Patrons of the Sacred Art

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 433

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

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,321
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Thread Intro:

    This thread has been created as a host for all further debates and dissertations surrounding various 'one matter' (& related) controversies and possible misunderstandings, so as to avoid serially hijacking other threads.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    526
    Thank you Andro!

    To kick this off on topic (not to argue, just as food for thought), lots of compounds in sea water. Water + salts + dissolved gasses + many many processes, biologic/thermal/etc. IF I were going to start with one matter, or consider a good matter to start concocting the solvent, I would start here. I tinker with water, and there's tons to learn from it, but since my operations are chymical/spagyric 99.998% of the time, right now it's just speculation. I'm not so sure that "the stone" can be procured just from sea water, or any alchemical reconstruction of it, but it's a baseline, I think, for speculation and enlightenment that will provide clues as to "nature's method," which remember is NOT our current understanding, but that which is directly observable and speculated on. Many ancient cultures speculated differently than modern science on the formation of rocks, crystals, and metals.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,321
    Blog Entries
    1
    Dragon's Tail, thanks for kick-starting this...

    Elsewhere, I have posed the question "what is matter". Is it stuff we find in a natural state? In an artificially refined state? Chemically manufactured?

    Also, all matter can be broken down into components, such as elements of the periodic table variety (if we use this paradigm). Elements can be further broken down to atoms, electrons, etc...

    So, within the accepted scientific model (although I've never actually seen an electron ) what is matter, ultimately?

    And does alchemy ultimately come down to chemical reactions between different "matters" that the academia hasn't discovered? Because, IMO, if there is no "x-factor" (secret/hidden component) involved in Alchemy, then it may be essentially no different at all from chemistry or "chymistry"

    Perhaps there is something fundamental that ALL matter has in common (in its composition)? Some Alchemy researchers suggest/speculate that what Alchemists termed "Universal Spirit" may be a sort of "electron cloud". Or perhaps there is a more "occult" (= hidden) aspect to the composition of matter, something that quite a few researchers have addressed in their own unique ways.

    What should be regarded as "one matter" in alchemy, regardless if our position is to seek this "one matter" OR to avoid it at any cost?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    555
    I came to the assumtion recently that maybe there indeed is a link between mind and matter. The sages often underline similar statements. Some might say however, that if it is so, then why did they not speak openly in their recipies. Because you would never get the results if you don't know how to make an influence on matter with your mind and therefore the encrypting of texts dealing with making the stone would seem pretty useless.

    Even modern science (which unfortunately is often rejected here) is nowadays dealing with this mind-matter link. You can for example look up here for some information concerning this subject http://www.consciousness-app.com/. They even seem to have developed an app for your mobiles to research on this topic on your own.
    Not all scientists agree with the interpretation of most of the results of their experiments, but there seems to be a small but significant effect. On the other hand this might be explained with errors in the setup of the experiment.

    Some scientists -for example the german psychologist and physician Walter von Lucadou even believe that so called supernatural events can be eliminated when trying to examine them empirically. As a councelor for people who experience or think they experience paranormal activities (for example "poltergeist" phenomenas) he gives the advice to write down the exact time and space on which the events occur. This way lots of those activities seem to stop. It is interesting and of cource not emprically provable if this mind-matter interactions (which Lucadou thinks are the reasons for most of these phenomenas) are somehow "afraid" of empirical research methods. Of course you can't say something about the obvious comments of critics on this topic either.
    Last edited by Florius Frammel; 12-13-2017 at 10:59 AM. Reason: Link was missing

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    526
    I think part of it comes from our misunderstanding of nuclear physics in the modern age. We can predict radioactive decay, for example, but the mechanism that causes it (and the WAY it carries itself out) is left to statistics and nature. The mainstream group acknowledges statistics like some kind of governing force that acts on the quantum scale, but there are plenty who disagree.

    And I'm convinced that there are more than a handful of mistakes/representations in our understanding of chemistry. There's still much to learn about the little things in life. I have my own views/theories on gods, spirits, etc, and how they can "interact" with the world around us. Even how our souls interact at a distance and with our bodies, But the cause-effect relationships are quite fuzzy.

    These holes in science aren't hard to find. Just find a baffled scientist saying "this shouldn't be." They are on the verge of discovery but fail to see that there's a larger world outside of their paradigm. Lot's of scientists said it shouldn't be true that the speed of light can be calculated from known constants and outside of any frame of reference, but that turned out to be quite true. There was no problem with the Maxwell equations, only our understanding of them, because until relativity, we assumed that a velocity necessitated a frame of reference, and that Newton's laws applied in every frame of reference.

    Newton was awesome, but he couldn't explain the procession of Mercury. :P There's always more to be discovered, and what we find to be fascinating transmutations might some day be understood as a special kind of chemical reaction, once we sufficiently change our frame of reference.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    555
    By the way, I'm sure that some of you might have heard or read about the Kervran experiments which for me seem to be pretty well made in an emprical sense. What I can not find is a work that actually has results speaking against his data and interpretation. Most people just say it is impossible and that's it. If anyone has a source please let me know.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    Dragon's Tail, thanks for kick-starting this...

    Elsewhere, I have posed the question "what is matter". Is it stuff we find in a natural state? In an artificially refined state? Chemically manufactured?
    Who knows. Does it really "matter"? It exists. Period.

    Also, all matter can be broken down into components, such as elements of the periodic table variety (if we use this paradigm). Elements can be further broken down to atoms, electrons, etc...

    So, within the accepted scientific model (although I've never actually seen an electron ) what is matter, ultimately?
    Those are the notions and ideas of physics. According to them, matter and energy are two forms of the same thing.

    And does alchemy ultimately come down to chemical reactions between different "matters" that the academia hasn't discovered? Because, IMO, if there is no "x-factor" (secret/hidden component) involved in Alchemy, then it may be essentially no different at all from chemistry or "chymistry"
    We can easily reverse this arbitrary pronouncement: And do "chymistry" and chemistry ultimately come down to "debased" alchemical reactions between different "matters" that the alchemists themselves gave a wide berth to since they knew they were ineffective for the purpose of making the Stone, their one and only objective? In such a case, "chymistry" and chemistry would be just the "leftovers" of what the alchemists rejected or ignored.

    Note regarding "chymistry", though: unlike chemistry, this discipline managed to find its own ways of accomplishing transmutations. So this prompts the also very important question: what distinguishes it from ordinary chemistry, which still believes that transmutation through any reactions between any substances is "impossible"? What "supernatural" element does "chymistry" supposedly need to distinguish it from chemistry, then? If you have been successful at replicating some "chymical" transmutations you know well that the answer is: NONE. I did not need any "Divine Revelations/Gifts/Permissions", or special spoon-bending Jedi-like psychic super-powers, or bizarre "magic" rituals, or mysterious unseen "universal somethings" to succeed in replicating some of these "chymical" processes that can produce small amounts of gold and silver. It's just a matter of discovering the right substances, operations and conditions to accomplish the goal (and thankfully some "chymists" have been more open and generous than others, describing some of these processes in practically full detail, with little or no attempts at misleading, so the subject is not as difficult to investigate as alchemy, where virtually all its "masters", even the more generous and clear ones, write in more or less imprecise/vague/ambiguous/misleading terms regarding what matters to use to make the Stone.) The large majority of reactions are useless and leave the metals involved in them quite intact and just like they were before the reactions took place. But a comparative minority of them do work and alter a portion of the metals involved. This is what distinguishes "chymistry" from "chemistry". I don't expect alchemy to be any different, the difference being that the results of its techniques are quite quantitatively more spectacular than those of "chymistry" (while the majority of "chymical" processes can only turn relatively small fractions of certain metals into gold & silver, even the more mediocre results of alchemy produce substances that can turn at least several times their own weight in gold & silver.)

    What should be regarded as "one matter" in alchemy, regardless if our position is to seek this "one matter" OR to avoid it at any cost?
    Let me clarify again that when I criticize the "one matter only" claim I am referring to the QUANTITATIVE context in which this claim appears in many alchemical texts, not so much the theoretical/speculative musings of most alchemists regarding the alleged unity of all matter. The type of misleading alchemists I am referring to are the ones who purposefully want their readers to believe that all you really need to make the Stone is literally "one matter only", meaning ONE SPECIFIC SUBSTANCE ONLY. They don't mean "matter" here in a metaphysical or theoretical sense, but as a single specific substance with its own peculiar characteristics/properties, like say, antimony, or the leaves of a tree, or a piece of old moldy cheese.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    555
    I got your point, JDP.
    Can you name one/some good sources/texts of chymists with which you can produce small quantities of transmutated silver or gold?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    Thread Intro:

    This thread has been created as a host for all further debates and dissertations surrounding various 'one matter' (& related) controversies and possible misunderstandings, so as to avoid serially hijacking other threads.
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    It has become impossible to build up exchanges involving work with "one matter" (& related) without them being hijacked with variations on the same theme, over and over (and over) again. A few times here and there is OK, but this has become a serial thing, systemically derailing multiple threads.

    This will have to stop now, one way or another.

    If people wish to discuss their approach and/or their work with 'One Matter" as a foundation, they should be able to do so without constant interruption.

    If so inclined, all further dissertations and debates on this matter(!) can be done here from now on: 'One Matter' - Discerning Truth from Deception
    This decision is incomprehensible in a thread that in fact deals directly with the issue at hand: the Stone is supposedly made from "one matter only". But is it really "one matter only" as some want to claim? Trying to censor and marginalize the opposing view to a specific separate thread does nothing but further emphasize that those who promote the "one matter" claim have hardly any arguments to defend their beliefs from more critical scrutiny. Sounds like the form of fascist-like forum censorship that was promoted by that "Zoas" guy, with supposed appeals against "hijacking" to try to justify it. But can discussion of the validity of any given claim be seen as "hijacking" if it happens in a thread that in fact deals with the subject being discussed??? That's what discussion forums are for in the first place. It would qualify as "hijacking" if the thread somehow started to deal with other topics than the one being discussed. But that's not what was going on in the "One, Two, Three" thread. The purpose of that thread is obviously to promote the claim that from "one matter only" you can make the Stone.
    Last edited by JDP; 12-14-2017 at 12:57 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    8,085
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    ...is it really "one matter only" as some want to claim?
    Can gay people have a thread about a gay issue in peace, without homophobic redneck KKK people butting in every five minutes to say homosexuality is EVIL?

    If someone wants to talk about "one matter only" then it is fine to raise the issue that this is wrong... but again, and again, and again, and again... well that is not the same thing. Such things call for a new thread... some people want to discuss "one matter only", because it is TRUTH for them. You are not the Truth Police.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Sounds like the form of fascist-like forum censorship that was promoted by that "Zoas" guy.
    Zoas is gone.

    But you are right regarding fascism. This ain't really a democracy, even if it seems like it. (1)

    That is all I am going to say about that. The rest I leave in the hands of the God(s).




    _________________________________________

    (1) it kind of is a democracy amongst the dictators themselves
    Last edited by Awani; 12-14-2017 at 01:20 AM. Reason: add Divine Mystery
    Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

+ 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