Patrons of the Sacred Art

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Alchemy, Archemy, Chymistry, Chemistry & Voarchadumia

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,969

    Alchemy, Archemy, Chymistry, Chemistry & Voarchadumia

    Quote Originally Posted by Axismundi000 View Post
    Your empirical assertions about Alchemy are not currently so, they are 'a priori' JDP due to the lack of empirical methodology and evidence, the evidence you have not yet provided. So you are simply falling back on the scientific method and relying on the rigorous research outside of the practise of Alchemy and a lot of reading to which you apply personal opinion. Simply repeating the scientific and empirical view is at best boorish. You assert various things but do not show your own Alchemical work so that it is open to refutation. Science is theory underpinned by evidence that is; open to being tested/refuted, you offer opinions and theories about historical Alchemical documents but offer no actual testable or refutable evidence you merely assert such and such an author is trying to trick the reader. They may be, and some of these Alchemical procedures have since become a part of chemistry, but it remains a priori to say that all the mystical and occult stuff not addressed by chemistry is fallacious. You need to show a new empirical finding which shows that a specific mystical and occult assertion is a deliberate trick, demonstrate a new empirical method that is verifiable and repeatable. Until you do this you are merely providing a source of light entertainment, interesting and stimulating though I find this.
    Read the link in the previous page about the "burden of proof" and you will see that you are trying to reverse it to put the burden of proof on others who are not making any such "supernatural/paranormal" claims but demanding proof for them. This fallacy is called "argumentum ad ignorantiam".

    Regarding proof of transmutation: the world will have it when I am ready to deliver it. Suffice it to say that anyone who has the patience, time and money to invest in investigating it will find it, that is for sure (unless the person in question is very dumb, lazy and/or inept.) I myself have found it (of course, it took many years of patient research and experimentation.) Since it does not require any supposed (and unproven) "supernatural/paranormal powers" anyone can do it. Yes, you can achieve it too. Even dev/Awani can. Anyone can.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Regarding proof of transmutation: the world will have it when I am ready to deliver it.
    Will you be kind enough to inform me one or two days before you deliver it to the world, so I can short selling gold in the stock market and make a fortune?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,969

    Alchemy, Archemy, Chymistry, Chemistry & Voarchadumia

    Quote Originally Posted by Axismundi000 View Post
    I am not seeking to reverse burden of proof because I am not seeking to prove something of my own here. I simply and accurately observe that you regularly employ 'a priori' and then hit people over the head repeatedly with empiricism without correctly delineating the transition between the two. This is a sleight of hand and as I mention rather boorish.

    As for waiting for you to deliver your findings I doubt they will ever be forthcoming and within the paradigm of empiricism I assume none will ever be forthcoming. I assume that you will not achieve anything until you prove otherwise as the empiricist paradigm requires. Also to be blunt I am far too busy to be waiting around for you to actualy come up with something concrete.

    In the past despite your woeful lack of anything really practical or empirical JDP you have several times challenged me to produce practical empirical evidence. I will continue to regularly show my findings be they 'Alchemical or Spagyric' despite whomever chooses to sneer rather then test for themselves in the spirit of research.
    You assume too much. One of your big problems. I rarely make assumptions. Anyone can tell from my posts how much I actually know about these matters. Even you yourself have benefited from my posts before. I need to prove nothing regarding this subject, my posts so far speak for themselves.

    As for when will I instruct the world about the "chymical" methods that do work and give some gold and silver and which ones do not work and were merely phony baloney invented to deceive and frustrate most seekers after the truth: like I said many times before, this is a vast and complex subject undergoing investigation. There is still much to do and establish beyond what already has been discovered and established. And the only way to do this is through EMPIRICAL TRIAL AND ERROR, which takes both time and money to do. That is the real reason why relatively few people have managed to discover the reality of the subject. There are no "little angels with harps" floating around fluffy clouds and coming down from any hypothetical (and unproven) "heaven" ready to conveniently deliver any information regarding this subject to some mysterious select few, out of the whim & fancy of some hypothetical (and also unproven) "God" somewhere out there. Welcome to cold, hard reality, folks. You want to get to the truth regarding transmutation? You have to WORK HARD for it. There is no other way to attain it. No "shortcuts". No special exceptions. In fact, when I do publish my findings that will in fact be the only "shortcut" to ever exist on this subject, as the empirical investigator will be able to skip a lot of the phony baloney and concentrate on things that actually give positive results. This should already have been done back in the 18th century, when some very experienced "chymists" had already spent a great deal of their time and fortunes investigating this subject and had found the empirical reality of the subject for themselves, but they enviously kept the results of their systematic empirical process of elimination to themselves and never published them. And anyone who has investigated the subject on their own knows very well why they decided to do this: the sacrifice they had to make to get to the truth was so great that when they found it it was just not worth releasing it to the public for "free". Too much time and money invested on it to just give it away like that. But sooner or later this vicious circle (i.e. malicious chymist occasionally writes truths but at the same time invents shit-loads of lies and phony processes to make getting at the said truths very hard, but then more honest chymist comes forth and puts said shit-load of processes to the test and finds out that the large majority of them are total bullshit that does not deliver what it promises, but he has spent so much time and money in determining this that he keeps the results of his investigation quiet and lets the said malicious chymist get away with murder, and this goes on and on...) will have to be broken and someone has to once and for all clear the path to publicly, without any meddling deception, establish the empirical reality of the matter. And that person will likely be yours truly. Only the future will tell.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    355
    Hi JDP

    I think we have to be clear here that what you are
    talking about is ARCHEMY not ALCHEMY.

    Is this correct ?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,969
    Quote Originally Posted by black View Post
    Hi JDP

    I think we have to be clear here that what you are
    talking about is ARCHEMY not ALCHEMY.

    Is this correct ?
    Yes. Obviously I would not reveal the secret to making the Stone, since that one actually gives a lot of profit for the operator. But when it comes to "chymical" methods that can also achieve transmutations, the majority of them can't leave a profit for the operator, so I have no problem eventually revealing those. My objective is didactic: to prove that transmutation is very much real and thus encourage seekers to continue their labors since the objective is not "impossible" by any means (contrary to what chemists and physicists think), not to make it easy for people to become rich at my expense.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    You assume too much. One of your big problems. I rarely make assumptions. Anyone can tell from my posts how much I actually know about these matters. Even you yourself have benefited from my posts before. I need to prove nothing regarding this subject, my posts so far speak for themselves.

    As for when will I instruct the world about the "chymical" methods that do work and give some gold and silver and which ones do not work and were merely phony baloney invented to deceive and frustrate most seekers after the truth: like I said many times before, this is a vast and complex subject undergoing investigation. There is still much to do and establish beyond what already has been discovered and established. And the only way to do this is through EMPIRICAL TRIAL AND ERROR, which takes both time and money to do. That is the real reason why relatively few people have managed to discover the reality of the subject. There are no "little angels with harps" floating around fluffy clouds and coming down from any hypothetical (and unproven) "heaven" ready to conveniently deliver any information regarding this subject to some mysterious select few, out of the whim & fancy of some hypothetical (and also unproven) "God" somewhere out there. Welcome to cold, hard reality, folks. You want to get to the truth regarding transmutation? You have to WORK HARD for it. There is no other way to attain it. No "shortcuts". No special exceptions. In fact, when I do publish my findings that will in fact be the only "shortcut" to ever exist on this subject, as the empirical investigator will be able to skip a lot of the phony baloney and concentrate on things that actually give positive results. This should already have been done back in the 18th century, when some very experienced "chymists" had already spent a great deal of their time and fortunes investigating this subject and had found the empirical reality of the subject for themselves, but they enviously kept the results of their systematic empirical process of elimination to themselves and never published them. And anyone who has investigated the subject on their own knows very well why they decided to do this: the sacrifice they had to make to get to the truth was so great that when they found it it was just not worth releasing it to the public for "free". Too much time and money invested on it to just give it away like that. But sooner or later this vicious circle (i.e. malicious chymist occasionally writes truths but at the same time invents shit-loads of lies and phony processes to make getting at the said truths very hard, but then more honest chymist comes forth and puts said shit-load of processes to the test and finds out that the large majority of them are total bullshit that does not deliver what it promises, but he has spent so much time and money in determining this that he keeps the results of his investigation quiet and lets the said malicious chymist get away with murder, and this goes on and on...) will have to be broken and someone has to once and for all clear the path to publicly, without any meddling deception, establish the empirical reality of the matter. And that person will likely be yours truly. Only the future will tell.
    Again you assert empirical certainty without evidence, offering a priori deductions in place of empirical evidence without clearly indicating so. This is disingenuous. You give reasons why you are not prepared to give findings JDP and these may be valid I suppose. However you cannot assert that your work is empirical without offering actual empirical evidence. This is especially important in the area of Alchemical transmutation because of the number of con-artist who have taken money and given nothing in return in modern times and historically. Indeed if memory serves correct Steve Jobs the late CEO of APPLE ignored conventional medical treatment in preference for Alchemical remedies. So JDP you suggest your experiments have monetary value and refuse to currently show findings. Will you eventually be giving your findings but for a small fee? May I suggest instead you apply for patents.
    Last edited by Axismundi000; 05-01-2017 at 08:00 AM. Reason: Added a bit.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    311

    Alchemy, Archemy, Chymistry, Chemistry & Voarchadumia

    Quote Originally Posted by black View Post
    Hi JDP

    I think we have to be clear here that what you are
    talking about is ARCHEMY not ALCHEMY.

    Is this correct ?
    I would say transmutational chemistry. I believe that the word archemy was another phony invention of Fulcanellians.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Yes. Obviously I would not reveal the secret to making the Stone, since that one actually gives a lot of profit for the operator. But when it comes to "chymical" methods that can also achieve transmutations, the majority of them can't leave a profit for the operator, so I have no problem eventually revealing those. My objective is didactic: to prove that transmutation is very much real and thus encourage seekers to continue their labors since the objective is not "impossible" by any means (contrary to what chemists and physicists think), not to make it easy for people to become rich at my expense.
    But again you can make a real fortune if you reveal in public that transmutation is not impossible, as I showed you in my previous message.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,969
    Quote Originally Posted by Axismundi000 View Post
    Again you assert empirical certainty without evidence, offering a priori deductions in place of empirical evidence without clearly indicating so. This is disingenuous. You give reasons why you are not prepared to give findings JDP and these may be valid I suppose. However you cannot assert that your work is empirical without offering actual empirical evidence. This is especially important in the area of Alchemical transmutation because of the number of con-artist who have taken money and given nothing in return in modern times and historically. Indeed if memory serves correct Steve Jobs the late CEO of APPLE ignored conventional medical treatment in preference for Alchemical remedies. So JDP you suggest your experiments have monetary value and refuse to currently show findings. Will you eventually be giving your findings but for a small fee? May I suggest instead you apply for patents.
    My findings will eventually be published, so the only "fee" will be that of buying a regularly priced book. And many people interested in the subject will not even have to pay that since eventually they will be able to just borrow the book from whatever libraries purchase copies of it. But all this will be in the future, there is still much to do. The amount of work to be done on translations alone is staggering, as most of the pertinent literature on the subject is still only to be found in Latin and/or German, two languages I have basic knowledge of but not enough to easily waltz through these texts. This alone slows down the pace a lot. And then comes the actual empirical testing of the processes, which is another time-vampire.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,969
    Quote Originally Posted by Hellin Hermetist View Post
    I would say transmutational chemistry. I believe that the word archemy was another phony invention of Fulcanellians.
    Yes, and I would actually say "chymistry" rather than "chemistry", to better distinguish it from our modern "ordinary" chemistry that keeps denying that transmutation through "chemical reactions" is possible.

    Regarding "archemy": the word seems to have been coined by the 16th century Venetian priest Pantheus, but he did not use it in the sense that Fulcanelli did. According to Pantheus, "alchemy" is supposedly "fake" and only produces superficial colorations or vulgar alloys, pure deception. "Archemy" is another discipline, better than "alchemy" but still makes too many promises it cannot keep. But a third discipline called "voarchadumia" is "true" and produces real gold. This strange inversion of terms is very unusual and nobody that I know of has followed Pantheus' bizarre terminology. It is somewhat similar to what Michael Maier would try to do later on in the 17th century with the terms "alchemy" and "chymia/chymistry", but which he himself sometimes amusingly contradicts. For example, in his first published book (Arcana Arcanissima) he uses the terms "alchemy" and "alchemists" in a negative sense, to mean fraudsters and knaves who sell phony processes and empty promises, while "chymia/chymistry" and "chymist" he uses in a positive sense to mean the science of making the Stone and its practitioners (in other words, for what most other authors simply use the terms "alchemy" and "alchemist") But in his Symbola Aureae Mensae he often uses the terms "alchemy" and "alchemist" in the same positive sense as "chymia/chymistry" and "chymist". Cases like Maier's are weird regarding how could they have happened in the first place since most of the authorities he follows and quotes have no problem using the word "alchemy" and "alchemist" in a positive connotation, meaning the science or "art" of making the Stone and its practitioners, while they use a host of other names ("fools", "clowns", "the vulgar", "sophists", "puffers", "multipliers", "vulgar chymists") to mean those who do not know how to make it and use other methods to try to make silver and gold.

+ 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