From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Alchemy
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 16:54:42 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <74128@cup.portal.com> <C19Fr2.45z@acsu.buffalo.edu>

93!01.22 e.v.


Peggy Brown writes:

It seems Tagi, that you've already decided its IMPOSSIBLE.  With 
that preconceived idea you'll never get anywhere with alchemy.


Response:

Well, if my 'preconceived idea' is that I won't be able to make
gold out of lead (mercury, silver, whatever), or that I won't live
an extensively long time, then I'm not all that concerned about
'getting anywhere in alchemy'.

As I said (please reread previous posts if I'm not clear enough here), 
I don't know whether or not these claims are true.  All I'm arguing is 
that assuming they're likely is a mistake until given better evidence.


old Thyagi:

>1) What proof shall we accept that a person has 'extended' their
>life in some fashion?  What criteria shall we accept in order
>to justify accepting this literally?
> 
>2) Same goes for 'lead-into-gold'.  How shall we determine,
>precisely, that this 'transmutation' has taken place?
 

Peggy:

Do you really think that if someone could do these things they'd 
want to participate in your proofs?  Hardly.


Response:

I note that you failed to answer these questions.

This is an ancient ploy.  Why would such experimentation PRECLUDE
one's desire to participate in ANYONE's proofs regarding the
physical changes described?  Aside from charlatanry (which is
quite common in magical circles), I can think of few restrictions.

I've heard these kinds of 'protestations' regarding 'magical
phenomena' for years.  As far as I'm concerned, we might as well
toss this one in with 'reincarnation' as a concept which is useful,
yet difficult to prove.  The same kinds of comments do seem to
arise within discussions concerning both.


Peggy:

Also, applying these standards to your own claims of personal
transformation, how can you prove you were really transformed?
Your claims are far more subjective than the (literal) claims of 
alchemy.  How can you believe it happened without scientific 
proof? :)


Response:

First, I don't believe anything absolutely.  I do, however, make
the occasional tentative assumption (sometimes even a tentative
judgement!  Ooooo, scary. :>)

Second, I prove things to myself based upon experience.  When I
have solid experience that my persona has been changed via what
I can only call 'magical means', then that falls under what I call
'scientific proof', especially when it has occurred to me more than
twice.

I suppose we can get into (another) debate as to what establishes
'scientific proof', but you know I'll bring in my ideas from way back
when concerning The Scientific Method (TSM) and Learning Theory.
Wanna go through that again? :D


old Thyagi:

>The problem here is that no credible scientific data has been
>accumulated to establish the truth of either of these claims.


Peggy:

Its not the nature of the alchemical tradition to do this.  You 
are judging if with your standards.


Response:

It is not the nature of the alchemical tradition to ascertain
hidden truths regarding Life, Love and Liberty?  Perhaps this is
true on the objective side, but when somebody (ANYBODY) claims
that objective transformations take place, they ought to be
subjected to the same sort of scrutiny that any 'Cold Fusion'
scientist must face - alchemist or no.  Else they might as well
keep it to themselves or put it in the context of speculation.

Making such claims only inspires people to take up the practice.
It serves as a 'lure' to the tradition, just like 'Ultimate Power'
and 'Total Control' lure people in to 'magick'.  It's all very
lovely, but unless you can show that there is some substance
behind the smoke and mirrors, it's just empty talk for the marks.
 

old Thyagi:

>Until there is some I feel we are much wiser to assume that they
>are simply metaphors for nonphysical phenomena.


Peggy:

That's not an assumption, its a judgement, a preconceived notion, 
a bias.  Skepticism is valuable but not this.  You'll never get 
anywhere in alchemy with this.


Response:

That is incredibly debatable.  I doubt it's worth it, but here goes:

According to my bible:

judgement - ...2. A discriminating or authoritative appraisal or opinion.
3. A rough guess or estimation.  4. An assertion of something believed.
5. A formal decision, as of an arbiter in a contest....

assumption - ...2. A statement accepted or supposed true without proof or
demonstration. 3. Presumption or arrogance.  4. A minor premise....


I think that both terms could be applicable here, but that meaning *2*
of 'assumption' is what I intended.  I hope that's settled. :>
 

old Thyagi:

>Do I hear a counter-argument?  Yes, skepticism is very fine and
>good, but when we have evidence that many people DID die early
>due to 'alchemical potions/pills of longevity', why need we
>reserve the tentative judgement that these are STORIES, rather
>than facts?  (i.e. subjective rather than objective data)


Peggy:

Ah, so you admit it.  You have made a judgement.  Well, I 
disagree.  I think skepticism is sufficient protection and that 
starting an investigation with a judgement already made will 
limit what you will find.


Response:

I see this as semantical wrangling resulting from a lack of substance
and will not continue it long. 


See 'judgement', meaning *3* - A rough guess or estimation.  Without
extending this overly, I'd like to put this very SMALL and semantical
issue to rest by saying that I agree with you that skepticism is
sufficient protection from deception but that assumption is both
unavoidable and useful, especially while one remains ignorant.

As I have little knowledge or experience where alchemy is concerned
and quite a bit of experience where death and nontransmutability
is concerned, I'd rather let the VERY large body of evidence against
these claims support my assumption (even a judgement, meaning *2*,
if you like, since it is fairly discriminating and an opinion)
that such things are purely metaphorical.  

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it (thus 
demonstrating my skepticism and open-mindedness).  In other words,
support your claims to the contrary or please stop making them. 



Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva
Thyagi@HouseOfChaos.Abyss.com