- Joined
- Feb 20, 2015
- Messages
- 685
Correction: first making an assumption BASED ON OBSERVED FACTS, not "out of the blue"!
Accepting a venerable theory as a working hypothesis is anything but "out of the blue"!
Correction: first making an assumption BASED ON OBSERVED FACTS, not "out of the blue"!
Accepting a venerable theory as a working hypothesis is anything but "out of the blue"!
Aristotle's theory that heavy (like a rock) and light (like a feather) objects fall at different speeds was also "venerable", yet it eventually proved to be quite mistaken.
Aristotle wasn’t mistaken at all. In a Natural environment, unadulterated by the manipulation of variables, the heavier object (rock) will always fall faster than the light one (feather). Also, this ‘theory’ of Aristotle’s, if I remember correctly, isn’t a theory at all. It was an example in support of his theory of natural motion, in which all bodies exhibit a certain quality and direction of motion based on their natural form in the natural world. Heavy objects tend to sink (rocks), light ones tend to float (smoke).
Thus, modern science hasn’t proven Aristotle wrong with the vacuum experiment, because Aristotle was talking about something completely different: natural motion in relation to the natural world. This all built into his philosophy of the Unmoved Mover. For science to prove Aristotle wrong, they’ll have to actually use their heads and form a counter argument against his theory of the Unmoved Mover.
You could say that science has made an assumption that they’re correct in regards to Aristotle’s theory.
But you’ll have to remember that Aristotle was a philosopher primarily. His works on physics were only to provide a foundation for his work on metaphysics.
Basically, it’s better to accept the reality of metaphysics in order to understand something like the ‘secret solvent’ than it is to disregard the reality of the Un-real.
Aristotle wasn’t mistaken at all. In a Natural environment, unadulterated by the manipulation of variables, the heavier object (rock) will always fall faster than the light one (feather). Also, this ‘theory’ of Aristotle’s, if I remember correctly, isn’t a theory at all. It was an example in support of his theory of natural motion, in which all bodies exhibit a certain quality and direction of motion based on their natural form in the natural world. Heavy objects tend to sink (rocks), light ones tend to float (smoke).
Thus, modern science hasn’t proven Aristotle wrong with the vacuum experiment, because Aristotle was talking about something completely different: natural motion in relation to the natural world. This all built into his philosophy of the Unmoved Mover. For science to prove Aristotle wrong, they’ll have to actually use their heads and form a counter argument against his theory of the Unmoved Mover.
You could say that science has made an assumption that they’re correct in regards to Aristotle’s theory.
But you’ll have to remember that Aristotle was a philosopher primarily. His works on physics were only to provide a foundation for his work on metaphysics.
Basically, it’s better to accept the reality of metaphysics in order to understand something like the ‘secret solvent’ than it is to disregard the reality of the Un-real.
Yes JDP, Kiorionis acknowledges this point, that Aristotle was not taking into account the action of vacuum. He was simply writing about his observations of nature, in her natural state, (which includes air resistance as a factor)
No scientific theory is final. Science is an open-ended endeavor, always in a state of flux. [------------------------------------------] So while not disregarding anything humanity has learned in modern times, seekers of alchemical wisdom would do well to look into the old teachings with an open mind - not just into the practice of the ancients but also into their theories. For there is gold to be found there.![]()
If the secret solvent is something that exists in everything then would it mean we can prepare it from anything or everything that exists around us? So long as done correctly to make it depending on the things used?
So it would depend, firstly which kingdom of living things do the components for it exist in? Organic (plants and animals), the Mineral or Metallic kingdoms?
I try to be as objective as possible. So if I get anything wrong a correction would be helpful. Since somebody mentioned the idea that the solvent embodies something that all existence is made up of or as we know it.Congratulations!
You just poked in the most heated debate on this forum!![]()
Oh was talking because it’s often what people have in mind that happens sometimes when things get heated but anyway. Onto what the solvent is made of and corresponding theory.Who said something about bashing?
If the secret solvent is something that exists in everything then would it mean we can prepare it from anything or everything that exists around us? So long as done correctly to make it depending on the things used?
So it would depend, firstly which kingdom of living things do the components for it exist in? Organic (plants and animals), the Mineral or Metallic kingdoms?
Energy is one thing that is said to make up the fabric of existence. Thus we would need to find a solvent that embodies or is a manifestation of that we can touch, work with in pure form for example if it’s true in this case?
some hypothetical bearded man in the sky was really watching over everyone's shoulders all the time and preventing "unworthy" people from succeeding without his "permission", as a very common fairy tale concocted by the alchemists themselves to try to impress the superstitious masses about the alleged "divine" nature of alchemy dictates.
Well I didn’t literally mean to say in anything, but I mean a component which resides in everything right. But cannot be extracted from everything necessarily with what we have.Think about it logically and without the hindrance of theoretical speculations and superstitious beliefs: does it sound reasonable to you that if the secret solvent was "everywhere", and could be prepared from just about anything, that there could also be such a massive rate of failure among seekers through the centuries??? These tireless "puffers" worked on virtually every damn substance at man's hand, and yet most of them kept on failing. Why, if supposedly it's "everywhere"? The fact is simply because it isn't! It is a specific substance and can only be made from a limited number of substances that will combine and react in the appropriate manner and proportions to generate it. That's the real reason why it has proved so difficult to discover, and not because some hypothetical bearded man in the sky was really watching over everyone's shoulders all the time and preventing "unworthy" people from succeeding without his "permission", as a very common fairy tale concocted by the alchemists themselves to try to impress the superstitious masses about the alleged "divine" nature of alchemy dictates.
The stone is not my first goal but more something eventual, if we can have a substance that can operate a basic level alchemical functions like his one if it does then it might be enough for me so far at least.The most revealing book about the secret solvent is Weidenfeld's "four books" (just google search).
One can argue about Paracelsius. He sure had some interesting menstrua ("the Alkahest"), but it's not clear if that really was the secret solvent, as he himself somewhere said he doesn't know how to make the stone.
Could the solvent be an allegory for ‘knowledge’ as some suggested or its most definitely something literal?
Well I didn’t literally mean to say in anything, but I mean a component which resides in everything right. But cannot be extracted from everything necessarily with what we have.
Thus in theory I meant if it’s that case for example we would need specific substances that can be used to harness them and not only that but a way of using them to make the solvent within a framework our universal laws allow with current technology, along with the senses we have from our current stage in evolution (‘we are only human’) atleast.
We can ‘try’ if it is something that is a universal component but within the current framework of what ‘reality’ allows it won’t work unless somebody discovers a way to harness them from ‘just about anything’. This is what I am trying to say if you pick up on it.
If for example it’s energy then the Alkahest would be a compound or mixture that is allowed by the framework of reality to embody that ‘energy which makes up all existence’ in its purest form possible.
P.S was the solvent mentioned to be something used by Paracelsus? Which specific people have used it if so?
Now I can see a funny side to this .... because just if this old bearded guy
is real and you have pissed him off .... then you may as well start a new hobby
stamp or coin collection because he is probably not going to let you enter the
Gates of Alchemy.![]()
Sure, if "He" is actually real. But wouldn't "He" be so totally pathetic and worthy of contempt if "He" spent his time looking over people's shoulders to see who is getting dangerously close to discovering how to make the Stone, only to capriciously decide if this or that individual is "worthy" or not, and then keep putting obstacles in his/her way to keep him/her from succeeding? Doesn't this fellow have better things to do, you know, with the universe being INFINITE and all??? I would think that such a supposed being would have his hands full with much bigger and urgent problems. "He" needs to get his priorities straight!
Assuming "He" is real, for the sake of discussion, what would make your finite contempt anything more than a joke to such a being? If such a being were there, and was purposefully setting traps and obstacles - perhaps it is to grow the seeker, rather than cruelly inhibit them with no other reason. Regardless, you (or anyone else's) supposed understanding of what makes a being like that tick, or suppositional notions of what "He" has better to do with the time, would be the epitome of arrogance. If the being is, as we comprehend the meaning, a god, or God - or even some higher dimensional being that possess extraordinary (to our perception) knowledge of the universe and how to bend and apply it and make such malleable to its whims and will, then who are you (or anyone else) to have a problem with it, or to think your reasoning is justified in critiquing/criticizing such?
Just as it is better to learn from a wiser peer or elder, so too should one learn from the traps and obstacles the Powers throw on us; whether we believe in them or not.
![]()
~Seth-Ra