Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 20 of 29 FirstFirst ... 10 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 282

Thread: EM's P.S. Thread

  1. #191
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    180
    JDP,

    Alchemists were a strange mix of philosophers, Occultists and Scientists so when they say the stone is made from three or four things combined and then contradict themselves by saying it is made of one thing there is no paradox in that statement. You are aware of the tetractys diagram right...all things proceed from one thing. Even in modern Science there is the idea of a big bang in which all matter evolved from this one point...what was the nature of the matter contained in this one point?

  2. #192
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Luxus View Post
    JDP,

    Alchemists were a strange mix of philosophers, Occultists and Scientists so when they say the stone is made from three or four things combined and then contradict themselves by saying it is made of one thing there is no paradox in that statement. You are aware of the tetractys diagram right...all things proceed from one thing. Even in modern Science there is the idea of a big bang in which all matter evolved from this one point...what was the nature of the matter contained in this one point?
    When you are intending to instruct someone -anyone!- how to make something, the very minute that you start pulling such contradictions and paradoxes you are deliberately confusing people. This is by its very nature MALICIOUS, MISCHIEVOUS and/or ENVIOUS. "Occultist" or "no occultist". So this type of alchemists who often contradict their very own statements fall in this general category. Notice that modern science DOES NOT do this. Even though it believes that "protons/neutrons" and the accompanying "electrons" are the basic building block of all matter (at the atomic level; let's not go into its theories regarding the subatomic one) we don't see it trying to mislead people by telling them that Club Soda, for example, is made from "one matter only" and thus sending all those interested in making it into a blind alley. This would obviously be a DEVIOUS trick to DELIBERATELY confuse people and propel them into the realm of technical impossibilities. Same thing with the Stone.

  3. #193
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    When you are intending to instruct someone -anyone!- how to make something, the very minute that you start pulling such contradictions and paradoxes you are deliberately confusing people. This is by its very nature MALICIOUS, MISCHIEVOUS and/or ENVIOUS. "Occultist" or "no occultist". So this type of alchemists who often contradict their very own statements fall in this general category. Notice that modern science DOES NOT do this. Even though it believes that "protons/neutrons" and the accompanying "electrons" are the basic building block of all matter (at the atomic level; let's not go into its theories regarding the subatomic one) we don't see it trying to mislead people by telling them that Club Soda, for example, is made from "one matter only" and thus sending all those interested in making it into a blind alley. This would obviously be a DEVIOUS trick to DELIBERATELY confuse people and propel them into the realm of technical impossibilities. Same thing with the Stone.
    This would be all true IF you assumed the Alchemist wanted to convey this information in a 1,2,3..A,B,C format for any and all to understand however that is not the case. Alchemy comes from a time in which "knowledge is power" and "do not cast pearls before swine" was understood and also you had to prove yourself worthy to know such a great arcanum. So yes the Alchemist will contradict himself, he will bring you on that roller-coaster ride and he will mix gibberish with truth. You are to understand truth when you hear it, it is your job to pick the roses among the thorns.

  4. #194
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Luxus View Post
    This would be all true IF you assumed the Alchemist wanted to convey this information in a 1,2,3..A,B,C format for any and all to understand however that is not the case. Alchemy comes from a time in which "knowledge is power" and "do not cast pearls before swine" was understood and also you had to prove yourself worthy to know such a great arcanum. So yes the Alchemist will contradict himself, he will bring you on that roller-coaster ride and he will mix gibberish with truth. You are to understand truth when you hear it, it is your job to pick the roses among the thorns.
    And the only way to do that is through loads of empirical experience, which brings me to my original point: thus far it shows that the "one matter only" claim is nothing but a big dead-end, exactly as should be expected from the words of those alchemists who keep insisting that several matters are used in making the Stone.

  5. #195
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,120
    Blog Entries
    13
    Do you claim to have created the secret solvent JDP?

    How many minerals compose the true Compound?
    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

  6. #196
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,120
    Blog Entries
    13

    Prima Materia Poll Vote

    So for EM's first Stone attempt should we go for the Schmuldvich's Red Earth with an Andro "One Flask - One Fire - One Matter" Type situation..

    Or....

    Should I go for an "Aquarius" Materia, a JDP compound, with some RedLion fancypants tips and tricks?

    I said Aquarius because that picture we have a hlaf a dozen posts ago has a guy pissing in a basin with a word writen along his 'Stream' and it translates to Aquarius. Thanks to JDP otherwise I wouldnt have been able to translate as the colour photo is not as clear in that section as the other version in black and white.

    Why do you think they refered to the weewee's as "Aquarius?" Maybe its why im such a piss-head (aussie word for heavy beer drinker)
    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

  7. #197
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by elixirmixer View Post
    Do you claim to have created the secret solvent JDP?
    No, not yet, but I have already seen some "strange" things by tinkering around with several substances and their reactions with one another, interesting and intriguing things I never ever saw by manipulating any single substance whatsoever.

    How many minerals compose the true Compound?
    That's the million dollar question that everyone would like to have an answer for. Even the alchemists who are clearer and more honest always adopt a more enigmatic and vague tone when it comes to talking about the number and identity of these initial substances. We are talking about the very beginning of the work, the most crucial part. Without figuring this out there just is no "alchemy".

  8. #198
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    No, not yet, but I have already seen some "strange" things by tinkering around with several substances and their reactions with one another, interesting and intriguing things I never ever saw by manipulating any single substance whatsoever.
    Cool. I just finished reading the Hermes Paradigm vol. III, even though I don't have copies of I, II, or IV, or any other works he decided to write after that. He recommends the "many jars experiment" and learning to "extract" the oil of metals with several different solvents, then talks about Kerckringer's Menstruum for a bit, then mentions another "Secret Solvent," but of course provides no details as to what it is. He does however speak about basic solutions with a lot of emphasis, seemingly because they are not as common in the usage as acids, but I mean he really sticks the point about how to extract an oil tincture with them.

  9. #199
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by elixirmixer View Post
    So for EM's first Stone attempt should we go for the Schmuldvich's Red Earth with an Andro "One Flask - One Fire - One Matter" Type situation..

    Or....

    Should I go for an "Aquarius" Materia, a JDP compound, with some RedLion fancypants tips and tricks?

    I said Aquarius because that picture we have a hlaf a dozen posts ago has a guy pissing in a basin with a word writen along his 'Stream' and it translates to Aquarius. Thanks to JDP otherwise I wouldnt have been able to translate as the colour photo is not as clear in that section as the other version in black and white.

    Why do you think they refered to the weewee's as "Aquarius?" Maybe its why im such a piss-head (aussie word for heavy beer drinker)
    Actually it says "Acuatio" (literally: "Sharpening".) The Latin the text is written in is awkward at times, you can find attempted translations of all these lines that accompany the drawings here:

    http://www.magia-metachemica.net/upl...ript_book1.pdf

    http://www.magia-metachemica.net/upl...ript_book2.pdf

    Notice: the "Cabala Mineralis" is yet another text that also implies that at least 3 substances enter into play to make the Stone.

  10. #200
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    102
    it is clearly referring to a composition made out of one matter

    " The composition which is prepared out of our precious substance " (not substances)

    " Of this very Body the matter of the Stone "

    " Of this (singular/one) very body (not these "bodies") the matter (not matters/multiple) of the stone "

    to this (singular) body/matter (not matters/multiple) just mentioned
    3 things are attributed

    " three things are chiefly spoken, viz. The green Lion, Assa foetida, and the white Fume "

    " but this is inferred by the Philosophers FROM THE COMPOUND, "
    inffered from the compound
    which has just previously been stated as being " this very Body (singualr) the matter (not matters/multiple) of the Stone "
    to which 3 things are cheifely spoken

    " The green Lion, Assa foetida, and the white Fume;"
    it is very clearly saying the compound is this (singular/one) very body
    that 3 things are spoken of.


    dismising the one matter approach because on a personal level you dont believe it
    is not conducive to a proper scientific method and rather childish

    i dont believe that a mixture of different substances will bring about success
    but i wont dimiss the approach just because it doesnt agree with me

    its easier to say all alchemists talking about one matter is a trap
    than to face the possibility you haven't understood they're words fully

    i dont want to get into a quote war
    we really only have to prove these things to ourselves

    Which does NOT make the Stone and therefore can actually teach you JACK-SQUAT regarding the subject.
    "Follow Nature" = Philosophical Lip Service = Blind Alley. The reason why this "advice" is so freely dispensed by so many alchemists is in
    fact because IT ACTUALLY LEADS NOWHERE. You might as well tell people to "Follow the Shoemaker" in order to learn how to perform heart surgery!
    Got to be the most ridiculous thing i have heard from someone supposed to be a heavyweight around here
    Follow nature = look to her operations (ya know observation of natural chemistry)
    leads nowhere ? is just another opinion of yours without any empirical evidence your trying to pass off as fact
    maybe leads nowhere for you
    im sure there are alchemists out there who would disagree from 1st hand experience and experimentation

    Which does NOT make the Stone and therefore can actually teach you JACK-SQUAT regarding the subject.
    nature doesn't finish the work the artist does by studying her processes
    her operations
    nature teaches you alot about the subject, but is unable to complete the work herself
    but trying to complete the work without listening to nature and how she works ?
    i wish you the best....

    i can see any serious alchemist isn't gonna learn JACK-SQUAT from a narrow minded approach as yours

    Good luck with whatever you think alchemy is
    Last edited by Kibric; 1 Week Ago at 02:05 AM.

+ 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