To dismiss something because it seems obvious has been the source of many grievous errors even in the most concrete disciplines.
Alchemy can be applied widely, and it’s more a way of thinking or philosophy rather then ‘stir a pot and out comes gold’ as it’s usually portrayed. The association with making gold was narrow even in the heyday of alchemy. However, some say philosophy is just a subjective stance and has no substance in the material world. Then why is it philosophy at all? If it’s truly wisdom, doesn’t or shouldn’t it have more substance than subjective view, or is the idea that what we label as subjective not so clear a thing?
Alchemy was more a way of seeing our material world. They had no agenda for separating it from spirit, and didn’t even think it was possible. I myself would argue that it’s not. The spiritual and the material aren’t separate things. Spirit = energy.
When one is spirited, they move and are animate. Energy = matter. In the continuum, potential energy is the base. Thus matter arises from and is dependant on spirit, thus animism. Spirit is everything. As a matter of fact, the alchemical observations of alcohol was that it had a chemically activating effect, thus alcohol came to be known limitedly as spirits. The body also produces alcohol as a by-product of cellular metabolism, the humours perhaps?
The alchemists were no more idiots than todays scientists. The break in the progression of knowledge brought about by empirical method is seriously questionable to my view. It created a ‘scientism’. Science seeks to strip the subjective element from observation. Deny its legitimacy. There could have been a third option, but people love their binary thinking.
These particle accelerating, hadron colliding, tunnel dwellers are alchemists of a kind. The justification for financing such a project is to search for the classic “gold” cliché. I think the collider will set a lot of research back on its heels. I think it will ruin a lot of theory and not the world. But they are also being irresponsible. Alchemy forced a consideration of any operation in the context of the entire hierarchy of being, but science doesn’t require that. They have their ethics boards, but that amounts to more of a gutless humanism than any real insight. And peer review, it seems that’s a joke. It is co-opted by corporate interest. If peer review is suppose to foster the philosophers agreement of terms, why was there a schism between them and their predecessors? Research is done confirming stuff, then just as often is undone. So yes the day of the magus is dead. Long live this situation we are in, even if it means we won’t eh?
Zero point field theory doesn’t stand disproven. There are many unresolved notions, and string theory has some serious frayed ends. If they could add in the principles of alchemy into what they’re doing today, what might it look like? Well they are sort of trying, but it is still a serious materialist agenda. The holy grail of research is a unified field theory, but they refuse to go into a parapsychological realm with it. That would have no credence. Parapsychology is still a dirty word in the broad psychological community. I would debate the “can’t work with it” view. They just can’t use old methods.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.