• The migration to this new platform is complete, but there are a lot of details to sort out. If you find something that needs to be fixed make a post in this thread. Thank you for your patience!

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

JDP

Hermes Trismegistus
Honorable Meister
Hermetic Pilgrim
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
1,990
.. 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.)
 

tAlc

Rectificando
Hermetic Pilgrim
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
286
I already addressed all your pointless questions and "arguments". I refuse to do so again.

Not so much pointless as you failing over and over to show congruence with the very texts that speak how to produce of producing the Secret Solvent.

You say ''nonsense'' over things you don't know, furthermore fail to show congruence with your words and the very alchemical tracts, use speculation to denounce other peoples investigation without thoroughly knowing what the hell you're talking about. I kindly advise you to get better acquainted with the subject of alchemy. It appears to me that you are not ready to let go of whatever it is you think that you know, and let in some light of what other people are telling you, with congruency.

Using TNT as one of your analogies is like comparing apples and oranges. TNT is not quintessence. You marry your 1+1 to create One Matter, this is quintessence, but I don't expect you to understand this concept just yet, because you don't believe in alchemical principals, it's not your ''forte'' , you only believe in the secret solvent, like many others do, supposing that modern science will help detour you into finding this 'magical' rock. I use the term 'magical' because modern science, which you rely completely on doesn't recognize quintessence, or the phenomenon of producing this substance, and therefore ''magical'', like you and Astral Projection, maybe one day you'll figure it out :p


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.
The only person I feel that is having trouble understanding here is you, JDP. :p

Feel free to explain the same thing over and over, be my guest, while at the same time, completely weasling out of essential questions that I have asked you, like I said, it's because you don't know.

You can't answer my questions which are relevant to this topic, which you dismiss as fraudulent without explaining how. You don't want to look wrong more than you want to know the truth that I present to you, and so you weasel out of it without explaining it yourself. You don't know how to refute it while at the same time being congruent with oh i don't know, with making any sense!

Calling the like of John Keely a fraud without essentially explaining how, (because clearly its out of your comprehension) is just as empty as you calling what I say nonsense, and replacing words like ''speculation'' with ''facts'' without even presenting any, and then expecting me to go on a wild goose chase to find the facts you speak of, and to find out your someone else's perspective of why John Keely is a fraud, like I said, weasling your way out of answering essential questions related to the One Matter & the Emerald Tablet, I am showing congruency with what I say and alchemical literature, comparing the Emerald Tablet to investigations done by John Keely (I even brought up Walter Russel as well) and say things like nonsense, fraud, facts without showing anything, this is empty and pointless! It's like I'm at a University, listening to someone talk, and without even understanding what he's saying, I'm in the back with the students yelling ''nonsense, fraud, facts'' like I'm some sort of class clown (no disrespect)

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.

Maybe if you didn't try so hard to always be right all the time, and instead open yourself up to understanding, you might see the difference! Quintessence! There is a big difference between Alchemy & Chemistry, working with living matter, and dead matter, working naturally, and unnaturally, Unification, and chemical conversion, using natural principals and unnatural principals.

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.
The gigantic hypocrisy in this statement is comical, you know when you laugh out of frustration? Yeah.

Feel free to share some quotes, I have, but I don't expect you to show any congruence with the authors of this Art, since you think that the alchemists themselves are a bunch of liars, understanding literature doesn't seem to exactly be your ''forte''.

Let me be as clear as I can be... Other than this, this is hopeless; Alchemy is a natural science; Philosophy is studying Nature and ITS operations: Macrocosm Microcosm; Congruency; Without Congruency, without Philosophy you are lost without a thread hence why you stooped to mish mashing random things together, hoping that luck will bring you towards this solvent. As if some people haven't already devoted their entire lives using this route that you are very well treading on, and the result was absolutely nothing, over the thousands of years having done it, yet the very Alchemists who hold this substance tell you blatantly to follow nature, time and time again base their books on Philosophy, yet you think this is a ruse, go figure!

Like I said, I'm not going on a wild goose chase to find these facts that you speak of. Like I said, show some congruence. You are using your sense of reason, that is fine, all the power to you in this regard, your refusal to read between the lines is obscuring you from seeing the grains of truth in the very alchemical texts that you read, and using your own speculation and using it as if it were fundamentally the case, and then you replace speculation with the word ''facts''. As if natural operations care about what you think of it, they will operate regardess of whether or not you understand their principals or not.

Alchemy does not care a single bit about what you think JDP, it doesn't, how a system works, remain as is, regardless of what you think of it. Understand nature and its operations! MAY THE FORCE B-E-W-I-T-H-Y-O-U!

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.

This obviously depends on where you are looking. If you don't know where to look, like yourself, you will look everywhere ranging from natural to unnatural, to elements and the like, not knowing where to begin, not knowing where to start, hence why you say: ''The answer is: nothing!'' More like, the answer is, ignorance.

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're comparing apples and oranges here. Chemistry is not Alchemy, and Alchemy is a natural science, if and when an Alchemist talks about how to derive their salt, sulphur, mercury, you have natural philosophy as your guide. Alchemy is natural, if you want to seek unnatural operations then stick to Chemistry, that's your choice, not my problem, at all! I frankly don't care what you decide to do.

How does something become One in nature? I've showed you an example already using Still Water.

The way you act on a composite or a piece of matter will effect its composure. Ignorantly acting on a piece of matter while not aware of essential subtle properties like the Chemists, leave you at great risk destroying the potential of developing the solvent by ignorantly disrupting its development like the chemists do when they work with a dead piece of matter.

Still water over Earth will eventually congeal and convert to Earth, it's actually Schmeldvich who said this nicely somewhere else.

This is why when people take some of the words of the alchemists by the literal meaning which they have been warned not to do, they get a completely different result. This is why philosophy, and theory, AND trial and error is important, but without Philosophy you get nowhere, you get JDP, mish mashing until he turns as old as 80 and thensome like it has been for COUNTLESS of others. You need to unlearn. You're only obscuring yourself, and others, when you denounce authors who wrote on alchemy, all the while failing to show any congruence with what you say and the texts that speak of alchemy.

The IUPAC defines calcination as "heating to high temperatures in air or oxygen". However, calcination is also used to mean a thermal treatment process in the absence or limited supply of air or oxygen applied to ores and other solid materials to bring about a thermal decomposition. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcination

There are people who use high heat in the art and low heat in the art. Heat ranges on many different levels. Even cold is a degree of heat. The Alchemists spoke of operations done in July, August, Winter...Heat creates pressure. Less heat, less pressure. Pressure can put out fire. The secret alchemical fire should tell you something...

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.)

And for the same very reason, you fail to comprehend why you and the chemists haven't made the substance by now, with thousands of accumulated experience, something some of the very first alchemists themselves didn't have, especially as much as we do today, and for some reason, JDP thinks he has it all figured out. *slow clap*

The Alchemists didn't have as much ''accumulated experience'' as we would today yet they've made the solvent, like I said, people have devoted their whole life on this path you are treading on resulting in NADA WITH AND WITHOUT accumulated experiences. Understand NATURE and its OPERATIONS. They would have to rely on theories/philosophy/investigation and yes that's right, trial & error, this isn't so hard to comprehend when you put into the equation ''Meditate'', because you ''meditate'' on certain matters (lol) and this is how you cultivate your understanding, while looking towards nature. Using Trial & Error alone, you are lost without a thread, just look at how much accumulated experience got you, bud, still trying to mish mash random things together, trying to find the secret solvent out of sheer ''luck''.

Philosophy brings understanding to the principals of nature when you investigate ITS natural operations, giving you a piece of ''Aridadne's Thread'' to follow as someone else put it nicely, this is why philosophy is very important, but I don't expect you to understand this just yet, you still have much to learn when it comes to the art, bud.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tAlc

Rectificando
Hermetic Pilgrim
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
286
Tell me JDP, how do you think some of the first alchemists stumbled on this solvent without the thousands of years of accumulated experience to go by? Is it still luck as you say? And after all of the years up until now, this very ''luck'' that you speak of, still hasn't gotten any modern chemist to producing this secret solvent, yet here you are arguing that this is the most logical approach into finding the secret solvent. This is pure comical at best! Many of the first alchemists don't nearly have ANYTHING of what we have today, and yet with all we have, we see no one in the science community coming out with the stone.

There are even historical accounts on say, magic, rituals, witches, and the like, I wonder why Putin believes in any of that stuff (he does)

With all of the accumulation that we have to this point, look at where its gotten you, person with no stone.
 

JDP

Hermes Trismegistus
Honorable Meister
Hermetic Pilgrim
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
1,990
Dear tAlchemist,

It is pretty obvious by now that trying to discuss something with you is like trying to have a conversation with a brick-wall: a total of waste of time. I don't feel like I should continuously try to educate someone who stubbornly refuses to do so. As noted earlier, you even seem quite incapable of comprehending simple analogies! So, by all means continue engaging in your little fantasies, uncorroborated and uncritical naive beliefs about how the real world is and works, a woefully poor understanding of things that actually depend on EMPIRICAL EXPERIENCE, not on any fancy theories. Years from now, when you still haven't gotten anywhere with all this fanciful speculative farrago of unproven and unrealistic assumptions that you seem to like so much, perhaps you will be more willing to listen to logic, reason and common sense.

Yours truly,
Mr. Empiricism (a.k.a. JDP)
 

tAlc

Rectificando
Hermetic Pilgrim
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
286
Dear tAlchemist,

It is pretty obvious by now that trying to discuss something with you is like trying to have a conversation with a brick-wall: a total of waste of time. I don't feel like I should continuously try to educate someone who stubbornly refuses to do so. As noted earlier, you even seem quite incapable of comprehending simple analogies! So, by all means continue engaging in your little fantasies, uncorroborated and uncritical naive beliefs about how the real world is and works, a woefully poor understanding of things that actually depend on EMPIRICAL EXPERIENCE, not on any fancy theories. Years from now, when you still haven't gotten anywhere with all this fanciful speculative farrago of unproven and unrealistic assumptions that you seem to like so much, perhaps you will be more willing to listen to logic, reason and common sense.

Yours truly,
Mr. Empiricism (a.k.a. JDP)

Lmao utter hypocrisy at its finest. Good luck on our path of mish mash and sheer luck, maybe when youre 80, and have run out of things to mish mash together you might come to the philosophical side. Empiricism aside, i conversed with you on here because Awani had made a mod note to do so.
 

Kibric

Occultum
Hermetic Pilgrim
Joined
Jul 24, 2017
Messages
927
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???
No author said they found it already highly refined, able to affect transmutation or they would be no need for the work.
In an unrefined state they say they found it.
In an unrefined state it has none of the properties associated with it's highly refined state ( transmutation etc )
so overlooking it would very easy and common place.
No one is saying, authors as well, they found it highly refined able to transmute. Show me.

NATURE ON ITS OWN DOES NOT MAKE ANY SUCH SUBSTANCE.
Unrefined it does. Not highly refined able to transmute or there wouldn't be a need for any work at all.

It is pretty obvious by now that trying to discuss something with you is like trying to have a conversation with a brick-wall: a total of waste of time. I don't feel like I should continuously try to educate someone who stubbornly refuses to do so.
A sentiment many here have about you. Pot meet kettle.

Show me one quote from any author that explicitly states nature has nothing to with the matter ( or matters ) and operations in alchemy.
Show show me any author who doesn't bring nature in some form into into their writing.
How is it the very source material we all use doesn't condemn nature and her operations but mention them frequently from an array of different authors ?
is this all coincidence ?
How is it that all different authors mentioning nature and her importance were all wrong ? and you alone right...
Are we to believe you know better than the very authors you study ?

If nature has nothing to with the work, why did a large array of authors keep writing about it ?.
Are they all wrong and you right ? odds are no.

Are you a mad max style hero.
A lone wolf, who's the last moral beacon shining out in an alchemical wasteland hell bent on corrupting truth.
The one matter raiders and naturists hunt you down and steal your car. twice ?
They bring you before Vulcanus, the mighty king of the scorched desolate empirical wastes that you used to call home.
He breaks your back and throws you into a giant hole full of chymists and philosophers who rejected the great mother nature,
where you very slowly train to climb out and reclaim your city, only to fake your death and disappear ?.
An elite squad of superalchemists eventually race to stop you acquiring the 6 ? keys of wisdom for your glove ?
you'll use to erase all natural philosophers from the face of the universe, restoring balance to the force.
You didn't get your car back.
 
Last edited:

Awani

Magus
Magus de Moderatio
Patron of the Arts
Hermetic Pilgrim
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
10,063

JDP

Hermes Trismegistus
Honorable Meister
Hermetic Pilgrim
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
1,990
No author said they found it already highly refined, able to affect transmutation or they would be no need for the work.
In an unrefined state they say they found it.
In an unrefined state it has none of the properties associated with it's highly refined state ( transmutation etc )
so overlooking it would very easy and common place.
No one is saying, authors as well, they found it highly refined able to transmute. Show me.

Show you what??? That's in fact what I am saying: NATURE DOES NOT MAKE ANYTHING LIKE THE STONE. You can claim that it makes it in an "unrefined" form, but that's about as "valid" as saying that nature does not make TNT itself, only "an unrefined form" of it... Baloney! Nature makes the raw matters that alchemists used, nothing else, just like it makes the raw matters used by other crafts and sciences. The alchemical products produced by the alchemists were the product of "art". Nature by itself would never make such things on its own.


A sentiment many here have about you. Pot meet kettle.

From people who refuse to approach such subjects in a realistic, logical, rational manner and uncritically accept all sorts of uncorroborated claims as if they were "facts", mind you.

Show me one quote from any author that explicitly states nature has nothing to with the matter ( or matters ) and operations in alchemy.
Show show me any author who doesn't bring nature in some form into into their writing.
How is it the very source material we all use doesn't condemn nature and her operations but mention them frequently from an array of different authors ?
is this all coincidence ?
How is it that all different authors mentioning nature and her importance were all wrong ? and you alone right...
Are we to believe you know better than the very authors you study ?

If nature has nothing to with the work, why did a large array of authors keep writing about it ?.
Are they all wrong and you right ? odds are no.

How very naive of you! You are expecting the very people who invented this "we imitate/follow nature" nonsense claim to undermine it! Of course most alchemists won't be contradicting that claim. Which part of "THEY FANCIED THEMSELVES AS PHILOSOPHERS" is it that you failed to understand? Obviously that I am not going to accept these pretensions of theirs when I can very clearly see that they are contradicted by HOW NATURE ACTUALLY WORKS AND WHAT IT PRODUCES, which is nothing remotely like the Stone. Instead of swallowing every single thing the alchemists claim, try to exercise your sense of critical thinking. When you see that what they say contradicts something that you can plainly see is not really so, then obviously don't play along with their games. Accept only the things that make sense and are according to empirical facts or possibilities. You yourself above admitted that nature does not make the "refined" Stone. That by itself should have told you that the alchemist operates in a manner that nature does not. Ironically, therefore, you answered your own request for proof that nature really doesn't really provide any real "guide" for the alchemist! Alchemy operates in its own way, according to its own instruments and the conditions it can manipulate matter with, which are not like nature's.
 

tAlc

Rectificando
Hermetic Pilgrim
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
286
mind you he didnt even answer Kibric's question, go figure.

"Show me one quote from any author that explicitly states nature has nothing to with the matter ( or matters ) and operations in alchemy.
Show show me any author who doesn't bring nature in some form into into their writing.
How is it the very source material we all use doesn't condemn nature and her operations but mention them frequently from an array of different authors ?
is this all coincidence ?
How is it that all different authors mentioning nature and her importance were all wrong ? and you alone right...
Are we to believe you know better than the very authors you study ?"

weaseling out of questions is JDP's forte :p

Pythagoras has put it nicely here elsewhere;
Pythagoras said:
"We know that there exists the three(3) kingdoms in Nature and that Nature within these kingdoms has deposited what we may assume to be the egg of itself.
There is an argument that Nature doesn't create the stone. That the stone is real doesn't seem to be in dispute, yet whether or not Nature of itself, that is without the aide of humans per se, can create the stone appears to be the argument.
When I reflect upon this, those three words, which I've defined, come to my mind. Is not man a part of Nature and her workings?
Are we so arrogant to be so blind, that we cannot see humanity as being a cog within Nature's evolution?
We are Nature as much as Nature is us.
Surely, if Nature meant its creations to come to know her, she would have given her greatest creation that power
embodied within these three words.
As seekers, we must look beyond what is common. We must see what is, not just what we in our immature senses believe what is.
How can we not see that we are a part of Nature?
If Man creates the philosophers stone, is it not Nature that has created the stone through the superficies of Man?

This may in a way, make the stone artificiall in a lower sense, but in a higher sense, the stone is absolutely natural and confected by laws that are concordant to Nature. It cannot be otherwise

We must work with Nature as we are certainly a part of it, lest it smite us with a calamity and force us to reset.

Pyth with the facts gotta love it & him :p
 
Last edited:

JDP

Hermes Trismegistus
Honorable Meister
Hermetic Pilgrim
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
1,990
Typical silly and naive "arguments" that do not really answer or clarify anything. It reminds me of George Carlin's comedy bit about people who are obsessed with "natural" things, when, as he says, "everything is natural" (similar views as some here are espousing), so even the toxic waste of a chemical plant is "natural":


The difference is that George Carlin was a comedian and is being sarcastic and joking... while these guys are "serious", LOL!
 

JDP

Hermes Trismegistus
Honorable Meister
Hermetic Pilgrim
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
1,990
The "Notes to Bacon's Epistle" on the "one matter"

The author of the "Notes" on Bacon's "Epistle on the Secret Works of Art & Nature and the Nullity of Magic" (both texts published in the Bibliotheca Chemica Curiosa collection of texts) has the following brief and pertinent comments to make regarding the "one matter" of alchemy:

https://books.google.com/books?id=7...=onepage&q="eaque non simplex sed ex"&f=false

One (say the philosophers) is the work, one the mode of operating to the white and to the red: I add one matter; and that not simple but composed from two with their intermediate/intermediary...

So, yet another exposition of this tricky statement that so many unwary seekers fall for when, without any clarification, they encounter it stated "as is" by some malicious authors whose intent is obviously to confuse and mislead others by making them endlessly and to no avail work on single, simple, uncompounded substances (such as would be nature's productions, not those of man's industry.) As the commentator explains, it is not any "simple" substance but actually a composite of two + an "intermediary/intermediate" (i.e. a third substance; some other alchemists in fact used more. Thomas Norton, for example, used at least 4 substances to make the Stone.)
 

Schmuldvich

Lapidem
Hermetic Pilgrim
Joined
Oct 9, 2016
Messages
1,027
ZpfwfFS.jpg



One (say the philosophers) is the work, one the mode of operating to the white and to the red: I add one matter; and that not simple but composed from two with their intermediate/intermediary...

What do you believe this Intermediary could be...?








So, yet another exposition of this tricky statement that so many unwary seekers fall for...

No, "so many unwary seekers" do not fall for this.

It only exists in your head.

This sermon gives you purpose in life...this is what drives you...we see it and we get it, JDP.

It is commendable.

Countless times you have been reminded that not a single person here believes what you keep preaching against, and you lack any capability of souring anywhere from anyone alive that believes this notion...

Remember that message about "talking to a brick wall"?? It's you, you, you who is like talking to a brick wall...refusing to hear anything that would put a damper on you going on and on and on about the same thing over and over and over.

What you incessantly rant about is comparable to someone here taking it upon themselves as a member of this forum to ceaselessly warn the other members of this forum that "BEWARE: IT IS NOT ACTUALLY TRUE THAT RED LOLLIPOPS MAKE YOUR BIG TOE TURN GREEN".

You have created an issue that never existed. This misperception that there are all these people out there who need to be warned about a non-existent issue is, odd...or maybe this is a pride thing and this is how you flaunt your knowledge :confused:


Can you show me anyone who believes this (which should be easy for you to do because there are "so many unwary seekers" out there)?

Could it be that what you keep going on about is something you have entirely created in your mind and no such counter-argument needs to exist?









As the commentator explains, it is not any "simple" substance but actually a composite of two + an "intermediary/intermediate" (i.e. a third substance; some other alchemists in fact used more. Thomas Norton, for example, used at least 4 substances to make the Stone.)

Cf. http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?1310-One-Matter-One-Vessel-One-Fire&p=43861#post43861

See here: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/show...erning-Truth-from-Deception&p=58893#post58893
See also: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/show...erning-Truth-from-Deception&p=60738#post60738

Additionally: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/show...erning-Truth-from-Deception&p=56545#post56545
Additionally: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/show...erning-Truth-from-Deception&p=56570#post56570

Note this: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/show...erning-Truth-from-Deception&p=56611#post56611


JDP, you strive so hard to come off as some kind of an authority figure, but truth is, as Awani pointed out above, you are no more qualified than anyone here to rant and rave like a broken record about something you have no experience with.

A self-proclaimed & flaunted empiricist warning others about something he has no experience with...what a joke!

You do not have the Philosopher's Stone, you have never seen the Philosopher's Stone, and you do not have any verifiable proof based on observation or experience that the Philosopher's Stone even exists...yet you dedicate your Earthly existence to spewing the same repetitive drivel ad nauseam.

Why?
 
Last edited:

elixirmixer

Thoth
Patron of the Arts
Hermetic Pilgrim
Joined
May 30, 2016
Messages
3,041
Well its very entertaining. Isn't it. I had many giggles reading your post just now Schmveepse. This one was also hilarious:

Andro -
Everyone here is free to "bicker and argue", as long as they adhere to our Rules & Guidelines. As current moderator, I will make sure that this "one matter vs. many matters" debate STAYS on this thread and doesn't systemically hijack every other thread where "One Matter" (& related) topics are discussed, as it was way too often the case in the past.

I can also guarantee to all of you that I will do the best I can so that this "crusade" stays inside this "church"/on this thread and doesn't go on a "missionary quest" to hijack other threads and engage in this type of unsolicited "conversion therapy" . It's unfortunate, having to go to such measures, but otherwise the whole board would quickly become a cacophony of missionary-type sermons

This place is the best......

Ill have to add; that I do believe that there are people who believe that you can put only one thing into a flask, and that that one thing, within the flask, is made of different things, and that, while in the flask, separates of its own accord under stimulating heat, and that then, after this is accomplished, it begins to conjoin, and that their conjoining brings to life something else again and therefore they believe that even though they are working with one thing only they can also relate and draw wisdom from authors who use multiple mattersbecause they believe that their matter is both one and many AND that this one thing that they use can accomplish the entire work if performed correctly.

And JDP doesnt like it and thinks its a false trap and trys to warn people away from that path. I suppose only people with the stone are going to know for sure who is correct.

In my beginner yet personal opinion, even though he is very learnered in this Art; JDP is forgetting the spiritual side and can therefore not accomplish this work; sorry mate. Still love you though. :eek:
 

elixirmixer

Thoth
Patron of the Arts
Hermetic Pilgrim
Joined
May 30, 2016
Messages
3,041
The Works of Thomas Vaughan - "3) It is called indifferently water and earth by Moses, but is neither in their common complexions, being a slimy, spermatic, viscous mass, impregnated with all powers, celestial and terrestrial. It renews itse lf in a thousand ways,
and is never a perpetual tenant to the same form.
It is the immediate catholic character of God
Himse lf in His unity and trinity.......

.....In the outward shape or figure it resembles a stone, and yet it is not a stone ; but this description is qualified in several places subsequently and contradicted expressly in others, it being obvious that a slimy mass can only be called a stone inmendacio us symbolism. At the beginning
it was condensed into water out of a certain cloud and darkness, being the niu
lguoadnos of Dionysius and Divine Darkness in other words, it came forth from God, but whether by creation or otherwise we are left to speculate . It is th e Second Nature from God Himself and the Child of the Blessed Trinity This Second Nature is not therefore the Second Person . It is the mother of all. It is delicate and tender, like animal sperm, is almost a living thing, and indeed Nature doth produce some animals out of it .

It is invisible, meaning presumably in its normal state, since Vaughan afirms that he has seen it . It is—apparently brought into manifestation as a certain limosity extracted from the earth , air, fire and water, for every one of them contributes from its very centre a thin,
slimy substance and of their several slimes Nature makes the sperm by an ineflable union and mixture .
It follows from the last citation that the First Matter
and Second Nature from the Blessed Trinity is not a
simple substance, though immanent in all things and
educible from all, but a composite—the parts of which must be drawn out of their several receptacles .

Star Dust? ;)
 

JDP

Hermes Trismegistus
Honorable Meister
Hermetic Pilgrim
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
1,990
ZpfwfFS.jpg





What do you believe this Intermediary could be...?










No, "so many unwary seekers" do not fall for this.

It only exists in your head.

This sermon gives you purpose in life...this is what drives you...we see it and we get it, JDP.

It is commendable.

Countless times you have been reminded that not a single person here believes what you keep preaching against, and you lack any capability of souring anywhere from anyone alive that believes this notion...

Remember that message about "talking to a brick wall"?? It's you, you, you who is like talking to a brick wall...refusing to hear anything that would put a damper on you going on and on and on about the same thing over and over and over.

What you incessantly rant about is comparable to someone here taking it upon themselves as a member of this forum to ceaselessly warn the other members of this forum that "BEWARE: IT IS NOT ACTUALLY TRUE THAT RED LOLLIPOPS MAKE YOUR BIG TOE TURN GREEN".

You have created an issue that never existed. This misperception that there are all these people out there who need to be warned about a non-existent issue is, odd...or maybe this is a pride thing and this is how you flaunt your knowledge :confused:


Can you show me anyone who believes this (which should be easy for you to do because there are "so many unwary seekers" out there)?

Could it be that what you keep going on about is something you have entirely created in your mind and no such counter-argument needs to exist?











Cf. http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?1310-One-Matter-One-Vessel-One-Fire&p=43861#post43861

See here: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/show...erning-Truth-from-Deception&p=58893#post58893
See also: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/show...erning-Truth-from-Deception&p=60738#post60738

Additionally: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/show...erning-Truth-from-Deception&p=56545#post56545
Additionally: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/show...erning-Truth-from-Deception&p=56570#post56570

Note this: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/show...erning-Truth-from-Deception&p=56611#post56611


JDP, you strive so hard to come off as some kind of an authority figure, but truth is, as Awani pointed out above, you are no more qualified than anyone here to rant and rave like a broken record about something you have no experience with.

A self-proclaimed & flaunted empiricist warning others about something he has no experience with...what a joke!

You do not have the Philosopher's Stone, you have never seen the Philosopher's Stone, and you do not have any verifiable proof based on observation or experience that the Philosopher's Stone even exists...yet you dedicate your Earthly existence to spewing the same repetitive drivel ad nauseam.

Why?

Funny how you come up with these ridiculous denials of the self-evident and then self-defeatingly actually provide the links that in fact debunk you and prove that you and your alter-eg... er, I mean "pal", Chasm, keep falling for the same old trap. It is obvious that you do not understand at all what the alchemists had in mind by "simple" and "compound". In order for you to understand what they are talking about, instead of anachronistically projecting your own MODERN conceptions, you should read about ancient and medieval medicine and pharmacology, disciplines from which the alchemists borrowed heavily for their own terminology and ideas (even the Stone itself is persistently labelled as the "medicine", and the word "elixir" itself is based on ancient Greek medical and pharmacological terminology. The alchemists themselves kept using the concept of "healing" "sick" metals with their "medicine", a very obvious analogy with medicine and pharmacology):

https://www.qdl.qa/en/medieval-arabic-formularies-compounds-and-simples

"Pharmacology is one of the medical fields in which the Arabs excelled, an area that developed its own specialist literature, in addition to sections in general medical encyclopaedias. Some books were devoted to ‘simples’ (mufradāt), that is, individual plants, minerals or animal products used in medicine. Others, known as formularies (aqrābādhīnāt) – books containing recipes for preparing medicines – listed compound recipes (murakkabāt). In such recipes a number of simples were combined into a specific formulation (powder, ointment, tablet or most commonly, syrup) in order to treat a given ailment."

It is very evident that people like you, who don't know about such historical concepts, keep falling for the old trap: hook, line and sinker. When the alchemists talk about their "compound" they mean something made from several "simple" things, and by these "simple" things they mean single naturally-occurring matters, like plants and minerals, for example. They are following the ancient terminology of medicine/pharmacology, from which they borrowed heavily. Hopefully one day it will finally "sink in" with you what the alchemists mean by "simple" and "compound" and you will realize how you have been deceived all this time into taking one simple, single, naturally-occurring substance (like the obviously organic "matter" that you work with) and thinking that this was the "one matter" they were talking about. When in reality you should be looking into what "simples" compose this "compound" that some alchemists maliciously call "one matter", but which others charitably clarify for unwary readers what this actually means, because nature out of its own devices WILL NEVER DO THIS FOR YOU. Much like the doctor/pharmacist, IT IS THE ALCHEMIST WHO MAKES THESE COMPOUNDED "MEDICINES", definitely NOT nature. Nature only makes "simples" (i.e. the raw matters with which both medicine and alchemy work with.)
 

tAlc

Rectificando
Hermetic Pilgrim
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
286
A deckname for the prima materia is the nostoc. Another word for the nostoc was "Sternschnuppe" (shooting star, but can mean star's snot as well). You aren't far away EM ;)

1%20Nostoc%20commune%20Nursery%202014%202C_0.jpg

That looks like something I'd blend and put into a drink
 

JDP

Hermes Trismegistus
Honorable Meister
Hermetic Pilgrim
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
1,990
JDP,

Four and five substances sounds a lot like a metaphor for the 4 elements and the 5th (Quintessence). I never look at the literal meaning first as lot of what the Philosophers state is multi-layered which is why it's so difficult to decrypt their sayings (unless you speak the language of the Philosophers). This concept is especially true for words/phrases sounding so obvious written in 'common' terms, on which we find is always a prefixed warning stating to never follow them to the letter in every true philosophical work on Alchemy.

Michael,

I think you hit the nail on the head - multi-layered meaning. Mercury/Salt/Sulfur - Spirit/Body/Soul - Matter/Vessel/Fire - Father/Son/Holy Spirit. Yes you are right, a lot of Philosophers were heavily influenced by Christianity which had a profound impact on their concepts of the creation of the Universe. This is why true authors of this Art are called Philosophers and not simply Alchemists/Chemists, and many of them make this distinct division. The Philosophers see the spiritual incorporated into the material world and explain it as such, through enigmas, metaphors, mythology, scripture &c. An example can even be seen in the story of Christ being killed/putrefied on the cross then sealed within a tomb in which he rose again with a new body, a Divine being, who has ever lasting life (all very important concepts concerning the great work). The Philosophers also borrowed a lot from Genesis in order to explain their views on creation and how the 'first matter' came into being. If you aren't familiar with these stories or the mythology it can be fairly daunting task of interpreting a Philosophers mindset and unraveling it all to make sense. A lot of authors state that the whole 'recipe' can be written on a single page of paper it's so simple, so you can imagine how a 400+ page book is merely just 'fluff' with a few pearls of wisdom cast!

~Auroboros


That whole "we don't mean what we say" bit has been grossly misunderstood and exaggerated by some people. It is only when it comes to dealing with what substances are used to compose the Stone that you have to be on your guard against the trickery of the alchemists. Here is where they bombard you with a barrage of "decknamen", misleading statements ("one matter only", "one vessel only", listing substances that can actually be used in the work among the "false" ones, etc.), purely imaginary things ("sulphurs", "mercuries", "quintessence", "undetermined matter", "spiritus mundi", etc.) and such like traps and literary & "philosophical" devices to make it more difficult to figure out. Despite all their "philosophizing", the alchemists knew very well what mattered and what made the difference between success and failure in alchemy. That's why they had little problem clearly explaining their theories/speculations (that does not mean that they necessarily make sense to us, since they are mostly based on a bunch of unproven assumptions, most going back to the speculations of Aristotle about matter, which the majority of alchemists quite uncritically accepted), but when it comes to the issue of the actual substances they worked with they deploy all the traps in the book, and then some! Theories/speculations = of little value in the real world; empirical facts = what really matters.

The "we are philosophers" bit is really more of a fantasy of the alchemists. They fancied themselves "philosophers" but were in fact empiricists at the core, even though they try to avoid admitting it as if it was the plague (for people so obsessed and infatuated with being seen as "philosophers", such a humble and truthful admission was out of the question.) Their theories and speculations about matter are adaptations of those of real speculative philosophers, specially Aristotle, to try to "explain" and give some supposed "intellectualism" to the empirical facts that they discovered. The result of this is a theoretical framework that can hardly be taken seriously: supposed "elements", "mercuries", "sulfurs" and the like things that nobody ever saw or had any proof of whatsoever being used to supposedly "explain" real things, actual facts. As Chaucer would say: "ignotum per ignotius!" ("explaining the unknown by the even more unknown!") What is really valuable about alchemy are its empirical facts, without the dead-weight of theories/speculations that the alchemists threw into the mix so they could go around trying to impress "the vulgar" and claiming to be "philosophers". These theoretical ruminations attached to alchemy are in fact more of an impediment than anything else, something one should strive to get rid of, not uncritically cherish and embrace them. Keep the empirical facts; dump the theoretical baggage.
 

Andro

Alchemical Adept
Magus de Moderatio
Patron of the Arts
Hermetic Pilgrim
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
7,719
I will repeat THE question:

WHAT is "matter"?

I'm still waiting to see if someone can come up with a genuine and logical explanation (as opposed to a mere "description").
 

Awani

Magus
Magus de Moderatio
Patron of the Arts
Hermetic Pilgrim
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
10,063
It's a solid thought as opposed to a fluid one.

:p
 

Florius Frammel

Lapidem
Patron of the Arts
Hermetic Pilgrim
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
1,193
Matter can be at least solid, fluid and gaseous.

To go beyond the level of description, usually a model or theory is needed to explain 'things' that are beyond our usual ability of perception (like the constitution of matter at its 'core').

Each model (I encountered so far) had an imanent possibility of falsification, including toes like these:

http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?3897-Tom-s-Big-TOE

If you go beyond models and theories, you know for sure without a doubt. That 'feeling' can be very subjective and vary from person to person and from time to time though.

So one would need to reach a state of empirical verified ultimate and 'eternal' truth to ultimately answer this question.
 

z0 K

Invenies
Honorable Meister
Hermetic Pilgrim
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
379
I will repeat THE question:

WHAT is "matter"?

I'm still waiting to see if someone can come up with a genuine and logical explanation (as opposed to a mere "description").

Matter is Substance. Its substance is Information Relative and Absolute depending upon understanding your point of view.