And it is not a "genuine science" by the standards of today, but
rather a precursor. And in that vein pseudo is an appropriate prefix
despite the connotations. What term would you then suggest? How about
"pre-science" or "antescience"?
On Nov 13, 2007 11:33 AM, Harry Roth <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> "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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Ty Falk
~~~~~~~
Erisian
Anthropologist
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
|