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 47 of 49 FirstFirst ... 37 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 487

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

  1. #461
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002

    The "Notes to Bacon's Epistle" on the "one matter"

    The author of the "Notes" on Bacon's "Epistle on the Secret Works of Art & Nature and the Nullity of Magic" (both texts published in the Bibliotheca Chemica Curiosa collection of texts) has the following brief and pertinent comments to make regarding the "one matter" of alchemy:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=7_...0ex%22&f=false

    One (say the philosophers) is the work, one the mode of operating to the white and to the red: I add one matter; and that not simple but composed from two with their intermediate/intermediary...

    So, yet another exposition of this tricky statement that so many unwary seekers fall for when, without any clarification, they encounter it stated "as is" by some malicious authors whose intent is obviously to confuse and mislead others by making them endlessly and to no avail work on single, simple, uncompounded substances (such as would be nature's productions, not those of man's industry.) As the commentator explains, it is not any "simple" substance but actually a composite of two + an "intermediary/intermediate" (i.e. a third substance; some other alchemists in fact used more. Thomas Norton, for example, used at least 4 substances to make the Stone.)

  2. #462
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    937



    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    One (say the philosophers) is the work, one the mode of operating to the white and to the red: I add one matter; and that not simple but composed from two with their intermediate/intermediary...
    What do you believe this Intermediary could be...?








    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    So, yet another exposition of this tricky statement that so many unwary seekers fall for...
    No, "so many unwary seekers" do not fall for this.

    It only exists in your head.

    This sermon gives you purpose in life...this is what drives you...we see it and we get it, JDP.

    It is commendable.

    Countless times you have been reminded that not a single person here believes what you keep preaching against, and you lack any capability of souring anywhere from anyone alive that believes this notion...

    Remember that message about "talking to a brick wall"?? It's you, you, you who is like talking to a brick wall...refusing to hear anything that would put a damper on you going on and on and on about the same thing over and over and over.

    What you incessantly rant about is comparable to someone here taking it upon themselves as a member of this forum to ceaselessly warn the other members of this forum that "BEWARE: IT IS NOT ACTUALLY TRUE THAT RED LOLLIPOPS MAKE YOUR BIG TOE TURN GREEN".

    You have created an issue that never existed. This misperception that there are all these people out there who need to be warned about a non-existent issue is, odd...or maybe this is a pride thing and this is how you flaunt your knowledge


    Can you show me anyone who believes this (which should be easy for you to do because there are "so many unwary seekers" out there)?

    Could it be that what you keep going on about is something you have entirely created in your mind and no such counter-argument needs to exist?









    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    As the commentator explains, it is not any "simple" substance but actually a composite of two + an "intermediary/intermediate" (i.e. a third substance; some other alchemists in fact used more. Thomas Norton, for example, used at least 4 substances to make the Stone.)
    Cf. http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showt...3861#post43861

    See here: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showt...8893#post58893
    See also: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showt...0738#post60738

    Additionally: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showt...6545#post56545
    Additionally: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showt...6570#post56570

    Note this: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showt...6611#post56611


    JDP, you strive so hard to come off as some kind of an authority figure, but truth is, as Awani pointed out above, you are no more qualified than anyone here to rant and rave like a broken record about something you have no experience with.

    A self-proclaimed & flaunted empiricist warning others about something he has no experience with...what a joke!

    You do not have the Philosopher's Stone, you have never seen the Philosopher's Stone, and you do not have any verifiable proof based on observation or experience that the Philosopher's Stone even exists...yet you dedicate your Earthly existence to spewing the same repetitive drivel ad nauseam.

    Why?
    Last edited by Schmuldvich; 10-27-2018 at 04:56 AM.

  3. #463
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,061
    Blog Entries
    86
    Well its very entertaining. Isn't it. I had many giggles reading your post just now Schmveepse. This one was also hilarious:

    Andro -
    Everyone here is free to "bicker and argue", as long as they adhere to our Rules & Guidelines. As current moderator, I will make sure that this "one matter vs. many matters" debate STAYS on this thread and doesn't systemically hijack every other thread where "One Matter" (& related) topics are discussed, as it was way too often the case in the past.

    I can also guarantee to all of you that I will do the best I can so that this "crusade" stays inside this "church"/on this thread and doesn't go on a "missionary quest" to hijack other threads and engage in this type of unsolicited "conversion therapy" . It's unfortunate, having to go to such measures, but otherwise the whole board would quickly become a cacophony of missionary-type sermons
    This place is the best......

    Ill have to add; that I do believe that there are people who believe that you can put only one thing into a flask, and that that one thing, within the flask, is made of different things, and that, while in the flask, separates of its own accord under stimulating heat, and that then, after this is accomplished, it begins to conjoin, and that their conjoining brings to life something else again and therefore they believe that even though they are working with one thing only they can also relate and draw wisdom from authors who use multiple mattersbecause they believe that their matter is both one and many AND that this one thing that they use can accomplish the entire work if performed correctly.

    And JDP doesnt like it and thinks its a false trap and trys to warn people away from that path. I suppose only people with the stone are going to know for sure who is correct.

    In my beginner yet personal opinion, even though he is very learnered in this Art; JDP is forgetting the spiritual side and can therefore not accomplish this work; sorry mate. Still love you though.
    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

  4. #464
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,061
    Blog Entries
    86
    The Works of Thomas Vaughan - "3) It is called indifferently water and earth by Moses, but is neither in their common complexions, being a slimy, spermatic, viscous mass, impregnated with all powers, celestial and terrestrial. It renews itse lf in a thousand ways,
    and is never a perpetual tenant to the same form.
    It is the immediate catholic character of God
    Himse lf in His unity and trinity.......

    .....In the outward shape or figure it resembles a stone, and yet it is not a stone ; but this description is qualified in several places subsequently and contradicted expressly in others, it being obvious that a slimy mass can only be called a stone inmendacio us symbolism. At the beginning
    it was condensed into water out of a certain cloud and darkness, being the niu
    lguoadnos of Dionysius and Divine Darkness in other words, it came forth from God, but whether by creation or otherwise we are left to speculate . It is th e Second Nature from God Himself and the Child of the Blessed Trinity This Second Nature is not therefore the Second Person . It is the mother of all. It is delicate and tender, like animal sperm, is almost a living thing, and indeed Nature doth produce some animals out of it .

    It is invisible, meaning presumably in its normal state, since Vaughan afirms that he has seen it . It is—apparently brought into manifestation as a certain limosity extracted from the earth , air, fire and water, for every one of them contributes from its very centre a thin,
    slimy substance and of their several slimes Nature makes the sperm by an ineflable union and mixture .
    It follows from the last citation that the First Matter
    and Second Nature from the Blessed Trinity is not a
    simple substance, though immanent in all things and
    educible from all, but a composite—the parts of which must be drawn out of their several receptacles .
    Star Dust?
    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

  5. #465
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post





    What do you believe this Intermediary could be...?










    No, "so many unwary seekers" do not fall for this.

    It only exists in your head.

    This sermon gives you purpose in life...this is what drives you...we see it and we get it, JDP.

    It is commendable.

    Countless times you have been reminded that not a single person here believes what you keep preaching against, and you lack any capability of souring anywhere from anyone alive that believes this notion...

    Remember that message about "talking to a brick wall"?? It's you, you, you who is like talking to a brick wall...refusing to hear anything that would put a damper on you going on and on and on about the same thing over and over and over.

    What you incessantly rant about is comparable to someone here taking it upon themselves as a member of this forum to ceaselessly warn the other members of this forum that "BEWARE: IT IS NOT ACTUALLY TRUE THAT RED LOLLIPOPS MAKE YOUR BIG TOE TURN GREEN".

    You have created an issue that never existed. This misperception that there are all these people out there who need to be warned about a non-existent issue is, odd...or maybe this is a pride thing and this is how you flaunt your knowledge


    Can you show me anyone who believes this (which should be easy for you to do because there are "so many unwary seekers" out there)?

    Could it be that what you keep going on about is something you have entirely created in your mind and no such counter-argument needs to exist?











    Cf. http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showt...3861#post43861

    See here: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showt...8893#post58893
    See also: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showt...0738#post60738

    Additionally: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showt...6545#post56545
    Additionally: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showt...6570#post56570

    Note this: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showt...6611#post56611


    JDP, you strive so hard to come off as some kind of an authority figure, but truth is, as Awani pointed out above, you are no more qualified than anyone here to rant and rave like a broken record about something you have no experience with.

    A self-proclaimed & flaunted empiricist warning others about something he has no experience with...what a joke!

    You do not have the Philosopher's Stone, you have never seen the Philosopher's Stone, and you do not have any verifiable proof based on observation or experience that the Philosopher's Stone even exists...yet you dedicate your Earthly existence to spewing the same repetitive drivel ad nauseam.

    Why?
    Funny how you come up with these ridiculous denials of the self-evident and then self-defeatingly actually provide the links that in fact debunk you and prove that you and your alter-eg... er, I mean "pal", Chasm, keep falling for the same old trap. It is obvious that you do not understand at all what the alchemists had in mind by "simple" and "compound". In order for you to understand what they are talking about, instead of anachronistically projecting your own MODERN conceptions, you should read about ancient and medieval medicine and pharmacology, disciplines from which the alchemists borrowed heavily for their own terminology and ideas (even the Stone itself is persistently labelled as the "medicine", and the word "elixir" itself is based on ancient Greek medical and pharmacological terminology. The alchemists themselves kept using the concept of "healing" "sick" metals with their "medicine", a very obvious analogy with medicine and pharmacology):

    https://www.qdl.qa/en/medieval-arabi...ds-and-simples

    "Pharmacology is one of the medical fields in which the Arabs excelled, an area that developed its own specialist literature, in addition to sections in general medical encyclopaedias. Some books were devoted to ‘simples’ (mufradāt), that is, individual plants, minerals or animal products used in medicine. Others, known as formularies (aqrābādhīnāt) – books containing recipes for preparing medicines – listed compound recipes (murakkabāt). In such recipes a number of simples were combined into a specific formulation (powder, ointment, tablet or most commonly, syrup) in order to treat a given ailment."

    It is very evident that people like you, who don't know about such historical concepts, keep falling for the old trap: hook, line and sinker. When the alchemists talk about their "compound" they mean something made from several "simple" things, and by these "simple" things they mean single naturally-occurring matters, like plants and minerals, for example. They are following the ancient terminology of medicine/pharmacology, from which they borrowed heavily. Hopefully one day it will finally "sink in" with you what the alchemists mean by "simple" and "compound" and you will realize how you have been deceived all this time into taking one simple, single, naturally-occurring substance (like the obviously organic "matter" that you work with) and thinking that this was the "one matter" they were talking about. When in reality you should be looking into what "simples" compose this "compound" that some alchemists maliciously call "one matter", but which others charitably clarify for unwary readers what this actually means, because nature out of its own devices WILL NEVER DO THIS FOR YOU. Much like the doctor/pharmacist, IT IS THE ALCHEMIST WHO MAKES THESE COMPOUNDED "MEDICINES", definitely NOT nature. Nature only makes "simples" (i.e. the raw matters with which both medicine and alchemy work with.)

  6. #466
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    981
    Quote Originally Posted by elixirmixer View Post
    Star Dust?
    A deckname for the prima materia is the nostoc. Another word for the nostoc was "Sternschnuppe" (shooting star, but can mean star's snot as well). You aren't far away EM


  7. #467
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    In the zone
    Posts
    125
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Florius Frammel View Post
    A deckname for the prima materia is the nostoc. Another word for the nostoc was "Sternschnuppe" (shooting star, but can mean star's snot as well). You aren't far away EM

    That looks like something I'd blend and put into a drink

  8. #468
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    981
    It even looks more interesting under a microscope:

    It could be a relative to the "thing" (most likely cyanobacteria -like the nostoc) I got from the "putrefaction" of dew this year:






    Thread:
    http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showt...8848#post58848

  9. #469
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    428
    Blog Entries
    7
    Great pics.

    I got from the "putrefaction" of dew this year:
    Did you follow any particular author ?

  10. #470
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    981
    Quote Originally Posted by Kibric View Post
    Great pics.


    Did you follow any particular author ?
    A particular book: The Aurea Catena Homeri.

+ 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