 |
 |
>>>It seems to me you are starting out with a one-sided view of alchemy as purely spiritual or metaphorical. The way I understand it, that perspective is the result of Jung's work. There have always been and continue to be alchemists who do not consider alchemy to be a metaphorical or symbolical endeavor but a physical/spiritual one. They call themselves practical alchemists. Are you intending to limit yourself to spiritual alchemy? Just curious. I would also argue that alchemy is no more a pseudoscience than paganism is a pseudoreligion. Harry~ I don't mean to portray my view as one sided. I'm simply wishing to acknowledge the spiritual component as equal to the physical one as well as taking an interpretive approach to the symbolism (that is there regardless of one acknowledging it). 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. Believe me, I hold it's contributions to modern science in highest regard. On Nov 13, 2007 9:39 AM, Sebastian Alexis Ghelerman <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Thatīs a wonderful subject. Actually I am planning for my future PhD to work > with alchemy. > > I think your questions are cool but have the same anxiety as I am suffering > with my BA thesis right now. The theme or big subject seems clear in your > exposition, though I donīt know if you have a "research problem question". > For example you quote "[...]the people who practice it is always as a side > note in some other context, such as the exodus from Spain as a result of the > Inquisition". Well, that is exactly what a research question is. It needs to > be just a frame analysis of the big subject cause the grade of > spcecialization in sciences is huge to treat "knowledge" as a unique item. > Of course I agree with interdisciplinary work and with the gathering of > different "levels" of analysis of reality. I wonīt go on with this > epistemological matter cause is well explained in text books. > > What aspect of the relationship between science and alchemy are you willing > to research?. I suggest you concentrate on a concrete matter of this huge > theme and develop your hypothesis. Of course you need first to be handy with > the background history of alchemy in western world (maybe something from the > east of Eliadeīs "Alchemysts and Forgers" book) to make the "state of the > matter", that is, what has been done before regarding the subject. About > your implicit question of the relationship of alchemy and science, yes, > Yates, is the best option to start a History of Science project, such us > yours. Another book that quotes Yates and has lots of bibliography on it > too, is " Coming to our senses: Body and spirit in the hidden history of the > West" by Morris Berman. > > Well, I think all people here have given lots of info. Iīm glad that > everyone here is so helpful. > > > And I insist...ask a few questions that makes you trace a "map of the > territory" (Bateson) otherwise you will be lost in the jungle. > > > Kind regards from Argentina > > > Sebastian > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/12/07, Ty Falk <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Greetings! > > > > I'm writing because I require some assistance on a little project I'm > > working on. It is far larger in scope then anything I've attempted > > before. One of the aspects of mysticism that I've begun to teach as a > > normal part of my coursework is that of Alchemy, both as a system for > > internal change, as well as an external pseudoscience and system of > > allegory. The more I read about it, the more fascinating it becomes. > > What I noticed, however, is that, at least from what I've seen, the > > treatment of alchemy and the people who practice it is always as a > > side note in some other context, such as the exodus from Spain as a > > result of the Inquisition. I have yet to really come across anything > > that gives alchemy real spotlight treatment (granted, I've only really > > begun to traverse some of my newer sources). I want to do something > > that gives a relatively scholarly history of the concept from the > > scientific as well as mystical aspects, with a second section on > > practical application for the modern practitioner. > > > > Now I can handle the section on application well enough, it's the > > historical portion I'm finding daunting. I think the sort of > > symbolic/interpretive approach of, among others, Geertz, will be > > rather useful for doing this because of how allegorical and symbolic > > the tradition of Alchemy is. And I'm not above splashing some other > > theory here and there where needed. So in that vein I had a few > > questions. > > > > Firstly, has this been done before? As I said I have found a few books, > but they > > seem to either treat the subject as secondary, or be rather limited in > > scope. (I have The Alchemical Tradition in the Late Twentieth Century > > by Grossinger on order, just waiting for it to come in.) > > > > Other then Hutton's book "The Triumph of the Moon", Adler's "Drawing > > Down the Moon", and Barrett's "A Brief History of Secret Societies", > > are there any modern texts you would recommend on the subject or that > > you think would give me a better context in which to do my analysis? I > > was already shown from this very site: > > http://www.alchemy-bibliography.co.uk/newthismonth.shtml > > > > There is a fair bit of occult literature that is circulated in > > electronic form. For example, one of the classic texts is "The > > Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz". This can be a difficult > > book to find a printed copy of, but is readily available on line from > > sites such as: > > > > http://www.sacred-texts.com/ and > > http://www.alchemywebsite.com/index.html > > > > > > How concerned should I be about being able to find physical copies to > > cite with regards to some of these texts? How should I treat different > > editions or translations?With regards to sources, how deep should I go > > check validity? Should I go back to a sources' sources'? Or would just > > the sources of the book I'm using suffice? > > > > Anything else you can think off of the top of your head, people or > > resource wise, that might be of use to me? > > > > Preciate it! > > > > Ty Falk > > ~~~~~~~ > > Erisian > > Anthropologist > > Grand Rapids, MI > > > > -- Ty Falk ~~~~~~~ Erisian Anthropologist Grand Rapids, MI, USA