Judy, as I said, there were hints, brief mentions of herbs. I was suggesting
that option given that neither chemistry nor enlightenment seemed to cover the
whole endeavor, especially in contemporary times.
From: authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 10:02 AM
Subject: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Secrets of Alchemy
You might just want to read the entire exchange, Share, including the quote I
posted initially from the review of the new book about alchemy, as well as my
responses to Seraphita. (You could even read the entire review at the link I
posted.) Then you'll know what the most up-to-date scholarly research says
about alchemy, instead of having to resort to outdated speculations. I've left
everything in below so you can check it out.
Share wrote:
Seraphita, I can't help but think about Big Pharma as I read these posts about
alchemy. There are hints that it had to do with herbs and health. Certainly
longevity, maybe even immortality? I would think that he Church would be
against immortality obtained in such an earthly way! As for nowadays I don't
think Big Pharma would want anyone finding out about health and longevity
within the realm of herbs and herbal combinations.
From: s3raphita@... s3raphita@...
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 9:25 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Secrets of Alchemy
Re: I'm not sure quite what you're asking. I don't think anybody feels
inhibited about discussing either the spiritual or the chemistry aspects of
alchemy . . . I encountered Jung's theories about alchemy, which portrayed it
as an experimental discipline purportedly leading to enlightenment, for which
lead-into-gold and all the various laboratory procedures and results described
in the texts were merely coded metaphors intended to throw the Church off the
scent of heresy. :
That's precisely what I'm referring to. As you and I don't have to worry about
the Church burning us at the stake we no longer need to decipher coded
metaphors or wade through arcane symbolism. And so, with a sigh of relief, if
we want to talk about spirituality we can call a spade a spade and speak to
each other in plain language. Therefore alchemy is now just a historical
curiosity.
There are some modern alchemists who claim that their discipline is neither
fancy symbolism for a spiritual search nor just a chemistry set but . . .
well, something else - but I'm not sure what they're on about as you have to
join a secret society or whatever to learn more.
---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote:
Seraphita wondered:
If alchemy is viewed as a spiritual practice which, in the past, had to hide
its secrets to avoid persecution from the Church then why bother about all that
impenetrable symbolism now that we are free to say what we like?
I'm not sure quite what you're asking. I don't think anybody feels inhibited
about discussing either the spiritual or the chemistry aspects of alchemy.
I'm fascinated by the book's thesis because when I first heard about alchemy
(probably in high school 50-mumble years ago), it was portrayed as a
superstitious and obviously futile attempt to turn lead into gold by folks who
knew nothing of the principles of chemistry.
Some years later I encountered Jung's theories about alchemy, which portrayed
it as an experimental discipline purportedly leading to enlightenment, for
which lead-into-gold and all the various laboratory procedures and results
described in the texts were merely coded metaphors intended to throw the Church
off the scent of heresy.
Now it turns out, apparently, that the alchemists were really skilled chemists,
and what their texts actually encoded in flowery language were the actual
recipes of their laboratory procedures and results. The idea that the texts
really dealt with esoteric practices for enlightenment had led scholars to
disregard the authentic chemistry behind the encoding.
Which isn't to say the alchemists were not spiritually minded, given that
knowledge itself was perceived to be divine, but rather that they were
genuinely pursuing the secrets of chemistry, with considerable success
(although they obviously never achieved the ultimate goal of transmuting lead
into gold).
IOW, the alchemists were neither fuzzy-headed would-be scientists nor
fuzzy-headed would-be saints but real scientists who believed their
experimental work would prove to be dangerous if it fell into the hands of
people who didn't know what they were doing--hence the encoding, which would be
understandable only to other highly trained alchemists.
At least, this is how I understand the review to be characterizing the thesis
of the book.
If alchemy is viewed as involving real ingredients going into real retorts,
etc, is there anything
