Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 26 of 29 FirstFirst ... 16 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 282

Thread: EM's P.S. Thread

  1. #251
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiorionis View Post
    Speculation and assumption? I disagree:

    For all we know, it is nectarine juice with some grenadine thrown it. What does it prove?

  2. #252
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    I said what I had to say. It is neither assumption nor speculation.

    Even if "empirical evidence" may appear to show the contrary, this so-called "evidence" fails to account for the "passenger".

    Some "combinations" of various matters can indeed be somewhat more conductive to rendering this "passenger" alchemically active.

    However, the "scientifically empirical mind" will see nothing more than the particular combinations of those matters as being responsible for the alchemical effect - but this is not the case.

    There's no going anywhere in Alchemy without accounting for the "passenger". It is present even in various "low R.O.I. particulars", no matter what matters enter into the composition of any given "low R.O.I. particular". It's the activation of the "alchemical passenger" that ALL operations, from the least "profitable" particulars and all the way to the Stone, have in common.

    What I needed proof for, I have already proven for myself. It's not my job to prove anything to anyone else.

    Also, I will not get sucked into any sort of dead-end circular debates.

    If you are inspired by what I wrote, good for you.

    If you feel it's all assumptions/unproven/baloney/etc - good for you as well.

    Up to the readers to discern what makes alchemical (not common) sense to them.
    Just to show you how easily this theory can be put into very serious question: go to the hardware store and buy a pound of nails. It will only cost you a couple of bucks. Now prepare the secret solvent or the Stone from it ALONE, nothing else added. Good luck. I can easily predict that not even if you live 1000 years will you achieve anything by manipulating it alone. Yet the theory says it should be possible to somehow succeed. Iron/steel must have this universal "one matter" in it, like everything else supposedly does, right? History, logic, common sense and empirical experience on the other hand say "Wrongo! You will never succeed with such a simplistic approach."

  3. #253
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Bridger Mountains
    Posts
    1,584
    Blog Entries
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    For all we know, it is nectarine juice with some grenadine thrown it. What does it prove?
    Actually, it’s a tequila sunrise
    Art is Nature in the flask; Nature is a vial thing.

  4. #254
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    4,608
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Just to show you how easily this theory can be put into very serious question: go to the hardware store and buy a pound of nails. It will only cost you a couple of bucks. Now prepare the secret solvent or the Stone from it ALONE, nothing else added. Good luck. I can easily predict that not even if you live 1000 years will you achieve anything by manipulating it alone. Yet the theory says it should be possible to somehow succeed. Iron/steel must have this universal "one matter" in it, like everything else supposedly does, right? History, logic, common sense and empirical experience on the other hand say "Wrongo! You will never succeed with such a simplistic approach."
    We have just witnessed an empirical demonstration of a lack of ability to comprehend what was written

    I never said THE one matter of alchemy is a common/easy to get matter that can be found in nature (or in the hardware store, for that matter...)

    The matter of the Stone is one, but nature does not (and can not) separate/extract/render it tangible by itself without the intervention of the Alchemist.

    The extraction/separation/corporification of this one matter can be accomplished by and from multiple/variable auxiliary matters. But at the end of the day, "our" matter is still one.
    I also clearly said that:

    Some "combinations" of various matters can indeed be somewhat more conductive to rendering this "passenger" alchemically active.
    The "answer" is in the blind spot

  5. #255
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    We have just witnessed an empirical demonstration of a lack of ability to comprehend what was written

    I never said THE one matter of alchemy is a common/easy to get matter that can be found in nature (or in the hardware store, for that matter...)

    I also clearly said that:

    The "answer" is in the blind spot
    But then you HAVE recognized that the "one matter only" IS INDEED A TRAP. It cannot be done without the participation of more than one single substance (which is what these types of deceitful alchemists mean by "matter" in this context; they are not referring to "matter" in metaphysical contexts, but in an actual physical, quantitative context; they are referring to the NUMBER OF INGREDIENTS for making the Stone.) Thank you for this final (unwitting?) confession!

  6. #256
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    4,608
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    But then you HAVE recognized that the "one matter only" IS INDEED A TRAP. It cannot be done without the participation of more than one single substance (which is what these types of deceitful alchemists mean by "matter" in this context; they are not referring to "matter" in metaphysical contexts, but in an actual physical, quantitative context; they are referring to the INGREDIENTS for making the Stone.) Thank you for this final (unwitting?) confession!
    Once more, you fail to comprehend.

    Contemplate the carrier(s)/passenger model. All matters are carriers, but not all of them are good candidates for this work. I'd never use plastic, for example

    Often, a combination of matters is needed, but not because their chemical interactions, but because such combinations (there are quite a few of them) are able to render active the ONE alchemical passenger, which, when/if expertly isolated, is not at all "metaphysical", but very physical and tangible indeed.

    But yes, the genuine philosophers do write in a purposefully deceitful manner, being experts at revealing and concealing simultaneously by statements that only appear to be contradictory, but in fact aren't really so.

    Anyway, I got work to do now. I just wanted to add a somewhat different angle for everyone reading this thread and/or engaging in this type of circular debate, which will remain circular until we find the Center (conveniently located in our blind spot ).

    Cheers.

  7. #257
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    Once more, you fail to comprehend.

    Contemplate the carrier(s)/passenger model. All matters are carriers, but not all of them are good candidates for this work. I'd never use plastic, for example

    Often, a combination of matters is needed, but not because their chemical interactions, but because such combinations (there are quite a few of them) are able to render active the ONE alchemical passenger, which, when/if expertly isolated, is not at all "metaphysical", but very physical and tangible indeed.

    But yes, the genuine philosophers do write in a purposefully deceitful manner, being experts at revealing and concealing simultaneously by statements that only appear to be contradictory, but in fact aren't really so.

    Anyway, I got work to do now. I just wanted to add a somewhat different angle for everyone reading this thread and/or engaging in this type of circular debate, which will remain circular until we find the Center (conveniently located in our blind spot ).

    Cheers.
    You keep failing to see that I DO understand the THEORY you keep bringing forth, but that I also keep pointing out that there is NOTHING to corroborate it. It is too convenient. Instead of placing the credit on what we can see and investigate (i.e. the reactions between different substances) the theory you are talking about tries to place the credit on some unseen and unproven "thing" that is supposedly everywhere. You might as well place the credit on The Tooth Fairy. She is the one that makes it all happen, not the reactions between substances that we can plainly see and manipulate. It is The Tooth Fairy, I tell you! She is EVERYWHERE, but you just can't see her working her "magic" inside the different materials. See how easy it is to come up with convenient gratuitous claims that do not bring forth any shred of proof?

    Plus you also fail to see when the alchemists are not talking about theories but simply giving general directions on how to operate. The ones that keep on harping about a "one matter only" do NOT intend their readers to understand some hypothetical universal principle supposedly present everywhere, but AN ACTUAL NUMBER OF SUBSTANCES EMPLOYED. That's what makes their intention so malicious and misleading. They are trying to convince many of their readers into thinking that by literally manipulating only one substance/ingredient, nothing else whatsoever, they will be able to make the Stone.

  8. #258
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    You keep failing to see that I DO understand the THEORY you keep bringing forth, but that I also keep pointing out that there is NOTHING to corroborate it. It is too convenient. Instead of placing the credit on what we can see and investigate (i.e. the reactions between different substances) the theory you are talking about tries to place the credit on some unseen and unproven "thing" that is supposedly everywhere. You might as well place the credit on The Tooth Fairy. She is the one that makes it all happen, not the reactions between substances that we can plainly see and manipulate. It is The Tooth Fairy, I tell you! She is EVERYWHERE, but you just can't see her working her "magic" inside the different materials. See how easy it is to come up with convenient gratuitous claims that do not bring forth any shred of proof?

    Plus you also fail to see when the alchemists are not talking about theories but simply giving general directions on how to operate. The ones that keep on harping about a "one matter only" do NOT intend their readers to understand some hypothetical universal principle supposedly present everywhere, but AN ACTUAL NUMBER OF SUBSTANCES EMPLOYED. That's what makes their intention so malicious and misleading. They are trying to convince many of their readers into thinking that by literally manipulating only one substance/ingredient, nothing else whatsoever, they will be able to make the Stone.
    I thought the tooth fairy didn't enter the equation until the coagulation step.

  9. #259
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    4,608
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by black View Post
    This is the type of posts we need to see more of !!!
    Apparently not

  10. #260
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    US
    Posts
    126
    JDP,

    I’ve been wondering... what’s your scientific definition of one matter? For example, is your definition an atom, a molecule, an electron, proton, etc.? I believe scientifically, mass = matter so where do you draw the line? Essentially, what I’m asking is if in your mind you consider an atom as the lowest discrete unit of matter or a molecule or something different. If you’ve answered this question before, I haven’t seen it so am curious.

    Andro,

    While you may think that this debate is circular and possibly a waste of your time, it is helpful for the multitudes (I know it’s helpful to me) that read the back and forth because in the ‘conversation’ we can usually pick up new clues that were previously unknown. In the past when I saw these discussions erupt, I would think... here they go again but now I have found a new level of appreciation for the discourse that reveals information that wasn’t know to me before so definitely a plus in my book. In other words, if you have the time please don’t stop.

    TIA
    Last edited by Aham; 4 Days Ago at 10:16 PM. Reason: Clarified post

+ 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