From: oispeggy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Alchemy
Date: 23 Jan 93 02:59:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <74176@cup.portal.com>, Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes...
>93!01.22 e.v.
> 

Peggy debates with the slippery Taginator.

Disclaimer:  I don't know anything about alchemy.  I know a 
little about the alchemical tradition, from reading one book, 
which I was told is a worthless one.

>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.  

I didn't "not answer" for stragegic purposes.  Practicing verbal 
gymnastics and "winning" arguments does not interest me.

I didn't answer because I think your questions do not take into 
account the nature of the alchemical tradition.  In other words, 
they are irrelevant.

>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.

It goes against the alchemical tradition.

>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.

I think alchemy is far more tangible than reincarnation.  Also, 
specifically what "'protestations'" are you referring to in 
regard to alchemy.  I don't recall anyone here making any claims.

>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

I'd rather see you jump into the abyss and try taking your 
Scientific Method (TSM) with you as a parachute.  Then maybe 
you'd quit taking such shit so seriously. 

>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.

They do keep it to themselves.  That's what causes all the 
controversy in the first place.  The alchemical texts are damn 
near impossible to follow.

>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.

I have seen no evidence of alchemy or alchemists trying to lure 
anyone to take up alchemy.  In fact, it seems to me they do quite 
the opposite.  Again, part of the alchemical tradition.

>old Thyagi:

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

I think this is being close-minded, not wiser. 

[definitions and other stuff deleted...] 

>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. 

What claims?  I never made any claims.  Where do you get this 
part about claims?  I just think that what you are trying to pass 
off as the Scientific Method is just you insisting that everyone 
(including alchemists) plays the game by your rules - and if they 
don't you'll take your ball and go home.:)

IMO if you want to understand a tradition you should try to 
understand where the founders are coming from.  Standing on the 
sidelines and faulting it for not following the Scientific Method 
may neatly solve the problem in your mind - but you missed a lot.

>Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva
>Thyagi@HouseOfChaos.Abyss.com 

- Peggy -
Newsgroups: alt.magick