Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 171

Thread: possible subject of the art - touchstone

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    557
    Quote Originally Posted by solomon levi View Post
    If i could block JDP i would because he seems like a real bummer.
    If you desire to block AGAPDOTAJDP (Almighty Gatekeeper And Prince Defender Of The Art) JDP, you can do so with this link http://forum.alchemyforums.com/member.php?8146-JDP, clicking "Add to Ignore List". Be warned, you may forever be limiting your intake of decknamen and empirical evidence should you choose to take this action. You will be limiting your EXPOSURE TO ALL CAPS and blue text of high value. Proceed at your own risk. You have been warned.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by solomon levi View Post
    so yeah, there are threads on the oil of sand/flints.
    i haven't been very active here for several years but i'm sure you can search it in the forum.
    if any one (who is allowed to think for themselves) cares to give it some attention,
    the simplest "proof" of it is Len Cram. This guys grows opals - real opals, not the way synthetic opals are made.
    If you understand alchemy, he can't do that without mercury, sulphur and salt, and he's doing it -
    so don't tell me there's no solvent or whatever.
    The fact that you think that this has anything to do with alchemy already says much about how little you understand the subject. And even your "understanding" of plain ordinary chemistry is amusing, to say the least. As if opals were not made of silicates themselves!

    Anyway, i had these arguments years ago here and i'm not going to do that again.
    Not surprising, if we consider your previous "arguments" about opals and alchemy & ordinary chemistry. You will lose them all over again, no doubt.

    If you guys want to listen to JDP be my guest. He seems awful afraid of open discussion doesn't he?
    Well, pardon me for wanting to help misguided seekers like you get out of your erroneous theories/speculations. By all means go back to wasting your time and money with things that are not alchemical even by a huge stretch of the imagination.

    there's a lot more evidence from alchemical authors, RAMS, etc.
    Yes, from "CHYMISTS" (like Glauber and such), not actual alchemists. Like I said, the only use for "oil of sand" is in some "chymical particulars". For making the Stone it is useless. It is nothing other than a concentrated solution of alkali metal silicates. Where is the secret solvent INDISPENSABLE to make the Stone here???

    What i learned the earth taught me.
    Too bad that "the earth" does NOT know how to make the Stone. It is up to man to make it. Nature does NOT make it. Otherwise you would be able to find it in some cave somewhere already made. But no chance. It has never happened and it will never happen. It takes the intelligent intervention of man for it to be able to be produced. Tell "the earth" to give you your money and (even more precious) your time back!


    If i could block JDP i would because he seems like a real bummer.
    I haven't been around much for a couple years, and i'm sorry to see this here.
    But i'm just a guest - not going to camp out and preach at you like this:
    "Yes, naughty uncle JDP is such a bummer, he rains on my parade of erroneous speculations. I wish I could just block him so that I can continue to fool myself and others into thinking that I can somehow make the Stone from sand fused with alkalies and then deliquesced in the air!"

    "As I have pointed out many times, this is an incorrect and simply unrealistic view of the subject." - JDP

    Why do you think JDP has to point this out so many times?
    Maybe because, much like you, the majority of seekers after the Stone have rather little empirical experience, also rather limited acquaintance with actual alchemical texts, and therefore often fall into outlandish or erroneous schemes.

    Why does he so desperately need you to believe him?
    Maybe because, unlike you, I don't find it "funny" or "amusing" to see people wasting their time and money on things that have virtually no chance of ever working. So whenever I consider it opportune, I like to point out problems with many seekers' theories regarding the subject, hoping that they will see the error of their conclusions and move on to other more probable ideas. But hey, if you enjoy sending people into blind alleys, be my guest. Just don't expect all of us to remain quiet and not point out for the benefit of others that there is no likely road to anywhere if you follow down that path.

    I didn't even read the rest of his post - i've dealt with the type plenty. Don't let him control you.
    "No, instead listen to my erroneous and unrealistic theories about soluble silicates being the matter of the Stone! Let my unrealistic hopes & dreams control you, and don't listen to anyone who points out the fallacies in my claims. Naughty-naughty, uncle JDP!!!"

    Do you want to know what the subject is?
    "I"
    "I" is the subject of a sentence.
    If you don't have your own "I" and are dependent on JDPs or anyone else's, you're already lost.
    If you don't have eyes like the dragon (dereksthai: "to see clearly")... if your eyes can't see what's in front of your face, there's no hope.
    Wow, says the guy trying to convince others about the outlandish theory that a solution of alkali silicates is the secret of making the Stone. So what really bothers you is just that I said that it is "I" who has pointed that out. Gee, maybe if I said "it has been pointed out many times", you would not be bothered by it, though the message would still be EXACTLY THE SAME. Word of advice: DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER just because he brings you "news" you don't want to hear.

    If a teacher isn't teaching you how to see for yourself, then s/he's not teaching you.
    Teaching how to see - not what to see... what to see is just programming... it's not "vive", living mercury.

    Anyway, back to the topic.
    So i don't have time to say and share all the links and quotes and stuff.
    If you want to look into it, read that article above. Read about oil of sand/flints...
    "Eighteenth Century Chemistry as it relates to Alchemy" is a great book, from Encyclopedia Brittania.
    Written by an ORDINARY CHEMIST called Macquer:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=3O...try%22&f=false

    who not only was NOT an alchemist but in fact was generally scornful towards alchemy. You just keep on proving my point that you have some rather nebulous ideas on these subjects.

    Read or watch videos on waterglass/sodium silicate solution/crystal trees.
    Which, once again, have NOTHING to do with the Philosophers' Stone. Glauber had already written very clearly how to prepare such alkaline silicates, there is nothing remotely "secret" about it, and no one has made the Stone with it, including Glauber himself, who only made claims about being able to get some gold from some ("particular") processes involving these substances. Getting some gold from iron or silver or any other metal by using "oil of sand" as one of the reagents involved in such processes does NOT mean that you can make the Stone with it. You need to learn to distinguish between such "cymical" processes and those of alchemy. Alchemy NEEDS a very special and specific solvent to work, unlike "chymistry", which has a much larger "arsenal" of substances to work with.

    Especially consider TEOS and how to make it from oil of sand - what would be added? Vinegar? Alcohol?
    Consider the whole ormus thing with alkalis, and how metallic sodium can tur
    quarry (n.1) Look up quarry at Dictionary.comn a gold coin into powder.
    Alkahest - alkali est.
    "Ormus"??? Oh, boy, as if such a thing was actually real! And I thought this could have turned out to be a "serious" discussion regarding actual alchemy.

    It's just putting all the connections together. There's a ton of green language to point the way. Most people i meet don't get it.
    look at the words quartz, quarry, query, quercus, quarter...
    The bible is full of clues too. It's all a matter of the questions you ask - that determines what you'll find... the context/dimensions of your vase.
    http://biblehub.net/searchstrongs.php?q=flint
    Study the earth - visit the interior of the earth and there find the hidden stone: VITRIOL... well, the interior of the earth is mostly iron silicates.
    The earth is a crucible - Vulcan - volcanoes make volcanic glass and rock... there's frickin' sand everywhere.
    Look into piezoelectricity... the iron core bears magnetism and the quartz bears electricity.
    Iron clay is the matrix of quartz; quartz is a matrix of gold... put it together.
    Think about it.
    If JDP has a problem with you considering something that isn't his method, you should have a problem with JDP.
    JDP pisses around like this is his territory. it's a shame. could be using all that urine for alchemy.
    Says the guy who has been "pissing" around these forums since 2009!

    quarry - "what is hunted," early 14c., quirre "entrails of deer placed on the hide and given to dogs of the chase as a reward," from Anglo-French quirreie, Old French cuiriee "the spoil, quarry" (Modern French curée), altered (by influence of Old French cuir "skin," from Latin corium "hide")
    "open place where rocks are excavated," c. 1400 (mid-13c. as a place name), from Medieval Latin quareia, dissimilated from quarreria (mid-13c.), literally "place where stones are squared," from Latin quadrare "to make square,"

    well, i hope someone enjoys the post.
    i'll pop back in to see how it evolves, but i'm not going to argue with someone like there's only one right answer to alchemy - what's the use?
    everything comes from this one thing. how can one imagine there's only way when's there's so many things?
    follow the chain.
    If you weren't so busy living in La-La Land and attacking those who try to bring you back to reality, and instead paid attention to actual logical arguments, based on history, common sense, empirical experience, etc., you would see how unrealistic is your whole "there must be many different ways using all manner of different and unrelated matters to make the Stone" fantasy. I could advice you to read several of the things that I... err, "have been said" (I will try to avoid the "I" since you seem to have such a phobia for this word), but it is better to quote here what the 10th century Arabic alchemist, Ibn Umail (the famous "Senior Zadith, Son of Hamuel" so much quoted and revered by the Latin alchemists) said on the subject in his Book of the Silvery Water and the Starry Earth:

    They (i.e. the alchemists, or "sages", as Ibn Umail usually calls his colleagues) called this stone by all names, and they said: "Our science is in everything". It is one of their sophisms against men (i.e. the countless seekers after the Stone). From that (statement), these (i.e. the seekers) have WASTED THEIR MONEY AND THEIR MIND; they have worked hard for the preparation of everything, they were stubborn in their presumption. Being ignorant, they believed that the Stone is in everything they prepared, so it can be prepared with everything, they believe in their wrong understanding.

    What Ibn Umail is here pointing out is that even in his times a bunch of seekers had also come to the erroneous conclusion that you can make the Stone from virtually anything (and Ibn Umail attributes this mistaken idea to the malicious purposefully misleading statements of some "sages", as he mentions in the above quote.) But reality always kicks in and shows to these poor misguided people that such a wishful idea is hardly the case. The materials that make up the Stone are very specific and limited, not just about "anything" works. It doesn't seem to ever occur to the said deluded & misguided people that if their fantasy that the Stone can be made from a whole bunch of different unrelated things was real then the rate of failure among seekers should be drastically cut down. Even just by sheer chance alone, the number of successes would be in more equal terms to the number of failures. But we can plainly see that this has hardly been the case, and it is still hardly the case today. Most seekers fail. Few achieve the goal. Why? The reason is in fact because most seekers simply fail to stumble upon the correct substances to work with, that simple. And since their number is relatively small, it is hardly surprising at all to see such a high rate of failure among seekers as opposed to success.
    Last edited by JDP; 08-12-2017 at 06:11 AM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    557
    Told ya!






    Really though, truthfully speaking, we can all learn from this guy. AGAPDOTAJDP speaks 90% truth. He knows a lot more than ...well... 95% of this message board's members about Alchemy...and he proves it each and every single time he posts. We can all learn from Almighty Gatekeeper And Prince Defender Of The Art JDP. Most people haven't got half a clue about Alchemy, but this guy does. He relentlessly shares valuable insights including blue text quotes(!) and [mostly] understands our Art; way more than most here. For this site being called "Alchemy Forums", people here know so little about Alchemy.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    4,625
    Blog Entries
    1
    I personally think "Green Language" is not about phonetics and word similarities.

    This is a big trap, IMO. Such cases of "linguistic synchronicity" (and synchronicity in general) are much like "Google Ads".

    The VR mainframe shows us similarities and correspondences according to our searching/seeking patterns and life-clicking/bait-biting habits

    It's much more about subtext and what is not being said (or is being said "between the words").

    Assuming there's anything that really matters, it can not be expressed in words. IMO.

    Recipes/methods for the Philosopher's Stone can be conveyed in plain words/language. Recipes however, do not come bundled with inner-standing. And yes, there is a lot of secrecy around it. Just as there is a lot of deception (intentional or not), both from seekers who post on forums as well as from 'older' alchemical writers. And those who make claims such as "helping you see" are (in many cases) even blinder than you are. And those who are on crusades of "saving people from false/dead-end paths" are (in many cases) more stuck on dead-end paths than you are.

    Everything
    contains "our subject". However, not everything can be "worked" with in Alchemy. I'm certainly not going to attempt preparing the Secret Solvent from plastic

    Many people here are making very good points, but those good points are oh-so-often mixed and contaminated with ego and personal biases & beliefs.

    I guess the genuine adepts stay silent for good reason. Why re-join this mental cacophony when you've already found your way out...

    Listen to the birds

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    4,567
    Blog Entries
    4
    what is the ignore list? i can ignore him just fine. i want my posts to not be visible by him (not like he can actually see what anyone else is saying anyway). does that happen on the ignore list?
    anyway, i see he replied to a list of things but i've no interest in reading his predictable drivel written for his audience of followers.

    Andro, what can i say? I use green language everyday. It's not a matter of belief or opinion for me. Language is branches/fractals/DNA into the past/time.
    it works when you work it i didn't invent the words to have similar roots. I didn't decide heavy and heaven should be so similar.
    Anyway, i'm not here to sell green language. I just dropped in to share and to talk with whoever wants to listen. Don't see any so i'll see you guys later.
    Last edited by solomon levi; 08-13-2017 at 01:12 PM.
    http://serpentrioarquila.blogspot.com/

    "To conjure is nothing else than to observe anything rightly, to know and understand what it is." - Paracelsus

    "Why, then, don't you act when you see the danger of your conditioning? The answer is you don't see... seeing is acting." J. Krishnamurti

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    4,567
    Blog Entries
    4
    we can talk about green language in another thread if you want.
    i don't see what the danger is?
    If you see the word Jupiter, and all you think is "Jupiter" when you see that word,
    then you're at a disadvantage to someone who also sees Pater Zeus. It's just that simple.
    http://serpentrioarquila.blogspot.com/

    "To conjure is nothing else than to observe anything rightly, to know and understand what it is." - Paracelsus

    "Why, then, don't you act when you see the danger of your conditioning? The answer is you don't see... seeing is acting." J. Krishnamurti

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post

    I guess the genuine adepts stay silent for good reason. Why re-join this mental cacophony when you've already found your way out...
    If that's the case, then exactly what is the purpose of this and other alchemy forums? Isn't it to express opinions based on our levels of learning and understanding? Isn't that exactly what JDP is doing? I would argue that it's exactly those people with the biggest egos who remain fixed and unchangeable with their own views, to the point that they will go so far as to block out what they don't want to hear, in order to enhance and protect their incredible bias and ego.

    I have known JDP for a very long time, and his research, dedication and understanding for real alchemy likely exceeds anyone on this forum. It would be a total shame not to listen to what he has to say. Sure, he hasn't yet made the Stone, but he's on a much more solid base, in terms of traditional, authentic alchemy, than many of the ludicrous and highly imaginative and un-alchemical approaches that I have seen others make over the many years. I know for a fact that what he presents is indeed for the benefit of others who may not have had the opportunity to review the many rare and authentic old treatises that he has had access to, and it is not for egotistical purposes. The confidence based on deep knowledge derived from decades of learning and experience is often wrongly misinterpreted as ego. It's the very same type of confidence that you see expressed by knowledgeable teachers towards their students. Not having made the Stone does not mean that that person hasn't been able to uncover much of the meaning that alchemists hid in their treatises. Making the Stone requires VERY precise measurements in terms of weights, proportions, temperatures, conditions, etc., so that even if you do know the starting matters and the general process, it might still take years to perfect the necessary details that result in eventual success.

    JDP and others are merely trying to point out when others stray far away from very basic and traditional alchemical principles in order to help them focus and to save them time, resources and energy. Many of the people on this forum, other forums, and the numerous garbage books that are flooding the market today, are only attempting to invent brand new, imaginative approaches to what they think is alchemy. Just look at all the numerous books on making all sorts of glasses, etc. from antimony! Some of these books even use "real alchemy" in their titles! If you wish to engage in this type of fantasy, then go for it and block people like JDP and others from your sense of unreality. Imagination can be fun for its own sake. But if you are truly, and sincerely interested in authentic, traditional alchemical approaches based on real adepts, then people like JDP may not be able to provide you with all the answers, but they can certainly steer you in the proper general direction. I don't necessarily agree with everything that he says, but at least I keep an open mind and listen and consider. As I do with anyone who posts here.

    Based on his level of knowledge, I'm surprised that he continues to provide gems of wisdom to those who continue to mock his understanding, in order to boost their own egos and personal biases in protecting their very limited views. I'm sure that others would - and have - more or less given up.

    I'm not trying to be critical, just trying to point out to some of you out there that, based on my own limited understanding and experience, there are many treasures in what JDP and others sometimes try to say, even if they may seem somewhat over-confident. If you don't agree with their contributions, at least listen, keep an open mind, take it under serious consideration, and test it for yourself. Don't be bullied by those who try to minimize his most valuable contributions and try to replace them with their own unsubstantiated biases.
    Last edited by Illen A. Cluf; 08-13-2017 at 04:08 PM.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    257
    Hi As I always say in my post (i am for speak very open and very clear abuot the secret of alchemy in this tragic sicle 2000)
    but if we want to find the real alchemical secret keys I just only have to look at the texts of the ancient and only in true alchemical traditions and we must forghet the all the modernist rubish this must are the base

    But I could possibly look at the most generous texts and manuscripts example parigino that was a disciple of raimondo lullo and so see him veri explicative mss voiletta summetta and luicidarius and then weindelfel secretum adeptorum and prodromus that on svp and its composition is already more than generous
    And so there is plenty in it, and there are generous and very explicit texts on the philosophical secrets of menstrum to which I would add the kunckel and his dispute with the plot and his epistle against spiritus vini sine acid and of Poleman, Joachim., F. H discipe of van hemont the very generos and esplicative mss now translation the novum lumen medicum

    here the links

    cristoforo parigino mss very clear and esplicit in the methods from solvet philosophical etc summetta violetta lucidarius

    http://brbl-dl.library.yale.edu/vufind/Record/3792464

    weindelfel secretum adeptorum

    http://www.abardoncompanion.de/Alex/Weidenfeld.pdf

    weindelfeld prodromus

    https://www.scribd.com/document/3416...ibri-Secundi-1

    kunckel
    Epistola contra Spiritum vini sine acid

    https://books.google.it/books?id=bZh...page&q&f=false

    Poleman, Joachim., F. H novum lumen medicum

    http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A55...;view=fulltext

    kunckel and plot and they Discuss how to create SVP with mortifcan methods
    With acid

    http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/14610/1/291006.proof.pdf

    Which is small and how it is described in the pdf is very interesting and that it would be well translated and extremely interesting are the counterclaims of kunckel and plot see pdf attached here as you can see in the times in open environments without para eyes or vision Dull the search was open and explicit

    NB so now
    if we want we all together can deep and study and analised and experiment all this true very clear key secret OF THESE SOLVENT PHILOSOPHICAL SOLAR SVP etc ...

    .................................................. ...............................

    imho JDP and his contribution to knowing and experiencing if he enriches research is more than well-appreciated and always welcomes (When one If he knows more Learning is always good and beautiful) as also the all welcome at the contribtion of solomon and him interesting propous and esperiments
    ( nb toeltius an thesauro tesaurorum rc speak of some stone made by material and oli of silice also the hyle coahyle write about it material and also boyle write about it and the attibuite 3 part of chain aurea homeri also etc ) and always very accelent to read is a contribute of andro al contribute can give more light an the more key for open the arcanum of the alchemy are always all in the respect of many difference is very always welcome

    my best regard
    Last edited by alfr; 08-14-2017 at 06:16 AM.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    4,625
    Blog Entries
    1
    Illen - I don't know who you are addressing this to, but I am personally not blocking/ignoring anyone.

    I'm reading almost everything that's being posted here, and I have no problem whatsoever with anyone posting their perspectives and experiences, as long as they keep a respectful tone and do not make things personal. For example, people may or may not like JDP's approach to Alchemy, but he is under a lot of personal fire for his views - and this, to me, is unacceptable, both as (current) moderator and mostly as a regular forum member since 2009. There were forum members in the past (no longer with us) who, no doubt, had some valuable insights to share - however, their personal conduct was unacceptable according to this forum's Rules & Guidelines.

    Quote Originally Posted by solomon levi View Post
    I just dropped in to share and to talk with whoever wants to listen. Don't see any so i'll see you guys later.
    I also don't see why anyone would post only when there is an 'audience' ("someone who wants to listen"). Sometimes, we can just write for the sake of writing. And sometimes, people will disagree. Doesn't mean you just go away because someone dislikes your views or disagrees with them, let alone wishing another person to be "blocked" from seeing your posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Illen A. Cluf View Post
    I would argue that it's exactly those people with the biggest egos who remain fixed and unchangeable with their own views, to the point that they will go so far as to block out what they don't want to hear, in order to enhance and protect their incredible bias and ego.
    For me, it is OK for someone to be either fixed, flexible or anywhere in between. As long as one is not an accomplished Adept in bringing the Philosopher's Stone to successful completion, it will be like Illen wrote:

    Quote Originally Posted by Illen A. Cluf View Post
    If that's the case, then exactly what is the purpose of this and other alchemy forums? Isn't it to express opinions based on our levels of learning and understanding?
    I would agree that this is indeed a significant part of the purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by solomon levi View Post
    i want my posts to not be visible by him (not like he can actually see what anyone else is saying anyway). does that happen on the ignore list?
    anyway, i see he replied to a list of things but i've no interest in reading his predictable drivel written for his audience of followers.
    Then just don't read his posts. The "Ignore" function doesn't hide your posts from specific members, unless those members have placed you on their "Ignore" list.

    If it's so important to you, send a PM to JDP and ask him to place you on his "Ignore" list, and then he will not see your posts when he is logged in.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by solomon levi View Post
    what is the ignore list? i can ignore him just fine. i want my posts to not be visible by him (not like he can actually see what anyone else is saying anyway). does that happen on the ignore list?
    anyway, i see he replied to a list of things but i've no interest in reading his predictable drivel written for his audience of followers.
    More like you don't really have any valid counterarguments to my points.

+ 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