. Are you any closer?

[Andro]

Mod Post

and please andro don't close the thread

Right, don't close the thread please, Andro. Now that we are having fun!

Alright, here's the alternative:

This thread will remain open for now, BUT (and this concerns the entire forum, not just this thread) if there is any more "lofty preaching", grandstanding, collective/general assumptions presented as "facts" (such as in the OP of this thread), thread hijacking, deliberate instigating and especially any sort of "Appeal to some All-Knowing Divine Light & Source-of-Everything Authority" to support various claims or to "correct" others based on same implied "authority", we will, with extreme prejudice, have to permanently part ways with the "perpetrator(s)", without prior notice.

Starting now.

And if for some reason anyone is deeply & personally disturbed/disappointed/dismayed/disillusioned/disenchanted/etc. by people not "seeing the truth", and they feel it's their "sacred duty" to "correct their erroneous ways", well, just don't! And certainly not unsolicited.

And if anyone feels they really can't help themselves, just stop reading & posting here. Others have done it before.

Do NOT reply to this post, it's not up for debate.

 

[Michael Sternbach]

Is this protons and electrons really?
Losing an electron gives postive charge. Gaining a proton a positive charge.

An atom gets a positive charge by losing an electron, and a negative charge by gaining an electron. A process known as ionization.

Most kinds of atom aim at hosting eight electrons on their outermost shell. What is called the noble gas configuration.

To accomplish this, an atom will rather easily either gain or lose electrons, and consequently have a net charge. This will make it a negative or positive ion.

It will then stick to the ion that it has taken an electron from or given an electron to, for opposite charges attract each other. Making the resulting compound electrically neutral overall. This is called ionic bonding.

An atom doesn't gain a proton, however, except by nucleosynthesis - which changes its nature altogether. That is, it turns into another element.

Do all electrons share information?

I would say yes.

From Taoism and the arguments about Yin, Yin is just the lack of Yang. You could also say Yin is the electron you lose for a postive charge. The lack of a negative is a positive.

Are we applying physics to a spiritual disscussion?

I don't have any problem with that. In fact, we are talking about universal principles that apply to Creation on every level.

The spiritual is not separated from the physical. Alchemy in particular illustrates that. That's why I like it so much!

 

[Michael Sternbach]

even having a stoned philosopher?

Good one, microwatt!

 

[Andro]

Two Alchemists that I have been in touch with for several years ... both having
a deep understanding of SM and the collection of it prior to joining the forum,
have not for some time and probably will never again speak on the forum.

It would appear that one of them was tired of ridicule and the other was so
saddened by the lack of genuine enthusiasm of most members (not All) to
pursue the Work and Study of Alchemy with a devout diligence.

It would be remiss of me to disclose the names of those that have shown their trust in me

It's not difficult to deduce, though.

Only one person here (who wrote extensively about "SM") had his claims met with a certain amount of "ridicule", and perhaps unsurprisingly so, because of the obviously faked photos & videos of "Rejuvenation" & "Germination", and the mega-overpriced alchemy book that was offered for sale at the time, all of which screams "fraud" all the way to the bank.

And conversely, only one person here inspired so many others regarding the Work on pure "Spiritus Mundi" (and never asked for ANYTHING in return), but this was met with many ignorant questions about things he had already elaborated upon, as well as with various fantasies of people who couldn't be bothered to apply themselves to deeper study and practical implementation. And while it's natural to have one's imagination initially "set on fire" by such a wondrous concept, it must be followed-up with rigorous research, study and practice, otherwise it is doomed to remain in the domain of fantasy and speculation.

Neither of these two people has publicly written here for quite some time.

 

[Michael Sternbach]

Let's just move on from all this, shall we?

​

 

[microwatt]

why cant one just put a copulating male and female inside a huge flask to get our mercury? maybe some sort of vapor is ejected during the sex act. it might be that simple. (joking)
SM is not only collected it is created by merging male and female energies.

 

[Michael Sternbach]

why cant one just put a copulating male and female inside a huge flask to get our mercury? maybe some sort of vapor is ejected during the sex act. it might be that simple. (joking)

I sure like your idea, but the flask will need to be huge indeed!

SM is not only collected it is created by merging male and female energies.

 

[Kibric]

What is a copulating male and female?
What are you putting in the flask?

Male and female are used a symbols by alchemists.
There is no actual male or female. They are used to describe principles in action.

 

[microwatt]

What is a copulating male and female?
What are you putting in the flask?

Male and female are used a symbols by alchemists.
There is no actual male or female. They are used to describe principles in action.

how do you know? Maybe that is how the stone is made right?

 

[Michael Sternbach]

What is a copulating male and female?
What are you putting in the flask?

Male and female are used a symbols by alchemists.
There is no actual male or female. They are used to describe principles in action.

Uhum, Kibric...

why cant one just put a copulating male and female inside a huge flask to get our mercury? maybe some sort of vapor is ejected during the sex act. it might be that simple. (joking)
SM is not only collected it is created by merging male and female energies.

However...

There are mentionings of "operations in two vessels" in certain old texts, which Julius Evola interpreted as references to Tantric Alchemy.

 

[Kibric]

Sorry Michael, I find it hard to follow microwatts posts sometimes, I know its common information.

 

[Seth-Ra]

why cant one just put a copulating male and female inside a huge flask to get our mercury? maybe some sort of vapor is ejected during the sex act. it might be that simple. (joking)
SM is not only collected it is created by merging male and female energies.

This is closer to being accurate, and also much easier, in my opinion and past practice, than to try and condense pure SM. But each person's view, and modus operandi will differ.

The Alchemical Wedding, though, is fairly straight forward, assuming you understand your starting materials, that is, your King and Queen.
If you understand them rightly, you can open them, conjoin them, and their union negates each other (I know Andro, bad wording ) leading to their subsequent "alchemical death", the negredo, and putting you at the stage of that primordial chaos in the flask - the 1-->|<--1
From there, it's child's play.

I have personally enjoyed this method, as it is an active redemption of the material itself, but I likewise have respect for those doing like Andro and drawing it down, in a manner. The biggest/most common error I see with utilizing corresponding materials, is people often get lost in the materials themselves, and can't see the forest for all the trees. Water your trees cautiously.



~Seth-Ra

 

[Andro]

their union negates each other (I know Andro, bad wording )

Or you could just say "they cancel each other out"

The way I see it, if we are on a quest towards the "absolute" or "god", we must ultimately negate negation itself.

Because god/life/the absolute is exclusively "positive" and has NO "negative".

Even theology backs me up on this!

I.e. "God is Good", PERIOD.

Now I recall reading something similar in Walter Russel's writings, but I can't remember which one.

He mentions the "common" +/-, but then he moves on to the "absolute" +.

 

[Seth-Ra]

Or you could just say "they cancel each other out"

The way I see it, if we are on a quest towards the "absolute" or "god", we must negate negation itself.

Because god/life/the absolute is exclusively "positive" and has NO "negative".

Even theology backs me up on this!

I.e. "God is Good", PERIOD.

Now I recall reading something similar in Walter Russel's writings, but I can't remember which one.

He mentions the "common" +/-, but then he moves on to the "absolute" +.

You are right, that would be more aptly descriptive.

The Theology does also back that point, except that God/The Absolute is also beyond being/notions of positive or good etc. Such apophatic approaches though, only serve to show how limited we are, and likewise from our experience/view point, the way God has revealed Himself, would in fact by being through goodness, period.
So this is more a semantic point, and also a widening of view, but practically irrelevant from our working perspective.

A lot of words to say "yes, you're right. Well said." Lol



~Seth-Ra

 

[Andro]

The Theology does also back that point, except that God/The Absolute is also beyond being/notions of positive or good etc.

Of course. I'm talking from a more metaphysical perspective, in the sense that the "Absolute" has no "negative", i.e. It Simply IS.

Which would "translate" in our common language as exclusively "positive".

 

[microwatt]

Or you could just say "they cancel each other out"

in any sort of vessel male and female energies do not merely cancel each other out. a child of some sort is born. for example, when positive and negative charges interact, some sort of energy is released, when opposite poles of a magnet interact physical forces are created. the vessel in this sense is physical space

 

[microwatt]

Of course. I'm talking from a more metaphysical perspective, in the sense that the "Absolute" has no "negative", i.e. It Simply IS.

Which would "translate" in our common language as exclusively "positive".

But in a way you are wrong since the creator made a vacated space inside himself for creation/

 

[Seth-Ra]

But in a way you are wrong since the creator made a vacated space inside himself for creation/

I used to think this. But it's part of our narrow view.
The Creator did not make reality from Himself or inside Himself. This seems logical to us, since the Creator was all that was - but He is so beyond our comprehension that He need not act in what we call or consider to be logical.
Creation is distinct from the source, and the source does not gain from it or rely on it for anything. The source is whole. It permeates, fully, the creation, and we know it by it's energies. But don't mistake the simulacrum for the Thing itself.

In my experience the theological (if done right) and metaphysical go hand in hand - so again, I say that from our perspective of working, which is the only thing that matters to us, Andro is correct.


As to the earlier post about the energies and their releases/effects - none of that is a negating. I believe in some artistic renditions it shows two dragons or serpents fighting, or the King and Queen clad in armor and armed - there is energy, and a sort of violence, but this is not a negation of forces - just as earlier in Andro's car collision example, they are not negating each other, but more or less compounding into each other. So while they are opposites, they are also the same, and the more this compounding occurs, the more homogenous they become - until they cease being their old selves, and we are left with a new self - the child. This is a rectification though, of "opposames" - not a negation of energies or even forms. While the old may dissolve into the new, it is not lost. Reborn as what it truly was/is. That's why it's a phoenix.
I guess this is me trying to make up for that poor word choice earlier. Lol



~Seth-Ra

 

[tAlc]

I've spent the last days thinking about -1 and negations and this is something I've thought about that I think challenges the no negatives no negation concept for me. With what I thought about, I'm not seeing how No-Thing would play out without No-Thing being a total of Two things.

Here's what I was thinking: If we have simply One Thing, instead of Two THEN 1 thing, then what would explain the Black turning into White? In some images I've seen, books that I've read, and from what I apparently understand to be the most probable/accurate case, is when the bottom white sal goes through the darkness, and begins to go upwards and downwards and eventually both drying up and Sal and No both turning into a single composite in the end, (no more Black anywhere) If there is no Yin, only One Thing, then why would the ''No'' be merged if there isn't any ''thing'' there to be merged? It looks like from my perspective, that the ''No'' might be the cause for Andro's illustration of
1 >|< 1 , and like how we see Alchemy mirror itself in theory, to every other aspect of Creation that we know of, we might be able to assume that No-Thing is the cause for this mirroring of itself. We see what Andro and Seth are calling ''Oppo-sames'', and what I'm suggesting is that in Alchemy we could see what happens with our eyes what was going on in The Beginning, which is Sal or ''Thing'' merging with ''No'', Black and Sal drying up, and eventually combining into One, without All, we have simply No-Thing which is possibly only Awareness if you do not include ''No'', Andro says that the last thing we negate is Negation itself, which leaves only Awareness, or Sal, then in the flask we can see what happens with Sal on the bottom underneath the Black, and then the Spirit floating upon the Surface of the Deep. (why is it on top of ''No'', how does it go ''through'' ''No''?)

How can Awareness express Awareness if from what Andro's illustration is the only cause for Creation? Look around you, I think there is a ''Body'' for Awareness, like the carrier/passenger for alchemy, the Sea and the Spirit, what is Awareness going backwards On?

Some chinese philosophers I've read from, would call the Tao ''Being-Not Being''. One being a composite of Two opposite paradoxes. Existence (Sal) and Non-Existence (Yin), Non-Existence and Her Space being filled up, being impregnated, and being capable of ''folding'' with Sal, making One Thing a composite of Two things, both being paradoxical to themselves.

disclaimer: this here is how i partly perceive the ''whole'', I respect Andro and Seth's perspective and conception of the 'whole', here is mine, I do not oppose your view, I played with your perspective for the last few days and had some fun, here is what I started to think about

 

[tAlc]

Via Negativa is the Way of Negation.

We reveal a "thing" by negating & eliminating all that it is not.

And because the LAST thing we ever negate is Negation itself, the End Result is always POSITIVE.

In the Universal Way, it is the Path of Return and the Road to Liberation, by dis-objectification from all that we are NOT, therefore inevitably leading to the Revelation of who we truly ARE.

In all the Particular Ways, Via Negativa can be used for the most potent Magic. We do not "manifest" a thing, but rather remove, subtract and negate all that the "thing" is not.

We remove, subtract and negate any and all blockages, veils and covers which conceal it, so the "thing" is inevitably revealed by itself, because it was "always there".

Or even more accurately, it was NEVER "not there".

One of the best examples of using Via Negativa in a Particular Way is the story about Michelangelo, who was said to never really "create" a sculpture, but merely remove from the rock everything that was NOT the sculpture, because the sculpture was always enclosed in the rock and only needed to be revealed/unveiled.

People who "work hard" (often with very little to show for) mostly employ the "Via Positiva", which is generally much longer and infinitely more difficult.

They believe that "things" are "created" or "invented", rather than revealed or dis-covered.

Truly extraordinary people, on the other hand, spend much more "time" saying NO, NO, NO and more NO for every YES they eventually (and inevitably) arrive at.

Worth noting: In the Via Negativa, negating is not the same as denying. It's removing, subtracting, eliminating.

Denial is like burying our heads in the sand.

Negating/eliminating is getting rid of the sand to reveal the treasure.

I may be nitpicking psycho-semantically, but still, it's a useful distinction to make.

Via Negativa is NOT the same as Via Struthionis

If we negate and eliminate everything that IT is NOT, then that is that OTHER thing that it is ''not''? Does this question leave the possibilty of IT having its dual-counterpart?

You've said in the thread ''Are you any closer?'' ''No Alpha and No Omega'', ''No Beginning and No End'', and I'm sure you're referring to ''Thing'' on its own when saying this (for those that don't know, I'm refering to ''No-Thing''), I think Omega refers to the Carrier for the Alpha, meaning there is an Alpha FOR an Omega, A ''Beginning'' FOR the ''End'', a ''Thing'' FOR the ''No''.

''The last thing we negate is negation itself'' - Andro

''And because the LAST thing we ever negate is Negation itself, the End Result is always POSITIVE.'' - Andro

This from my view, is seperating the Passenger (Awareness) from its Seat/Carrier (Body), and using only Awareness.

In the Flask we see Sal (Awareness) and its volatile. It goes through the Black, and eventually uses it as a Body, in alchemy imagery we also see later, this Black or Dragon being Slayed and ''Negated'' but before it is ''Negated'' it is ''borrowed'' from a ''Thing'' that it is ''Not, which is fundamentally apart from ''It''.

Have a go at it or look over my rebuttle to your argument/claim. It's all in good spirits, agree or disagree, not sure what to think, reply or don't reply, I'm sure some might like this post of mine, here it is, to be entertained or not doesn't matter at all to me (I'm saying this just in case some people reply getting upset that I'm challenging a viewpoint... It's all in good spirits, just expressing my ''fun'' challenge I contemplated and sharing it)

 

[Andro]

Mod Post

The above post was moved from the "Liberation" thread to here, because here on this thread we have a more open-ended discussion, whereas the "Liberation" thread does not involve "flasks" or "dragons" or "lab alchemy" in any shape or form. There is enough on this present thread about "negatives" (or the lack of them) to maintain some resemblance of context. Also for the sake of continuity with the post before it.

----------------------------------------------------

 

[Andro]

Have a go at it or look over my rebuttal to your argument/claim.

You haven't "rebutted" anything.

One Thing. Different states. None of them "negative", except in dualistically conditioned mental gymnastics. The "dragon" is not "negated". It merely "changes" its shape/form/state.

Maybe you should re-read the Emerald Tablet. All "from" & "by" One Thing, by Adaptation.

Alternatively, you can always ask a certain person (among those you love dearly) about Walter Russel and his "Absolute +".

 

[tAlc]

You haven't "rebutted" anything.

One Thing. Different states. None of them "negative", except in dualistically conditioned mental gymnastics. The "dragon" is not "negated". It merely "changes" its shape/form/state.

Maybe you should re-read the Emerald Tablet. All "from" & "by" One Thing, by Adaptation.

Alternatively, you can always ask a certain person (among those you love dearly) about Walter Russel and his "Absolute +".

well I asked him about something like this one time, and he said that One Thing is Born from Two. He's the smartest and most wisest man I can think of and have ever read from (I think) who has opened my eyes to some interesting perspectives regarding the Art and among other things like John Keely, Walter Russell, the 'guy' we are talking about really is brilliant. It was a blessing to have experienced such a person on the web.

As for Walter Russell I'll look into this Absolute + that you're bringing up, I'll get back to it in a few days.

As for me not having rebuttaled anything, consider it then as my ''attempt'' to do so with the questions I was posing.

One Thing. Different states. None of them "negative", except in dualistically conditioned mental gymnastics. The "dragon" is not "negated". It merely "changes" its shape/form/state.

Maybe you should re-read the Emerald Tablet. All "from" & "by" One Thing, by Adaptation.

One Thing by Adaptation, refers according to my understanding, as the Black or Sea and Sal, No and Thing merging as One. ''Thing'' is Sal, and the Black is a mirrored expression of ''No''. This is what I'm saying.

The apparent cause FOR as the old saying goes; ''Being-Not Being''

Anyway maybe we'll have more to talk about after I give Walter Russell a read and reflection.

 

[microwatt]

wouldnt being closer meant you actually created the philosopical mercury. I imagine that even if one did create it the procedures needed are still a mystery. can we agree that this water is what we are looking for?

 

[Andro]

As for me not having rebuttaled anything, consider it then as my ''attempt'' to do so with the questions I was posing.

Fair enough.

No and Thing merging as One. ''Thing'' is Sal, and the Black is a mirrored expression of ''No''. This is what I'm saying.

No-Thing is not a dual composite function, but an attribute used for linguistic convenience, given the obvious limitations of language.

Meaning:

1. "No-Thing" is used to convey that "it" is not a "thing".

2. "No-Thing" is also used to differentiate "it" from the absurd notion of "Nothing", the latter having no implicit or explicit reality, except maybe for "small talk". Or for people in denial. Literally, there is NO "Nothing".

The apparent cause FOR as the old saying goes; ''Being-Not Being''

"Being" is the "Absolute Positive" (if we have to remain confined to the limitations of language).

There isn't any "Not-Being". This is perhaps the only actual impossibility. All other "verbs" (as well as nouns, adjectives, adverbs, etc...) can be subtracted, but not "Being".

Even poor lamenting Hamlet, when he says "to be or not to be", he most likely refers to being or not being alive/incarnated in his body.

It is possible to "not be" something (insert conditions, states, attributes, etc...). But it is not possible to just "not be", period.

Anyway maybe we'll have more to talk about after I give Walter Russell a read and reflection.

You do that