Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 29 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 21 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 282

Thread: EM's P.S. Thread

  1. #101
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,120
    Blog Entries
    13
    Ah, so that's the answer... Thank you very much Illen A Cluff.

    Much appreciated.

    which brings me back to the question: what are you talking about Schivichy?

    If then it is just one matter, then I think I understand. So please correct me if I'm wrong.

    Spiritus Mundi, will, upon circulation within the correct parameters, create its own sulfur.

    It doesn't necessarily need to be developed that far however, in order to complete our work, nevertheless, if we wish for the red stone in all its purity, then we mature SM through correct circulation.

    Then, even though SM is a body and a spirit, we nevertheless, fix it further still with Sol, and not our vulgar gold, but IMO this pure pulvis solaris.

    Then upon being embodied into life, it now has to die, its putrefaction, the work begins...

    Its brightness wanes, it becomes black, it floats, smokes, and falls, bubbling up the ugly black skin in the picture that you showed us.

    This, through a gentle regime 'unlocks' said palace and takes us to the white places....

    ????
    Last edited by elixirmixer; 08-08-2017 at 04:11 AM.
    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post

    Unfortunately, such an approach will also not get anyone anywhere. The only way you will ever know if your theories/ideas/speculations regarding what the alchemists were talking about are correct or mistaken is to TEST them, and for that you NEED to perform experiments, otherwise you will never be able to determine if your ideas/theories/speculations were on the right track. I have found it EXTREMELY USEFUL to gain a lot of empirical experience while investigating the old texts. DO NOT BE AFRAID OF MULTITUDE OF FAILURES. Believe it or not, as bothersome and frustrating as failures can be, you CAN ALWAYS LEARN SOMETHING FROM THEM. There just is no other way to separate right from wrong in this subject than with trial & error. He who does not experiment will never find out anything certain in this "art".
    But you missed my point all along. Of course the practical work is vitally important and the ONLY way to test the theories. But my point all along is that the practical work to test the theories should not commence until a full understanding and comprehension of what the philosophers wrote has been achieved. Too many people read 2 or 3 texts and jump right into the lab work, mostly based on the 'trend' of what others are doing. For example, look at the number of people following the so-called "antimony way", using actual antimony. If they had continued to study, read, re-read and comprehend, they would have realized that the philosophers only used the word "antimony" and many other such words, as symbolic designations for the real work. In many cases, the many descriptive 'material' names they used only represented different stages or colors of the same initial matter as it went through the process. Once they start to engage in this lab work, they rarely turn back to studying the texts, but become obsessed with the lab work and assume that they must have missed a tiny detail. So they ill spend many years or even all their life adjusting the same process, looking for that one small detail that they might have missed.

    So my suggestion is to read, read and re-read, until the philosophical understanding begins to make sense, before fully engaging in the lab work. I do find the theoretical/philosophical sections to be far more instructive and understandable than the practical sections, and it is these sections which have helped me understand the practical sections better. I do not want to waste my life following trendy lab approaches, when the theoretical sections have shown me that these approaches are not what the philosophers were writing about. Of course, there may be various experiments that one might conduct along the way to test out some of the observations related to the theories. But I don't think these lab tests should become the entire pursuit and focus of the study.

    It was actually the theoretical/philosophical sections of the treatises, which describe how Nature works and how they believed metals grew in the earth that gave me my biggest break-throughs in the understanding of their secret language. It is not that their understanding of Nature was necessarily correct (in terms of what we know today), because they did not have the science we have today, but it shows how they actually came up with these theories, based on their very real observations. Thus you first have to get totally into their mindset, think just like they did back then, and relate that back to the observations they made. Too many are not able to do this, since they continue to think as we do today. This is part of the "meditative" or creative process. You really have to remove as much modern bias as possible. or you will never be able to comprehend what they were saying. Once you have their viewpoint, the rest begins to get easier and easier. You begin to see why they described certain parts of the process with the terms that they used. Almost none of these terms are to be taken literally. This is the very part that confuses so many lab workers. They pick and select which terms are literal and which are figurative, when almost ALL the terms are figurative. The main key to the terms that they used was to describe the color changes as the same matter underwent changes.

    So, I was not saying that the lab work was unimportant. In fact, it is essential. What I'm saying is that the main lab work should not even be attempted until one has understood the basics of the language of the philosophers. This language is not easy to discover, and requires years of reading, reading and re-reading, as well as an imaginative ability to be able to remove all modern bias and think as they did. A good background in symbolic languages (such as the Kabbalah) is also very helpful.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    294
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post

    Hellin Hermetist,

    These texts were not written to common people like you or I...please understand that they were written to Initiates, or as called by the old Authors, Sons of the Art. "Secret Teachings Of All Ages" describes this way of teaching as an acroamatic cipher.
    Not the ones I made reference to, which are included in RAMS collection. I challenge you to prove me that works like the Coelum Philosophorum, or Baron Rusestein's manuscripts, or the works of Tugel, or the Golden Chain of Homer, even the Vegetable Work of Isaac Hollandus or Basil Valentine Triumphal Chariot or Manuals, are written using decknames and cryptic terms. Only please dont post whole sentences from the works of Flamel or Raymond Lulle or Alexander Sethon to prove your thesis. I mentioned certain works and I wait certain answers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    The acroamatic cipher.[/FONT][/B] The religious and philosophical writings of all nations abound with acroamatic cryptograms, that is, parables and allegories. The acroamatic is unique in that the document containing it may be translated or reprinted without affecting the cryptogram. Parables and allegories have been used since remote antiquity to present moral truths in an attractive and understandable manner. The acroamatic cryptogram is a pictorial cipher drawn in words and its symbolism must be so interpreted. The Old and New Testaments of the Jews, the writings of Plato and Aristotle, Homer's Odyssey and Iliad, Virgil's Æneid, The Metamorphosis of Apuleius, and Æsop's Fables are outstanding examples of acroamatic cryptography in which are concealed the deepest and most sublime truths of ancient mystical philosophy.
    Nothing to do with the treatises I made reference to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    There're two key points here from Philalethes.
    Please read the excerpt taken from Transmutations of Metals.
    Philalethes was an invention of the iatrochemist George Starkey, in an attempt to impress other ppl and earn some money by publishing the works of a supposed mysterious adept. Good luck to your friend Kristzian if he is trying to learn anything form these treatises.

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    I never said that the myriad of texts were written by real Adepts, you are putting words in my mouth; some are and some aren't.
    But earlier you advised another member of that forum to study every alchemical work which he can find in sites like rexresearch.com. If some of those works werent written by real adepts, as you now say, why didnt you show him which works are good and genuine productions and which ones were written by charlatans? I believe that this little thing would have helped me a lot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    Many of these texts were written by Seekers, or Philosophers as they liked to call themselves, who knew more than the ordinary populace, and way more about Alchemy than most people on this message board.
    So all the old works were written by accomplished or almost accomplished adepts. Seems that charlatans didnt exist in that old era. Unfortunately for you, some of the old authors didnt accept your opinion. Valois, a 16th century author, says that he and his companion had studied a myriad of works and worked according to their instructions without any good results, for a period longer than 20 years. At last they studied patiently the good works, which are Lulle's Testament and Codicille, the Great Rosary and the one named Code de tout Verite (Turba Philosophorum), and finally they were able to produce the Stone. Trevisan go even further. He says that over 50 years he studied, restudied and followed the instructions of the myriad works he was able to get on his possesion, and lost all his years and his family's fortune, without any good result. At last, he isolated his self from the world and studied patiently the works of Raymond Lulle for a period of seven years, and after that period he had at last understood what was the thing he was searching for and was able to accomplish his task. So, for some of the older authors, most of the alchemical authors werent seekers or philosophers, as you believe, but charlatans and ignorant men, with the sole exception of Raymond Lulle and two or three other authors.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    4,602
    Blog Entries
    1
    I second the general position of Hellin Hermetist. The world and especially people, haven't really changed that much over the centuries. It's SO easy to write cryptically.

    IMO, there are only a handful of really good books that should be studied deeply, over and over, ALWAYS accompanied by some sort of lab work to test/prove one's deductions and theories. There is a lot of decent complementary material, but start with a good and trustworthy foundation before reading and getting confused by tens of thousands of pages.

    And I have no clue why people get so hung on Philalethes/Starkey. I read some of Starkey's lab notes, he also wrote under the pseudonym of Philalethes, and was not a genuine adept. I would personally not waste my time with his stuff. And if Kristzian is such a big shot initiate and if the super-knowledgeable Chasm really knows so much, maybe it would be a better idea to get into their good graces and see what comes out of it. You probably quoted K from another forum, because when he used to post here, he not only wrote in an extremely condescending manner, but he also made a real art-form out of writing many words and saying nothing at all - except a few quasi-philosophical platitudes here and there. Yet, I know how some people just LOVE this sort of thing, so - to each their own.

    Unless you have been directly shown (by someone) a true and verified accomplishment of the Great Work (preferably in person, face to face), or at least a verified accomplishment/completion of ONE of the major stages/rotations (such as the isolation/condensation/testing of the Universal Spirit, the obtainment of the Ph. Mercury + testing, the birth(s) of the Ph. Sulfur, etc...) - I would say: Trust No One!
    Last edited by Andro; 08-08-2017 at 02:22 PM.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Illen A. Cluf View Post
    But you missed my point all along. Of course the practical work is vitally important and the ONLY way to test the theories. But my point all along is that the practical work to test the theories should not commence until a full understanding and comprehension of what the philosophers wrote has been achieved. Too many people read 2 or 3 texts and jump right into the lab work, mostly based on the 'trend' of what others are doing. For example, look at the number of people following the so-called "antimony way", using actual antimony. If they had continued to study, read, re-read and comprehend, they would have realized that the philosophers only used the word "antimony" and many other such words, as symbolic designations for the real work. In many cases, the many descriptive 'material' names they used only represented different stages or colors of the same initial matter as it went through the process. Once they start to engage in this lab work, they rarely turn back to studying the texts, but become obsessed with the lab work and assume that they must have missed a tiny detail. So they ill spend many years or even all their life adjusting the same process, looking for that one small detail that they might have missed.

    So my suggestion is to read, read and re-read, until the philosophical understanding begins to make sense, before fully engaging in the lab work. I do find the theoretical/philosophical sections to be far more instructive and understandable than the practical sections, and it is these sections which have helped me understand the practical sections better. I do not want to waste my life following trendy lab approaches, when the theoretical sections have shown me that these approaches are not what the philosophers were writing about. Of course, there may be various experiments that one might conduct along the way to test out some of the observations related to the theories. But I don't think these lab tests should become the entire pursuit and focus of the study.

    It was actually the theoretical/philosophical sections of the treatises, which describe how Nature works and how they believed metals grew in the earth that gave me my biggest break-throughs in the understanding of their secret language. It is not that their understanding of Nature was necessarily correct (in terms of what we know today), because they did not have the science we have today, but it shows how they actually came up with these theories, based on their very real observations. Thus you first have to get totally into their mindset, think just like they did back then, and relate that back to the observations they made. Too many are not able to do this, since they continue to think as we do today. This is part of the "meditative" or creative process. You really have to remove as much modern bias as possible. or you will never be able to comprehend what they were saying. Once you have their viewpoint, the rest begins to get easier and easier. You begin to see why they described certain parts of the process with the terms that they used. Almost none of these terms are to be taken literally. This is the very part that confuses so many lab workers. They pick and select which terms are literal and which are figurative, when almost ALL the terms are figurative. The main key to the terms that they used was to describe the color changes as the same matter underwent changes.

    So, I was not saying that the lab work was unimportant. In fact, it is essential. What I'm saying is that the main lab work should not even be attempted until one has understood the basics of the language of the philosophers. This language is not easy to discover, and requires years of reading, reading and re-reading, as well as an imaginative ability to be able to remove all modern bias and think as they did. A good background in symbolic languages (such as the Kabbalah) is also very helpful.
    We have discussed this topic several times, both publicly and privately, and I still cannot follow your logic here. If you are well aware that their theories/speculations about how nature supposedly operated within the earth to generate metals are full of unproven assumptions on their part, then you should also be aware of how UNCERTAIN the whole theoretical framework is. Then how can anyone really have much confidence in that their ruminations can really lead anyone anywhere? I don't believe in alchemy and transmutation because of these theoretical musings, which I am well aware have NEVER led anyone anywhere. How can I be so sure? Well, because such speculative "philosophizing" has been plastered over and over, again and again, through thousands of pages of alchemical literature, and that certainly did not help any of the countless legions of seekers one bit to get closer to the goal. No matter how clearly spelled out, speculations remain speculations, not "facts". To give you a more modern analogy: imagine that your goal was to try to prepare ferric chloride. Imagine that in order to try to figure out how to prepare this substance you did not pay attention to HONEST DESCRIPTIONS OF THE ACTUAL PROCEDURES how to prepare it, but to the theories/speculations of chemists regarding "electron shells" and "valence". I can assure you that you will NEVER arrive at the desired goal by doing such a thing. No amount of pondering over how these alleged tiny particles capriciously "bond" with those of other "atoms" will allow you to get a clear understanding of how that iron salt is actually prepared. That's because there is a vast difference between SPECULATION/THEORY and EMPIRICAL FACTS. If you want to learn how to prepare that substance you will have to read a DESCRIPTIVE chemical text. Similarly, the endless theoretical conjectures about "sulphurs" and "mercuries" and the supposed "generation" of metals will never get you anywhere, just like it did not help anyone in the last 2000+ years get any closer to the goal. This is not where the potential value of alchemical texts resides. The actual value lies in its DESCRIPTIVE passages, just like in ordinary chemistry (with the obvious difference that ordinary chemistry describes its procedures IN AS CLEAR AND AS FULL A FASHION AS POSSIBLE, so as to not leave the person seeking such instructions without knowing any important part of the process, while alchemy NEVER DOES THAT, BUT ONLY PROVIDES PARTIAL DESCRIPTIONS, AND USUALLY IN A "SCATTERED" MANNER, AND ALSO USUALLY ACCOMPANIED BY "DECKNAMEN", ALLEGORIES, SIMILES, RIDDLES, etc.) In order to illustrate my point in a clearer manner, allow me to put two brief examples of VERY DIFFERENT PASSAGES:

    http://www.rexresearch.com/alchemy4/ficino.htm

    "Chapter 1.

    Of the Generation of Metals in the Bowels of the Earth.

    The opinion and determination of all who philosophize rightly is the same: that all metals are generated by the vapour of sulphur, and of argent vive. Because when the fat of the earth being heated, finds the substance of water somewhat globulous, it as well by its natural virtue, as by the rays of the celestial bodies and the endeavor of heaven, as according to the purity or impurity of each, consolidated it in the veins of the earth into those most beautiful bodies, gold, silver, copper, tin, iron, and lead."


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

    "A Toad full Ruddy I saw, did drink the juice of Grapes so fast,
    Till over-charged with the broth, his Bowels all to brast:
    And after that, from poyson'd Bulk he cast his Venom fell,
    For Grief and Pain whereof his Members all began to swell;
    With drops of Poysoned sweat approaching thus his secret Den,
    His Cave with blasts of fumous Air he all bewhited then:
    And from the which in space a Golden Humour did ensue,
    Whose falling drops from high did stain the soyl with ruddy hue.
    And when his Corps the force of vital breath began to lack,
    This dying Toad became forthwith like Coal for colour Black:
    Thus drowned in his proper veins of poysoned flood;
    For term of Eighty days and Four he rotting stood
    By Tryal then this Venom to expel I did desire;
    For which I did commit his Carkass to a gentle Fire:
    Which done, a Wonder to the sight, but more to be rehearst;
    The Toad with Colours rare through every side was pierc'd;
    And White appear'd when all the sundry hews were past:
    Which after being tincted Ruddy, for evermore did last."


    The difference between both passages is quite clear. The first one says absolutely NOTHING that can be considered useful in this quest. It is plainly nothing but speculation (or "philosophizing", as the author himself plainly puts it) about things that no one, including the author himself, had actually witnessed. The second passage, on the other hand, is quite plainly a semi-veiled DESCRIPTION OF SOME REACTIONS BETWEEN SOME SUBSTANCES HAPPENING INSIDE FLASKS, and therefore is based on ACTUAL EXPERIENCE. You might say that without knowing what the "toad", the "juice of grapes", etc. actually are you are also uncertain what substances should be used to achieve them. True, but THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT: your "job" as an aspiring alchemist is to try to find THE SUBSTANCES THAT WILL REACT IN SUCH A MANNER AS THE AUTHOR IS DESCRIBING. As difficult as this might be, since there are thousands of substances out there open to investigation, at least YOU HAVE A STARTING POINT TO GUIDE YOURSELF. Empirical experience is the ONLY THING IN THIS UNIVERSE THAT WILL ALLOW YOU TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THESE SUBSTANCES ARE THAT REACT IN THIS WAY AND SHOW YOU WHAT THE AUTHOR IS DESCRIBING. Without actual hands-on experience YOU ARE SIMPLY LOST AND WILL NEVER FIGURE OUT WHAT THESE GUYS WERE DESCRIBING IN SUCH SEMI-VEILED MANNERS. No amount "philosophizing" about how metals are supposedly "generated" inside the earth, which no one has ever seen, or praying to some "God" that also no one has ever seen or proven to actually exist will do the trick. ONLY EMPIRICAL EXPERIENCE CAN TEACH YOU RIGHT FROM WRONG. So without the required amount of empirical experience and familiarity with all manner of substances and their reactions, no amount of theoretical ruminations about what the alchemists were writing about will get you anywhere closer to the goal. YOU NEED THE HANDS-ON EXPERIENCE TO BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE ALCHEMISTS WERE TALKING ABOUT. And in order to gain such experience YOU NEED TO BE READY TO CONFRONT AND ACCEPT A MULTITUDE OF FAILURES FIRST. No one "hits the mark" in his first attempt at anything. If you are the kind of person who easily gives up by repeated failures, then the alchemists' "booby-trap" has worked. You have been defeated and effectively removed from the equation. The alchemists' goal of keeping "unworthy" seekers at bay has worked; they have won, and you have lost. Only those who keep persevering in the face of repeated failure and never give up and continue to investigate & observe all manner of reactions have a chance of finding the truth.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    We have discussed this topic several times, both publicly and privately, and I still cannot follow your logic here. If you are well aware that their theories/speculations about how nature supposedly operated within the earth to generate metals are full of unproven assumptions on their part, then you should also be aware of how UNCERTAIN the whole theoretical framework is. Then how can anyone really have much confidence in that their ruminations can really lead anyone anywhere? I don't believe in alchemy and transmutation because of these theoretical musings, which I am well aware have NEVER led anyone anywhere. How can I be so sure? Well, because such speculative "philosophizing" has been plastered over and over, again and again, through thousands of pages of alchemical literature, and that certainly did not help any of the countless legions of seekers one bit to get closer to the goal. No matter how clearly spelled out, speculations remain speculations, not "facts". To give you a more modern analogy: imagine that your goal was to try to prepare ferric chloride. Imagine that in order to try to figure out how to prepare this substance you did not pay attention to HONEST DESCRIPTIONS OF THE ACTUAL PROCEDURES how to prepare it, but to the theories/speculations of chemists regarding "electron shells" and "valence". I can assure you that you will NEVER arrive at the desired goal by doing such a thing. No amount of pondering over how these alleged tiny particles capriciously "bond" with those of other "atoms" will allow you to get a clear understanding of how that iron salt is actually prepared. That's because there is a vast difference between SPECULATION/THEORY and EMPIRICAL FACTS. If you want to learn how to prepare that substance you will have to read a DESCRIPTIVE chemical text. Similarly, the endless theoretical conjectures about "sulphurs" and "mercuries" and the supposed "generation" of metals will never get you anywhere, just like it did not help anyone in the last 2000+ years get any closer to the goal. This is not where the potential value of alchemical texts resides. The actual value lies in its DESCRIPTIVE passages, just like in ordinary chemistry (with the obvious difference that ordinary chemistry describes its procedures IN AS CLEAR AND AS FULL A FASHION AS POSSIBLE, so as to not leave the person seeking such instructions without knowing any important part of the process, while alchemy NEVER DOES THAT, BUT ONLY PROVIDES PARTIAL DESCRIPTIONS, AND USUALLY IN A "SCATTERED" MANNER, AND ALSO USUALLY ACCOMPANIED BY "DECKNAMEN", ALLEGORIES, SIMILES, RIDDLES, etc.) In order to illustrate my point in a clearer manner, allow me to put two brief examples of VERY DIFFERENT PASSAGES:

    http://www.rexresearch.com/alchemy4/ficino.htm

    "Chapter 1.

    Of the Generation of Metals in the Bowels of the Earth.

    The opinion and determination of all who philosophize rightly is the same: that all metals are generated by the vapour of sulphur, and of argent vive. Because when the fat of the earth being heated, finds the substance of water somewhat globulous, it as well by its natural virtue, as by the rays of the celestial bodies and the endeavor of heaven, as according to the purity or impurity of each, consolidated it in the veins of the earth into those most beautiful bodies, gold, silver, copper, tin, iron, and lead."


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

    "A Toad full Ruddy I saw, did drink the juice of Grapes so fast,
    Till over-charged with the broth, his Bowels all to brast:
    And after that, from poyson'd Bulk he cast his Venom fell,
    For Grief and Pain whereof his Members all began to swell;
    With drops of Poysoned sweat approaching thus his secret Den,
    His Cave with blasts of fumous Air he all bewhited then:
    And from the which in space a Golden Humour did ensue,
    Whose falling drops from high did stain the soyl with ruddy hue.
    And when his Corps the force of vital breath began to lack,
    This dying Toad became forthwith like Coal for colour Black:
    Thus drowned in his proper veins of poysoned flood;
    For term of Eighty days and Four he rotting stood
    By Tryal then this Venom to expel I did desire;
    For which I did commit his Carkass to a gentle Fire:
    Which done, a Wonder to the sight, but more to be rehearst;
    The Toad with Colours rare through every side was pierc'd;
    And White appear'd when all the sundry hews were past:
    Which after being tincted Ruddy, for evermore did last."


    The difference between both passages is quite clear. The first one says absolutely NOTHING that can be considered useful in this quest. It is plainly nothing but speculation (or "philosophizing", as the author himself plainly puts it) about things that no one, including the author himself, had actually witnessed. The second passage, on the other hand, is quite plainly a semi-veiled DESCRIPTION OF SOME REACTIONS BETWEEN SOME SUBSTANCES HAPPENING INSIDE FLASKS, and therefore is based on ACTUAL EXPERIENCE. You might say that without knowing what the "toad", the "juice of grapes", etc. actually are you are also uncertain what substances should be used to achieve them. True, but THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT: your "job" as an aspiring alchemist is to try to find THE SUBSTANCES THAT WILL REACT IN SUCH A MANNER AS THE AUTHOR IS DESCRIBING. As difficult as this might be, since there are thousands of substances out there open to investigation, at least YOU HAVE A STARTING POINT TO GUIDE YOURSELF. Empirical experience is the ONLY THING IN THIS UNIVERSE THAT WILL ALLOW YOU TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THESE SUBSTANCES ARE THAT REACT IN THIS WAY AND SHOW YOU WHAT THE AUTHOR IS DESCRIBING. Without actual hands-on experience YOU ARE SIMPLY LOST AND WILL NEVER FIGURE OUT WHAT THESE GUYS WERE DESCRIBING IN SUCH SEMI-VEILED MANNERS. No amount "philosophizing" about how metals are supposedly "generated" inside the earth, which no one has ever seen, or praying to some "God" that also no one has ever seen or proven to actually exist will do the trick. ONLY EMPIRICAL EXPERIENCE CAN TEACH YOU RIGHT FROM WRONG. So without the required amount of empirical experience and familiarity with all manner of substances and their reactions, no amount of theoretical ruminations about what the alchemists were writing about will get you anywhere closer to the goal. YOU NEED THE HANDS-ON EXPERIENCE TO BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE ALCHEMISTS WERE TALKING ABOUT. And in order to gain such experience YOU NEED TO BE READY TO CONFRONT AND ACCEPT A MULTITUDE OF FAILURES FIRST. No one "hits the mark" in his first attempt at anything. If you are the kind of person who easily gives up by repeated failures, then the alchemists' "booby-trap" has worked. You have been defeated and effectively removed from the equation. The alchemists' goal of keeping "unworthy" seekers at bay has worked; they have won, and you have lost. Only those who keep persevering in the face of repeated failure and never give up and continue to investigate & observe all manner of reactions have a chance of finding the truth.
    I know exactly what you are trying to say, and, as before, I have difficulty explaining my viewpoint for two reasons. The first is that if I say too much, I will be revealing some very important information that is not meant to be openly revealed. Secondly, your perspective is very much trapped into the views of today and modern science. As I continually strive to say, “you have to be able to think like the alchemists did 1000 or 1500 years ago”. They thought very different from how we think today, and I agree that it’s very difficult to put ourselves in their sandals. If they saw a comet, they would report seeing a “fiery serpent” in the sky or something like that. That doesn’t mean that it really was a burning snake, but that it visually gave the impression of a burning snake. It was their poetic and imaginative way of describing a real observance to others at the time. Today we know what a comet actually is, and most can describe it fairly accurately and consistently (although even today, fear and surprise can significantly distort that recorded observation). However, the indigenous people in the Brazilian jungles may still describe it today as a “fiery serpent” or any other similar animal that they are familiar with.

    So the ancients did not have the science we have today. Thus they came up with creative theories based on their observations. For example, they noticed that there was almost always some silver in gold deposits, but never any gold in silver deposits. This, and other such observations, led them to the theory that metals matured progressively, from the most primitive (lead) to the most perfect (gold). Thus the little silver that they found in gold deposits was just some silver still in the maturation process of becoming gold. The reason there was no gold in the silver deposits, was because the environment was not right for the silver to become gold. Because the environment wasn’t right, none of the silver could convert to gold. Of course, there are loopholes in this theory, but we know that based on modern science. But it was their way to explain observations based on what they knew at the time. The theories were wrong, but the observations were accurate.

    So, you say that because these theories were wrong, we can’t deduce anything useful from what they said in the theoretical sections of their treatises. I totally disagree - we can still accurately deduce their observations, which are the real key, not the theories. It’s the keen observations that they made which allows us to understand how they arrived at their process, as well as what material(s) they used in the preparation. These are the very observations that let us unravel the decnamen they used, as well as the process. Once you determine what these decnamen are, you can substitute the names, and follow them through the rest of the treatise, as well as others. Then you test them with logic for consistency.

    If they create inconsistencies from a practical sense, then you likely have erred somewhere in the interpretation and have to start all over again and revise/correct your interpretations. If there is a fair degree of consistency within the treatise as well as other related treatises, in a practical sense, based on what we know of how materials behave under various conditions, then you can be fairly sure that your theory is likely correct. The next step is to work out all the details, and put it to the test in the laboratory.

    I’m not sure how I can make this any more clear, other than revealing too much of what shouldn’t be openly revealed.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    102
    The first is that if I say too much, I will be revealing some very important information that is not meant to be openly revealed
    other than revealing too much of what shouldn’t be openly revealed
    not meant to be openly revealed ?
    shouldn't be openly revealed ?

    who told you this ?
    Last edited by Kibric; 08-08-2017 at 10:12 PM. Reason: correction

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Kibric View Post
    not meant to be openly revealed ?
    shouldn't be openly revealed ?

    who told you this ?
    Alchemists' code.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    7,383
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Illen A. Cluf View Post
    ...than revealing too much of what shouldn't be openly revealed.
    And why not?


    Don’t let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    And why not?

    You've heard all the arguments. There are quite a number of posts about that.

+ 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