Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: alchemy - the unbroken chain of being

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    4,567
    Blog Entries
    4

    alchemy - the unbroken chain of being

    Alchemy is everything. Alchemy is not a part of the whole, but is the whole.
    Alchemy applies to the Creation of universes, to mind/Hermes/Thoth/Thought/Mercurius,
    to spagyrics, to "true real alchemy", to philosophy, to dimensions and fractals and trees of knowledge and life, to the evolution of stones, to the psychology of the ego, to the emanation of light, to space, time and consciousness, to laboratory alchemy on absolutely anything, to magic, to quantum physics, to church and to your labors, to dreams, to hallucinations...
    Alchemy is the unfolding/folding of the one, which is everywhere you look and don't look.

    If you ask me, i'd say it's about dimensions, and that that's all there is - dimensions within/out dimensions, within/out dimensions.... that is multiplication. Projection is "casting out Lucifer", casting out Adam and Eve, The Gehennical Fires of Judgement... when we judge, we cast out dimensionally - we say "that's not me" and project a dimension. Yes, it's obvious to see this applies to the mind, but isn't it just as obvious to see that it applies to everything? The human memorized identity history is a dimension - a closed, self-affirming loop - thoughts thinking about themselves as a thinker - ouroboros, Hermetically sealed flask/vase...
    When you break this mirror of self-reflection, you can see Nature - the world as it is without your conditioned memory... you see the actual world instead of your knowledge/memory/imagery/projection of the world... you see the world without the mediation of thinking/memory/tree of knowledge - you see the living present world, the tree of life... a fountain that is ever virgin (of youth - zen beginner's mind, etc) - the fountain glyph of aries which is also the eye/Ayin of the dragon (dereksthai: "to see clearly"). This is how you see the path of alchemy... this is how you know directly what first matter is. And you can follow this root all the way through to its expression as gold metal, if you want. You can follow it anywhere. Nothing is impossible, because everything came from this impossibly in the same way that everything to come will come from it.
    This is why alchemy is one thing. Because one thing is all there is. It doesn't mean there's only one right choice you can make and all the others are wrong.
    - sa
    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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    538
    Quote Originally Posted by solomon levi View Post
    Alchemy is everything. Alchemy is not a part of the whole, but is the whole.

    Alchemy applies to the Creation of universes, to mind/Hermes/Thoth/Thought/Mercurius, to spagyrics, to "true real alchemy", to philosophy, to dimensions and fractals and trees of knowledge and life, to the evolution of stones, to the psychology of the ego, to the emanation of light, to space, time and consciousness, to laboratory alchemy on absolutely anything, to magic, to quantum physics, to church and to your labors, to dreams, to hallucinations...

    Alchemy is the unfolding/folding of the one, which is everywhere you look and don't look.

    If you ask me, i'd say it's about dimensions, and that that's all there is - dimensions within/out dimensions, within/out dimensions.... that is multiplication.
    Projection is "casting out Lucifer", casting out Adam and Eve, The Gehennical Fires of Judgement... when we judge, we cast out dimensionally - we say "that's not me" and project a dimension.
    Yes, it's obvious to see this applies to the mind, but isn't it just as obvious to see that it applies to everything?
    The human memorized identity history is a dimension - a closed, self-affirming loop - thoughts thinking about themselves as a thinker - ouroboros, Hermetically sealed flask/vase...

    When you break this mirror of self-reflection, you can see Nature - the world as it is without your conditioned memory... you see the actual world instead of your knowledge/memory/imagery/projection of the world... you see the world without the mediation of thinking/memory/tree of knowledge - you see the living present world, the tree of life... a fountain that is ever virgin (of youth - zen beginner's mind, etc) - the fountain glyph of aries which is also the eye/Ayin of the dragon (dereksthai: "to see clearly").

    This is how you see the path of alchemy... this is how you know directly what first matter is. And you can follow this root all the way through to its expression as gold metal, if you want. You can follow it anywhere.

    Nothing is impossible, because everything came from this impossibly in the same way that everything to come will come from it.

    This is why alchemy is one thing. Because one thing is all there is.
    Preach!

    I see so many people here exploring things like antimony, vitriol, sulphur, mercury, nitre, charcoal, ammonium, etc. and I'm not talking Philosophically but actual physical common sulphur(S), common mercury(HG), etc. It absolutely amazes me that these people cannot see past the elementary, superficial meanings of these words and view things with eyes of Sages.

    Our Matter is One, and as all things were produced by the One word of One Being, so all things were produced from this One thing by adaptation!

    http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showt...t-Does-It-Mean

    What is below is like that which is above, and what is above is like that which is below, to accomplish the miracles of One thing!

    What could our Matter possibly be?

    The Ancients say that nothing strange or foreign is to be added, so all those who are working on all these random substances are cruising down false paths...


    I like how "An Explanation of the Natural Philosopher’s Tincture" puts it...


    ""An Explanation of the Natural Philosopher’s Tincture"" by Paracelsus, 1607

    Theophrastus, in describing this our philosophical work and creation (which is nothing other than a small world, since in it appear the participation and similitude of all things), follows the same method as Moses in describing the creation of the Great World. For, before Moses treats of the matter, he enumerates the three principles which indistinctly lay therein, but which, by God, were distinctly developed from the same. So also does Theophrastus, for, before giving the matter of his work, he indicates that, although it is one thing, three things lie hidden in it. These must, by fire or water, be extracted, and again be united into one being and substance, according to Christ’s saying: “He who knoweth not to extract many things from one thing, the same knoweth also not to make one out of many”. Now, Theophrastus says: “The matter of the Tincture is One Thing that, by fire, has been extracted out of three”. This is to be understood as the general concensus of all philosophers. What Theophrastus here affirms, Geber also substantiates. There is one Stone, one Medicine, to “which we neither add, nor take from it, anything”.

    Bernhardus says: “There is a single root from which the two Mercurial Substances and our whole work are extracted or made”.

    Morienus says: “The first and principal substance of this thing is one, and out of it is one thing”.

    Agadmon, in the Turba, testifies also: “Therefore dismiss all plurality, for Nature is content with one thing, etc.

    Hermes, a father of all philosophers, also says in his Tabula: “Even as all things have been born from one, by the mediation of One, so also all things have been born from this one thing, by adaptation”.

    Hercules especially agrees with Theophrastus, saying: “This Magisterium proceeds from one root, which afterwards is expanded into several things, returning again to one”.

    From all of which the Truth and foundation of this Art is apparent, for Truth is where there appears no contradiction.

    Therefore also can false Alchemists be easily detected in this one point alone.

    And since God Almighty Himself has created the whole great World, all Celestial, Animal, Vegetable, and Mineral Natures from one single thing and primeval root, how should Man be wiser than God, and for this work --- which, not less than the Great Outer World, contains within itself the seed and qualities of all creatures --- use more than one thing. For the said Art --- according to the testimony of Gerrariensis, Chap. 22 --- should imitate Nature.



    Remember, paragraphs are your friend!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,092
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    Preach!

    I see so many people here exploring things like antimony, vitriol, sulphur, mercury, nitre, charcoal, ammonium, etc. and I'm not talking Philosophically but actual physical common sulphur(S), common mercury(HG), etc. It absolutely amazes me that these people cannot see past the elementary, superficial meanings of these words and view things with eyes of Sages.

    Our Matter is One, and as all things were produced by the One word of One Being, so all things were produced from this One thing by adaptation!

    http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showt...t-Does-It-Mean

    What is below is like that which is above, and what is above is like that which is below, to accomplish the miracles of One thing!

    What could our Matter possibly be?

    The Ancients say that nothing strange or foreign is to be added, so all those who are working on all these random substances are cruising down false paths...


    I like how "An Explanation of the Natural Philosopher’s Tincture" puts it...





    Remember, paragraphs are your friend!
    This is where we part company. As I have pointed out many times already, the whole "one matter only" claim is nothing but an obvious trap to fool what this type of MALICIOUS & ENVIOUS alchemists considered "unworthy" seekers into going into blind alleys by trying to make the Stone from single naturally occurring substances, without employing mixtures of any kind (which is what actually works, that's why this type of MALICIOUS & ENVIOUS alchemists want you to not go around trying any combinations of any substances whatsoever and therefore possibly being able to one day figure out the correct mixtures that give positive results by trial & error.) Even some of the texts that you cited above plainly contradict or clarify that it is not really "one matter only":

    “The matter of the Tincture is One Thing that, by fire, has been extracted out of three”.

    Morienus, despite some ambiguity, actually also says things like this in his dialogue with Prince Khalid Ibn Yazid:

    "But that which prepares this body is blood, or virgin's milk, for it unites and joins all the various substances and properties into one body, it being only necessary to apply to them a gentle heat that long continues at the same degree, neither increasing nor decreasing."

    (A Testament of Alchemy, edited & translated by Lee Stavenhagen, 1974. Page 37.)

    And:

    "The things in which the entire accomplishment of this operation consists are the red vapor, the yellow vapor, the white vapor, the green lion, ocher, the impurities of the dead and of the stones, blood, eudica, and foul earth."


    (same scholarly edition of the dialogue, page 39.)

    And:

    "The whole key to accomplishment of this operation is in the fire, with which the minerals are prepared and the bad spirits held back, and with which the spirit and body are joined."

    (ibid, page 47.)

    And Bernard Trevisan actually said this, not what Suchten (who was apparently either fooled by the "one matter only" ruse or he himself used it to fool others into wasting time & money in hopeless attempts at making the Stone with just one substance) claims:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=ws...iat%22&f=false


    "Opus nostrum fit ex una radice et duabus substantiis mercurialibus crudis assumptis, ex minera tractis, puris et mundis, igne conjunctis amicitiae ut exigit ipsa materia, assidue coctis usque dum ex duobus unum fiat, in quo quidem uno corpus spiritus, & iste corpus facta sunt a commixtione."

    Translation:

    "Our work derives from one root (i.e. the metallic/mineral "root"), and from two mercurial substances taken crude from the mine, extracted pure and clean, with fire conjoined in friendship, as required by this matter, and continually cooked until from the two one thing is made, in which one is Body, Spirit; and this body is made from a mixture."
    Last edited by JDP; 08-15-2017 at 03:21 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    7,376
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    This is where we part company. As I have pointed out many times already, the whole "one matter only" claim is nothing but an obvious trap to fool what this type of MALICIOUS & ENVIOUS alchemists considered "unworthy" seekers into going into blind alleys...
    What does it help for you to point out that you have already pointed something out many times? And what does it help to call some people here (indirectly) malicious?

    You could have simply written that you disagree and then posted the rest of your post as it stands. You may not know it, but this way of interacting is not constructive.


    Don’t let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    What does it help for you to point out that you have already pointed something out many times? And what does it help to call some people here (indirectly) malicious?
    You could have simply written that you disagree and then posted the rest of your post as it stands. You may not know it, but this way of interacting is not constructive.
    I do not think that JDP is indirectly calling anyone here "malicious". The alleged "malignity" of those old alchemists is not "transferred" to other persons unless they know that it is a "false statement" and they are using it to mislead others.

    There is a "controversy" if you read all the old texts:
    a) Some of them clearly talk about a lot of things that have to be mixed as to create a special compound.
    b) Some of them talk about mixing some things as to create "one thing".
    c) Some others talk all the time about "one thing" and nothing should be added to this "one thing".

    The idea of JDP is that those who wrote "c)" in the old times were malicious and envious (two expressions that are somehow typical to find in a few texts by old alchemists when they criticize other authors, not an invention of JDP)... and their intention was either to "sell books" or "mislead people as to make them stay away from the true ways" (JDP didn't invent this idea either... it is in several classic texts too).

    The idea of JDP is that those who mention "one thing" are being deceived by ancient authors who were malicious and provided fantasies instead of realities. I don't see that this alleged "malignity" is transferred to the readers of those authors.

    Other than that... I am 100% sure that it is possible to work with a compound and arrive to the desired end... so JDP is not wrong.
    BUT it is possible to work with "one thing" and arrive to the desired end too (even if JDP believes that such thing is simply not possible... and quite often his explanations of why it is not possible show that he doesn't really understand what such thing means).

    The "malicious" theory is perfectly valid (actually it is possible to find it in many old texts... JDP is not saying something "new", nor using an expression coined by himself).

    The REAL problem is that probably 100% of the persons in this forum already know the position of JDP and it is perfectly clear.
    So it is not possible to talk about "one thing" paths without ending up in a discussion with JDP about if such thing is valid or not... and when it happens in a recurrent way, it becomes disturbing.

    I told JDP about it a long time ago by giving a personal example: the "enlightenment" that ayahuasca or other similar psychedelics provide is IN MY OPINION pure bullshit (I am using a harsh word on purpose). There are several threads in this forum about ayahuasca and psychedelics... and I know I am not interested in such thing (which is fine... we all enjoy different paths... I remember that some time ago I used a song as to express my frustration with JDP interrupting a conversation and JDP replied with a song called "there's only one way to rock" or something along those lines... by a hard rock band... the first thing that came to my mind was: "How horrible is hard rock!!!! I don't get how is it possible for some people to listen to this music").

    The problem is that JDP has made his point a thousand times... and everyone knows his point. So when a thread is clearly about a "one thing" path, it is always impossible to go on with it.

    You often create threads about ayahuasca. If I decided to get into EVERY thread about it as to offer my opinion and bring points such as "Oh, Swedenborg and Blake didn't use ayahuasca! There are no records of ayahuasca in the writings of Paracelsus either. This is wrong" and I do it again and again.... at some given point you'll probably feel the need to say: "Oh, zoas... can you please fuck off and shut up your mouth! You are honestly pissing me off".

    So... in the same way that it is VERY CLEAR which threads are about "ayahuasca", it is also very clear which threads are about a "one thing" path.
    I would like to invite JDP to abstain himself to post in those very specific threads (in the same way that I abstain myself to comment the "ayahuasca" threads, because I have nothing of interest to offer to the ayahuasca enthusiasts).

    It is not even the way of saying things, but the constant interruption. The threads which are clearly discussing a "one thing" path are VERY easy to identify.
    Such thing doesn't mean that it is not possible to discuss "one thing" vs. "many things" in other threads (i.e, a thread discussing a specific book or author)... or create threads about "compound paths".
    I think it is more productive if we all can co-exist. Sometimes such thing means "not posting" when your post is obviously going to interrupt the flow of the thread (If I posted in every thread about ayahuasca just to state that I don't like ayahuasca... at some given point you would plan a trip to murder me and bury me in Tierra Santa next to a Jesus made with plastic and plaster).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    4,582
    Blog Entries
    1

    Mod Post

    What Zoas said above. Read attentively.

    Please implement those recommendations, effective immediately.

    I am speaking for the entire forum team here.

    One way or another, there will be no need to repeat what Zoas posted above.

    If such disturbances continue, we will sadly have to part ways.

    Emphasis on sadly.

    Please do not reply to this post. It is not up for debate.

    Thanks.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    538
    Quote Originally Posted by solomon levi View Post
    Alchemy is everything. Alchemy is not a part of the whole, but is the whole.
    Alchemy applies to the Creation of universes, to mind/Hermes/Thoth/Thought/Mercurius,
    to spagyrics, to "true real alchemy", to philosophy, to dimensions and fractals and trees of knowledge and life, to the evolution of stones, to the psychology of the ego, to the emanation of light, to space, time and consciousness, to laboratory alchemy on absolutely anything, to magic, to quantum physics, to church and to your labors, to dreams, to hallucinations...
    Alchemy is the unfolding/folding of the one, which is everywhere you look and don't look.
    What inspired you to write these musings, solomon levi?

    And why do you sign your name/initials the end of your posts?



    Quote Originally Posted by zoas23 View Post
    The REAL problem is that probably 100% of the persons in this forum already know the position of JDP and it is perfectly clear.
    So it is not possible to talk about "one thing" paths without ending up in a discussion with JDP about if such thing is valid or not... and when it happens in a recurrent way, it becomes disturbing.

    I told JDP about it a long time ago by giving a personal example: the "enlightenment" that ayahuasca or other similar psychedelics provide is IN MY OPINION pure bullshit (I am using a harsh word on purpose). There are several threads in this forum about ayahuasca and psychedelics... and I know I am not interested in such thing (which is fine... we all enjoy different paths... I remember that some time ago I used a song as to express my frustration with JDP interrupting a conversation and JDP replied with a song called "there's only one way to rock" or something along those lines... by a hard rock band... the first thing that came to my mind was: "How horrible is hard rock!!!! I don't get how is it possible for some people to listen to this music").

    The problem is that JDP has made his point a thousand times... and everyone knows his point. So when a thread is clearly about a "one thing" path, it is always impossible to go on with it.

    You often create threads about ayahuasca. If I decided to get into EVERY thread about it as to offer my opinion and bring points such as "Oh, Swedenborg and Blake didn't use ayahuasca! There are no records of ayahuasca in the writings of Paracelsus either. This is wrong" and I do it again and again.... at some given point you'll probably feel the need to say: "Oh, zoas... can you please fuck off and shut up your mouth! You are honestly pissing me off".

    So... in the same way that it is VERY CLEAR which threads are about "ayahuasca", it is also very clear which threads are about a "one thing" path.
    I would like to invite JDP to abstain himself to post in those very specific threads (in the same way that I abstain myself to comment the "ayahuasca" threads, because I have nothing of interest to offer to the ayahuasca enthusiasts).

    It is not even the way of saying things, but the constant interruption. The threads which are clearly discussing a "one thing" path are VERY easy to identify.
    Such thing doesn't mean that it is not possible to discuss "one thing" vs. "many things" in other threads (i.e, a thread discussing a specific book or author)... or create threads about "compound paths".
    I think it is more productive if we all can co-exist. Sometimes such thing means "not posting" when your post is obviously going to interrupt the flow of the thread (If I posted in every thread about ayahuasca just to state that I don't like ayahuasca... at some given point you would plan a trip to murder me and bury me in Tierra Santa next to a Jesus made with plastic and plaster).
    Knowing I will be in the minority, and possibly the only one who feels this way, I am on the flip-side of the coin as you, zoas--I appreciate when AGAPDOTAJDP posts his counterarguments. It's not him just saying "ayahuasca sucks"... He actually addresses direct points of the "fallacy" that he sees, which opens up great discussion should one choose to take the bait and participate! This is an open message board where people are free to post their opinion, and I for one love hearing everyone's opinion, even if I've heard it a thousand times! We all know that Axis is going to post some super grounded logically rational post, we all know you are going to going to post some of the best posts here weaving philosophy into the subject somehow while providing references, we all know elixirmixer is going to talk out of his ass, we know Krisztian will share Truth should he ever decide to post, and we all know that AGAPDOTAJDP is going to defend what he believes to core, show why what we are posting is erroneous in his eyes, provide sources, and explain why it is a good idea to think like he does. I appreciate that, from each and every one of you. I truly do! It helps me grow, learn, and sharpen my blade.

    What we choose to do with what our fellow members post is up to us. I love the "tone" of different users here; Kiorionis is understanding & loving, whereas AGAPDOTAJDP is direct and brash. Awani funny as hell and obviously doesn't take things very seriously, whereas Andro is poised and stoic. There is an "ignore" function for a reason, should things bother anyone too much, but that's what great about a message board...We get to hear so many different opinions and viewpoints that are different than ours! Don't like the title or subject of a thread, don't click on it; don't like the post above you, don't respond to it; don't like the member at all, block him. Message boards and online forums are the best! I grew up on the internet interacting on message boards since I will 10 or 11 years old and the interactions have only affected my life positively!


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,092
    Quote Originally Posted by zoas23 View Post
    I do not think that JDP is indirectly calling anyone here "malicious". The alleged "malignity" of those old alchemists is not "transferred" to other persons unless they know that it is a "false statement" and they are using it to mislead others.

    There is a "controversy" if you read all the old texts:
    a) Some of them clearly talk about a lot of things that have to be mixed as to create a special compound.
    b) Some of them talk about mixing some things as to create "one thing".
    c) Some others talk all the time about "one thing" and nothing should be added to this "one thing".

    The idea of JDP is that those who wrote "c)" in the old times were malicious and envious (two expressions that are somehow typical to find in a few texts by old alchemists when they criticize other authors, not an invention of JDP)... and their intention was either to "sell books" or "mislead people as to make them stay away from the true ways" (JDP didn't invent this idea either... it is in several classic texts too).

    The idea of JDP is that those who mention "one thing" are being deceived by ancient authors who were malicious and provided fantasies instead of realities. I don't see that this alleged "malignity" is transferred to the readers of those authors.

    Other than that... I am 100% sure that it is possible to work with a compound and arrive to the desired end... so JDP is not wrong...

    The "malicious" theory is perfectly valid (actually it is possible to find it in many old texts... JDP is not saying something "new", nor using an expression coined by himself).
    Correct. It wasn't actually meant for the VICTIMS of the "one matter only" trap, but to those who purposefully used it to make those VICTIMS waste their time & money.

    BUT it is possible to work with "one thing" and arrive to the desired end too (even if JDP believes that such thing is simply not possible... and quite often his explanations of why it is not possible show that he doesn't really understand what such thing means).
    That's because you believe in unproven things like "Spiritus Mundi" supposedly being "real" (the odds are highly likely that you are just confusing some real substance with that HYPOTHETICAL "spirit", as it happened to many in the past who fell for this claim.) When I say that it is impossible to make the Stone with only one substance I mean REAL & TANGIBLE substances that everyone can actually get their hands on. This is what has been fooling many through the centuries thanks to the "one matter only" pushers. These old-timers weren't trying to "materialize" or "condense" some supposed "spirit" out of thin air (which in itself is another blind alley) but taking very real and tangible substances, like, say, mercury, or galena, or dung, or clay, etc. and then trying to make the Stone with it and nothing else. You will simply never see all the reactions the alchemists describe in their books by manipulating any single matter by itself. It's just not going to happen. The failures of countless seekers through the centuries who followed this approach pretty much say it all. Add to that the fact that modern (ordinary) chemists have also been submitting just about every naturally available substance to all manner of operations for more than 200 years in order to asses their compositions and characteristics, and they have stumbled upon none that displays all the series of reactions the alchemists describe, and the evidence is even more damning against the "one matter only" claims. It is simply naive to expect alchemical results by manipulating only one substance. It goes against the accumulated empirical experience of many centuries.

    The REAL problem is that probably 100% of the persons in this forum already know the position of JDP and it is perfectly clear.
    So it is not possible to talk about "one thing" paths without ending up in a discussion with JDP about if such thing is valid or not... and when it happens in a recurrent way, it becomes disturbing.
    So what you would like is for this type of claim to go around unchallenged, so that more unwary seekers can fall into this death-trap and waste their time and money just like it happened to countless others in the past? The fact that you know what I think regarding this type of claim does not mean that everyone who might stumble upon it does. There is nothing wrong with an opposing view on any thread.

    I told JDP about it a long time ago by giving a personal example: the "enlightenment" that ayahuasca or other similar psychedelics provide is IN MY OPINION pure bullshit (I am using a harsh word on purpose). There are several threads in this forum about ayahuasca and psychedelics... and I know I am not interested in such thing (which is fine... we all enjoy different paths... I remember that some time ago I used a song as to express my frustration with JDP interrupting a conversation
    But you SHOULD oppose wrong claims when you see them. "Silence implies consent", as the saying goes. The difference, however, is that the "Ayahuasca" thing is not really hurting anyone. Yes, it is wrong, alchemy has nothing to do with that, but it is not really harming anyone, so naturally I am not as concerned about it. The "one matter only" thingy is. Some people are still actually wasting time & money in these attempts at making the Stone with only one substance.

    and JDP replied with a song called "there's only one way to rock" or something along those lines... by a hard rock band... the first thing that came to my mind was: "How horrible is hard rock!!!! I don't get how is it possible for some people to listen to this music").
    You didn't know who Sammy Hagar was until I posted that??? Strange, considering your posts show that you are familiar with rock music.

    The problem is that JDP has made his point a thousand times... and everyone knows his point. So when a thread is clearly about a "one thing" path, it is always impossible to go on with it.
    You know that because you are a regular, but plenty of people who waltz through some thread may not know it. Why are you so afraid others find out about opposition to this "one matter only" claim?

    You often create threads about ayahuasca. If I decided to get into EVERY thread about it as to offer my opinion and bring points such as "Oh, Swedenborg and Blake didn't use ayahuasca! There are no records of ayahuasca in the writings of Paracelsus either. This is wrong" and I do it again and again.... at some given point you'll probably feel the need to say: "Oh, zoas... can you please fuck off and shut up your mouth! You are honestly pissing me off".

    So... in the same way that it is VERY CLEAR which threads are about "ayahuasca", it is also very clear which threads are about a "one thing" path.
    I would like to invite JDP to abstain himself to post in those very specific threads (in the same way that I abstain myself to comment the "ayahuasca" threads, because I have nothing of interest to offer to the ayahuasca enthusiasts).

    It is not even the way of saying things, but the constant interruption. The threads which are clearly discussing a "one thing" path are VERY easy to identify.
    Such thing doesn't mean that it is not possible to discuss "one thing" vs. "many things" in other threads (i.e, a thread discussing a specific book or author)... or create threads about "compound paths".
    I think it is more productive if we all can co-exist. Sometimes such thing means "not posting" when your post is obviously going to interrupt the flow of the thread (If I posted in every thread about ayahuasca just to state that I don't like ayahuasca... at some given point you would plan a trip to murder me and bury me in Tierra Santa next to a Jesus made with plastic and plaster).
    And by the way, this thread was not specifically about the "one matter only" claim either. Another poster brought it up. So naturally I felt compelled to oppose this ruse and not be silent about it.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,092
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    What inspired you to write these musings, solomon levi?

    And why do you sign your name/initials the end of your posts?





    Knowing I will be in the minority, and possibly the only one who feels this way, I am on the flip-side of the coin as you, zoas--I appreciate when AGAPDOTAJDP posts his counterarguments. It's not him just saying "ayahuasca sucks"... He actually addresses direct points of the "fallacy" that he sees, which opens up great discussion should one choose to take the bait and participate! This is an open message board where people are free to post their opinion, and I for one love hearing everyone's opinion, even if I've heard it a thousand times! We all know that Axis is going to post some super grounded logically rational post, we all know you are going to going to post some of the best posts here weaving philosophy into the subject somehow while providing references, we all know elixirmixer is going to talk out of his ass, we know Krisztian will share Truth should he ever decide to post, and we all know that AGAPDOTAJDP is going to defend what he believes to core, show why what we are posting is erroneous in his eyes, provide sources, and explain why it is a good idea to think like he does. I appreciate that, from each and every one of you. I truly do! It helps me grow, learn, and sharpen my blade.

    What we choose to do with what our fellow members post is up to us. I love the "tone" of different users here; Kiorionis is understanding & loving, whereas AGAPDOTAJDP is direct and brash. Awani funny as hell and obviously doesn't take things very seriously, whereas Andro is poised and stoic. There is an "ignore" function for a reason, should things bother anyone too much, but that's what great about a message board...We get to hear so many different opinions and viewpoints that are different than ours! Don't like the title or subject of a thread, don't click on it; don't like the post above you, don't respond to it; don't like the member at all, block him. Message boards and online forums are the best! I grew up on the internet interacting on message boards since I will 10 or 11 years old and the interactions have only affected my life positively!

    Indeed, and I find it very amusing that, in this particular case, my post was in opposition to yours, yet you have no problem with it (in fact we have argued about this very same point in the past in other threads, and none of us got pissed off at each other.) It is zoas23 who actually appears to feel threatened by opposition to the things he believes and therefore wants to silence them.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    4,582
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    This is an open message board where people are free to post their opinion.
    Of course it is. But what some forum members here systematically fail to understand, is that it's not about the WHAT, it's about the HOW...

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    we know Krisztian will share Truth should he ever decide to post
    Who is 'we'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    don't like the post above you, don't respond to it
    I think that's part of what Zoas was attempting to communicate, in his own words.

    Don't like a post mentioning a Universal Spirit? Don't respond to 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