It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Observations, The Alchemist vs. The Scientist Debate

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   
I am going to postulate and post observations in this thread please prepare yourself for insanity.

I notice 2 important paradigms or trains of thought both of which may require rebalancing.

Thought process 1 is that of the alchemist or magician. The magician sees reality as his own, reality to be bent to his will and influenced strongly by his will and consciousness. A magician sees his creative ability as a powerful force. Due to the nature of these practices his view of the universe is akin to this reality. He sees himself or herself as god or goddess of a world create by the power of his or her own observations and the scientific nature of those wills and observations to be bent and broken accordingly. This is the view of the alchemist. This experience is highly sought after by the political and economic elite. This experience is highly dependent on belief. There are more aspects of this view which cannot be explained but only experienced.

Thought process 2 is that of the scientific and mathematical perspective. In this view we have rigid thought, the world and universe understood through math and the scientific process. This paradigm is very firm and unwavering, uninfluenced by observation, will, and philosophy or belief. This paradigm is predictable and distinct. It is experienced and not influenced and very much the opposite of the world of the alchemist.

Now, what is the difference between the two and why does it exist?

From my own perspective the scientist can experience directly the world of the alchemist due to their rigid set of defined calculations and observations. However, on the rare occasion that a scientist is able to experience the world of potential and influence it opens up another, much deeper world to them.

Anyone want to finish these thoughts for me?




posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


while not being able to directly contribute to your thoughts, I did once read somethigh that resonated with me.
our modern world is the dream of an alchemist.

somethign about that stuck with me



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by okamitengu
 


Thats a pretty deep thought.

The modern world is literally the dream of an alchemist in a way. Creative thought manifest into direct execution. People in places working together with things to create things and use their minds to manipulate and discover ways to manipulate matter and the universe.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


I am both a magician (alchemist) and a scientist. My scientific background and research is specifically focused around electromagnetism, biophysics, and some other areas of theoretical physics (quantum and nanotechnology). There is no discrepancy between my two schools of thought. Why? Because I accept that there are certain metaphysical aspects of the universe which we cannot scientifically explain with our current paradigm of laws and rules. But that doesn't mean what we term the "metaphysical" doesn't exist or isn't real. It's like watching children who have realized they can burn ants with a magnifying glass. They know how to do it and what it does without understanding the mathematical science behind how or why it happens.

Yet, I constantly strive to further understand those metaphysical anomalies (such as consciousness, for example) from a scientific perspective.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by CIAGypsy
 


I agree Gypsy. I think they work together well, first you have to understand exactly what you said. In fact much of science was discovered and developed through these principles.

Its a sad fact of reality that we are getting further and further away from the turth instead of closer to it.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


Whenever I work on my hypotheses...no matter what kind of principle I am testing...I always use the premise that some portion of what I think I know is actually incorrect. Take gravity, for example. Gravity has been studied quite extensively. And with all the effort, experiments, mathematics, and formulas that have been put forth to scientifically explain gravity, I have to accept the real statistical reality that what is currently known and accepted about gravity is probably flawed. Maybe not all of it...but some part of it. Therefore, all experimentation or design is done based upon currently accepted scientific theories being an assumption....not an iron-clad law.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by CIAGypsy
 


Wow, with your expertise you can really clarify my train of thought.

Its a breath of fresh air to meet a scientist who can actually use their mind.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Scientific evidence is still interpreted and this interpretation can be subject to belief or desire. interpretation and the choice of the parameters of the research are influenced by consensus of the time.

Alchemy has many branches, I like alchemy for it's teaching of experiencing things first hand. I test how food chemistry effects me and study what I perceive is happening by looking at evidence from research, studying the parameters and trying to find the perception that steers the research. This allows me to apply the evidence to many situations, to completely understand it.

I don't much care for some of the dazzle in alchemy though, and some of the books are hard to comprehend because of the way the authors perceive things. It takes a lot of deciphering to figure out what they are talking about, but once you get used to it you start to make sense of it a little. Real knowledge is hidden in a different perception, knowledge that I have learned to clumsily interpret doing it on my own. It seems too romanticized to me but it is worth studying some of it. I have three of these books, I only own about seven of my own books total. My wife and daughter have many though, my daughter studies Ayurveda a little and has a degree in Yoga from a school in India. I see the romanticism in ayurvedic books and a little also in the Chinese medicines. Modern medicine usually treats people, not cures them.

Much of magic is using people's blindness to deceive them. Most people have poor perception and see what they think they know. They cannot see outside the box that they have built. Society contributes to this box.

I desire to investigate things to find the truth, that is why I come to ATS. I try to look at evidence to verify interpretations, looking at both sides of the story. If I get stubborn it is usually concerning the rationality of things and whether something is necessary in the first place. I like to keep my eye on the whole picture to see things, not the direction that we have been steered to believe is reality.

I have an interest in all three of the subjects myself. S&F
edit on 15-1-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


That is really interesting, OneQuestion. Have you read the book The Alchemist by Paolo Coelo? I highly recommend reading it. Also, you could read The Secret by Rhonda Byrne. Interesting that these two books are on my night stand along with Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics.

Back to your original question - I am an Alchemist by nature, however I am fluent in both languages - I think it is because of P.T.S.D. that I use my creative energies to generate and then dissipate logical constructs. It's really getting hard to say - I can hardly tell the energies apart much anymore.

I do know, however, that they are complimentary and not enemy forces - or at least they can be - it is only an illusion that they are enemies because someone who is an Alchemist may not trust the Scientist, and the Scientist may not trust the alchemist - but they ultimately fit together perfectly in the Ultimate Form.

And as an Alchemist I also have the ability to sense and navigate the Science pictorially in my mind - I have books on computer science and physics not because I like math and science (Which I do) but because these are the cultural tools that can be used for Real Creativity. People don't get it -

But what if I want to make a time machine? Well, you can do anything you want with science, it is like the painting of the Gods, the real power (which in my case is wielded for pure creative purposes) comes from understanding the Science and still maintaining the Alchemy.
edit on 15pmWed, 15 Jan 2014 22:45:17 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)


If I want (notice the want, it is important) to make a business selling clothing, and I know (notice the know) the science behind it, I can advertise more effectively, I can design better, I can be stronger, faster, make it better and work it harder. -


Now more at ease, the young man took the spoon and strolled again through the palace, this time paying attention to all the works of art that hung from the ceiling and walls.

He saw the gardens, the mountains all around the palace, the delicacy of the flowers, the taste with which each work of art was placed in its niche. Returning to the sage, he reported in detail all that he had seen.

“But where are the two drops of oil that I entrusted to you?” asked the sage.

Looking down at the spoon, the young man realized that he had spilled the oil.

“Well, that is the only advice I have to give you,” said the sage of sages.

“The Secret of Happiness lies in looking at all the wonders of the world and never forgetting the two drops of oil in the spoon.”


P.S. That is hardly definitive on the subject. Willing to continue this conversation for quite a while.
edit on 15pmWed, 15 Jan 2014 22:53:36 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   

onequestion
reply to post by CIAGypsy
 


Wow, with your expertise you can really clarify my train of thought.

Its a breath of fresh air to meet a scientist who can actually use their mind.


Interesting... someone else might consider me an artist who could use my mind... although I like the sound of CIAGypsie's direction a lot better, I've been told as much.


I don't have to talk down to you, you know what a cadaver is.

- random stranger met online


The best adventures are the ones that are equipped with good scientists.
edit on 15pmWed, 15 Jan 2014 23:00:47 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


Perhap this thread should have been titled 'The alchemist Vs The alchemist Debate.

Although there is no debate to be had really.

Alchemy represents both sides.

A loose pre-cursor of science and said science being used as a metaphor for inner transformation.

I think the magician and the alchemist are two very different animals.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 

I like the comparison or the benefit of it, only an alchemist would bother to create that thought and share it. Why? Alchemist love to transform. The scientist does also but not so often as the interest is mainly that of discovery. My motto is why not transform if you can and you love to improve.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


Think quantum physics/mechanics and you start to see the alchemist and scientist agreeing...



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by abeverage
 


I agree.

The thing is though is people who read quantum physics and interpret philosophically or through alchemical ideas or, or ways of thought or through the alchemical paradigm dont understand the similarities or refuse to see it.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 



The alchemist sees the way of the scientist, but many scientists are unable to see the way of alchemy. That there is a unity between the two? there is unity between everything. Only some minds take more time to realize this! Never mind



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   

onequestion
I am going to postulate and post observations in this thread please prepare yourself for insanity.

I notice 2 important paradigms or trains of thought both of which may require rebalancing.

Thought process 1 is that of the alchemist or magician. The magician sees reality as his own, reality to be bent to his will and influenced strongly by his will and consciousness. A magician sees his creative ability as a powerful force. Due to the nature of these practices his view of the universe is akin to this reality. He sees himself or herself as god or goddess of a world create by the power of his or her own observations and the scientific nature of those wills and observations to be bent and broken accordingly. This is the view of the alchemist. This experience is highly sought after by the political and economic elite. This experience is highly dependent on belief. There are more aspects of this view which cannot be explained but only experienced.

Thought process 2 is that of the scientific and mathematical perspective. In this view we have rigid thought, the world and universe understood through math and the scientific process. This paradigm is very firm and unwavering, uninfluenced by observation, will, and philosophy or belief. This paradigm is predictable and distinct. It is experienced and not influenced and very much the opposite of the world of the alchemist.

Now, what is the difference between the two and why does it exist?

From my own perspective the scientist can experience directly the world of the alchemist due to their rigid set of defined calculations and observations. However, on the rare occasion that a scientist is able to experience the world of potential and influence it opens up another, much deeper world to them.

Anyone want to finish these thoughts for me?



I would suggest there is no difference between either of these observations other than the wont to see a difference. I'll start with thought process 2, as unpicking this will open up process 1.

What you are suggesting here with process 2 is a disinterested worldview of science, mathematics and presumably the output of both of these processes. Nothing could be further from reality. Scientific theory is supposed to be a methodology for establishing disinterested facts, but it can never be disinterested. It is a human thought process designed to serve humanity, and as such is intertwined with our species anxieties and delusions. Practically, scientific method is the current social authority used to marginalise, censor and destroy independent thinking. I say current as this was previously a function of religion. Scientific theory does not yield a fixed picture of the Universe but by censoring thinkers who stray too far from current orthodoxies, it preserves the illusion of a coherent worldview. In this respect science is functioning exactly the same way a religion does, it delivers the 'miracle' of freedom from thought. In the past the church gave people sanctuary from the big, problematic questions that plague the human condition and censored those with freely though answers by invoking gods to take care of them, today science offers, and in no small measure delivers, on the same promise.

Scientific theory and mathematics are used to support the conceit that humans have the ability to understand their world, but quantum physics has been telling us for nearly a century now that causality, time and classical logic are not built into the fabric of our universe. It presents us with problems we cannot fully understand, and our ego is what drives us on, convinced we can understand the very fabric of the universe and yet there is nothing to suggest this is the case. The irony is that the real value of scientific theory and mathematics is to show humans that the world we are programmed to perceive is a delusion.

Human history is a catalogue of unreason, the idea that science and mathematics can change human nature and bring about reason is a fantasy. To think of science and mathematics as the pursuit of some kind of truth is to detach them from human needs and make them into something that is not natural but transcendental, a mystical faith that echoes the faith of Plato and Augustine, that truth rules the world, that truth is divine. But, the human mind has evolved to support evolutionary success, not truth.

In this respect, there is no differences between process 1 and 2, they are the same, the only difference is that people who believe they align their thinking with process 2 are deluding themselves slightly more.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by midicon
 


I disagree.

The true magician - as opposed to what we today call magicians; the ledgermainists- and the alchemists were the exact same animal and not just because alchemy was a subset study of most magicians and occult philosopher's in the early ages, but because they both sought to develop the exact same subtle state, quality and force of being.

A subtle state and quality that is almost impossible for man to achieve and almost equally difficult to maintain, the rarefied will; the unshakeable faith. A form of will power and belief so powerful and focused that it makes what one desires become real, even if the outward fabric of the universe must be reordered to do so.

It is that very rarefied will that the true magicians; studiers of occult philosophy, the alchemists and even sages and mystics have sought to develop throughout the ages. It is the key and the force behind all esoteric studies such as magic and alchemy and without it the pursuit of those disciplines are in vain. It is the ephmeric sustance, force and state that is rarely named directly, but instead alluded to by symbols and description that dance around a the subject without pointing directly at it in countless books on magic and alchemy throughout history.

It is the obtaining of that special mental/spiritual state of mind and will that grants one the keys to the kingdom, allows the magicians of old to conjure storms and perform other divers miracles, that allowed the alchemists to create miraculous panaceas and elixirs from divers common substances and chemical processes,and that even the bible alludes to under the name faith. A state so powerful that if the one who bares it tells the mountain to move it will move.

On one hand I do see why modern science divested itself of occultism and alchemy, but i do think they threw out the baby with the bathwater and lost a great secret and tool of old, one that scientists are only now beginning to be curious about again through theoretical physics like quantum mechanics. The true nature and power of consciousness and it's effect on matter and the universe.

I also find it amusing that this same ancient force and truth of the philosophers often dances in the playground of the modern scientist like a trickster ghost and is a small nuisance that must be weeded out but never believed in. After all why do pharmaceutical companies and scientist go to such great lengths to weed out the oft maligned "placebo effect" and why are there stories of scientists in research labs who work long hours and have dedicated their lives to eradicating a disease suddenly having a success in a test tube one time, but alas the effect can not be reproduced, by themselves and others the next. Could it be that in those instances by some quirk the desire and consciousness of the individuals tapped into the great secret of old, the one sought and cultivated by the occult philosopher; the magician and the alchemist, yet ignored and maligned by the masses? perhaps.

I think this excerpt of Dr. Franz Hartman from Manly p. Hall's Secret Teachings of all Ages illustrates this idea the best.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...


On this subject Dr. Franz Hartmann in a footnote to his translation of extracts from Paracelsus clearly expresses the conclusions of a modern investigator of alchemical lore: "I wish to warn the reader, who might be inclined to try any of the alchemical prescriptions * * *, not to do so unless he is an alchemist, because, although I know from personal experience that these prescriptions are not only allegorically but literally true, and will prove successful in the hands of an alchemist, they would only cause a waste of time and money in the hands of one who has not the necessary qualifications. A person who wants to be an alchemist must have in himself the 'magnesia', which means, the magnetic power to attract and 'coagulate' invisible astral elements."

In considering the formulæ on the following pages, it must be recognized that the experiments cannot be successfully conducted unless the one who performs them be himself a Magus. If two persons, one an initiate and the other unilluminated in the supreme art, were to set to work, side by side, using the same vessels, the same substances, and exactly the same modus operandi, the initiate would produce his "gold" and the uninitiated would not. Unless the greater alchemy has first taken place within the soul of man, he cannot perform the lesser alchemy in the retort. This is an invariable rule, although it is cunningly hidden in the allegories and emblems of Hermetic philosophy. Unless a man be "born again" he cannot accomplish the Great Work, and if the student of alchemical formulæ will remember this, it will save him much sorrow and disappointment. To speak of that part of the mystery which is concerned with the secret life principle within the actual nature of man, is forbidden, for it is decreed by the Masters of the art that each shall discover that for himself and on this subject it is unlawful to speak at greater length.

edit on 16-1-2014 by prisoneronashipoffools because: spelling and typos



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools
 


Glad i stopped in to read your post.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Skepticism at is foundation really has nothing to do with Scientism. Scientism is a belief that science can answer all questions while skepticism is about questioning everything as what we refer today, in relation to critical thinking. Scientism is an extremist position that when taken by scientist bespeaks of a taboo that in my impression, presents a failure in science today.

In order to prove Gravity theory a scientist would have to test the population and in this case that would be reality. In order to provide evidence of Psi in humans one then would have to test every human on the planet. This would mean in earnest that every scientist on the planet would have to stop what they were doing and begin testing.

Science is really incredible on average due to medical technology the average persons life has been extended from about 48 to about 75 We have identified 13.7 billion light years of space and time as compared to about 10 million miles just outside the orbit of Jupiter in relation to Copernicus. Further, without science this medium and what is often referred to as "Creature Comforts" would not exist.


Scientism is not a good thing and neither is religious extremism because that is what scientism is a part of.

Any thoughts?
edit on 16-1-2014 by Kashai because: Added content




top topics



 
8

log in

join