Patrons of the Sacred Art

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 31 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 15 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 306

Thread: Aspects of Alchemy

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Seth-Ra View Post
    Not confused, you were just being vague with your question. ^.~
    Since I myself had mentioned things like the sun obviously that is not what was meant by that question. You know very well which of the mentioned things I must have been asking about, the only one that comes straight from your claims, not facts that have been accepted by most people.

    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.
    Now you are the one indulging in semantics, which you claim you don't like. The fact is that radioactive materials are self-sufficient, they do not rely on any outside force/energy to undergo such transmutations, so in a sense they act like a sort of "reactor" on their very own. Their own unstable internal structure allows them to undergo such changes. This is different from stable materials, though. The reason why chemists and physicists still refuse to accept transmutation in the "alchemical" sense is because they have never been presented with evidence that it can happen by making stable substances react with one another. So your objection further below about them not wanting to recognize that they were wrong because the discovery of radioactivity is not quite valid. They did change their opinion after such a discovery, they no longer denied that one "element" could be turned into another, but only for radioactive materials. They still have to see evidence that such transmutations can happen using "elements" that are stable and never decay on their own.

    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.)
    If one wants to prove his claims, then one will have to tackle with scientists and their views, which are based on empirical evidence, there is no other way around it. So as long as one does not confront them and prove one's point with facts they can't deny or explain with other evidence, rational thinking people are simply always going to regard one's claims as unproven. Sorry, I don't make the "rules", but that's the way it is.

    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.
    Since the beginning of recorded history there's also been charlatans, boasters, liars, deceivers, dreamers, delusions, mistakes, etc. That's why science can't rely solely on someone's "word". It needs facts that can be replicated by anyone.


    That (whats underlined) is an unverified assumption you make there.
    But one based on common sense and logic. Otherwise you would not have so much trouble proving your claims


    Just because it appears arbitrary to you, doesnt mean it is. That is your interpretation.
    No, everyone's interpretation is, and it remains so until someone can prove that his interpretation does work and produces the results described in the texts.

    Depends on what you call "proving it."
    In this case it is pretty easy, and we have plenty of historical accounts of how this was done by "adepts" wanting to prove the reality of their claims: submitting a sample of the alleged transmuting "Stone" to be tested by someone else, specially one who is skeptic of such a possibility. Only in our modern times it would not be given to just an individual, but an actual panel of chemists and physicists who would test it.


    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.
    Common sense and logic are as valid today as they were in past times. If someone tells you that he can fly by flapping his arms, you obviously will request proof of such an extraordinary claim. Why would you suspect that he can't really do that? Well, common sense and your own experience tells you that such a thing is highly unlikely. If the person making the claim keeps giving excuses not to do that in front of reliable impartial witnesses (i.e. not his confederates, who will just claim they've seen him do that just to continue the farce) then obviously he has something to hide and can't really do what he claims.

    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.)
    Achieving positive medicinal results is perfectly possible, in fact you don't need to have stumbled upon anything really "alchemical" to do that. Chemistry and medicine have achieved plenty of that on their own. You could simply have stumbled upon an interesting compound that has valid therapeutic properties. Nothing remotely "impossible" here. The problem comes with the issue of transmutation, which is one that requires proof to be finally "officially" accepted.

    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.
    You seem to have an ahistorical approach to alchemy.


    "As far as you can tell", is the key.
    Yes, but it's a very educated guess, considering that I have seen you around these forums for quite a while but I have never seen you refer to any scientist who has put your claims to the test and become convinced of them. I think that if you really had done that, you would be mentioning it quite often in support of your claims. It never hurts to have support from an independent source.

    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.
    Again, that's not even what the alchemists themselves say. They themselves often struggled to interpret what was hiding behind such language. They say the "sages" who wrote so obscurely did it out of jealousy or spite, so that very few people could decipher what they really meant by such things. Entire treatises (some of them very interesting, like those of Ibn Umail) are devoted to clarify and give explanations to these not-so-clear statements in alchemical literature.

    Disregard texts you dont like - you do with everything else. ^.^
    I don't disregard them, I just point out the inconsistencies between the claims of such authors and their actual behavior. They are classic cases of not "practicing what you preach".

    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.)
    Comparing 2 + 2 = 4 to the alleged reality of the things you claim is quite a stretch. To claim that things like "worthy" and "unworthy" are the same as the tenets of basic math is silly. "Worthiness" is a subjective concept, variable for each individual.


    That is a broad and sweeping statement that that is what motivates (all?) them...
    Does it look to you that after they commit their crimes they head straight to jail all on their own? Why not? Do you seriously think that they would commit those crimes in the first place if they knew for sure that they would be apprehended and punished, no matter what they tried to do to avoid it?

    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.
    Proof is not subjective. It can be replicated by anyone.

    lol You'd like to think that, wouldnt you?
    Show them irrefutable proof of the things you claim and see if they continue their behavior. My money says that 99% of them won't. Only a few mentally deficient ones incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions will continue as before. Proving your "spiritual" claims to such people is not much different than showing an unaware race car driver that if he keeps going at breakneck speed down this particular highway he will eventually come to an abrupt precipice that won't allow him enough time to stop and he will fall down to his sure death. 99% of them will change highways. Why? Because most people are not naturally suicidal, that's why.

    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.
    Not true. Many people would love to show that Bigfoot exists, yet they can't find the irrefutable proof they so much desire (and not for lack of trying, BTW. There is even a TV show offering 10 million dollars for proof that it exists! I guess the producers must be pretty confident that they won't be losing any money anytime soon.) There are countless of such examples. Wanting proof and actually being able to find it are two different things. One does not always accompany the other.

    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.
    You got it backwards: proof is objective; unsubstantiated claims are not.

    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...
    Like I said, it's the theories that might change, but the not the facts those theories seek to explain. Our ancestors having flawed theories regarding fire still did not stop them one bit from discovering and knowing how to make it. "Correct" theories and facts do not always go hand in hand.

    Also, we can prove that their theories about combustion had flaws that do not fit all the facts. Our current theories (originating in Lavoisierian chemistry) about it so far have not been shown to have flaws, therefore they have not changed... yet (they might change if someone eventually can find some facts that contradict our current theories about it.)


    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.
    You seem to have a very loose concept of "physical transmutation". It seems that to you it is just "change". But there's many types of "changes". The changes we are talking about here are regarding metals, which are now considered "elements" because no modern chemist so far has been able to decompose them into any simpler substances, the claims of alchemists and chymists of past centuries to the contrary notwithstanding, according to modern chemistry and physics. This is the kind of "change" that chemistry and physics denies can happen simply by "chemical reactions" (by this phrase they include all reactions between stable, non-radioactive, substances), unless of course someone can prove otherwise.

    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.
    In order to invalidate something one must first try to prove that that "something" even exists. So far the world is still waiting for alleged proof of gazing into "crystal balls", "spiritual encounters" and so forth.

    Indeed. The point being, that to use either, requires a level of sight and/or hearing. Hence why its valid. See above point also.
    Then you should be able to prove it that you have such "level of sight and/or hearing". Until such proof is forthcoming, the claim remains just that: an uncorroborated claim.


    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.
    To me and to the rest of the world (except your "RL circle", whoever they may be.)

    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.
    Yes, but so have the claims of throngs of charlatans, deceivers, liars, manipulators, crooks, frauds, delusional people, etc. That's why proof is required.

    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.
    No, you fail to understand that proof is very real and not "subjective". It's something that can be checked and replicated by others. For example: no one in his right mind will deny that if I strongly swing a hammer and hit you in any of your fingers resting on a solid surface with it it will hurt you from the trauma. That is a fact, and we can prove it anytime you want to. And it doesn't have to necessarily be me swinging the hammer at your fingers either, by the way. The same results can be replicated by another grown up man in full use of his physical abilities. Would you like to put this assertion to the test? Bring the hammer and a couple of grown ups and we will test it anytime you want to There is nothing "subjective" here. You know very well what the outcome will always be. That's proof.

    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.
    Bring the hammer, the couple of grown ups, a table and your fingers and we will see what is "a dream being dreamed" and what is "objective reality". Methinks that you would quickly acknowledge what is "real" and what isn't, even before the "test" started Jokes aside, the point is that you know very well what I am saying, you just don't want to acknowledge it because deep inside you know you can't prove any of such claims.

    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".
    Because as I pointed out earlier when I was making the first comment about what the author of that book said, this denial is by itself a bold assertion based on current theories about matter, not on a systematic testing of alchemical claims, which I have never seen in the work of any chemist. However, I don't see any reason why "supernatural" things should be conjured up to try to explain the possibility that alchemy might have discovered things that chemistry has not.
    Last edited by JDP; 03-08-2014 at 06:09 PM.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,773
    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.
    The texts that usually speak clearly enough to be easily followed are rather by "chymists" than "alchemists", and they usually involve "particular" processes, not the Philosophers' Stone. Very rarely you will find texts that can be fully deemed as "alchemical" describing the matters to be used in an apparently totally clear manner.

    Even in some of your examples we can see this difference. You mentioned the claim about mercury being distilled from an amalgam with "Martial regulus" of antimony. This claim made its debut in the work on antimony by Alexander von Suchten, who never said that such mercury can be used to make the Philosophers' Stone. He was talking about making artificial metals "directly" with that mercury, no need for preparing any "tincture". He ended up rejecting such methods as ineffective. Then Starkey took over this idea, but gave it his own "spin": unlike Suchten, he claimed that the Philosophers' Stone was made with this mercury (of course, his surviving lab notebooks show that he kept failing to do so over and over again, a very different picture than Starkey's public claims of success under his "Eirenaeus Philalethes" persona.) This claim was then subsequently tested by the likes of Boyle, Newton, Wilson, Boerhaave, etc. and none of them found any validity to it. No one managed to prepare any transmuting powder with such methods (incredibly enough, there's still some people in this day and age wasting time and money trying to make the Philosophers' Stone this way, despite all this overwhelming evidence of historical failures with this method.) So we know for a fact that in this case the whole thing was a series of unfortunate misunderstandings, lies and erroneous claims and assumptions that led many people to waste their time and money to achieve absolutely nothing.

    So to answer your question: yes, most of the "clear" processes are erroneous or deliberate lies.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,773
    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.
    By the way, I have been meaning to ask you something, since you seem to be Greek: can you please confirm if any of the strange names found in the works attributed to "Salomon Trismosin" are indeed Greek or are they just gobbledygook that the author concocted to make it sound "Greek" to impress his readers? For example, the manuscript entitled "Sarlamethon" that he says his wealthy patron paid 6000 crowns for:

    http://www.levity.com/alchemy/trismosn.html

    Is this a real Greek word, or based on real Greek at all? There are other such strange "Greek-sounding" names and book titles like this in several texts attributed to the same author, like "Julaton", "Cangeniveron", "Suforeton", "Viatolon", "Geroton", "Nefolon", etc.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Elfen Forest T Range California
    Posts
    87
    One of the Aspects of Alchemy these days certainly seems to be debating the validity of low energy transmutation of one periodic table element into another, and the notion of a separate Spiritual alchemy. Some appear to have given up on the one to embrace the other, and vice versa.

    Then there is the perennial debate about the starting materials and the processing of them. Hypothesis have been crafted attempting to make sense of all the seemingly discordant instructions of the sages. Yet the adepts themselves only rage against, fools, the conceited and sophistical. And they readily agree with each other. Yet the terms they use to describe the things seem to be quite contradictory and should result in arguments between them. Instead especially with Ripley a concordance is illuminated between himself and the adepts Lully and Guido specifically.

    It was because of Ripley's generosity that I discovered the one only thing over a decade ago. I'm still running experiments with it and on it. So far it reacts giving results that resemble the descriptions of the adepts.

    When I first revealed a particular confection of that one only thing, Ripley's Philosophical Earth, I was attacked and ridiculed [not at this forum:-)]. The name of the material was spoofed by several deliberately misnaming it in a mocking manner. Yet a few took it to heart. At least two I know have repeated the process with similar results.

    Before someone jumps to the assumption that I'm leaving out any notion of a spiritual element in this let me say that when you get to a certain point in the preparation of the matter the "astral spirit" in your vessel will influence you to see the light. Of course seeing the light in your mind is quite subjective. So is seeing the light in your mind induced by the Psilocybe fairy.

    If you follow Ripley's advice then only one thing is to be operated upon. If any outside thing is added then you have erred. He is very kind to reveal the correct way to interpret the various and contradictory names of the matters and how to operate in his Philorcium, the book he put together for his own use where he describes the 24 different ways of working with the one only thing. They may appear to be different paths if one falls victim to the names used to describe the matters derived from the one only thing during the operations.

    If one really studies the excerpt below from Ripley's Philorcium and takes it to heart then one may see the concordancy between the sages and errors of the sophist recipes.



    Ripley's Philorcium

    9 Chapter III
    10 How error arising from the interpretation of
    11 hard words may be avoided

    12 My pity of the ignorance of the younger sort, whose necks
    13 have not been as yet mollified with alchymical ointment
    14 & having promised divers practises in this art I shall here
    15 begin (for the more simple & naked verity) to expound the
    16 signification of certain obscure words. You are therefore
    17 to note that the philosophers have placed many & various
    18 names in their works that they mought not be understood
    19 by fools, & so their knowledge be made vile & that it
    20 mought not be indifferently common to all, as well to
    21 the unworthy as the worthy. But the philosophers themselves
    22 have not so much minded the names as the truth of
    23 the names, for by what name sooner our stone is nominated that
    24 it is but one thing, which were it but known, it could
    25 not be permitted to be so common as it is, as well to the

    Page 9

    1 poor as to the rich, nor would it ly in the streets to be trod on
    2 by human feet. And that I may open unto thee this thing, know
    3 by god that it is one of those things, which are of the seven days, & the
    4 viler of them. Out of whose body blood is artificialy extrac-
    5 ted, & a vaporous humour, which is called the blood of the green
    6 lion, out of which is made a water which is called the white of an egg
    7 & the water of life, of maydew, & by many other names, the
    8 which to avoid prolixity we shall at present omit. But out
    9 of the said water an earth is created, which is called sulphur
    10 vive, the calx of the body of the sun & moon & of other bo-
    11 dies, calcined eggshells, ceruse, saltpetre, arsenick & by
    12 innumerable other names; And know that in that earth is a fire
    13 & in that water is Air, & the earth putrefied with his own
    14 water, until the 4 elements may be separated from them, if
    15 the artist will copiously & without negligence proceed on in the
    16 rule of distilling them. Yet it sufficeth for the complement
    17 of the elixir to separate the water from the earth & to
    18 deal with the earth by calcination, & to rectify the water by
    19 circulation & again to conjoyne it as is permitted within
    20 24 ways of practising: On which account: When thou hadest
    21 a philosopher saying take this or that, always understand it
    22 of this stone, or of the parts thereof separated, as if when he
    23 sayth, take arsenick, understand the fire of the stone, for sul-
    24 phur the air, oil & sometimes the fire, & for armoniack the
    25 air; & for armoniack not dissolved the earth, & for mercury
    Page 10

    1 water, & sometimes mercury per se; now understand these things
    2 & remember them. For mercury sublimate understand a water ex-
    3 alted with his own calx, which must be congealed into salt, the which
    4 is called salpetre & the sulphur of Bacon, the which congeales every
    5 argent vive, because it is not the sulphur of the vulgar. Therefore
    6 as often as at any time thou findest in any philosophical work
    7 thus written in their recipes take mercury, beware of the
    8 argent vive of the vulgar; where they mencion sulphur & arse-
    9 nick, beware of common sulphur & arsenick, either prepared
    10 or not prepared, where of saturn beware of vermilion,
    11 where the green lion beware of vitriol & copper, where
    12 sol beware of gold, where the lune there beware of common
    13 silver. In ablution beware of salts, & all corrosiv waters
    14 not metallick. In sublimations beware that thou mix no ex-
    15 traneous thing with the stone, in distillation beware that thou
    16 receive no drops; in calcination see that thou extract no
    17 moisture: in projection see that thou eat not of a thing unclean:
    18 In thy work, shut thy vessel once what one is more
    19 is of evil. Beware that thou inmitt not thy stone into an heap
    20 of mercury the which Solomon reproved in the book of proverbs,
    21 for the stone is one, hid under innumerable names, the work one,
    22 the regiment one, the medicin one manifoldly varied, the which
    23 if thou hast, see that thou sell it not, but operate in a secret
    24 place that it may not come to any ones knowledge, least perhaps
    25 thou beest scandalized, & suffer judgment from men & revenge

    Page 11

    1 from god;
    Magic is the function of the Mysterious
    Mysterious is the Way of the Unknown
    Unknown is the Seed of Infinity
    Infinity is the Embryo of unfolding Chaos
    Chaos to function is Magic

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    By the way, I have been meaning to ask you something, since you seem to be Greek: can you please confirm if any of the strange names found in the works attributed to "Salomon Trismosin" are indeed Greek or are they just gobbledygook that the author concocted to make it sound "Greek" to impress his readers? For example, the manuscript entitled "Sarlamethon" that he says his wealthy patron paid 6000 crowns for:

    http://www.levity.com/alchemy/trismosn.html

    Is this a real Greek word, or based on real Greek at all? There are other such strange "Greek-sounding" names and book titles like this in several texts attributed to the same author, like "Julaton", "Cangeniveron", "Suforeton", "Viatolon", "Geroton", "Nefolon", etc.
    No, those words aren't Greek ones, or at the best case they have a Latinised Greek word as their base. For example the word Julaton. The word July in Greek is Ιουλιός or Ioulios , which states both the month of the summer and a name. For example Julius Ceasar is Ιουλιος Καισαρας, which is Ioulios Kaisaras with Latin characters. But Julaton as a Greek word doesnt make any sense. Cangeniveron, Suforeton and Viatolon arent Greek words either. I cant even find some connection with any Greek word. Geroton may be connected with the word geros (γερος) which means an old man, but as a whole word isnt a Greek one either. Semblable the word nefolon can be connected with the Greek word νεφος (nefos), a cloud. But again the word nefos can not be connected with the syllabe -lon, so the word doesnt make any sense again.

    The word sarlamethon seems to be a compound one from the words sarla and methon. Methon may comes from the Greek word μέθη (methi) which means both getting drunk and being in ecstasy. I dont think that sarla is a Greek word, but it may be one of the lost words of ancient Greek language. I can check it in the big dictionary of ancient Greece when I visit my parent's house.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,100
    JDP,

    Im going to make this (relatively) short because further discussing this with you is like talking to a wall.

    I dont care for mindless semantics, the only reason i retaliated with some of my own is because you started that pissing-contest by ignoring the point of what was being said in favor of chasing those meaningless circles.

    You make the same types of baseless claims (about others and their work who you havent experienced) that you claim to be against. You are being the equivalent to a flat-world person demanding "proof" that it isnt, without seeking out any or listening to the logic being presented, with the go-to line of "it is not accepted by mainstream science as fact", as if their acceptance of a thing makes it so.

    By dismissing the very idea of a things existence, a thing that many, innumerable people have and do experience, is infact invalidating it, and you are calling/equating them all to liars and frauds, which is also a baseless and wide-sweeping claim.

    You call this disregarding of things, and the unsubstantiated claim of its nonexistence, and all things similar, to be "common sense", while hypocritically attacking the "common sense" to not disregard the billions(+) of people who have and do witness and experience those things, to not call (or imply) them all frauds and liars.

    You think your hammer-joke is a valid point - and while that particular extreme might be, on me, there are those who it would not effect, thus negating the "repeatability" of the results (cause they arent 100% repeatable, hence its subjectivity). Shaolin Monks for example, have a habit of breaking steel with their faces and not being bothered by it, or balancing on the tips of spears, against their bare flesh, without being impaled. Often a level of such mastery is reached by them that they dont even get marks from such - there is simply no reaction, or it doesnt last long.

    Was watching a documentary once on various martial art styles. They took a visit to the temple and got some doses of the training. One of them (these were normal americans, history in the martial arts fields, both of them very science-y about it all) hurt his hand while trying to punch brick/block (hand was swollen and looking pretty bad). This old monk comes over, does some breathing and rubbing thing to his hand - and the inflammation and pain was gone and he resumed punching the shit out of the brick. They never explained that, they just ignored it in their science review of the art, and moved on. They were not so arrogant to disregard something they had no instruments to test, but experienced nonetheless. We are instruments - tune yourself accordingly.


    In any event, while i have enjoyed our somewhat witty banter in the notes (i do have a sense of humor, and have no ill-feelings about any of it, and i did enjoy that hammer thing - seemed like something i would have said if i had wanted to argue that side of the coin ), but im done with the conversation. Feel free to respond to this if you so desire. Im extending an agree to disagree to neutralize it. You wont hear/understand/meet me, and you may very well feel the same about me.
    So, im calling it - im out. I have actual (realized) work to go do.

    Later.





    ~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?

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Seth-Ra View Post
    JDP,

    Im going to make this (relatively) short because further discussing this with you is like talking to a wall.

    I dont care for mindless semantics, the only reason i retaliated with some of my own is because you started that pissing-contest by ignoring the point of what was being said in favor of chasing those meaningless circles.

    You make the same types of baseless claims (about others and their work who you havent experienced) that you claim to be against. You are being the equivalent to a flat-world person demanding "proof" that it isnt, without seeking out any or listening to the logic being presented, with the go-to line of "it is not accepted by mainstream science as fact", as if their acceptance of a thing makes it so.

    By dismissing the very idea of a things existence, a thing that many, innumerable people have and do experience, is infact invalidating it, and you are calling/equating them all to liars and frauds, which is also a baseless and wide-sweeping claim.

    You call this disregarding of things, and the unsubstantiated claim of its nonexistence, and all things similar, to be "common sense", while hypocritically attacking the "common sense" to not disregard the billions(+) of people who have and do witness and experience those things, to not call (or imply) them all frauds and liars.

    You think your hammer-joke is a valid point - and while that particular extreme might be, on me, there are those who it would not effect, thus negating the "repeatability" of the results (cause they arent 100% repeatable, hence its subjectivity). Shaolin Monks for example, have a habit of breaking steel with their faces and not being bothered by it, or balancing on the tips of spears, against their bare flesh, without being impaled. Often a level of such mastery is reached by them that they dont even get marks from such - there is simply no reaction, or it doesnt last long.

    Was watching a documentary once on various martial art styles. They took a visit to the temple and got some doses of the training. One of them (these were normal americans, history in the martial arts fields, both of them very science-y about it all) hurt his hand while trying to punch brick/block (hand was swollen and looking pretty bad). This old monk comes over, does some breathing and rubbing thing to his hand - and the inflammation and pain was gone and he resumed punching the shit out of the brick. They never explained that, they just ignored it in their science review of the art, and moved on. They were not so arrogant to disregard something they had no instruments to test, but experienced nonetheless. We are instruments - tune yourself accordingly.


    In any event, while i have enjoyed our somewhat witty banter in the notes (i do have a sense of humor, and have no ill-feelings about any of it, and i did enjoy that hammer thing - seemed like something i would have said if i had wanted to argue that side of the coin ), but im done with the conversation. Feel free to respond to this if you so desire. Im extending an agree to disagree to neutralize it. You wont hear/understand/meet me, and you may very well feel the same about me.
    So, im calling it - im out. I have actual (realized) work to go do.

    Later.





    ~Seth-Ra
    Thanks for the brevity. I also feel like this argument, as fun as it was, is going nowhere because you simply won't accept the difference between a demonstrable fact and a theory/speculation/conjecture/belief.

    The tricks of martial artists have been dealt with by other people. They can be explained through physics.

    The hammer-test joke can be easily applied to any normal healthy person whose nervous system is working properly, it does not have to be you.

    You need to adopt a more critical view of things. You simply can't go by the testimony of people alone. There are millions of delusional people, deliberate liars, frauds, charlatans, etc. and this has been so since a long time ago. That guy Randi and his foundation, for example, have been challenging such extraordinary claims for decades, and no one has been able to prove any of them. Everyone who has accepted his paranormal challenge has miserably failed to even pass the preliminary test. I think that should tell you something about most of the people who make such claims.

    By the way, my hammer-test joke was based on an actual response given to a guy who contacted Randi's 1 million dollar paranormal challenge making the absurd claim that he was in possession of a stone that allowed him to be invincible and would not get hurt by anything as long as he had the stone with him. The response he was given was simply: bring your stone and a baseball bat. Needless to say, the claimant was never heard from again... I guess that the faith he had in his miraculous stone of invincibility was not as firm as he thought. If you bother to read about the delusional claims that Randi's foundation has been dealing with for decades, you will understand why you simply can't trust anyone's word without any actual proof to back it up. And the majority of the people who contact them 100% believe what they are saying, they are not "jokers". A lot of them even apply for the challenge, fill up the application, and honestly try to prove their claims in front of panels of qualified people. Needless to say, every single one of them fails. It doesn't matter if it's dowsers, astrologers, psychics, mind-readers, remote-viewers, UFO abductees, spoon-benders, etc. They all fail. And by the way, the tests are deviced with and pending the final agreement of the applicant himself/herself, meaning that if he/she has any valid objections about any feature of the test, he/she can point it out and a solution is worked out between the foundation and the applicant, until a final agreement is reached by both parties for a test that would undoubtedly show the claim to be true. That way there can't be any excuses about "unfairness" on either side. They still all fail, even with tests they fully agree are fair and would show the veracity of their claims.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by lwowl View Post
    One of the Aspects of Alchemy these days certainly seems to be debating the validity of low energy transmutation of one periodic table element into another, and the notion of a separate Spiritual alchemy. Some appear to have given up on the one to embrace the other, and vice versa.

    Then there is the perennial debate about the starting materials and the processing of them. Hypothesis have been crafted attempting to make sense of all the seemingly discordant instructions of the sages. Yet the adepts themselves only rage against, fools, the conceited and sophistical. And they readily agree with each other. Yet the terms they use to describe the things seem to be quite contradictory and should result in arguments between them. Instead especially with Ripley a concordance is illuminated between himself and the adepts Lully and Guido specifically.

    It was because of Ripley's generosity that I discovered the one only thing over a decade ago. I'm still running experiments with it and on it. So far it reacts giving results that resemble the descriptions of the adepts.

    When I first revealed a particular confection of that one only thing, Ripley's Philosophical Earth, I was attacked and ridiculed [not at this forum:-)]. The name of the material was spoofed by several deliberately misnaming it in a mocking manner. Yet a few took it to heart. At least two I know have repeated the process with similar results.

    Before someone jumps to the assumption that I'm leaving out any notion of a spiritual element in this let me say that when you get to a certain point in the preparation of the matter the "astral spirit" in your vessel will influence you to see the light. Of course seeing the light in your mind is quite subjective. So is seeing the light in your mind induced by the Psilocybe fairy.

    If you follow Ripley's advice then only one thing is to be operated upon. If any outside thing is added then you have erred. He is very kind to reveal the correct way to interpret the various and contradictory names of the matters and how to operate in his Philorcium, the book he put together for his own use where he describes the 24 different ways of working with the one only thing. They may appear to be different paths if one falls victim to the names used to describe the matters derived from the one only thing during the operations.

    If one really studies the excerpt below from Ripley's Philorcium and takes it to heart then one may see the concordancy between the sages and errors of the sophist recipes.
    I must disagree. Even though it is an interesting text, it does not reveal anything clear about what substance is being really meant. Plus if you read other works by Ripley you will see that he himself says or implies that the Stone is actually made from more than just one single simple matter (in his "Liber Secretissimus", for example, he uses the code-word "Antimony" for the substance to be worked on, and he clearly says that it is not the natural antimony but a composite substance, made by the alchemist himself from the interaction between three initial substances, which he does not clearly explain what they are.) This whole "one matter, one vessel, one regimen" adage that many alchemists keep repeating is nothing but a death-trap when taken so literally. There isn't any single simple material in the world that will do the things they describe.

    By the way, I was in fact one of the people who transcribed that English version of the "Philorcium" from a manuscript in the British Library that contains a collection of Ripley's texts in English (this happened at the now defunct "Alkahest" forum of Beat Krummenacher and Frank Burton.)

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Hellin Hermetist View Post
    No, those words aren't Greek ones, or at the best case they have a Latinised Greek word as their base. For example the word Julaton. The word July in Greek is Ιουλιός or Ioulios , which states both the month of the summer and a name. For example Julius Ceasar is Ιουλιος Καισαρας, which is Ioulios Kaisaras with Latin characters. But Julaton as a Greek word doesnt make any sense. Cangeniveron, Suforeton and Viatolon arent Greek words either. I cant even find some connection with any Greek word. Geroton may be connected with the word geros (γερος) which means an old man, but as a whole word isnt a Greek one either. Semblable the word nefolon can be connected with the Greek word νεφος (nefos), a cloud. But again the word nefos can not be connected with the syllabe -lon, so the word doesnt make any sense again.

    The word sarlamethon seems to be a compound one from the words sarla and methon. Methon may comes from the Greek word μέθη (methi) which means both getting drunk and being in ecstasy. I dont think that sarla is a Greek word, but it may be one of the lost words of ancient Greek language. I can check it in the big dictionary of ancient Greece when I visit my parent's house.
    Thanks for clarifying this. So most of these strange names and book titles referred to in Trismosin's texts seem to just be claptrap that does not have a real basis in Greek.

    I await your further research on what "sarlamethon" might mean (notice that in his autobiographical account Trismosin says that this manuscript was in Greek language, so it is to be supposed that the title itself was Greek too.)

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,226
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    ... no one in his right mind will deny that if I strongly swing a hammer and hit you in any of your fingers resting on a solid surface with it it will hurt you from the trauma. That is a fact, and we can prove it anytime you want to. And it doesn't have to necessarily be me swinging the hammer at your fingers either, by the way. The same results can be replicated by another grown up man in full use of his physical abilities. Would you like to put this assertion to the test? Bring the hammer and a couple of grown ups and we will test it anytime you want to...
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    The hammer-test joke can be easily applied to any normal healthy person whose nervous system is working properly, it does not have to be you.
    For god's sake .. those are not jokes

+ 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