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 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37

Thread: Alchemy Processes - What Do You Believe?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    9,110
    Blog Entries
    2
    Chemistry does not involve praying.

    Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.


  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    6,254
    Blog Entries
    1
    Everything is "alive". There's no such thing as "dead". But there are degrees to it, expressed by the coherence of any given system.

    When the human body dies, for example, it's a terminal loss of coherence in the complex human organism.

    Upon critical loss of coherence in the larger system, smaller (less complex) parts/sub-systems "live on".

    More systemic coherence = More ability to sustain "life" in the respective system, regardless of "size" (scale invariance).

    The alchemical process of "working a matter" consists, in my view, in increasing its internal coherence or "perfecting its geometry" to such a degree that it is able to contain/conduct increasingly more "Life"/"Spirit"/"Fire".

    "Order from Chaos", so to speak

    Repetition of processes such as "Dissolve & Coagulate" are ways of refining the so-called "subject matter" in terms of its systemic coherence.

    Our "matter(s)", at least from this perspective, would need to be (or be made) "geometrically malleable" (i.e. not too "fixed"), unless (as some authors jokingly state), one has reason to perform additional work...

    That's why, in my view, healing is a matter of restoring systemic coherence in the entire organism (as opposed to focusing on isolated parts/organs/sub-systems).

    That's the reason I gave the laser example earlier on this thread.

    This same principle applies to all areas, regardless of scale, including health, society, relationships, politics, finance, art/architecture, etc...

    Over-complex systems (from bodies to empires) fail over time because of their inability to maintain coherence. "Only The Inside Will Make the Ruin Manifest."

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,151
    For me Fulcanelli's definiton makes the most sense.

    Quoting from memory:

    "Chemistry owes absolutely NOTHING to alchemy."

    Why? Because:

    "The greatest work consists in the refinement and exaltation of mercury".

    And this matter is unknown to chemistry, that's why. And that's the difference you were asking for.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    454
    IMO.

    Chemistry = Mundane Science

    Alchemy = Divine Science

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by black View Post
    IMO.

    Chemistry = Mundane Science

    Alchemy = Divine Science
    To the mundane, everything is mundane.

    To the divine, everything is divine.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Florius Frammel View Post
    For me Fulcanelli's definiton makes the most sense.

    Quoting from memory:

    "Chemistry owes absolutely NOTHING to alchemy."

    Why? Because:

    "The greatest work consists in the refinement and exaltation of mercury".

    And this matter is unknown to chemistry, that's why. And that's the difference you were asking for.
    So that's all there is to alchemy?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    454
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Sternbach View Post
    To the mundane, everything is mundane.

    To the divine, everything is divine.
    I do believe this to be most true Mr. Sternbach.

    Thank you !

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    454
    The Process ... as I see it today.

    The Alchemist + The Divine = The Adept = Philosophers Stone .......... etc, etc.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,616
    The difference between alchemy and chemistry is similar to the difference between a work of art and a non-artistic object: there are hundreds of books that discuss the difference and none of them explains it in a perfect way... but those books are not even needed, because the difference is obvious (but hard to explain in a perfect way!).

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by black View Post
    I do believe this to be most true Mr. Sternbach.

    Thank you !
    You are welcome.

    And hey... Just call me Michael!

+ 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