Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 23 of 29 FirstFirst ... 13 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 282

Thread: EM's P.S. Thread

  1. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by Warmheart View Post
    But what about Socrates? Poor man who couldn't afford medicine of this time, was executed at 70, and he was on legs and in his own mind?
    What about Plato who lived till 80?
    What about Democritus who lived around 90 years?

    Just for anecdotic examples, people who work in mines become cripples even in their 40 - this is still common situation of today. People die because of working 8 days a week 30 hours a day for piece of bread, or while working on toxic factories - all of those are mostly based in 2nd+ world countries, which feed 1st world countries. No medicine can help those people who basically sacrifice their lives for piece of bread and that so super elite could feel themselves rich. Gas/oil/coal/metallurgy - some people never even saw those, while others die from sulfuric intoxication and such. Current joke medicine doesn't even try to help those people.

    Of course, when you remove such factors out of the picture, people will look as if they live longer. But is it because of science/medicine or just because there is other, larger half of world, which does all the dirty job to feed the rest?

    And even now we can't get proper statistics because of so many homeless people, which are simply not counted anywhere, and each year there is more and more of those. What to say about 200 years ago? Especially if to consider that statistics was always an instrument of manipulation and even current story becomes corrupted by the efforts of politicians?

    I don't want to look like religious fanatic, I don't like religion (because it is full of lies and manipulations and it made people forget God instead of leading to Him). But if you entrust yourself in the hands of God, you will see how deeply rotten is this world, and you will see Lost Paradise, you will see and experience the most marvelous things. And only through God can one get understanding of Alchemical matters. As Basilius Valentine wrote: "The first thing is Invocatio Dei". This is the start of the work and, for some reason, many people refuse to believe it even when they are told directly and in plain words.
    Obviously bad work conditions and no proper medical services will shorten life what is your point here? Yes the world is a bad place one part eats rich sugary food and gets diabetes the other half starves. There are many factors apart from the efficacy of modern medicine. The inescapable fact however is that despite its shortcomings modern medicine is the most successful medical discipline in known history for curing diseases, extending lives and reducing pain. Where it’s application is hapahazard or social and general living conditions are severe it’s benefits are limited obviously. If you cure a person of TB but they die of starvation you have not helped. Perhaps this anecdote from my childhood will help: when I was 12 I was upset ( I forget about what). My uncle said to me do I still believe Father Christmas is real I answered no. He asked do I still think it is the tooth fairy that used to put money under my pillow when I had lost one of my milk teeth, I answered no. My uncle then wondered why on earth did I still think life is generally fair.

  2. #222
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    102
    JDP i'm not here to serve your Ego
    you can think whatever you want

    any realistic and empirically grounded view of the subject wouldn't dismiss a majority of authors talking about one matter
    just because it doesn't agree with them personally
    as i said before you might of found no evidence or success in it
    but you cant speak for every other alchemist out there who has considered this approach
    i guess you'll try....

    and none of them have made the Stone either.
    what EGO, just because they haven't revealed it to you personally doesn't mean they didn't find success
    the inability to accept new ideas that challenge the way we think is a sign of Hubris
    despite what you may think you aren't all knowing

    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.
    Animals in the jungle eat clay from certain places to heal themselves
    Thermal springs have long been reported to aid in healing
    here's a link discussing both sides of Radon rich water
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477672/

    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?
    Imitating it ? did i say that ? are you purposefully being dense or does it come naturally ?
    nature doesn't finish the work the artist does by studying(not imitation) her processes her operations
    nature teaches you alot about the subject, but is unable to complete the work herself
    my point being with study of her operations we find what nature may be missing in order to be able to complete the work

    trying to have a conversation with someone who will not accept any other view other than their own is fruitless
    Good luck with whatever you think alchemy is...

    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
    Last edited by Kibric; 1 Week Ago at 10:39 PM.

  3. #223
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Kibric View Post
    JDP i'm not here to serve your Ego
    No, just yours.

    you can think whatever you want
    And I will. I am not easily convinced by such flimsy arguments.

    any realistic and empirically grounded view of the subject wouldn't dismiss a majority of authors talking about one matter
    And who says they are the majority? I would rather say that the majority point out or at least imply that several matters are used in making the Stone. Plus many of them (like the previously cited Zosimos) keep on exposing the ACTUAL meaning of the "one matter" bit so that others won't fall into that trap.

    just because it doesn't agree with them personally
    The "one matter" claim, when taken literally, does not agree with common sense and empirical experience either. What single natural matter have you ever found that totally fits all the things the alchemists describe in their texts? Good luck finding one Countless seekers spent their whole lives looking for one anywhere in nature, yet found none. Could it maybe just be that this supposed "one matter" DOES NOT EXIST ANYWHERE UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY MAKE IT YOURSELF??? Yes, yes, I very much think so!

    as i said before you might of found no evidence or success in it
    but you cant speak for every other alchemist out there who has considered this approach
    i guess you'll try....
    Reality is very "democratic"; it's the same for all. So I strongly doubt that someone somewhere has been able to find this supposed "one matter" somewhere in nature already made for his/her convenience.

    what EGO, just because they haven't revealed it to you personally doesn't mean they didn't find success
    the inability to accept new ideas that challenge the way we think is a sign of Hubris
    despite what you may think you aren't all knowing
    Show us one single example of these modern seekers working on "one matter only" who has finished the Stone and can provide a sample of it for testing purposes so that their claims can be verified.

    Animals in the jungle eat clay from certain places to heal themselves
    Thermal springs have long been reported to aid in healing
    here's a link discussing both sides of Radon rich water
    If this is your idea of what the Stone is, then we are not working at the same level of understanding here. I did not ask you to show me examples of natural substances that have some medicinal properties. Everyone knows that plenty of them exist in nature. I asked you for any natural substance that like the Stone can perform truly unusual things, like turning many times their own weight of a base metal into silver or gold. Where does nature produce any such thing???

    Imitating it ? did i say that ? are you purposefully being dense or does it come naturally ?
    It's what your own words imply. Or are you purposefully being dense or does it come naturally that you don't understand the implications of your own statements?

    my point being with study of her operations we find what nature may be missing in order to be able to complete the work
    Since there is no evidence at all that nature is somehow trying to make the Stone, I fail to see how can you possibly guess what it is supposedly "missing" in its alleged attempts. For this idea to have any validity you would have to demonstrate first that nature DOES try to make the Stone but for some reason keeps on failing. Good luck trying to prove that one.

    trying to have a conversation with someone who will not accept any other view other than their own is fruitless
    Good luck with whatever you think alchemy is...
    Likewise.

  4. #224
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    102
    No, just yours
    sure. i'm the one that cant accept other views i dont personally agree with....
    DOES NOT EXIST ANYWHERE UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY MAKE IT YOURSELF??? Yes, yes, I very much think so!
    It's what your own words imply. Or are you purposefully being dense or does it come naturally that you don't understand the implications of your own statements
    notice how the word " studying " is not the word imitation, very basic reading comprehension
    by studying
    Show us one single example of these modern seekers working on "one matter only" who has finished the Stone and can provide a sample of it for testing purposes so that their claims can be verified
    because no one has shown you personally, so far the assumption is that they haven't.
    right....
    go back to school to learn how to conduct a proper unbiased scientific investigation
    I asked you for any natural substance that like the Stone can perform truly unusual things
    what you actually asked
    that something having any similar properties as the Stone has ever been found already made somewhere in a NATURAL setting
    thermal springs have a long history of rejuvenation a property similar to that of the stone
    wounded animals eating clay to heal faster than usual is a similar property of the stone
    be more specific with the language you use, before you look down your nose
    Likewise.
    at least i can accept the possibility of different ideas/views that challenge my own
    Last edited by Kibric; 1 Week Ago at 10:38 PM.

  5. #225
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Kibric View Post
    sure. i'm the one that cant accept other views i dont personally agree with....
    Your strange and faulty answers suggest otherwise.

    notice how the word " studying " is not the word imitation, very basic reading comprehension
    Since you admit that nature fails in making anything like the Stone, studying its methods to see how it fails requires employing them at some point or another. You are thus using nature as a "model". See what "imitation" means. Basic reading & comprehension.

    because no one has shown you personally, so far the assumption is that they haven't.
    right....
    go back to school to learn how to conduct a proper unbiased scientific investigation
    Follow your own advice and learn what "burden of proof" means. It is the people making the strange or dubious claims that need to provide the proof of their assertions, not those questioning their reality or validity.

    what you actually asked
    More of your reading & comprehension problems. I did not ask you for examples of mundane common-place things, like substances that can heal something or other. There's a ton of those.

    thermal springs have a long history of rejuvenation a property similar to that of the stone
    wounded animals eating clay to heal faster than usual is a similar property of the stone
    be more specific with the language you use, before you look down your nose
    Learn what "unusual" means, because none of what you are talking about qualifies as such. Medicines abound, both in nature as well as in human industry. But show me a substance that can change many times, or even just its own weight, of any metal into another one. Now THAT is unusual!

    at least i can accept the possibility of different ideas/views that challenge my own
    Judging by your answers, it seems like you have a bit of difficulty doing just that. I myself find it very hard to believe or accept things that have pretty much nothing to support them, until proven otherwise. But so far I don't see any evidence that there is "one matter" somewhere out there in nature that can perform all the things the alchemists describe in their texts.

  6. #226
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    102
    Your strange and faulty answers suggest otherwise.
    go on quote me, where do i outright dismiss other views i dont personally agree with ?

    It is the people making the strange or dubious claims that need to provide the proof of their assertions
    so show me this mixture of substances...? it can equally be considered a dubious claim
    as you are arguing its definitely not one matter, what exactly can you show me apart from quotes ?
    doesn't it swing both ways ?
    if your so adamant that its not one matter you must have some hard evidence beyond quotes that proves it ?
    or is it just based on your opinion ?

    Learn what "unusual" means
    what you 1st asked
    that something having any similar properties as the Stone
    no unusual in that sentence, reading comprehension
    I did not ask you for examples of mundane common-place things, like substances that can heal something or other.
    what you asked 1st is for similar properties of the stone
    then you double back on yourself and say you meant Unusual things
    I asked you for any natural substance that like the Stone can perform truly unusual things
    again
    be more specific with the language you use
    reading comprehension
    judging by your answers, it seems like you have a bit of difficulty doing just that
    you mean this pretty definitive answer i gave i few post back
    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
    all i'm arguing is the possibility of one matter
    your arguing its definitely not one matter
    But so far I don't see any evidence that there is "one matter" somewhere out there in nature that can perform all the things the alchemists describe in their texts.
    are you able provide the hard verifiable evidence (beyond quotes) that has lead you to the definitive conclusion its not one matter
    but a mixture of substances instead
    Last edited by Kibric; 1 Week Ago at 01:22 AM.

  7. #227
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Kibric View Post
    go on quote me, where do i outright dismiss other views i dont personally agree with ?
    The fact that you irrupted into the discussion claiming that the "trap" was "this" (and proceeded to quote some texts, most of which in fact did not quite say or imply what you wanted them to.)

    so show me this mixture of substances...? it can equally be considered a dubious claim
    as you are arguing its definitely not one matter, what exactly can you show me apart from quotes ?
    doesn't it swing both ways ?
    That's up for you and everyone else (me included) to find out. But you have yet to point out one single natural matter that can display all the curious reactions the alchemists describe in their books.

    if your so adamant that its not one matter you must have some hard evidence beyond quotes that proves it ?
    or is it just based on your opinion ?
    There's only two choices here: either it's one matter only or it's more than one. The "one matter only" claim has virtually nothing to support it. Where is this marvelous single substance in nature that can display all those peculiar reactions the alchemists describe??? That only leaves the other possible option: the Stone is made from more than one matter. If you have tinkered with this approach, you should know by now that the possibilities are almost limitless, quite unlike the "one matter only" dead-end. There are so many possible combinations that a person might live his entire life making trials every single day of his life and not stumble upon the right combination. Plus I have already stumbled upon quite a bit of unusual byproducts and results with this approach. I have yet to see anything remotely unusual or very interesting by manipulating any single matter by itself. Most of what you can get from such an approach is already very well described in loads of "chymical" and chemical books.

    what you 1st asked
    Nope, that's not what I asked. You need to look at CONTEXT.

    no unusual in that sentence, reading comprehension
    It goes without saying that that's what was meant. Why would anyone request proof of mundane, common, run-of-the-mill things???

    what you asked 1st is for similar properties of the stone
    And it goes without saying I was talking about its UNUSUAL properties, that no other known substance possesses. Going by your "logic" any substance has similar properties as the Stone, even a piece of common rock on the streets. Hey, it has mass, it weighs, it reflects light, it can be powdered, just like the Stone! See, it has similar properties! Nope, you know very well that is not what was being asked. And neither was its reputed healing properties, which many other substances also possess to some degree or other. The most distinguishing property of the Stone, what separates it from the bulk of other matter, is that it can turn many times its own weight of base metals into silver and gold.

    then you double back on yourself and say you meant Unusual things
    I didn't "double back", I actually had to clarify for you what was plainly implied. CONTEXT.

    again
    reading comprehension
    Which seems to be your problem.

    you mean this pretty definitive answer i gave i few post back


    all i'm arguing is the possibility of one matter
    your arguing its definitely not one matter
    Partly because empirical experience and common sense have made it just too difficult to envision this approach as a possibility, partly because of what many alchemists say.

    i would love too see you provide the hard verifiable evidence (beyond quotes) that has lead you to the definitive conclusion its not one matter
    but a mixture of substances instead
    See one of the replies above. There's only two choices. And the single-matter one has all the looks of a dead-end. What other choice is left??? It is much more likely to be more than one matter involved in its production.

  8. #228
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    102
    so to clarify
    you have no definitive conclusion and proof that its one matter or many matters ?
    just like the rest of us

    you are arguing the possibility of many matters due to your own experience
    which i wont reject
    but i cant whole heartily reject the one matter approach either

    i didn't want to clash with you about different approaches
    i just felt completely dismissing one side of the argument (which ever side that may be) is a biased way of trying to solve this conundrum

    i really do wish you the best in your experimentation

  9. #229
    As soon as you put one matter into a vessel and let it stand there for a while there is the possibility it will change espacially when the matter is organic or has organic dirtiness. Here bacteria and/or yeast come in play which is already found on mostly any substance found in nature. Would you then have one matter only too just disregarding bacteria and/or yeast?
    You can think about putting a mineral ore into a vessel. By putting some heat/fire on it may start to combust and seperate/react to other matters. This would be the stage of "solve" concerning the texts. In putting the seperated matters together again in some order or state nature doesn't do by itself in washing/cleaning/further seperate them you would have the "coagula".

    What I am trying to say is that it is not quite clear what each of you understands when you say "one matter".

    For example you could start using cinnebar and get quicksilver and sulfur. You can clean the last mentioned elements and put them together to HgS. The product then is purer than the original ore (cinnebar). Maybe some definitions would be useful in advance to built a common ground to argue on. Maybe the definitions of chemical words like "Element", "Compound", "heterogenous mixture" and "homogenous mixture" could add some help in this discussion.

  10. #230
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Florius Frammel View Post
    As soon as you put one matter into a vessel and let it stand there for a while there is the possibility it will change espacially when the matter is organic or has organic dirtiness. Here bacteria and/or yeast come in play which is already found on mostly any substance found in nature. Would you then have one matter only too just disregarding bacteria and/or yeast?
    You can think about putting a mineral ore into a vessel. By putting some heat/fire on it may start to combust and seperate/react to other matters. This would be the stage of "solve" concerning the texts. In putting the seperated matters together again in some order or state nature doesn't do by itself in washing/cleaning/further seperate them you would have the "coagula".

    What I am trying to say is that it is not quite clear what each of you understands when you say "one matter".

    For example you could start using cinnebar and get quicksilver and sulfur. You can clean the last mentioned elements and put them together to HgS. The product then is purer than the original ore (cinnebar). Maybe some definitions would be useful in advance to built a common ground to argue on. Maybe the definitions of chemical words like "Element", "Compound", "heterogenous mixture" and "homogenous mixture" could add some help in this discussion.
    But none of these examples matches with the peculiar reactions described by the alchemists.

    Also, simple minerals like cinnabar were well known to be compounds/mixtures of two or more separate substances, so not really "one matter" in the strict sense. Just like sea-water cannot also be truly considered "one matter" since it is very easy to "dissect" it into its constituents (plain water + mostly common salt + smaller amounts of some other salts; none of which the alchemists knew how to further "dissect" into simpler constituents; but we do.)

    By "one matter" it should be understood one single substance, not artificially made by man by putting it together from several separate matters. But this is the very trap itself, since the "one matter" of alchemy is made just like that! Nature sure won't make it for you. It CANNOT do it, even if it wanted to. It lacks the appropriate tools and working conditions to do it. But man can do it, he has developed the necessary tools & working conditions.

+ 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