|
Post by thisisnecessary on Aug 8, 2008 8:32:09 GMT
Also another big question I would like to ask all involved here; Regardless of whether Alchemy has the same aim or method in a different guise...do you think that the alchemical/masonic process can be interchanged? Like, if one follows one path is the other unnecessary?
Or do you guys think that each path offers a totally different set of tools for a different type of self-actualization/enlightenment?
Sorry for the random questions...I guess I am overwhelmed with information because I am trying to link concepts that are as of now foreign to me(alchemy) to my masonic interests. Forgive me
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Aug 8, 2008 8:52:15 GMT
>So the only exposition you have seen of this purported phenomenon is a work of fiction, yet this circumstance gives your credulity no pause!?
So Philip are telling me that while alchemy exists in the mineral and plant kingdoms, it does not exist in any other kingdom?
Does that mean that the principles on which alchemy is based do not work in the rest of Creation?
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Aug 8, 2008 9:03:09 GMT
>do you think that the alchemical/masonic process can be interchanged? Like, if one follows one path is the other unnecessary?
The extant history of alchemy is more of failure than success and I suspect success requires significant inner development of the practitioner. This inner development may be achieved through various practices including Masonic.
I would suggest inner practices before alchemy. Indeed inner development may lead the brother to quite different work
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 8, 2008 9:20:08 GMT
>So the only exposition you have seen of this purported phenomenon is a work of fiction, yet this circumstance gives your credulity no pause!? So Philip are telling me that while alchemy exists in the mineral and plant kingdoms, it does not exist in any other kingdom? Does that mean that the principles on which alchemy is based do not work in the rest of Creation? Each realm has it own principles and so what may apply in one case may not apply in another. For instance, I personally get exasperated when Newton's Second Law of Motion is invoked by some as 'proof' of Karma.
|
|
|
Post by astraia on Aug 8, 2008 13:45:12 GMT
A perfect summary! And then to be... ;D Er hum. See Paracelsus. Give me a little time to go digging and I'll find you the exact citation. And if that's not enough have a look at his sources and influences in pre-Socratic philosophy. Of course all the kingdoms come into it. Lovecraft wrote a lot of BS but some of it was also based on real sources within the esoteric tradition. Oh, and much later Leadbeater did somw work in this direction from a theosophical perspective. Also, as per the summary of "Charles Dexter Ward," it reminds me to a great degree of the 'left-hand Qabbalistic' path that some other types of esoteric orders choose to follow. I'm only observing a pattern in this case not reading something into it that's not there. Good question which I joined Freemasonry to find the answer to! Being solitary and eclectic by nature I personally felt that the alchemical path I quite honestly stumbled onto some years ago was quite enough - but then again, I think it's narrow-minded to preclude different approaches to knowledge, especially on the basis of a "I know enough" type of attitude. There's something terribly pure about alchemy, for all it's complexity it can be boiled down to a "hypothesis-antithesis-synthesis-new thesis" motif which shines through no matter how many layers of symbolism and elaboration it's wrapped in. But different approaches work for different people and there's hardly something wrong with seeking to broaden one's perception - which is part, I think - of the beauty of Freemasonry - that double edged freedom it carries with it. I would hardly say that the one is unecessary in view of the other - mutually complementary if approached with an open mind perhaps. The Renaissance worldview out of which the expression of "modern" alchemy emerged and the vestiges of which Freemasonry preserved, gave us the term Renaissance man. And funnily enough, the whole symbolic and allegorical system of Freemasonry is based on architecture - which since Vitruvius (100 AD) and certainly during the Renaisance was considered an art for which one had to be a true Renaissance man - with a sound knowledge of all the Liberal Arts and the 'sciences' of the time, including an understanding of metallurgy. (again I can go dig out some references if anyone wants to go digging further with this one). So really the one enriches the other - thye symbolism of alchemy gives Freemasonry perhaps an underlying motif (one of many) with which to work if one is so inclined, and Freemasonry gives alchemy a structure within which to be expressed and reinterpreted.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 8, 2008 15:45:52 GMT
Er hum. See Paracelsus. Give me a little time to go digging and I'll find you the exact citation. And if that's not enough have a look at his sources and influences in pre-Socratic philosophy. Of course all the kingdoms come into it. Lovecraft wrote a lot of BS but some of it was also based on real sources within the esoteric tradition. Oh, and much later Leadbeater did somw work in this direction from a theosophical perspective.
Also, as per the summary of "Charles Dexter Ward," it reminds me to a great degree of the 'left-hand Qabbalistic' path that some other types of esoteric orders choose to follow. I'm only observing a pattern in this case not reading something into it that's not there. What is there is Bro. Russell's admission that he only knew of a work of fiction regarding "animal alchemy."
|
|
|
Post by astraia on Aug 8, 2008 15:58:09 GMT
Well then it's a good thing we're all here to learn from each other then, non?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 8, 2008 16:01:47 GMT
Well then it's a good thing we're all here to learn from each other then, non? I'm not sure how much learning there is to be had amid much obsfuscation.
|
|
|
Post by astraia on Aug 8, 2008 16:02:57 GMT
Different strokes for different folks perhaps
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 8, 2008 16:10:25 GMT
Different strokes for different folks perhaps Indeed!
|
|
|
Post by astraia on Aug 8, 2008 16:21:06 GMT
Oh no! Not the Inquisition again!!!!! I thought I was done with them!
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 8, 2008 16:24:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by astraia on Aug 8, 2008 17:15:50 GMT
:-[OK I'm off to go hide then. Unless I can find myself an outfit and false beard to match ;D
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Aug 8, 2008 21:28:54 GMT
>What is there is Bro. Russell's admission that he only knew of a work of fiction regarding "animal alchemy."
Philip, I suspect you did not read my words as carefully as I wrote them
>The last is hardly ever referred to and the only exposition I have seen is The Strange Case of Charles Dexter
As you may note on re-reading I distinguish between references and expositions.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 8, 2008 21:46:35 GMT
As you may note on re-reading I distinguish between references and expositions. I would have thought that any reference worthy of attention ought to have something of the character of an exposition, i.e., to inform, explain, describe or define. But, for the record, would you please cite any other references with which YOU were familiar.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Aug 9, 2008 13:55:35 GMT
Also another big question I would like to ask all involved here; Regardless of whether Alchemy has the same aim or method in a different guise...do you think that the alchemical/masonic process can be interchanged? Like, if one follows one path is the other unnecessary? Or do you guys think that each path offers a totally different set of tools for a different type of self-actualization/enlightenment? Sorry for the random questions...I guess I am overwhelmed with information because I am trying to link concepts that are as of now foreign to me(alchemy) to my masonic interests. Forgive me I have really enjoyed reading this thread and the very interesting replies that have been given. Answering your question backwards; There is only one truth because there is only one God. There are many paths that will lead you to the great truth. Mix them up as much as you like! Knowledge is a wondeful thing, knowledge through practical experience is even better. IMHO Alchemical teachings are everywhere in Freemasonry from the 1st Degree through all the other Degrees Freemasonry has to offer. On another note, surely it is reasonable to assume that not everyone will grasp or understand the teachings that are interwoven within the ritual?
|
|
|
Post by Ziggy on Aug 9, 2008 20:24:19 GMT
Also another big question I would like to ask all involved here; Regardless of whether Alchemy has the same aim or method in a different guise...do you think that the alchemical/masonic process can be interchanged? Like, if one follows one path is the other unnecessary? Or do you guys think that each path offers a totally different set of tools for a different type of self-actualization/enlightenment? Sorry for the random questions...I guess I am overwhelmed with information because I am trying to link concepts that are as of now foreign to me(alchemy) to my masonic interests. Forgive me I have really enjoyed reading this thread and the very interesting replies that have been given. Answering your question backwards; There is only one truth because there is only one God. There are many paths that will lead you to the great truth. Mix them up as much as you like! Knowledge is a wondeful thing, knowledge through practical experience is even better. IMHO Alchemical teachings are everywhere in Freemasonry from the 1st Degree through all the other Degrees Freemasonry has to offer. On another note, surely it is reasonable to assume that not everyone will grasp or understand the teachings that are interwoven within the ritual? That's the first thing that anyone's ever wrote, on this post, that made any sense. Though to throw my two cents, about the alchemical, I would start by learning the lectures. Though I suggest starting small with either the Charge, the Working Tools, and/or the Apron if you're going into or are the Senior Warden. If you want to learn about alchemy in the physical sense, then I suggest going down to your community college in signing up for a Geology and a Chemistry class.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Aug 10, 2008 23:09:18 GMT
hypothesis-antithesis-synthesis-new thesis The Tetragrammaton I don't think one needs a Uni degree to understand that 'secret formula'. Maat
|
|
|
Post by astraia on Aug 11, 2008 3:06:41 GMT
:)ditto The value I might perceive however, in taking an "academic" approach (doesn't have to be through a university, but can simply be in terms of the amount of discernment and clear judgment of sources etc that one utilizes when looking at anything of an esoteric nature) is that of studying/learning about something on its own terms and with respect to its objective backgroundRight now I'm writing about the foundations of Renaissance natural magic and the NeoPlatonic view of the soul - I don't have to know that much about the ancient philosophers who were the source of these concepts, all I need is a digested version. But it puts everything so much in perspective when I do understand the background - and I'm in a much better position to judge what it is I'm looking at. It takes nothing away from the sense of wonderment and deeper knowing that comes of inner understanding of esoteric matters. - for me if anything it strengthens it - and tells me I'm in darn good company!
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Aug 11, 2008 4:20:23 GMT
>the NeoPlatonic view of the soul
Do you have a specific definition of the soul against which to test the Neoplatonic view?
In some traditions there are several souls. How do we know if the concepts have any validity in the metaphysical reality?
|
|