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 48 of 49 FirstFirst ... 38 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 LastLast
Results 471 to 480 of 486

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

  1. #471
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Auroboros View Post
    JDP,

    Four and five substances sounds a lot like a metaphor for the 4 elements and the 5th (Quintessence). I never look at the literal meaning first as lot of what the Philosophers state is multi-layered which is why it's so difficult to decrypt their sayings (unless you speak the language of the Philosophers). This concept is especially true for words/phrases sounding so obvious written in 'common' terms, on which we find is always a prefixed warning stating to never follow them to the letter in every true philosophical work on Alchemy.

    Michael,

    I think you hit the nail on the head - multi-layered meaning. Mercury/Salt/Sulfur - Spirit/Body/Soul - Matter/Vessel/Fire - Father/Son/Holy Spirit. Yes you are right, a lot of Philosophers were heavily influenced by Christianity which had a profound impact on their concepts of the creation of the Universe. This is why true authors of this Art are called Philosophers and not simply Alchemists/Chemists, and many of them make this distinct division. The Philosophers see the spiritual incorporated into the material world and explain it as such, through enigmas, metaphors, mythology, scripture &c. An example can even be seen in the story of Christ being killed/putrefied on the cross then sealed within a tomb in which he rose again with a new body, a Divine being, who has ever lasting life (all very important concepts concerning the great work). The Philosophers also borrowed a lot from Genesis in order to explain their views on creation and how the 'first matter' came into being. If you aren't familiar with these stories or the mythology it can be fairly daunting task of interpreting a Philosophers mindset and unraveling it all to make sense. A lot of authors state that the whole 'recipe' can be written on a single page of paper it's so simple, so you can imagine how a 400+ page book is merely just 'fluff' with a few pearls of wisdom cast!

    ~Auroboros

    That whole "we don't mean what we say" bit has been grossly misunderstood and exaggerated by some people. It is only when it comes to dealing with what substances are used to compose the Stone that you have to be on your guard against the trickery of the alchemists. Here is where they bombard you with a barrage of "decknamen", misleading statements ("one matter only", "one vessel only", listing substances that can actually be used in the work among the "false" ones, etc.), purely imaginary things ("sulphurs", "mercuries", "quintessence", "undetermined matter", "spiritus mundi", etc.) and such like traps and literary & "philosophical" devices to make it more difficult to figure out. Despite all their "philosophizing", the alchemists knew very well what mattered and what made the difference between success and failure in alchemy. That's why they had little problem clearly explaining their theories/speculations (that does not mean that they necessarily make sense to us, since they are mostly based on a bunch of unproven assumptions, most going back to the speculations of Aristotle about matter, which the majority of alchemists quite uncritically accepted), but when it comes to the issue of the actual substances they worked with they deploy all the traps in the book, and then some! Theories/speculations = of little value in the real world; empirical facts = what really matters.

    The "we are philosophers" bit is really more of a fantasy of the alchemists. They fancied themselves "philosophers" but were in fact empiricists at the core, even though they try to avoid admitting it as if it was the plague (for people so obsessed and infatuated with being seen as "philosophers", such a humble and truthful admission was out of the question.) Their theories and speculations about matter are adaptations of those of real speculative philosophers, specially Aristotle, to try to "explain" and give some supposed "intellectualism" to the empirical facts that they discovered. The result of this is a theoretical framework that can hardly be taken seriously: supposed "elements", "mercuries", "sulfurs" and the like things that nobody ever saw or had any proof of whatsoever being used to supposedly "explain" real things, actual facts. As Chaucer would say: "ignotum per ignotius!" ("explaining the unknown by the even more unknown!") What is really valuable about alchemy are its empirical facts, without the dead-weight of theories/speculations that the alchemists threw into the mix so they could go around trying to impress "the vulgar" and claiming to be "philosophers". These theoretical ruminations attached to alchemy are in fact more of an impediment than anything else, something one should strive to get rid of, not uncritically cherish and embrace them. Keep the empirical facts; dump the theoretical baggage.

  2. #472
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    5,616
    Blog Entries
    1
    I will repeat THE question:

    WHAT is "matter"?

    I'm still waiting to see if someone can come up with a genuine and logical explanation (as opposed to a mere "description").

  3. #473
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    8,478
    Blog Entries
    2
    It's a solid thought as opposed to a fluid one.

    Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.


  4. #474
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    848
    Matter can be at least solid, fluid and gaseous.

    To go beyond the level of description, usually a model or theory is needed to explain 'things' that are beyond our usual ability of perception (like the constitution of matter at its 'core').

    Each model (I encountered so far) had an imanent possibility of falsification, including toes like these:

    http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showt...-Tom-s-Big-TOE

    If you go beyond models and theories, you know for sure without a doubt. That 'feeling' can be very subjective and vary from person to person and from time to time though.

    So one would need to reach a state of empirical verified ultimate and 'eternal' truth to ultimately answer this question.

  5. #475
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    I will repeat THE question:

    WHAT is "matter"?

    I'm still waiting to see if someone can come up with a genuine and logical explanation (as opposed to a mere "description").
    Matter is Substance. Its substance is Information Relative and Absolute depending upon understanding your point of view.

  6. #476
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    5,616
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by z0 K View Post
    Matter is Substance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Florius Frammel View Post
    So one would need to reach a state of empirical verified ultimate and 'eternal' truth to ultimately answer this question.
    And what if the underlying Sub-Stance of ALL empirical phenomena (including so-called "matter") is in itself non-empirical/non-physical (i.e. no Cartesian coordinates) and incommensurable?

  7. #477
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    848
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    And what if the underlying Sub-Stance of ALL empirical phenomena (including so-called "matter") is in itself non-empirical/non-physical (i.e. no Cartesian coordinates) and incommensurable?
    Then I only hope this interesting concept is not non-proofable too.

    I can only assume that you talk about the "form/matter-concept" that's in quite some alchemical treatises. Sometimes it's compared to the "spirit/body-concept".

    The Donum Dei for example says the "matter suffers the cause", wheras the form acts as an Agens in order to equal the matter to the form (is the effect).

    Basil Valentine goes further in his "de microcosme" and includes a third part to the duo above, which is "movement".

  8. #478
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    8,478
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    And what if the underlying Sub-Stance of ALL empirical phenomena (including so-called "matter") is in itself non-empirical/non-physical (i.e. no Cartesian coordinates) and incommensurable?
    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    It's a solid thought as opposed to a fluid one.
    For example there are some unwritten rules in certain cultures that are set in stone to such a degree that breaking said rules is almost unthinkable. This is a microcosmic version of what I mean by "solid thought". Everything is non-physical. Some things appear more "matter" (more "physical") only because the "idea" of "that thing" is "set in stone".

    "No two minds ever come together without a third invisible force, which may be likened to a 'third mind'. When a group of individual minds are coordinated and function in harmony, the increased energy created through that alliance becomes available to every individual in the group." - Napoleon Hill
    This might not be the debate in question, but as far as I am concerned it is.

    Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.


  9. #479
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    848
    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    For example there are some unwritten rules in certain cultures that are set in stone to such a degree that breaking said rules is almost unthinkable. This is a microcosmic version of what I mean by "solid thought". Everything is non-physical. Some things appear more "matter" (more "physical") only because the "idea" of "that thing" is "set in stone".



    This might not be the debate in question, but as far as I am concerned it is.

    There used to be an experiment with a group of monkeys or apes. They placed food at a special place above ground and when a monkey touched the food, he got an electro shock. Of course after some time none of the monkeys ever tried again. Then one of them died and a new member became part of the group. He eventually wanted to get the "special food from above" but the others held him back. After some time, none of the original members who actually experienced the shock were alive anymore. None of the monkeys who lived after those dared to grab the food from above, or stopped each new member from trying.

  10. #480
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    389
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    I will repeat THE question:

    WHAT is "matter"?

    I'm still waiting to see if someone can come up with a genuine and logical explanation (as opposed to a mere "description").
    Light.

+ 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