. 'One Matter' - Empiricism & Alchemy - Discerning Truth from Deception

[Schmuldvich]

If that was true, then you would be working with what chemists call "elements", the only substances that can more reasonably fit into a "homogeneous" classification (and even then it is questionable.) This would be even a bigger dead-end than working with single but complex/heterogeneous nonetheless organic substances, such as you are really working with (very easy to see from the few pictures you and "Chasm" have posted.) So, yes, you are in fact working with "heterogeneous" matters, whether you like it or not. But the catch is: you will never find one that has all the necessary ingredients to accomplish the task. Nature does not make such a thing. Organic matters are notoriously lacking in the heavy metals that enter the work. As long as you keep assuming the "one matter only" adage 100% literally, you will never get out of this "philosophical" blind alley.

Alas! Finally! You display an understanding of what myself and others have been doing our best to explain to you for almost 3 years now. This is an absolutely monumental experience! z0 K calls it "biomass", chasm called it "our Matter", and I like to call it "One Matter"...You tried to fight us and refute exactly what you posted above for years, but alas! The day has come that you comprehend what has been repeatedly debated with you for years! So happy to hear this! I feel as if we should dedicate this day to you or throw an online party of some kind!

I am so happy for you, JDP!

 

[JDP]

Alas! Finally! You display an understanding of what myself and others have been doing our best to explain to you for almost 3 years now. This is an absolutely monumental experience! z0 K calls it "biomass", chasm called it "our Matter", and I like to call it "One Matter"...You tried to fight us and refute exactly what you posted above for years, but alas! The day has come that you comprehend what has been repeatedly debated with you for years! So happy to hear this! I feel as if we should dedicate this day to you or throw an online party of some kind!

I am so happy for you, JDP!

Apparently you have not understood my post, as I have never changed my views on any of what I said above. This has always been my position. And I have always known that you work on organic substances, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure it out. One view of the pictures you... **ahem**, "Chasm", posted is more than enough to plainly deduce it. You are still in the same obvious dead-end, though. Nature will never make this supposed "one matter" that you hear about in many texts for you. It is hopeless to try to seek it already made "somewhere" for your convenience. You are falling for "the oldest trick in the (alchemical) book". It is actually the alchemist who puts the necessary substances together and then causes this supposed "one matter" to come into being, no one else. Nature doesn't put it together for you if for no other reason than it itself has ZERO intention whatsoever to make the Stone to begin with, anymore than it wants, or needs, or even knows how to make TNT, or Coca-Cola, or toothpaste. The Stone is made thanks to man and his intelligent, purposeful intervention and design, just like a whole bunch of other things that nature itself would never make on its own.

 

[Schmuldvich]

Apparently you have not understood my post, as I have never changed my views on any of what I said above. This has always been my position. And I have always known that you work on organic substances, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure it out. One view of the pictures you... **ahem**, "Chasm", posted is more than enough to plainly deduce it. You are still in the same obvious dead-end, though. Nature will never make this supposed "one matter" that you hear about in many texts for you. It is hopeless to try to seek it already made "somewhere" for your convenience. You are falling for "the oldest trick in the (alchemical) book". It is actually the alchemist who puts the necessary substances together and then causes this supposed "one matter" to come into being, no one else. Nature doesn't put it together for you if for no other reason than it itself has ZERO intention whatsoever to make the Stone to begin with, anymore than it wants, or needs, or even knows how to make TNT, or Coca-Cola, or toothpaste.

Please review Kibric's post earlier in this thread on the subject "sounding like a broken record" when you get a free moment!

Did you forget the discussion that z0 K posed about "biomass"?

A lot of this stuff...the words and phrases that you relentless keep repeating...seem to exist only in your head.

Has anyone on this website claimed that this "One Matter" can be found ready-made out in Nature...?

The Stone is made thanks to man and his intelligent, purposeful intervention and design, just like a whole bunch of other things that nature itself would never make on its own.

Exactly!

 

[JDP]

Please review Kibric's post earlier in this thread on the subject "sounding like a broken record" when you get a free moment!

Says the guy who sounds like a whole library of "broken records"!

Did you forget the discussion that z0 K posed about "biomass"?

No, but what did he supposedly say there that I should "remember" here?

A lot of this stuff...the words and phrases that you relentless keep repeating...seem to exist only in your head.

Has anyone on this website claimed that this "One Matter" can be found ready-made out in Nature...?

Yes, anyone who 100% literally accepts the claim also accepts that this "one thing/matter" must be found in nature already made. There is NO other choice here, since the literal interpretation of this claim dictates that you can only manipulate one thing only, from beginning to end. Nothing else. That maliciously and deceitfully excludes the fact that you actually have to make this "thing/matter" out of several, because nature sure as heck is not going to do it for you! Therein lies the trap of the "one matter only" claim. Anyone who takes it strictly to the letter is cornering himself into a blind alley that he likely won't be able to get out of.

 

[Schmuldvich]

There is NO other choice here, since the literal interpretation of this claim dictates that you can only manipulate one thing only, from beginning to end. Nothing else. That maliciously and deceitfully excludes the fact that you actually have to make this "thing/matter" out of several, because nature sure as heck is not going to do it for you! Therein lies the trap of the "one matter only" claim. Anyone who takes it strictly to the letter is cornering himself into a blind alley that he likely won't be able to get out of.

One what...?




I stand by the fact that we do not work with one single element: this is what z0 K was saying in the "biomass" discussion I was asking you to recall.

We work with one...Thing.

Call it whatever you want, I like to call this thing "our Matter".

No one on this website claims to work with one single element; this notion solely exists in your head, JDP.

 

[JDP]

One what...?




I stand by the fact that we do not work with one single element: this is what z0 K was saying in the "biomass" discussion I was asking you to recall.

We work with one...Thing.

Call it whatever you want, I like to call this thing "our Matter".

No one on this website claims to work with one single element; this notion solely exists in your head, JDP.

But I never said any such thing as "one single element", so it is in fact solely in your head. I clearly said that working with only one thing/matter is a blind-alley. It doesn't make any difference that what you are in fact using is a complex/heterogeneous organic substance. Let me tell it to you again very clearly: such substances lack the other necessary substances to generate the Stone (most noticeably the heavy metals involved in the operations, which organic matters lack any significant content of.) Nature does NOT make any such "one matter/thing" that contains everything necessary to make the Stone. Therefore you are being sent on a wild-goose chase, a hopeless search for something that you will find nowhere already made for your convenience. YOU have to make it. Or better yet: YOU have to put it together, and then let "nature" work the interactions/reactions that will generate the products/byproducts used for the work. Nature on its own will NEVER put the necessary substances together for you into one neat and convenient little package. You are falling for an obvious fairy tale designed to send "unworthy" seekers astray.

 

[elixirmixer]

I would like to say, that i find these endless debates, both very educational and awesomely hilarious at the same time. Please continue.... its extremely entertaining

 

[elixirmixer]

I actually really loved your last post here JDP. Im not very clever and it did help me to understand what you mean.

 

[tAlc]

In reality those are complex mixtures of complex organic compounds, not "single/one" anythings like some alchemists envisioned. Now try to do the same with a metal, or even many minerals! This speculative "philosophy" will not work here because we are now talking about simpler inorganic substances that will not decompose with heat, and those that do decompose give less complex products/byproducts. So, in summary, the whole thing is nothing but a trick: trying to fool unwary people into actually working with a single substance (whether a complex organic mixture or simpler substances like minerals), nothing else, from the very beginning, and then trying to make the Stone with it. And I have very bad news for you and anyone falling for this old ruse: it just ain't gonna happen, buds! 2000+ years of accumulated empirical experience with all manner of single naturally-occurring substances denounce such an idea as pure BALONEY.

Three words; Salt, Sulphur, Mercury. Combined, makes One Thing, Our Matter. This is why the olive example was asked to you.

All composites that make up One Thing. Is a branch, One Thing JDP?

If matter consists of substances, then an olive branch, under analysis by fire will yield 1. A water, 2. An acid, 3. An alkaline salt, 4.a sulphurous oil, 5. A black empyreumatic oil, and finally 6. A white insipid earth.

All of these substances come from that one matter called an olive branch.
It is one specified type of matter that produces olives.

is a grape not a thing even though it's mainly composed of water, sugar, earth and oil

According to Keely and Walter Russell, as well as the alchemists, matter is infinitely divisible

 

[elixirmixer]

I find it interesting and perhaps not a coincidence; that in the old days they would use common mercury to evacuate flasks before sealing them off.

The extra large atomic size of mercuries atoms would work to push out and force the air out of the flask "drying" the air out, so to speak.

Just saying...

 

[JDP]

Three words; Salt, Sulphur, Mercury. Combined, makes One Thing, Our Matter. This is why the olive example was asked to you.

All composites that make up One Thing. Is a branch, One Thing JDP?

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.)

 

[tAlc]

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 individually.

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? Not facts 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.

 

[Andro]

Mod Note

Since Awani wants us debating this One Matter topic here, I won't reply in the Arnold de Villeneuve Le Rosaire des Philosophes

Thank you!

Indeed, let's keep this topic on its designated thread.

 

[Kibric]

I'm pretty sure a lot of authors warn against using vulgar metals and say our lead our copper our gold etc to distinguish that their not using any metals.
To say nature does not make the stone is to assume our 200 plus years of collective knowledge on nature is complete, when at the same time
statistically we have only explored discovered under half of our planet. There are land masses we have never been, oceans and jungles we are still discovering new life.
And our 200 plus years of collective knowledge on nature and history comes from mostly copies, the amount of books burned and knowledge suppressed or wiped out was tremendous. Countless times throughout history knowledge has been erased, libraries burnt.
Our knowledge on nature is incomplete and your be hard pressed to find a scientist who thinks we have seen it all.
The actual odds of nature making the stone and it being already being discovered are quite high,
given the many factors throughout history that affect our current knowledge.
Destruction of scientific knowledge, suppression of technology , suppression of education. etc.
You only have to look at the past century to see " The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 ".
Saying nature does definitely not make the stone based on our current empirical evidence is wrong, there's nothing definite about it.
Its only theoretical. We can say from our current understanding nature does not make the stone, a current understanding based on incomplete histories and incomplete knowledge.
Don't let the uneducated in history and the natural world fool you into thinking nature doesn't have any miracles left.

 

[JDP]

I'm pretty sure a lot of authors warn against using vulgar metals and say our lead our copper our gold etc to distinguish that their not using any metals.
To say nature does not make the stone is to assume our 200 plus years of collective knowledge on nature is complete, when at the same time
statistically we have only explored discovered under half of our planet. There are land masses we have never been, oceans and jungles we are still discovering new life.
And our 200 plus years of collective knowledge on nature and history comes from mostly copies, the amount of books burned and knowledge suppressed or wiped out was tremendous. Countless times throughout history knowledge has been erased, libraries burnt.
Our knowledge on nature is incomplete and your be hard pressed to find a scientist who thinks we have seen it all.
The actual odds of nature making the stone and it being already being discovered are quite high,
given the many factors throughout history that affect our current knowledge.
Destruction of scientific knowledge, suppression of technology , suppression of education. etc.
You only have to look at the past century to see " The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 ".
Saying nature does definitely not make the stone based on our current empirical evidence is wrong, there's nothing definite about it.
Its only theoretical. We can say from our current understanding nature does not make the stone, a current understanding based on incomplete histories and incomplete knowledge.
Don't let the uneducated in history and the natural world fool you into thinking nature doesn't have any miracles left.

This is a bunch of nonsense. Human beings have been around for THOUSANDS of years, not "200", and in all the time that they have been leaving records (a few of those thousands of years) there has NEVER been found anything like the Stone in a natural setting. The first records we have of it are from the alchemists themselves, and it is obviously an artificial production of their craft, not something they found already made somewhere. How many rocks have to fall on your head before you realize that an avalanche is about to fall on you??? If THOUSANDS of years of accumulated human experience do not satisfy you, then I am afraid nothing ever will. Keep on hoping that someone will find something like the Stone already made in a natural setting "somewhere" on the planet. I can easily predict that even if you live to be several THOUSANDS years old on your own that such a thing will never happen. The previous THOUSANDS of years of accumulated human experience with nature and its products make it very easy to predict that nature simply does not make any such thing.

 

[JDP]

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''.

We know what was the real meaning behind such a strange statement because not all alchemists were so malicious and misleading and actually bothered to "blow the whistle" regarding what this "one thing/matter" actually means. It certainly conforms to common sense and empirical experience. It explains very well why no one has ever succeeded in making the Stone by literally handling one substance (whichever you want to choose) alone. It's nothing but a dead-end.

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.

You can lie about some things but not about others. Use your head. You obviously have a great deal of difficulty understanding these discussions. Let me spell it out for you even more clearly: when it comes to deceiving the people that many alchemists considered "unworthy", they had no problem claiming nonsense and being maliciously misleading, like claiming that the Stone was made from "one matter only" WITHOUT CLARIFYING THAT THEY ACTUALLY WERE TALKING ABOUT AN ARTIFICIAL COMPOSITE MADE BY THE ALCHEMISTS THEMSELVES. They did not lie about their discoveries, they just did not want the "wrong kind" of people to get a hold of them. Therefore they had no qualms misleading "them" into errors. Capisce?

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''.

Keely was a debunked 19th century charlatan, not an "alchemist", so moot point.

“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 individually.

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.

What a bunch of faulty logic! We know what "one thing/matter only" means in a literal sense simply because that's just what it means! It's what you are literally saying. Not sure how else to explain this to you, because it seems like you understand very little of what is being said. "One" means just that... O-N-E. Nothing more, nothing less. If I literally tell you that lemonade is made of "one thing only", and you then go ahead and try to prepare this drink from only single substances on their own you naturally will always fail. Are you following me, or are you lost again? THIS IS AN ANALOGY. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE STONE IS LEMONADE OR THAT IT IS MADE FROM THE SAME INGREDIENTS AS LEMONADE. OK, then, imagine that someone else who also knows how to make lemonade sees that you and many others I have misled by my statement are wasting your time and money trying to make lemonade from "one thing only" and takes pity of all of you and decides to "blow the whistle" on my misleading statement and explains to you that what I really meant is that sugar, water and lemon juice are all of the same "nature/species/genre/root" (all of them are found in the vegetable kingdom, for example), and that all three of them will eventually blend in and form an apparent single "thing/matter", and that's how I tricked you into wasting your time and money trying to make it out of literally "one thing only", then you surely will understand the "trap" that I MALICIOUSLY DID NOT BOTHER TO EXPLAIN TO YOU SO THAT YOU WOULD WASTE YOUR TIME AND MONEY IN A SURE PATH TO NOWHERE BY LITERALLY MANIPULATING ONE SUBSTANCE ONLY. And you would be 100% right in wanting to curse my bones for being such a misleading a-hole, no matter how many silly excuses I would come up with in order to try to justify what I did. The fact will always be that I was purposefully misleading by making such a statement without any explanations whatsoever about what I actually had in mind by this "one thing/matter". Get it now? Hopefully you will... one day.. sometime... maybe.

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?

Yes, I know about him. He was a debunked 19th century fraud. Nothing to do with alchemy.

What do you know other than what you've read! Speculation? Not facts 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!

But I already have! Your "arguments" have more holes than a block of Swiss cheese! You even contradict yourself: the issue of the "water" or solvent of alchemy is all-pervasive and all-important in the literature, you know, written by the very alchemists you are trying to defend, yet you keep bizarrely attacking the subject and claiming it is unimportant or nonsense... go figure! You are a bagful of contradictions, my friend.

Show some congruence with what you say and the method of producing the secret solvent.

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.

Huh? I think that not even you understands what you were trying to get at by the above.

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.

But the one who keeps disregarding what THEY THEMSELVES say about the crucial subject of the "water/solvent" is you! None other. What I disregard are their theoretical speculations about matter, not their empirical discoveries. I do pretty much the same to chemists, BTW: I have very little use and regard for "electron shells" and the like theoretical concepts of chemistry. None of that tells me anything concrete and substantial about actually preparing substances. For that real info I go to descriptive laboratory manuals/books, which concentrate on describing empirical facts, not speculation/theories. That's the useful part of chemistry.

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''.

Total nonsense. Alchemy is a collection of empirical facts, which can be replicated by anyone once it has been discovered. That is the reason for all the secrecy in alchemical literature: to prevent these empirical facts from falling "in the wrong hands" (according to the alchemists' mentality about who were the "unworthy" ones, that is, and which might very well not necessarily be the same as ours. "Worthy" & "unworthy" are VERY arbitrary human concepts! A deeply religious zealot might have been "worthy" in the eyes of many alchemists who themselves were deeply religious zealots, but to me he is just about one of the "unworthiest" people on the planet.)

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.

The difference is that the importance of the secret solvent/water is emphasized by the alchemists themselves. I am not inventing or imposing a modern claim on them. The importance of this subject is defended by them.

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!

The true literal sense does not depend on the alchemists, it's just the way language is! Use your head.

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?

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.

I am afraid that "helping you understand" is proving to be a nearly impossible task. Just look at many of your "replies". You are still trying to grasp what a LITERAL MEANING is. As if the alchemists really had a saying on what this is!!! It's just what LANGUAGE & SEMANTICS is, nothing to do with the type of alchemists who took advantage of it and manipulated it to mislead others.

 

[Kibric]

Not nonsense at all. Your post is nonsense not grounded in any fact only theoretical .
If you knew anything about history ( like studying it at university ) you would know our historical records are incomplete.
One big example even school kids know is " the dark ages ". The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 is not nonsense its fact.
If you knew anything about the natural world ( like studying it at university ) you would know we haven't nearly discovered everything.

If THOUSANDS of years of accumulated human experience do not satisfy you,

You don't seem to understand, there isn't a continuously uninterrupted line of knowledge from thousands of years ago to the present. History doesn't work like that.
Discoveries have been lost, this is fact.
Statistically we haven't explored all of earth, this is fact
Scientific knowledge has been destroyed and suppressed, this is fact.

Your arguing a historical record you know nothing about. The fact is the base for our current understanding on the natural world
does not come from an uninterrupted line of knowledge from thousands of years ago. To think it does is a secondary school education at best.

Your arguing nature definitely does not make the stone based on an interrupted, suppressed, incomplete historical record.
It's not logical to jump to that conclusion using that information.
Furthermore nearly all authors bring nature in some way, so how is it you know better than the actual people who wrote the books you source ?.

It's irked me for a while but you have to be pushing an agenda to ignore and belittle the evidence that puts holes in your argument.
Before you try to turn this and say " well there's no current empirical evidence nature makes the stone " that's my freaking point.
Current empirical evidence based on an interrupted, suppressed, incomplete historical record.
Using that to jump to the conclusion that nature has never created the stone or will never is NOT LOGICAL AT ALL.
It does not follow any genuine scientific method.

 

[Awani]

This reminds me of another recent thread... JDP is a disciple of The Demiurge (the god of matter) and I am a disciple of Lucifer (the god of visionary insight). LOL.

What irks me is this: how can ANYONE that has not 100 % made the Stone CLAIM even X or Y?

Another issue with this whole debate that never ends is something that, for me, has not been settled: what is the Stone?

The Stone JDP speaks of is a Stone - according to me - that is as worthy as a turd in the toilet (there's your first matter btw).

The Stone I speak of can ONLY be made by Nature... which makes all alchemists totally useless... apart from picking up the pieces. LOL.

 

[Kibric]

how can ANYONE that has not 100 % made the Stone CLAIM even X or Y?

Preaching to the choir buddy.

what is the Stone?

A physical salt or liquid.

which makes all alchemists totally useless... apart from picking up the pieces. LOL.

Yer i kinda felt like that the other day

 

[JDP]

Not nonsense at all. Your post is nonsense not grounded in any fact only theoretical .
If you knew anything about history ( like studying it at university ) you would know our historical records are incomplete.
One big example even school kids know is " the dark ages ". The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 is not nonsense its fact.
If you knew anything about the natural world ( like studying it at university ) you would know we haven't nearly discovered everything.


You don't seem to understand, there isn't a continuously uninterrupted line of knowledge from thousands of years ago to the present. History doesn't work like that.
Discoveries have been lost, this is fact.
Statistically we haven't explored all of earth, this is fact
Scientific knowledge has been destroyed and suppressed, this is fact.

Your arguing a historical record you know nothing about. The fact is the base for our current understanding on the natural world
does not come from an uninterrupted line of knowledge from thousands of years ago. To think it does is a secondary school education at best.

Your arguing nature definitely does not make the stone based on an interrupted, suppressed, incomplete historical record.
It's not logical to jump to that conclusion using that information.
Furthermore nearly all authors bring nature in some way, so how is it you know better than the actual people who wrote the books you source ?.

It's irked me for a while but you have to be pushing an agenda to ignore and belittle the evidence that puts holes in your argument.
Before you try to turn this and say " well there's no current empirical evidence nature makes the stone " that's my freaking point.
Current empirical evidence based on an interrupted, suppressed, incomplete historical record.
Using that to jump to the conclusion that nature has never created the stone or will never is NOT LOGICAL AT ALL.
It does not follow any genuine scientific method.

LOL! If the accumulated historical record doesn't convince you, the fact that nature is still doing "its thing" now like it was doing it millions of years ago, and the Stone shines because of its absence anywhere that man has been, should do the "trick". And nowadays man has been deeper into the Earth and in more places than people at the time of the alchemists were. Still, no Stone anywhere outside of an alchemical lab. Simple common sense, which seems very difficult for you to grasp. Again, how many stones have to fall on your head before you realize that the avalanche is upon you??? All of these facts should already have told you that nature evidently does NOT make this thing. If it did, the chances are that it would already have been found in some natural setting and this presence recorded. But it has never happened, and I am willing to bet that it will never happen. Without man's intervention, there just is no way that it can happen. The amount of coincidences that would have to happen in a natural setting for all the right substances, proportions and appropriate conditions to come together is ASTRONOMICAL.

 

[JDP]

This reminds me of another recent thread... JDP is a disciple of The Demiurge (the god of matter) and I am a disciple of Lucifer (the god of visionary insight). LOL.

What irks me is this: how can ANYONE that has not 100 % made the Stone CLAIM even X or Y?

Another issue with this whole debate that never ends is something that, for me, has not been settled: what is the Stone?

The Stone JDP speaks of is a Stone - according to me - that is as worthy as a turd in the toilet (there's your first matter btw).

The Stone I speak of can ONLY be made by Nature... which makes all alchemists totally useless... apart from picking up the pieces. LOL.

But the difference is that "your Stone" is 100% imaginary, and thus 100% fake. The Stone I talk about is the one that a bunch of people throughout history have seen and handled. This is the one that counts and has value. The other one is just a fantasy.

 

[Awani]

But the difference is that "your Stone" is 100% imaginary, and thus 100% fake. The Stone I talk about is the one that a bunch of people throughout history have seen and handled. This is the one that counts and has value. The other one is just a fantasy.

You are aware that the tech you are using to type above respons was, at one time, 100% imaginary... in someones head...

While it is fine to have a different belief, or a different opinion... I find it interesting that you can discredit another persons 100% personal truth as fantasy. You see I said that the Stone "you" speak of is a turd according to me. However "you" say that "my Stone" is 100% fake period. Semantics perhaps, but still that is what separates us greatly.

I never said your Stone is fake... how can I? You don't have the Stone, and you have never had the Stone... so how can something YOU DON'T HAVE be fake? It can't. In fact... the Stone you speak of is 100% imaginary... until you have it... and never will (if I could place a bet).

The amount of coincidences that would have to happen in a natural setting for all the right substances, proportions and appropriate conditions to come together is ASTRONOMICAL.

Yet here we are. Praise the Lord.*



* i.e. the Divine Mystery

 

[Kibric]

Simple common sense, which seems very difficult for you to grasp

No common sense is not jumping to conclusions based on inaccurate data. Which you are doing.

LOL! If the accumulated historical record doesn't convince you,

Ignoring evidence that pokes holes in your theory. Suspicious.

and the Stone shines because of its absence anywhere that man has been, should do the "trick

No, again your basing it on an incomplete historical record. FACT.

If it did, the chances are that it would already have been found in some natural setting and this presence recorded.

No again your deliberately avoiding evidence that contradicts your argument.
An interrupted, suppressed, incomplete historical record.

You got nothing other to argue with than
" because no person has recorded it in nature, from an incomplete historical record that i am using , it doesn't exist in some form in nature ".
You have no idea how genuine scientific method is conducted. No scientists in their right mind would jump to definitive conclusions based on inaccurate data.

 

[JDP]

No common sense is not jumping to conclusions based on inaccurate data. Which you are doing.


Ignoring evidence that pokes holes in your theory. Suspicious.


No, again your basing it on an incomplete historical record. FACT.


No again your deliberately avoiding evidence that contradicts your argument.
An interrupted, suppressed, incomplete historical record.

You got nothing other to argue with than
" because no person has recorded it in nature, from an incomplete historical record that i am using , it doesn't exist in some form in nature ".
You have no idea how genuine scientific method is conducted. No scientists in their right mind would jump to definitive conclusions based on inaccurate data.

Your deep denial of the collective experience of mankind is what's truly suspicious. It also doesn't help your case that you start throwing around UNCORROBORATED conspiracy theories (why exactly would some people be interested in "suppressing" the fact that the Stone occurs naturally, but at the same time not be bothered at all and not try to "suppress" the actual fact that the alchemists keep stating in their books that they know how to make this substance, remains to be explained. What bizarre "logic" will you come up with next to explain this paradox should be amusing.) You expect us to believe that the fact that in all the centuries that men from all sorts of nations and backgrounds have been around observing, investigating, exploring, recording and cataloging the natural world they have never observed ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY LIKE THE STONE is somehow "inconsequential". Any observant, logical, rational, reasonable person will conclude the opposite: it speaks volumes against the idea that nature can somehow make such transmuting "tinctures" as the alchemists describe. If nature could make such things on its own, obviously after so many centuries of recorded history some reliable source would have recorded the fact. But it remains quite silent on this subject. All instances we have of the existence of these remarkable substances involve alchemists who prepared them in their labs. The rocks are falling squarely on your head... yet you still can't see the avalanche coming down!!!

 

[tAlc]

We know what was the real meaning behind such a strange statement because not all alchemists were so malicious and misleading and actually bothered to "blow the whistle" regarding what this "one thing/matter" actually means. It certainly conforms to common sense and empirical experience. It explains very well why no one has ever succeeded in making the Stone by literally handling one substance (whichever you want to choose) alone. It's nothing but a dead-end.



You can lie about some things but not about others. Use your head. You obviously have a great deal of difficulty understanding these discussions. Let me spell it out for you even more clearly: when it comes to deceiving the people that many alchemists considered "unworthy", they had no problem claiming nonsense and being maliciously misleading, like claiming that the Stone was made from "one matter only" WITHOUT CLARIFYING THAT THEY ACTUALLY WERE TALKING ABOUT AN ARTIFICIAL COMPOSITE MADE BY THE ALCHEMISTS THEMSELVES. They did not lie about their discoveries, they just did not want the "wrong kind" of people to get a hold of them. Therefore they had no qualms misleading "them" into errors. Capisce?



Keely was a debunked 19th century charlatan, not an "alchemist", so moot point.



What a bunch of faulty logic! We know what "one thing/matter only" means in a literal sense simply because that's just what it means! It's what you are literally saying. Not sure how else to explain this to you, because it seems like you understand very little of what is being said. "One" means just that... O-N-E. Nothing more, nothing less. If I literally tell you that lemonade is made of "one thing only", and you then go ahead and try to prepare this drink from only single substances on their own you naturally will always fail. Are you following me, or are you lost again? THIS IS AN ANALOGY. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE STONE IS LEMONADE OR THAT IT IS MADE FROM THE SAME INGREDIENTS AS LEMONADE. OK, then, imagine that someone else who also knows how to make lemonade sees that you and many others I have misled by my statement are wasting your time and money trying to make lemonade from "one thing only" and takes pity of all of you and decides to "blow the whistle" on my misleading statement and explains to you that what I really meant is that sugar, water and lemon juice are all of the same "nature/species/genre/root" (all of them are found in the vegetable kingdom, for example), and that all three of them will eventually blend in and form an apparent single "thing/matter", and that's how I tricked you into wasting your time and money trying to make it out of literally "one thing only", then you surely will understand the "trap" that I MALICIOUSLY DID NOT BOTHER TO EXPLAIN TO YOU SO THAT YOU WOULD WASTE YOUR TIME AND MONEY IN A SURE PATH TO NOWHERE BY LITERALLY MANIPULATING ONE SUBSTANCE ONLY. And you would be 100% right in wanting to curse my bones for being such a misleading a-hole, no matter how many silly excuses I would come up with in order to try to justify what I did. The fact will always be that I was purposefully misleading by making such a statement without any explanations whatsoever about what I actually had in mind by this "one thing/matter". Get it now? Hopefully you will... one day.. sometime... maybe.



Yes, I know about him. He was a debunked 19th century fraud. Nothing to do with alchemy.



But I already have! Your "arguments" have more holes than a block of Swiss cheese! You even contradict yourself: the issue of the "water" or solvent of alchemy is all-pervasive and all-important in the literature, you know, written by the very alchemists you are trying to defend, yet you keep bizarrely attacking the subject and claiming it is unimportant or nonsense... go figure! You are a bagful of contradictions, my friend.



Huh? I think that not even you understands what you were trying to get at by the above.



But the one who keeps disregarding what THEY THEMSELVES say about the crucial subject of the "water/solvent" is you! None other. What I disregard are their theoretical speculations about matter, not their empirical discoveries. I do pretty much the same to chemists, BTW: I have very little use and regard for "electron shells" and the like theoretical concepts of chemistry. None of that tells me anything concrete and substantial about actually preparing substances. For that real info I go to descriptive laboratory manuals/books, which concentrate on describing empirical facts, not speculation/theories. That's the useful part of chemistry.



Total nonsense. Alchemy is a collection of empirical facts, which can be replicated by anyone once it has been discovered. That is the reason for all the secrecy in alchemical literature: to prevent these empirical facts from falling "in the wrong hands" (according to the alchemists' mentality about who were the "unworthy" ones, that is, and which might very well not necessarily be the same as ours. "Worthy" & "unworthy" are VERY arbitrary human concepts! A deeply religious zealot might have been "worthy" in the eyes of many alchemists who themselves were deeply religious zealots, but to me he is just about one of the "unworthiest" people on the planet.)



The difference is that the importance of the secret solvent/water is emphasized by the alchemists themselves. I am not inventing or imposing a modern claim on them. The importance of this subject is defended by them.



The true literal sense does not depend on the alchemists, it's just the way language is! Use your head.



I am afraid that "helping you understand" is proving to be a nearly impossible task. Just look at many of your "replies". You are still trying to grasp what a LITERAL MEANING is. As if the alchemists really had a saying on what this is!!! It's just what LANGUAGE & SEMANTICS is, nothing to do with the type of alchemists who took advantage of it and manipulated it to mislead others.

.. I've asked you specific questions that you seem to just keep weasling your way out of answering.

You can claim Keely as a fraud all you'd like, but I asked you specific questions that you just don't want to answer. I ask these questions because they are relevant to our One Matter topic and most importantly, the Emerald Tablet. Alchemy works on several levels that you fail to comprehend, because you cannot understand the very books that you read, all speculation on your part. You say that what I say is nonsense on another topic, and what Kibric says is nonsense, but you have nothing in your arsenal to backup any single one of your points at all. I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase to find these facts that you speak of.

Re-read my questions again and answer them. I don't think you can, because you don't understand the question being asked, it's out of your comprehension.
The fact is, when you don't understand something, you dismiss it, and like you did above, you call someone a fraud without addressing why, without addressing the most essential part of all, how.

Seperate the gross from the subtle - 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''.

I'll ask again, lets see if you can refute it at all, with the questions I ask relating to One Matter;

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.

Also, I find it very peculiar that you say this;

"One" means just that... O-N-E. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is in fact, what I was trying to stress to you here;

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

What evidence do you have to suggest that the secret solvent is not just alchemical, but only alchemy, as if Alchemy doesn't exist outside of this secret solvent in order to produce this phenomenon that you fail to comprehend.

nothing to do with the type of alchemists who took advantage of it and manipulated it to mislead others.

Veiling is not the same as the intent to mislead. Like I've said before, this is speculation like I've always said from the start... you are making assumptions on the authors intent.

There are authors who literally say; ''when we say take this, and take that, we literally mean to take this or that that resembles it '' ... Is this misleading? Obviously not. There are authors who go out of their way to warn you about not taking everything that they speak of literally, and instead, to take some of the words they use philosophically. This is not misleading, this is veiling their work, its up to the reader to ponder on these words...

Again, the alchemists theoretical ruminations about supposed "sulfureous" & "mercurial" "principles" tell us JACK-DIDDLY SQUAT about how and out of what they actually made the Stone. Otherwise most people would eventually have discovered how to make it from those theoretical musings, which the alchemists made no effort whatsoever to conceal. Notice that what they do jealously & zealously conceal are the actual names of the substances they used. In other words: EMPIRICAL INFORMATION, what really counts!

Says the one who doesn't understand the philosophical operations that are used. Putrefaction, distillation, calcination and the like.

If you don't believe in alchemical literature, then why do you insist on only believing that they used their words to veil the substances and not the operations that are mentioned in their books? How do you know? You don't! You don't know!

You said it yourself, here, openly! You say that they veiled the substance, sure! Salt, Sulphur & Mercury can be seen as different terms, thinking the matter is sea salt, or common mercury, I apply this same point to the operations being used!

The stone that is to be found in nature, the very reason why this stone isn't to be found in its most developed form is because of its heightened bio-availability to be used within the ground that we walk on. There are alchemical tracts that speak of what happens when we ingest this solvent. Immediately it begins to act on the body, and likewise, immediately it begins to act within the Earth itself.

In the art, we let nature take the wheel, we just give it a place so that it cannot be used, we give it a place to develop undisturbed without it being swallowed back into the Earth itself, we then collect the work, in our microcosm THUS stopping the natural cycle.

You say things like ''Else we would have found it somewhere in nature by now'' ... This of course, depending on if you RECOGNIZE THE SUBSTANCE, FOR WHAT IT IS like I keep telling you bud! In the Macrocosm, these Natural Operations, putrefaction, distillation, and the like doesn't just stop, it's a cycle that keeps spinning, like the Ouroborus.

@Kibric The stone is not just a salt, or a liquid that melts under a candle flame, it is Salt, Sulphur & Mercury perfectly unified as One, like what the Alchemists have openly said all along.