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 44 of 49 FirstFirst ... 34 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 LastLast
Results 431 to 440 of 487

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

  1. #431
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    One what...?




    I stand by the fact that we do not work with one single element: this is what z0 K was saying in the "biomass" discussion I was asking you to recall.

    We work with one...Thing.

    Call it whatever you want, I like to call this thing "our Matter".

    No one on this website claims to work with one single element; this notion solely exists in your head, JDP.
    But I never said any such thing as "one single element", so it is in fact solely in your head. I clearly said that working with only one thing/matter is a blind-alley. It doesn't make any difference that what you are in fact using is a complex/heterogeneous organic substance. Let me tell it to you again very clearly: such substances lack the other necessary substances to generate the Stone (most noticeably the heavy metals involved in the operations, which organic matters lack any significant content of.) Nature does NOT make any such "one matter/thing" that contains everything necessary to make the Stone. Therefore you are being sent on a wild-goose chase, a hopeless search for something that you will find nowhere already made for your convenience. YOU have to make it. Or better yet: YOU have to put it together, and then let "nature" work the interactions/reactions that will generate the products/byproducts used for the work. Nature on its own will NEVER put the necessary substances together for you into one neat and convenient little package. You are falling for an obvious fairy tale designed to send "unworthy" seekers astray.

  2. #432
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,061
    Blog Entries
    86
    I would like to say, that i find these endless debates, both very educational and awesomely hilarious at the same time. Please continue.... its extremely entertaining
    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

  3. #433
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,061
    Blog Entries
    86
    I actually really loved your last post here JDP. Im not very clever and it did help me to understand what you mean.

    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

  4. #434
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    In the zone
    Posts
    125
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    In reality those are complex mixtures of complex organic compounds, not "single/one" anythings like some alchemists envisioned. Now try to do the same with a metal, or even many minerals! This speculative "philosophy" will not work here because we are now talking about simpler inorganic substances that will not decompose with heat, and those that do decompose give less complex products/byproducts. So, in summary, the whole thing is nothing but a trick: trying to fool unwary people into actually working with a single substance (whether a complex organic mixture or simpler substances like minerals), nothing else, from the very beginning, and then trying to make the Stone with it. And I have very bad news for you and anyone falling for this old ruse: it just ain't gonna happen, buds! 2000+ years of accumulated empirical experience with all manner of single naturally-occurring substances denounce such an idea as pure BALONEY.
    Three words; Salt, Sulphur, Mercury. Combined, makes One Thing, Our Matter. This is why the olive example was asked to you.

    All composites that make up One Thing. Is a branch, One Thing JDP?


    Quote Originally Posted by tAlchemist View Post
    If matter consists of substances, then an olive branch, under analysis by fire will yield 1. A water, 2. An acid, 3. An alkaline salt, 4.a sulphurous oil, 5. A black empyreumatic oil, and finally 6. A white insipid earth.

    All of these substances come from that one matter called an olive branch.
    It is one specified type of matter that produces olives.

    is a grape not a thing even though it's mainly composed of water, sugar, earth and oil
    Quote Originally Posted by tAlchemist View Post
    According to Keely and Walter Russell, as well as the alchemists, matter is infinitely divisible

  5. #435
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,061
    Blog Entries
    86
    I find it interesting and perhaps not a coincidence; that in the old days they would use common mercury to evacuate flasks before sealing them off.

    The extra large atomic size of mercuries atoms would work to push out and force the air out of the flask "drying" the air out, so to speak.

    Just saying...
    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

  6. #436
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by tAlchemist View Post
    Three words; Salt, Sulphur, Mercury. Combined, makes One Thing, Our Matter. This is why the olive example was asked to you.

    All composites that make up One Thing. Is a branch, One Thing JDP?



    Again, all these are false and misguided ideas/theories/conjectures/etc. Organic matters are complex mixtures of complex compounds, that's the reason why you can get those products/byproducts that you -following the theoretical ideas of the chymists- arbitrarily label as "salt, sulphur and mercury". Now try to put your little "philosophy" there to practice on a substance like mercury, for example. What's the matter? Can't get it to yield any such "salt, sulphur and mercury", no matter how much you try to destructively distill it, can't you? Of course not, because mercury is a much simpler and stabler "thing" than an olive branch! An olive branch, then, in reality is not any "one matter only" but in fact a mixture of them. The difference is that nature puts this mixture together on its own. The one that the alchemists require IS NOT MADE BY NATURE, it is the alchemist who makes it by choosing several pertinent and appropriate substances for the objective at hand and then making them react and form "one thing" (in appearance; because just like the olive branch, it is still really a mixture of several substances, not really "one" in a true literal sense.)

  7. #437
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    In the zone
    Posts
    125
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Again, all these are false and misguided ideas/theories/conjectures/etc. Organic matters are complex mixtures of complex compounds, that's the reason why you can get those products/byproducts that you -following the theoretical ideas of the chymists- arbitrarily label as "salt, sulphur and mercury". Now try to put your little "philosophy" there to practice on a substance like mercury, for example. What's the matter? Can't get it to yield any such "salt, sulphur and mercury", no matter how much you try to destructively distill it, can't you? Of course not, because mercury is a much simpler and stabler "thing" than an olive branch! An olive branch, then, in reality is not any "one matter only" but in fact a mixture of them. The difference is that nature puts this mixture together on its own. The one that the alchemists require IS NOT MADE BY NATURE, it is the alchemist who makes it by choosing several pertinent and appropriate substances for the objective at hand and then making them react and form "one thing" (in appearance; because just like the olive branch, it is still really a mixture of several substances, not really "one" in a true literal sense.)
    Then surely you don't know for certain, the specific meaning behind One that these Alchemists were trying to convey. This is all a matter of speculation from you. Show me the Empirical Facts that you keep bringing up but fail to present. Prove me wrong, but don't state what I'm saying as ''nonsense''.

    Alchemical literature speaks of Nature, time and time again. Historical accounts as you say, may have seen this secret solvent as you say yourself, but none of them understand the process. None of them have made the secret solvent, can you show me otherwise? The only ones who've made this secret solvent, were the ones who understood the process, the alchemists that you believe are liars.

    As I shared with you before, according to John Keeley, matter is infinitely divisible, do you refute this?

    There is no dividing of matter and force into two distinct terms, as they both are one. Force is liberated matter. Matter is force in bondage. Matter is bound up energy and energy is liberated matter.
    - John Keely 1893


    ''Keely affirms and demonstrates that all corpuscles of matter may be divided and sub-divided by a certain order of vibration''.

    As above, so below, as within, so without, as the universe, so the soul…
    Hermes Trismegistus

    That which is below is like that which is above, and that which is above is like that which is below, to perform the miracles of one only thing.
    Hermes Trismegistus

    Thus, grape, olive branch, made up of other things, that make up these one things but still, all infinitely divisible.

    Salt, Sulphur, Mercury, are all but single things... a thing individually.

    Therefore, if matter is infinitely divisible, you cannot pinpoint what singular point the Alchemist were speaking of like you tried above, because not even you know what ''one'' means in the true sense of the word they were using.

    You tell me this; ''You are projecting modern unproven concepts ("free energy" and the like) onto the alchemists. Wrong manner of investigating.

    Here I use John Keely as an example, using his investigations. Have you looked into John Keely?

    What do you know other than what you've read! Speculation? Not facts to producing the secret solvent, what have you said or what do you know that shows congruence with what the Alchemists have said all along? Or anything in regards to Alchemy? If my notions are nonsense, as you say, then prove it!

    Show some congruence with what you say and the method of producing the secret solvent.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    not really "one" in a true literal sense.
    Then I ask of you, how do you determine when you've finally reached the last point towards this single thing that you are talking about? Modern Science only knows what it knows with the instruments that it has currently to measure it. If we go by your standards; ''not really "one" in a true literal sense'' then literally, the alchemists couldn't have made the secret solvent by your logic, because they would have to have been digging up their matter their whole lives, using every single possible thing there could ever be to investigate with this approach, and then mish mashing every other single thing. It's not plausible.

    You disregard what the Alchemists have always said themselves, and then interpreted what Alchemy actually is, saying; ''secret solvent'' using your own speculation keeping in mind that you disregard everything else that they talked about seeing as its ''misleading''. To me, this is the wrong manner of investigation.

    As Above, So Below

    Alchemy works on different levels than just the stone. You & I, could very well compare ourselves to these words. We too, are divisible, seperate the gross from the subtle, but you only know nothing other than what modern instruments can measure, therefore you cannot advance in your own investigations using this very route that you are treading on, therefore, speculation.

    This is an esoteric science. Could modern tech that you're familiar of, measure a subtle body within a human? What if this concept was proven to say, me? Would this not be a proven fact not to you, not to the World, but to me, just like John Keely and his work before he publicized it? This is not the wrong manner of investigation, this is how investigation, from the time began has started.

    John Keely wasn't one to sit on his hands like some people here, and wait for modern science to catch up so that he can advance with his studies. He took manners into his own hands, even when his field of investigation weren't proven at the time. So much for ''wrong manner of investigation''.

    Again, you only know what you've read, you said so yourself when you stated this; ''You are projecting modern unproven concepts ("free energy" and the like) onto the alchemists. Wrong manner of investigating.

    You only know of ''one thing in a true literal sense'' based on your own comprehension, and speculation, you don't know how many layers a thing actually holds (neither do I), and just like the Alchemists, they did not have any proven concepts that we have reached thus far today, and the technology we have today, to measure them!

    Since Awani wants us debating this One Matter topic here, I won't reply in the Arnold de Villeneuve Le Rosaire des Philosophes;

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Too long to mention. The ones I like the most are the ones who don't try to fool and misguide you, specially with that silly "one matter only" ruse.
    Seeing as you believe that the Alchemists spoke of ''one in a true literal sense''... Wouldn't mish mashing to produce this solvent that you see in your mind, become a thing? Like say, an olive branch, a grape?

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    But I never said any such thing as "one single element", so it is in fact solely in your head.
    Then could you explain what you mean when you say ''one in a true literal sense'' ... You've stated that this is what you feel the Alchemists mean, ''the liars'', when they say ''One Thing''...

    Help us understand JDP.
    Last edited by tAlchemist; 10-24-2018 at 05:38 PM.

  8. #438
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In-Between
    Posts
    5,892
    Blog Entries
    1

    Mod Note

    Quote Originally Posted by tAlchemist View Post
    Since Awani wants us debating this One Matter topic here, I won't reply in the Arnold de Villeneuve Le Rosaire des Philosophes
    Thank you!

    Indeed, let's keep this topic on its designated thread.

  9. #439
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    428
    Blog Entries
    7
    I'm pretty sure a lot of authors warn against using vulgar metals and say our lead our copper our gold etc to distinguish that their not using any metals.
    To say nature does not make the stone is to assume our 200 plus years of collective knowledge on nature is complete, when at the same time
    statistically we have only explored discovered under half of our planet. There are land masses we have never been, oceans and jungles we are still discovering new life.
    And our 200 plus years of collective knowledge on nature and history comes from mostly copies, the amount of books burned and knowledge suppressed or wiped out was tremendous. Countless times throughout history knowledge has been erased, libraries burnt.
    Our knowledge on nature is incomplete and your be hard pressed to find a scientist who thinks we have seen it all.
    The actual odds of nature making the stone and it being already being discovered are quite high,
    given the many factors throughout history that affect our current knowledge.
    Destruction of scientific knowledge, suppression of technology , suppression of education. etc.
    You only have to look at the past century to see " The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 ".
    Saying nature does definitely not make the stone based on our current empirical evidence is wrong, there's nothing definite about it.
    Its only theoretical. We can say from our current understanding nature does not make the stone, a current understanding based on incomplete histories and incomplete knowledge.
    Don't let the uneducated in history and the natural world fool you into thinking nature doesn't have any miracles left.

  10. #440
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Kibric View Post
    I'm pretty sure a lot of authors warn against using vulgar metals and say our lead our copper our gold etc to distinguish that their not using any metals.
    To say nature does not make the stone is to assume our 200 plus years of collective knowledge on nature is complete, when at the same time
    statistically we have only explored discovered under half of our planet. There are land masses we have never been, oceans and jungles we are still discovering new life.
    And our 200 plus years of collective knowledge on nature and history comes from mostly copies, the amount of books burned and knowledge suppressed or wiped out was tremendous. Countless times throughout history knowledge has been erased, libraries burnt.
    Our knowledge on nature is incomplete and your be hard pressed to find a scientist who thinks we have seen it all.
    The actual odds of nature making the stone and it being already being discovered are quite high,
    given the many factors throughout history that affect our current knowledge.
    Destruction of scientific knowledge, suppression of technology , suppression of education. etc.
    You only have to look at the past century to see " The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 ".
    Saying nature does definitely not make the stone based on our current empirical evidence is wrong, there's nothing definite about it.
    Its only theoretical. We can say from our current understanding nature does not make the stone, a current understanding based on incomplete histories and incomplete knowledge.
    Don't let the uneducated in history and the natural world fool you into thinking nature doesn't have any miracles left.
    This is a bunch of nonsense. Human beings have been around for THOUSANDS of years, not "200", and in all the time that they have been leaving records (a few of those thousands of years) there has NEVER been found anything like the Stone in a natural setting. The first records we have of it are from the alchemists themselves, and it is obviously an artificial production of their craft, not something they found already made somewhere. How many rocks have to fall on your head before you realize that an avalanche is about to fall on you??? If THOUSANDS of years of accumulated human experience do not satisfy you, then I am afraid nothing ever will. Keep on hoping that someone will find something like the Stone already made in a natural setting "somewhere" on the planet. I can easily predict that even if you live to be several THOUSANDS years old on your own that such a thing will never happen. The previous THOUSANDS of years of accumulated human experience with nature and its products make it very easy to predict that nature simply does not make any such thing.

+ 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