Patrons of the Sacred Art

Can't log in? Contact Us

OPEN TO REGISTER: Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 28 of 34 FirstFirst ... 18 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 331

Thread: EM's P.S. Thread

  1. #271
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    It's not a "metaphysical" concept (of matter). I have no idea who's assuming this (except perhaps JDP). It is a physically tangible substance when rendered/isolated. If not isolated (still mostly bound to a carrier), it can (like what is assumed to be "gravity") be known by its effects, like in more advanced spagyrical products or in various more or less "profitable" particulars.

    Also, I don't know why people assume that this "one matter" is supposed to be readily found in nature and subsequently cooked "as is".

    It isn't. That's the whole point.

    And I believe that's also why this merry-go-round debate keeps going, because the foundation is poorly understood. When authors talk about "taking it from the mine", this phrase does not usually carry the common meaning. Mining for alchemically active agents is different than mining for metals/minerals, just as it is different than, say, mining for bitcoin.

    To summarize the perspectives that I am offering for consideration
    :

    Yes, "our" matter is one.

    No, it is not something you just find in nature, readily available to be taken and cooked to perfection

    Yes, "our" matter is physically tangible.

    No
    , it is not "hypothetical" or "mystical".

    Yes, it can be ultimately regarded as a matter of chemistry and physics.

    No, it is not the chemistry and physics of the academia. It's a "different school", as per Fulcanelli.

    Yes, many matters found in nature (or in the store) can be used either as carriers from which to "mine" our matter and/or as agents/catalysts to perform this task. Not all of them are equally easy to work with. It's very likely that many matters can't be (realistically) worked with at all. I'd never mine from a plastic quarry, for example.

    Yes, combinations of various matters can be used, but these matters are not "our" matter. They can be "magnets", "mines", "mining tools", etc...

    A funny thing that often occurs in "quote duels", is when someone quotes an author talking about "one matter" and then someone else quotes the same author talking about multiple matters.

    It's a non-issue. Those statements are NOT contradictory.

    I can say with ease that (for example) the matter is urine. Or blood. Or Dew. Or sea salt. Or some sulfide mineral. Or any combination thereof. Just as easily as I can, in good conscience, dismiss all those matters as "our matter" two paragraphs later.

    Even common distillation is a form of "mining". Alchemical "mining" (separation) is performed to such a high degree of rectification (and often with different lab tools than common distillation), that the product no longer possesses (all or most of) the qualities or characteristics of the mine. That's one reason some people refer to it as "universal" spirit - it no longer resembles the "mine" it was taken from. And this must be tested in the lab, because online debates whether such a tangible spirit exists or not will be anything but productive.

    Before replying (regardless if there is "agreement" or not), I kindly ask everyone to carefully read the points that are being replied to - just to avoid addressing points that were never there to start with.

    And finally, to anyone fond of auto-playing statements such as "it's unproven", "it's an untested assumption", "it's hypothetical/theoretical/metaphysical", etc - I suggest researching different models/approaches/paradigms in the lab (even if they don't seem to fit currently held views), so proof can be found where it can actually occur - in the lab, not online. The posts of z0 k are quite enlightening in this regard.

    -----------------------------------------------------------
    Your theory (yes, theory, not "fact") = belief in the Tooth Fairy without having much proof of its existence first. No one has seen her, no one has touched her, no one has smelt her, etc. yet some blindly believe in her nonetheless. I can just as easily take out your "universal spirit" and put her in its place, and nothing would change. Whatever is it that you think you have physically "isolated" and identify as the supposed "universal spirit" is most likely something else, a real tangible substance for which you might not have a better explanation, but someone else with more know-how can explain in a more believable manner than such a dubious assumption. You might want to read on the "phlogiston" theory to learn a very valuable lesson regarding such theoretical assumptions. "Phlogiston" was the Tooth Fairy of 18th century chemistry. Most of the best minds of that age were totally convinced of how "real" this "phlogiston" was, yet it turned out to be one big flop based on a series of mistaken assumptions and misinterpretations of empirical data. Without having better knowledge of what our atmosphere is really composed of, it is perfectly understandable why such a mistake was made, though. But once the mistake was identified and more rational causes were found to explain what previously had been attributed to this 18th century Tooth Fairy, we moved on, we did not entertain the mistaken assumptions/theories that gave birth to that imaginary and elusive substance anymore. Same with "Spiritus Mundi", another unproven theoretical relic that should be left where it belongs: in the footnotes of history.

  2. #272
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    5,918
    Blog Entries
    1
    Fair enough.

    I don't care what you name it. It still is what it is: A substance that is no longer bound by the specific properties/qualities of the "mine" is was taken from, and always exhibits the same qualities (action on salts/metals, etc), regardless of the source material(s) it was "mined" from. This is enough to justify the nomenclature ("universal", etc...)

    Please prove me wrong (in the lab, not online via debate!) by succeeding to make the "secret solvent" without it.
    Last edited by Andro; 12-09-2017 at 03:47 PM.

  3. #273
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    Fair enough.

    Please prove me wrong by succeeding to make the "secret solvent" without it.
    Prove that you have made the secret solvent with "it" first. Even if you have managed to make the secret solvent, I fail to see how will you be able to prove it was actually because of this mysterious elusive "thing" that no one has seen/touched/smelled and not because you actually chose the specific CORRECT substances to operate with and set forth the CORRECT reactions that can generate it. The excuse that "some matters work better than others" is in fact designed to try to explain why most substances fail to work for this purpose and still try to make the theory retain some "credibility". But if this "universal spirit" is supposedly in everything then it should be possible to find a way of making ANY SUBSTANCE work and deliver the solvent and make the Stone. But centuries worth of failure to do such a thing by legions of seekers working with all manner of different substances, and the alchemists' constant preoccupation with hiding the actual substance they used, speak volumes against this idea. What it all more logically leads to is this conclusion: the substances that can actually work and make the secret solvent and the Stone are rather specific and limited in number, not just about anything will work for the purpose. We cannot conclude much further than that from the available evidence.

  4. #274
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    Fair enough.

    I don't care what you name it. It still is what it is: A substance that is no longer bound by the specific properties/qualities of the "mine" is was taken from, and always exhibits the same qualities (action on salts/metals, etc), regardless of the source material(s) it was "mined" from. This is enough to justify the nomenclature ("universal", etc...)

    Please prove me wrong (in the lab, not online via debate!) by succeeding to make the "secret solvent" without it.
    But how do you know it PREEXISTS in the materials??? This is one BIG ASSUMPTION to make, unless you have developed an analytical method that can show this "thing" is actually there.

  5. #275
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    5,918
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    But how do you know it PREEXISTS in the materials???
    Because that's where it's taken/extracted/separated from. Duh.

    (that's a bit over-simplifying, but that's the gist of it)

  6. #276
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    Because that's where it's taken/extracted/separated from. Duh.

    (that's a bit over-simplifying, but that's the gist of it)
    But how can you know that this "thing" is not the product of the reactions, instead of preexisting in the said materials? Duh!

    The way you would have a better case would be if from a very simple single substance, say iron or lead, with nothing else added to it, you could indeed obtain this mysterious "thing". That would indeed be truly puzzling. But by making substances react you are entering a whole new world of possibilities.

  7. #277
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    5,918
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    The way you would have a better case would be if from a very simple single substance, say iron or lead, with nothing else added to it, you could indeed obtain this mysterious "thing". That would indeed be truly puzzling.
    Do the Archaeus of Water (all the way, i.e. rectify the hell out of it). Only with water, although no two waters are the same... and perhaps you will be puzzled

    Also, you already know very well that Alchemy is not chemistry, so I would like to add a tangent to this discussion: What is it, in your opinion, that empirically differentiates Alchemy from chemistry?

    I'm talking systemically/fundamentally, not in terms of merely having different goals/outcomes.

  8. #278
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,014
    @Andro

    Is it the way John Reid did? And is maybe the gur the proof you mentioned above?

    http://www.levity.com/alchemy/reid2-8.html

  9. #279
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    5,918
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Florius Frammel View Post
    Is it the way John Reid did?
    It can be something like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Florius Frammel View Post
    And is maybe the gur the proof you mentioned above?
    What it boils down to is, if you get a Spirit and an Earth (both from just water), you could basically have a "sandbox" to already start practicing your stone-making skills.

    I won't be talking methodology, but there are variations one can experiment with.

  10. #280
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    Do the Archaeus of Water (all the way, i.e. rectify the hell out of it). Only with water, although no two waters are the same... and perhaps you will be puzzled
    But water can be tricky, it can have many things dissolved in it, even gases.

    Also, you already know very well that Alchemy is not chemistry, so I would like to add a tangent to this discussion: What is it, in your opinion, that empirically differentiates Alchemy from chemistry?

    I'm talking systemically/fundamentally, not in terms of merely having different goals/outcomes.
    To me it boils down to the right reactions and techniques being applied: the reactions that chemistry is familiar with are ineffective and do nothing to metals, that's why chemists have come to the wrong conclusion that "all" reactions between substances supposedly will fail to alter what they view as "elements". But there are reactions and techniques that chemistry knows little or nothing about which do have interesting and unusual effects on some metallic substances (and I am not just talking about "alchemy" here, the "chymistry" of the 17th-18th centuries also knew several ways for obtaining artificial precious metals.) So far I don't see the necessity to conjure up strange "universal things" to try to explain the differences between "alchemy", "chymistry" and "chemistry". To me it seems like some substances undergo unusual alterations if submitted to the right procedures, while the same substances submitted to more common/vulgar procedures will not undergo said alterations.

+ 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