hallo leo,
you are very confident in considering alchemy from a scientific standpoint. as a man of science you should know very well that without a proper terminology science wouldn't even exist. why do you think that alchemy is different? in alchemy, as in any other science, a proper use of terms is very important. the fact that these terms are obscure does not mean that you can use them in a poetical or metaphorical way.
for exemple here:
quote:
"First of all, nothing about these paths of particulars is simple, but yes by definition......
the first matter, it is contained in all things,.... by adaptation read Emerald Tablet and therefore all things are comprised of it, but in being particular there is much work in not only extracting it but also in purifying it to return it to universality. That is stripping the information from it that gave rise to its particular form." end of quote
from what you say I desume that you consider first matter and philosophical mercury as to be the same thing. well, not at all.
prima materia (to be distinguished from materia prima) is the underlying substance to all the universe, as stated in Plato's Thymeus. it is unattainable by the Art, as it pertains to a metaphysical domain. Philosophical mercury is another thing. it is called philosophical because it can be found only in philosophers' labs, as it is the only matter that cannot exist by itself in Nature, and it needs the help of Art to come to life. it is a matter so purified and evoluted to behave as a living recectaple to universal spirit allowing it to dwell in a physical form. you can tell it's presence in the matter by considering its weight. it is only after its attainment that the alchemist can draw the living universal principles from the bodies of the mixts without killing/burning them. you cannot obtain it by spagyric methodology, and it is its use that distinguishes alchemy from archemy and spagyry.
IMHO
t
|