Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 21 of 29 FirstFirst ... 11 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 282

Thread: EM's P.S. Thread

  1. #201
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Kibric View Post
    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.
    You are confusing (on purpose?) quotes from different texts. Plus the "Book of Alze", besides the quote that you first tried to pull, which contradicts the "one matter only" claim, also says things like:

    "To the spiritual substance God gives that which Nature could not give it. For Nature has nothing so precious as the true Tincture; and if with its bodies (plural, not singular) it become liquid, it produces a marvellous effect."


    "These are the only things (plural, not singular) that have the power of making red and white, both inwardly and outwardly."

    "That water is also called poison; it is the principle of life, because it is a soul, and extracted from many things. (plural, not singular) All bodies that this Tincture enters are quickened; all bodies (plural, not singular) from which it is extracted are (plural, not singular) destroyed. Its potency is spiritual blood, which, if well mixed with bodies (plural, not singular), transmutes them (plural, not singular) into spirits, and combines with them (plural, not singular) into one substance."

    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 dismiss it for the TWO reasons I already explained to you before: 1- What a bunch of other alchemists who talk more clearly & honestly about this subject say regarding what the "one matter/thing" ACTUALLY means and 2- empirical experience and common sense, which do not contradict what they say.

    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
    It is easier to fall for this tempting trap than to face empirical realities. Where is this marvelous "one matter only" found in nature that can perform all of what the alchemists describe in their texts? How come in the more than 200 years that chemistry has been around, subjecting just about every naturally occurring substance that has ever been found to analysis, no one has been able to find any such matter? And how about the hundreds more years worth of "puffers" submitting the same single natural matters to all manner of operations and finding none that could fit all of what the alchemists describe?

    i dont want to get into a quote war
    we really only have to prove these things to ourselves
    Yet that is what you attempted to do.

    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
    Got to be the most naive thing I have seen around here. The burden of proof is on you, not me. Show us, oh Heavy Weight Champion of Empirical Evidence, where exactly do we see nature making anything remotely resembling the Philosophers' Stone? I am waiting. Provide verifiable evidence that something having any similar properties as the Stone has ever been found already made somewhere in a NATURAL setting, like a mine, or a quarry, for example.

    im sure there are alchemists out there who would disagree from 1st hand experience and experimentation
    And none of them have made the Stone either.

    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....
    It seems like you have a very hard time distinguishing theories/speculations/conjectures from actual empirical facts. Plus your logic is about as faulty as that of the alchemists who proposed such doctrines. Since nature supposedly cannot finish the thing itself, then how in blazes can anyone learn how to finish it then, if, as you say, we must rely on it as a supposed "teacher"? Wouldn't we keep on failing by just "imitating" it, then? The supposed "master" cannot do something that the supposedly more ignorant pupil can? This is tantamount to such a ridiculous claim as saying that nature really knows how to make Coca-Cola, but somehow cannot "finish the job" and is up to man to "help it" do it. Bonkers! Nature will not make Coca-Cola even if you give it a million years of "help" by putting the necessary matters together, and you doing nothing but waiting for it to do "something" after you gave it this big "help". It is man and his intelligent interventions that make possible all such artificial products that nature itself knows JACK-SQUAT about making on its own. If it did, we would see natural fountains of the delicious carbonated goodness springing up somewhere. Fact: nature can only provide raw matters. It is up to man to use these raw materials that nature provides to make up things that nature itself would never make on its own.

    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
    Certainly a much more realistic and empirically-grounded view of the subject than the speculative musings that you seem to entertain as actually being "alchemy".
    Last edited by JDP; 1 Week Ago at 08:23 PM.

  2. #202
    I think people are looking too much into Chemistry books and some convoluted and sophisticated operations in dusty rooms. I think that if they looked closer to what happens outside the window, they could notice a lot of wonderful things happening in the Nature.
    Last edited by Warmheart; 1 Week Ago at 10:34 PM.

  3. #203
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Warmheart View Post
    I think people are looking too much into Chemistry books and some convoluted and sophisticated operations in dusty rooms. I think that if they looked closer to what happens outside the window, they could notice a lot of wonderful things happening in the Nature.
    Unfortunately none of which produce anything resembling the Stone. Why is it so difficult for some of you to recognize this simple fact? The Stone is man-made, there are no "ifs" or "buts" about it. The reason why many alchemists were obsessed with nature and attributing everything to it is because they fancied themselves "natural philosophers". But the reality is that what they were doing in their labs had precious little to do with how nature operates and what it produces. In fact, one of the main arguments AGAINST alchemy by its theoretical opponents all through the Middle Ages and the Early Modern period was the fact that man simply did not know how to operate like nature did, and under the same conditions that nature did, therefore making silver and gold must be "impossible" for man. To this laughable objection the alchemists in their turn often gave a set of equally laughable "answers". Some of them, though, more astutely and observantly, did point out that "Art" could do things that nature simply cannot, and that artificial gold and silver were purer than their natural counter-parts, so this objection was moot and not based on empirical facts.

  4. #204
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Unfortunately none of which produce anything resembling the Stone. Why is it so difficult for some of you to recognize this simple fact? The Stone is man-made, there are no "ifs" or "buts" about it. The reason why many alchemists were obsessed with nature and attributing everything to it is because they fancied themselves "natural philosophers". But the reality is that what they were doing in their labs had precious little to do with how nature operates and what it produces. In fact, one of the main arguments AGAINST alchemy by its theoretical opponents all through the Middle Ages and the Early Modern period was the fact that man simply did not know how to operate like nature did, and under the same conditions that nature did, therefore making silver and gold must be "impossible" for man. To this laughable objection the alchemists in their turn often gave a set of equally laughable "answers". Some of them, though, more astutely and observantly, did point out that "Art" could do things that nature simply cannot, and that artificial gold and silver were purer than their natural counter-parts, so this objection was moot and not based on empirical facts.
    But neither official chemistry didn't have success in producing Stone, nor did pharmacology succeed in making actual medicines, which can prolong human's life to at very least 10000 years. Even getting to 100 years is considered as something highly outstanding in modern society.

    Meanwhile Nature's wonders are abound. It is sad that people became blinded by their reliance on official science and can't see and feel otherwise obvious things.
    Last edited by Warmheart; 1 Week Ago at 11:49 AM.

  5. #205
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Warmheart View Post
    But neither official chemistry didn't have success in producing Stone,
    And that's my point: obviously the secret of alchemy is quite a bit more complex than just finding some matter out there in nature and "purifying" it and "cooking" it. That's one of the main reasons why so many who overestimated alchemy's alleged "simplicity" have failed. The reality is that it is not easy to stumble upon the right combination of substances, proportions and treatments that leads to success.

    nor did pharmacology succeed in making actual medicines, which can prolong human's life to at very least 10000 years. Even getting to 100 years is considered as something highly outstanding in modern society.

    Meanwhile Nature's wonders are abound. It is sad that people became blinded by their reliance on official science and can't see and feel otherwise obvious things.
    But if it was up to nature and its ways the average human would be dead much sooner. People in prehistoric times were fairly lucky if they could make it past the age of 15 and into their 20s-30s-40s-50s. The reason why mankind has increasingly been able to extend its own life-span is precisely because of its ingenuity.

  6. #206
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    But if it was up to nature and its ways the average human would be dead much sooner. People in prehistoric times were fairly lucky if they could make it past the age of 15 and into their 20s-30s-40s-50s. The reason why mankind has increasingly been able to extend its own life-span is precisely because of its ingenuity.
    This is actually false premise. If to look at various known people who lived over 2000 ago, they all lived lives of same length as we do. This is as false premise as general theory of evolution, etc. Mankind's science can't see much past last couple centuries, and it judges about the events of recent several thousands years on some hearsay, and we all know how people like to juggle history events. Mankind's science can't even look much further than few thousands years BC.

    People greatly degraded over the course of time. If to compare technologies of this age with what people knew and could do around 30 thousands years ago - a VAST abyss separates those people and modern people. This age is age of total ignorance, when mankind corrupts and destroys Nature to serve Golden Calf. Where I live, the air is corrupted - can barely breath it, water is corrupted, can't swim in it, earth brings toxic fruits - can't eat those. It requires little to no brains to corrupt something, but can modern people produce something without massive corruption? That's what separates current science of mankind and Alchemy.

  7. #207
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Warmheart View Post
    This is actually false premise. If to look at various known people who lived over 2000 ago, they all lived lives of same length as we do. This is as false premise as general theory of evolution, etc. Mankind's science can't see much past last couple centuries, and it judges about the events of recent several thousands years on some hearsay, and we all know how people like to juggle history events. Mankind's science can't even look much further than few thousands years BC.

    People greatly degraded over the course of time. If to compare technologies of this age with what people knew and could do around 30 thousands years ago - a VAST abyss separates those people and modern people. This age is age of total ignorance, when mankind corrupts and destroys Nature to serve Golden Calf. Where I live, the air is corrupted - can barely breath it, water is corrupted, can't swim in it, earth brings toxic fruits - can't eat those. It requires little to no brains to corrupt something, but can modern people produce something without massive corruption? That's what separates current science of mankind and Alchemy.
    It is not a false premise. It is well known that people in past ages had much higher mortality rates than today. If you go back to prehistory, people were pretty lucky if they could survive their teens. Early man in fact was even still pretty much a "dish" for some animals in the "food chain". Since ancient times we have gradually become the indisputable masters of this planet, and regularly being "on the menu" of any other organism is no longer happening. Be thankful for it!

  8. #208
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    178
    Anytime you discuss "life spans," you have to also factor in infant and child mortality rates. I've read speculation that once you pass 20 years of age, the remainder today don't live exceptionally longer than those of any other period. The key is, if you made it 20, hehe. The other thing is rate of women dying in childbirth.

    Our "modern" culture has pretty much done away with all the deaths surrounding child birth. Kids also don't join the military in their teens. Those facts alone can skew the numbers pretty hard. Just because the average calculated might be 30 years, most people after hitting that mark lived much longer.

    Just something to consider, back to the show.

    Edit: another thing to consider is where we are getting these numbers at all, and how good the data is from 200 or 2000 years ago, depending.

  9. #209
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    It is not a false premise. It is well known that people in past ages had much higher mortality rates than today. If you go back to prehistory, people were pretty lucky if they could survive their teens. Early man in fact was even still pretty much a "dish" for some animals in the "food chain". Since ancient times we have gradually become the indisputable masters of this planet, and regularly being "on the menu" of any other organism is no longer happening. Be thankful for it!
    But what do actually modern people know about "prehistory"? Other than some stupid assumptions of Darvin followers and totally bizarre theories like "natural selection", which is used to excuse massive destruction of nature and robbing poor and sick people?

    I can bring counter-example - Ethiopia. Up to this time, Ethiopian people consider themselves pretty much an expendables. And I am afraid that Ethiopia doesn't reflect our past, it reflects our possible future.

    I could write more about it, but just ask yourself, if we are so "progressed", then why most of people are still suffering from hunger, pain, diseases, poverty? Why rich people keep exploiting the poor and why people keep destroying the nature?

    When one realizes that all this "progress" is fake and that he actually knows nothing about this world, only then he is ready to start his path of learning the most Transcendental Science, which is Alchemy.

  10. #210
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Warmheart View Post
    But what do actually modern people know about "prehistory"? Other than some stupid assumptions of Darvin followers and totally bizarre theories like "natural selection", which is used to excuse massive destruction of nature and robbing poor and sick people?

    I can bring counter-example - Ethiopia. Up to this time, Ethiopian people consider themselves pretty much an expendables. And I am afraid that Ethiopia doesn't reflect our past, it reflects our possible future.

    I could write more about it, but just ask yourself, if we are so "progressed", then why most of people are still suffering from hunger, pain, diseases, poverty? Why rich people keep exploiting the poor and why people keep destroying the nature?

    When one realizes that all this "progress" is fake and that he actually knows nothing about this world, only then he is ready to start his path of learning the most Transcendental Science, which is Alchemy.
    You can get an idea of what was going on back then by examining human remains of those times. A lot of people died while they were still young. During historical times it is actually easier to get an idea because on top of the human remains we also have historical accounts. In past centuries people tended to marry and have children when they were younger precisely because life expectancy was also lower. Instead of maligning progress, we should be thankful that progress in medicine has largely contributed to lower the mortality rate. It is one of the main reasons why on average we live longer in our age than those before.

+ 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