Patrons of the Sacred Art

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 31 to 37 of 37

Thread: Tour De Main = Tower of the Hand

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Florius Frammel View Post
    We reached a point in our discussion where one has to make a decision (or let it be).

    You can either decide to disregard the evidence, if the alchemical content is not 100% proven by people who have almost no knowledge in alchemy. In this case you may as well disregard valuable informations. Of course there is the danger in following a wrong path.

    Or you can decide to accept the evidence until opposite is proven.
    It's almost like you need to be the judge in a court.

    To verify a certain claim in the court, there are experts needed. For example no one is allowed to comment the physical and psychic condition of a person but a doctor. At least in the more sensible law systems of the world. I consider neither Maria Antonietta de Angelis nor Louis Audiat as such experts in alchemy. But Fulcanelli proves that he knows the old books and authors.

    In dubio pro reo which to me in this case is Fulcanelli's viewpoint.

    Edit: BTW, even the french ministère de la culture seems to claim that the cassettes are "alchimique":

    https://openagenda.com/jep-2017-nouv...rieurs?lang=fr

    And the heritage of the crucible/cross connection is not the point at all here. Fact is it's there and was used in word plays and visual symbols to code alchemical practice since medieval times (see for example the book of abraham the jew).
    You are again assuming FIRST that these emblems are about alchemy, basing it on Fulcanelli's opinion. Like I said, other people who have examined them, including people who are well aware of Fulcanelli's claims, like de Angelis, have not seen such a connection, and have traced down almost all the symbols depicted there to other sources that have hardly anything to do with alchemy. With lack of more specific information, therefore, it is not proven at all that these emblems were placed there with some alchemical intent. This is not like the case of coins or medals made from artificial gold or silver, for example, where the texts attached to such items make it unambiguously clear that they are referring to alchemically/chymically produced gold & silver. What little text there is in these symbols do not allow to clarify this issue at all. For all we know, whoever had those emblems placed at Dampierre had totally different intentions in mind than what Fulcanelli thinks.

    The existing copies of the "Book of Abraham the Jew" are later forgeries. No one has ever been able to locate a genuine copy of the text that the author of the text attributed to Flammel describes. And if you read the brief description he makes of that emblem with the cross and the snake, he does not make any specific or clear connection with crucibles. The drawing leaves plenty open to interpretation regarding what exactly in terms of laboratory operations could it be referring to. And considering that "Flammel" implies that the "snake" symbol is connected with operations with "argent vive", a volatile "white and heavy water", you will pardon me for strongly doubting that this "crucifixion" of this "snake" really has anything to do with operations carried out in crucibles.
    Last edited by JDP; 3 Weeks Ago at 05:28 AM.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    340
    Blog Entries
    7
    This conversation is hard to follow and has gone over my head.
    Are we saying Fulcanelli is imposing phonetic cabla ? onto other works ? from his experience ?

    There must be dozens of emblems and seals where the actual artist didn't know how to make the stone but thought they did ?
    Seems a pretty human thing to do.

    I think the cross comes from the 4 rivers ( bible ) in Dilmun, or Mount Meru 4 rivers.
    In that context if it has any alchemical meaning it would stem from
    Hephaestus or Vulcan being residents of those places.

    But i don't think i'm understanding the debate here.....

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Kibric View Post
    This conversation is hard to follow and has gone over my head.
    Are we saying Fulcanelli is imposing phonetic cabla ? onto other works ? from his experience ?

    There must be dozens of emblems and seals where the actual artist didn't know how to make the stone but thought they did ?
    Seems pretty human thing to do.

    I think the cross come from the 4 rivers ( bible ) in Dilmun, or Mount Meru 4 rivers.
    In that context if it has any alchemical meaning it would stem from
    Hephaestus or Vulcan being residents of those places.

    But i don't think i'm understanding the debate her.....
    Yes, correct. It's about the fact that sometimes Fulcanelli is imposing his own ideas and interpretations on artists and authors who very well could not have had the same things in mind as he did.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    340
    Blog Entries
    7
    On the one side, Fulcanelli being an experienced alchemist ? why should we not listen to his experience, and interpretations of other works ?
    On the other side, nobody knows who he really is ? was ?, how can we take a phantom seriously ?.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Kibric View Post
    On the one side, Fulcanelli being an experienced alchemist ? why should we not listen to his experience, and interpretations of other works ?
    On the other side, nobody knows who he really is ? was ?, how can we take a phantom seriously ?.
    The issue of Fulcanelli's familiarity with alchemy is something apart. The problem is that he sometimes imposes his own views on those of artists who, for all we know, did in fact have completely different intentions. The specific case being discussed is that of the series of emblems at the Dampierre castle. The lack of information regarding why they were placed there, coupled with the fact that most of these symbols have origins in non-alchemical sources, and that the little text there is attached to them does not allow for a more specific interpretation, simply make it impossible to prove that they are in fact about alchemy.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    The issue of Fulcanelli's familiarity with alchemy is something apart. The problem is that he sometimes imposes his own views on those of artists who, for all we know, did in fact have completely different intentions. The specific case being discussed is that of the series of emblems at the Dampierre castle. The lack of information regarding why they were placed there, coupled with the fact that most of these symbols have origins in non-alchemical sources, and that the little text there is attached to them does not allow for a more specific interpretation, simply make it impossible to prove that they are in fact about alchemy.
    You forgot to mention that this is your very own viewpoint based on research of people who are in contrary to Fulcanelli not really acquainted with the topic.

    Others indeed see it as a fact, that these symbols actually are alchemical. And those others are not just some kind of implausible weirdos, but the government of France.

    Everyone can decide for himself who he thinks are the more trustworthy sources on this subject.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Florius Frammel View Post
    You forgot to mention that this is your very own viewpoint based on research of people who are in contrary to Fulcanelli not really acquainted with the topic.

    Others indeed see it as a fact, that these symbols actually are alchemical. And those others are not just some kind of implausible weirdos, but the government of France.

    Everyone can decide for himself who he thinks are the more trustworthy sources on this subject.
    You are incorrectly assuming that everyone who disagrees with Fulcanelli's interpretations is somehow ignorant of alchemy. Not so. De Angelis is not only an expert in art and emblems who works for the Vatican Museum:

    http://m.museivaticani.va/content/da...eangeliscv.pdf

    She is also certainly familiar with alchemy as well:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=eW...zlBU8Q6AEILjAB

    Her study of the emblems at Dampierre found that almost all these symbols can be traced to non-alchemical sources. So, how can anyone prove that whoever placed them there had alchemical intentions??? There simply is no evidence to settle the claim. It would be different if most or a large number of them could only be traced to alchemical sources, but that's not the case.

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this 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