Is m-state alchemy?

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Is m-state alchemy?

Post  Dizardos on Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:25 pm

phliosehea wrote:Curiouser and curiouser...don't suppose you could be persuaded to post an introduction Dizardos?

I might indeed give some information about myself, but it might be more interesting to find out how certain perspectives on Alchemy are created. Therefore I will say that I come from the Netherlands and have been studying Alchemy for a number of years. I came upon it via the stories of Laurence Gardner and ORMUS, but there was something terribly wrong there. Gardner might have attempted to draw up a convincing picture, but his lack of true knowledge concerning the true biblical meanings and symbolism becomes very apparent when he uses words such as 'Adonai' in his book 'Lost Secrets of the Sacred Ark' (since this word might be used often, but is not the true name). Something such as this is not irrelevant when he uses his interpretation of the bible to demonstrate the knowledge and use of ORMUS. Via the book of Artephius I found the Art of Alchemy. When one is new to a certain art one holds the 'living experts' who remove the veil in great veneration. They know everything and you know nothing, or so it seems. As a busy ant one immediately moves to a variety of practical methods after having learned 'the basics', but when done one is the possessor of a worthless substance. One has lost time and expense. One might think that it is the skill of the operator that was inadequate and so one does more practical work with similar results. Some will work with such sophisticated methods until they are old, poor and bitter, always believing they were simply not as good as their master. Do not follow the naked emperors! Those who decide to follow someone better make sure they are adepts or at least well versed in the true Philosophy of the adepts. Naked emperors can be followed for all eternity, but tell me how this helps one with the creation of the Stone when one has no knowledge of what one is attempting to do with all kinds of sophisticated experiments except listening to the authority of others? Science is no different. If that was all that was needed, science would have found the Stone first! Ask the naked emperors whether there is a method behind the madness. Pierre speaks truthfully when he says that Nature is followed, but we are not merely following Nature. We are exalting her creations and therefore I do not hold the opinion that everything he has said about that is correct. We assist Her in ways that give life to creations that She could never produce on her own. Whatever you are doing, know what you are doing. Do not be content with recipes, but learn why it should work. Only hard work is able to move the mountain of ignorance. I believe that everyone who is so inflamed with the Philosophy of Alchemy, thinks about it all the time and works day and night will acquire the Crown jewel of the Study.

Everyone is free to discard or value my words, but if one finds that there is something worthy to be remembered, let it be this: When one has the true understanding, all true philosophers agree perfectly in their sayings as different as their words might seem to be.

Have a nice day!

Dizardos
avatar
Dizardos
Visita
Visita

Number of posts : 14
Registration date : 2008-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Regarding Adam McLean

Post  deviadah on Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:56 pm

I hope the mood in this thread is a positive one!

You know it is always good with a healthy debate...

Wink

solomon levi wrote:You've been asked what your proof is that m-state has nothing to do with alchemy and all you provided is Adam McLean, which isn't proof at all.
I have repect for McLeans work, but I also feel that there is a bit too much Phd attitude over him... if you get me? Let me quote him:
Many of these [discussion groups on alchemy] degenerated due to the participants not having any real scholarly solidity. People with diverse belief systems all seem to want to claim alchemy as reflecting their individual beliefs. My view is, that alchemy must be investigated and discussed in a scholarly way, using established methods of textual analysis, contextualising and historical referencing. Very few of the people interested in alchemy today seem to adopt that approach. - source
This approach is not necessarily wrong, but it is also not the whole picture - nor the only truth!

Third Eye

_________________
United we sleep, divided we dream!
avatar
deviadah
Occultum
Occultum

Number of posts : 875
Registration date : 2007-10-08

View user profile http://deviadah.blogspot.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Is m-state alchemy?

Post  theFool on Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:20 pm

I know that a lot of old recipies are ridiculous when seen under our modern light. Also, a lot of writers, may be mistaken in their recipies, especially when they don't say if they have tried it themselves or not. I don't give much credit to those recipies, especially when it comes to practical alchemy, because they could be dangerous at least. I just wrote those excerpts because I was pressed to give a connection between m-state and alchemy. I stay away from following others blindly but one must start from somewhere. My path, will be my own creation, God allowing.

"If you believe it is the true process, then try it and see if the theory corresponds to practice."

I don't think I'll take it to the end. I'm extremely cautious about any medicinal claims and still healthy :-). But I believe that here is described an "m-state" recipie.

" It creates an avalanche of confusion and chaos that takes along many loyal followers to the final destination: failure."

I see alchemy as a vast reservoir of knowledge waiting to be discovered. For me, every experiment I verify that can help expand the frontiers of our science, is a success. If my primary motive was transmutation or medicine, I would have been disappointed and stop doing it a long time ago.

Having a master when you begin, can be a blessing but later becomes the opposite.

"Do not be content with recipes, but learn why it should work."

That's why we must formulate a theory that should try to explain alchemy using facts reproducible by anyone. Without an Adept to quide us, we need it.

theFool
Interiora
Interiora

Number of posts : 56
Registration date : 2008-11-14

View user profile http://www.geocities.com/the.experimenter/frames.htm

Back to top Go down

Re: Is m-state alchemy?

Post  phliosehea on Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:20 am

deviadah: I have repect for McLeans work, but I also feel that there is a bit too much Phd attitude over him...
Yes...I concur. In general I respect his approach (to only use "source" material) but I believe somewhere along the way his "expertise" took over and replaced any "wonderment" with something cold and clinical. To some degree, reasoning is beneficial to understanding the work...but only after the tacit whisper from God that allows ones entry. Since that would be a "belief" based notion I doubt he will ever be more then a tourist. And I take this advice from his "source" material...that being- that only God grants these keys.
avatar
phliosehea
Rectificando
Rectificando

Number of posts : 130
Registration date : 2008-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Is m-state alchemy?

Post  deviadah on Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:30 am

phliosehea wrote:...but only after the tacit whisper from God that allows ones entry.
With the risk of getting this off topic I must ask exactly why you mean by God when you use it in your argument.

Third Eye

_________________
United we sleep, divided we dream!
avatar
deviadah
Occultum
Occultum

Number of posts : 875
Registration date : 2007-10-08

View user profile http://deviadah.blogspot.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Is m-state alchemy?

Post  solomon levi on Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:10 pm

Dizardos wrote:
solomon levi wrote:

You said it has nothing to do with alchemy.
I am arguing that, not that everything Hudson said is true.
If the a process used by a popular alchemist (Glauber) produces the same
result as one used by those working in what they claim to be m-state,
then I have proven m-state has to do with alchemy.

Did you even know that it is synonymous with calx of gold before you rejected it?

As a matter of fact many alchemists were also chemists so therefore it proves nothing. Boyle's process for the creation of phosphorus is neither alchemical for he was an alchemist and chemist. Even though many often practice alchemy and chemistry there is a great difference between them. Chemistry is the manipulation of dead matter, while alchemy is the manipulation of living matter. Considering this fact it is clear that M-state materials belong to the area of chemistry and not to alchemy. It might be said that M-state materials have the ability to heal, but so do many pharmaceutical products up to a certain extent. It proves nothing.

Neither does the word 'calx of gold' prove anything when the context is not clear. Alchemists never were the most lucid when describing their processes. I could have called it body of magnesia, Mars and a myriad of other names.

David Hudson was a sophist and a chemist, but never an alchemist. Who cares what he has read? During every age known there have been people who have managed to turn their riches into ashes and sulfurous smoke stirred to it by visions of ambitious alchemical rewards. Such a feat requires no difficulty. For every one who is successful a thousand manage to do this. No, even more, ten thousand!

M-state is no alchemy, but do not hold my word for it.The only living adept I 'know' says so (and just so that it is clear 'know' is a far too big word to use). It is no use to ask me to speak more on this issue, since I will not. You are free to believe that I am merely playing a game of bluff poker.

I believe that I can also speak in the name of others when I say that M-state materials can and will be of great use to our civilization, especially in the fields of energy and transportation, but it remains no alchemy.

Have a nice day everyone!

Dizardos

You say several times "it proves nothing".
It proves what I said it proves - that classical alchemists used the same processes
and ended up with the same materials - call it calx of gold or m-state - what does it matter
what you call it? Anyone doing the method will end up with the same result.

So if 'old alchemists' who used these methods/materials had "something" to do with alchemy,
it stands to reason that Hudson and m-state do too.

How can that be argued? It's pretty simple.

solomon levi
Rectificando
Rectificando

Number of posts : 262
Registration date : 2008-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Is m-state alchemy?

Post  Dizardos on Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:47 pm

solomon levi wrote:
Dizardos wrote:
solomon levi wrote:

You said it has nothing to do with alchemy.
I am arguing that, not that everything Hudson said is true.
If the a process used by a popular alchemist (Glauber) produces the same
result as one used by those working in what they claim to be m-state,
then I have proven m-state has to do with alchemy.

Did you even know that it is synonymous with calx of gold before you rejected it?

As a matter of fact many alchemists were also chemists so therefore it proves nothing. Boyle's process for the creation of phosphorus is neither alchemical for he was an alchemist and chemist. Even though many often practice alchemy and chemistry there is a great difference between them. Chemistry is the manipulation of dead matter, while alchemy is the manipulation of living matter. Considering this fact it is clear that M-state materials belong to the area of chemistry and not to alchemy. It might be said that M-state materials have the ability to heal, but so do many pharmaceutical products up to a certain extent. It proves nothing.

Neither does the word 'calx of gold' prove anything when the context is not clear. Alchemists never were the most lucid when describing their processes. I could have called it body of magnesia, Mars and a myriad of other names.

David Hudson was a sophist and a chemist, but never an alchemist. Who cares what he has read? During every age known there have been people who have managed to turn their riches into ashes and sulfurous smoke stirred to it by visions of ambitious alchemical rewards. Such a feat requires no difficulty. For every one who is successful a thousand manage to do this. No, even more, ten thousand!

M-state is no alchemy, but do not hold my word for it.The only living adept I 'know' says so (and just so that it is clear 'know' is a far too big word to use). It is no use to ask me to speak more on this issue, since I will not. You are free to believe that I am merely playing a game of bluff poker.

I believe that I can also speak in the name of others when I say that M-state materials can and will be of great use to our civilization, especially in the fields of energy and transportation, but it remains no alchemy.

Have a nice day everyone!

Dizardos

You say several times "it proves nothing".
It proves what I said it proves - that classical alchemists used the same processes
and ended up with the same materials - call it calx of gold or m-state - what does it matter
what you call it? Anyone doing the method will end up with the same result.

So if 'old alchemists' who used these methods/materials had "something" to do with alchemy,
it stands to reason that Hudson and m-state do too.

How can that be argued? It's pretty simple.

Read my words above again and then have a look at this link:

Glauber's professions

It matters greatly what someone calls it, for that makes one well or ill informed in relation to the true matter and method. Either way you should do what you believe is best. Everyone is rewarded or punished in correspondence with the quality of their actions. Time is the best teacher, although unfortunately our time is short until the solution is found.
avatar
Dizardos
Visita
Visita

Number of posts : 14
Registration date : 2008-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Is m-state alchemy?

Post  solomon levi on Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:15 am

Alchemists have a hundred names for our mercury - you can't deduce
from the name whether they know the source and the method.

The fact is, if you use the same method and call the product different names, they're
still the same product. This is the case with m-state and calx of gold according to the
method outlined before.

I read your words. The words "it proves nothing" are subjective.
It proves something to me. And it may be sufficient proof for other reasonable readers
that this method has something to do with alchemy since several alchemists utilised it.
And in some instances they used different methods and resulted in the same product.
This is all I'm trying to show - that it has something to do with alchemy, archemy, spagyria...
I'm not in any way saying this is my prefered method or something, so your comment about
doing what I believe is best is not appropriate. I don't believe it's best. I'm simply arguing that
this has something to do with alchemy. I've said that a couple times before. I don't think
you're listening to me.

solomon levi
Rectificando
Rectificando

Number of posts : 262
Registration date : 2008-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Is m-state alchemy?

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum