Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 17 of 39 FirstFirst ... 7 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 27 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 383

Thread: 'One Matter' - Empiricism & Alchemy - Discerning Truth from Deception

  1. #161
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiorionis View Post
    Nope. I find it more reasonable to think that Abbatia was being a bit dramatic in order to emphasize the scarcity of the compositum. What I do find hard to believe is that figurative and flowery language can be taken literally.

    It’s not the first time alchemists or others writing on the subject have mentioned it either. For example Sendivogius, when talking about the “central atom of the seed”, says it is the 1/8200th part of the grain. It’s also pretty easy to draw a comparison between a “compositum” and Sendivogius’ seed, which is generated out of the elements (thus being a composite substance).

    Which brings up a good question. Why can’t one thing be more than one thing? A child is one thing, but composed of mother and father, if you want to look at the facts.
    But look at the context in which Abbatia uses the word "compositum". This Latin word literally means "compound", "composition". He is talking about a mixture of substances from which the "water" of alchemy is made. This is very different from supposed "seeds" of metals, which is theoretical speculation.

    Also, another thing that betrays the fact that Abbatia does not even for a second really believe that you can make the Stone with only one matter, despite some of his misleading insinuations: his obvious preoccupation with the subject that common solvents, like aqua fortis, do not permanently remain with the metals that they dissolve, while the secret solvent of alchemy does. In his first epistle (his second epistle was translated into English, while the first one was unfortunately not translated) he talks about this subject and uses a similar example as was already used by Thomas Norton in his Ordinal of Alchemy(but, unlike Abbatia, Norton does not make misleading insinuations about some supposed "one matter only"; Norton clearly worked with at least 4 substances to make the Stone) to illustrate this point: silver dissolved in "corrosive waters", like aqua fortis, does not remain with them, the corrosive "spirits" can always be separated from the dissolved metal, yet the same metal dissolved with the secret solvent permanently remains with it like an "oil". Now, why would anyone who really believed that the Stone can be made from "one matter only" have so much preoccupation with what the "water" of the alchemists does to metals? This by itself should have sent a very clear warning signal to all the seekers who swallowed the "one matter only" ruse that something is awfully suspicious -to say the least!- regarding this hardly believable claim. If it was true, we would expect most alchemists to have very little interest in such a subject, since supposedly no other matter must be used. You can learn a lot from the old saying "practice what you preach". When you see that what people preach and what they actually do is very different, then you should immediately have serious doubts regarding the "preaching" part. Obviously such people do not believe what they pay lip service to, otherwise they would practice it themselves. So, Mr. Antonio de Abbatia and all other alchemists who contradicted their words with their actions, wherever you are, my rascally friends, this one is for you:


  2. #162
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    I'm not saying to outright discard any potential value out there.

    But my research has taught me to be careful with "recipes". Especially if some images look like they have been staged just for the photo-shoot and some elements don't make a lot of sense in a laboratory setting.

    I have "studied" and even replicated a lot of methods from books and from the web in my earlier stages of research. Didn't really get me anywhere

    With time, came a new way of looking at things and the mechanics behind them, to the point of being able to devise my own models and accompanying experiments.

    IME, once the "principles" and "mechanics" are better understood and seen with "new eyes", the emerging models and resulting experiments take a completely different turn.

    I suggest to ask ourselves what this "Spiritus Mundi" is, what role it plays in the works of nature/reality, "where" is it found and mostly, what conditions can make it tangible/accessible (like for example "upsetting" a pre-existing "balance", as Salazius said). This approach may free us from endlessly analyzing "recipes" that will most likely never provide all the necessary keys. It can also save us a lot of money, BTW

    About the "tangible" aspect: We are used to words like "manifestation", "corporification", etc... This tends to put off the more scientifically-minded researchers.

    Why not DE-mystify the whole thing in our own heads first?

    Perhaps we can learn something from the "ormus" people. The word "precipitate" is much more user-friendly and is IMO also a perfectly valid term to describe what is happening in the Alchemical practice.

    It "precipitates" out of earth/air/water/space/whatever, when certain conditions are met and when certain "balances" are upset/agitated. For example, while I myself am not a fan of "chemical" agents in Alchemical work, I am most certainly not dogmatically opposed to people using them to achieve said conditions. I think that even Cyliani and St. Didier at some point mention some knowledge of chemistry.

    Whatever works, right?

    So I would much rather recommend working to devise/outline (and subsequently test and refine) a MODEL of how this machinery called "life" or "spirit" operates, and gradually DE-mystify the whole thing... Then, our own "methods" and "recipes" will more likely follow...

    And maybe it's equally our "fault" that some people hear the term "Spiritus Mundi" and the first thing that crosses their minds is the Tooth Fairy


    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    You might as well believe in her, since there is just about as much evidence of her existence as that of the "Spiritus Mundi", namely: none. Here is another idea: try to "capture" Santa. The "magnet" or "trap" are cookies and a glass of milk right next to your chimney. Oooops, wait, there's no evidence that he exists either!

  3. #163
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    5,038
    Blog Entries
    1

    Mod Post

    The post above was moved here from the "Spiritus Mundi" thread.

    Regurgitating the ole "no evidence" rote everywhere the "Spiritus Mundi" topic pops up (or other topics like "One Matter"), only means that you (and those you know of) "have no evidence". That's ALL that it means. It doesn't mean there is "no evidence". It only means YOU don't have evidence (or know of such to be available).

    NONE of us speaks "for the universe" - we can only speak from the limitations of our own knowledge, understanding and experiences.

    This is getting tiring.

    Please do not reply to this post.
    Last edited by Andro; 02-20-2018 at 07:50 PM.

  4. #164
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    US
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    You might as well believe in her, since there is just about as much evidence of her existence as that of the "Spiritus Mundi", namely: none. Here is another idea: try to "capture" Santa. The "magnet" or "trap" are cookies and a glass of milk right next to your chimney. Oooops, wait, there's no evidence that he exists either!
    JDP, so here's what's going through my mind... This is just my personal opinion so you don't have to respond if you don't want to or feel the need to...

    While others, including you may disagree with this or part of this opinion, I think you're one of the smartest and well read guys on here. You seem to have a lot of really good info and share quite a bit of the alchemical info freely with us. For that, you are a rock star in my book. This also means to me that just like some of the others on this forum know how to manifest SM, I think you know how to do this too.

    So... the times when you seem to go completely 'out of character' is when someone brings up 'one matter' and 'SM'. So that's one data point that doesn't make sense to me given how intense you are about making sure that every post on this forum related to those two topics is bound to get a negative response from you. Yes... I've read your many many many posts on the value of experiential data but still your insane focus on discounting the one matter and SM perspective is admirable, albeit getting old in my book.

    A long time ago, I remember you saying that you wanted to make sure that you could extract all the value possible from turning lead into gold before sharing your secret with others (I'm paraphrasing). That's the second data point I remember about your posts and speaks to your primary motivation.

    For obvious reasons you want to be first to complete the transmutation on a large scale so we can call that the third data point or an offshoot of the second data point.

    Given these three data points/motivations, I often wonder if your attempts at discrediting the one matter (philosophically speaking) or SM are maybe your single-minded focus to distract all others from the path while you work out the details of the path. I don't have any evidence one way or another and I don't know you from Adam, pun intended other than your contributions on the forum but it does bring to question your motivation for pushing as hard as you do on discrediting the content related to these two discussions.

    Also wondering if your arguments would be more effective, for me to believe you, if you were judicious about when you wade into these discussions. Obviously you are free to do as you wish and you do

    This has been on my mind for a while so thought that I would post it here and give you something else to beat up


  5. #165
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    5,038
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Aham View Post
    I often wonder if your attempts at discrediting the one matter (philosophically speaking) or SM are maybe your single-minded focus to distract all others from the path while you work out the details of the path.
    Interesting point. Hasn't crossed my mind before...

    Quote Originally Posted by Aham View Post
    I don't know you from Adam
    Who's Adam

  6. #166
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Aham View Post
    JDP, so here's what's going through my mind... This is just my personal opinion so you don't have to respond if you don't want to or feel the need to...

    While others, including you may disagree with this or part of this opinion, I think you're one of the smartest and well read guys on here. You seem to have a lot of really good info and share quite a bit of the alchemical info freely with us. For that, you are a rock star in my book. This also means to me that just like some of the others on this forum know how to manifest SM, I think you know how to do this too.

    So... the times when you seem to go completely 'out of character' is when someone brings up 'one matter' and 'SM'. So that's one data point that doesn't make sense to me given how intense you are about making sure that every post on this forum related to those two topics is bound to get a negative response from you. Yes... I've read your many many many posts on the value of experiential data but still your insane focus on discounting the one matter and SM perspective is admirable, albeit getting old in my book.

    A long time ago, I remember you saying that you wanted to make sure that you could extract all the value possible from turning lead into gold before sharing your secret with others (I'm paraphrasing). That's the second data point I remember about your posts and speaks to your primary motivation.

    For obvious reasons you want to be first to complete the transmutation on a large scale so we can call that the third data point or an offshoot of the second data point.

    Given these three data points/motivations, I often wonder if your attempts at discrediting the one matter (philosophically speaking) or SM are maybe your single-minded focus to distract all others from the path while you work out the details of the path. I don't have any evidence one way or another and I don't know you from Adam, pun intended other than your contributions on the forum but it does bring to question your motivation for pushing as hard as you do on discrediting the content related to these two discussions.

    Also wondering if your arguments would be more effective, for me to believe you, if you were judicious about when you wade into these discussions. Obviously you are free to do as you wish and you do

    This has been on my mind for a while so thought that I would post it here and give you something else to beat up

    Keep in mind that my latest response (now moved to this thread) regarding "Spiritus Mundi" was because Andro conjured me up by making references to the "Tooth Fairy" (he knows I like to compare the HYPOTHETICAL notion of "Spiritus Mundi" with mythical beings, since there is no evidence that either one of them exists.)

    "Spiritus Mundi" is nothing else than a theoretical speculation of some writers of centuries past. It is not a different case as with the "phlogiston" principle. They were created to try to "explain" some observable phenomena. But things moved on since those centuries, more empirical facts about the world we live in gradually accumulated, particularly about the invisible gases that make up our atmosphere, and such ideas were proven to be incorrect. What those guys attributed to these mysterious "principles" were really just caused by actual substances with their own peculiar set of characteristics. For example, what many writers, like Glauber or Stahl, attributed to "Spiritus Mundi" or to "phlogiston" was in fact all due to nitrogen and/or oxygen, two invisible gases unknown to those chymists. The observed phenomena were not the result of any "universal" principles but actual, real, tangible substances with their set of peculiar properties causing them. "Spiritus Mundi" and "phlogiston" are theoretical relics. They have no place in our modern world.

  7. #167
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    5,038
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Keep in mind that my latest response (now moved to this thread) regarding "Spiritus Mundi" was because Andro conjured me up by making references to the "Tooth Fairy"
    I'll elaborate: Perhaps it's the "fault" of the more "hermetically inclined" Alchemists (i.e. those who also work with Astrology & Theurgy IN ADDITION to the Alchemy lab work) that people who are more scientifically oriented are put off by such terminology. Maybe we could use a more 'scientifically appealing' nomenclature, like "precipitating" instead of "manifesting" and even "Insanely Rectified Sublimate" (IRS) instead of "Spiritus Mundi".


  8. #168
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    250
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Keep in mind that my latest response (now moved to this thread) regarding "Spiritus Mundi" was because Andro conjured me up by making references to the "Tooth Fairy" (he knows I like to compare the HYPOTHETICAL notion of "Spiritus Mundi" with mythical beings, since there is no evidence that either one of them exists.)

    "Spiritus Mundi" is nothing else than a theoretical speculation of some writers of centuries past. It is not a different case as with the "phlogiston" principle. They were created to try to "explain" some observable phenomena. But things moved on since those centuries, more empirical facts about the world we live in gradually accumulated, particularly about the invisible gases that make up our atmosphere, and such ideas were proven to be incorrect. What those guys attributed to these mysterious "principles" were really just caused by actual substances with their own peculiar set of characteristics. For example, what many writers, like Glauber or Stahl, attributed to "Spiritus Mundi" or to "phlogiston" was in fact all due to nitrogen and/or oxygen, two invisible gases unknown to those chymists. The observed phenomena were not the result of any "universal" principles but actual, real, tangible substances with their set of peculiar properties causing them. "Spiritus Mundi" and "phlogiston" are theoretical relics. They have no place in our modern world.
    I think that Phlogiston was just another word for the Sulfur principle invented by Stahl. It maybe was an attempt to make the sulfur more palpable. Nowadays these concepts can be found in thermodynamic terms like "enthalpy" or "inner energy".

  9. #169
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Florius Frammel View Post
    I think that Phlogiston was just another word for the Sulfur principle invented by Stahl. It maybe was an attempt to make the sulfur more palpable. Nowadays these concepts can be found in thermodynamic terms like "enthalpy" or "inner energy".
    The "sulphur" concept is obviously much older than Stahl. It goes all the way back to the Aristotelian concepts of metallogenesis expressed in the Meteorologica, where he explains that minerals/metals have their origin in two "exhalations" within the earth, one "humid & vaporous" and the other one "dry & smoky". When the early Muslims got a hold of Aristotle's books they started identifying these two "exhalations" with a "mercurial" (the "humid & vaporous") and a "sulfureous" (the "dry & smoky") principles that supposedly composed all mineral/metallic bodies. The "sulphur" principle was seen as the cause of combustion and calcination. So when you calcined a metal, the "ash" or calx that remained was the metal deprived of its more crude and superficial "sulphur", which had been ejected/eliminated from the metal by the fire. Centuries later the German chymist Becher and his pupil Stahl took this old theory as the basis for their "phlogiston" theory. It was up to Lavoisier later in the 18th century, taking full advantage of still more accumulated data on the subject of combustion/calcination, to show that all the observed phenomena of combustion and calcination was due to the oxygen of the atmosphere and how it combined or separated with other substances, and not any internal "principle" found in all combustible/calcinable substances, like this supposed "phlogiston".

  10. #170
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    250
    I agree. I did not want to say that the sulfur principle was invented by Stahl but the phlogiston theory that based on this principle. Sorry if that was written unclear.

    In addition I think that Becher, Stahl and Lavoisier were wrong on their interpretation of the sulphur principle. It should have been noticed very early that the calxes of metals are heavier than the metal itself and therefore the sulfur principle must be understood in another way. Priestley and Lavoisier detected oxygen and its role in calcination. But the increasement of mass sure has been observed way before and no one saw a problem with the sulfur principle. It only was a problem with the phlogiston theory which was a (false) interpretation of the sulfur principle obviously.

+ 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