Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Results 161 to 163 of 163

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

  1. #161
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    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
    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
    Berlin, Germany
    Blog Entries

    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; 1 Day Ago at 07:50 PM.

+ Reply to Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts