Facebook
|
The Alchemy Academic Forum 251-300From August 13th 1996, the Alchemy forum was restructured and the messages were sequentially numbered prefixed with the letter A. This is an unedited extract of messages 251-300.Go to next 50 messages . Back to alchemy academic forum archive. Subject: A0251 The works of Geber From: Adam McLean Date: 8 Oct 1996 Does anyone possess or have access to a copy of 'The works of Geber' translated by Richard Russell? This was originally printed in 1686, but a modern reprint was issued, edited by E.J. Holmyard in 1928. I do have access to the original edition, in the Ferguson collection, but it is not possible for a photocopy to be made at present. This is an important and influential treatise on physical and philosophical alchemy, and I would like to have this transcribed for the alchemy web site. If someone could provide me with a good quality photocopy of the 1928 edition, then it might be possible for me to scan this text and make it available on the web site. Adam McLean Subject: A0252 Rota Solis web site From: Christian Vanden Berghen Date: 8 Oct 1996 I am pleased to announce the launch of the new French-language ROTA SOLIS site, specialising in the fields of spirituality, comparative religion, and the sciences related to the wisdom tradition such as alchemy. The site is subtitled, 'Votre Guide pour la Spiritualite Francophone' but contains some English material as well. Christian Vanden Berghen [email protected] http://www.iocom.be/rotasolis/ Subject: A0253 The language of the Birds and 'Symbolic Thinking' From: Christian Kiefer Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 09:26:24 -8 Rawn: Your response to Flamel was very interesting and thought provoking. A few comments: > "Meaning" is the very essence of things. It is that which 'things' > symbolize. So perhaps "meaning" is the medium of Universal communication, > and is a consequence of the Universal structure, not limited wholly to human > imputation. Our imputing of meaning is our part, in our conversation, with a > Universe which speaks to us by imputing its own meaning through the things we > perceive. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with this, Rawn, but I'm having a little trouble with it simply because I'm uncomfortable with the premise that the term "meaning" can be applied to the Universe (capital "U" noted). I question this from a standpoint of language. After all -- isn't "meaning" a human construction and, if so, how can it be applied to anything but the human? More of this to follow... > The more we know about ourselves and our individual processes of perception, > the easier it is to know when a flock of birds is just a flock of birds. True, but again, if we know how we process, from psychological to physiological, how much does this really reveal to us about the "Universal structure" of things? This is not a rhetorical question. > Our > minds (and by this, I mean the broad spectrum of human consciousness, not > just that limited to the physical brain) are capable of self-knowledge, > giving us (after much labor) the power to discern between the meaning > communicated by 'other', and the response of 'self'. I'm not sure it's possible to reach a level whereby one can discern between the meaning of the "other" and the response of the "self." Aren't they one and the same in human consciousness, or is this an ideal (like the satori) that we can strive for but (probably) never reach? > At this level, the > rules of perception are quite different: meaning is communicated more > directly as the instinctual imputation of meaning is set aside. These > barriers to direct communication of meaning can be greatly mitigated by the > intimate knowledge of their nature. This allows one to see through them, as > it were, to the meaning communicated by the essential Universe. This sounds like mystical hooey to me, Rawn (but of course, I mean that in an open-minded, positive way). Is this coming from Eastern philosophy? I mean Blake said the same thing in the "Marriage of Heaven and Hell," but do you think that there was an implication there that the doors of perception could ACTUALLY be cleansed, or was he just stating the impossibility of reaching that level of consciousness? It's fine to state that "everything would appear as it is: infinite," but if humans can't reach that state: 1) how would Blake or anyone know? and 2) why waste your breath on it? Again, I'm asking, not criticizing (well, O.K., I'm criticizing, too, but it's all so darned thought-provoking...). > Conscious perception of the essential Universe, without the barrier of > interposed human-meaning, allows one the ability to form a *conscious* > response. This degree of self-consciousness seems an essential prerequisite > to a genuine exploration of our Universe. Perhaps it was with this basic > degree of adepthood that many of the Sages wrote? If so, it may color your > considerations of "how the alchemists imputed symbolic meaning to their > empirical observations and experience." Reversing the equation to read: "how > their empirical observations and experience imputed symbolic meaning to the > alchemists", proves amusing...and may actually be an equally productive > meditation. So what you're saying is that the world presents its own symbolic meaning if we can view it without all our human filters? Am I on the right track, or any track at all? > Thanks for making me think so much! Ditto, Rawn. Best, Christian Subject: A0254 The language of the Birds and 'Symbolic Thinking' Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 21:47:03 +0100 From: Maurizio Nicosia With true interest I have followed Flamel's considerations and commentaries on the Omega letter of Zosimo, an alchemist whose historical, philosophical and doctrines we still don't understand fully. I thought even to ask him a comparison with the John Dee's Monas. Then the Language of the Birds has orientated us elsewhere. It is the second time that Flamel, with much kindly appreciations, draws the edge of my coat on the subject of the Language of the Birds (A0194 > A0212, A0224 > A0243). Always Flamel listens with both ears, as well as if, evidently, his recent reflections are surely previous to the meeting with MASTER CANCHES... "...whatever stage of psychological development humanity may be in, the innate pre-existent pattern of causality by necessity manifests itself in the human attempt to understand our surroundings. I wonder - Flamel wrote - if this is what Maurizio Nicosia had in mind in his aforementioned remarks?" Flamel wonders, substantially, if I would think of causality as "pre-existent pattern in the psyche". I fear I have not been clear. Maybe too hermetic? I hope that you forgive me. I didn't think of causality and the "pre-existent pattern in the psyche", but their surmounting. I thought, moreover, of the difference between the map and the territory. I didn't think, above all, of the examples, frankly disconcerting for me, which Flamel proposes maybe as paradoxes. Flamel wrote: "my post is a brief reflection on the general problem of making meaning out of experience and a contemporary illustration using the 'language of the birds' ... One example: A patient in hospital, one day watched some sparrows fluttering around outside the ward window. He asked himself, "what's causing them to be fluttering around like that?" He decided God was trying to talk to him through the movements of those sparrows and as he looked at them he thought he got what the message was. The message was: God wanted to tell him that he's the new messiah. That's causality operating; he looks at a phenomenon and he's not content with the idea that's its just random and meaningless, but he assumes it has to have a meaning, so meaning is imposed on it". Neglecting the pathological implications, and it would not lack to do so, this is not an example of the language of birds, but of the delirium of men. Some years ago, I visited Jupiter's cave in the Idas Mountains in Crete. At the end of my visit, I drove toward Faistos. On the summit of the Idas Mountains I thought, with a certain regret, that I didn't see an eagle. Some seconds later an eagle furrowed the sky scarcely a metre over my car, exceeding it. I stopped the car and went down. The eagle had ascending whirling over my car, slowly, regally. Briefly the eagles became three, then five, composing a 'meaningful' geometrical pattern... Some minutes later they disappeared from my sight. It had been a really touching experience, but I never thought to be the new messiah, nor the reincarnation of Alexander the Great. Nor, may I add, that God was trying to talk to me. It had been a good 'sign' and I put it aside for my fine remembrances. A sign which maybe Jung would index to the antipodes of causality, that which he called synchronistic, those types of experiences released from the law of cause and effect. Surely the causality, according the Flamel's definition, is one and the first of the "pre-existent patterns in the psyche". After Kant, Kierkegaard has often repeated that the duty of man is to give meaning, even to the unmeaningful. The Zarathustra of Nietzsche similarly repeats that man is the redeemer of casualness. In their philosophy are two strong aspects which I see are missing in the psychological approach of Flamel: 1) the choice (in the attribution of meaning) 2) the reaching of a consciousness superior, higher, above reason and the same ordinary consciousness (the daily dozing), a superior consciousness literally at the antipodes from unconscious pulsions (promptings). The 'summa' of Kantism is in Schopenhauer's concept of world as representation; "When I think about how I find meaning out of my experience - Flamel wrote - I realize that whatever I perceive from without or within is a representation or image". Flamel finely distinguishes representation from image. There are two forms of representation: percepts, or perceptions, and images. If I observe a cubic stone, I see only three of six faces, my 'perception' is always partial. If I think the cube, with his six faces, his eight edges etc., in my 'image' there is all, it's total (J.P. Sartre, "L'imaginaire", chap. I). The report (link) between percept and image slackens itself in the chance of Tritons triangles, or dissolves in the chance of Plato's dodecahedrons (well less visibles in nature, not 'perceptibles' if not from mind). I thought about the surmounting of perception, and of image, also. Symbols are images, not percepts. But the symbol of the light is not the light, and the symbol of materia prima is not materia prima, of course. Symbol is a 'road sign' which indicates the destination. It is a Philo-sophia, not a Sophia. It is a map, not a territory. When Nature becomes readable, she becomes a map. And when we have this map between the hands, where do we go? Toward the territory which the map describes. The alchemists said so: "to follow the tracks of the Nature". Until there are representations, perceptions, images or symbols, there is a subject, there is an object. With my short reflection I searched for to say that the Language of the Birds is a 'way' to indicate the experience of the surmounting of the dualism of subject-object. I searched for to say, also, that it is necessary to break the book, to see Diana's doves. In conclusion: the Language of the Birds is not a symbol. It is an experience. Which? What do the birds do? Flamel wrote: "Should we, like others have done, just condemn their ideas or dismiss their perceptions as scientifically unfounded, and therefore just attempt to understand them as strange curiosities in the history of ideas; or should we resort to metaphysical hypostases to explain what they said, indeed, as others who have tried to come to terms with this material have done?" My answer is implicit in this quotation of Plotinus, who wrote of an experience, not of a symbol, an experience typical of hermetism: "All men, till the birth, use senses before the intelligence and in first place fall into sensible things: some remain with these for all their life and believe that things are first and last ... These people are similar to those heavy birds which had much earthliness, and becoming heavy, aren't able to fly up, but receiving their wings from Nature ... Others rise not much from the lower, because the best part of their soul pushes them from pleasure towards the *beautiful*, but not being able to see the summits, they fall down, toward the practical life ... And there is a family of divine men who have a greater *vigour* (virtus) and an acuter sight, with which they see with a penetrating look the splendour up there, and rise up to the clouds and the earthly fog..." (Plot., Enn., V 9, 1). These divine men, who have completed the viaticum, try a new experience: the regeneration. They live a new birth. Nay: a new bir�. With my best wishes, Your Maurizio Nicosia [email protected] Subject: A0255 The works of Geber Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 08:37:18 +1000 (EST) From: Gionni Di Gravio Dear Adam, The Works of Geber have recently been republished by Weiser Publishers. Gionni Di Gravio [email protected] Subject: A0256 The language of the Birds and 'Symbolic Thinking' Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 01:05:43 -0400 From: Rawn Clark Dear Christian, >I wouldn't necessarily disagree with this, Rawn, but I'm having a >little trouble with it simply because I'm uncomfortable with the >premise that the term "meaning" can be applied to the Universe >(capital "U" noted). I question this from a standpoint of language. >After all -- isn't "meaning" a human construction and, if so, how can >it be applied to anything but the human? More of this to follow... I use the word meaning to denote "what is expressed". This is different than "what is understood", understanding being relative and never complete in communication between separate individuals. Our perspective as physical beings, is that all non-physical things are less real than physical things. We compare the astral and mental realities to the physical, employing physical standards to do so (instead of astral and mental standards), and conclude that they are symbolic of the physical, substantial reality. But this is only a product of this particular perspective. From the astral, and especially, from the mental realms, the conclusions reverse and it becomes clear that the physical symbolizes the astral and mental. Both perspectives are half right. Adding the two together reveals a Universe in which the Above is connected with the Below, through a continuum of Alikeness. Idea and thought are the materia of the mental realm. At the more rarified levels of the mental realm, even the symbols (such as words) we clothe our ideas and thoughts with, fall away. What is revealed is essential meaning. This is the root which expresses itself throughout the continuum, all the way "down" the scale of vibration into physical manifestation. The Above expresses Itself through the Below (immanence). So yes, "meaning is the stuff of things"...every physical thing expresses an inherant, essential meaning. The *communication* of that essential expression is extremely complex, since it involves self and other. >> The more we know about ourselves and our individual processes of >>perception, the easier it is to know when a flock of birds is just a flock of birds. > >True, but again, if we know how we process, from psychological to >physiological, how much does this really reveal to us about the >"Universal structure" of things? This is not a rhetorical question. Just understanding our nature, in and of itself, does little unless it is actively applied to the nitty gritty level of our personal perceptions and communication. When applied there, it (knowing how we process) is a tool with which we can discriminate between an observed essential-expression-of-meaning, and our instinctual responses through which we usually filter the Universe. These instinctual processes of perception do not just disappear; instead, they are set aside. They still occur, but do not consume the conscious awareness in their activity. One's conscious awareness is focused upon the essential-meaning-expressed -- separate from the known processes of self. Nor are the results of the known-processes-of-self discarded. The information they provide, when compared to one's unfiltered perception, is very telling in terms of furthering one's self-understanding. This information speaks with a voice of its own, expressing its own meaning as well. At any rate, knowing ourselves is the first step in learning about the external Universe. Applying this knowledge internally allows us a clearer picture of the essential Universe, simply because it allows us to *consciously* distinguish between self and other. Another aspect of my answer to your question, is that our internal mechanisms of perception are a part of Nature. They reflect the whole of Nature in the same way that anything else does. Their study, and especially the practical application of what one learns, invariably adds to one's understanding of Nature's ways (Universal structure). "How much does this really reveal to us..." is a question no one can truly answer for another. For me personally, following this philosophy works, producing results which are personally satisfying. I recommend it to others, and know a few other practitioners for whom it is an equally fruitful approach. >I'm not sure it's possible to reach a level whereby one can discern >between the meaning of the "other" and the response of the "self." >Aren't they one and the same in human consciousness, or is this an >ideal (like the satori) that we can strive for but (probably) never >reach? I assure you that it is indeed quite possible to reach such a level of self-consciousness, though there are probably very few who can maintain such a level indefinately. My experience has been that at first this level of mentation was only touched upon briefly and fleetingly. Slowly, over time and with disciplined practice, I have been able to increase my clock-time in this state, and render it a reliably accessible state. >This sounds like mystical hooey to me, Rawn (but of course, I mean >that in an open-minded, positive way). ;-) It is mystical (at least my particular phrasing of it makes it seem so), and at the same time quite practical. It is not hooey to me. >Is this coming from Eastern philosophy? This is coming from my understanding of my experience. Hermetic philosophy and Qabbalah in particular, have greatly influenced me. >I mean Blake said the same thing in the "Marriage of >Heaven and Hell," Sorry, I haven't read this. My official education ended with highschool (in the USA, that means I missed out on Blake), and everything since then has been selective self-education...I seem to have left out so much. >So what you're saying is that the world presents its own symbolic >meaning if we can view it without all our human filters? Am I on the >right track, or any track at all? Right track...take this turn: the world presents its own symbolic meaning, regardless of if or how we view it. We have the option of peering around our instinctual filters, instead of looking exclusively through them. >> Thanks for making me think so much! > >Ditto, Rawn. And ditto to your ditto! Best to you, Rawn Clark Subject: A0257 The language of the Birds and 'Symbolic Thinking' Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 09:17:44 -0500 From: George Leake >>flamel wrote >>The basic idea is that the mind, by the necessity of its very structure, must >>impute meaning to its experience. This hypothesis, if true, has important >>implications in understanding how the alchemists imputed symbolic meaning to >>their empirical observations and experience. >From: Rawn Clark >"Meaning" is the very essence of things. It is that which 'things' >symbolize. So perhaps "meaning" is the medium of Universal communication, >and is a consequence of the Universal structure, not limited wholly to human >imputation. Our imputing of meaning is our part, in our conversation, with a >Universe which speaks to us by imputing its own meaning through the things we >perceive. *the flaw here is nobody I know can know truly my thoughts or anyone else's--who are we to judge whether "meaning" can be a medium of Universal communication? Perhaps within the confines of one's own temple walls, perhaps. [snip] >Conscious perception of the essential Universe, without the barrier of >interposed human-meaning, *wait--what exactly do you mean here? Can there be perception without consciousness(i.e. the interposing of human-meaning, as it were)? Perhaps you mean among living things other than humans? Or as recorded on a video camera perhaps? And I have no idea what you mean by an "essential Universe". Do you mean the perceived universe from a human perspective but say without interpretation? allows one the ability to form a *conscious* >response. This degree of self-consciousness seems an essential prerequisite >to a genuine exploration of our Universe. Perhaps it was with this basic >degree of adepthood that many of the Sages wrote? If so, it may color your >considerations of "how the alchemists imputed symbolic meaning to their >empirical observations and experience." Reversing the equation to read: "how >their empirical observations and experience imputed symbolic meaning to the >alchemists", proves amusing...and may actually be an equally productive >meditation. *this brings us back to the definition of magic--to extend this thought--perhaps the same data gets perceived differently when the recorder has his tuner adjusted differently. George Leake [email protected] Subject: A0258 Works of Geber From: Adam McLean Date: 9 oct 1996 My thanks to those subscribers who have pointed out to me that the Richard Russel translation of The Works of Geber is available in a Weiser reprint. Consequently, as it is easily available, I do not think that there is any need at present to produce a transcription for the web site. Adam McLean Subject: A0259 The language of the Birds and 'Symbolic Thinking' From: Christian Kiefer Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 09:32:18 -8 Rawn: On meaning: > I use the word meaning to denote "what is expressed". This is different than > "what is understood", understanding being relative and never complete in > communication between separate individuals. O.K. > Our perspective as physical beings, is that all non-physical things are less > real than physical things. And this could also be applied to "conscious" and "non-conscious" beings (humans compared to bugs) and "animate" and "inanimate" beings (humans compared to, say, rocks -- although some humans I know are dull as rocks so perhaps this is a bad example). > We compare the astral and mental realities to the > physical, employing physical standards to do so (instead of astral and mental > standards), and conclude that they are symbolic of the physical, substantial > reality. But this is only a product of this particular perspective. From > the astral, and especially, from the mental realms, the conclusions reverse > and it becomes clear that the physical symbolizes the astral and mental. Perhaps, but this takes the quantum leap in assuming that what is real is not necessariliy the physical plane. I'm not saying that you're not correct here, Rawn, but geez you could write a whole 15 volume set on the "reality" of the astral (dreams, thoughts, etc.) and the physical. Very, very interesting concept that the physical symbolizes the astral and mental, though -- and I guess it's right in keeping with the idea that the world is just a representation of the mind -- i.e., this is all a dream, you're all in my head, how can I stop the voices, why am I am this straightjacket, I want my mommy! Sorry. Slipped a little. But I'm back now. > Both perspectives are half right. Adding the two together reveals a > Universe in which the Above is connected with the Below, through a continuum > of Alikeness. I like it, but how can be reconcile the two. The seem, after all, to be opposites. Certainly the astral can't represent the physical while the physical represents the astral -- or do you have a theory on the possibility of this? > Idea and thought are the materia of the mental realm. At the more rarified > levels of the mental realm, even the symbols (such as words) we clothe our > ideas and thoughts with, fall away. What is revealed is essential meaning. > This is the root which expresses itself throughout the continuum, all the > way "down" the scale of vibration into physical manifestation. The Above > expresses Itself through the Below (immanence). Sorry, but I don't follow. I realize that there is alot of talk about this "rarified level of the mental realm" where all is infinite, etc., etc., but I've never entirely bought into it. That is: I realize that everything is connected, etc. and have had a religious experience of two, mostly when dangling over a crevasse on some lost frozen mountain somewhere, but what you seem to be saying is that if all the symbolic & mythological trappings of our mind are allowed to depart what we will then perceive of the physical world will be TRUE and infinite. If this is true, then it is still the physical world being filtered through the consciousness: even if "the doors of perception" are wiped clean. > So yes, "meaning is the stuff of things"...every physical thing expresses an > inherant, essential meaning. The *communication* of that essential > expression is extremely complex, since it involves self and other. Same comment as above, and I'm still not convinced that all "stuff" expresses something. This seems to denote intent, God, or something else. Yes? > Just understanding our nature, in and of itself, does little unless it is > actively applied to the nitty gritty level of our personal perceptions and > communication. When applied there, it (knowing how we process) is a tool > with which we can discriminate between an observed > essential-expression-of-meaning, and our instinctual responses through which > we usually filter the Universe. I'll buy that. > These instinctual processes of perception do not just disappear; instead, > they are set aside. They still occur, but do not consume the conscious > awareness in their activity. One's conscious awareness is focused upon the > essential-meaning-expressed -- separate from the known processes of self. I'll buy that too. (Soon I'll be out of cash, though, you you'd better not say anything else I agree with or I'll have to take out a loan.) > Nor are the results of the known-processes-of-self discarded. The > information they provide, when compared to one's unfiltered perception, is > very telling in terms of furthering one's self-understanding. This > information speaks with a voice of its own, expressing its own meaning as > well. > At any rate, knowing ourselves is the first step in learning about the > external Universe. Applying this knowledge internally allows us a clearer > picture of the essential Universe, simply because it allows us to > *consciously* distinguish between self and other. Yeah, O.K., although doesn't any distinguishing between self and other block that whole view of the essential meaning of the Universe you were talking about earlier: i.e., isn't one of the points of such a view that the self is part of, and therefore intisguishable from, that "meaning"? > Another aspect of my answer to your question, is that our internal mechanisms > of perception are a part of Nature. They reflect the whole of Nature in the > same way that anything else does. Their study, and especially the practical > application of what one learns, invariably adds to one's understanding of > Nature's ways (Universal structure). Exactly my question re: the self and the other. > "How much does this really reveal to us..." is a question no one can truly > answer for another. For me personally, following this philosophy works, > producing results which are personally satisfying. I recommend it to others, > and know a few other practitioners for whom it is an equally fruitful > approach. Actually, Rawn, the whole thing sounds not unlike my own personal philosophy. I think we're just arguing about how to describe it but I think it all works out. Be it zazen, Qabbalah, or cat juggling, we're all just trying to get more connected to this big, blood-filled rock. > >I'm not sure it's possible to reach a level whereby one can discern > >between the meaning of the "other" and the response of the "self." > >Aren't they one and the same in human consciousness, or is this an > >ideal (like the satori) that we can strive for but (probably) never > >reach? > > I assure you that it is indeed quite possible to reach such a level of > self-consciousness, though there are probably very few who can maintain such > a level indefinately. My experience has been that at first this level of > mentation was only touched upon briefly and fleetingly. Slowly, over time > and with disciplined practice, I have been able to increase my clock-time in > this state, and render it a reliably accessible state. I'm impressed. Are you going to start a center ala the Bagwan Shree Rasneesh? Don't mind me -- just being a facitious bastard. Really, if you can achieve this state on a regular basis I'm very much impressed. Do you use meditation --- ? > >This sounds like mystical hooey to me, Rawn (but of course, I mean > >that in an open-minded, positive way). > > ;-) It is mystical (at least my particular phrasing of it makes it seem so), > and at the same time quite practical. It is not hooey to me. I'm glad. > >Is this coming from Eastern philosophy? > > This is coming from my understanding of my experience. Hermetic philosophy > and Qabbalah in particular, have greatly influenced me. Areas where I lack, I'm afraid -- hence why I joined this discussion group. > >I mean Blake said the same thing in the "Marriage of > >Heaven and Hell," > > Sorry, I haven't read this. My official education ended with highschool (in > the USA, that means I missed out on Blake), and everything since then has > been selective self-education...I seem to have left out so much. Blaahahhahah what? You haven't read Blake? Tisk tisk. Read it, Rawn. It's about precisely what you've been talking about. If I can find it on the net I'll E-mail it to you. > >So what you're saying is that the world presents its own symbolic > >meaning if we can view it without all our human filters? Am I on the > >right track, or any track at all? > > Right track...take this turn: the world presents its own symbolic meaning, > regardless of if or how we view it. We have the option of peering around our > instinctual filters, instead of looking exclusively through them. I'm turning, but it's a long train and the coal smoke makes the sky black. Best wishes, Christian Subject: A0260 The language of the Birds and 'Symbolic Thinking' From: Adam McLean Date: 9 Oct 1996 I noted some of the discussions (between Rawn Clark and Christian Kiefer, and between Maurizio Nicosia and Flamel) concerning symbols and perceptions, and the way the human mind imposes meaning upon experiences. Here is a short account, I discovered today, by the alchemist and doctor Johann Baptista van Helmont, of a vision he had of his soul. His reaction to this perhaps reveals something of his pragmatism and ability to face up to the realities of his vision. After having a profound experience of seeing his soul in a mystic rapture, he eventually realises that he must put his faith rather in his mind and his intellectual thinking. Adam McLean --------------- In the year 1610, after a long weariness of contemplation, that I might acquire some gradual knowledge of my own mind, since I was then of opinion, that self-cognition was the complement of wisdom, fallen by chance into a calm sleep, and rapt beyond the limits of reason, I seemed to be in a hall sufficiently obscure. On my left hand was a table, and on it a fairly large vial, wherein was a small quantity of liquor: and a voice from that liquor spoke unto me: "Wilt thou honour and riches?" At this unwanted voice, I became surprised with extreme amazement. I walked up and down, seriously considering with myself, what this should design. By and by, on my right hand, appeared a chink in the wall, through which a light invaded my eyes with unwanted splendor: which made me wholly forgetful of the liquor, voice and former counsel. Then pensively returning to the vial, I took it away with me; and attempted to taste the liquor, but with tedious labour I opened the vial, and assaulted with extreme horror I awakened. But my ancient intense desire of knowing the nature of my soul, in which I had panted incessantly for thirteen whole years together, constantly remained with me. At length, amidst the anxious afflictions of various afflictions of various fortunes, when yet I hoped a Sabbath of tranquillity from the security of an innocent life transacted, in a vision I had the sight of my soul. It was a transcendent light, in the figure of a man, whose whole was homogenous, actively discerning, a substance spiritual, crystalline, and lucent by its own native splendor. But enshrined it was in a second nebulous part, as the husk or exterior cortex of itself, I could hardly distinguish, by reason of the superlative fulgor of the crystalline spirit enshrouded within it. Yet this I could easily discern, that there was no sexual impress, but only in the cortex or shrine. But the mark of the crystal was light ineffable, so reflexed, that the crystal image itself became incomprehensible: and that not by negation or privation (since these terms only accommodate to our imbecility) otherwise than this, that it presented a majestic Ens, which cannot be expressed by words; yet so finely, that you could not have comprehended the quiddity of the thing beheld. And then it was revealed unto me, that this light was the same, which I had glimpse of twenty three years before. And these things I saw by an intellectual vision in my mind; for had the eye of my body once beheld this resplendent excessive object, it would for ever after have ceased from vision, and constantly have celebrated a blind man's holy day. And thus my dream discovered unto me, that the beauty of the human soul doth far transcend all conception of thought. At that instant I comprehended thus much, that my long desire of seeing my soul was vain and fruitless; and thereupon I did acquiesce. For however beautiful the crystalline spirit did appear; yet my soul retained nothing of perfection from that vision, as at other times she was wont to do after an intellectual vision. And so I came to be instructed, that my mind, in this somnial vision, had as it were acted the part of a third person; nor was the discovery sufficiently satisfactory to compensate so earnest and insatiate a desire of exploration. van Helmont, Johan Baptista. A ternary of paradoxes. London, 1650. Subject: A0261 The language of the Birds and 'Symbolic Thinking' From: Christian Kiefer Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 12:41:30 -8 Rawn: The William Blake I was referencing is: ------------------- The ancient tradition that the world will be consumed in fire at the end of six thousand years is true, as I have heard from Hell. For the cherub with his flaming sword is hereby commanded to leave his guard at tree of life, and when he does, the whole creation will be consumed, and appear infinite, and holy whereas it now appears finite & corrupt. This will come to pass by an improvement of sensual enjoyment. But first the notion that man has a body distinct from his soul, is to be expunged: this I shall do, by printing in the infernal mehtod, by corrosives, which in Hell are salutary and medicinal, melting apparent surfaces away, and displaying the infinite which was hid. If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern. -------------------------------------------- This is one paragraph out of a book-length poem called "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell." If you want to chat about it, best to do so outside of the Alchemy group as I think we'll be deviating off the topic. Best, Christian [email protected] Subject: A0262 Condolences Date: Thu, 10 Oct 96 14:13 NZST From: Pat Zalewski I have just heard that the wife of well known alchemist, Hans Nintzel, has passed on after a long illness. I am sure that many of us here that know Hans, would wish to pass on their condolences to Hans, along with best wishes and support for the future from many members of the forum. Pat Zalewski Subject: A0263 The language of the Birds and 'Symbolic Thinking' Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 00:17:02 -0400 From: KEEPERH2O I have thoroughly enjoyed the dialogue between Rawn Clark and Christian Kiefer, and others... I thought I would inject something here since I have learned something recently that may have some obtuse bearing on the subject matter -- May I apologize in advance if this has already been noted by another: There is a tribe existant on the Arabian Penninsula, in Oman, that stradles the ancient caravan route through the country of the Uberites. These people claim to be descendants of those who were the contemporaries of Egyptians, Babalonians, Persians, Greeks and Romans. They still gather the frankincense resin in the old way. In those days the resin was in such demand that it was equal in value with gold. Thus the Roman desigantion of "Arabia Felix" (Fortunate Arabia) to this wealthy land. The language these people speak today is known by their neighbors as, "The Language of the Birds." An aside. In his recent post, Christian Kiefer tells Rawn, >I like it, but how can be(we) reconcile the two.(?) The(y) seem, after >all, to be opposites. Certainly the astral can't represent the physical >while the physical represents the astral -- or do you have a theory on the >possibility of this? I see astral and physical bodies not as opposites at all but rather a continuum from subtle to denser vibration. Keeper Subject: A0264 The language of the Birds and 'Symbolic Thinking' From: greg Date: 9 Oct 1996 22:17:18 PDT Flamel, >...the innate pre-existent pattern of causality by necessity >manifests itself in the human attempt to understand our surroundings. I think that the phrase: "the innate pre-existing pattern of causality" is inherently corraling the perception of experience into a one sided view. While I believe that patterns exist that are indeed pre-existent, they may not necessarily manifest as a result of cause-and-effect relationship. Doesn't the attitude of the subject take part in the characterization of the experience as causal or non-causal? I mean if one is looking for causes, there's usually some "hook" around to hang one on.. (usually outside oneself). >One example: A patient in hospital, one day watched some sparrows >fluttering around outside the ward window. He asked himself,"what's >causing them to be fluttering around like that?" He decided God was >trying to talk to him through the movements of those sparrows and as >he looked at them he thought he got what the message was. The >message was: God wanted to tell him that he's the new messiah. >That's causality operating; he looks at a phenomenon and he's not >content with the idea that's its just random and meaningless, but >he assumes it has to have a meaning, so meaning is imposed on it. Are these the choices, pathology or meaninglessness? What if the patient's response was to something actual, that there was something in him--a feeling perhaps--that this experience was connecting to, but being ill, his interpretation was off "the deep end." Rawn Clark said: >Thanks for making me think so much! I second that emotion. Christian: >Perhaps, but this takes the quantum leap in assuming that what is >real is not necessarily the physical plane. "Quantum leap" is just about right. Have you had a look lately at what quantum physicists are saying about mind and matter? Try "The Dreaming Universe" by Fred Alan Wolf. Greg [email protected] Subject: A0265 The language of the Birds and 'Symbolic Thinking' From: Christian Kiefer Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 15:12:19 -8 Adam & Co.: > I noted some of the discussions (between Rawn Clark and Christian Kiefer, > and between Maurizio Nicosia and Flamel) concerning symbols and perceptions, > and the way the human mind imposes meaning upon experiences. Here is a short > account, I discovered today, by the alchemist and doctor Johann Baptista van > Helmont, of a vision he had of his soul. His reaction to this perhaps > reveals something of his pragmatism and ability to face up to the realities > of his vision. After having a profound experience of seeing his soul in a > mystic rapture, he eventually realises that he must put his faith rather in > his mind and his intellectual thinking. Great quote & right in line with what Rawn & I have been discussing. Thanks for sharing. It's always an interesting paradox when we intellectually discuss throwing out the intellect! Best, Christian Subject: A0266 The language of the Birds and 'Symbolic Thinking' Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 16:09:23 -0400 From: Flamel I appreciated the responses so far that have been made to this thread. Let me try to clarify what I wrote and still remain within the scope of the Alchemy Forum. I apologize if my lack of clarity led to some misunderstandings of what I was trying to communicate. My main point was an attempt to come to terms with what the old masters wrote about their experience in observing their flasks. How did they arrive at the meaning of what they saw was the question I posed. How did they come to understand those extraordinary images we find in their texts? My hypothesis was that all acts of apperception are influenced by the pre-existent form-patterns of the human mind, that is, instinctual forms of mental functioning - forms, not contents. The example I tried to use to demonstrate my hypothesis was *one* of the form-patterns, that is, my reference to causality. Certainly this was one of the most important ways the alchemists imputed meaning to their empirical observations. I did not say this was the only category of human understanding. I tried to briefly elucidate what causality was and to explain, all to briefly, about the distinction between my perception of a "real" object and its corresponding internal representation or image. I confessed that my subjective image is only grossly identical with the object. The difference between image and real object shows that the mind, apperceiving the object, alters it by adding or excluding certain details. The image therefore is not entirely caused by the object; it is also influenced, I hypothesized, by certain pre-existent psychic conditions which we can correct only partially. The example I gave of the obvious pathological case and the taking of the auspices in ancient Rome, part of the collective operations of the State, was only to demonstrate how the very same procedure may operate in two dissimiliar contexts, both showing how the premise of causality can be built into the human mind. In thinking about how the alchemists understood some of their observations, the premise of causality, by necessity of the very structure of the human mind, imputes a meaning to its experience. Causality is the principle whereby an event is understood to be a necessary consequence of a prior event, producing a sense of orderly, meaningful sequence to a chain of circumstances. For instance, a cause may be either mechanical or intentional. If one pushes a switch, the computer will go off. The mechanical or efficient cause would be that the circuit is broken by pushing the switch. The intentional or final cause would be that I am leaving the office and I don't want to leave my computer on. These are two different modes of causality. What I was suggesting was that causality was one example of a pre-existent form-pattern. That just means that the mind is so constructed that the events it encounters must be conceived as meaningful, since causality has at its root the supposition of meaning - that is, events are not arbitrary, random or disconnected. Every occurrence must have a reason to exist, according to the pre-existent pattern of causality built into the human mind. I also mentioned the disease malaria as an example of what I was attempting to get at. This disease entity, with its symptoms of cyclical episodes of chills and fever, has been observed since earliest times. Primitives, in keeping with all human beings - having causality built in - sought a cause of this illness - they attributed it to possession by an evil spirit. The ancients noticed that this disease occurred after people visited dank, swampy regions of bad air - they called it the "bad air" disease. Moderns, with the aid of a microscope and the scientific method, have discovered that this disease is caused by a plasmodium, a pathogenic protozoa carried by mosquitoes, to which we attribute the cause of the disease. This is probably not the end of the matter. There will be other causes and meanings discovered to take into account the reality of the mind with its pre-existent form-pattern of causality which will provide meaning in attempting to understand one's surroundings. We all do the same thing relative to our own contexts all the time. For instance, suppose I consult a mantic oracle, such as the *I Ching.* I toss the coins after meditating on my question. I am looking for the intentional cause of a particular mood or situation, for its meaning. And I discover that meaning in the particular arrangement of the coin toss. In other words, I am suggesting that meaning is a requirement built into our very structure. If this hypothesis is true, one way to understand what the alchemists have written is to examine the psychic form-patterns they have imputed to their descriptions by adducing analogous descriptions from course of human cultural history. This methodology is the well-known method of comparative anatomy. Of course, this method cannot be used uncritically. In dealing with historical texts it is absolutely essential to know the language and the whole available tradition of the milieu in question and not to adduce meanings from a later cultural milieu. This can be done when, and only when, the meaning has been sufficiently well established with the help of methods warranted by the historical milieu itself. Only then may we adduce for comparison amplifications from other times and places, but under no circumstances can we use them to explain the text. One cannot be cautious enough in this regard. Hoping I have clarified my previous post, flamel [email protected] Subject: A0267 The language of the Birds and 'Symbolic Thinking' From: Christian Kiefer Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 14:47:27 -8 Keeper > Thus the Roman desigantion of > "Arabia Felix" (Fortunate Arabia) to this wealthy land. The language these > people speak today is known by their neighbors as, "The Language of the > Birds." Great & interesting connection. Thanks for sharing. > An aside. In his recent post, Christian Kiefer tells Rawn, > >>I like it, but how can be(we) reconcile the two.(?) The(y) seem, after > all, to be opposites. Certainly the astral can't represent the physical > while the physical represents the astral -- or do you have a theory on the >> possibility of this? > > I see astral and physical bodies not as opposites at all but rather a > continuum from subtle to denser vibration. Can you explain this a bit, Keeper? I don't quite follow. And thanks for reminding me that I need to re-read what I write or els my speeling gits mad. Christian Subject: A0268 The language of the Birds and 'Symbolic Thinking' Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 06:20:37 -0500 From: Logodox Had seen this referenced in a few places years ago. Remember reading about the flight of a large group of birds seemingly inexplicable in its motions as a "single" thing. "Complex Emergent Properties" (not my phrase) are observed when many small parts contribute to an effect and the "whole" of the effect is not yet explainable by science as a result of the known parts. For example, consciousness is considered a CEP of the nervous system. Many of the smaller creatures in the animal and insect worlds exhibit CEP's. Has anyone related the Language of the Birds to the "correspondence" principle of the middle ages ? All things are interconnected at a very subtle level, so it went. This idea went out of fashion long ago but has reemerged due to 20th century theoretical physics. It does follow that if there is a universal correspondence between all things, that a state of awareness could be achieved in which the (subtle) correspondences could be known between (seemingly) unrelated phenomena. This is not to support the person having Christ or Satan syndrome's idea that the fluttering birds are a message specially to him... The "spiritual" alchemical texts are fairly consistent (if one can correlate the various symbols) in advocating a universal and omnipresent "BEING" which is eclipsed by our dragons of self and is actually achieved in consciousness only when the eye of mind is turned inward so that "light" can meet "light" and become ONE in the IDENTIC experience. Meaning can only be assumed to be a subjective view condionated by the level of perceptual ability. Meaning could only be existent in and expressible by "physical" objects when their level of complexity reaches the organizational level of consciousness. No matter what I mentally "project" as "out there" it is still really "in here" (in my mind). I know, some will say out there and in here are really the same place. THEY ARE ONLY THE SAME PLACE WHEN ONE HAS ATTAINED BUDDAHOOD, or as alchemists put it THE MAGNUM OPUS in awareness. Birds have voice but not speech. Many animals display patterns of recognition of subtle forces that humans are not aware of. When the Language of the Birds is perceived, it is done through the heightened awareness of the sage...not necessarily as an intrinsic state of the birds themselves. [email protected] Subject: A0269 The language of the Birds and 'Symbolic Thinking' From: Adam McLean Date: 10 Oct 1996 Logodox states: >The "spiritual" alchemical texts are fairly consistent (if one can correlate >the various symbols) in advocating a universal and omnipresent "BEING" which >is eclipsed by our dragons of self and is actually achieved in consciousness >only when the eye of mind is turned inward so that "light" can meet "light" >and become ONE in the IDENTIC experience. I am not sure if this generalisation is true. Although it is easy to make generalisations about aspects of alchemy, I find that they rarely provide us with tools to unlock or get closer to alchemy. I believe that in order to grasp what a particular alchemist intended in his writing we have to read each text in its context, against the background of the ideas which the alchemist was exposed to. It is extremely unlikely that Buddhist ideas, for example, were available to 17th century alchemists, so it will probably be counter-productive to read this into their texts. I am not sure I understand what 'Identic' means. It is only mentioned in my dictionary as a form of 'identical' which doesn't make sense to me here. The language of the birds has defeated me again. Adam McLean Subject: A0270 Helmont's vision From: greg Date: 10 Oct 1996 21:32:48 PDT Some reflections on the account of alchemist and doctor Johann Baptista van Helmont: The containing vessel / vial at his left hand represents his earthly existence. Out of the darkness of the liquor comes a voice (feminine?) offering him the possibility of honour and riches, but at what price? He paces the hall disturbed at this unwanted intrusion, this introduction to the chthonic aspect of nature. At his right hand rises the containing wall of the hall, another feminine symbol, but this is pierced with the light of the pure fleshless spirit. Dazzling him with its brilliance, he is momentarily overcome and forgets the voice. Or does he. Distracted he returns to the vial, its temptation and promise of glory. In his passion to possess the promised riches, he struggles to open the vial intending to taste the dark liquor but then he stops in horror at the act he is about to commit... Not able to escape his passionate desire to know the dark feminine he laments his condition. As he hopes for respite from life's recurring afflictions and feels that he is living as best he can a vision of his spiritual nature appears. This personification of homogenous spiritual stuff is made up of a luminous crystalline substance. As crystal is formed out of a pre-existing pattern, so too did he recognize that this light had been known to him before. His saving grace comes when he does not identify with this vision. Had he done so, he "...would for ever after have ceased from vision". In other words, this identity would have blinded him to his own real existence as a man. He would instead have seen himself as a godlike figure of some perfection. Perhaps he recognized that his soul contained something of the chthonic aspect of his dream, and was not transformed by this spirit of pure light. That would be left to the work. Greg [email protected] Subject: A0271 General questions on alchemy Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 02:27:39 -0400 From: Flamel On 7 Oct 1996, George wrote, in response: >>>From: skmackie >Sheryl wrote--> > I have a friend who thinks that the activities of the alchemist are >used mainly to keep the mind busy and out of the way so that spiritual >development can occur. George responds: >that's quite interesting. In alchemy and related arts, it >seems that the physical aspects of the work at times are meditative in >nature. Then again, I've heard some who advocate the opposite position, >i.e., you want to keep the mind clear and/or focussed on certain physical >transformations. One thing that's clear: its difficult to generalize. I >wonder what Flamel thinks. Flamel puzzles himself with the space between the opposites of spiritual and physical, the realm of caelum and white foliated earths. Flamel thinks of the Zen tale: A question is asked, "Who discovered water?" The answer to the question is, "I don't know who discovered it, but I know who did not discover it - the fish." This is one of those tales that kind of grows on one. Every time you reflect on it you get new levels of meaning. One level of meaning for me is that the whole history of alchemy can be subsumed under the rubric of its all being data for a psychological understanding. This is a kind of Copernican revolution that for the first time allows us to see objectively the autonomous psyche and the way it manifests itself in history, specifically, in the literature of alchemy. However, as the Zen tale makes clear, as long as one is in identification with the psyche, then its not visible to that individual, and one has to find an Archimedean point outside of it before it can be seen, much in the same way Copernicus had to transport himself off the earth before he could discover the fact that the sun didn't revolve around the earth, but that the earth revolved around the sun. A bunch of fish listening to a lecture on the nature of water aren't going to get it. We are all fish swimming around in the psyche, so we cannot perceive it as an object, as an objective entity. You have to be separated from a given object before you can perceive it to be an object. We are almost always contained in the psyche in an invisible way. That containment can take place in many different forms. For instance, there is religious and metaphysical containment, in which a religious or philosophical creed, or political or ideological creed, is the containing agent. It is very easy to recognize the reality of the containment of an individual by the fact that the individual is a perfectly reasonable and responsible person who is willing to engage in thoughtful interchange until one touches the containing medium, and then you hit a stone wall - all reason and decent human interchange ends because what you are hitting then is an expression of the transpersonal value the individual lives by, and therefore, his/her psychic existence, being contained in that value stands or falls on its validity - so it does not exist as an object - it exists as a containing medium, and that's immediately visible. That's why there have been so many "flames" on this Forum. Whenever you run into these containments in collective society you get a mess - you wind up with a bunch of snarling animals. Hoping I have addressed the general point by raising a third possibility, flamel Subject: A0272 The language of the Birds and 'Symbolic Thinking' Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 03:31:14 -0400 From: KEEPERH2O In a message dated 96-10-10 20:12:28 EDT, Christian Kiefer responded to my track of his dialogue with Rawn Clark, >> Certainly the astral can't represent the physical > while the physical represents the astral -- or do you have a theory on the > possibility of this? I responded thus, > I see astral and physical bodies not as opposites at all but rather a > continuum from subtle to denser vibration. >>Can you explain this a bit, Keeper? I don't quite follow. And thanks for reminding me that I need to re-read what I write or els my speeling gits mad. >> Why knot? (chuckles) I'll give it a shot, Christian. I understand the astral and physical "bodies" as the same body, as is the so-called "mental body", which is also on the continuum of the physical body. What makes them appreciable as distinct in themselves is their rate of vibration. For example, in so much as thought and the thought process is a part of you and your physical being, and it can influence your physical being, as your physical being is a part of you and your thought process, it is principally the subtlety of the one over the other that distinguishes them. Both are "solid", but one is less dense. Am I really saying anything worthwhile? I believe so. Meditation has demonstrated to me the "solidity" of thought, and how the subtle solid begins to press upon the denser solid, the electrical and chemical mechanism that can precipitate either an emotional experience and / or a body of muscle and bone into motion. The "astral body" is like the physical, part for part, but its subtlety enables it to participate more on a level like that of thought than the denser matter comprising the physical blood, muscle and bone, organs, etc.. The way that I first experienced the validity of this was through a "speech fast" that I used to take once a week, as a younger man, on Monday, in memory of Ghandi, who used to do the same. How surprised I was when one day, through the process of not acting upon the busyness of thoughts that had previously prattled out in language, that I could literally "see" my thoughts move across the horizon of my mind's eye, like veritable clouds in the sky! This confirmed something I had heard about and read about in spiritual science and meditation, from the Buddhists to the contemporary Yogi, Paramahansa Yogananda. My first experiences with astral phenomena, on the other hand, came though experimentation with drugs. Now, this is in no wise an invitation to get off on THAT tangent, but only to establish how I first came to understand such things. Later, without any such influence, but principally though meditation and yes, a bit of luck &/or serendipity, confirmation came again to the existence of the astral "body". How I could possibly experience the center of my conscious perception OUTSIDE of my physical body, in a way that met my criteria of reality, as far as I could establish, may only be explained by the "mental body" having taken a ride, as it were, in the "astral" form. Surely there are others out there who will verify this from their own experience. One of the things that has made me bolder, to speak of this, has been the appreciation that I am not alone in having had this experience. Christian, with respect to Rawn Clark, to whom you directed this question, perhaps this testimony may bear towards some theory on the possibility of how the astral may represent the physical. Keeper ("Thanks for making me think") Subject: A0273 The language of the Birds and 'Symbolic Thinking' Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 18:13:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Barry Carter Greg wrote: >"Quantum leap" is just about right. Have you had a look lately >at what quantum physicists are saying about mind and matter? Try >"The Dreaming Universe" by Fred Alan Wolf. A Finnish quantum physicist named Matti Pitkanen has developed a theory of conciousness which incorporates something he calls "exotic matter". He applies the term "exotic matter" to the Orbitally Rearranged Monoatomic Elements (ORMEs) which David Hudson extracts from ore using the alchemical processes described in the book "In Pursuit of Gold: Alchemy in Theory and Practice" by LAPIDUS. This theory seems to account for many phenomena and anomalies of thought. You can read Dr. Pitkanen's theory on one of his web pages which is located at: http://blues.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/exo.html Dr. Pitkanen's theory has evolved since this web page was created. Contact me for more information. Following is the Contents and Abstract of his paper: 5.1 # throats as super conducting charge carriers 5.2 Electronic super conductivity 5.3 The parameters of exotic super conductors 5.4 Claims of Hudson about ORMEs as super conductors Abstract A general T(opological) G(eometro)D(ynamics) based mechanism for superconductivity in biosystems is proposed. The mechanism relies on many sheeted nature of TGD:eish spacetime. Some atomic valence electrons can drop from atomic spacetime sheet to some 'lower' spacetime sheet: this gives rise to exotic atoms and 'electronic alchemy'. The process is accompanied by a formation of so called # contacts located near the boundary of atomic spacetime surface feeding electric flux to the lower condensate level. They behave as bosons with quantized charge and by physical considerations must be very light. By their lightness they suffer BE condensation on the boundary of the atomic spacetime surface. The spacetime surfaces associated with atoms can form join along boundaries condensate of size L and BE condensation of # throats gives rise to the formation of macroscopic quantum system with critical temperature T propto 1/L: the upper bound for the size of this kind of system is about 10^(-4) meters in room temperature. # contacts on the boundary of join along boundaries condensate can serve as carriers of supra current. Also the exotic electrons at the 'lower' space time sheet can form Cooper pairs via the attractive interaction with the excitations of the BE condensate of # contacts and so that super conductivity results. The mechanism might make biosystems superconducting: the magic step leading from chemical evolution to bioevolution might in fact be this 'dropping' of valence electrons to the 'lower' spacetime sheet. The so called ORMEs patented by David Hudson represent empirical evidence for the existence of exotic atoms and related super conductivity. A small concentration of ORMEs in tissue, which makes biosystems superconducting: this would explain the claimed effects of ORMEs on biosystems. With Kindest Regards, Barry Carter [email protected] Subject: A0274 Higher vibrations? From: Adam McLean Date: 11 Oct 1996 Keeper wrote: >I understand the astral and physical "bodies" as the same body, as is the >so-called "mental body", which is also on the continuum of the physical body. >What makes them appreciable as distinct in themselves is their rate of >vibration. For example, in so much as thought and the thought process >is a part of you and your physical being, and it can influence your physical >being, as your physical being is a part of you and your thought process, >it is principally the subtlety of the one over the other that distinguishes them. >Both are "solid", but one is less dense. Surely the recourse to the idea of different levels of vibrations is now become rather tired and worn out. This idea, that there are different levels of vibration seems to have had its birth during the late 19th century theosophical period. During that time, physics, through Maxwell, and later the radiochemists, had discovered that there was a continuum of electomagnetic radiation, from radio waves (long and of low frequency) to gamma radiation (short and of high frequency). The theosophists at that time borrowed this idea and applied it to heal the spirit-matter divide. This may have worked within the physics of that time, but surely things have now moved on. There are now no mysterious regions of the electromagnetic spectrum in which to hide our idea of the astral body, the whole spectrum has been very clearly and precisely mapped out through the progress of 20th century physics. This metaphor of different levels of vibration seems to have reached its "sell-by" date. We will find that using this idea before physicists or anyone conversant with modern science, no longer serves to bridge the spiritual-material divide, but only makes one appear to be invoking outdated physics to support ones ideas. It may still have a place in the "X-files" but surely this idea of higher vibrations is compromised as a basis for a theory of matter and spirit. Indeed, we will find that philosophers of the esoteric trying to find a physical model for spiritual forces, now turn towards late 20th century physical ideas, of quantum theory, superstrings, the topology of folded 11 dimensional spaces, in order to develop parallels between matter and spirit. Adam McLean Subject: A0275 The language of the Birds and 'Symbolic Thinking' Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 04:08:28 -0400 From: Rawn Clark Dear George, >>"Meaning" is the very essence of things. It is that which 'things' >>symbolize. So perhaps "meaning" is the medium of Universal communication, >>and is a consequence of the Universal structure, not limited wholly to >>human imputation. Our imputing of meaning is our part, in our conversation, >> with a Universe which speaks to us by imputing its own meaning through >> the things we perceive. > >*the flaw here is nobody I know can know truly my thoughts or anyone >else's--who are we to judge whether "meaning" can be a medium of Universal >communication? Perhaps within the confines of one's own temple walls, >perhaps. I don't understand exactly what you're saying here. I think perhaps my choice of words has muddled my intended meaning. between separate individuals, the absolutely complete and clear communication of meaning, is impossible. In my experience, meaning has three lives. 1) The essential meaning; for example, the idea one seeks to express. 2) The expressed meaning; e.g., one clothes the essential meaning in symbols such as words, gestures, tone of voice, and within the parameters of one's natural abilities, projects the essential idea as clearly as one can. Here, the essential meaning is filtered through the expressor. 3) The communicated meaning: You read my words which -- to me -- express my essential meaning reasonably clearly. Yet as you read these words, you do so with your own understanding of what they mean. The meaning with which I use my words is only partially communicated by the actual physical words themselves. My words have two meanings, mine and yours, each a step further from my essential meaning. What you understand from my words -- the end result, as it were -- would be the communicated meaning. At each stage of communication, a relatively essential meaning is clothed in symbols. What else, I ask you, is communication, but an exchange of symbolized meaning? >>Conscious perception of the essential Universe, without the barrier of >>interposed human-meaning, >*wait--what exactly do you mean here? Can there be perception without >consciousness(i.e. the interposing of human-meaning, as it were)? Perhaps >you mean among living things other than humans? Or as recorded on a video >camera perhaps? And I have no idea what you mean by an "essential >Universe". Do you mean the perceived universe from a human perspective but >say without interpretation? Sorry, I seem to have stuffed too much un-communicated meaning into those words. ;) "Conscious perception" -- Perception here, refers to our normal waking processes of perception, large parts of which occur at levels below our conscious awareness, at the direction of instinct and habit. Introspection brings one an intimate knowledge of one's instinctual motivations and processes. With such self-knowledge, these normally sub-conscious processes can be transformed into conscious choices. "Conscious perception" therefore, means perception as an entirely conscious act. "essential Universe" -- This is the *objective* Universe. The Universe as it exists, aside from the filters imposed in normal human perception. If normal perception involves the interposing of filters between self and other, then that means that what we normally perceive is a subjective perspective of an objective/essential other. Our normal, subjective means of perception result in a "communicated meaning", from the essential Universe to us. The Universe which is "essential" in relation to our normal perception equates to an "expressed meaning", and is therefore symbolic of an "essential meaning". At the level of "conscious perception", one draws much nearer to the expressed meaning, and shifts one's relation to the essential meaning significantly. "without the barrier of interposed human-meaning" -- I'm refering here specifically to the instictual filters of normal perception, but your point is well taken. Human consciousness however, encompasses so much more than your use of words implies. The focus point of our conscious awareness has the power of motivity within the broad spectrum of human consciousness. It also has the power to either expand its individual area of focus, or to contract it. Our conscious awareness is not limited to normal perception when actively turned upon itself. It is quite capable of perception at a focus which includes more than just the communicated meaning of the essential Universe. This is a normal function of everyday consciousness actually. A good example is a consideration of looking at the clock to check the time. You focus on what the clock tells you, yet you are also seeing everything within your field of vision. Every detail is registering at levels below your focus of attention. Most likely, the only extraneous detail you will notice is something that is out of place, or unfamilliar. All the rest, you take for granted because it is "known" to you and outside of your specific focus. Now as you read this and look over at the clock anew, noticing all the other details, your experience is more conscious...information that was formerly being noted at sub-conscious levels, is now being noted consciously. Continued as a meditation, one can learn a great deal about how one is affected by the normally "unseen" things, especially about how and why one responds as one does instinctually. Shifting one's focus to the objective Universe underlying our normal subjectively perceived one, is an expansion of the same process. *However*, since such a perception of the essential Universe implies that the information perceived is less personalized, this information must subsequently be personalized (overlaid with "interposed human-meaning") to be of any practical value. ;-) ;-) ;-) The essential information inevitably be translated into one's own terms, but this is a function of consciousness that one's focus of awareness can either include or exclude at will. Separating the functions of perception and interpretation allows one the time to examine both in depth, just like the re-examination of the extraneous details in my clock analogy. >*this brings us back to the definition of magic--to extend this >thought--perhaps the same data gets perceived differently when the recorder >has his tuner adjusted differently. Yes. Perhaps one reason that alchemical literature employs the symbolism that it does, in the way that it does, is to help one tune to a specific frequency. Perhaps the process we all must go through to begin grasping the literarure's symbolized meaning, is intentional and inherant in the very presentation of these symbols. Reading, meditating, praying, and experimenting, change us. Best to you, Rawn Clark Subject: A0276 The language of the Birds and 'Symbolic Thinking' Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 04:14:44 -0400 From: Rawn Clark Re: A0259 Dear Christian, >> reality. But this is only a product of this particular perspective. From >> the astral, and especially, from the mental realms, the conclusions >> reverse and it becomes clear that the physical symbolizes the astral >> and mental. >Perhaps, but this takes the quantum leap in assuming that what is >real is not necessariliy the physical plane. It is really not any kind of leap. It is ALL real; mental, astral, and physical. Let me give you some concrete examples. Our perception of physical reality, our whole experience of it, involves astral and mental reality. I assume we can agree that the physical is real. Every physical object you perceive, also elicits from you an emotional response... this is one level of the astral reality inherant in your every moment. Every one of your thoughts, is an example of the pervasiveness of the mental reality. Are not your thoughts, emotions, and physical sensations all real? That they do not share the same standards of reality, does not mean they are not real. An idea may not have the same physical reality as putting your finger on a hot griddle, but the idea of finger-on-griddle is real in relation to other ideas. The idea "Finger in glass of water" has substance in relation to the idea "finger-on-griddle". So the mental realm is real in context to itself, just as the physical reality is real in context to itself. The same is true of the astral reality. Further, without thought and emotion -- without mental and astral, we are incapable of physical perception. The mental and astral realities are an inherant part of the physical, they are just so very involved in our experience of the physical that we've blindly overlooked them in its definition. It is very like how we do not see our eyeballs when we look through them; we are not even conscious of their mechanics as we use them.. >I'm not saying that >you're not correct here, Rawn, but geez you could write a whole 15 >volume set on the "reality" of the astral (dreams, thoughts, etc.) >and the physical. Quite a few people have done this. I see little point myself. In fact I think it misses the point if it doesn't lead the reader to actively seek their own experience of things. No one can convey to another, through the medium of words, the whole of their experience, so no matter how many volumes one writes, it will always remain only a part of the picture. >Very, very interesting concept that the physical >symbolizes the astral and mental, though -- and I guess it's right in >keeping with the idea that the world is just a representation of the >mind -- i.e., this is all a dream, you're all in my head, how can I >stop the voices, why am I am this straightjacket, I want my mommy! That's one way to interpret it. I disagree that the world is *just* a representation of the mind (unless we capitalize and deify Mind perspective leads down a path which devalues physical reality in the same way that we ordinarilly devalue mental and astral reality. The attitude implied is that the physical is just as un-real as the mental/astral. What I am saying, on the other hand, is that the physical, astral, and mental are all real. >I like it, but how can we reconcile the two. They seem, after all, to >be opposites. Certainly the astral can't represent the physical >while the physical represents the astral -- or do you have a theory >on the possibility of this? All is interconnected, interpenetrating. Consider the human body. We know that our emotions and our thoughts can affect our physiology (psychosomatic illness). We also know that our physiology can affect our emotions and thoughts (PMS). Both are true because thought (mental), emotion (astral), and physiology (physical) interpenetrate. >> Idea and thought are the materia of the mental realm. At the more >> rarified levels of the mental realm, even the symbols (such as words) >> we clothe our ideas and thoughts with, fall away. What is revealed is >>essential meaning. >> This is the root which expresses itself throughout the continuum, all the >> way "down" the scale of vibration into physical manifestation. The Above >> expresses Itself through the Below (immanence). >Sorry, but I don't follow. I realize that there is a lot of talk >about this "rarified level of the mental realm" where all is >infinite, etc., etc., but I've never entirely bought into it. That >is: I realize that everything is connected, etc. and have had a >religious experience of two, mostly when dangling over a crevasse on >some lost frozen mountain somewhere, but what you seem to be saying >is that if all the symbolic & mythological trappings of our mind are >allowed to depart what we will then perceive of the physical world >will be TRUE and infinite. If this is true, then it is still the >physical world being filtered through the consciousness: even if "the >doors of perception" are wiped clean. Oh dear, I hope this bit doesn't get too mystical-sounding for you... ;) With the state of mind I was referencing above -- conscious awareness of the "more rarified levels of the mental realm" -- one experiences the Universe *as* consciousness. I don't mean that in terms limited to specifically human-consciousness, but don't have the words to say it right. This state of conscious awareness is reached in increments. At each step of the way, one's perspective changes slightly, and the Universe looks a little different. When the sub-conscious aspects of perception are brought within the focus of conscious awareness, and set aside, one obtains a clearer perception of the essential Universe. When still further barriers between one's self and the essential Universe are brought under conscious direction, perception becomes even more focused upon its essential object, and less upon the surface of filters. Ultimately, there is One True Universe. Part of the Mystery, is the paradox that it is also Infinite (at least mentally) which means that that One Truth is made of All Truths . . . each of our perceptions is True in relation to the Whole, simply by fact of its occurance. Perception is relative. It is complete only at the level of absolute Oneness. To prove to you that I really am a mystic, I'll add that I'm absolutely certain that the attainment of the level of consciousness indicated by "The One" is within the capacity of the human being. To reaching such a state though, one must eventually abandon the limits of specifically 'human' consciousness and encompass all consciousness. >Yeah, O.K., although doesn't any distinguishing between self and >other block that whole view of the essential meaning of the Universe >you were talking about earlier: i.e., isn't one of the points of such >a view that the self is part of, and therefore intisguishable from, >that "meaning"? Yup, and therein's another paradox: We have to Solve the Coagula-ed, before we can Coagula the Solve-ed. In order to reach the experience of the oneness of things, we have to know our selves. That happens in increments and we learn progressively more about ourselves over time. When we know just very little about ourselves, we do not see all the ways in which we are connected. As we learn more, we see more of the connections between self and other. Eventually discovering that there is no 'other', and all that was formerly considered 'other' is included in the experience of self. >if you can achieve this state on a regular basis I'm very much >impressed. Do you use meditation --- ? Meditation is the key. I "use" my whole self. >Blaahahhahah what? You haven't read Blake? Tisk tisk. Read it, >Rawn. It's about precisely what you've been talking about. If I can >find it on the net I'll E-mail it to you. Thanks for the nudge, and thanks for the Blake snippet! I will eventually read Blake, I promise. ;) Best to you, Rawn Clark Subject: A0277 The language of the Birds and 'Symbolic Thinking' Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 From: Sean Blosl > From: Logodox > Has anyone related the Language of the Birds to the "correspondence" > principle of the middle ages ? > All things are interconnected at a very subtle level, so it went. This idea > went out of fashion long ago but has reemerged due to 20th century > theoretical physics. It does follow that if there is a universal > correspondence between all things, that a state of awareness could be > achieved in which the (subtle) correspondences could be known between > (seemingly) unrelated phenomena. > This is not to support the person having Christ or Satan syndrome's idea > that the fluttering birds are a message specially to him... It seems to me that the fluttering birds are a message to him. While also being a message to anyone else or everyone else. In recent posts I have noticed a few mentions that imply, that interpreting messages as messages is related to neurosis of some kind. How is this so? > Meaning can only be assumed to be a subjective view condionated by the level of > perceptual ability. Meaning could only be existent in and expressible by > "physical" objects when their level of complexity reaches the organizational > level of consciousness. No matter what I mentally "project" as "out there" > it is still really "in here" (in my mind). I know, some will say out there > and in here are really the same place. THEY ARE ONLY THE SAME PLACE > WHEN ONE HAS ATTAINED BUDDAHOOD, or as alchemists put it THE > MAGNUM OPUS in awareness. I have also noticed in recent posts that there are implications pointing to the fact that you can not "know" unless you are an exalted one. How is this so? Sean Blosl [email protected] ----------------------------------------------------------------- Here is something to break up the technicality. Dragon Messages come from anywhere and everywhere when you are listening. Some days the conversation of a couple sitting next to you on the bus carries a certain message for you. You sit back and smile at the situation you have found yourself in. I had my bag all packed for the walk up to school today. All I forgot was my cigarette lighter. Which to me, can be a major trauma. I had thought as I walked about where I could stop and get a book of matches. Since there are many stores between here and there, the event wasn't going to be all that traumatic. I passed probably ten different places that I could have gotten the matches without ever stopping at one of them. As I turned a corner I saw lying on the grass in front of me a full book of matches. That is when I began to smile. That kind of funky smile I get when something like this happens. The smile that someone might see on my face and ask me just what it is that I am grinning about. The smile came from getting the message. This message is very timely for me. The match book brought with it a reminder of something that I thought I would never forget. This message came the first time along with a stick. The most perfect walking stick that you could ever imagine. It sat at the end of a five or six mile trail, waiting, in my eyes, for me, to give me a message. Sitting there for who knows how long, waiting for me to listen. This message was so powerful to me that I set out to put it to a test a couple of years after finding the walking stick. I decided that I needed validity of such a simple idea. I didn't have any trouble in understanding the message. But I had a hard time believing that anything could be so simple. The message carried such an easy answer for what seemed to be such a complex idea in my mind. And you know how we humans are, we love to make things difficult. So I set out to give this simplicity a test. I decided that I would construct a kite from scratch. Using the idea that was contained in my message. Of course I had to put as much complexity into it as I could think of. The kite had to be huge and unique. I decided on the Chinese Dragon. It consisted of a face and thirteen circles that followed behind it. The face and each of the circles were made of bamboo then covered with paper. Each circle had a foot or a hand coming out from each side with streamers attached to them. The face was painted as that of a dragon with pieces of broken mirror glued around its eyes. And the finishing touch was a fifteen foot tail. The idea I was seeking to have validity for wasn't near as complex as this kite. The idea that, what you are looking for is coming your way, just as you are moving toward it." Each piece for the kite was found where I was naturally walking. I was amazed at how much bamboo was out there looking for me. From all this, the messages, the testing, the validity, and simplicity, I never once thought that I may be Christ or Buddha or Lao Tse or Snoopy or Johnny Carson. Although, I did have delusions of being a master kite maker, until I took the Dragon for its first flight. It laid on the ground weighing too much to reach the sky. Maybe one day I will trust the simplicity and watch my Dragon fly... Subject: A0278 Higher vibrations Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 08:47:49 -0600 From: Jim Bayer >From: Adam McLean >Surely the recourse to the idea of different levels of vibrations is now become >rather tired and worn out. This idea, that there are different levels of >vibration seems to have had its birth during the late 19th century..... >There are now no mysterious >regions of the electromagnetic spectrum in which to hide our idea of the >astral body, the whole spectrum has been very clearly and precisely mapped >out through the progress of 20th century physics. Yet there may be other spectrums (bio-magnetic) that our physics has yet to consider--this wouldn't be too suprising given the reign of the logical positivist model, and the considerable clutch it still holds on research grants. In eastern schools of yoga and internal alchemy, from which the conceptual basis of Theosophy originates, there have long been models of spectrums of interpenetrating human energies. Perhaps it was rather the discovery of electromagnetic phenomenon, and the vocabulary it generated, that facilitated the translation of those concepts into western terms. >This metaphor of different levels of vibration seems to have reached its >"sell-by" date... Indeed, we will find that philosophers of the >esoteric trying to find a physical model for spiritual forces, now turn >towards late 20th century physical ideas, of quantum theory, superstrings, >the topology of folded 11 dimensional spaces, in order to develop >parallels between matter and spirit. That is as it should be. But these new models are still in their infancy, relativly unknown, and currently leaning more towards discussions of mystical (all-is-one) rather than esoteric (one-is-all and here's how) phenomenon. No doubt the vibrational model will eventually be superceded--or, more likely, absorbed. And that model, and that model.... Yet the "truth" will remain elusive, always on the brink of the next discovery. Perhaps the best approach involves the maintenance of as many dissimilar models as one is capable of, and the acknowledgement that all are inadequate. As they say, the map is not the territory. Jim Bayer ([email protected]) Subject: A0279 Physical, Astral, Mental, Spiritual Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 05:54:24 -0500 From: Logodox Enjoying these recent posts about matter and spirit and "star stuff" and whether they comprise a continuum etc., rekindled my thoughts and memories to a great extent and further caused me to realize how incomplete my concepts are regarding these things. Like Adam, I am aware (though not nearly so keenly) of historical concepts of the "subtle" bodies. My tentative working concept of soul & spirit (i.e. alchemically) is that spirit is a fundamental (non-human specific) form of energy, incorporeal i.e. not existing as a "bounded recurring in space/time" particle. I view soul as a higher level grouping or amalgamation of spirit and binding the same to the corporeal. Much confusion arises due to the overlap and religiousconsiderations of these two. If one considers the UNIVERSE as all that exists in all dimensions, then it follows that ALL things would be in a continuum of sorts. Space and time phenomena are (obviously) a continuum in a strict sense. My readings taught me to think of the astral plane as the "emotional" and the spirit plane as "mental". When the Greeks wrote about the universal and omnipresent "nous", "being","intellect" etc., methinks they were indicating something ineffable and possibly intellect, i.e. mind as a pre-existing (to matter) thing. When they wrote of the microcosm reflecting the macrocosm and the "little" world mirroring the "greater" world, it seems to me that they meant that all physical things were preceded by (and later included) an "image" or plan in the etherial region, prior to their unfoldment and construction in the physical. The cabbalists (and Boehme) consider this universal "being" to "desire" to go outward from the "inner" world and to emanate from a dimensionless point in the outgoing. Sorry this is so disjointed. Spirit and Soul are vast and abstruse subjects. They do not fit into the category of definable discrete objects. I've been puzzled by the word "being" all my life. Is being a thing or an action? My working belief is that being is (in philosophy) both energetic and passive, i.e. both action and thing. Of course alchemical readings tell me that the STONE is a balanced hypostatic union of "circulating" forces "brought into equilibriate accord" by the ART. WORDS, such difficult little nuisances ! [email protected] Subject: A0280 The language of the Birds and 'Symbolic Thinking' Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 06:09:11 -0500 From: Logodox >From: Sean Blosl >I have also noticed in recent posts that there are implications >pointing to the fact that you can not "know" unless you are an exalted >one. How is this so? Know what? Exalted? Does not each one possess what he has earned? Is knowledge freely given? Is there a lotto for enlightenment? >Messages come from anywhere and everywhere when you are listening. This is highly interesting to me. I too have sometimes gotten cues from seemingly unconnected events. Sean, if all is really interconnected, then (have read this) will not Your inner self present You with the experiences needed for Your advancement ? Even if they come from other people You don't know? Thing to realize here is that the interpretation and interplay is within You and the meaning is for You... Im only saying that the "world at large" is not necessarily directing these messages to You, but perhaps Your higher (inner) self is teaching You. It is fun and exciting for me when this (rarely, unfortunately) happens to me! [email protected] Subject: A0281 The language of the Birds From: Andre Date: Fri, 11 Oct 96 16:59:38 PDT What follows is an extract from a text the Adam has asked me to transcribe for him. I post it now because it seems relevant. Someone asked if Fulcanelli was the only source for references to the Phonetic Cabbala. The extract that follows shows clearly and unambiguously that he is not. The author talks here about himself. "He had the knowledge of that wonderful Mystery (containing the Secrets of the whole of Creation) The Language of Nature, and that in his native Tongue; whereby the very Name of every Thing gave him clear Inspection into the Nature of it. This Knowledge had Adam in his innocence, but by his Fall lost it; else it had been understood (as our Author affirms) in the Language of every Nation. Extract from 'Preface to the Reader' in, 'Four Tables of Divine Revelation', by Jacob Behmen Subject: A0282 Higher Vibrations Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 From: Lewis Goudy >From: Adam McLean >Surely the recourse to the idea of different levels of vibrations is now >become rather tired and worn out. The vibrational coin has as obverse "wavelength", and the crucial role played by scale in mediating phenomena and the beings that experience them is not merely nascent but incandescently so. While charlatans have always aped those the world deems wise it remains true that haste makes waste. To those inclined to throw out the vibrational baby with the theosophical bathwater I commend The Beauty of Fractals Heinz-Otto Peitgen and Peter H. Richter Springer-Verlag, 1986 which also contains invited contributions by Benoit B. Mandelbrot Adrien Douady Gert Eilenberger Herbert W. Franke "...the authors present variations of a theme whose repercussions reach far beyond the realms of mathematics. They show how structures of unseen complexity unfold by repeated action of simple rules...a major challenge to the prevailing scientific conception." Subject: A0283 Higher vibrations Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 From: Rawn Clark Dear Adam, >There are now no mysterious >regions of the electromagnetic spectrum in which to hide our idea of the >astral body, the whole spectrum has been very clearly and precisely mapped >out through the progress of 20th century physics. I'm no physicist, but it seems to me that this assumes the "astral body" to be electromagnetic. At best, only the physical affects of the astral would be physically measurable. With what physical measure would one guage an emotion for instance? We can physically measure only the physical effects produced by an emotion (e.g., body chemistry, brain waves, facial expression, body language). However, we can guage an emotion, in emotional terms. We know how an emotion feels, and can compare it to other emotions we have experienced. The problem to a shared science in this regard, is that emotions are entirely personal experiences, the wholeness of which we are incapable of communicating to another. We cannot establish an exactly shared measure for emotions like the measures we share for physical things. Relative to our *physical* definition of the Universe, the astral and mental themselves are immeasurable. We tend to equate "immeasurable" with the concept "unreal", or "less real", without first taking a close look at what we're trying to measure with. Best to you, Rawn Clark Subject: A0284 Higher vibrations Date: 12 Oct 1996 From: Adam McLean Some people may have misunderstood my posting on 'Higher Vibrations'. I am not advocating that we dispense with the idea of subtle bodies, but rather that we don't attempt to justify or articulate our ideas about these subtle bodies by wrapping them in late 19th century physical ideas of vibrational energies, as science has moved on and at the end of the 20th century there no space left in the electromagnetic spectrum in which they can be placed. We should have the confidence to allow our ideas of subtle bodies to stand on it own ground, as Rawn Clark suggests. Lewis Goudy ask that we consider fractals (Mandelbrot sets - mathematical structures built by reiterating simple equations involving complex numbers) and he suggests that their increasing complexity of structure at smaller and smaller scales, may mean that there is some kind of space in which the vibrational theory of subtle forces may still find a place. I am not so sure about this. Fractals - in all their surprising complexities - are in fact entirely predictable and computable. There are no surprises, no uncertainties in this world of discrete mathematics. The essential aspect of life forces, it seems to me, are not predictable, they are mercurial, everchanging, shifting forms. Life forces seem to be more at home in the world of quantum physics, than in the stark world of Mandelbrot and Julia sets, Fatou dusts, and bifurcation diagrams. Adam McLean Subject: A0285 Higher vibrations From: Simon R Knight Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 23:43:18 0000 On 11 Oct 96 at 10:05, Adam McLean wrote: > Surely the recourse to the idea of different levels of vibrations is now become > rather tired and worn out.... > This may have worked within the physics of that time, but surely things have > now moved on. There are now no mysterious regions of the electromagnetic > spectrum in which to hide our idea of the astral body, the whole spectrum has > been very clearly and precisely mapped out through the progress of 20th > century physics. When aspiring to an understanding of higher realities, modern science is of little assistance. Modern science is concerned with the physically observable universe, and references to astral or mental realities, is a disturbing reminder of a period which science has always sought to leave behind. The foundations of modern science, are built upon thought structures that originated within the minds of individuals seeking physical-material explanations for everything. Science dismisses higher realities, based upon its observations of the physical one. The assumption is made that any higher reality can only be a physical one. This assumption is part of the very foundations of science, and represents a world view which is failing to account for much that is being discovered today. Science has studied the electromagnetic spectrum in great depth, and states that nothing exists in it, that corresponds to a soul or spirit. The error which must surely be so evident, is that science itself has already pre-defined that this is where the soul and spirit would be found! How can a science that clearly rejects the existence of non-material realities, have come to appoint itself as knowledgeable in this respect? Science makes the pronouncement that the electromagnetic spectrum does not contain the soul or spirit, and considers this as evidence for their non-existence! This actually appears entirely logical to many! A true study of electric and electromagnetic phenomena, will reveal the extent to which they are bound up with matter, and the force of gravity. Science would do well to consider how the force of gravity effects its own consciousness, considering its own preoccupation with this force everywhere in outer nature. So obsessed is science with the forces of gravity and electromagnetism, that it has been lead to view everything quantitatively; even quality is reduced to expression in terms of quantity. When someone sees a color of a rainbow, there is an effect upon their feelings, that can never be expressed by the number of an electromagnetic frequency. Science has little use for qualites; all the colors of a rainbow have been reduced to mere electromagnetic occillations, in its mind. Just as the soul (astral body), or spirit (mental body) cannot be reduced to part of the electromagnetic spectrum, nor can the quality of a color like red be reduced to a mere electromagnetic frequency. It would be much more scientific to say that when we outwardly perceive visible light in its various colors, that there is also an electromagnetic oscillation that accompanies it. The one being associated with the "presence" or manifestation of the other. Little can be deduced about the quality "red" in a quantitative science, other than to associate its perception with the oscillation that attends its presence in physical space. There has been some discussion recently that has refered to higher realities such as "astral" or "mental" as if they are simply ideas or concepts in the mind, this I feel leads certain ambiguities as to what is actually being refered to. In my own (small) experience, perception of these realities is nothing like ordinary consciousness; at least, not my ordinary consciousness anyway. : ) Being fortunate enough to have experienced certain higher realities, I would like to say that they appeared very powerful. On occasions where such realms have opened up, I have been able to observe my physical surroundings simultaneously. The higher visual and sentient perceptions were experienced to be far more powerful and penetrating in their effect that any physical ones. The physical perceptions were so less powerful by comparison, that I could easily have taken my attention away from them entirely. During such moments, dimensions were visible which were full of brilliant light and color; the inner thoughts and feelings of those around me were perceived quite clearly. Around individuals in my physical surroundings, there were emanations of light and color, that rayed out in all directions; everything conveying meaning and knowing, in a totally new, and yet distantly familiar way! I mention this because alchemy seems to be deeply aquainted with such perceptions, as is evident in its writings. I have no doubt that much secret knowledge is perceived by these means, and it is in this direction that alchemy must surely reach its highest meaning. There are others in this forum that appear very aware of this, and they would no doubt emphasize that conscious initiation of such perceptions, is within reach of everyone who is prepared to put a little time into developing them. We already have our physical senses for perceptions of a physical world, but for its higher dimensional counterparts, higher dimensional senses are required. A question arises; how can these higher dimensional senses be cultivated, and how long would it take. In the first instance, a particular course of development is usually followed, that has evolved through long experience. "Knowledge of the higher worlds" by "Rudolph Steiner", is a good introduction to this, but there are *other* works also. In the second instance (i.e. how long), while everyone is individual, it clearly does not have to take long to aquire an experience of a previously unseen realities. Once perceived, one stands at the start of a great adventure, an adventure that present science could never dream of! : ) Simon R Knight Subject: A0286 Higher Vibrations Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 04:54:34 -0400 From: KEEPERH2O On 11 Oct 96 at 10:05, Adam McLean wrote: >Surely the recourse to the idea of different levels of vibrations is now >become rather tired and worn out.... >This may have worked within the physics of that time, but surely things >have now moved on. There are now no mysterious regions of the >electromagnetic spectrum in which to hide our idea of the astral body, the >whole spectrum has been very clearly and precisely >mapped out through the progress of 20th century physics. With a great deal of respect to Adam, his knowledge of resources, and obvious effort on the behalf of us all to host this excellent forum, I am not your classic scientist or physicist. I freely admit I have been heavily influenced by the terminology of the Theosophists because they were among the first serious investigators I became familiar with to attempt to explain things I was finding on my own without any references other than the Gothic Magicians (such as Eliphas Levi and de Laurence) and the lore of witches. On the other hand, I must give a lot of credit to a personal daemon, who took me under his wing, if you will, to begin my instruction in Hermetic Magic, Alchemical concepts and a rather fundamental brand of shamanism. When I speak of "vibrations" I am reaching for the best metaphor available to me to illustrate the experience; the consciousness or awareness of something that has, I'm sure many will accept, has been rather neglected by Western Science. With all proper proportion for its obvious achievements, why must we repair to that department everywhere when its defense of our experience is so wanting? Oh, Karl Jung impresses me, and for a long time had me believing Alchemy was purely the ancient Western Psychology. However, since I got into the Alchemical mansion through the back door of Hermetic Magic, I've seen there's even more going on here. Much of it, such as the weight of recourses some of you bring to bear, I'm afraid, will forever be beyond me, because it is beyond the wealth or time I have to spend. I must keep it very simple. My laboratory is my life and personal experience. The tools at my disposal are received mostly through a ritual tradition of working in "Sacred Space" along with some very powerful symbols I have found there. What makes them so powerful is that, however much as I have come to see them, Hermetically speaking, as "the thing that they stand for", so do they reveal their power to my imagination. Thus the relevance to the topic, "Language of the Birds and Symbolic Thinking," and it's recent child, "Higher Vibrations." I would be remiss to not appreciate Adam's reference to tired, possibly outmoded ways of describing things, such as subtle and dense matters and their interplay. What is relevant, in any case, is an awareness of their existence and testimony to some experience of observing their process. If anyone can describe it -demonstrably- better, I am "all eyes". The fact that some of you do, from time to time, has me eagerly checking in each day, to see where the "electric" discussion is going. :) Love it! Keeper Subject: A0287 Higher Vibrations Date: Mon, 14 Oct 96 07:51 NZST From: Pat Zalewski >>Surely the recourse to the idea of different levels of vibrations is now >>become rather tired and worn out.... >>This may have worked within the physics of that time, but surely things >>have now moved on. There are now no mysterious regions of the >>electromagnetic spectrum in which to hide our idea of the astral body, the >>whole spectrum has been very clearly and precisely >>mapped out through the progress of 20th century physics. Adam and I part company on this one. Though the idea of the subtle bodies was possibly first introduced to the West through Theosophy in the 19th century its concepts were vaguely mapped out. In the works of Alice Bailey we get to see the very intricate cross purposes that these bodies have. I don't follow all of Bailey teachings but in the subtle body anatomy I have found her very accurate. Most of the works of Bailey are really not that old. By accuracy, I mean that I use the subtle bodies in my radionics practice. If there is a problem I might a blockage (like a homeopathic maism) in either the Astral or Etheric body and adjust my radionic frequency to there. Though the patient usually has not a clue on what I am talking about if I explained this I find that I can concentrate on the subtle body in question and remove the blockage. Each subtle body is said to be an invisible force in a different dimension to our own. They are not to be confused with what some people call the aura, which is just an electro vibration given off by the physical body. Also from even the early works of Carrington and Muldoon the Astral Body (one of the subtle bodies) we find that there has been a lot of scientific work done on this. Parapsychology journals are full of reports of out of body experiences that I put down to the Astral Body. So from a scientific viewpoint I will stick to the subtle bodies until some better theory comes along. I would suggest for further information read 'Vibrational medicine' by Gerber and M.D., who has some good bibliographies on the subtle bodies and their effects when medicine is apllied. From the viewpoint of modern physics I would refer Adam and others to Talbot's book 'Holographic Universe' which basically says that theory and framework in only referenced by our limited understanding (Quantum mechanics). In short we create our own realities, but whether it be a modern mathematical concept or a holographic concept using subtle bodies makes no difference, as it is a reality. Before I surpass the theory of subtle bodies I would have to explore them to their limit and that I have not done yet. Just try working through Bailey's volumes of the Seven Rays and you will see what I mean and I have been on her system for years and do not see the end in sight. Subject: A0288 The language of the Birds Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 09:48:26 +0100 From: Laurent Dutriaux Adam McLean recently wrote 'I have never come across the Language of the Birds' in my study of alchemical texts'. I give here a hint for the existence of the Language of the Birds in the past centuries. If we consider the well known engraving: Melancholy by Albrecht Durer, an emblema for the many meanings of the black color (see for example the authorative work of J. Van Lennep), we can see a ladder in the middle of the drawing. To explain the presence of this ladder, many commentators invoke a loose connection with Jacob's ladder (as in the frontispiece of the Mutus Liber). In fact, in French, the word for ladder is echelle (scale). If we now look at Dom Pernety's Mytho-Hermetic dictionnary, we find the definition: Echel: Latiere de l'oeuvre au noir tres noir ou putrefaction parfaite. (i.e matter when black or perfect putrefaction). This provide us an interpretation of the ladder in Durer's engraving which is in acordance with both Fulcanelli's affirmation on the Language of the Birds and the general meaning of Durer's drawing. Laurent Dutriaux Subject: A0289 Higher Vibrations From: Steve Rosen Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 15:44:05 -0400 From: Steven Rosen According to Adam, >Surely the recourse to the idea of different levels of vibrations is now >become rather tired and worn out.... >This may have worked within the physics of that time, but surely things >have now moved on. There are now no mysterious regions of the >electromagnetic spectrum in which to hide our idea of the astral body, the >whole spectrum has been very clearly and precisely >mapped out through the progress of 20th century physics. I suggest that while the classical electromagnetic spectrum may not in itself provide a suitable interface with esoteric notions such as "subtle body vibrations," modern physical structures such as the *quantum of action* of quantum mechanics -- which entails irreducible uncertainty - - may work better. It is not a question of attempting to 'reduce' realms of inner experience to objective treatment; it is a matter of finding a way of bringing inner and outer reality into harmony. There can be no such harmony if, in the spirit of Descartes, we keep exoteric and esoteric matters completely isolated from one another. Subject: A0290 Higher vibrations? Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 07:46:06 -0600 From: Jim Bayer >From: Adam McLean >This metaphor of different levels of vibration seems to have reached its >"sell-by" date. We will find that using this idea before physicists or >anyone conversant with modern science, no longer serves to bridge the >spiritual-material divide, but only makes one appear to be invoking outdated >physics to support ones ideas. It may still have a place in the "X-files" but >surely this idea of higher vibrations is compromised as a basis for a >theory of matter and spirit. Indeed, we will find that philosophers of the >esoteric trying to find a physical model for spiritual forces, now turn >towards late 20th century physical ideas, of quantum theory, superstrings, >the topology of folded 11 dimensional spaces, in order to develop >parallels between matter and spirit. Adam, could you be so kind as to provide us a synopsis of spirit/matter relationships according to contemporary physics? Much appreciated, Jim Bayer ([email protected]) Subject: A0291 Alice Bailey Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 09:29:39 -0600 From: Jim Bayer This post is directed primarily to Pat Zalewski, though others interested feel free to respond. Pat--I've also been working through the Bailey material, would be interested in discussing it with you privately. A jumping-off point might be the comparison between the seven "planes" and the "Practical Z. Preparation For Divination" in the Golden Dawn material... Jim Bayer ([email protected]) Subject: A0292 Higher vibrations - spirit/matter Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 07:46:06 -0600 From: Adam McLean >Adam, could you be so kind as to provide us a synopsis of spirit/matter >relationships according to contemporary physics? Much appreciated, >Jim Bayer I don't think contemporary physics in itself directly addresses the spirit/matter problem. Of course, a number of physicists have discussed such ideas, but it is not part of the day to day work of physicists at Cern or in the Fermilab, nor does this necessarily appear in their scientific papers. What is important for those of us interested in alchemy and esoteric ideas, is to realise that fundamental physics has undergone a profound change during the 20th century, and the old post-Newtonian deterministic paradigm has finally died in the ever-shifting continuum of quantum physics. Einstein has been held up as the archetype of 20th century physics, but it now appears that Einstein's contribution, general relativity, did not really mark a profound change in viewpoint. Perhaps later generations will see Max Planck as taking the most important step in physics, for it is his quantum theory that closes down determinism and opens up possibilities for the re-enlivening of metaphysics and consequently esotericism. At the end of the 20th century, fundamental physics has crossed over a threshold. The structures it must now investigate in order to form a theory of matter exist at such a small scale and are quantised as events of such great energy that it is no longer possible for physicists to design experiments in order to test their theories. The vast particle accelerators just cannot acheive high enough energies to explore quantum gravity. To do this one needs accelerators billions of times more powerful that those existing at present, and indeed there appears to be a theoretical limit on what could be contructed. So, in order for physicists to extend quantum theory to include gravitation, they can no longer rely on experiments. Already physicists are adopting such criteria as the neatness, beauty, or symmetry of a theory in order to judge whether it is a step forward in their description of matter. Physics is now merging into metaphysics, as it struggles to use ideas of seven dimensional spheres folded in eleven dimensional spaces, and the topological knotting of superstrings. Theoretical physicists are thus now concerned with metaphysics, and must face the fact that they will have to advance their ideas without recourse to practical laboratory experiments, and in a strange way this echoes the speculations of the alchemists some hundreds of years ago. One consequence of this can be seen in the fact that many fundamental physicists no longer find a contradiction between their 'day-job' physics and their personal beliefs, and there is no problem for them to express interest in religious or esoteric ideas. Further, there are theoretical limits to an exact description of reality, for mathematical systems are filled with indeterminacy - Kurt Godel proved this in the 1930's - the consequences of which few people have realised. There are now profound theoretical reasons why the monolithic closed-system physics, which emerged in the 19th and early 20th century, are fundamentally impossible. It is obvious that the life sciences, which up till now have dealt with large non-quantum structures, must push towards the quantum region in order to understand the workings of the brain and consciousness. In a world where all is ultimately a continuum of metaphysical speculation, there will again be space for an alchemical perspective. Adam McLean Subject: A0293 Higher vibrations - spirit/matter Date: Thu, 17 Oct 96 06:13 +0100 From: Waldemar Hammel Adam McLean wrote: >I don't think contemporary physics in itself directly addresses the >spirit/matter problem. Of course, a number of physicists have discussed such >ideas, but it is not part of the day to day work of physicists at Cern or in >the Fermilab, nor does this necessarily appear in their scientific papers. Modern physics directly faces the spirit-matter problem under the aspect of perception-percepted entity problem (e.g. in measure-theories). John von Neumann and Pauli made already deliberations in that direction. The old philosophical and new linguistic question of the interdependences between man (receptor), the act of perception, and the reason for perception (matter) is ascending as unsolved again. Language is the connector between them, and language generates the fundamental grammar structures for consciousness, perception, and understanding. Whole physics may be nothing but an excursion in perception and language, (as whole philosophy before Wittgenstein was only an appendix to language problems). All that is very actual in physics and will surely become more important in the future. But all that has nothing to do with esoterics or mysticism. >What is important for those of us interested in alchemy and esoteric ideas, >is to realise that fundamental physics has undergone a profound change >during the 20th century, and the old post-Newtonian deterministic paradigm >has finally died in the ever-shifting continuum of quantum physics. Einstein >has been held up as the archetype of 20th century physics, but it now >appears that Einstein's contribution, general relativity, did not really >mark a profound change in viewpoint. Perhaps later generations will see Max >Planck as taking the most important step in physics, for it is his quantum >theory that closes down determinism and opens up possibilities for the >re-enlivening of metaphysics and consequently esotericism. There were three changes in physics during the last periods, all concerning perception. Newton invented a theory which described absolute entities: space, time, and force. Human perception was treated as beeing able to recept absolute and independent things (entities) outside of humans brain. A theory of eternal invariants. (essentially a perception theory!= perception results in the knowledge of absolute natural entities). Einstein recognized that the Newton invariants were perception-sensitive, and so they could be modified and were no longer invariant. Speeding up to higher velocities v < =c) he resulted new functional invariants (e.g. e=mc°2+1/2mv°2). So in the beginning he called his theory 'theory of invariants' (the functional invariants he had extracted from Newton�s theory). These functional invariants then became again absolute invariants, making the same mistake as Newton on annother level. Relativity theory also is fundamentally nothing but a perception theory. This time perception should result in the knowledge of absolute functional natural entities. Therefore this theory is more abstract. Not the percepted matter itself but it's interactions created invariants which had the value of beeing absolute and independent from humans brain and perception. Quantum physics now is the next logical step: Entities outside of us (matter) are not absolute but depend on the conditions of perception, the interactions between them do also (wave-particle paradox etc.). Matter, energy, and information are perception-born things. Whole physics is treating fundamental with perception problems. The syntax and semantical structures of our sensory organs, the same structures of our language and therewith our consciousness create what we call world. Under that conditions there are no invariants left to make up a common physics as know before. Parts of modern physics gave up even the idea of the existence of natural laws, because also they are nothing but perception-born invariants, which carry their always becomming longer tail of creation-algorithms with them from level to level of further unification. Suddenly world is indeterminated, variable by variation of perception. Quantum physics again is a perception theory and with a plausible inner logic it brings us to life-sciences and (neuro)linguistics etc. Before doing anything else we must find out how our brain is working and what our perception is like. We have a lot of work to do, before we can create a new science called 'physics' where the Planck-quantum is described as a peak-signal result from interactions and the entity 'time' will no longer be an absolute syntax-quantity but belong to the category 'qualities', what means: time may be a semantical spin-off-effect of each interaction. But also here I do not see possibilities for esoterics or mysticism. >........................................... The vast particle accelerators >just cannot acheive high enough energies to explore quantum gravity. To do >this one needs accelerators billions of times more powerful that those >existing at present, and indeed there appears to be a theoretical limit on >what could be contructed. So, in order for physicists to extend quantum >theory to include gravitation, they can no longer rely on experiments. >Already physicists are adopting such criteria as the neatness, beauty, or >symmetry of a theory in order to judge whether it is a step forward in their >description of matter. Physics is now merging into metaphysics, as it >struggles to use ideas of seven dimensional spheres folded in eleven >dimensional spaces, and the topological knotting of superstrings. The symmetry argument was initially used by Einstein when constructing the relativity theory. (Symmetrical structures are of great value for the economy of perception, You see, how strong Einstein�s theory is influenced by normal perception strategies). In his later life he gave it up, especially when searching for his so called 'unified field theory', eventually he suspected the symmetry-argument as a subjective (anthropocentrical) one. In general 'symmetry', 'beauty' etc. are qualities (attributes) given to percepted things. As long as we are not able to understand how quality emerges from quantity it is not possible to understand the opposite: how quantity emerges from quality. So the use of these expressions in physics has more prosaical character (a kind of helpless) then a descriptive one (as beauty, charm, and flavour in the quarks-theory) That is not an invitation for unbased metaphysical speculations or mysticisms. Modern physics has a lot of new, great, and not-expected tasks, but to say (to hope) that it will merge into metaphysics is a kind of calculated pessimism. >Theoretical physicists are thus now concerned with metaphysics, and must >face the fact that they will have to advance their ideas without recourse to >practical laboratory experiments, and in a strange way this echoes the >speculations of the alchemists some hundreds of years ago. One consequence >of this can be seen in the fact that many fundamental physicists no longer >find a contradiction between their 'day-job' physics and their personal >beliefs, and there is no problem for them to express interest in religious >or esoteric ideas. There may be a 'weak force' not only between elementary particles but also in some physicists, which leads them to esoteric ideas. Religious and esoteric images are not and can not be contradictory to physics or any other of the nature sciences, because simply science does not treat with or about that confessions or professions. Physics has not and had never the duty to proof or to unproof any religious contents, physicists always believed in different religions, otherwise Indian physicist, Jewish physicists, or Muslim physicists would not be able to work. The idea that physics and religion (and esoterics) are contradictions is an ended theme from the last centuries. What echoes alchemy at the modern problems of physics is the fact that alchemy initially is a perception-linguistic-hypothesis about the inner organisation of the individuum, and therefore of the world outside of it. Initially alchemy treated with language (kabbalah etc.) and perception-problems (the alchemist must be of inner cleanness/ he must be aware of his perception acts, and how appears matter before my perception, etc.) That is the connection between the two things. And, as I wrote in one of my first letters to the forum, I find it very regrettable, that modern alchemists (also most of the members of the forum) do not refer to that roots of alchemy (that would be a chance for alchemy to become very actual and senseful, close to physics, linguistics, analytical philosophy and life-sciences), but they make restless new (more or less senseless) speculations over speculations. They think about the language of the birds instead of discussing and becoming acquainted with the important and strange implications of their own language, which determines their consciousness and perception, and by that the whole world which they are able to know about. They are friendly with the future and the past, they know heaven and hell, the meaning of the planets, they interpret the symbolisms of plants names, they speak with the birds and the dust, they read the constellations of stars like a book, but they don't see themselves worthy enough to meditate and reflect about themselves and their limitations in body and minds. To my opinion that kind of alchemy is seen as very suspect and it is right not to respect it. >Further, there are theoretical limits to an exact description of reality, >for mathematical systems are filled with indeterminacy - Kurt Godel proved >this in the 1930's - the consequences of which few people have realised. >There are now profound theoretical reasons why the monolithic closed-system >physics, which emerged in the 19th and early 20th century, are fundamentally >impossible. It is obvious that the life sciences, which up till now have >dealt with large non-quantum structures, must push towards the quantum >region in order to understand the workings of the brain and consciousness. That above statement about the importance of Goedel's theory is right. But mathematics has a lot of other unsolved problems. E.g. the translation of the 'cero' in the 13th century by Leonardo of Pisa. He tried to translate 'cero' from a language-culture which has a trivalent logical structure (Indian Sanskrit) to the occident with its bivalent logical language- and mind-structure. Until today the character 'cero' is a strange not fully integrated value in mathematics. The importance of that reaches up to the gravitational theory (black holes), to quantum physics(boolean-algebra), even to superstring-hypothesis. But also here I cannot see an open door for religion, esoterics etc. >In a world where all is ultimately a continuum of metaphysical speculation, >there will again be space for an alchemical perspective. There are reasonable speculations and unreasonable ones. Most of the speculators on the list seem to belong to the last cathegory. Alchemy should go back to it's roots: -structure of my sensory organs -syntax and semantics of my sensory organs -what is my perception like? -how does it work? -what about my language? -how does matter (world) appear before me? -why in that recognized way? -how emerges quality from quantity? -what kind of entities are attributes? -last of all: who am I ? what then is (means) that world before my eyes ? Sorry for that long letter, but the whole time I was disappointed by 'the language of birds' and other features, and now I took the chance as Mr. McLean wrote this very informative and near-to-reality letter. With my best regards Waldemar Hammel Subject: A0294 Higher vibrations - spirit/matter Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 19:15:22 -0600 From: Jim Bayer >>Adam, could you be so kind as to provide us a synopsis of spirit/matter >>relationships according to contemporary physics? Much appreciated, >>Jim Bayer > >I don't think contemporary physics in itself directly addresses the >spirit/matter problem. >... >It is obvious that the life sciences, which up till now have >dealt with large non-quantum structures, must push towards the quantum >region in order to understand the workings of the brain and consciousness. > >Adam McLean Adam, thanks for the review of the state of physics today. I may have worded my question poorly--I realize physicists aren't directly addressing issues of spirit. You originally suggested that the vibrational model of spirit/matter relations was being superceded by a quantum model. I merely wanted to hear how you would apply quantum theory to an understanding of these relations. Still curious, Jim Bayer Subject: A0295 Alchemical significance of materials From: Adam McLean Date: 17th Oct 1996 I post this question from an architecture student in Sydney, Australia :- In a design I am working on at the moment, I am looking at using materials to "speak" to people, conveying certain things about the importance and meaning of different places. I had a look at the alchemy web site, but what I am really interested in is whether or not different materials have different alchemical significances, and where I can find out about what these are if this is the case. I would really appreciate any advice you have an my quest for material significances! Subject: A0296 Higher vibrations - spirit/matter Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 10:05:14 -0400 From: Jeffrey Jung postulated in his alchemical work the existence of what he called the psychoid realm, the inner space wherein psyche and matter are the same or conjoined. He likened this space to what Dorn has called the unus mundus, the realm of subtle bodies and another world intermediate between the normal physical world and the world of pure idea or spirit. Jung wrote: "But, just because of this intermingling of the physical and the psychic, it always remains an obscure point whether the ultimate transformations in the alchemical process are to be sought more in the material or more in the spiritual realm. Actually, however, the question is wrongly put: there was no either-or for that age, but there did exist an intermediate realm between mind and matter, i.e., a psychic realm of subtle bodies whose characteristic it is to manifest themselves in a mental as well as a material form. This is the only view that makes sense of alchemical ways of thought, which must otherwise appear nonsensical." The idea seems to me to be that true alchemical transmutation occurs at the level of the subtle body, which many times will have a physical impact as well. But the stone itself is concentration of subtle energies in a subtle body form and may not have been of a purely physical nature at all. Of course the subtle realm at least as Jung takes it, is in equal measure physical and spirtual or psychic. Despite the new develoments physics has taken I think we must beware of the projection of knowledge we usually make on the scientist - they are possibly the least able to work with the subtle realm by the nature of their training. Jeff Subject: A0297 Alchemical significance of materials Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 09:15:43 -0500 From: George Leake >In a design I am working on at the moment, I am looking at using >materials to "speak" to people, conveying certain things about the >importance and meaning of different places. I had a look at the >alchemy web site, but what I am really interested in is whether or >not different materials have different alchemical significances, and >where I can find out about what these are if this is the case. Frankly I think this fellow would do well to look into the philosophies of Giordano Bruno George Leake Subject: A0298 Renaissance painting and alchemy Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 18:23:59 -0500 (EST) From: DEMARCO I am completing a study of a painting by Titian whose subject is the PIETA and which was intended by the artist to lIe above his tomb in a Venetian church. The central topos of the painting is stone -- used in an aesthetic, theological and I believe alchemical sense. Although much has been written about this painting almost no one has introduced the subject of alchemy with respect to the imagery and symbolism of what Titian intended. I would be interested in hearing from anyone who can add to the literature of which I am aware concerning Renaissance and particularly North Italian painting, or indeed sculpture. Secondarily, can anyone cite some literature dealing with the Faustian aspects of alchemy? Nick Demarco -- [email protected] Subject: A0299 English alchemy books From: Adam McLean Date: 18th October 1996 This morning I decided to extract all the English alchemy books from my database and place them in date order. This will allow us to see the evolution and transmission of ideas. (However, please note, I have not been able to extract in this list the reissues and reprints of books, though there are not that many). We can immediately note that the early publications are almost entirely of physical alchemy (Ripley's allegorical 'Compound' in 1591 is an obvious exception). We can see short lived ideas such as that that of the antimonial cup during the 1630's-40's, and the sudden explosion of alchemical publication in 1650 (which has a large component of philosophical or spiritual alchemy) and we note how Thomas Vaughan's writings seem to lead this cycle of alchemical publishing. This stream of publication tails off towards the end of the 17th century. I hope this list might be of some assitance to those wishing to explore the historical evolution of English alchemy. I myself have been working on a book on this theme for some years. Adam McLean ------------------------------------------------ 1559 [Gesner, Konrad.]. The Treasure of Euonymus,... 1575 [Paracelsus] [1493-1541]. The true and perfect order to distill oyles... 1576 Gesner, Conrad. The newe Iewell of Health,... 1580 Paracelsus [1493-1541]. The first part of the Key of Philosophie... 1585 Bostocke, Richard. The difference betwene the auncient phisicke,... 1591 Duchesne, Joseph. A Breefe Aunswere of Josephus Quercetanus Armeniacus,... 1591 Ripley, George. The compound of alchymy... 1596 Paracelsus [1493-1541]. A hundred and foureteene Experiments and Cures... 1597 Bacon, Roger [1214?-1294]. The Mirror of Alchimy... 1605 Duchesne, Joseph. The Practise of Chymicall, and Hermeticall Physicke,... 1612 Tymme, Thomas. A Dialogue Philosophicall. Wherein Natures secret closet is opened,... 1616 Anthonie, Francis [1550-1623]. The apologie, or defence of a verity heretofore published... 1616 Willis, Timothy. The search for causes. Containing a theophysicall investigation... 1623 Cotta, John [1575?-1650?]. Cotta contra Antonium; or an ant-Antony: or an Ant-Apology,... 1623 Lambye, John Baptiste. A revelation of the Secret Spirit... 1623 Scot, Patrick. The tillage of Light... 1624 Flamel, Nicholas. Nicholas Flammel, His Exposition of the Hieroglyphicall Figures... 1634 Evans, John. The universall medicine: or the vertues of the antimoniall cup... 1640 Primerosius, Jacobus. The antimoniall cup twice cast;... 1642 Evans, John. The universall medicine: or the virtues of my magneticall... 1648 Cohausen, Johann Heinrich [1665-1750]. Hermippus Redivivus: or, the Sages' Triumph over Old Age... 1649 Vigenere, Blaise de. A Discourse of Fire and Salt,... 1649 Weigel, Valentinus. Astrologie theologized:... 1650 Vaughan, Thomas. Anthroposophia Theomagica: Or A Discourse of the Nature of Man... 1650 Vaughan, Thomas. Magia Adamica: Or The Antiquitie of Magic,... 1650 Vaughan, Thomas. The Man-Mouse Taken in a Trap, and tortur'd to death... 1650 Dee, Arthur. Fascilicus Chemicus: or Chemical Collections.... 1650 More, Henry. Observations upon Anthroposophia Theomagia, and Anima Magica Abscondita. 1650 Vaughan, Thomas. Anima Magica Abscondita: Or A Discourse of the universall Spirit... 1651 Vaughan, Thomas. Lumen de Lumine: Or A new Magicall Light discovered,... 1651 Vaughan, Thomas. The Second Wash: Or The Moore Scour'd once more,... 1651 d'Espagnet, Jean. Enchyridion Physicae Restitutae; or, The Summary of Physicks Recovered... 1651 French, John. The Art of Distillation,... 1651 Glauber, Johann Rudolf. A Description of new Philosophical Furnaces,... 1651 More, Henry. The second lash of Alazonomastix;... 1652 A Hermeticall banquet, drest by a Spagyricall Cook:... 1652 Vaughan, Thomas. Aula Lucis, Or, The House of Light:... 1652 Vaughan, Thomas. The Fame and Confession of the Fraternity of R: C:... 1652 Ashmole, Elias. Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum. Containing Severall Poetical Pieces... 1652 Carpenter, Agricola. Pseuchographia Anthropomagica: Or, A Magicall Description of the Soul... 1652 Fioravanti, Leonard. Three exact pieces of Leonard Phioravant Knight, and Doctor,... 1652 P., H. Five Treatises of the Philosophers Stone... 1653 Paracelsus [1493-1541]. Medicina Diastatica or Sympatheticall Mumie: 1654 Maier, Michael. Lusus Serius: Or, Serious Passe-time.... 1654 Partlitz, Simon von Spitzberg. A New Method of Physick:... 1654 Philalethes, Eirenaeus Philoponus. The Marrow of Alchemy� 1655 [Hartlib, Samuel.]. Chymical, medicinal, and chyrurgical addresses: made to Samuel Hartlib,... 1655 Vaughan, Thomas. Euphrates, or the Waters of the East;... 1655 Nollius, Henry. Hermetical Physick: or, The right way to preserve,... 1656 Culpepper, Nicholas [1616-1654]. Mr. Culpepper's Treatise of Aurum Potabile.... 1656 Maier, Michael. Themis Aurea. The Laws of the Fraternity... 1656 Paracelsus [1493-1541]. Paracelsus of the Supreme Mysteries of Nature... 1656 Parresiastes, Philophilus. Enthusiasmus Triumphatus, or, A Discourse of The Nature, Causes,... 1657 Croll, Oswald [1580-1609]. Philosophy Reformed & Improved in Four Profound Tractates... 1657 Nollius, Henry. The chymists key to shut, and to open: ... 1657 Nuysement, Jacques de [Baron Clovis Hesteau.]. Sal, Lumen, & Spiritus Mundi Philosophici: 1657 Paracelsus [1493-1541]. Paracelsus Of The Chymical Transmutation, Genealogy and Generation of Metals... 1657 Starkey, George [d. 1666.]. Natures Explication and Helmont's Vindication... 1657 Valentine, Basil. Basilius Valentinus�His last Will and Testament... 1658 Ashmole, Elias. The way to bliss... 1658 Heydon, John. A new method of Rosie Crucian physick:... 1658 Starkey, George. Pyrotechny Asserted and Illustrated,... 1659 Bacon, Roger [1214?-1294]. Frier Bacon his Discovery of the Miracles of Art, Nature... 1659 Eglinus, Raphael Iconius [1559-1622]. Cheiragogia Heliana. A Manuduction To the Philosopher's Magical Gold: 1659 Fludd, Robert. Mosaicall philosophy: Grounded upon the Essentiall Truth or Eternal Sapience... 1659 Paracelsus [1493-1541]. Paracelsus his Aurora, & Treasure of the Philosophers.... 1660 Heydon, John [1629-]. The Rosie Crucian Infallible Axiomata, or, Generall Rules to know... 1660 Paracelsus [1493-1541]. Paracelsus his Archidoxis: Comprised in Ten Books,... 1660 Starkey, George. George Starkeys pill vindicated from the unlearned alchymist... 1660 Valentine, Basil. The Triumphant Chariot of Antimony,... 1661 Boyle, Robert. The Sceptical Chymist or Chemico-Physical Doubts & Paradoxes,... 1662 Heydon, John. The English Physitians Guide: Or a Holy-Guide,... 1662 Heydon, John. The harmony of the world:... 1662 Heydon, John. The holy guide:... 1662 Le F�vre, Nicolas. [1610-1674?]. A Compendious Body of Chymisty,... 1662 Poleman, Joachim. Novum Lumen Medicum;... 1664 Heydon, John [1629-]. Hampaaneah Hammegulleh: Or, The Rosie Crucian Crown:... 1664 Heydon, John. The wise-mans crown: or, the glory of the Rosie Cross... 1664 Le F�vre, Nicolas. [1610-1674?]. A Discourse upon Sr. Walter Rawleigh's Great Cordial: ... 1664 MacKaile, Matthew. Moffet-Well: or, A Topographico-Spagyricall description of the Mineral Wells,... 1665 Bolnest, Edward [fl. 1665-1672]. Medicina instaurata, or; A Brief Account of the true Grounds... 1665 Heydon, John. Elhavareuna or the English Physitians Tutor In the Astrobolismes... 1665 Starkey, George. An epistolar discourse to the learned and deserving author... 1666 Spurstow, W. The spiritual chymist: or six decades of divine meditations... 1669 [Thraster, William.]. The Marrow of Chymical Physick;... 1669 [Vaughan, Thomas.]. A Brief Natural History Intermixed with variety Of Philosophical Discourses;... 1669 Beguin, John [fl. early 17th century]. Tyrocinium Chymicum: or, Chymical Essays,� 1669 Philalethes, Eirenaeus. Secrets Reveal'd; Or, An Open Entrance to the Shut-Palace... 1670 Acton, George. A letter in answer to certain quaeries ... 1670 Clarke, William. The Natural History of Nitre:... 1670 Croll, Oswald. Bazilica Chymica, & Praxis Chymiatricae or Royal and Practical Chymistry... 1670 Helvetius, John Frederick [1625?-1709]. The Golden Calf, Which the World Adores and Desires:... 1670 Suchten, Alexander von. Alex. Van Suchten of the Secrets of Antimony: ... 1670 Valentine, Basil. Basilius Valentinus,� Of natural & supernatural things... 1671 Webster, John. Metallographa: or, An History of Metals... 1672 Bolnest, Edward [fl. 1665-1672]. Aurora Chymica: or a rational way of Preparing animals, vegetables... 1673 Cooper, William [fl. 1675-1689]. The Philosophical Epitaph of W.C. Esquire... 1674 Barba, Albaro Alonso. The Art of Metals,... 1674 D., H. V. The Tomb of Semiramis hermetically sealed, ... 1674 Sendivogius, Michael. A New Light of Alchymy:... 1675 Cooper, William. A Catalogue of Chymicall Books.... 1675 Starkey, George. Liquor Alchahest, or a Discourse of that Immortal Dissolvent... 1677 Faber, Albert Otto. De auro potabili medicinali ad potentissimum principem,... 1677 Tachenius, Otto. Otto Tachenius. his Hippocrates Chymicus.. 1678 Boyle, Robert. Of a Degradation of Gold Made by an Anti-Elixir:... 1678 Geber. The Works of Geber,... 1678 Philalethes, Eirenaeus. A breviary of alchemy; or a commentary upon Sir George... 1678 Philalethes, Eirenaeus. Ripley Reviv'd: or, an Exposition upon Sir George Ripley's Hermetico-Poetical... 1678 Valentine, Basil. Basil Valentine His Triumphant Chariot of Antimony... 1680 Aurifontina Chymica: or, a Collection of Fourteen small Treatises concerning... 1680 Becher, John Joachim [1635-1682]. Magnalia Naturae: or, the Philosophers-Stone Lately expos'd... 1680 Boyle, Robert. The Aerial Noctiluca: Or Some New Phoenomena, and a Process... 1682 [Bacon, William.]. A key to Helmont.... 1682 [Digby, Kenelm.]. A Choice Collection of rare Secrets and Experiments in Philosophy,... 1682 Case, John. The wards of the key to Helmont proved unfit... 1683 MacKaile, Matthew. The Diversitie of Salts and Spirits Mantained.... 1683 Salmon, William. Doron Medicum. An idea of the process of the universal... 1683 Starkey, George. The admirable efficacy, and almost incredible virtue of true oyl,... 1684 Collectanea Chymica: A Collection of Ten Several Treatises in Chymistry,... 1685 Helmont, Franciscus Mercurius van [1618-1699]. The Paradoxical Discourses of F. M. Van Helmont,� 1685 Weidenfeld, Johannes Segerus. Four books of Johannes Segerus Weidenfeld,... 1687 [Midgeley, R.]. A new treatise of natural philosophy,... 1688 Colson, Lancelot [fl. 1660-1676]. Philosophia Maturata: An Exact Piece of Philosophy,� 1688 Helmont, Franciscus Mercurius van. One Hundred Fifty Three Chymical Aphorisms� 1689 Glauber, Johann Rudolf. The Works of the Highly Experienced and Famous Chymist,... 1690 Andreae, Johann Valentin. The Hermetick romance: or the chymical wedding.... 1690 Urbigerus, Baro. Aphorismi Urbigerani, Or Certain Rules,... 1692 Penotus, Bernard. Penotus Palimbios: or the Alchymists Enchiridion.... 1692 Y-Worth, William. Chymicus Rationalis: or, the Fundamental Grounds of the Chymical Art... 1694 Philalethes, Eirenaeus. Three Tracts Of the Great Medicine of Philosophers... 1694 Philoctetes, Eyreneus. Philadelphia, Or Brotherly Love To the Studious... 1696 [Schwartzfus, Anonymus von.]. Sanguis natur�, or, a Manifest Declaration of the sanguine... 1696 Ali Puli. Centrum Naturae Concentratum: or the Salt of Nature regenerated.... 1698 Hortulanus Junior. The Golden Age: Or, the Reign of Saturn Review'd.... 1698 Philadept. An essay concerning adepts: or, a resolution of this inquiry,... 1698 Philalethes, Eugenius Junr. [Samber, Robert.]. Some Reflections On a late Book Called The Golden Age,... 1700 Annus sophi� jubil�us. The Sophick Constitution: or, the Evil Customs... 1702 Mystagogus, Cleidophorus. Mercury's Caducean Rod:... 1705 Kunkel, Johann. Pyrotechnical Discourses. Being I. An Experimental Confirmation of Chymical Philosophy,... 1705 Mystagogus, Cleidophorus. Trifertes Sagani, Or Immortal Dissolvent.... 1705 Y-Worth, William. The Compleat Distiller: or the Whole Art of Distillation... 1707 Salmon, William. Medicina practica: or, the practical physician: shewing the true method... 1709 Philalethes, Eirenaeus. A True Light of Alchymy.... 1712 Freind, John. Chymical Lectures: In which almost all the Operations of Chymistry... 1714 A Short Enquiry Concerning the Hermetick Art... 1715 A Philosophical Enquiry Into some of the Most considerable Phenomena's... 1722 [Sendivogius, Michael.]. A Philosophical Account of Nature in General,... 1723 [Limojon de Saint Disdier, Alexandre Toussaint]. The Hermetical Triumph: or, The Victorious Philosophical Stone. 1732 Wisdom reputed Folly: or, the Composition and Reality... 1739 Bacon, Roger [1214?-1294]. The Philosopher's Stone; or Grand Elixir, Discover'd by Friar Bacon;... 1745 Chrysopoiea: Being a Dissertation on the Hermetical science.... 1757 Elixir magnum: the Philosophers Stone found out... 1770 A Guide to Alchymy: or the Grand Secret laid open:... 1782 Price, James. An account of some experiments on mercury, silver and gold,... 1796 Pew, R. Observations on the art of making gold and silver,... 1806 Flamel, Nicholas. Testament of Nicholas Flamel... Subject: A0300 Modern alchemical practice From: greg Date: 19 Oct 1996 22:06:00 PDT Hi, I was wondering about the forms the practice of Alchemy is taking for the modern alchemist. I understand that there are probably many tecniques of meditation, probably as diverse in form as the people who practice them-- that would be what I will call the "Introverted" side. What I'm speaking of here is the "Extraverted" side of modern practice, and what forms that may be taking, if any. The way I see it, the alchemists of the past worked with natural elements in the retort and the crucible, attempting to transform matter. Most likely not everyone who practiced this was able to glean philosophical insight from simply performing the physical manipulation of substances, this came only to a relative few who were blessed to become conscious of the correspondence between the physical practice, and their own lives. The physical manipulation of substances which the alchemists performed were early attempts at a very young science, so these people were truly operating at the "edge" of contemporary knowlege, and so placing themselves at times in physical danger which eased as they learned. If people today were to make a practice of repeating physical experiments of the alchemists, it would take on the character of ritual. At this level, the practice becomes something other than that which the early alchemists experienced, but perhaps it has a certain "magical" effect, I don't know. It seems to me that in the true spirit of alchemy the modern alchemist needs to be open to new physical practices that may not at first glance appear to be related to alchemy at all. Has anyone found such "Extraverted" practices? Greg |
Texts in French
Texts in German
Texts in Dutch
Texts in Italian
Texts in Spanish 
Texts in Russian
Texts in Portuguese