- Aug 31, 2012
.. 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.
I already addressed all your pointless questions and "arguments". I refuse to do so again. Trying to project the speculative claims of a 19th century debunked charlatan like Keely (look it up instead of wasting my time) onto the alchemists is pure anachronism, not very different than the Jungians do when they project their own speculative psychological notions on the alchemists of hundreds of years ago who obviously did not hold any such notions.
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;
Also, I find it very peculiar that you say this;
This is in fact, what I was trying to stress to you here;
Hmm, no, don't think so. You were even having a hard time understanding what LITERAL meaning means! I had to explain it to you repeatedly, and I am still not sure if you really got it.
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.
Besides being what the alchemists themselves say, it is also simple common sense and logic. Otherwise you would be hard-pressed to explain why alchemy only achieved the productions of such substances that can turn many times their own weight into silver or gold, while chymistry and chemistry never found any such thing. Obviously alchemy discovered "something" that is unique to it, on which it depends, and that other laboratory disciplines failed to discover, and thus has remained the exclusive property of alchemy. I don't expect you to understand any of this, as your constant "replies" keep demonstrating that you have a very hard time understanding even simple logic and common sense. You even have quite a struggle in your hands understanding simple analogies, for crying out loud! "What does TNT have to do with the Stone!", LOL! That just went over your head completely.
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.
Even some alchemists exposed some of their "fellow" alchemists for being misleading with the "one matter only" adage and actually bothered to explain what it really refers to. Again, get better acquainted with the subject.
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...
The problem with your argument here is that the type of author that you have in mind keeps throwing a barrage of such "take this, take that" at you. Now, if you understood logic and common sense you would be asking yourself: what could so many different things have in common and fit with this claim that "take something that resembles it"? The answer is: nothing! Otherwise you need to explain what does a substance like alum, for example, have in common with a substance like cinnabar. One is white, soluble in water, and does not give solid sublimates when it is heated, the other one is red, insoluble in water, and completely sublimes when heated. The only thing they have in common is... gee, that they are both solid substances! NOTHING ELSE!!! So pray tell, what sort of real "clue" can you possibly derive from such absurd and totally unrealistic "comparisons" with all manner of different substances that hardly have anything in common. Some alchemists indeed use similarity as a concealing tool (with actual substances or things that had some things in common with the ones used in the work), but plenty of others simply just keep throwing at you just about any substance imaginable. This type of alchemist, then, is purely deceitful and acting with malicious intent, every bit as much as the "one matter only" ones. Again, use your head, be critical and logical about this subject instead of naively swallowing up every single silly excuse that these types of malicious alchemists came up with themselves in order to try to excuse their deplorable behavior, which actually ended costing great numbers of people all sorts of damage, endlessly wasting their time and money on fruitless efforts with all manner of incorrect substances.
Says the one who doesn't understand the philosophical operations that are used. Putrefaction, distillation, calcination and the like.
The one who doesn't understand such things is you, bud.
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!
Because the operations by themselves won't reveal any important secret, duh! That's why countless alchemical and chymical books explain in sufficient detail all the laboratory operations/techniques known in those times. Again, use your head. ANALOGY TIME: if a chemist told you that he knows how to prepare a certain metallic red salt through sublimation, and instead of telling you the actual substances he used to achieve this he doesn't tell you anything else at all, you would still be in the blind regarding what exactly is it that he sublimed in order to prepare this product. He could even give you a very detailed description of all the apparatuses he used and the phenomena (like color changes) he observed with his own eyes while preparing the red salt, but you would still not know how to replicate it from such mutilated/insufficient/incomplete instructions. You would have to do some EMPIRICAL investigations of your own in order to try to figure out how he accomplished the production of this red salt. For example, you could take lead and mix it with various salts and heat them in an aludel to see "what happens". Logical questions that you would ask yourself in such an investigation would be: what metals can give volatile salts? And which ones can give red colored ones? With no such information handy for your convenience, you would have to go on a path of trial & error with many substances until you would finally start clearing up the matter on your own. This is also how alchemy (and transmutational chymistry) is investigated. No other way. Forget about theories: "sulphurs", "mercuries", "universal spirits", "seeds", "radical moistures", and the like imaginary speculative gobbledygook. As someone else eloquently said in another thread: theories are nothing but "mental masturbation". They will take you nowhere in this subject.
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.
LOL! As if recognizing a substance like the Stone would be so incredibly difficult! How many substances have you stumbled upon in a natural setting that can turn many times their own weight of base metals into silver and gold??? Ah, that's right, NONE! I rest my case. NATURE ON ITS OWN DOES NOT MAKE ANY SUCH SUBSTANCE. If it did, the odds are humongous that we would already have observed it and noted the fact after THOUSANDS of years of accumulated experience with nature and its productions (the very raw materials of human industry since the dawn of mankind.)