analogy with it due to their action upon some substances, like metals, for example.
    Any example in which an acid is called "fire against nature"?
    I was thinking about Bacstrom who uses the expression a lot, but he doesn't really mean an acid, but mostly:
    Natural Fire = A fire that is provided by nature without the need of any art (in some cases he mentions gold, but actually the "dorman fire" of gold, which has to be released).

    Unnatural Fire= the solvent he was using... unnatural because it is not directly provided by nature, but it needs to be obtained by a proper use of the art (even if it is in nature, but nature by itself does not provide it in a way that can be used... somehow following your usual logic of "nature by itself doesn't make the stone")

    Fire against nature = the solvent is meant to dissolve gold in its whole (tincture and body).... So the natural fire + unnatural fire become the fire against nature.

    ... Of course, the meaning of some terms change a lot from author to author (I.e, I was thinking about Bacstrom and he clearly -in some texts- goes very strong against the use of the word "salt", even if he is using the same thing that many people have called "salt", but he doesn't want to call it "salt"). So, do you remember any text in which the "Fire against nature" is explicitly an acid?

  7. #387
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by zoas23 View Post
    Any example in which an acid is called "fire against nature"?
    I was thinking about Bacstrom who uses the expression a lot, but he doesn't really mean an acid, but mostly:
    Natural Fire = A fire that is provided by nature without the need of any art (in some cases he mentions gold, but actually the "dorman fire" of gold, which has to be released).

    Unnatural Fire= the solvent he was using... unnatural because it is not directly provided by nature, but it needs to be obtained by a proper use of the art (even if it is in nature, but nature by itself does not provide it in a way that can be used... somehow following your usual logic of "nature by itself doesn't make the stone")

    Fire against nature = the solvent is meant to dissolve gold in its whole (tincture and body).... So the natural fire + unnatural fire become the fire against nature.

    ... Of course, the meaning of some terms change a lot from author to author (I.e, I was thinking about Bacstrom and he clearly -in some texts- goes very strong against the use of the word "salt", even if he is using the same thing that many people have called "salt", but he doesn't want to call it "salt"). So, do you remember any text in which the "Fire against nature" is explicitly an acid?
    The French chymist Blaise de Vigenère, who was very familiar with the works of the "Lullian" alchemists (who invented this terminology), mentions it a couple of times:

    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4736...-h/47365-h.htm

    "But to abbridge (for this Aqua vitæ is in very small quantity and very uneasy to make) if you passe two parties of water of the departure, that dissolves the silver upon one party of the salt of lead, this will do the same effect for the transmutation of metals, but not within a mans body, where it must not in any case bee applyed, except after great sweetning, that is to say, a demi sextier of the dissolution of strong water, to make evaporate three or four pails of water, running down within by a filter to the measure that elevates the strong water with the spirits and malignity of this fire against Nature."

    "But strong waters, which dissipate and ruine all, are this strange fire, and so Alchymists call them, and fire against nature, externall fire, and other the like exterminatives. Certes if the effects of Cannon Powder be so admirable, consisting of so few species, and ingredients, which may be well called the true infernall fire, the devourer of mankind. The action of strong waters is no lesse which burne all, being compounded onely of two or three substances, that which wee commonly call the Separator, Salt-peter, Vitriol, or Allum Ice, and this dissolves Silver, Copper, Quicksilver, and Iron in part. La Regalle which is no other thing then the preceding rectified upon Salarmoniac, or common Salt, dissolved partly with Iron, Lead, Tinne, and intameable Gold, with all sorts of fire. It is true, that strong waters doe not destroy metals, that they returne not to their first forme and nature, but drawes them to water, and a melting liquor."

    Notice that Vigenère is well aware that the claim by some alchemists that mineral acids "destroy metals" is incorrect, as they can be recovered intact from their solution in such solvents. This had already been pointed out at least as far back as the 15th century by the English alchemist Thomas Norton in his "Ordinal of Alchemy", who incorrectly thought was the method par excellence of the "multipliers" he keeps maligning (the main technique of these medieval proto-chymists was in fact cementations, not solutions in corrosive menstruums), and uses the example of silver dissolved in such corrosive solvents as a specific example (Norton quite correctly says that the silver is recovered intact from such solutions, both in nature as well as in weight. This applies to common/vulgar aqua fortises, NOT to the "gradatory" ones, though, which are more complex productions of transmutational chymistry. Some of these can make silver yield small amounts of gold.)
    Last edited by JDP; 10-23-2018 at 07:24 PM.

  8. #388
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Cosmopolite
    Posts
    16
    Hi All,

    I would like to throw my 2 cents into this discussion concerning the 'One Matter, One Vessel, One Fire' in hopes of contributing something useful to the discussion. I believe that the 1/1/1 statement is accurate - except I view it as a Philosophical Metaphor and not necessarily an actual 'recipe' for the stone. As I am sure everyone is aware here, all Philosophical words are actually used in order to explain functions/appearances/compositions & etc. rather than their common usage. Therefore when one speaks of a vessel, it's not necessarily a glass vessel as what comes first to our mind but something in which holds something else within it & keeps it contained - much like a body would. I believe that the word left out by the Philosophers when speaking of the 1/1/1 is the word SECRET for when you place secret in front of Matter, Vessel, & Fire it makes it clear that what they are describing is not so much the recipe but actually its construction & form. The secret matter would constitute the internal composition (spirit) which is made up of what's placed within the secret vessel (body) and cooked/enlivened by its secret fire (soul). This is just my comprehension of this enigma of the Philosophers and I am sure there are many more but this makes the most sense to me and I hope this will be helpful to the discussion!

    ~Auroboros

  9. #389
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Auroboros View Post
    Hi All,

    I would like to throw my 2 cents into this discussion concerning the 'One Matter, One Vessel, One Fire' in hopes of contributing something useful to the discussion. I believe that the 1/1/1 statement is accurate - except I view it as a Philosophical Metaphor and not necessarily an actual 'recipe' for the stone. As I am sure everyone is aware here, all Philosophical words are actually used in order to explain functions/appearances/compositions & etc. rather than their common usage. Therefore when one speaks of a vessel, it's not necessarily a glass vessel as what comes first to our mind but something in which holds something else within it & keeps it contained - much like a body would. I believe that the word left out by the Philosophers when speaking of the 1/1/1 is the word SECRET for when you place secret in front of Matter, Vessel, & Fire it makes it clear that what they are describing is not so much the recipe but actually its construction & form. The secret matter would constitute the internal composition (spirit) which is made up of what's placed within the secret vessel (body) and cooked/enlivened by its secret fire (soul). This is just my comprehension of this enigma of the Philosophers and I am sure there are many more but this makes the most sense to me and I hope this will be helpful to the discussion!

    ~Auroboros
    If you take such an interpretation, then the suggestion is actually that at least 3 substances (i.e. "matter/spirit", "vessel/body", "fire/soul") are being handled to make the Stone, not literally "one". Many alchemists affirm this (while others say they are four, and some even five.)

  10. #390
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    255
    Quote Originally Posted by Auroboros View Post
    Hi All,

    I would like to throw my 2 cents into this discussion concerning the 'One Matter, One Vessel, One Fire' in hopes of contributing something useful to the discussion. I believe that the 1/1/1 statement is accurate - except I view it as a Philosophical Metaphor and not necessarily an actual 'recipe' for the stone. As I am sure everyone is aware here, all Philosophical words are actually used in order to explain functions/appearances/compositions & etc. rather than their common usage. Therefore when one speaks of a vessel, it's not necessarily a glass vessel as what comes first to our mind but something in which holds something else within it & keeps it contained - much like a body would. I believe that the word left out by the Philosophers when speaking of the 1/1/1 is the word SECRET for when you place secret in front of Matter, Vessel, & Fire it makes it clear that what they are describing is not so much the recipe but actually its construction & form. The secret matter would constitute the internal composition (spirit) which is made up of what's placed within the secret vessel (body) and cooked/enlivened by its secret fire (soul). This is just my comprehension of this enigma of the Philosophers and I am sure there are many more but this makes the most sense to me and I hope this will be helpful to the discussion!

    ~Auroboros
    Yes, this makes sense. Spirit, soul and body also bring to mind (no pun intended) the three principles sulfur/mercury/salt that are their equivalents and that Paracelsus (who introduced this concept) associated with the Holy Trinity.

    Of course, the Trinity is thought of as One in Christianity, so there could be a further explanation in this why some Alchemists (many of whom were Christians) referred to 'one matter', when they meant a tripartite composition.

    Just a thought, in extension of your hypothesis.

+ 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