Is Spiritual Alchemy A Valid Path?

[Kiorionis]

Texts that have to do with the making of the Philosophers' Stone. They are not difficult at all to differentiate from texts on other topics, really. Would you confuse, for example, Thomas Norton's "Ordinal of Alchemy" (even if you ignore the very obvious title) with any other type of literature? I don't think so. You easily know alchemical texts when you read them.

I agree. I also see a trend for two things in alchemical texts. First is the author's theory, which is followed by a section on the practice. Or it's a mixture of theory and practice throughout.

 

[Loki Morningstar]

Well this thread was hard to read, especially as I subscribe to an inner alchemy perspective. At the same time, I really appreciated the information it drew out from both parties. Lots of great information and ideas. And it taught me a lot about myself and my own communicating style. So many blessings, I suppose at least I can be grateful for that fact. And that this thread has, at least in some way, sorted the wheat from the chaff. It was interesting to see who crossed the threshold.

 

[Awani]

Off-topic debate moved here from this thread.

...and no little "angel" is going to come down from "Heaven" to conveniently hand you the process for the Stone either...

Isn't it funny that Descartes got his ideas that would lay the foundation of modern logical thinking from an angel in a dream? Isn't it also funny that the theory of evolution (natural selection) was given to Alfred Russel Wallace in a feverish vision? Wallace was before Darwin, and it was at first called the Darwin-Wallace theory... then Darwin managed to take all the credit. DNA and the discovery of the double helix is pretty significant. Seems like one of the scientists working on that took LSD on a regular basis whilst working on it. Einstein is famous for using his imagination to discover the Theory of Relativity. And there are plenty more than this... and some even keep it secret due to fear of not being taken seriously.

If the paranormal is good enough for science, it is good enough for alchemy (which science don't take seriously at all). Must be lonely to have the rational scientific mind and working with such mumbo-jumbo as alchemy... LOL.

 

[JDP]

Isn't it funny that Descartes got his ideas that would lay the foundation of modern logical thinking from an angel in a dream? Isn't it also funny that the theory of evolution (natural selection) was given to Alfred Russel Wallace in a feverish vision? Wallace was before Darwin, and it was at first called the Darwin-Wallace theory... then Darwin managed to take all the credit. DNA and the discovery of the double helix is pretty significant. Seems like one of the scientists working on that took LSD on a regular basis whilst working on it. Einstein is famous for using his imagination to discover the Theory of Relativity. And there are plenty more than this... and some even keep it secret due to fear of not being taken seriously.

If the paranormal is good enough for science, it is good enough for alchemy (which science don't take seriously at all). Must be lonely to have the rational scientific mind and working with such mumbo-jumbo as alchemy... LOL.

But "official" science itself also has its own share of "mumbo-jumbo". It doesn't make its empirical facts any less real, though. Same with alchemy.

 

[Awani]

It doesn't make its empirical facts any less real...

So then why do you discredit other peoples empirical facts?

Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience. - source

Clearly when it concerns "paranormal" matters you have zero experience... thus you have no empirical facts.

I read enough to know what he thinks.

LOL.

 

[JDP]

So then why do you discredit other peoples empirical facts?

Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience. - source

Clearly when it concerns "paranormal" matters you have zero experience... thus you have no empirical facts.

That's because no such "paranormal" claims have been observed and confirmed by any serious source under controlled conditions.

 

[Awani]

That's because no such "paranormal" claims have been observed and confirmed by any serious source under controlled conditions.

There is no such thing as control.

And there is certainly nothing that is "serious". Recently heard this sage from India say something along the lines of: people study for years to get their Phd in being an idiot.

 

[Kiorionis]

That's because no such "paranormal" claims have been observed and confirmed by any serious source under controlled conditions.

Then the real magicians and wizards don't present a serious source under controlled conditions?

 

[JDP]

There is no such thing as control.

And there is certainly nothing that is "serious". Recently heard this sage from India say something along the lines of: people study for years to get their Phd in being an idiot.

Yes, there is, on both counts. When "paranormal" claimants are challenged to prove their assertions under controlled conditions (so they can't resort to tricks and cheating) they invariably fail to do so.

 

[JDP]

Then the real magicians and wizards don't present a serious source under controlled conditions?

When people making these strange claims accept to be put to the test under controlled conditions they always fail to prove anything of what they assert. Funny, isn't it? The only "magicians" that actually can do things that seem "amazing" are the David Copperfields, David Blaines, etc., but, of course, they resort to tricks, and they gladly admit it.

 

[Awani]

When "paranormal" claimants are challenged to prove their assertions...

You fail to understand that it is not the claimants job to prove anything. It's like I said before: prove to me that you are not a homosexual

Firstly you don't need to prove it. Secondly you cannot. However you know.

How can an NDE(near-death experience) be proven, unless you create an NDE again? Not sure anyone willingly would do so. I feel pretty confident... no need to discuss this further in this life on my part... however I look forward to talking with you about all these paranormal things in "heaven".

 

[JDP]

You fail to understand that it is not the claimants job to prove anything. It's like I said before: prove to me that you are not a homosexual

Firstly you don't need to prove it. Secondly you cannot. However you know.

How can an NDE(near-death experience) be proven, unless you create an NDE again? Not sure anyone willingly would do so. I feel pretty confident... no need to discuss this further in this life on my part... however I look forward to talking with you about all these paranormal things in "heaven".

No, you keep getting it backwards. The burden of proof is ON THE CLAIMANT, no one else:

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialScien...ER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

"The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise."

 

[Kiorionis]

When people making these strange claims accept to be put to the test under controlled conditions they always fail to prove anything of what they assert. Funny, isn't it?

Yes, it is funny that science holds magic and similar "occult sciences" (like alchemy) to the same standards as chemistry, physics, etc.

 

[JDP]

Yes, it is funny that science holds magic and similar "occult sciences" (like alchemy) to the same standards as chemistry, physics, etc.

Alchemy does not belong in that category, though. It does not rely on any supposed special "powers" of the operator himself, unlike the claims of magic/necromancy/sorcery. Modern historians of science do not classify it as such but alongside the history of other natural sciences.

 

[Kiorionis]

It does not rely on any supposed special "powers" of the operator himself, unlike the claims of magic/necromancy/sorcery.

Curious. Didn't know that's how magic/necromancy/sorcery worked haha

 

[JDP]

Curious. Didn't know that's how magic/necromancy/sorcery worked haha

How else do you think they were supposed to work? If it is not by the "power" of the will of the "magician" it certainly would not happen on its own. Otherwise there would be no point to the claims of magicians/necromancers/sorcerers. The mysterious effects they lay claim to would not be under their control and would only be considered strange/unusual natural phenomena (if they actually were real, that is), not something the magician/necromancer/sorcerer can control at his will. We would be talking about "miracles" or "paranormal occurrences", but not "magic". Magic/necromancy/sorcery requires human intervention.

 

[Awani]

No, you keep getting it backwards. The burden of proof is ON THE CLAIMANT, no one else.

Nope I don't need to prove anything. I know. I don't care if anyone else believes me. Prove you are not gay, since you claim to be straight! If you don't feel the need to do so, even if you have claimed to be straight, then you might understand my own position.

Magic/necromancy/sorcery requires human intervention.

I read enough to know what he thinks.

For someone who knows everything about a person after reading a few sentences, and for someone who says anything paranormal is bullshit... well now you seem to know how "what does not work" work. LOL.

[image link broken]

Especially true when I look in a mirror.

 

[JDP]

Nope I don't need to prove anything. I know. I don't care if anyone else believes me. Prove you are not gay, since you claim to be straight! If you don't feel the need to do so, even if you have claimed to be straight, then you might understand my own position.

If you want critical and logical people to believe you, then you do need to do so. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. No "ifs" or "buts" about it.

Plus it is you who keeps claiming things about me being or not being a "homosexual", I never made any claims on the subject until you started bringing this up. Since you are the one making the claim here too, it is up to you to either prove or disprove that I am "not a homosexual", which I will find very amusing to see indeed

For someone who knows everything about a person after reading a few sentences, and for someone who says anything paranormal is bullshit... well now you seem to know how "what does not work" work. LOL.

Especially true when I look in a mirror.

But he wrote enough on the subject of alchemy and laboratory apparatuses to be able to get a good idea of what he thinks on this topic. I don't see what amuses you so much about this. It is called DEDUCTION. Have you ever watched Columbo episodes or read Sherlock Holmes stories? It is not "magic", just logic, deductive reasoning.

 

[Awani]

For someone who knows everything about a person after reading a few sentences, it is funny to me that you cannot read. LOL.

If you want critical and logical people to believe you...

I don't care if anyone else believes me.

Also the homosexual query comes from me trying to make you understand knowing and experience, and how difficult it is to prove and convince anyone else + how unnecessary it is to do so. I am amazed you keep avoiding this perception. It doesn't matter to me what you understand or not...

I think it is interesting that a person of your beliefs/logic is even interested in alchemy, because as far as I can tell it is nothing but mumbo-jumbo - even if you remove all spiritual aspects. A logical reasoning scientist with empirical evidence would laugh in your face if you even mentioned the word, so be careful. And until you have transmuted gold everything you claim is up to you to prove (according to your outlook).

In theory then, according to the scientific community, you would be viewed as a quack in denial. That is hilarious to me. You must see the irony?

 

[JDP]

For someone who knows everything about a person after reading a few sentences, it is funny to me that you cannot read. LOL.




Also the homosexual query comes from me trying to make you understand knowing and experience, and how difficult it is to prove and convince anyone else + how unnecessary it is to do so. I am amazed you keep avoiding this perception. It doesn't matter to me what you understand or not...

I think it is interesting that a person of your beliefs/logic is even interested in alchemy, because as far as I can tell it is nothing but mumbo-jumbo - even if you remove all spiritual aspects. A logical reasoning scientist with empirical evidence would laugh in your face if you even mentioned the word, so be careful. And until you have transmuted gold everything you claim is up to you to prove (according to your outlook).

In theory then, according to the scientific community, you would be viewed as a quack in denial. That is hilarious to me. You must see the irony?

Oh I can read very well, thank you very much, that's why I am not convinced at all by your claims that you do not care. You devote unusual amounts of time to such unproven/unprovable topics. Usually the people who say "I do not care about..." are in fact among the ones who care the most about the very things they are trying to convince others they supposedly do not care about

But the difference is that transmutation CAN be proven, unlike that bunch of real "mumbo-jumbo" you strangely believe so much in but that you also (painfully) know deep inside that you could never prove, no matter how much you tried, and therefore no logical, rational, critical person will ever believe in those claims you hold so dear as if they were actual facts. But my darling little subject (i.e. transmutation) CAN be proven. Yes, even YOU, dev/Awani, even YOU could carry it out with your own hands and see it with your own eyes and prove its reality to yourself and those you would want to reveal it to. It must really suck that the very subject that you are trying to disparage and deny actually (and ironically) CAN be proven, but the subjects that you hold so dear and believe so much in have no shred of evidence in their favor. Tee-hee!

 

[Awani]

LOL. Nope it is not like that at all. That is why I keep using the sexual preference allegory, because you know you are straight and you feel no need to convince anyone else. Same goes for me regarding the paranormal.

 

[Axismundi000]

Your empirical assertions about Alchemy are not currently so, they are 'a priori' JDP due to the lack of empirical methodology and evidence, the evidence you have not yet provided. So you are simply falling back on the scientific method and relying on the rigorous research outside of the practise of Alchemy and a lot of reading to which you apply personal opinion. Simply repeating the scientific and empirical view is at best boorish. You assert various things but do not show your own Alchemical work so that it is open to refutation. Science is theory underpinned by evidence that is; open to being tested/refuted, you offer opinions and theories about historical Alchemical documents but offer no actual testable or refutable evidence you merely assert such and such an author is trying to trick the reader. They may be, and some of these Alchemical procedures have since become a part of chemistry, but it remains a priori to say that all the mystical and occult stuff not addressed by chemistry is fallacious. You need to show a new empirical finding which shows that a specific mystical and occult assertion is a deliberate trick, demonstrate a new empirical method that is verifiable and repeatable. Until you do this you are merely providing a source of light entertainment, interesting and stimulating though I find this.

 

[Awani]

Also CAN be proven is not proof. I can say that paranormal things CAN be proven. Silly, isn't it?

You devote unusual amounts of time to such unproven/unprovable topics...

Funny, I actually restrain myself in order to not flood/spam the forum with such topics. Oh, if you only knew how much I actually devote to this stuff you'd be appalled.

 

[JDP]

Also CAN be proven is not proof. I can say that paranormal things CAN be proven. Silly, isn't it?

Really? CAN you prove any of the paranormal/supernatural claims you make? Somehow I think you CAN'T.

Funny, I actually restrain myself in order to not flood/spam the forum with such topics. Oh, if you only knew how much I actually devote to this stuff you'd be appalled.

Are you kidding me? These forums are full of your posts on such subjects. In fact, most of your posts have little or nothing to do with alchemy at all! Not that there is anything wrong with it, after all they are YOUR forums, but this tells me that you do care and invest a lot of time in this stuff.

 

[Visceral]

Not trying to stir the pot here, just a small fish swimming through the pond, however I do have some curiosities that lay in a similar direction to JDPs here:

How might one who has chosen to embark upon the Magnus Opus truly be assured of the credibility of those claiming to come before them? What is one simple easily verified piece of the Alchemical puzzle, where is the beginning building block of truth a would be adept might stand the rest of his faith in the Art upon?

There do seem to be an awful lot of pitfalls and traps and word play in the alchemical world. Where is the golden thread to Guide the true seekers?

I am not speaking as someone who lacks any sort of faith or personally concrete evidence of the One, I am not here to be convinced of the Astral realm or Indras net or any other easily confirmed bit of hyperspatial weirdness. Just the basic applications of alchemy itself.