Sorry, I didn't know you had to be apart of the ''official'' science organization to be considered a puffer, spagyrists, or a chemist.
Chymists and spagyrists were 16th-18th century scientists, and chemists still are. They recorded the results of their investigations clearly (except in the case of transmutational chymistry, for which they often employed methods to mislead the "unworthy" and make them waste their time and money, an attitude they obviously derived from the similar one of the alchemists.)
Not quite. I can look at that situation as the same thing that's happening today. People considering One Matter to be ''colourful philosophy'' without actually understanding the concept.
The "concept" is very clear: fool the "unworthy" by tricking them into believing that it is really "one thing only" (quantitatively) and don't explain to them in clear terms that this supposed "one thing" is in fact a COMPOSITE of several put together by the alchemist himself. There is nothing else to this. It is nothing but a dirty trick, no matter how many excuses the more honest alchemists try to make up for those members of their "tribe" who liberally used it, and which ended up costing legions of seekers a lot of pain and sorrow, since they never found any such "one matter" anywhere in a natural setting. And how could they, really? Nature itself DOES NOT MAKE THE STONE, so even if nature knew how to concoct this "matter" it would have no use for it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, then, to easily predict that no one will ever find any such thing already made for their convenience "somewhere" outside of an alchemist's lab.
I guessing you don't think EVERY single book is alchemical I'm assuming, right? Then surely, the people who were considering One Matter to be a trap, I could argue that they were the same ones who didn't understand the approach themselves, just like how people TODAY even without actually attempting the One Matter approach, are saying it's a dead end!
Nice try, but when even such well-recognized authorities like Zosimos (quoted over and over and universally revered as a great authority on the subject by Alexandrian, Byzantine and Arabic alchemists for centuries) or "Theodorus Mundanus" (who even demonstrated the reality of the Stone to Dickinson and Boyle) clearly explain what the REAL meaning of this "one matter only" trap is, then you have to be on the alert not about what they explain, but about what the other lesser writers claim. Plus empirical reality is on their side too (for reasons already explained to you, but that you keep trying to brush aside), not on the "one matter only" pushers.
What makes those days different than today in regards to ''exposing One Matter ruse''?
Maybe because those days were the "golden age" of alchemy, while today the subject is widely misunderstood by the majority.
Investigation is one thing, but doing it correctly is another. I suppose we could ''investigate'' every single natural substance in hopes to create a new life form of some kind.. but certain life forms require suitable and strict environments in order to develop and then mature, and this is not just because of their extreme sensitivity in their ever-so fragile state.
Even the Emerald Tablet says to handle the matter ''gentle and with great ingenuity''.
I am talking about applying the same techniques of distillation that the alchemists employed on their "matter" (see the quoted example from one of Ripley's texts) but on single natural substances. The spagyrists, chymists and even chemists did that to death for centuries. They called that technique "analysis by fire", and they lifted it straight from the alchemists. No one ever found any such natural "one matter" that fully matches the descriptions of the alchemists, though.
In my opinion, lots of people have handled the matter in it's base state, but not knowing what it was, tossed it away, not knowing of its potential. Although, this is not one and the same as having ''found'' the matter, to have found something is to be able to identify that something you were looking for, so I agree to this extent, virtually no one has found the matter because they didn't know what it is that they were looking for, except probably a luminous bright red rock. The ones who DID find the matter kept silent, knowing it's great great potential
Again, the Stone doesn't give a hoot about what you think "it" is, not anymore than the Amazon river gave a hoot about what early explorers might have thought about it, yet nonetheless they discovered it. It is what it is, and it doesn't care what you think of it. You need to learn to distinguish between theories/speculation/conjectures and EMPIRICAL FACTS.
To each their own I guess... I thought Hermes and Paracelsus were quite the philosophers.
So were Plato and Aristotle, that doesn't mean they knew anything about making the Stone. Alchemy is not "philosophy", no matter how much most of its practitioners fancied themselves as such. It's an empirical science on which has been projected a series of theoretical beliefs in order to try to "explain" it and give it a supposedly more "dignified" character.