Ty Falk wrote:

>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"?
>  
>

What is the necessity of defining alchemy in terms of science? Are you 
writing a history of science? Are you viewing human history through the 
lens of the ideology of science? Why are you privileging science this way?

If you want to draw a distinction between the practice of alchemy that 
restricts itself to spiritual work and the practice of alchemy that 
either combines spiritual with physical work or more rarely focuses only 
on the physical work, then you could refer to the latter as "labwork." 
Some people use the phrases "physical alchemy" or "practical alchemy." 
Those terms are widely used in the alchemical community. None of them 
define alchemy through the lens of science. Why should they?

Harry Roth



>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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>
>  
>