"Pseudo" means "not genuine, an imitation." It does indeed have negative
meaning.
Harry Roth
Ty Falk wrote:
>I think we're getting at the same things but are becoming hung up on
>semantics. The prefix of pseudo isn't a derogatory assignment, but
>rather an acknowledgment of the spiritual component, differentiating
>it from common scientific practice. Besides, I'm not sure how you are
>seeing that my stating that the practice of alchemy being the
>framework for many "modern" sciences is my excluding all but the
>spiritual. If anything, it's a nod to both.
>
>On Nov 13, 2007 10:57 AM, Harry Roth <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>>Ty Falk wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I am aware of some of the
>>>work being done in practical alchemy, such as the work with whitegold
>>>in reversing cellular decay (still not sure what I think about that)
>>>but I call it a pseudoscience only as it has evolved into chemistry
>>>and physics.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I guess you prove my point that you are seeing alchemy as a purely
>>spiritual endeavor, since you say that practical alchemy "evolved" into
>>science. The term "pseudoscience" privileges science as somehow more
>>valid, yet alchemy not only came before science historically but
>>continues to exist and be practiced to this day by practical alchemists
>>who combine the physical and spiritual aspects of alchemy rather than
>>exiling them from one another as many contemporary spiritual alchemists
>>do. I am talking about lab work uniting the spiritual and the physical
>>as is described in old alchemical texts, not stuff like ORMUS, or
>>practice that at least works with the fundamentals of alchemy, like
>>Armand Barbault did in his spagyrical medicines.
>>
>>I would not use the prefix "pseudo" unless I were setting out to be
>>inflammatory. But if that prefix can be applied to anything, it is to
>>science as a pseudoalchemy, no? Some alchemists even make such an
>>argument. Fulcanelli argues that the alchemical operations that science
>>adopted were part of what he calls "archemy," which is using alchemical
>>means without any alchemical knowledge, spirit, attention to time of
>>year, etc. Fulcanelli was a physicist writing in the 1920s, so I would
>>think that if anyone would identify alchemy as a pseudoscience or even
>>as some nice old toothless granny of science, it would be him.
>>
>>I think if you decide to discuss alchemy only as a spiritual
>>undertaking, that is one thing. I think it would be an honest endeavor
>>to say that outright, although to me that is a limited, truncated
>>version of alchemy, regardless of whether you are focusing on
>>symbolism. Practical alchemists make much use of the symbolism of
>>alchemy and draw connections between symbols that will be missed by
>>someone who interprets them merely spiritually. To say that alchemy has
>>been superseded by science is like arguing that the everyday practice of
>>rabbinic law has been superseded by the mere belief in Jesus Christ as
>>one's personal savior. I would argue that they are two completely
>>different things that are related only superficially.
>>
>>Harry Roth
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
|