Patrons of the Sacred Art

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 31 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 306

Thread: Aspects of Alchemy

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,100
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Where is this proof?
    Proof that transmutation is a fact?

    I said it - then you parroted it...

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    According to modern chemistry and physics, it only happens inside nuclear reactors (whether natural, like the sun, or man-made.)
    Except that you are wrong about it only happening inside a reactor.

    One type of natural transmutation observable in the present occurs when certain radioactive elements present in nature spontaneously decay by a process that causes transmutation, such as alpha or beta decay. An example is the natural decay of potassium-40 to the argon-40 which forms most of the argon in air.
    source

    That happens as a matter of course - no reactor needed.


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Gravity is a part of your everyday life, without it things would be very different, in fact, life as we know it would not even exist (just think of what would happen to our atmosphere without it.) Regarding Newton and Einstein and gravity: they only tried to provide explanations for it. Again, that is different from the fact that gravity just "is", and its effects can be directly observed by anyone. Whether someone's explanations regarding why or how gravity works are correct or not is a different issue. Once again: empirical fact here, theories/speculations/conjectures/beliefs over there.
    Transmutations are part of everyday life, since that is what created all elements of matter we are made of and see and use every day. While a lot of mainstream scientists may not agree with the idea of biological transmutations, doesnt mean it doesnt exists:

    In 2003, Russian researchers claimed to have converted nuclear waste into non-radioactive elements using microbiological cultures, as well as the transmutation of manganese into iron in microbiological cultures.
    source



    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    For there to be "another level" other than a physical one you must first prove that any other "level" actually exists. Good luck doing that (and no, personal beliefs and convictions do not count as "proof".)
    To give you an alternative word - another frequency/dimension etc.
    Science does favor such, as does the math, they say.
    Regardless of what they say, plenty experience it. So who is it im supposed to be trying to "prove" something to, when i already know it? If you dont want to, or know how to experience it or find the proof, its not because its not there.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Not plainly enough, specially not regarding the initial materials to work with, their most carefully guarded secret.
    Not plainly enough for you perhaps. Again, the language has a purpose. Its only your problem if you dont understand that.
    Initial materials, in their purest form, are the Principles themselves - all matter is an extension of those on their various form/frequencies. To understand, reveals the way to operate.


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Otherwise anyone with any experimental ability could do it too, something which they obviously did not like, and some of them give very honest explanations as to why they don't want this knowledge to be spread around to the "vulgar", and it is not what people who think of alchemy as some sort of "spiritual quest" would expect: they were afraid that gold and silver were going to be devalued, and that everyone would want to become rich and stop plowing the fields and be productive in other activities necessary to human life, and so forth. Very materialistic (and realistic) objections, not the kind you would expect from an alleged "spiritual quest". Alchemists were in fact rather zealous and elitist people, pretty different behavior from all the piety they preached. Alchemy to them was sort of an "exclusive club" where only those whom they deemed "worthy" should be allowed in.
    A lot of "alchemy texts" are written by those that did not succeed, and were interested in the puffery of riches. Why they are considered "alchemists" instead of puffers is another matter altogether, and irrelevant to this. What is relevant, is that the ones who did know and succeed, werent concerned about fragile economies, but rather the soul/life of the reader.


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    The language of alchemy is secretive, not like that of modern scientists, so the comparison is quite wrong.
    Thats subjective in and of itself. The language of alchemy is quite nicely understood by me and many others that get results. However, for me, the scientific equations and math is a confusing cluster-fuck of nonsense. (however, i have no problem with concepts and actually understanding the material presented - but the math is where it loses me. Magick math i understand better.)

    Point is, level of difficulty in this manner is subjective. Alchemy; spirit and matter working in harmony, is easily understood by us and is used on a daily. Its not complicated or hard, for us. (not that there arent challenges and excitement and battles along the journey, but thats life.)

    Pure physical science, does not come easy to all of us, cause we see it as unbalanced, where it may be the only logical thing in your mind that makes sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    It might be difficult for many people to get acquainted with some of the lingo of modern chemistry, but once you do the meaning can be followed and the results replicated by anyone. The language of alchemy is quite different because it relies on totally arbitrary designations ("Green Lions", "Magnesias", "Toads", "Dragons", etc.), which may very well not be the same even among the alchemists themselves (in fact, alchemists themselves sometimes complain about the difficulty of deciphering their very own lingo since one thing can have many different code-words, and many code-words can designate just one thing) that you would have to pretty much be a mind-reader (and not just a "regular" one, but one who can actually read the mind of people who have been dead for centuries) to correctly guess what substances were really intended behind those names.
    Those who complain about the language, often do so because they are simply recipe hunters that have not gotten acquainted with their intuition. They are sheep looking for an external Messiah to lead them into some promise-land. They cannot see on their own.
    Yes, the language either weeds them out, or initiates their growth. That is the point. Because without the understanding they cant do anything more than what they already are: grasping at straws looking for a handout/recipe.


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Again, where is the proof that any of these "Higher (deeper) Laws" even exist to begin with? Once again, making assumptions about things one has no proof whatsoever and empirical facts are two very different things. "Worthy" and "unworthy" are purely subjective human concepts, not "laws" of any kind. What might seem "worthy" to a pagan might very well not be so to a Muslim. Purely subjective points of view.
    Im not sure if you seriously cant understand, or if youre just being argumentative. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume its just not clicking for you - so i'll dumb it down some more. (i apologize if that sounds like an insult - its not intended as one, but from my standpoint, that is exactly what im having to do and its tedious.)

    "Worthy" and "unworthy" in this does not mean "chosen at random or by bias" - it is the equivalent of 2+2=4 = worthy and 2+2=6 = not worthy. Do you see? Call it spirit, call it frequency/energy whatever helps you sleep at night - it operates by deeper fundamental structures of order, and it is by that, that "worthiness" of things is determined. This does not make things "worthless" - except in the context. As stated previously, if you are more of a scientist, that isnt an insult - it just means your worth is not alchemy. It is the same concept of judging a fish by the same standard as a dog, or cat. Living things made by the same Primal Essence/Spirit/Quintessence - but difference frequencies of manifesting to different ends.


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Not at all. Do you seriously think that if anyone could prove the reality of any of those claims that the world would not be affected by this and such behavior would pretty much banish? Do you seriously think that even the most greedy "materialist" would risk any sort of after-life repercussions for his behavior if he actually knew for sure that such things are very real and to be expected? You would have to be pretty out of touch with how most people are to believe that. Self-interest and self-preservation are the norm.
    Im sorry, but that is unrealistically naive. Humans do not, historically and demonstrably even now, act the way they do because someone, be it a scientist or a priest, tells them, with words or math, that there is punishment waiting them. Judges, cops, etc already promise punishment. Criminals are unwavered by it.

    You cannot prove something to someone that doesnt want it to be proven. No matter your "source" - it is a matter of conviction, of faith/knowing in your experience. We who experience the spiritual, do not care that those who havent dont think it exists - cause to those that know, it Is, regardless of what the blind/deaf to it think about it.


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Scientists argue with each other on points they disagree (once again regarding theories, speculations, conjectures, explanations, but none of them denies empirical facts), they don't really wage "war" like I was referring to.
    The theories/speculation etc - that they come to by studying the same empirical facts and same laws of mathematics... yet cant agree on. How quaint their "fixed facts" are in doing nothing.


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Bad analogy. A blind and deaf person cannot tell many other things other than iPhones, that doesn't mean they don't exist or do not work as intended. Plus the blind and deaf person still can tell that iPhones are at least tangible by touching them, so without anyone else's input he can figure out as much on his own. But who has seen, heard or touched any of the things you speak about? Your own testimony is just anecdotal. There is no proof to anyone else.
    The analogy holds up just fine, since the compared-to-object was a real object (crystal ball). lol You can see and hold those, though they can be a bit heavy.

    You ask who else has seen, heard or touched the things i speak about - i told you previously those who actually know me and are around me. While i always see these things when they come up, sometimes the ones around me do as well, as well as seeing the matter effected. If it were only me, for all this time, and never anyone else even glimpsing a small portion of it - i would admit i could be schizophrenic. But its not just me. I have, and do have witnesses. You would not accept their testimony either because they apparently dont have the right Phd to make them sultans of indisputable proof (to you anyway). That is exactly my point.


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Once again, these are just claims that have no support. I can also make up things and tell you that I can project my mind to any corner of the universe I so please and see what is going there as if I was watching TV. See I just made up a totally empty boast that requires no proof whatsoever. This can be done by anyone. A very different thing is actually proving it.
    Agreed that anyone can say what they want. The only real way to prove anything though, is to try it yourself - and while that will not prove it entirely to the world as a whole, you will know if its right for you or not.
    Before there was a concept of gravity - the force existed, but was not thought of.
    The same forces im talking about that determine one's level of enlightenment/evolution (towards any end of the spectrum and all in between) are still there, whether we term a name or concept to them, and they still are governing your ability to understand me or not. I call it Spirit, or the Order/Consciousness behind the interactions of the Frequencies of All reality. You can call it whatever you please. Hell, a Jedi can call it the Force - it still Is.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Plus the excuse of not wanting the money reward is so not valid at all. The winner can easily donate all the money to his favorite charity, doesn't have to keep it. He would not only show the reality of such a claim (a reward greater for all mankind than any prize money) but would be considered a generous philanthropist to boot.
    Flamel made gold and gave it away. Did that prove anything to people? To many it proved he had a legendary artifact - but it didnt change a damn thing about human nature or how the rest of the world kept ticking. Nowadays they'd wanna be studied like a lab-rat, as if that held the key. Again, its naive to think that someone "proving" such to a scientist, or group of them, or whatever, would change the entire world's perception. There have been and are plenty of accounts of life after death, spiritual encounters, information being learned while "dead" that shouldnt be able to be learned according to the convention, etc etc - people turn a blind eye to what they dont wanna hear and no one will convince them of what they have no interest in.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    I did not "misunderstand" you, you just wrote it in a manner that was vague. You should have said the manufacture of the Stone itself, not the transmutation. The transmutation itself could be performed by anyone who had access to a sample of the Stone, whether he knew how to make it or not.
    Fine, we can play semantics if you like - the point stands. The one that experiences/knows/"believes" (in this sense) is the one that caused the miracle (by production of the Stone), while the other one simply watches, or follows the instructions of how to set up the use of the miracle. Just because it left the unbeliever's/not-knowing person's hand last, doesnt mean its his, or his transmutation.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    I don't "outright refuse" anything, but proof is required for any given claim. As long as someone doesn't prove any claim that he/she puts forward, it remains just that, an unsubstantiated claim to everyone else.
    You claim its an unsubstantiated claim to everyone else - but you have no proof that you can speak for everyone else. You also havent proven that you dont outright refuse what is being presented.

    The thing you are failing to understand the most about what im saying is this: im not attacking your scientific stance/view of things. I do find it to be unbalanced and lacking. But i dont fault you for it. You not being able to see the Spiritual side of things, for whatever reason, is what it is. Makes you a good scientist, not alchemist.
    With that, just because i see it as unbalanced, doesnt invalidate it, unbalanced doesnt mean totally wrong. The same is true about the Spiritual side - just because you dont agree or cant see, doesnt invalidate the claim or make it less factual.

    As i said, the Principles are both literal and symbolic - factual and mythical. If you see it, you know it. If you only see a part of it, you know that part - it doesnt invalidate the other part though.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    If you have seen any documentary about Creationism vs Evolution, you will easily perceive what the position of most biologists is. They say that they are perfectly capable of explaining life without conjuring up any supernatural elements. If you read biology text-books you will see pretty much the same thing. Modern scientists take it as a very important rule not to mix up their personal religious/spiritual beliefs, that they know very well rely on faith and can't be substantiated, with science. Science has to deal with demonstrable facts.
    Key words to that:
    They say that they are perfectly capable of explaining life without conjuring up any supernatural elements.
    Just because they say it, doesnt make it fact, remember.

    Reminds me of a story/joke i once i heard:

    Scientists go to God and say "Ok God, we've figured out how to create just like you, youre no longer needed." God smiles and says "Ok, prove it and i'll let you run it."

    So God does his demonstration first, he reaches down and grabs a hand full of dirt and creates a man. The scientists smile confidently and step up to do the same. When they grab a hand full of dirt, God interrupts them and says "Wait a minute, you have to get your own dirt."

    They can say and claim whatever they like - but those of us that see the soul/consciousness/Spirit, within one another, ourselves, all that is living, even the living things that appear inanimate - all that is the living All/One, we know it is not purely mechanical. Matter doesnt create Life - Life creates matter.


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Alchemy claims to deal with physical substances and achieve physical, tangible results. The connection it has with metaphysics is in some of the "explanations" some alchemists tried to come up with for the results they allegedly achieved. But once again we are confronted with the difference between empirical facts and theories/speculations/conjectures. For argument's sake, let us take for granted that the Stone is real and that alchemy therefore did achieve what it claims. Does that follow that the theoretical "explanations" given by the alchemists must be correct? Not at all. Achieving something and coming up with a correct explanation for that achievement do not necessarily go hand in hand. For example, for thousands of years people have known how to make fire without actually understanding the role that gases in the atmosphere play in this phenomenon. That did not stop them from speculating regarding what exactly causes fire. Their explanations (some of them very interesting, by the way, despite their flaws) have been proven mistaken by Lavoisier and his followers (the founders of modern chemistry), yet that did not stop them one bit from making fires all the same. Fire is the empirical fact here, the "explanations" given to it by pre-Lavoisierian thinkers are the theories/speculations/conjectures.
    Again, a comparison of an enlightened, accomplished adept (achieving the Stone), vs a recipe-hunting sheep grasping at straws and writing books on their many, many, many attempts, full of their speculations etc... its just all around off.
    The ones that held the real wisdom, had things built that stood/stand the test of time, with such precision and abilities that they(scientists) say wasnt possessed back then. Silliness.

    So once again, only understanding/realizing one part, doesnt invalidate the other part, and no one can truly prove it to you, except you yourself. The rest is semantics, and endless circle-chasing.

    Take it, leave it, do what you will. I think ive about said all i can, as its getting hella-repatitive. lol

    Again, if anything i said sounded like an insult, im sorry. It really is not meant to be. Good luck on your endeavors.




    ~Seth-Ra
    One fatal tree there stands of knowledge called, forbidden them to taste. Knowledge forbidden? Suspicious. Reasonless. And why should their Lord envy them that? Can it be sin to know? Can it be death? And do they stand by ignorance, is that their happy state, the proof of their obedience and their faith?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Seth-Ra View Post
    .

    A lot of "alchemy texts" are written by those that did not succeed, and were interested in the puffery of riches. Why they are considered "alchemists" instead of puffers is another matter altogether, and irrelevant to this. What is relevant, is that the ones who did know and succeed, werent concerned about fragile economies, but rather the soul/life of the reader.
    Seth-Ra, I'm curious as to which alchemists you believe were not puffers and did succeed?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,650
    When partaking in discussions such as these it is imperative to distinguish the objective from the subjective. If this is not done then what may seem like a normal rational conversation is actually meaningless.

    E.G. when one person is talking about dogs in general, but the other is only talking about their own dog from their own personal perspective.

    sub•jec•tive [suh b-jek-tiv]

    adjective

    1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).

    2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

    3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

    4. Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

    5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

    World English Dictionary

    1. belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of the thinking subject and not the nature of the object being considered

    2. of, relating to, or emanating from a person's emotions, prejudices, etc: subjective views

    3. relating to the inherent nature of a person or thing; essential

    4. existing only as perceived and not as a thing in itself

    5. med (of a symptom, condition, etc) experienced only by the patient and incapable of being recognized or studied by anyone else

    6. grammar See also nominative denoting a case of nouns and pronouns, esp in languages having only two cases, that identifies the subject of a finite verb and (in formal use in English) is selected for predicate complements, as in It is I

    — n
    7. grammar
    a. the subjective case
    b. a subjective word or speech element

    Source:

    ob•jec•tive [uh b-jek-tiv]

    noun

    1. something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive.

    2. Grammar.

    a.
    Also called objective case. (in English and some other languages) a case specialized for the use of a form as the object of a transitive verb or of a preposition, as him in The boy hit him, or me in He comes to me with his troubles.

    b.
    a word in that case.

    3. Also called object glass , object lens , objective lens. Optics. (in a telescope, microscope, camera, or other optical system) the lens or combination of lenses that first receives the rays from the object and forms the image in the focal plane of the eyepiece, as in a microscope, or on a plate or screen, as in a camera. See diag. under microscope.

    adjective

    4. being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.

    5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

    6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

    7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).

    8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.


    World English Dictionary

    adjective

    1. existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions: are there objective moral values?

    2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias

    3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc

    4. med (of disease symptoms) perceptible to persons other than the individual affected

    5. grammar See also accusative denoting a case of nouns and pronouns, esp in languages having only two cases, that is used to identify the direct object of a finite verb or preposition and for various other purposes. In English the objective case of pronouns is also used in many elliptical constructions (as in Poor me! Who, him? ), as the subject of a gerund (as in It was me helping him ), informally as a predicate complement (as in It's me ), and in nonstandard use as part of a compound subject (as in John, Larry, and me went fishing )

    6. of, or relating to a goal or aim

    Source:
    Both are valid arguments if one states what perspective one is basing those arguments upon.

    I think it is quite clear which is which when one looks into the previous texts, but this is not always clear to the participants.

    Perhaps we should state if we are looking at the "Aspects of Alchemy" subjectively or objectively.


    Ghislain
    Last edited by Ghislain; 03-08-2014 at 07:17 AM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Seth-Ra View Post
    Proof that transmutation is a fact?

    I said it - then you parroted it...
    You seem confused by your own statements. Here is what you said:

    "I can say the same thing about transmutation. It is a fact. Period. It has been proven over and over again - not just by alchemists. It happens even now within each of our bodies, it happens in the earth, in the sun, etc etc."

    So where is the proof that the "transmutation inside each of our bodies" is happening? Of course I was not referring to the sun or spontaneous decay of radioactive substances, since these are well known and documented. I was only referring to your particular claim as if it was a "proven" thing, which you lumped with those that have actually been proven to exist.


    Except that you are wrong about it only happening inside a reactor.


    source

    That happens as a matter of course - no reactor needed.
    That happens inside radioactive materials only, which are basically natural "reactors" on their own, no need of outside help. It does not happen in stable substances. So you are still wrong.

    Transmutations are part of everyday life, since that is what created all elements of matter we are made of and see and use every day. While a lot of mainstream scientists may not agree with the idea of biological transmutations, doesnt mean it doesnt exists:


    source
    That remains a controversial subject, yet to be proven without any doubt. Modern chemistry still does not accept these alleged transmutations.

    To give you an alternative word - another frequency/dimension etc.
    Science does favor such, as does the math, they say.
    Regardless of what they say, plenty experience it. So who is it im supposed to be trying to "prove" something to, when i already know it? If you dont want to, or know how to experience it or find the proof, its not because its not there.
    Again, these are just uncorroborated claims. Anyone can make these. They are a dime a dozen. The world has always been full of people making such claims. Proving that such things actually exist and anyone can achieve them is a whole different deal.

    Not plainly enough for you perhaps. Again, the language has a purpose. Its only your problem if you dont understand that.
    Initial materials, in their purest form, are the Principles themselves - all matter is an extension of those on their various form/frequencies. To understand, reveals the way to operate.
    For me and for anyone, including you. Interpretations of vague or obscure passages are totally arbitrary until actually proven to be effective. Have you really confected a powder that transmutes many times its own weight of base metal into silver or gold? Somehow I think you will say "yes", but somehow I can also predict that you will always find 1001 excuses not to prove that you really have it. How do I know this? Plenty of personal experience with such boasts, plus the accumulated experience of others throughout the centuries. People like Michael Maier, Heinrich Khunrath, Gabriel Plattes, Richard Stanihurst, etc. even wrote texts devoted to how to spot charlatans, cheats or those making empty boasts regarding possession of the Stone. One of the obvious signs of someone who simply could not put his money where his mouth is was the reluctance of the claimant to submit a sample of his alleged "Stone" for testing. This was always seen as a sign of dishonesty on the claimant's part, someone who did not really have what he claimed he had, and it doesn't need to be explained why this is such a clear and blatant sign. Needless to say, the same sound logic and common sense of those older writers applies today. "The proof is in the pudding", as the popular saying goes.


    A lot of "alchemy texts" are written by those that did not succeed, and were interested in the puffery of riches. Why they are considered "alchemists" instead of puffers is another matter altogether, and irrelevant to this. What is relevant, is that the ones who did know and succeed, werent concerned about fragile economies, but rather the soul/life of the reader.
    Then I am afraid that you will be disappointed by the bulk of the literature actually being written by such "puffers". Even occultists like A.E. Waite already noticed that most alchemical literature is concerned with pretty much little else other than making the Philosophers' Stone and applying it to transmutation and medicinal/longevity purposes.


    Thats subjective in and of itself. The language of alchemy is quite nicely understood by me and many others that get results.
    Again, these are just your claims, which as far as I can tell you have never proven to any panel of impartial and trustworthy witnesses. Anyone can make such claims of being able to understand things others do not. Actually proving them is a whole different story.


    Those who complain about the language, often do so because they are simply recipe hunters that have not gotten acquainted with their intuition. They are sheep looking for an external Messiah to lead them into some promise-land. They cannot see on their own.
    Yes, the language either weeds them out, or initiates their growth. That is the point. Because without the understanding they cant do anything more than what they already are: grasping at straws looking for a handout/recipe.
    Actually even the alchemists themselves often complain about the obscure, vague, and even sometimes contradictory language employed in the subject and how arbitrary it can be from one author to another, or even from one author's book to the next! There were no set of established "rules" for assigning arbitrary names to substances, so basically "anything goes" according to the fancy of each writer. In fact, the heavy use of this tactic once again betrays the claim of some boasting alchemists who say that they could indeed write the whole process for the Stone in plain language -no symbols, no code-words, no obscurities, no vagueness, just plain language that could be followed by anyone- and still without an alleged "Divine permission" the seeker would still fail. Of course, the fact that not a single one of them put his money where his mouth was in this regard only shows that they did not really believe such claims. In fact, often the alchemists who make such a boast are in fact among the obscurest writers themselves. Totally the opposite of what one would expect if they really believed what they claimed about some supernatural "permission" arbitrarily determining who is "worthy" of succeeding being necessary.

    Im not sure if you seriously cant understand, or if youre just being argumentative. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume its just not clicking for you - so i'll dumb it down some more. (i apologize if that sounds like an insult - its not intended as one, but from my standpoint, that is exactly what im having to do and its tedious.)
    No, not at all, I have found your posts quite "dumbed" enough as they are, no need to bring them down from your normal level

    "Worthy" and "unworthy" in this does not mean "chosen at random or by bias" - it is the equivalent of 2+2=4 = worthy and 2+2=6 = not worthy. Do you see? Call it spirit, call it frequency/energy whatever helps you sleep at night - it operates by deeper fundamental structures of order, and it is by that, that "worthiness" of things is determined. This does not make things "worthless" - except in the context. As stated previously, if you are more of a scientist, that isnt an insult - it just means your worth is not alchemy. It is the same concept of judging a fish by the same standard as a dog, or cat. Living things made by the same Primal Essence/Spirit/Quintessence - but difference frequencies of manifesting to different ends.
    Again, purely arbitrary and subjective human concepts attributed to things ("spirits", mysterious "frequencies/energies", "Primal Essences", "Quintessence", etc.) no one has ever proved that they even exist in the first place. Your whole line of argumentation relies on these assumptions about things you yourself can't even prove they exist. You are basing them on your personal beliefs and convictions, which may or may not be exactly those of any other random person. Purely arbitrary and subjective stuff.


    Im sorry, but that is unrealistically naive. Humans do not, historically and demonstrably even now, act the way they do because someone, be it a scientist or a priest, tells them, with words or math, that there is punishment waiting them. Judges, cops, etc already promise punishment. Criminals are unwavered by it.
    There is a big difference between what a human cop or judge can do, and a "Divine" one that you won't be able to escape somewhere He/It can't reach you. Crooks in the real world know they have a good chance of getting away with crime, that's what motivates them. They are willing to risk it if they know they have a chance of getting away with it. Rest assured that if they knew that all their crimes would end up in certain punishment, no matter what they did to try to avoid it, they would quite surely start getting into other "professions" where they would know that the only outcome is not going to be them on the losing side for sure. People aren't that stupid and self-destructive. Give them some credit.

    You cannot prove something to someone that doesnt want it to be proven. No matter your "source" - it is a matter of conviction, of faith/knowing in your experience. We who experience the spiritual, do not care that those who havent dont think it exists - cause to those that know, it Is, regardless of what the blind/deaf to it think about it.
    And who says that "someone" does not want it to be proven? Once again, making assumptions about what others think or want to think. The fact remains that no one has proven any of that stuff. It remains just the variable personal convictions and beliefs of each individual.

    The theories/speculation etc - that they come to by studying the same empirical facts and same laws of mathematics... yet cant agree on. How quaint their "fixed facts" are in doing nothing.
    The empirical facts remain, it is the theories/speculations regarding them that can change and vary. This is not "strange" at all. Anyone can observe a fire or gravity at work and plainly see how real they are, but trying to "explain" why things are or how they work is a much more complicated matter that involves abstract thought. Lots of things can go wrong or right in this process. Yet the empirical fact being "explained" will remain the same. The gravity and fire we can plainly perceive today are the exact same ones that some people in centuries past perceived themselves and tried to attribute to the "earth element" being "heavier" than the "air element", or to a "sulphurous" principle supposedly escaping certain materials when they get heated. Yet to us such "explanations" seem quite incorrect and based on mistaken theoretical assumptions. We have other ways of "explaining" them which seem much more logical and based on other more "sound" theoretical assumptions. Apply all this to the Stone (if we take it for granted that it does indeed exist, for argument's sake) and the alchemists' claims of how it is achieved.

    The analogy holds up just fine, since the compared-to-object was a real object (crystal ball). lol You can see and hold those, though they can be a bit heavy.
    Well, I think you know very well that it is not the substance of the crystal ball itself that is being questioned here, but what some claim they can do with it

    You ask who else has seen, heard or touched the things i speak about - i told you previously those who actually know me and are around me. While i always see these things when they come up, sometimes the ones around me do as well, as well as seeing the matter effected. If it were only me, for all this time, and never anyone else even glimpsing a small portion of it - i would admit i could be schizophrenic. But its not just me. I have, and do have witnesses. You would not accept their testimony either because they apparently dont have the right Phd to make them sultans of indisputable proof (to you anyway). That is exactly my point.
    This is equivalent to me saying: "that claim I told you about me being able to project my mind to the 4 corners of the Universe in an instant and seeing what is going on anywhere as if I was watching TV has been witnessed by all my friends and people around me..." And the "proof" of this other claim is where??? It still remains as unproven as always. Adding more claims to another unproven claim is not "proof" either.

    Agreed that anyone can say what they want. The only real way to prove anything though, is to try it yourself - and while that will not prove it entirely to the world as a whole, you will know if its right for you or not.
    Before there was a concept of gravity - the force existed, but was not thought of.
    The same forces im talking about that determine one's level of enlightenment/evolution (towards any end of the spectrum and all in between) are still there, whether we term a name or concept to them, and they still are governing your ability to understand me or not. I call it Spirit, or the Order/Consciousness behind the interactions of the Frequencies of All reality. You can call it whatever you please. Hell, a Jedi can call it the Force - it still Is.
    Well, it seems to me that "Jedis" don't shy away from proving their claims as very much real. Darth Vader himself almost choked a guy who was poking fun at his belief in the "Force" from across the room without actually touching him. I saw this with my very own eyes. Of course, it needs to be said that it was at the movies on the silver screen, where anything can happen.

    Flamel made gold and gave it away. Did that prove anything to people? To many it proved he had a legendary artifact - but it didnt change a damn thing about human nature or how the rest of the world kept ticking. Nowadays they'd wanna be studied like a lab-rat, as if that held the key. Again, its naive to think that someone "proving" such to a scientist, or group of them, or whatever, would change the entire world's perception. There have been and are plenty of accounts of life after death, spiritual encounters, information being learned while "dead" that shouldnt be able to be learned according to the convention, etc etc - people turn a blind eye to what they dont wanna hear and no one will convince them of what they have no interest in.
    Yes, but such accounts are not proven either. They remain just that: anecdotal accounts. What I mean is definitive, irrefutable proof that such "spiritual encounters" exist. That would most certainly have a huge impact on the world and society.

    Fine, we can play semantics if you like - the point stands. The one that experiences/knows/"believes" (in this sense) is the one that caused the miracle (by production of the Stone), while the other one simply watches, or follows the instructions of how to set up the use of the miracle. Just because it left the unbeliever's/not-knowing person's hand last, doesnt mean its his, or his transmutation.
    That's of course going by your assumption that the alchemists who claim that making the Stone requires some sort of "Divine intervention" are actually correct.

    The semantics was necessary to be pointed out, though, because the Stone is the transmuting agent, not the transmutation itself. The transmutation can be carried out by anyone. The issue is the confection of the transmuting agent.

    You claim its an unsubstantiated claim to everyone else - but you have no proof that you can speak for everyone else. You also havent proven that you dont outright refuse what is being presented.
    But we are on the same boat here: you can't prove that everyone else, or even just many people, knows it to be a fact either. I can't prove that it does not exist or that it does exist, I just say that there is no proof of it existing or not existing either way. And since you are the claimant for it existing, the burden of proof is on you. And even if you can find others who agree with you, could they really prove it to be so, or would they also have to rely simply on unsubstantiated assertions?

    The thing you are failing to understand the most about what im saying is this: im not attacking your scientific stance/view of things. I do find it to be unbalanced and lacking. But i dont fault you for it. You not being able to see the Spiritual side of things, for whatever reason, is what it is. Makes you a good scientist, not alchemist.
    With that, just because i see it as unbalanced, doesnt invalidate it, unbalanced doesnt mean totally wrong. The same is true about the Spiritual side - just because you dont agree or cant see, doesnt invalidate the claim or make it less factual.
    Believing in things that are not proven is faith. You have faith in such things, therefore to you they seem very logical, possible and perhaps even "real". That is fine, there is no problem with that. Those are your personal beliefs. But they can't be conjured up to try to explain things which purport to be very much tangible "facts", like the Philosophers' Stone. If alchemists did not describe this thing as a tangible, weighable, measurable, testable substance with very tangible, weighable, measurable, testable effects on metals and people, animals and plants, but some sort of immaterial concept existing somewhere in the realm of speculation, then such "explanations" conjuring up intangible things that no one has ever proven to exist in the first place might not be out of place.


    Key words to that:

    Just because they say it, doesnt make it fact, remember.

    That applies very well to all these "supernatural" claims, like this one quoted below

    They can say and claim whatever they like - but those of us that see the soul/consciousness/Spirit, within one another, ourselves, all that is living, even the living things that appear inanimate - all that is the living All/One, we know it is not purely mechanical. Matter doesnt create Life - Life creates matter.

    Again, a comparison of an enlightened, accomplished adept (achieving the Stone), vs a recipe-hunting sheep grasping at straws and writing books on their many, many, many attempts, full of their speculations etc... its just all around off.
    The ones that held the real wisdom, had things built that stood/stand the test of time, with such precision and abilities that they(scientists) say wasnt possessed back then. Silliness.
    But plenty of those mistaken theories/assumption come from books by those very "enlightened, accomplished adepts" claiming to have achieved the Stone and who also attack those "puffers". For example, the famous and respected "Basil Valentine" thought that obtaining copper from a vitriolic solution by inserting iron in it was an actual "transmutation" of iron into copper. Yet "puffers" like Raphael Eglinus or the anonymous author of the "Short Discourse" on the transmutation of metals knew very well it was just a simple precipitation of the copper already present in the vitriol solution. Things are not always as clear-cut as one might think.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,100
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    You seem confused by your own statements. Here is what you said:

    "I can say the same thing about transmutation. It is a fact. Period. It has been proven over and over again - not just by alchemists. It happens even now within each of our bodies, it happens in the earth, in the sun, etc etc."

    So where is the proof that the "transmutation inside each of our bodies" is happening? Of course I was not referring to the sun or spontaneous decay of radioactive substances, since these are well known and documented. I was only referring to your particular claim as if it was a "proven" thing, which you lumped with those that have actually been proven to exist.
    Not confused, you were just being vague with your question. ^.~


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    That happens inside radioactive materials only, which are basically natural "reactors" on their own, no need of outside help. It does not happen in stable substances. So you are still wrong.
    Not quite.

    A nuclear reactor is a device to initiate and control a sustained nuclear chain reaction.
    "Nuclear reaction" is a term implying an induced change in a nuclide, and thus it does not apply to any type of radioactive decay (which by definition is a spontaneous process).
    Perhaps the most notable nuclear reactions are the nuclear chain reactions in fissionable materials that produces induced nuclear fission, and the various nuclear fusion reactions of light elements that power the energy production of the Sun and stars.
    So, reactors such as stars, and made-man ones, does not = radioactive decay, which can also cause transmutation, proving it (transmutation) exists outside of reactors.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    That remains a controversial subject, yet to be proven without any doubt. Modern chemistry still does not accept these alleged transmutations.
    Again, modern chemistry's accepted views are the only views youre allowing as "proof" even when other modern scientists challenge those views. (it was commonly accepted at one point in time that the earth was flat, how silly.)

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Again, these are just uncorroborated claims. Anyone can make these. They are a dime a dozen. The world has always been full of people making such claims. Proving that such things actually exist and anyone can achieve them is a whole different deal.
    People since the beginning of recorded history have spoken of (and many have and still do experience) the spiritual realms, or other dimensions etc - scientists are beginning to mathematically support their existence (other dimensions), and your still not happy with it. Argumentative.


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    For me and for anyone, including you.
    That (whats underlined) is an unverified assumption you make there.


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Interpretations of vague or obscure passages are totally arbitrary until actually proven to be effective.
    Just because it appears arbitrary to you, doesnt mean it is. That is your interpretation.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Have you really confected a powder that transmutes many times its own weight of base metal into silver or gold? Somehow I think you will say "yes", but somehow I can also predict that you will always find 1001 excuses not to prove that you really have it.
    Depends on what you call "proving it."


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    How do I know this? Plenty of personal experience with such boasts, plus the accumulated experience of others throughout the centuries.
    So, "accumulated experience of others throughout the centuries" is only valid when speaking negatively of others, but not for experiencing higher realms of consciousness? How quaint.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    People like Michael Maier, Heinrich Khunrath, Gabriel Plattes, Richard Stanihurst, etc. even wrote texts devoted to how to spot charlatans, cheats or those making empty boasts regarding possession of the Stone. One of the obvious signs of someone who simply could not put his money where his mouth is was the reluctance of the claimant to submit a sample of his alleged "Stone" for testing. This was always seen as a sign of dishonesty on the claimant's part, someone who did not really have what he claimed he had, and it doesn't need to be explained why this is such a clear and blatant sign. Needless to say, the same sound logic and common sense of those older writers applies today. "The proof is in the pudding", as the popular saying goes.
    I agree that the proof is in the pudding, per se. Depending on the person and the test, i can/have sent my work out and gotten positive results (mine were sent out in liquid form for medicinal testing, all positive with drastic results - not that i expect you to believe any of that, but it happened regardless.)


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Then I am afraid that you will be disappointed by the bulk of the literature actually being written by such "puffers". Even occultists like A.E. Waite already noticed that most alchemical literature is concerned with pretty much little else other than making the Philosophers' Stone and applying it to transmutation and medicinal/longevity purposes.
    The majority of literature is useless to me. I like to do what Paracelsus advocated - spent time in, and observe Nature itself. I live in the country, so its practical for me to do so. Im not concerned with literature and books, im to busy doing.


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Again, these are just your claims, which as far as I can tell you have never proven to any panel of impartial and trustworthy witnesses. Anyone can make such claims of being able to understand things others do not. Actually proving them is a whole different story.
    "As far as you can tell", is the key.


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Actually even the alchemists themselves often complain about the obscure, vague, and even sometimes contradictory language employed in the subject and how arbitrary it can be from one author to another, or even from one author's book to the next! There were no set of established "rules" for assigning arbitrary names to substances, so basically "anything goes" according to the fancy of each writer.
    Actually, there is a method to the supposed madness, not that you'll agree cause you cant see it, but nevertheless, just cause its arbitrary to you, doesnt mean it is, or that its obscure for everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    In fact, the heavy use of this tactic once again betrays the claim of some boasting alchemists who say that they could indeed write the whole process for the Stone in plain language -no symbols, no code-words, no obscurities, no vagueness, just plain language that could be followed by anyone- and still without an alleged "Divine permission" the seeker would still fail. Of course, the fact that not a single one of them put his money where his mouth was in this regard only shows that they did not really believe such claims. In fact, often the alchemists who make such a boast are in fact among the obscurest writers themselves. Totally the opposite of what one would expect if they really believed what they claimed about some supernatural "permission" arbitrarily determining who is "worthy" of succeeding being necessary.
    Disregard texts you dont like - you do with everything else. ^.^

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    No, not at all, I have found your posts quite "dumbed" enough as they are, no need to bring them down from your normal level
    Lol that was cute.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Again, purely arbitrary and subjective human concepts attributed to things ("spirits", mysterious "frequencies/energies", "Primal Essences", "Quintessence", etc.) no one has ever proved that they even exist in the first place. Your whole line of argumentation relies on these assumptions about things you yourself can't even prove they exist. You are basing them on your personal beliefs and convictions, which may or may not be exactly those of any other random person. Purely arbitrary and subjective stuff.
    Actually, i based it on a simple math problem, stating there is an Order to it all. You thinking its arbitrary is your opinion, and if you think that the math-concept/logic is man-made, then i suggest you re-evaluate how Nature works/forms (laws of harmonics/frequency resonance, golden ratio formations etc etc etc.)



    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    There is a big difference between what a human cop or judge can do, and a "Divine" one that you won't be able to escape somewhere He/It can't reach you. Crooks in the real world know they have a good chance of getting away with crime, that's what motivates them.
    That is a broad and sweeping statement that that is what motivates (all?) them...

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    They are willing to risk it if they know they have a chance of getting away with it. Rest assured that if they knew that all their crimes would end up in certain punishment, no matter what they did to try to avoid it, they would quite surely start getting into other "professions" where they would know that the only outcome is not going to be them on the losing side for sure.
    For those of them who dont want to believe it, or dont give a shit about it, "will cross that bridge when we come to it", no amount of priests or scientists, or alchemists are going to convince them. People who experience whats to come, often do change things in their lives, atleast for a little while. But in the end, proof is subjective until the inevitable is experienced/realized.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    People aren't that stupid and self-destructive. Give them some credit.
    lol You'd like to think that, wouldnt you?


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    And who says that "someone" does not want it to be proven? Once again, making assumptions about what others think or want to think. The fact remains that no one has proven any of that stuff. It remains just the variable personal convictions and beliefs of each individual.
    One who wants proof will find it, one who doesnt, will not. Materialists want proof for their materialism, so they pursue chemistry and physics. Spiritualists want proof of the spirit, so they pursue religion and metaphysics. Alchemists want proof and harmony of both, so they tend to pursue it all, to varying degrees.

    Things that objectively are, exist without your need or desire for subjective proof. Just because a person cannot see or tap into whats there, consciously at least, doesnt mean that it isnt there.


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    The empirical facts remain, it is the theories/speculations regarding them that can change and vary. This is not "strange" at all. Anyone can observe a fire or gravity at work and plainly see how real they are, but trying to "explain" why things are or how they work is a much more complicated matter that involves abstract thought. Lots of things can go wrong or right in this process. Yet the empirical fact being "explained" will remain the same. The gravity and fire we can plainly perceive today are the exact same ones that some people in centuries past perceived themselves and tried to attribute to the "earth element" being "heavier" than the "air element", or to a "sulphurous" principle supposedly escaping certain materials when they get heated. Yet to us such "explanations" seem quite incorrect and based on mistaken theoretical assumptions. We have other ways of "explaining" them which seem much more logical and based on other more "sound" theoretical assumptions. Apply all this to the Stone (if we take it for granted that it does indeed exist, for argument's sake) and the alchemists' claims of how it is achieved.
    For the sake of discussion - they "proved" their ideas by making the fire each time. We "prove" ours, by making the fire each time. A thousand years from now i wonder how "silly" our explanations will have looked to those people, who will "prove" theirs by making a fire...

    The "fire" in this case, is physical transmutation. We know it exists, it is proven. The Principles of alchemy are proven thusly - things change and transform into one another.

    As for the higher realms and their fire...



    The point being one of Principle; just because you (or another) cant see it, doesnt mean it isnt there. Just because they havent built devices to detect it (yet?) doesnt mean it isnt there. My point (again) is for you to not try and invalidate such.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Well, I think you know very well that it is not the substance of the crystal ball itself that is being questioned here, but what some claim they can do with it
    Indeed. The point being, that to use either, requires a level of sight and/or hearing. Hence why its valid. See above point also.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    This is equivalent to me saying: "that claim I told you about me being able to project my mind to the 4 corners of the Universe in an instant and seeing what is going on anywhere as if I was watching TV has been witnessed by all my friends and people around me..." And the "proof" of this other claim is where??? It still remains as unproven as always. Adding more claims to another unproven claim is not "proof" either.
    Unproven to you. Im sorry you dont run in my RL circle. Maybe one of them will chime in - but im sure you'd still disregard it, since we dont walk around and live life with our cameras and specialized scanning equipment always going.


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Well, it seems to me that "Jedis" don't shy away from proving their claims as very much real. Darth Vader himself almost choked a guy who was poking fun at his belief in the "Force" from across the room without actually touching him. I saw this with my very own eyes. Of course, it needs to be said that it was at the movies on the silver screen, where anything can happen.
    That was a joke.
    But, again it seems to be one of those things where you would "have to be here."
    (like the guy was who got force-choked.)


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Yes, but such accounts are not proven either. They remain just that: anecdotal accounts. What I mean is definitive, irrefutable proof that such "spiritual encounters" exist. That would most certainly have a huge impact on the world and society.
    These things have been around since humans were scrimbling arrows on clay, yet nothing has changed. People have experienced spiritual encounters, and have helped to instruct others on how to do so also, and still a blind eye is turned. It still goes on, in the age of high speed internet, iPhones, and insane robots in space sending back awesome high-def, full res and color photos... and still a blind eye is turned to what goes on within.

    You can say its all subjective and arbitrary (and that is your subjective opinion), but the fact is, people have experienced such since records existed, and still do, so either its a fact, or all those people are liars and frauds.
    (ya know, like how they said "alchemists are liars and frauds, elements are static and dont change into one another." - and then later they discovered nuclear transmutation, though they never recant their bashing off the alchemists... pride and shit)

    ____

    I cease the quoting here, cause a lot of it is semantic shit, and i have no interest in defending Basil or whatever.

    You mention the "burden of proof" - what youre failing to understand, is that there isnt such. Proof, to you, is what you say it is - its for you, and others like you. Proof is subjective, not objective. Proof requires an idea of the how, not the what. Im pointing out the thing itself - the validity of both physical and spiritual/mental. Neither of them needs "proof" - they are. You can say the physical proves itself - look around. I can say the same thing about the spiritual/mental. Its relative.

    To quote Markos:

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkostheGnostic View Post
    Non-dualistically speaking, the division of subjectivity and objectivity is illusory, and even from a dualistic perspective, the differentiation is permeable at best. ... As to empiricism, the idea of some theoretically pure objectivity, is strictly 19th century thinking.
    For discussions sake, i will say one last thing on this (in this post):

    If the "spiritual" is, at the very least, something mental - it still exists. "Proof" is in the thought - which is a neuron(s) firing energy within the brain, energy = matter (E=Mc2), not that energy itself doesnt = existence, but, thank you anyway Einstein; proof of the existence of the thing (spiritual experience/reality): a frequency/energy of higher (deeper, even if literally internal) thought/existence.

    What you perceive to be objective reality, is a dream being dreamed, live - as are the others when we glimpse them. Thus, my original, and only real point/goal that ive been saying since i chimed in to begin with; don't invalidate the thing, just because you can't/don't see or experience it.


    Besides, just some food for thought - if you're only gonna go with what is "accepted/proven" by science, then why are you attempting alchemy - which is "accepted/proven" to be a "disproven pseudoscience/proto-chemistry".





    ~Seth-Ra
    One fatal tree there stands of knowledge called, forbidden them to taste. Knowledge forbidden? Suspicious. Reasonless. And why should their Lord envy them that? Can it be sin to know? Can it be death? And do they stand by ignorance, is that their happy state, the proof of their obedience and their faith?

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Not plainly enough, specially not regarding the initial materials to work with, their most carefully guarded secret.
    But you know that there are manuscripts out there that speak quite plainly about the initial materials, and we can see from them that every alchemist (or school of alchemists) followed a different schedule. So we can see that some of them speak about corrosive sublimate, others about liquid mercury distilled over starry martian antimonial regulus, others about Hungarian vitriol, or niter, or galena, or this or that...and at the end all those authors say that they got a heavy, red, crystalline substance, able to transumte many times its weight of non precious metals to gold. So we have two options. We can work with many substances and follow many different paths or most of the authors were impostrors.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Hellin Hermetist View Post
    But you know that there are manuscripts out there that speak quite plainly about the initial materials, and we can see from them that every alchemist (or school of alchemists) followed a different schedule. So we can see that some of them speak about corrosive sublimate, others about liquid mercury distilled over starry martian antimonial regulus, others about Hungarian vitriol, or niter, or galena, or this or that...and at the end all those authors say that they got a heavy, red, crystalline substance, able to transumte many times its weight of non precious metals to gold. So we have two options. We can work with many substances and follow many different paths or most of the authors were impostrors.
    There is a third option worthy of consideration. And that is the possibility that there are several paths, using different starting matters, and practical methods, that all lead to the very same prima materia, from which the rest of the process is the same for all paths, leading to the red (for gold ferment) crystallized powder. If this consideration is realized, a lot of the discrepancies between the various approaches are greatly reduced.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    309
    Isnt your third option exactly the same with the first one I mentioned?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Hellin Hermetist View Post
    Isnt your third option exactly the same with the first one I mentioned?
    There is a subtle difference not often mentioned. Many assume that each of the paths are totally different (although all leading to the same end product), and thus they try to discredit one approach over another, or run into all sorts of discrepancies trying to compare one approach with another. There is also the endless debate about the first matters that are used and the "prima materia". In my opinion, the two are not the same. So what I'm saying, is that it's possible that many of the different approaches are all legitimate, and all lead to the very same prima materia. It's at this point that most authors begin their treatises.

    Few of them mention the initial preparation that leads to the starting matter that they refer to as the prima materia. Thus many assume that the prima materia that they are talking about is actually the matter(s) used in the preparation, whether it's antimony, lead, or whatever. This is what possibly leads to such confusion, and the reason why much of the practice constantly fails to produce the observations mentioned by the Philosophers.

    Thus the subtle - but huge - difference in the options. One option assumes that all the approaches are different throughout, but eventually lead to the very same Stone. The other option that I mention, is that all the approaches are initially different during the preparation stage only, but which all lead to the same prima materia, and that the rest of the approach (the one from which most authors start) is identical for each.

    Thus you can see the huge significance of the subtlety.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,009
    Blog Entries
    7
    It would seem, there're many, many prima materia. Each materia can be evolved by two or three, at least, approaches by the grace of Nature. All basically following the colour scheme alchemy came to be popularized with.

    One must ask however, look at all the minds here [on this Forum], historically all the intellectual minds of 20th Century, in and out of academia, logicians, some of the sharpest minds looking for it, left empty handed in almost all cases? Why?

    For me, either the Philosopher's Stone is a fable, a fraud, no thing like it in existence or, alchemy is not entirely about manipulation of matter, chemistry at large.

+ 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