Again, all these are false and misguided ideas/theories/conjectures/etc. Organic matters are complex mixtures of complex compounds, that's the reason why you can get those products/byproducts that you -following the theoretical ideas of the chymists- arbitrarily label as "salt, sulphur and mercury". Now try to put your little "philosophy" there to practice on a substance like mercury, for example. What's the matter? Can't get it to yield any such "salt, sulphur and mercury", no matter how much you try to destructively distill it, can't you? Of course not, because mercury is a much simpler and stabler "thing" than an olive branch! An olive branch, then, in reality is not any "one matter only" but in fact a mixture of them. The difference is that nature puts this mixture together on its own. The one that the alchemists require IS NOT MADE BY NATURE, it is the alchemist who makes it by choosing several pertinent and appropriate substances for the objective at hand and then making them react and form "one thing" (in appearance; because just like the olive branch, it is still really a mixture of several substances, not really "one" in a true literal sense.)
Then surely you don't know for certain, the specific meaning behind One
that these Alchemists were trying to convey. This is all a matter of speculation from you. Show me the Empirical Facts that you keep bringing up but fail to present. Prove me wrong, but don't state what I'm saying as ''nonsense''.
Alchemical literature speaks of Nature, time and time again. Historical accounts as you say, may have seen this secret solvent as you say yourself, but none of them understand the process. None of them have made the secret solvent, can you show me otherwise? The only ones who've made this secret solvent, were the ones who understood the process, the alchemists that you believe are liars.
As I shared with you before, according to John Keeley, matter is infinitely divisible,
do you refute this?
There is no dividing of matter and force into two distinct terms, as they both are one. Force is liberated matter. Matter is force in bondage. Matter is bound up energy and energy is liberated matter.
- John Keely 1893
''Keely affirms and demonstrates that all corpuscles of matter may be divided and sub-divided by a certain order of vibration''.
“As above, so below, as within, so without, as the universe, so the soul…
― Hermes Trismegistus
“That which is below is like that which is above, and that which is above is like that which is below, to perform the miracles of one only thing.
― Hermes Trismegistus
Thus, grape, olive branch, made up of other things, that make up these one things but still, all infinitely divisible.
Salt, Sulphur, Mercury, are all but single things... a thing
Therefore, if matter is infinitely divisible
, you cannot pinpoint what singular point the Alchemist were speaking of like you tried above, because not even you know what ''one'' means in the true sense of the word they were using
You tell me this; ''You are projecting modern unproven concepts ("free energy" and the like) onto the alchemists. Wrong manner of investigating.
Here I use John Keely as an example, using his investigations. Have you looked into John Keely?
What do you know other than what you've read! Speculation?
to producing the secret solvent, what have you said or what do you know that shows congruence with what the Alchemists have said all along? Or anything in regards to Alchemy? If my notions are nonsense, as you say, then prove it!
Show some congruence with what you say and the method of producing the secret solvent.
not really "one" in a true literal sense.
Then I ask of you, how do you determine when you've finally reached the last point towards this single thing that you are talking about? Modern Science only knows what it knows with the instruments that it has currently to measure it. If we go by your standards; ''not really "one" in a true literal sense'' then literally, the alchemists couldn't have made the secret solvent by your logic, because they would have to have been digging up their matter their whole lives, using every single possible thing there could ever be to investigate with this approach, and then mish mashing every other single thing. It's not plausible.
You disregard what the Alchemists have always said themselves, and then interpreted what Alchemy actually is, saying; ''secret solvent''
using your own speculation
keeping in mind that you disregard everything else that they talked about seeing as its ''misleading''. To me, this is the wrong manner of investigation
As Above, So Below
Alchemy works on different levels than just the stone. You & I, could very well compare ourselves to these words. We too, are divisible, seperate the gross from the subtle
, but you only know nothing other than what modern instruments can measure, therefore you cannot advance in your own investigations using this very route that you are treading on, therefore, speculation.
This is an esoteric science. Could modern tech that you're familiar of, measure a subtle body within a human? What if this concept was proven to say, me? Would this not be a proven fact not to you, not to the World, but to me, just like John Keely and his work before he publicized it? This is not the wrong manner of investigation, this is how investigation, from the time began has started.
John Keely wasn't one to sit on his hands like some people here
, and wait for modern science to catch up so that he can advance with his studies. He took manners into his own hands, even when his field of investigation weren't proven at the time. So much for ''wrong manner of investigation''.
Again, you only know what you've read, you said so yourself when you stated this; ''You are projecting modern unproven concepts ("free energy" and the like) onto the alchemists. Wrong manner of investigating.
You only know of ''one thing in a true literal sense'' based on your own comprehension, and speculation, you don't know how many layers a thing
actually holds (neither do I), and just like the Alchemists, they did not have any proven concepts
that we have reached thus far today, and the technology we have today, to measure them!
Since Awani wants us debating this One Matter topic here, I won't reply in the Arnold de Villeneuve Le Rosaire des Philosophes
Too long to mention. The ones I like the most are the ones who don't try to fool and misguide you, specially with that silly "one matter only" ruse.
Seeing as you believe that the Alchemists spoke of ''one in a true literal sense
''... Wouldn't mish mashing to produce this solvent that you see in your mind, become a thing
? Like say, an olive branch, a grape?
But I never said any such thing as "one single element", so it is in fact solely in your head.
Then could you explain what you mean when you say ''one in a true literal sense'' ... You've stated that this is what you feel the Alchemists mean, ''the liars'',
when they say ''One Thing''...
Help us understand JDP.