Patrons of the Sacred Art

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 44 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 433

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

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    82
    I will expose my humble opinion as well.

    To start off, "One Matter" is a pretty vague term (Captain Obvious). It is certainly true if you think that its referring to the One Substance of God, since all that we call visible universe ( and invisible) are but "variations" of that one. But if we assume its referring to a "material matter" (like a rock or a liquid) then who knows.

    And second, i don't think approaching alchemy from a modern chemistry viewpoint is all that helpful. And thats why i fear i am gonna have some serious trouble in the future. In Alchemy, the theory does give some clues as to how to proceed. For example to make something beneficial, separate, purify and recombine the 3 principles, to put it simply. You perform this treatment to a plant, assuming you did it properly, its gonna be beneficial. But when you approach it from a chemist's standpoint, you have no clue how to act about. "Make me a remedy out of this plant" says someone to a chemist. What are you going to do? Distill the plant dry? Treat the distillate with some water absorbant and then disolve it in some organic solvent? Chemistry is not oriented around making remedies, its about learning how matter, as we currently understand it, behaves and gives us some understanding as to how to prepare specific substances. Substances which you don't really find in nature all by themselves, and therefore have no idea how they behave in their natural environment, which is therefore, pretty useless for what an Alchemist does. All its good for is teaching you how certain things happen and what to avoid. Thats as far as it goes. Approaching Alchemy as a chemist is like attempting to swim in honey.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    526
    Quote Originally Posted by Amon View Post
    I will expose my humble opinion as well.

    To start off, "One Matter" is a pretty vague term (Captain Obvious). It is certainly true if you think that its referring to the One Substance of God, since all that we call visible universe ( and invisible) are but "variations" of that one. But if we assume its referring to a "material matter" (like a rock or a liquid) then who knows.

    And second, i don't think approaching alchemy from a modern chemistry viewpoint is all that helpful. And thats why i fear i am gonna have some serious trouble in the future. In Alchemy, the theory does give some clues as to how to proceed. For example to make something beneficial, separate, purify and recombine the 3 principles, to put it simply. You perform this treatment to a plant, assuming you did it properly, its gonna be beneficial. But when you approach it from a chemist's standpoint, you have no clue how to act about. "Make me a remedy out of this plant" says someone to a chemist. What are you going to do? Distill the plant dry? Treat the distillate with some water absorbant and then disolve it in some organic solvent? Chemistry is not oriented around making remedies, its about learning how matter, as we currently understand it, behaves and gives us some understanding as to how to prepare specific substances. Substances which you don't really find in nature all by themselves, and therefore have no idea how they behave in their natural environment, which is therefore, pretty useless for what an Alchemist does. All its good for is teaching you how certain things happen and what to avoid. Thats as far as it goes. Approaching Alchemy as a chemist is like attempting to swim in honey.
    Great post, Amon. I bash my head into that wall frequently, and have to turn of the "scientific" part of my brain and just observe what is happening in the flask. But special thanks to the world for figuring out glass making. We can see what's in our crucible!! A chinese text I was looking at had a nice long (as in a month) recipe for heating up a crucible with absolutely no visual reference as to what was happening inside the sealed pot.

    My boiling flask at the moment has a lot of things happening inside it, and it was one "ingredient" plus distilled water. If I try to consider it scientifically, I'll go nowhere. I just have to watch and wonder what it's going to do next. Organic materials are complex.

    I think the biggest issue with modern chemistry as it applies to medicine is this silly notion of "active ingredient." Trying to separate out "chemical compounds" has gotten me nowhere. My tinctures are better medicine than a lot of the other stuff. Also chemical mindsets tend to shortcut the process I think, very often. We need to give the reactions the time and environment to take place, rather than trying to hurry along. And of course this veil of secrecy over "alchemical" processes is sometimes annoying. I'd be happy to discuss my notes with anyone doing plant work, to compare what we are seeing in our flasks, and which steps are sort of "working" vs "not working" for lesser circulations. Till that day comes though, I'll just keep bubbling away, open to all of the possibilities that I haven't tried yet, and even redoing some in a different way.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Amon View Post
    I will expose my humble opinion as well.

    To start off, "One Matter" is a pretty vague term (Captain Obvious). It is certainly true if you think that its referring to the One Substance of God, since all that we call visible universe ( and invisible) are but "variations" of that one. But if we assume its referring to a "material matter" (like a rock or a liquid) then who knows.

    And second, i don't think approaching alchemy from a modern chemistry viewpoint is all that helpful. And thats why i fear i am gonna have some serious trouble in the future. In Alchemy, the theory does give some clues as to how to proceed. For example to make something beneficial, separate, purify and recombine the 3 principles, to put it simply. You perform this treatment to a plant, assuming you did it properly, its gonna be beneficial. But when you approach it from a chemist's standpoint, you have no clue how to act about. "Make me a remedy out of this plant" says someone to a chemist. What are you going to do? Distill the plant dry? Treat the distillate with some water absorbant and then disolve it in some organic solvent? Chemistry is not oriented around making remedies, its about learning how matter, as we currently understand it, behaves and gives us some understanding as to how to prepare specific substances. Substances which you don't really find in nature all by themselves, and therefore have no idea how they behave in their natural environment, which is therefore, pretty useless for what an Alchemist does. All its good for is teaching you how certain things happen and what to avoid. Thats as far as it goes. Approaching Alchemy as a chemist is like attempting to swim in honey.
    Knowing about chemistry (and physics, and geology, and mineralogy) has its advantages and disadvantages regarding alchemy. On the one hand, thanks to them we can easily tell that the speculations of the alchemists regarding many things (like the supposed "generation of metals" in the "bowels of the earth", for example) were quite mistaken. Nature does not work like they imagined it did, so trying to follow their theoretical musings when it comes to nature and its "modus operandi" is a total dead-end, it will lead nowhere. On the other hand, the anti-transmutation mania that chemistry inherited from its 18th century pioneers, and the impositions that physics eventually made upon chemistry regarding theories of matter, gives anyone who swallows it hook, line and sinker a big disadvantage, as he will be accepting defeat a priori, so in fact there would be hardly much of a point in even trying to investigate the subject empirically when you have already accepted the dogma that transmutation via "chemical reactions" is supposedly "impossible". Alchemy, then, becomes merely a historical curiosity, a sort of "precursor" to chemistry, in the eyes of such people. But if they only bothered to do a more systematic empirical investigation of the subject they would realize that the metals that they consider as "elements" are not as "solid", stable and unchanging to "reactions" and "outside influences" as they think, and that some processes/reactions do have surprising effects on at least some metals.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,321
    Blog Entries
    1
    Personally, when I mention "one matter", I am not referring to something that can be found in nature, readily available to collect and cook to perfection "as is". I don't deny the possibility, but such thing would most likely only be viable if ALL superfluities are transmuted in the process of "cooking", something I personally haven't encountered yet with "raw" matters . Also, all matters have their own "radical humidity" component, so if the superfluous/"accidental" humidity is removed, the "matter" can basically cook itself. Everyone interested can try it themselves. Personally, in my work so far with NATURALLY AVAILABLE matters (with no additional preparation/processing), I have only obtained either alchemically magnetic products, OR learned great lessons regarding the conditions required to condense the "matter" that is NOT naturally and readily available (antimony, for example, can be a good teacher in this regard).

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    it will lead nowhere.
    It will most likely lead nowhere?



    Edit: Separate "the pure from the impure", "the earth from the fire", "the subtle from the gross", etc...
    Last edited by Andro; 12-18-2017 at 10:52 AM.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,321
    Blog Entries
    1
    Bonus meme


  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    8,084
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    ...it slowed him down enough to survive the impact when he hit the solid ground of the station. Had that glass ceiling not been there, he would have died from the massive trauma to pretty much all his body when he had hit either a more solid roof material or the solid ground at full free-falling speed.
    Hidden within the comedy of the quote below, there is factual truth... I mean probable models...

    You must learn how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. Pick a nice day and try it. The first part is easy. All it requires is the ability to throw yourself forward with all your weight and the willingness not to mind that it's going to hurt. That is, it's going to hurt if you fail to miss the ground. If you are really trying properly, the likelyhood is that you will fail to miss the ground fairly hard.

    Clearly, it is the second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.

    One problem is that you have to miss the ground accidentally. It's no good deliberately intending to miss the ground because you won't. You have to have your attention suddenly distracted by something else then you're halfway there, so that you are no longer thinking about falling, or about the ground, or about how much it's going to hurt if you fail to miss it.

    It is notoriously difficult to prise your attention away from these three things during the split second you have at your disposal. Hence most people's failure, and their eventual disillusionment with this exhilarating and spectacular sport.

    If, however, you are lucky enough to have your attention momentarily distracted at the crucial moment by, say, a gorgeous pair of legs (tentacles, pseudopodia, according to phyllum and/or personal inclination), or a bomb going off in your vicinity, or by suddenly spotting an extremely rare species of beetle crawling along a nearby twig, then in your astonishment you will miss the ground completely and remain bobbing just a few inches above the ground in what might seem to be a slightly foolish manner.

    This is the moment for superb and delicate concentration.

    Bob and float. Float and bob.

    Ignore all considerations of your own weight and simply let yourself waft higher.

    Do not listen to what anybody says to you at this point because they are unlikely to say anything helpful.

    They are most likely to say something along the lines of "Good God, man, you can't possibly be flying!" It is vitally important not to believe them or they will suddenly be right.

    Waft higher and higher. Try a few swoops, gentle ones at first, then drift above the treetops, breathing regularly.

    DO NOT WAVE AT ANYBODY.

    - from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams
    Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,321
    Blog Entries
    1
    Embedded in the above quote from Douglas Adams, there is a very interesting (theoretical) model for tricking one's mind/consciousness into influencing probability.

    I have ONCE in my life had a spontaneous physical levitation experience, with no conscious intention of my own. I was in my late 20s.

    No, I wasn't sleeping/dreaming and I wasn't "on" anything. I was fully awake and aware.

    The experience lasted around 10 minutes, with my body about 10-20 cm above the floor.

    It only took this one time to abolish any sort of "statistical certainty" in my mind. Since then, I was never able to consciously replicate this. Perhaps one day I will. But it was a highly initiatory experience for me.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    Embedded in the above quote from Douglas Adams, there is a very interesting (theoretical) model for tricking one's mind/consciousness into influencing probability.

    I have ONCE in my life had a spontaneous physical levitation experience, with no conscious intention of my own. I was in my late 20s.

    No, I wasn't sleeping/dreaming and I wasn't "on" anything. I was fully awake and aware.

    The experience lasted around 10 minutes, with my body about 10-20 cm above the floor.

    It only took this one time to abolish any sort of "statistical certainty" in my mind. Since then, I was never able to consciously replicate this. Perhaps one day I will. But it was a highly initiatory experience for me.
    https://musicpleer.bz/#!0e2e6d9c4d95...3b1eba8c0b113c

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    Hidden within the comedy of the quote below, there is factual truth... I mean probable models...



    The only factual part is the comedy. Trying to take what it says seriously will only result in bodily harm to anyone insane or out of touch with reality enough to try it. Empirical facts do not care one bit how much you try to "ignore" them, they will continue to be what they always have been, quite oblivious of what you think about them.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,321
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Trying to take what it says seriously will only result in bodily harm to anyone insane or out of touch with reality enough to try it.
    How many people have you studied who attempted this exact method? What empirical research have you conducted in respect to this particular technique? If you haven't conducted any research on this specific model, you are in no position to argue empiricism, let alone "predict facts". I'm not being contrarian, I'm just arguing for scientific empiricism based on actually researching the discussed model, as opposed to mere speculation, without taking into consideration the added variables. One either is or isn't an empiricist. No cutting corners and/or dismissing model-focused research just for the sake of making "easier" predictions. Many scientists actually have this "problem" - they dismiss more "fringe" models because those models contradict their own interpretation of "common sense", for which there is no place in proper scientific/empirical research.

+ 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