Patrons of the Sacred Art

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 29 of 31 FirstFirst ... 19 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 306

Thread: Aspects of Alchemy

  1. #281
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    I don't know why, as my comment had nothing to do with such modern misinterpretations of alchemy. You should read my follow-up comment, which will put you back on the right track.
    Ha ha ha ha...
    Formerly known as True Puffer

  2. #282
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,647
    LOOK AT ALL MY GOLD!!!



    Scrooge McAlchemist


    Opps! I must apologise, I allowed myself to be dragged into the Facebook style banal retort of an idiot by the posts above.

    Ghislain
    Last edited by Ghislain; 03-22-2018 at 11:09 AM.

  3. #283
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,284
    Blog Entries
    1

    Logistical Post

    All recent posts dealing with "One Matter Vs Multiple Matters" have been moved to their relevant thread, starting HERE.

    Please everyone, let's do our best to keep this topic/debate/discussion on its own relevant thread, to make it easily searchable and so that it's not spread all across the board.

    Thanks!

  4. #284
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Sternbach View Post
    Thanks again, JDP.

    I dig those early texts, from or close to Arabic Alchemy. They somehow feel 'authentic' to me, whereas later authors are more likely to have gone off on a tangent. (But of course, that needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis.)
    I think so too. Specially after strange uncorroborated notions like a mysterious and paradoxical "spirit" supposedly pulled from thin air, or "condensing" sunlight or moonlight into supposed liquids/powders, and the like bizarre and outlandish claims became very popular among seekers. The early Latin alchemy was much more like the Graeco-Egyptian, Arabic and Persian ones, concerned with manipulations of actual, real, tangible substances, not hocus-pocus/abracadabra/flimflam claims.

    PS: I don't mean that those earlier alchemists were devoid of their own share of fanciful theories and beliefs, just that their practice was grounded on manipulating tangible, real substances, not fictitious notions like pulling a supposed "spirit" out of thin air, or "condensing" moonbeams, and the like fantasies.

  5. #285
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,817
    Blog Entries
    48
    I just ordered a large "prove JDP wrong" 24"parabolic moonbeam machine.
    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

  6. #286
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    I think so too. Specially after strange uncorroborated notions like a mysterious and paradoxical "spirit" supposedly pulled from thin air, or "condensing" sunlight or moonlight into supposed liquids/powders, and the like bizarre and outlandish claims became very popular among seekers. The early Latin alchemy was much more like the Graeco-Egyptian, Arabic and Persian ones, concerned with manipulations of actual, real, tangible substances, not hocus-pocus/abracadabra/flimflam claims.

    PS: I don't mean that those earlier alchemists were devoid of their own share of fanciful theories and beliefs, just that their practice was grounded on manipulating tangible, real substances, not fictitious notions like pulling a supposed "spirit" out of thin air, or "condensing" moonbeams, and the like fantasies.
    Leaving the question of the viability of extracting the SM aside for now, what you refer to as the earlier Alchemists' "own share of fanciful theories and beliefs" appears to be nothing less than the ancient Natural Philosophy with its Platonic, Aristotelian and Hermetic foundations, which provided the theoretical framework for the practical art. Although I readily admit that it can use some updating, I don't see how you could dismiss it in toto and yet believe in the validity of the Great Work and the Philosopher's Stone. They simply can't be explained in terms of contemporary materialistic science.

  7. #287
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    518
    Quote Originally Posted by elixirmixer View Post
    I just ordered a large "prove JDP wrong" 24"parabolic moonbeam machine.
    When you finish with your moonbeam capture, you could make a big dobson telescope with it :P

  8. #288
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,817
    Blog Entries
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragon's Tail View Post
    When you finish with your moonbeam capture, you could make a big dobson telescope with it :P
    Sounds awesome. I had the best view of saturn last night. I felt as if i could literally see the rings and everything....
    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

  9. #289
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Sternbach View Post
    Leaving the question of the viability of extracting the SM aside for now, what you refer to as the earlier Alchemists' "own share of fanciful theories and beliefs" appears to be nothing less than the ancient Natural Philosophy with its Platonic, Aristotelian and Hermetic foundations, which provided the theoretical framework for the practical art. Although I readily admit that it can use some updating, I don't see how you could dismiss it in toto and yet believe in the validity of the Great Work and the Philosopher's Stone. They simply can't be explained in terms of contemporary materialistic science.
    Not quite, it is way more likely the other way around: the Stone was discovered accidentally first, through simple & straightforward empiricism, trial & error, like most discoveries of mankind, then a whole bunch of fanciful theories/speculations/conjectures regarding the subject were superimposed on it over the centuries to try to "explain" it. I can very safely discard all this mass of speculation without blinking an eye, just like I do the same about gravity (nobody has ever really been able to explain what it is, yet we know it is a fact simply because we can observe its effects all over the place), for example, and still accept its reality.

    As for my interest in the Stone: it is most certainly NOT any of the fanciful theories and beliefs of the alchemists that makes me believe in it. It is the fact that I know that transmutation is quite real, plus the amount of historical witnesses who handled or saw samples of the Stone in action. It takes way more than just theories to make me interested in something. My palate requires more substantial things, it is not satisfied with morsels of empty air.

  10. #290
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragon's Tail View Post
    When you finish with your moonbeam capture, you could make a big dobson telescope with it :P
    And that will most likely be the sole purpose it will ever serve, as the "moonbeam capturing/condensing/materializing" will 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 % sure be a failure

+ 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