Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 24 of 29 FirstFirst ... 14 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 282

Thread: EM's P.S. Thread

  1. #231
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    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.
    Accepted!
    Nevertheless you have got to start somewhere.
    There seem to be only two possible ways in doing so.

    1. If you use one matter you would seperate the parts of the mixture or compount to produce more matters.

    2. If you use more matters you would combine them to get a/other compounds or mixtures.

    I am quite sure you will have to do both of the above mentioned processes to do the stone.
    Depending on where to start or at which state of the work you are operating, both viewpoints seem legit.

    One example for the one matter hypothesis after this explanations.
    Let's assume for the great work it is necessary to produce k2co3. Your one matter would then be wood you have to tread in a special way to obtain it. It could even be produced by nature itself.

    On the other hand you would need to make further operations with that salt as we can possibly assume that it is neither the alcahest nor the stone.

    Interpreting it this way the alchemist speak truly in this point and both of you are right.

    Last not least it seems highly unlikely that you would obtain the stone in just watching some matter, hoping to turn into it. And I agree in this point with JDP. The one matter thing is only a part of the process that maybe can be interpretated in way like I did above.

  2. #232
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Florius Frammel View Post
    Accepted!
    Nevertheless you have got to start somewhere.
    There seem to be only two possible ways in doing so.

    1. If you use one matter you would seperate the parts of the mixture or compount to produce more matters.

    2. If you use more matters you would combine them to get a/other compounds or mixtures.

    I am quite sure you will have to do both of the above mentioned processes to do the stone.
    Depending on where to start or at which state of the work you are operating, both viewpoints seem legit.

    One example for the one matter hypothesis after this explanations.
    Let's assume for the great work it is necessary to produce k2co3. Your one matter would then be wood you have to tread in a special way to obtain it. It could even be produced by nature itself.

    On the other hand you would need to make further operations with that salt as we can possibly assume that it is neither the alcahest nor the stone.

    Interpreting it this way the alchemist speak truly in this point and both of you are right.

    Last not least it seems highly unlikely that you would obtain the stone in just watching some matter, hoping to turn into it. And I agree in this point with JDP. The one matter thing is only a part of the process that maybe can be interpretated in way like I did above.
    But such type of statements would in fact be deceitful in the end. Let us keep your example: so you take the wood, which can be considered "one matter only", burn it, you get flames, smoke & ashes. The flames & smoke "go away" and the ashes remain for you to manipulate. You can extract the "salt" in them with water. The water does not "remain" with the final product so we could exclude it from the substance count, though technically it is already more than "one matter" being employed, but we will let it "pass". But now what? What can you possibly do with this "salt" by itself? Pretty much nothing, except melting it by itself, or exposing it to the air by itself, and see "what happens". But neither option will produce anything remotely like the Stone. It is a total dead-end, and unless you start bringing in other substances into play it will continue to be nothing but a quick dead-end. So the "one matter" claim ultimately proves to be nothing but a false claim, maliciously conceived to force many unwary and inexperienced seekers into blind alleys. There is just no way that I can possibly envision the Stone being made from ANY single substance on this planet. It just is not going to happen. All of them will lead to the same dead-ends, and you won't be able to get out of those blind alleys unless you start bringing in other substances into play.

  3. #233
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    But such type of statements would in fact be deceitful in the end. Let us keep your example: so you take the wood, which can be considered "one matter only", burn it, you get flames, smoke & ashes. The flames & smoke "go away" and the ashes remain for you to manipulate. You can extract the "salt" in them with water. The water does not "remain" with the final product so we could exclude it from the substance count, though technically it is already more than "one matter" being employed, but we will let it "pass". But now what? What can you possibly do with this "salt" by itself? Pretty much nothing, except melting it by itself, or exposing it to the air by itself, and see "what happens". But neither option will produce anything remotely like the Stone. It is a total dead-end, and unless you start bringing in other substances into play it will continue to be nothing but a quick dead-end. So the "one matter" claim ultimately proves to be nothing but a false claim, maliciously conceived to force many unwary and inexperienced seekers into blind alleys. There is just no way that I can possibly envision the Stone being made from ANY single substance on this planet. It just is not going to happen. All of them will lead to the same dead-ends, and you won't be able to get out of those blind alleys unless you start bringing in other substances into play.
    But that's what I said, isn't it?

  4. #234
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Florius Frammel View Post
    But that's what I said, isn't it?
    But then you concluded "Interpreting it this way the alchemist speak truly in this point". But in the end it boils down to a lie, because at some point or another more than "one matter" will have to come into play. The whole thing is designed to ultimately deceive what these alchemists envisioned as "unworthy" seekers.

  5. #235
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    But then you concluded "Interpreting it this way the alchemist speak truly in this point". But in the end it boils down to a lie, because at some point or another more than "one matter" will have to come into play. The whole thing is designed to ultimately deceive what these alchemists envisioned as "unworthy" seekers.
    On the other hand there are way more obvious lies in those texts. The alchemists though often tell us they speak the truth. The only anwser to solve this dillema is to interpret it in such kind of ways. Despite of that I totally agree with you.

  6. #236
    About one matter, chemical elements and modern science bizarre theories.

    Can we consider an animal, a plant or... a man as one matter or, scientifically speaking, as simple, non-compound substance?

    If we start calcinating living animal, plant or man, we will get scientifically pure matter, but will it be alive? We can get pure carbon, pure calcium etc., but if we start combining it back together, can we get an animal/plant/ man back? Once destroyed, can it be returned to life if not in better condition (remember Alchemy is about perfection) but at least as it was in life?..

    As I see it, science deals with corpses, rotten corpses, it tortures everything, pure minerals, they are being put in violent fire, dissolved, evaporated, oh my God, what an unimaginable cruelty. Just imagine doing the same to some animal, would it like it? Doing it to a man is a crime, but it is ok to vivisect poor minerals?

    I think that human science is based too much on death and destruction, while Alchemy is True Knowledge of Life, and they barely have anything in common.

    Also it made me remember:
    "Anything you do to this cat, I will do to you." (from "Alf")

  7. #237
    Quote Originally Posted by Warmheart View Post
    About one matter, chemical elements and modern science bizarre theories.

    Can we consider an animal, a plant or... a man as one matter or, scientifically speaking, as simple, non-compound substance?

    If we start calcinating living animal, plant or man, we will get scientifically pure matter, but will it be alive? We can get pure carbon, pure calcium etc., but if we start combining it back together, can we get an animal/plant/ man back? Once destroyed, can it be returned to life if not in better condition (remember Alchemy is about perfection) but at least as it was in life?..

    As I see it, science deals with corpses, rotten corpses, it tortures everything, pure minerals, they are being put in violent fire, dissolved, evaporated, oh my God, what an unimaginable cruelty. Just imagine doing the same to some animal, would it like it? Doing it to a man is a crime, but it is ok to vivisect poor minerals?

    I think that human science is based too much on death and destruction, while Alchemy is True Knowledge of Life, and they barely have anything in common.

    Also it made me remember:
    "Anything you do to this cat, I will do to you." (from "Alf")
    I like Alf!

    You know, I can't really get that "science dissing" in some alchemical discussions.
    Even those around here with a science background believe at least in some qualities of alchemical, archemical or spagyrically produced substances. All of that is not common ground scientifically. Very few people here are so called science hardliners who would dismiss any alchemical research before it is even started because the official state of knowledge tells us it is impossible.
    But some are rather curious and think that maybe in former times they were not as stupid as some scientists want us to tell. Most of the better scientists I know would never say that making the stone is impossible, they would rather say it is highly unlikely to do it. That is an important difference!
    On the other hand no scientist can prove to you that your personal believe in god, the demiurg, holy spirit, collective conciousness or anything like that is false as this things cannot (yet?) be proven or refute scientifically.

    To dismiss chemistry or physics when trying to find out anything about alchemy, archemy or spagyrics would be very foolish in my opinion. What are you afraid of? Just go ahead and mix together some materials of which you don't know any chemical properties without appropriate protection and try to stay alive!

    If you are worrying about poor minerals then please don't start to research on the experiments people did in former times, especially what the alchemist(?) Gilles de Rais did. Some opinions about the past and alchemy seem to be pretty romantic. Just look at the data. People in former times never lived hand in hand with nature. They died. We are going to die too, but hopefully not so early and painful like most people did in the past. Why? Because of improvements made by scientists. Not all of those inventions are positive, that's true. But it is wrong and too easy to have a kind of black and white thinking on this topic.

  8. #238
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    554
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    What is (any) matter made of?

    What differentiates one matter from another?

    And what is "matter", anyway?
    ^ Asking the real questions!

  9. #239
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    ^ Asking the real questions!
    Which are not that difficult to answer:

    1- What is (any) matter made of?

    Does it really "matter"? It exists. Period.

    2- What differentiates one matter from another?

    Whatever it is that causes the differences, we can plainly perceive them with our senses. No one would confuse, say, a piece of iron, with, say, a piece of gold.

    3- And what is "matter", anyway?

    Anything that occupies space (i.e. has volume), has mass, and has weight (i.e. has gravity and is pulled by gravity)

  10. #240
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    But such type of statements would in fact be deceitful in the end. Let us keep your example: so you take the wood, which can be considered "one matter only", burn it, you get flames, smoke & ashes. The flames & smoke "go away" and the ashes remain for you to manipulate. You can extract the "salt" in them with water. The water does not "remain" with the final product so we could exclude it from the substance count, though technically it is already more than "one matter" being employed, but we will let it "pass". But now what? What can you possibly do with this "salt" by itself? Pretty much nothing, except melting it by itself, or exposing it to the air by itself, and see "what happens". But neither option will produce anything remotely like the Stone. It is a total dead-end, and unless you start bringing in other substances into play it will continue to be nothing but a quick dead-end. So the "one matter" claim ultimately proves to be nothing but a false claim, maliciously conceived to force many unwary and inexperienced seekers into blind alleys. There is just no way that I can possibly envision the Stone being made from ANY single substance on this planet. It just is not going to happen. All of them will lead to the same dead-ends, and you won't be able to get out of those blind alleys unless you start bringing in other substances into play.
    The matter as I see it is that you do twist a tortured path for yourself around your alchemical word smithing concerning the starting matter. The matter here is the rut you are in because the adepts start with one matter and you do not understand why. Fortunately you here have decided to accept the example of "wood" as one matter to start with. That is a good choice.

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

    There is just no way that I can possibly envision the Stone being made from ANY single substance on this planet. It just is not going to happen. All of them will lead to the same dead-ends, and you won't be able to get out of those blind alleys unless you start bringing in other substances into play.
    I challenge your assumption! You say it leads to the same dead ends. Now you will have to prove it as you have often demanded from others. You have accepted "wood" as a one-matter-only starting matter. Now you can demonstrate that your assumption is correct through actual experiments in your lab. Get wood. You are going to need quite a bit of it. You will need to dry distill it and collect every substance that evolved from that one thing: wood: the starting matter. You will need to document how you proceed of course in order to prove your point.

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

    Another thing, you said:
    the "one matter" claim ultimately proves to be nothing but a false claim
    Where is your proof! All you put forth on this matter so far is your personal opinions: claims. Now, put up some proof from your laboratory. You are the one claiming it is false, prove it!

+ 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