Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 25 of 29 FirstFirst ... 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 282

Thread: EM's P.S. Thread

  1. #241
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by z0 K View Post
    The matter as I see it is that you do twist a tortured path for yourself around your alchemical word smithing concerning the starting matter. The matter here is the rut you are in because the adepts start with one matter and you do not understand why. Fortunately you here have decided to accept the example of "wood" as one matter to start with. That is a good choice.

    In your example of working with wood as the initial matter: one thing: wood, you decide to discard essential elements or substances obtained from that one matter: wood. The smoke does not "go away" unless you let it escape which is the first sign of failure to follow the paradigm. As a result your prediction about the consequences of discarding primary elements obtained from the starting matter: one thing: wood is correct. See what happens... anything remotely like the Stone? nothing but a quick dead-end.



    I challenge your assumption! You say it leads to the same dead ends. Now you will have to prove it as you have often demanded from others. You have accepted "wood" as a one-matter-only starting matter. Now you can demonstrate that your assumption is correct through actual experiments in your lab. Get wood. You are going to need quite a bit of it. You will need to dry distill it and collect every substance that evolved from that one thing: wood: the starting matter. You will need to document how you proceed of course in order to prove your point.

    I don't believe you will do it because you have some doubts about it: you will prove yourself wrong. That is hard to take. On the other hand as soon as you prove yourself wrong you will then be able to see your way out of that blind alley.

    Another thing, you said: Where is your proof! All you put forth on this matter so far is your personal opinions: claims. Now, put up some proof from your laboratory. You are the one claiming it is false, prove it!
    Florius Frammel's example was about burning wood, not distilling it. But wood distillation has also been practiced for centuries, its byproducts, like empyreumatic oils and pyroligneous acid, are well known. How exactly have any of these substances ever produced the Stone by themselves, though? If it was so simple as distilling wood and then manipulating its byproducts to somehow "coagulate" them into a solid, dense, stable, fire-resistant but fusible mass that "penetrates" molten metals (none of which I think will ever happen by manipulating such byproducts alone), the Stone would have stopped being a mystery for most people a long time ago.

  2. #242
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Florius Frammel's example was about burning wood, not distilling it. But wood distillation has also been practiced for centuries, its byproducts, like empyreumatic oils and pyroligneous acid, are well known. How exactly have any of these substances ever produced the Stone by themselves, though? If it was so simple as distilling wood and then manipulating its byproducts to somehow "coagulate" them into a solid, dense, stable, fire-resistant but fusible mass that "penetrates" molten metals (none of which I think will ever happen by manipulating such byproducts alone), the Stone would have stopped being a mystery for most people a long time ago.
    You seem to be consumed by your premise running thin. You have often said that the adepts of alchemy work with their secret solvent and nothing can be accomplished alchemically without it. Yet you do everything you can imagine to keep yourself in the dark in defense of your premise: that the sages are liars about the one-matter-only paradigm.

    But wood distillation has also been practiced for centuries, its byproducts, like empyreumatic oils and pyroligneous acid, are well known.
    That's right it has been practiced for centuries by the alchemists before the chymists.

    How exactly have any of these substances ever produced the Stone by themselves, though?
    Never by themselves always together!

    If it was so simple as distilling wood and then manipulating its byproducts to somehow "coagulate" them into a solid, dense, stable, fire-resistant but fusible mass that "penetrates" molten metals (none of which I think will ever happen by manipulating such byproducts alone), the Stone would have stopped being a mystery for most people a long time ago.
    Have you ever distilled wood? Are you searching for the secret solvent? Or not...

  3. #243
    This suggestion of distilling wood sounds to me to be a way to produce a spagyrical plant stone, in which the commonly used Ethanol as the Mercury is replaced by Methanol. I can see that some alchemical symbols (especially the oak/tree of life and the source of liquid coming out of it) might fit to this hypothesis.
    But the Stone or the Alkahest is often described as been feeded by Milk coming out of two breasts. Therefore in my opinion at this point of my research think that there is another source necessary. Maybe the symbol of the shell (CaCO3?) has anything to do with this second source. I am just speculating..

  4. #244
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by z0 K View Post
    You seem to be consumed by your premise running thin. You have often said that the adepts of alchemy work with their secret solvent and nothing can be accomplished alchemically without it. Yet you do everything you can imagine to keep yourself in the dark in defense of your premise: that the sages are liars about the one-matter-only paradigm.



    That's right it has been practiced for centuries by the alchemists before the chymists.



    Never by themselves always together!



    Have you ever distilled wood? Are you searching for the secret solvent? Or not...
    It's not "wearing thin", it's simply what common sense and logic point to. There is nothing "secret" about distilling wood. I repeat, you can find very clear descriptions of its byproducts going as far back as books published several centuries ago. So if you can make the Stone out of wood and its byproducts alone, how can it have escaped the attention of so many devoted seekers for such a long time??? And even if somehow you can prepare the secret solvent from wood alone (which I still have plenty of doubts you can), that still leaves you with the problem of the right metallic matter to be treated by it in order to get the "sulphur/soul/tincture" for making the Stone, and here you WILL have to bring in some other matter/s into play (thus immediately invalidating the "one matter" claim), because the metals that wood contains (in compound forms) in any large quantities are not ones that the alchemists knew about and worked with. They did not consider such things as the salts extracted from wood-ashes to be "metallic" but what they usually labelled as "middle minerals". Metallic potassium, sodium and calcium were totally unknown to the alchemists, and even if they had known them, they would most likely not have considered them as "true metals" and would have lumped them with the "semi-metals", "metalloids" or "bastard" metals (like zinc or antimony, for example.) What they considered as "metals" properly is what modern chemists call "transition metals", that is: things like lead, tin, gold, silver, iron, etc. Anything that deviated from the typical characteristics of the "true" metals, the alchemist would not accept as such, even if in outward appearance they resembled metals. Even zinc and mercury were generally rejected as "true" metals because they were not stable enough in the fire. So there is no way that such reactive metals as calcium, potassium and sodium, which react violently even with something as benign as water, would have been accepted as "true" metals by the alchemists. So they did NOT get the metallic "sulphur/soul/tincture" of the Stone from such things but from the substances they accepted as metals/metallic. And these are NOT contained in wood in any appreciable quantities.

  5. #245
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by Florius Frammel View Post
    This suggestion of distilling wood sounds to me to be a way to produce a spagyrical plant stone, in which the commonly used Ethanol as the Mercury is replaced by Methanol. I can see that some alchemical symbols (especially the oak/tree of life and the source of liquid coming out of it) might fit to this hypothesis.
    But the Stone or the Alkahest is often described as been feeded by Milk coming out of two breasts. Therefore in my opinion at this point of my research think that there is another source necessary. Maybe the symbol of the shell (CaCO3?) has anything to do with this second source. I am just speculating..
    The "milk" does come out of two breasts, but on one person only not two people each offering a tit. The person is often depicted as a hermaphrodite. This is symbolic of the laboratory operations once you have the Elements obtained from the starting matter which could be wood, but there are much better choices from that kingdom. Hollandus says if you want to open metals start with hot herbs. Ripley says something similar.

    Research into the alchemical writings induce hosts of symbolic imagery into the mind. Enthusiasm is sparked. Speculation follows often leading to illusion and/or delusion until balance is achieved in the laboratory by separating facts from assumptions.

  6. #246
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    4,601
    Blog Entries
    1
    The endless one matter/many matters debate is a dead end here.

    There is no actual contradiction between the two, and this seems to be at the root of this circular argument.

    The matter of the Stone is one, but nature does not (and can not) separate/extract/render it tangible by itself without the intervention of the Alchemist.

    The extraction/separation/corporification of this one matter can be accomplished by and from multiple/variable auxiliary matters. But at the end of the day, "our" matter is still one.

    The fact that this one matter can be rendered in more than one state (liquid, solid, etc) only adds to the confusion.

    It can also be confusing for the potential researcher who works with a combination of matters without realizing that all those matters are in fact "carriers", but that it's actually the "passenger" who's achieving the alchemical objectives.

    All matters are "carriers" of our alchemical "passenger", with various degrees of difficulty of extraction. Air and water are carriers. Animals and humans are carriers (urine, blood, semen, etc). Plants are carriers. Matters that humans or animals make from plants or metals/minerals (wine, honey, various alloys, etc) are carriers. Metals and minerals are carriers (sulfides, for example, are good candidates, but may be challenging to work with).

    It may be useful to exit the loop of the one matter/many matters debate and look a little deeper.

  7. #247
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    The endless one matter/many matters debate is a dead end here.

    There is no actual contradiction between the two, and this seems to be at the root of this circular argument.

    The matter of the Stone is one, but nature does not (and can not) separate/extract/render it tangible by itself without the intervention of the Alchemist.

    The extraction/separation/corporification of this one matter can be accomplished by and from multiple/variable auxiliary matters. But at the end of the day, "our" matter is still one.

    The fact that this one matter can be rendered in more than one state (liquid, solid, etc) only adds to the confusion.

    It can also be confusing for the potential researcher who works with a combination of matters without realizing that all those matters are in fact "carriers", but that it's actually the "passenger" who's achieving the alchemical objectives.

    All matters are "carriers" of our alchemical "passenger", with various degrees of difficulty of extraction. Air and water are carriers. Animals and humans are carriers (urine, blood, semen, etc). Plants are carriers. Matters that humans or animals make from plants or metals/minerals (wine, honey, various alloys, etc) are carriers. Metals and minerals are carriers (sulfides, for example, are good candidates, but may be challenging to work with).

    It may be useful to exit the loop of the one matter/many matters debate and look a little deeper.
    Thank you Andro

    I like this style of thinking....it sits well with me.

    This is the type of posts we need to see more of !!!

    Clearing away the BS and getting to the core of what
    needs to be thought about.

  8. #248
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    The endless one matter/many matters debate is a dead end here.

    There is no actual contradiction between the two, and this seems to be at the root of this circular argument.

    The matter of the Stone is one, but nature does not (and can not) separate/extract/render it tangible by itself without the intervention of the Alchemist.

    The extraction/separation/corporification of this one matter can be accomplished by and from multiple/variable auxiliary matters. But at the end of the day, "our" matter is still one.

    The fact that this one matter can be rendered in more than one state (liquid, solid, etc) only adds to the confusion.

    It can also be confusing for the potential researcher who works with a combination of matters without realizing that all those matters are in fact "carriers", but that it's actually the "passenger" who's achieving the alchemical objectives.

    All matters are "carriers" of our alchemical "passenger", with various degrees of difficulty of extraction. Air and water are carriers. Animals and humans are carriers (urine, blood, semen, etc). Plants are carriers. Matters that humans or animals make from plants or metals/minerals (wine, honey, various alloys, etc) are carriers. Metals and minerals are carriers (sulfides, for example, are good candidates, but may be challenging to work with).

    It may be useful to exit the loop of the one matter/many matters debate and look a little deeper.
    It won't help because what you have stated above is nothing but pure SPECULATION. It's all based on the HUMONGOUS ASSUMPTION that this "one matter" common to all things, and capable of somehow being produced from all things, supposedly exists. In fact, this UNPROVEN ASSUMPTION will have the opposite effect, it will simply obfuscate the whole issue and make many people continue to plunge into blind alleys by thinking that reaching success by manipulating ANY substance is possible. History and empirical evidence point to quite the contrary to such an illusion.

  9. #249
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Bridger Mountains
    Posts
    1,583
    Blog Entries
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    It won't help because what you have stated above is nothing but pure SPECULATION. It's all based on the HUMONGOUS ASSUMPTION that this "one matter" common to all things, and capable of somehow being produced from all things, supposedly exists. In fact, this UNPROVEN ASSUMPTION will have the opposite effect, it will simply obfuscate the whole issue and make many people continue to plunge into blind alleys by thinking that reaching success by manipulating ANY substance is possible. History and empirical evidence point to quite the contrary to such an illusion.
    Speculation and assumption? I disagree:

    Art is Nature in the flask; Nature is a vial thing.

  10. #250
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    4,601
    Blog Entries
    1
    I said what I had to say. It is neither assumption nor speculation.

    Even if "empirical evidence" may appear to show the contrary, this so-called "evidence" fails to account for the "passenger".

    Some "combinations" of various matters can indeed be somewhat more conductive to rendering this "passenger" alchemically active.

    However, the "scientifically empirical mind" will see nothing more than the particular combinations of those matters as being responsible for the alchemical effect - but this is not the case.

    There's no going anywhere in Alchemy without accounting for the "passenger". It is present even in various "low R.O.I. particulars", no matter what matters enter into the composition of any given "low R.O.I. particular". It's the activation of the "alchemical passenger" that ALL operations, from the least "profitable" particulars and all the way to the Stone, have in common.

    What I needed proof for, I have already proven for myself. It's not my job to prove anything to anyone else.

    Also, I will not get sucked into any sort of dead-end circular debates.

    If you are inspired by what I wrote, good for you.

    If you feel it's all assumptions/unproven/baloney/etc - good for you as well.

    Up to the readers to discern what makes alchemical (not common) sense to them.

+ 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