The Alchemy Academic Forum 301-350

From August 13th 1996, the Alchemy forum was restructured and the messages were sequentially numbered prefixed with the letter A. This is an unedited extract of messages 301-350.
Go to next 50 messages . Back to alchemy academic forum archive.

Subject: A0301 Corpus subtile

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 14:24:17 -0400
From: Flamel

I have been following the discussion of the so-called "Higher Vibrations" and
spirit/matter relations with interest. The old alchemists, it seems to me,
like many archaic cultures intensively reflected upon the meaning of the body
and its decomposition in death. They assumed the presence of a "mystery"
within the corpse, a mystery linked with the post-mortem fate of the soul
(psyche). Alchemists assumed that this mystery was present in their prima
materia, or in a subtle body, which many alchemists were more interested in
exploring than they were in inorganic, perceptible matter. They thought that
life's elixir and the secret of immortality were somehow hidden in this
subtle body, which they tried to distill out of tangible material substances.

The alchemist's preoccupation with this, one of the leading themes in the
literature of alchemy - the problem of the subtle body - can be traced to
ancient Egyptian religious mummification rituals and the liturgy for the
dead. Yet to make a thoroughgoing study of the subtle body motif in alchemy,
one would have to examine the symbolic, mythical models from antiquity which
appeared projected into the void whenever antique man was confronted with
something mysterious and unknown. One would have to further compare the
ideas of the alchemists with other cultural contexts, such as in China and
wherever Hinduism spread; to the traditional theories of the subtle body held
in antiquity by the Pythagorians, Orphics, and Platonists; also in Islamic
mysticism, e.g., the work of Henri Corbin; and in Western spiritualism and
the phenomena of materialization, etc. In addition to the areas of
alchemical symbolism, and the variant mythical models from other cultures,
the evidence from depth psychology (as suggested by Jeffrey and Greg), and
dreams, also would need to be examined. Beyond these areas of inquiry, there
is a fourth area, which is very problematic, which has been raised by Jim
Bayer, Adam, Waldemar Hammel, Steve, and others, namely, to what extent do we
take into consideration modern physics, and I might mention,
parapsychological phenomena, when we examine the idea of the subtle body as
projected by the old alchemists. Here we have to question whether or not
there exists a subtle body, and the related question of whether or not there
is a continuous connection between the mind and body as the alchemists
thought. Such questions are the object of modern physics and depth
psychology. It is the same preoccupation of the alchemists, namely, the idea
in which psyche and matter are seen as one reality.

For the moment, lets take the alchemists' idea of the subtle body seriously,
which suggests a transformation of a coarse material body (i.e., its energic
manifestations) would continue gradually into the psychic realm. It would
mean that what is today called physical energy and psychic energy could be
two aspects of the same energy. From the psychological side, Jung, as has
been pointed out, seemed quite interested in this problem, and he
hypothesized that psyche be understood as unextended intensity and not as a
body moving with time. He proposed the psyche be thought of as rising from
minute extensity to infinite intensity, therefore irrealizing the body. He
proposed further that the brain be thought of as a transformer station, in
which the relative infinite tension of intensity of the psyche is transformed
into perceptible frequencies or extensions. The fading of introspective
perception of the body, that is, its irrealization, would be due to a gradual
intensification at the expense of extension. In other words, we have here a
form of energy which gradually changes, from physically measurable to
psychically immeasurable. The subtle body may be a form of the psyche that
remains close to the body but also possesses a certain minimal mass and
extension in space-time, though its appearance would not be understood as
physical in the ordinary sense of the word.

From the side of modern physics, our concept of material reality, as has been
noted, has been greatly altered. Mass is no longer associated with material
substance; particles are understood dynamically, kind of like
four-dimensional energy bundles in space-time; i.e., dynamic patterns with a
space and time aspect. Their space aspect makes them appear as objects with
mass, and their time aspect as processes involving equivalent energy. If one
understands matter in this way, then the idea of a body passing into an
intensity, as a concentration of energy no longer extending in space and time
is not totally unthinkable. One could also think of the problem from another
angle. In trying to explain the relative reality of metapsychic phenomena,
one thinks of the process of thought itself which has no quality in common
with the physical world except its intensity, which in mathematicaal terms
may be considered as frequency. For instance, there is a distinct
heightening of this intensity or frequency whenever the psyche comes actively
into the foreground, such as in visions, emotional excitement, depleted
states of psychic energy, etc. Here we come close to the alchemical idea of
the unity of physical and mental energies.

Time does not permit me to provide evidence to support these hypotheses. I
can only consider them here in outline form.

Looking now at the more problematic area of parapsychological phenomena, it
appears that in the deeper layers of the psyche, that is, in the unconscious,
or instinct world, which is not to be taken as synonymous with the empirical
facts of consciousness, it appears that the indispensable categories of
conscious experience, such as time and space, are cast doubt upon in the
unconscious. It seems at a certain threshold in the increase of frequency,
the psychic functions which produce our perception of time and space seem to
cease functioning. At such times, telepathic and precognitive phenomena, may
exist - evidence of such phenomena which we can no longer ignore. Such
timeless and spaceless perceptions are possible because the perceiving psyche
is so constituted - such perceptions are inherent to its nature - and it
makes time and space appear doubtful. It appears then, that the world of the
psyche cannot be so easily fit into our concepts of time and space as it is
capable of perceptions outside time and space. The comparative rarity of
such phenomena suggests that the forms of existence inside and outside a
continuum of time and space are so sharply divided that crossing the
boundaries is very difficult. But this does not exclude the possibility that
there is existence outside time which may run parallel with existence inside
time. Indeed, we may simultaneously exist in both worlds, and on certain
occasions we may get a glimpse of our twofold existence; one stands inside of
time, and the other stands outside time, that is, outside change. Once
again, there is much evidence to support this hypothesis.

There are other areas of study which suggest a gradual connection between the
physically material body and a postmortal form of existence. Here one finds
the symbolism of the subtle body described as light and energy intensity,
such as in the descriptions of mediums who characterize materializations as
substances formed of "low vibrations." I don't want to delve into this
speculative area, but only note that the symbolism in such reports suggests
energic processes.

Contemporary physics seems to hold such an energic view. Bohm describes in
*Wholeness and the Implicate Order* the possibility of nonobservable aspects
of existence. He accepts the hypothesis of an indivisibility of all material
processes, and postulates that an observable material universe is just the
unfolded or "explicate order" of existence as the surface of an underlying
enfolded or "implicate order." Both orders coexist in an "undivided
wholeness." Both ensembles exist continuously, locked together in the
incomprehensible totality of movement. The manifest world which can be
comprehended with our senses, is the explicate world, the world our
consciousness perceives; that which is actualized through conscious
observation. Matter and consciousness have the expliacte world in common,
and both are based on the implicate order, so for Bohm, *what is* is movement
which is represented in thought as the co-presence of many phases of the
implicate order.

Such a psychophysical model of the unity of all existence, as outlined by
Bohm is, from the perspective of psychology, a projected model of the world
of the psyche. Many other physicists, as has been noted by others who have
posted to this thread, propose speculative outlines of a unified
psychophysical world image.

Perhaps, as the alchemical symbolism of the ladder shows, the subtle body is
a gradual connection between two forms of energy, body matter and psyche - a
gradual connection between the physical body and the nonincarnated psyche
where we can observe numerous energic processes that are thresholds where
relatively sudden changes occur. We have hints of the existence of such
thresholds. Perhaps this can be illustrated by the phenomena of "black
holes" where the space-time around the star becomes so curved until finally
not even light can escape it. An "event horizon" is formed around the star,
and within which nothing can any longer be observed. The star moves out of
our time, so to speak, and disappears from our observation, although it is
still there. The problem of the subtle body may be a problem of a threshold
of perception between two worlds, where the subtle body has disappeared
behind an "event horizon," as it were, like the stars in a black hole, but
they are still in existence.

We are at a great turning point in science, one that has evolved from the
speculations of the old alchemical masters - and now, like the alchemists of
the past, we are everywhere surrounded by rationally impenetrable mysteries.

flamel
flamel@aol.com

Subject: A0302 S.R.I.A

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 19:20:00 +0200 (MET DST)
From: douwe

Can anyone give me information about the Rosicrucian group called 'Societas
Rosicruciana In Anglia' to which apparently Bulwer Lytton, Kenneth
Mackenzie, and Hargrave Jennings belonged.
I know as much that it has been founded by Robert Wentworth Little around
the year 1865, and that it embraced the ideas of the Golden rosicross.

Now I am curious to know about any other (well)known members, literature
from and about this group, and their involvements in alchemy (if there are any).

Regards,
douwe.

Subject: A0303 Biological transmutations

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 18:53:44 +0300
From: Gerard

We've all heard of metals being turned into gold, but there are other kinds
of transmutations.

For example there is this experiment where a scientist was growing plants
in a perfectly controlled environment and found once the plant was mature
that it had silicium atoms in its composition despite the fact no such
atoms were introduced in the experiment.

I'm interested to have pointers to articles / books / experiments
..concerning this kind of biological transmutations.

Thanks

Gerard

Subject: A0304 S.R.I.A.

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 14:41:50 -0700
From: Norm Ryder

> Can anyone give me information about the Rosicrucian group called 'Societas
> Rosicruciana In Anglia'

To be a member of the society, one must first be a Free Mason. The
general purpose of thr group is to present papers and education on
"Rosicrucian" topics.

Norm Ryder
nryder@qb.island.net

Subject: A0305 S.R.I.A.

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 15:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Charla J. Williams

Some books that include a brief history are:

'The Magical Mason - Forgotten Hermetic Writings of William
Wynn Westcott, Physician and Magus' by R.A. Gilbert, page 34.
It's mentioned that Dr. Wynn Westcott published 'A short
History of the Soc. Rosic in Anglia' in 1900 that has long been
out of print.

'The Brotherhood of the Rosy Cross' by Arthur Edward Waite,
page 564.

'The Rosy Cross Unveiled' by Christopher McIntosh, page 109.

The S.R.I.A. is in existence today. I'm of the impression
that its members don't advertise their involvement and that it
is not open to women.

> Now I am curious to know about any other (well)known members, literature
> from and about this group, and their involvements in alchemy
> (if there are any).

William Robert Woodman, M.D.
Dr. William Wynn Westcott
Samuel Liddell Mathers, alias MacGregor Mathers

Regards, Charla
charlajw@netcom.com

Subject: A0306 S.R.I.A

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 96 12:14 NZST
From: Pat Zalewski

>Can anyone give me information about the Rosicrucian group called 'Societas
>Rosicruciana In Anglia' to which apparently Bulwer Lytton, Kenneth
>Mackenzie, and Hargrave Jennings belonged.

Write to Occult historian Bob Gilbert. He has some information on the subject.

Pat

Subject: A0307 Biological transmutations

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 96 12:17 NZST
From: Pat Zalewski

>Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 18:53:44 +0300
>From: Gerard

>For example there is this experiment where a scientist was growing plants
>in a perfectly controlled environment and found once the plant was mature
>that it had silicium atoms in its composition despite the fact no such
>atoms were introduced in the experiment.
>I'm interested to have pointers to articles / books / experiments
>..concerning this kind of biological transmutations.

Try to get hold of 'Biological transmutation' by Loius Kervran. Beekman
Publishers , Woodstock, New York. First published in French in 1966.

Pat

Subject: A0308 S.R.I.A.

From: Richard Patz
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 00:56:06 +0100 (BST)

Dr. Wm. Wynn Westcott, co-founder of the Order of the Golden Dawn, was
Secretary General of the S.R.I.A. for a while. According to Ellic Howe,
editor of "The Alchemist of the Golden Dawn - The Letters of the Rev. W.A.
Ayton to F.L. Gardner and other 1886-1905" (1985, Aquarian Press) a majority
of the early male members of the G.D. (up to c.1892) were recruited from
Westcott's friends in the S.R.I.A..

Another S.R.I.A. member was Frederick Hockley. A collection of his letters
and articles are published in "The Rosicrucian Seer - Magical Writings of
Frederick Hockley" edited by John Hamill (1986, Aquarian Press).

While Rev. Ayton, alchemist, was himself not a member of this order, he
refers to Hockley's work in his letters.

Hope this helps.

Richard Patz

Subject: A0309 S.R.I.A.

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 17:10:38 -0700
From: Thomas Williams

The SRIA has "reincarnated" in several forms. In the United States it
is a Masonic body call the Societas Rosicruciana in Civitabus Federatas
(SP?). There is another group calling itself the SRIA based in New
York. Also, an American officer of the Golden Dawn (an SRIA offshoot)
founded the Builders of the Adytum based in Los Angeles.

Subject: A0310 Biological Transmutations

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 20:30:30 -0700
From: Michael Prescott

The published works of Joe Champion and a few nameless unpublished
others closely mirror the process of nitre in the Aurea Catanae.

The works of Michio Kushi regard the graphite to steel transformation
in a non-biologic matrix; it is very much remeniscent of Cockran's moment
of inspiration during the Thunderstorm.

In a word, graphite to carbon-silicate-steel, according to their stated
process does produce results. A stone, not THE stone.
Try it, and judge for yourself.

Subject: A0311 Biological Transmutations

From: Adam McLean
Date: 21 Oct 1996

Following some correspondence I had with Louis Kervran, I wrote the following article for the 1981 issue of the Hermetic Journal. At that time I was very hopeful and positive that this work would be followed up and substantiated. Sadly this has not been the case, and I have not heard of any further work in this area.

Adam McLean

-----------------------------------------

Some Notes on the work of Louis Kervran

Adam McLean

In an article in 'La Revue Generale des Sciences' Paris, of July 1960, Louis Kervran then Director of Conferences at the University of Paris described experiments proving the existence of the transmutation of some elements by biological means. Further details were given by him in a book 'Transmutation Biologiques' (Maloine, Paris 1962). These experiments involved measuring the weight of Potassium and Calcium in dry seeds and in germinated seeds, these seeds during germination being isolated from contact with Potassium or Calcium in their environment, say through the water or air. Thus any measured increase in the weight of these elements could only be explained by some transmutation occurring in the living plant.

These publications were received with scepticism by some physicists because such transmutations were not explainable within the laws of physics then admitted. However, other scientists were to confirm Kervran' s findings. Among these were Prof. Dr. Hisatoki Komaki, chief of the Laboratory of Applied Microbiology at a Japanese University, Prof. Baranger, Head of the Laboratory of Chemical Biology in the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris. J.E. Zundel, at that time Director of a paper company having a chemical analysis laboratory, pointed out that in germinating oats, there was an increase of Calcium of sometimes more that 100% in a medium containing no calcium. From where was this Calcium derived? Kervran suggested from Potassium, because of a decrease of Potassium (K) quantitatively equal to the increase in Calcium (Ca), and he gave the following formula in 1960 :-

Potassium ion + Hydrogen ion ---> Calcium ion (+~ 0.0095 a.m.u.)

[Potassium has 19 protons and 20 neutions in its nucleus
Hydrogen has 1 proton and 0 neutrons in its nucleus
Calcium has 20 protons and 20 neutrons in its nucleus
so that mass is conserved in this equation.]

After many experiments, hundreds of analyses of tens of thousands of grains or plants J.E. Zundel (then chemical engineer of the Polytechnicum School of Zurich) confirmed these findings in a lecture in 1971 at the French Academy of Agriculture (Bull. No. 4, 1972). He had then used chemical and physical methods of analysis. Later in 1979, Zundel, using the mass spectrometer at C.N.R,S (the Microanalysis Laboratory of the French National Scientific Research Centre), and neutron activation mass analysis at the Swiss Institute for Nuclear Research in Villigen (Aargau), confirmed the increase for Calcium of 61% ± 2% (average for both laboratories) that is absolutely beyond any statistical dispersion. (There was also an increase of 29% for Phosphorus and 36% for Sulphur). See the article - 'Transmutation of the Elements in Oats in The Planetary Association for Clear Energy Newsletter' Volume 2 Number 3, July/August 1980. So it is now [ssems] beyond doubt that transmutations of a few elements arise as a property of the metabolism of living matter, transmutations obtained in great quantity at a low energy.

Recently a possible explanation for this phenomenon within the framework of modern physics has been evolved by French physicist Oliver Costa de Beauregard, Professor of Theoretical Physics at the Institut de Physique Theorique Henri Poincare (Faculty of Sciences, Paris) who is also Director of the Centre National de la Reserche Scientifique (C.N.R.S.). Costa de Beauregard suggests that such transmutations neither takes place through strong interactions, nor through electromagnetic forces, but through the weak interaction. This takes place through the neutral current of the intermediate vector boson, the so called Zo particle recently discovered by particle physicists. Kervran's reaction for a biological transmutation from Potassium (K) to Calcium (Ca) in germinating oats is thus explained as being initiated by neutrino capture (from cosmic rays) and the weak interaction follows mediated by the Zo neutral current (the Z° probably existing as a virtual particle) :-

neutrino + Hydrogen ion + Potassium ion -- Zo/enzyme--> Calcium ion + antineutrino

It would seem that this formula has brought the reality of these transmutations into the theoretical framework of modern physics. We thus see that in living matter there not only occurs the chemical reactions (Electromagnetic forces) photosynthesis involving the absorption of photons of light from the sun, but also weak interactions that can effect the nuclear structure of matter, activated through the participation of cosmic energy in the form of neutrinos that stream down upon the earth from the depths of the Universe. A full awareness of the con-sequences of these ideas should have a profound influence upon many domains of modern science, not least in agriculture, dietetics and healing.

In my article on 'The Ethers and the Fundamental Forces of Physics' in the Hermetic Journal Number 9, I pointed out that the weak interaction bore a relationship to the transforming ether known in esotericism. Indeed, I there related that this transforming ether "promotes the multiplicity of forms within the material realm through its transmutative quality of etheric force". Thus with Louis Kervran's profoundly important work we stand upon the threshold of a turning point in the physical sciences, and we seem to have the meeting ground between contemporary physics and an esoteric Science of the Ethers. One can only hope that such research is fully followed up and the profound implications for the present rigid view of the mechanism of living matter are not missed. Indeed can it be that the transmutations of the ancient alchemists may again gain scientific respectability?

In preparing this short article, I have drawn from published material from various sources, but for the basis of the article I am indebted to Louis Kervran's own translation of a recently published article on his work.

Subject: A0312 Titian and alchemy

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 16:18:58 +0100
From: Maurizio Nicosia

Dear De Marco,

Concerning your question on Titian and his last "Pietà": I am not
acquainted with studies on the alchemical influence on Titian or on his
work, but there could be some. The critics have however investigated the
relationships of his teacher, Giorgione, with alchemy - Calvesi in a
detailed way. I find nevertheless his interpretation of the "Tempesta"
debatable. (In Italian, that you perhaps can read, you will find a treatise
on "Giorgione and the Jewish contributions to the hermetic tradition" in
"Giorgione and the Venetian culture between 1400 and 1500", Rome, 1981,
publishing by De Luca)

I don't believe that Titian had alchemical knowledge, but I will be
very pleased if you will show the contrary. However we need to consider
any essential factors.

1) In the 1500's the alchemical culture was diffused in Italy and existed in a
detailed way in Venice, where Panteo and the 'Voarchadumia' are notable.
If you consult the database of Adam you will see what and when
was published at that time in Venice.

2) Titian is in communication with the court of Ferrara (from 1516),
in which alchemy, astrology, magic and hermetism were at home. In
Mantua he certainly knew Giulio Romano, not devoid of hermetic
knowledge. Also Urbino, for whose court Titian worked, was impregnated
with hermetic-alchemical culture.

3) In 1545 Titian created the portrait of Daniele Barbaro,
translator of Vitruvius, friend of Palladio and Aristotlical (Ethica
Nicomachea) and Platonic, bound together by Wotton, ambassador in London,
etc. Was it perhaps Barbaro who put him in contact with the husband of
Maria Tudor, Phillip II? Titian in that chance promised to create
"Medea and Giasone" (around 1554); in 1559 again for Phillip II he
created "Diana and Atteone". In the 1568 he offered to Maximilian II,
lover of the Doctrine, three works with "Diana" and one with "Adonis". To
deepen these themes don't turn to Dom Pernety, historically
incongruous, but to Giraldi, Monti, Cartari, Ripa (starting from Seznec,
"Le survivance des dieux antiques", Paris 1980, Flammarion, above all
the third part is on the mythographical tradition); you have to add to
these people Valeriano, "Hierogliphica", and Horapollo.

4) Certainly in the apse a 'flaming' pelican that nourishes its chicks is
perceived. And a flaming pelican resembles quite a lot the phoenix in
analogous posture. In Italian 'pellicano' is also the apparatus of
distillation. Also Moses, the portrait to left, is able of transmute the
stone in font with a rod. And Moses, at least at Siena, is linked
the figure of Hermes Trismegistus. And the Sybilla, in the right, would
again refer to the [mosaic] floor of Siena.

5) The keystone of the arch brings a 'triangular' frieze, analogous to
the symbol of water. And in Italian 'keystone' is told, beyond that
'pietra di volta', also 'pietra angolare' (angular stone). The format of
the picture is near to the square (the cubic stone), mailed on the
diagonals (to the ascending one aligns itself the angel). It is
tripartite on the horizontal axle that on the vertical one. That there
brings back both the tiercel board of the masons, and the Barbaro,
Palladio (also the mason) and above all Zorzi [Francesco Giorgio],
Venetian author of the "De harmonia mundi" (1525). The tiercel board
symbolically represents the improvement of the stone...

I hope to be at least of minimum help to you. Good work!

Maurizio Nicosia

Subject: A0313 S.R.I.A.

From: atheris
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 96 16:11:24 +0100 ( + )

>> Can anyone give me information about the Rosicrucian group called 'Societas
>> Rosicruciana In Anglia'

>To be a member of the society, one must first be a Free Mason. The
>general purpose of thE group is to present papers and education on
>"Rosicrucian" topics.


The above response is only partly correct. Only Master Masons (i.e. third
degree masons) of regular lodges recognised by the United Grand Lodge
of England are eligible to become members of the Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia,
by invitation only. Its general purpose is not the presentation of papers as stated above,
but is ritual work. The workings are held (or at least were in the late
70s and early 80s when I was an active member) in Duke Street, St.James',
and, for the higher degrees, in Hampstead, where there is also a fine library.
Additionally there is a Study Group which meets on Saturdays and at
which papers are presented.

The SRIA is esoterically orientated and membership of it by regular masons
is "tolerated" by the United Grand Lodge of England, which however
strictly speaking recognises only the three Craft degrees of regular
Freemasonry, the Royal Arch degree being considered as a completion
of the third, Master Mason's, degree. Other higher degrees are not
recognised.

Many well known masons were members of the SocRos, amongst them
Wynn Wescott. I believe that Mathers was a member, as well as Crowley.
I am unable to check on the latter at the moment as all my masonic books
are in store. However, both Mathers and Crowley were high-degree
Freemasons.

The above is intended only to correct the usually spurious, and often
fantastical, information that every so often is spouted about the SRIA.
There is no direct connection between the SRIA and other organisations
such as the Golden Dawn, except in so far as some people were members
of both.The same rules of silence apply to the rituals and workings of the
SRIA as they do to masonic workings, therefore please do not ask me about
them.

Adrian

Subject: A0314 Corpus subtile

From: michela pereira
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:40:17 +0100

>From: Flamel

>I have been following the discussion of the so-called "Higher Vibrations" and
>spirit/matter relations with interest. The old alchemists, it seems to me,
>like many archaic cultures intensively reflected upon the meaning of the body
>and its decomposition in death. They assumed the presence of a "mystery"
>within the corpse, a mystery linked with the post-mortem fate of the soul
>(psyche). Alchemists assumed that this mystery was present in their prima
>materia, or in a subtle body, which many alchemists were more interested in
>exploring than they were in inorganic, perceptible matter. They thought that
>life's elixir and the secret of immortality were somehow hidden in this
>subtle body, which they tried to distill out of tangible material substances.

In the history of Western alchemy, this set of ideas seems to come to the
surface at the end of the XIIIth and the beginning of the XIVth centuries,
when there is a parallel development of discussions about
body/soul/immortality in the philosophical and theological environment, and
the surfacing of the theme of the elixir in alchemical Latin writings: it
might be worthwhile to re-read such writings with an eye to their
PHILOSOPHICAL content as regards problems of foundation of scientific
thought in Europe.

> In addition to the areas of
>alchemical symbolism, and the variant mythical models from other cultures,
>the evidence from depth psychology (as suggested by Jeffrey and Greg), and
>dreams, also would need to be examined. Beyond these areas of inquiry, there
>is a fourth area, which is very problematic, which has been raised by Jim
>Bayer, Adam, Waldemar Hammel, Steve, and others, namely, to what extent do we
>take into consideration modern physics, and I might mention,
>parapsychological phenomena, when we examine the idea of the subtle body as
>projected by the old alchemists. Here we have to question whether or not
>there exists a subtle body, and the related question of whether or not there
>is a continuous connection between the mind and body as the alchemists
>thought. Such questions are the object of modern physics and depth
>psychology. It is the same preoccupation of the alchemists, namely, the idea
>in which psyche and matter are seen as one reality.

To modern physics and depth psychology I suggest it might be added
homeopatic pharmacology: homeopathic remedies act on a level that is as
deeper and subtler as the dynamization of the remedy is higher, ultimately
linking body and soul in its action. Perhaps it might be thought of in
connection with Jung's idea of "psychoid unconscious", i.e. the level in
which psyche and matter are indistinguishable (and where he seems to place
the archetypes' reality).

>We are at a great turning point in science, one that has evolved from the
>speculations of the old alchemical masters - and now, like the alchemists of
>the past, we are everywhere surrounded by rationally impenetrable mysteries.

Perhaps not "rationally impenetrable", but impenetrable to a reason/logos
which has been built upon dualism and separation.

michela pereira

Subject: A0315 Corpus subtile

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 96 12:30 NZST
From: Pat Zalewski

I'd like to include a quote from the book 'Gem Elixers and Vibrational
healing' by Gurudas Vol. 1. Page 68.

"Brownian motions is but the simple internal energy on the molecular
structure that can be observable as a pulsation on the physical level. There
is little reference to the subtle bodies except that brownian motion in its
own vibration on the molecular level is a by product of the ethereal energies
from the higher levels as they pass through the molecular structure. In part,
the mild electric influences of the subtle bodies are indeed measurable in
their more concentrated form and would be measured as brownian motion,
slightly disruptive to the atmosphere surrounding the physical body." This
goes on for a few more pages like this.

There are a great many pages on chakras, subtle bodies seen from both the
scientific and esoteric field on chakras and subtle bodies in this book. It
discusses them in great detail and I cannot praise it highly enough. Gurudas
wrote four books. I would suggest to any alchemist to obtain all of them. He
talks about disease and its effect in the subtle bodes and chakras and how
we can utilise plants, crystals and metals to help effect a cure with
extremely detailed scientific information. His work is not Not New Age from
the Llewellyn book shopshop but an intricate study of the bodies subtle
energies and how they can be effected.

Pat

Subject: A0316 Corpus subtile

From: greg
Date: 21 Oct 1996 22:00:18 PDT

Flamel,
>... question of whether or not there is a continuous connection
>between the mind and body as the alchemists thought. Such
>questions are the object of modern physics and depth psychology.
>It is the same preoccupation of the alchemists, namely, the idea
>in which psyche and matter are seen as one reality.

I have a lot of respect for physicists, and the scientific attitude
in general but I think that the truth of the above statement will
become evident not by any "proof" come by manipulating physical
substances, but rather the other way around: psyche and matter will
someday simply be understood as being two sides of the same coin,
and thereby man will discover new ways of manipulating physical
substances (or maybe re-evaluate some of the old ways).
The subtle body, or "interactive field" as it exists in Jungian
depth psychology manifests out of the relationship within the
vessel of analysis. When one is in it, one can't be outside of it
manipulating measuring devices...or maybe someone will come up with
"lucid analysis"?

Greg

Subject: A0317 Alchemy & homeopathic dilutions

From: Leonid M. Kokun
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 96 12:21:28 +0300

>> ...we have to question whether or not there exists a subtle body...
>> ...Such questions are the object of modern physics and depth psychology...

Not exactly so.
Most homeopathic remedies, especially the small ones, have a peak of
curative action within a relatively low band of dilutions; e.g Carduus
marianus is rarely effective in dilutions higher than 30CH. Such drastic
remedies as Sulphur act subtler (not necessarily deeper) indeed at 1-2M,
however the action of 10M is mostly weaker.
Nor is it easy as well to conceive body/soul linking mechanism
as the bearer of homeopathic effect preserved in saturated lactose
pellets.
The alchemical significance of homeopathic high dilutions may be
sighted in just the opposite: while the bearer of homeopathic effect is
obviously immaterial, there is no obvious ground to link it with psychic
phenomena.

Leo Kokun

Subject: A0318 Titian and alchemy

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 08:38:54 -0500
From: George Leake

>From: Maurizio Nicosia
>Concerning the question on Titian and his last "Pietà": I am not
>acquainted with studies on the alchemical influence on Titian or on his
>work, but there could be some.[very interesting post edited for brevity]

A very interesting thread which might yield some fruit, but I think its
heading, frankly, in the wrong direction. What's far more interesting, I
think, and its something with more tangible evidence, is the connection of
tarot and the trionfi paradigm among these painters particularly Mantegna.
And by the way the 3 courts where Tarot first flowered were Milan, Bologna and
Ferrara. Not as if there's any tangible connection between alchemy and
tarot until certain 19th century speculation.

George Leake
taliesin@mail.utexas.edu

Subject: A0319 Titian and alchemy
X-Attachments:

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 16:46:41 +0100
From: Maurizio Nicosia

Dear George,

I confess that I didn't understand your connection between the Pieta
(Pity) of Titian and the Tarot. Would you like to explain it further?

Thank You,

Maurizio Nicosia

Subject: A0320 Titian and alchemy

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 14:41:53 -0500
From: George Leake


>From: Maurizio Nicosia
>
>Dear George,
>
>I confess that I didn't understand your connection between the Pieta
>(Pity) of Titian and the Tarot. Would you like to explain it further?

Not really explicitly about that painting per se, but that there's a set
of symbols connected with his school that's perhaps broader than alchemy.
You talked about culture at the courts and Northern Italy during the
Renaissance--I'm saying there were paradigms that were much more
well-known. The Triumph is one. See Petrarch's poem cycle, the Trionfi. The
Trionfi was so popular during the late Middle Ages, artists emulated its
symbolism--except they embellished a bit on some things, but let's leave
that for the art critics. The important thing here is the recycling of the
classical, and the inventions of the modern. I'm just saying that there's
probably some more likely connections to be made here.

George Leake
taliesin@mail.utexas.edu

Subject: A0321 Corpus subtile

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 96 03:34 +0100
From: Waldemar Hammel

Please let me here take the opportunity to correct some statements, which
seem to be wrong from my point of view:

>From: Flamel
>....... to what extent do we
>take into consideration modern physics, and I might mention,
>parapsychological phenomena, when we examine the idea of the subtle body as
>projected by the old alchemists. Here we have to question whether or not
>there exists a subtle body, and the related question of whether or not there
>is a continuous connection between the mind and body as the alchemists
>thought. Such questions are the object of modern physics and depth
>psychology.

Modern physics does not treat in any way with the above questions, otherwise it
would be called metaphysics (as science in todo was at the beginning).

>For the moment, lets take the alchemists' idea of the subtle body seriously,
>which suggests a transformation of a coarse material body (i.e., its energic
>manifestations)
>...........physical energy and psychic energy could be
>...........thought of as a transformer station, in
>perceptible frequencies or extensions.
>...........we have here a
>form of energy which gradually changes, from physically measurable to
>psychically immeasurable. The subtle body may be a form of the psyche that
>remains close to the body but also possesses a certain minimal mass and
>extension in space-time, though its appearance would not be understood as
>physical in the ordinary sense of the word.

An unreflected and undifferentiated mixture of expressions of classical physics
with psyche-mind-and-brain links does not contribute to understanding anything
better. E.g. What shall I imagine under an immeasurable energy? How can I
prove that my brain as a transformer-station outputs perceptible frequencies?
A subtle body expanded as mass in space-time must have measurable energy too,
that follows from the mass-energy-equivalence term in physics, and because the word
"mass"/"matter" implies interaction with the universal gravitational field.
What means the expression "mass,... but not in the ordinary sense of the word"?
Its curious how a subtle body which is unproveable also makes all the other
things connected with it (like that rare mass) unproveable. Is it because
always a wrong statement implies wrong conclusions?

>If one
>understands matter in this way, then the idea of a body passing into an
>intensity, as a concentration of energy no longer extending in space and time
>is not totally unthinkable. One could also think of the problem from another
>angle. In trying to explain the relative reality of metapsychic phenomena,
>one thinks of the process of thought itself which has no quality in common
>with the physical world except its intensity, which in mathematicaal terms
>may be considered as frequency. For instance, there is a distinct
>heightening of this intensity or frequency whenever the psyche comes actively
>into the foreground, such as in visions, emotional excitement, depleted
>states of psychic energy, etc. Here we come close to the alchemical idea of
>the unity of physical and mental energies.

That above is nothing but speculations far away from any proveable reality.

>At such times, telepathic and precognitive phenomena, may
>exist - evidence of such phenomena which we can no longer ignore.

Natural sciences have to ignore such phenomena because their evidence is more
than questionable. Psychology or psychopathology are interested in such kinds
of things.
Scientific phenomena always are scientifically proveable by definition, otherwise
they simply do not exist, per definitionem.

>Contemporary physics seems to hold such an energic view. Bohm describes in
>*Wholeness and the Implicate Order* the possibility of nonobservable aspects
>of existence. He accepts the hypothesis of an indivisibility of all material
>processes, and postulates that an observable material universe is just the
>unfolded or "explicate order" of existence as the surface of an underlying
>enfolded or "implicate order." Both orders coexist in an "undivided
>wholeness." Both ensembles exist continuously, locked together in the
>incomprehensible totality of movement. The manifest world which can be
>comprehended with our senses, is the explicate world, the world our
>consciousness perceives; that which is actualized through conscious
>observation. Matter and consciousness have the expliacte world in common,
>and both are based on the implicate order, so for Bohm, *what is* is movement
>which is represented in thought as the co-presence of many phases of the
>implicate order.

Bohm began with the search for so called hidden observables. The suggestion
was that some important contradictions in quantum physics were based on
hidden observables which means that the addition of one or more not yet
recovered parameters to a contradictory quantum system would be able to
make it observation-consistent for the observer.
Later on it was mathematical proveable, that hidden observables do not exist,
and that quantum physics describes quantum systems completely and valid.
The contradictions seem to be born in the perception-mechanisms of the observer.
Bohms (wrong) theory was about hidden (already not recovered) observables.
The above text speaks about non-observables! The strong point of view of
perception theory says that entities which are never, under no circumstances and
in no way observable simply do not exist. Something without any interaction
cannot exist, because interaction is the precondition for existence.
"Nonobservable aspects of existence" seems to me a contradictio in adjecto.

>Such a psychophysical model of the unity of all existence, as outlined by
>Bohm is, from the perspective of psychology, a projected model of the world
>of the psyche. Many other physicists, as has been noted by others who have
>posted to this thread, propose speculative outlines of a unified
>psychophysical world image.

I would like to change the word "psychophysical" against the word
perception-physical, because it seems more and more also in physics to
become a fact, that "world" is primarily the world which perception creates
as a model in our brains. How this perception-created-world is connected
with a world independent from us, is the high-priced question also in physics.
But it can be worse: analytical philosophy has one theory (hypothesis) which
suspects that the percepted world model inside of us is the only world which we
can have true knowledge about forever.
So, at least, physics also could only be an excursion in human perception, a new
kind of anthropocentrism: locked up in our own brain.

>Perhaps this can be illustrated by the phenomena of "black
>holes" where the space-time around the star becomes so curved until finally
>not even light can escape it. An "event horizon" is formed around the star,
>and within which nothing can any longer be observed. The star moves out of
>our time, so to speak, and disappears from our observation, although it is
>still there. The problem of the subtle body may be a problem of a threshold
>of perception between two worlds, where the subtle body has disappeared
>behind an "event horizon," as it were, like the stars in a black hole, but
>they are still in existence.

Mathematics has some discrete problems with the number "cero" (look up
Leonardo of Pisa et al, translation of that character from a trivalent language into a
bivalent language) and with infinities. That influences also terms in physics,
e.g. the calculus for gravitation (Einstein), when over-exhausting that formula
it predicts black holes. Even now the existence of such objects is not proved!
Such an object is invisible behind its event horizon (Schwarzschildt-radius),
but it possesses a gravitational field. By that field such an object would be
interactive, and that means, it would stay in existence, and it would be
observable! By the way: the "inventor" of the black holes, Steven Hawking, had
at least to conclude, that because of the tunnel effect a black hole would emit
the so called Hawking radiation and by this evaporate. Also that would be
measurable.
It does not move out of our time! Only: "the velocity of time" depends on the
intensity of the gravitational field. That is valid for every point in the
universe (eigenvalues, Eigenzeit, relativity theory). Inside the event horizon
the model describes time as "stopped", because every particle would have
reached the velocity of the light when crossing that event horizon, and as
relativity theory proofs: at the velocity of light a particle would stay timeless
(timeless for itself! not for an observer).
When you see that complex life of black holes, you may remember that they are
not proved until now and recognize that they are an unsuitable example when
speaking about "subtle bodies".

With best regards
Waldemar Hammel

Subject: A0322 Biological Transmutations

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 18:23:00 -0700
From: Michael Prescott

Re: the Zo Vector Boson

Leave it to the reductionist to find one possible answer
and watch them all cheer --- AHA! Ve haf Proof'd it!
[ and then subsequently move on. ]

But I am sorry to say, that while it is possible, it is neither the
trigger nor the catalyst to the reaction. The reason is that of the
non-reactive nature of the neutrino (ie, fewer than 1000 of the
2.8 x 10^8 per square cm of solar neutrinos react with
the mass of the earth as they pass through it).

A light-years worth of lead would only attenuate 10% of the flux of
which fewer than 1/3 would react down the desired pathway.
The amazing fact of the nuclei is that they are not only
extra-ordinarily dense amidst the nuclear 'vacuum', they are
also virtually transparent to both neutrino's *and* electrons
(the electron's charge is the only interaction with the nuclei,
liberating Cerenkov radiation).

Hense, the question remains, where did that 61% deviation come from?
Energetically and as a mechanism it is possible, but the trigger and
catalyst 'remain' unknown.

But it is right to search for the answer in energetic forms.

Subject: A0323 Corpus subtile

From: Logodox
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 05:27:18 -0500

Please let me here take the opportunity to offer some counterpoints to the
completeness of Herr Hammel's assertions:

>Modern physics does not treat in any way with the above questions, otherwise it
>would be called metaphysics (as science in todo was at the beginning).

Modern physics will be subsumed into metaphysics elsewise it will
become a "dead" science. Copenhagen interpretations have presented a brick
wall to "plain" old physics.

>... The subtle body may be a form of the psyche that
>>remains close to the body but also possesses a certain minimal mass and
>>extension in space-time, though its appearance would not be understood as
>>physical in the ordinary sense of the word.

What is definition of physical ? An object occupying space/time ? Would You
rule out the existence of anything with zero mass as existing ? Is not
physical only a relative term describing interaction between frequencies ?

>An unreflected and undifferentiated mixture of expressions of classical physics
>with psyche-mind-and-brain links does not contribute to understanding anything
>better. E.g. What shall I imagine under an immeasurable energy?

Any object with less time/space/energy than a planck or with a wavelength
longer than the spatial extent of the universe.

>How can I
>prove that my brain as a transformer-station outputs perceptible frequencies?
>A subtle body expanded as mass in space-time must have measurable energy too,

Ipse Dixit ! Can not a "subtle" body (oxymoron) exist with no mass.
Where is the hidden matter if it is not "space" itself. Einstein did not
disprove the existence of Aether, He only obviated its need in the equations.

>that follows from the mass-energy-equivalence term in physics, and because
>the word
>"mass"/"matter" implies interaction with the universal gravitational field.
>What means the expression "mass,... but not in the ordinary sense of the word"?
>Its curious how a subtle body which is unproveable also makes all the other
>things connected with it (like that rare mass) unproveable. Is it because
>always a wrong statement implies wrong conclusions?

Good point. Just because a fool says its dark outside doesn't mean the sun
is shining ! Consider science the fool, thinking it has completely described
nature with probabalistic equations !

>>If one
>>understands matter in this way, then the idea of a body passing into an
>>intensity, as a concentration of energy no longer extending in space and time
>>is not totally unthinkable.

True, its not unthinkable for open and pioneering minds...

> One could also think of the problem from another angle.

One cannot "think" of it in any other than a finite subject/object way. One
might "percieve" it in many other ways...

> In trying to explain the relative reality of metapsychic phenomena,
>>one thinks of the process of thought itself which has no quality in common
>>with the physical world except its intensity, which in mathematicaal terms
>>may be considered as frequency. For instance, there is a distinct
>>heightening of this intensity or frequency whenever the psyche comes actively
>>into the foreground, such as in visions, emotional excitement, depleted
>>states of psychic energy, etc. Here we come close to the alchemical idea of
>>the unity of physical and mental energies.

Have Ya heard of unified field theory, superstrings ? Don't forget to
check out Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox (1935) and Bell's Theorem (1960's).

>Natural sciences have to ignore such phenomena because their evidence is more
>than questionable. Psychology or psychopathology are interested in such kinds
>of things.
>Scientific phenomena always are scientifically proveable by definition,
>otherwise

Yeah, within the current context of knowledge. In other words a closed
and "fixed" system. It does work well to some extent. Quantum equations
work very well with millions of particles, kinda useless in a single case.
Kinda like actuarial science, isnt it ?

>they simply do not exist, per definitionem.

Great minds are concerned with "actuality" not "defined" existence.

>Bohm began with the search for so called hidden observables. The suggestion
>was that some important contradictions in quantum physics were based on
>hidden observables which means that the addition of one or more not yet
>recovered parameters to a contradictory quantum system would be able to
>make it observation-consistent for the observer.
>Later on it was mathematical proveable, that hidden observables do not exist,
>and that quantum physics describes quantum systems completely and valid.

Physics has externalized Man's observational limitations and generated an
empirically derived "crap game" as being actual to the universe itself.
This mistake may take two centuries to overcome.

>Bohms (wrong) theory was about hidden (already not recovered) observables.
>The above text speaks about non-observables! The strong point of view of
>perception theory says that entities which are never, under no circumstances
>and in no way observable simply do not exist.

Ostriches !

>Something without any interaction
>cannot exist, because interaction is the precondition for existence.

If You won't play, You can't exist !

>"Nonobservable aspects of existence" seems to me a contradictio in adjecto.
>>Such a psychophysical model of the unity of all existence, as outlined by
>>Bohm is, from the perspective of psychology, a projected model of the world
>>of the psyche. Many other physicists, as has been noted by others who have
>>posted to this thread, propose speculative outlines of a unified
>>psychophysical world image.


Dear Waldemar,

Check out Wheeler's "many worlds" interpretations. Dirac's equation of the
electron (1928) with i (square root of -1). This "imaginary" quantity is
required to make the equation work and implies something "unobservable" and
possibly "unconceivable" in same. While not attempting to justify the
existence of poltergeists, am just trying to point out the limits of man's
knowledge.

Logodox@worldnet.att.net

Subject: A0324 Alchemy & homeopathic dilutions

Date: 23 Oct 96 11:04:10 EDT
From: Wendy Howard

Leo Kokun writes:
>Most homeopathic remedies, especially the small ones, have a peak of
>curative action within a relatively low band of dilutions; e.g Carduus
> marianus is rarely effective in dilutions higher than 30CH. Such drastic
>remedies as Sulphur act subtler (not necessarily deeper) indeed at 1-2M,
>however the action of 10M is mostly weaker.
>Nor is it easy as well to conceive body/soul linking mechanism
>as the bearer of homeopathic effect preserved in saturated lactose
>pellets.
>The alchemical significance of homeopathic high dilutions may be
>sighted in just the opposite: while the bearer of homeopathic effect is
>obviously immaterial, there is no obvious ground to link it with psychic
>phenomena.

I would disagree very strongly with this assertion. There is very obvious ground
to link homeopathic remedies with psychic phenomena: the provings of the
remedies which go to make up our materia medica and the means by which we
ascertain symptom similarity in order to treat our patients. I would also
question the statement that most remedies have a peak of curative action within
a relatively low band of dilutions. I don't know where Leo obtained this data
but it is certainly not born out in homeopathic practice.

Homeopathy, without going into a lengthy dissertation on the theory and
philosophy, treats the patient as a whole - mind, emotions and physical signs
and symptoms are all part of the same picture. The most important task of the
homeopath in evaluating his/her patient's case is to understand the essence of
what is going on in that patient's life. If that understanding is gained, and
matched to a remedy, it matters not that the physical complaints have never been
recorded for that remedy before. If the remedy matches the patient's psyche (for
want of a better term) it will cure the physical pathology.

I quote from Rajan Sankaran, an eminent Indian homeopath who places great
emphasis on prescribing from the mental state:
'I had a patient, a woman of around 40, who among other things was found to have
a fibroid tumour in the uterus. She was a lean, thin woman and one who was
extremely anxious and fastidious. The remedy that suggested itself from the
emotional and constitutional nature of the patient was Arsenicum album. However,
when I looked up in the books, nowhere was Ars alb listed as a remedy for
uterine fibroid. In spite of this I gave it to her and within a few months we
confirmed by ultra sonography that the fibroid had disappeared.'

To gain this understanding of a patient's mental state, the homeopath will
enquire (among other things) about fears, dreams, and delusions. Delusions,
after all, represent our own particular individual conception of reality and the
life events we attract to ourselves are determined by that perception of reality
(a suspicious man treats everyone with suspicion and is in turn treated
suspiciously by other people who pick up on his vibrations. He is not treated
with trust, senses that in others, and this in turn confirms his central
delusion).

The central delusion of a patient is what creates his/her physical pathology,
which is why the homeopath seeks to treat the central delusion, not the physical
pathology. If the pathology is treated without addressing the central delusion,
all that happens is that the pathology is suppressed and will later manifest on
a more serious level. (Treatment of eczema with steroids frequently results in
the development of asthma.)

Modern physics, and research into the nature of consciousness, are now beginning
to give us the means of understanding how homeopathic remedies work. Some
authorities believe it is water that is the carrier of 'memory' and the water
contained in the microtubules within our cells is where our 'memory' (and sense
of selfhood within this incarnation) resides. The repeated dilution (and
shaking) of homeopathic preparations progressively elevates the nature of the
substance being diluted to its higher vibrational levels, freeing it from its
more gross material manifestation, with the information being carried in the
water used as diluent (lactose tablets are not the only method of
administration). Low dilutions often have a markedly noticeable physical effect.
Higher dilutions can also do so, depending on the individual's susceptibility,
but more often address the higher and more subtle vibrational levels of the
organism.

So much for a response to Leo Kokun's points. As might be gathered, I am not an
alchemist but a homeopath, and subscribe to this forum because there is much of
interest here and many similarities to the homeopathic 'world view'. I am
particularly interested in the alchemical understanding of the nature of the
elements - there is much that confirms homeopathic provings. (A proving is where
a remedy is tested on healthy people to elicit the symptoms it produces. These
are then used as the basis for establishing symptom similarity in a patient.) I
would love to hear from anyone interested in pursuing the topic further, though
whether Adam would regard it as suitable material for the forum, I don't know.

Regards,
Wendy Howard

Subject: A0325 Titian and alchemy

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 14:36:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Nick DeMarco

Dear Maurizio Nicosia:

Thanks very much for your fine reflections and apercus on Giorgione/Titian
alchemy. Much of it I am aware of, the work of Calvesi certainly. I do read
Italian and have recently obtained a book on Giorgione and the alchemical
tradition but not the volume you mention which I will obtain.

The point for me -- or at least one of them -- is that with Giorgione
placed within the alchemical/hermetic tradition in those works which he
produced at the time Titian was his partner it would be very difficult for
the latter to have escaped knowledge of the imagery and philosophy. Further,
there have been a number of recent studies demonstrating the influence of
alchemy upon other artists of the Veneto -- Lotto, Campagnola, etc. Further,
south there have been studies of the influence upon Parmigianino, Beccafumi,
and others. I think artists of the Cinquecento absorbed the imagery and
thought of alchemy and particularly the hermetic aspects in ways that we
are only beginning to comprehend.

The Pieta lends itself, most particulary, to this alchemical tradition
in its singular focus upon STONE as symbol, metaphor and substance for the
artistic endeavor.I am aware of the Siena pavement the tie between Moses
and Hermes Trismegestus and the Hellespontine Sibyl.

As for Mantegna and George Leake's comment I demonstrate in my manuscript
that Titian's year in Padua in 1510 was of great importance for his work
Giotto and Mantegna being of special importance.The fact that stone is so
intrinsic a part of Mantegna's vision is no accident, I think, and helped
to set Titian in that direction.

As far as I know Titian met his most important patron Philip II when
Charles V called him to Augsburg in the late 1540's. I would be interested
to know what you mean by reference to the Diana paintings as they reflect
the alchemical/hermetic tradition, or do I not understand you on this
point?

The keystone of the arch and particulary the alcove has, in my opinion,
a similarity to the alchemical alembic, particularly with its pelican at
the top.

I would welcome further comments and thoughts from you, and again
many thanks.

Nick DeMarco

Subject: A0326 Alchemy & homeopathic dilutions

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 96 20:51 +0100
From: Waldemar Hammel

Wendy Howard wrote:
>Modern physics, and research into the nature of consciousness, are now
>beginning
>to give us the means of understanding how homeopathic remedies work. Some
>authorities believe it is water that is the carrier of 'memory' and the water
>contained in the microtubules within our cells is where our 'memory' (and sense
>of selfhood within this incarnation) resides. The repeated dilution (and
>shaking) of homeopathic preparations progressively elevates the nature of the
>substance being diluted to its higher vibrational levels, freeing it from its
>more gross material manifestation, with the information being carried in the
>water used as diluent (lactose tablets are not the only method of
>administration).

I do not know enough about homeopathic practice to argue pro or contra, but I
have been learning physics for some years at the technical university of Aachen
in Germany, and I swear that I never heard about lectures on how homeopathy
works.

Why does everyone to prove their thesis refer to "the most modern physics",
especially in the esoteric, alchemical, and homeopathic circles?

I would very like to get exact information, where physics proves homeopathy.
Could You please name titles/books/authors which refer to that theme?

With best regards
Waldemar Hammel

Subject: A0327 Corpus subtile

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 96 08:09 NZST
From: Pat Zalewski

"Over the last twenty years, Valarie Hunt, a physical therapist and professor
of Kinesiology at UCLA has a developed a way to confirm experimentally the
existence of the human energy field... Hunt discovered that the electrodes of
the electrograph could pick up another energy field (beyond 250 cps) much
subtler and smaller in amplitude than than then traditionally recognised
body of electricities but with the frequences that averages between 100 to
1600 cps, and which sometimes went even higher. Moreover instead of
emanating from the heart, brain and muscles, the field was strongest in the
areas of the body associated with the chakras..." Holographic Universe by
Michael Talbot, page 174-175. There are stacks of information like this on a
scientific footing out there on subtle body measurements. I would also
recommend the works of Christopher Hill and Professor Motoyama as well.

Pat Zalewski

Subject: A0328 Corpus subtile

From: Steve Rosen
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 17:08:47 -0400

I am finding the discussion of "higher vibrations" and the subtle
body very interesting. I particularly appreciated Flamel's
speculations about the mind-matter nexus, modern physics and
parapsychology. His emphasis on the mutual permeation of psyche and
physis is very welcome to me.

Let me comment specifically on a few points.

Flamel spoke of the subtle body in terms of frequency, intensity and
energy and sought to relate this to modern physics, where ...

> particles are understood dynamically, kind of like
> four-dimensional energy bundles in space-time

As the cosmologist Arthur Young pointed out, the most basic term of
quantum mechanics (QM) is not energy but *action*. A fundamental
formula of QM is action = energy X time. Here energy and time are
intimately "conjugated" in an indivisible, dynamically holistic
"spinning" action that is associated with Planck's constant. This is
called the "quantum of action," its "spin" or internal angular
momentum coming from the application of *phase*. Thus, in a
variation on the above formulation, we have action = h/2pi, where h
is Planck's constant and 2pi is the radian measure corresponding to
360 degrees of phase. Phase is also associated with *uncertainty*
and this is related to the *indivisibility* of the action: to make
determinate measurements, we require the infinitely *divisible*
continuum, i.e., space (which may be an abstract mathematical space).
But the quantum of action supersedes classically continuous
extensive space. What I am getting at in all this is that, while
energy (related to frequency, and inversely to wave length) as
normally construed in physics is amenable to merely quantitative,
"gross" determination, *action* might make a better connection with
the *subtle* body.

My second suggestion is that, instead of associating the subtle body
with *intensity*, the notion of *density* might be more helpful.
As Jung noted and as others have commented in this thread, the subtle
body is an "intermediary" body, a kind of "hybrid" that encompasses
both that which is extensive or explicate (to use Bohm's term) and
that which is intensive or implicate. So, rather than saying that the
subtle body is intensive *as opposed to extensive*, I suggest we
might view it as the *non-separation* of the intensive and
extensive. I propose that, in "bodies" of greater "density," just
such non-separation obtains. A (the?) prime example of a body of
great "density" is the *alchemical stone*. And here too, the idea
of *phase* is relevant, since this term is also used to speak of
states of matter of varying density: solid, liquid and gas (cf. the
idea of *phase transition*). I recognize that the concept of
"density" as I am using it requires greater articulation
and development. If my suggestion of a relationship between density
and the subtle body seems unclear, consider it a speculation that
can be left for future discussion if it seems promising to anyone.

Finally, Flamel goes on to "the more problematic area of
parapsychological phenomena," and suggests that these are "outside of
space and time." Here I would emphasize the importance of a
*paradoxical* formulation. Since it is when our thinking is
*governed* by extensive space and time that we tend to draw a
categorical division between inside and outside, I propose that,
instead of saying that psi phenomena are *outside* of space and time,
we portray them as superseding the distinction between what
would simply be "inside" or "outside" space and time. In other
words, these phenomena are of a *subtle* nature.

I would also like to join Logodox in questioning Waldemer.
Waldemer wants to avoid speculation and arrive at something
"proveable." He wants to draw a sharp line of demarcation between
physics and metaphysics. He himself ventures the philosophical
speculation (or pronouncement) that to exist is to be observable, and
by "observable" he evidently means open to objective sense
perception. All this has a familiar ring to it, being dateable to
the tradition of empirical science as it emerged in Western Europe
following the Renaissance. But as Logodox notes, we need not take
this tradition as sacrosanct. Being part of the still evolving
human enterprise, it too is open to question and susceptible to
basic change. If I had another few hours available at this
terminal, I would raise some epistemological issues concerning the
meaning and limits of "empirical observability." Let me instead
mention just a couple of points.

I don't agree with Waldemer that David Bohm limited his thinking to
only that which is observable in principle. For one thing,
particularly in the modified version of his "hidden variables"
approach, there is a paradoxical element of nonlocality that in my
mind raises doubts about the straight-forward treatment of
observability. And Bohm was not unreceptive to parapsychological
phenomena. In fact, he delivered the first Gardner Murphy Lecture at
the American Society for Psychical Research in 1985.

One last point. Waldemer said that objects inside black holes
would continue to exist. But if I'm not mistaken, is it not true
that once an object would cross the event horizon and enter the black
hole, it could never return, and thus would never again be
observable to us? If we say as Waldemer suggests that it
nonetheless stays in existence, what does that do to his equation of
existence with observability?

Steve Rosen

Subject: A0329 Corpus subtile

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 96 02:55 +0100
From: Waldemar Hammel

Logodox wrote:

>Modern physics will be subsumed into metaphysics elsewise it will
>become a "dead" science. Copenhagen interpretations have presented a brick
>wall to "plain" old physics.

That's right, Copenhagen interpretations have changed the picture of world for
all of us, and complementarity of objects of perception is an unsolved problem in
general. There are different ways in which solutions to that problem could be
possible. One possible solution comes from neuro-linguistic discoveries having
connection with the cabbala! (observer-mechanism of observation-reason of
observation (matter)). It seems to be true, that we all refer to the virtual
object in our imagination which is created by our reception, when we observe
some object (or particle), that seems easy to understand, but it implies that
the so called "Schroedinger wave equation" refers to that virtual reference in
our imagination, and not as supposed to the real physical object. When that is
true, the main content of the Copenhagen interpretation belongs to perception
theory (and not primarily to physics).

Nevertheless I cannot follow the first statement, that physics will be subsumed
into metaphysics, because from the historical development physics is a
emancipated child of metaphysics just as chemistry and in general all sciences.
And the development of metaphysics stopped as soon as these children were grown
up. That exactly is the basical calamity of e.g. alchemy today. While this
metaphysical science was the engine of progress in the past, its foundations
even predicted radioactivity and the possibilities of transmutations of
elements (as physics does today), this "royal art" has become today a mixture of
nonsense and reasonless phantasies far away from its serious roots.

>What is definition of physical ? An object occupying space/time ? Would You
>rule out the existence of anything with zero mass as existing ? Is not
>physical only a relative term describing interaction between frequencies ?

"Physical" means a perception quality, this quality subsumes some primary
attributes: touchablity, visibility, localizeability, 3-dimensionality....
Therefore also "physical" does not describe interaction between frequencies, it
simply describes an ensemble of perception qualities.
One kind of "mass" is generated by the universal gravitational field when
operating on some objects (that is why mass and energy content have an exact
equivalence). We must differentiate between inert mass, gravity acceleration
mass, and rest mass. So, I do not understand what is meant by "zero mass" written
above.
Nothing exists without any interaction per definitionem. If something can exist
without having the charge of any of the described masses, this is equivalent to the
question if something can exist (and have at minimum one interaction which costs
energy) without energy. I would think: No.
By the way: there are objects which are not occupying space because they are
space: these particles are called gluons, and they constitute what we call
"space".

>Any object with less time/space/energy than a planck or with a wavelength
>longer than the spatial extent of the universe.

I am sorry, but the Planck quantum is the smallest entity for interactions. On
the value of that quantum most "nature laws" are based. When an
"interaction-coin" smaller than the planck quantum would exist and be used by
nature, the results would be unimaginable: whole universe would be totally
different, its evolution would have gone other ways, we would not exist, matter
would not, and so on.
That idea is nonsense!
Other thing: the planck quantum could be the digital peak result of the scanning
theorem (Kuepfmueller et al), then its value could be more fundamentally
understood (and the peak would not be exactly sharp), which implies many new
possibilities (but not esoteric ones!).
A wavelength longer than the spatial extent of the universe does not create a
wave. I don't know, what to do with such an unicum, as it does not possess
frequency.
Physics knows about many exotic singularities, but they all do not fit
parapsychology, esoterics, mysticisms.

>Ipse Dixit ! Can not a "subtle" body (oxymoron) exist with no mass.
>Where is the hidden matter if it is not "space" itself. Einstein did not
>disprove the existence of Aether, He only obviated its need in the equations.

Can a jungle not grow in the centre of the sun at a temperature of 150 million
degrees?
About the hidden mass there exist some deliberations, one of the most recent I
found just today: the standard model of particle-physics will be replaced by
super-symmetry-model (SUSY) consequently in the following years. Supersymmetry
theory predicts a particle as a pendant to the so called Higgs-boson with the
name "higgsino", the number of that particles created in the cooling phase of
universe after "big-bang" and the sum of their masses would then be exactly the
"hidden matter". The new accelerator to proof that is build up now, but it will
not work before 2005.
There is no esoteric secret in that.
As science did not need the "aether-model" it was left behind. To postulate
newly an "aether" must be necessary, otherwise it is scientific inadmissible.

>Good point. Just because a fool says its dark outside doesn't mean the sun
>is shining ! Consider science the fool, thinking it has completely described
>nature with probabalistic equations !

Science itself knows well, that it has not completely described what we call
nature or world. Our knowledge may be only one or two percent. But
science was until now the way on which we reached most of knowledge, the
scientific method is the most successful one mankind ever had.
Science is full of contradictions, of simply wrong statements, the next
generations will show, from ten thousand ideas only one or two are worthy enough
to be remembered scientific, but science tries to follow the Newtonian axiom: non
fingo hypothesis!
And that is very much for us as mistaken humans.

>Have Ya heard of unified field theory, superstrings ? Don't forget to
>check out Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox (1935) and Bell's Theorem (1960's).

The EPR-paradox has a solution when you remember the above described:
the observer refers on the virtual reference, not on the "physical object", then
Schroedinger's wave equation is no longer relevant for the physical object,
because it refers on the virtual model of the object created by perception, then
the breakdown of Schroedinger's wave equation does not effect the "physical
object" and the contradiction (the paradox) is ended. That is very plausible,
and not mystical.

>Yeah, within the current context of knowledge. In other words a closed
>and "fixed" system. It does work well to some extent. Quantum equations
>work very well with millions of particles, kinda useless in a single case.
>Kinda like actuarial science, isnt it ?

Under some aspects a closed system, yes, but fixed, no!
When you are able to modify it by reasonable arguments, there will be
hundreds of thousands of scientists listening to you. But the arguments must follow
the regularities of science, meaning: they must be reasonable and proofable.
Prediction from a single case is the domain of our direct perception and its
evolutionary plug-in: the "connection between cause and effect" (although
philosophy and linguistics knew for a long time (HUME, HOBBES, WITTGENSTEIN,
FREGE et al) that this principle is very contradictory). But it is sufficient
for the survival of the creature.

>Great minds are concerned with "actuality" not "defined" existence.

O.K. I am not a great mind. Satisfied?
When a conception excludes a definition, I cannot change that without becoming
wrong or modifying the original conception (idea).
Everything existing must have at minimum one interaction, that is the
precondition for existence. Information itself could work like that, although it
would be its own interaction, and therefore destroyed after interacting. But
then we have the "cause and effect" problem again in its full sharpness.

>Physics has externalized Man's observational limitations and generated an
>empirically derived "crap game" as being actual to the universe itself.
>This mistake may take two centuries to overcome.

I have no comment to that argument.

>The strong point of view of
>perception theory says that entities which are never, under no circumstances
>and in no way observable simply do not exist.

That are no "ostriches", but it is also for simple hearts understandable.
Language gives the impression, that such entities nevertheless must exist,
because it speaks about them. But even language is contradictory in such a
formulation. (Wittgenstein)

>If You won't play, You can't exist !

Answer: yes, exactly that is fact.
Only interaction (planck quantum) generates existence.
Example from language: when a word does not generate meaning in the brain of the
reader it is "cero". When I tell you a wonderful subtle story in chinese and you
do not understand chinese, the subtility (the semantics) for you does not exist,
the story will be "cero".

>Check out Wheeler's "many worlds" interpretations. Dirac's equation of the
>electron (1928) with i (square root of -1). This "imaginary" quantity is
>required to make the equation work and implies something "unobservable" and
>possibly "unconceivable" in same. While not attempting to justify the
>existence of poltergeists, am just trying to point out the limits of man's
>knowledge.

You are very right about the limits of man's knowledge. My impression is: the
more I know, the more stupid and contradicted I become. All physics and all
science is poor when compared with the wisdom of nature.
But that imaginary numbers in mathematics constitute secrets of unobservables
and unconceivables is really new for me.
Mathematics is a special language, nothing more. It has a structure, part of that
structure is the "imaginary numbers". In the structure of mathematics there are
certain problems which come (under other reasons) from the historical
development and structure of that language (e.g. it lasted long to integrate
geometry into algebra), logical structure is that of a bivalent logic etc.
But to use these unsolved things as an open door to find (esoteric and
mystical) secrets again, seems to me very hazardous.
We all must live with a brain and a perception which are very limited.
But we could analyse the structure of "yesterdays secrets" to get an impression
of secrets which are yet not found. then we could make reasonable extrapolations
how future secrets will be like.
To deliberate only with free flowing phantasy does not bring us one step
further.

With best regards
Waldemar Hammel

Subject: A0330 Corpus subtile

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 96 06:01 +0100
From: Waldemar Hammel

Steve Rosen wrote:

>I am finding the discussion of "higher vibrations" and the subtle
>body very interesting.........

I welcome that you try to formulate the ideas and conceptions of Flamel
more exactly and reasonably.
It is a good exercise, because the majority is handling all that without any
definitions: free floating phantasy!
Your explanations are very new and interesting, although I would change the word
"action" against "interaction" in your first chapter, because there is a great
difference between the implications of these two expressions from the point of
view of information theory. And -as far as I know- physics treats always with
interactions, what means: (both) partners of the ensemble are affected
(simplified: Newton's action/reaction theorem).
But -nevertheless- I cannot see any evidence for a thing that is called the "subtle
body" as part of an esoteric explanation for alchemistic operations or
interactions between alchemist and matter or between body and mind.
These images describe our impression that world is bivalent (heaven and hell,
yesterday and tomorrow etc.), and the subtle body is the glue-chip to that
system (as father, son, and holy ghost). The world of perception is bivalent,
and we begin to understand slowly why (in neuro-sciences and linguistics), but
that does not even mean that the world outside of us has an analog structure.
(from the view of language even there is no "world outside from us", we only can
speak of the perceptable world in our minds)
So we have to state that speaking of "a subtle body" means speaking about a
supposed structure in our perception created world in the mind, a perception
"problem". But, why now to suppose a subtle body, when perception works
sufficient also without it? It is not scientific to introduce more variables than
neccessary.
As long as the subtle body is not proofable or can only be declared with physics
singularities, its acceptance seems very exotic. Further it works like a
structure-killing poison for deliberation and perception, because this exotic
thing, born out of unimaginable singularities becomes overcharged with all
further things that are not right understood, or of religious relevance etc.
One time invented it works like a dustbin-buffer and is consecutively filled
with unmatured ideas and so on.
Therefore I would drop the idea of subtle bodies and search for another more
reality-connected explanation when necessary.

>Waldemer wants to avoid speculation and arrive at something
>"proveable." He wants to draw a sharp line of demarcation between
>physics and metaphysics. He himself ventures the philosophical
>speculation (or pronouncement) that to exist is to be observable, and
>by "observable" he evidently means open to objective sense
>perception.

Here I am misunderstood (sorry for my bad English...)
I did not write: to exist is to be observable....and observable means open to
sense perception....
Existence of anything is only thinkable when it has at minimum the capacity for
one interaction (to "interchange one h-quantum"), during interaction the quality
of "existence" is generated, "emerged" when speaking in the picture of the new
science of synergetics (Haken). If there is an observer in that moment of
interaction or not is without importance.
An independent second thing is the existence of percepted things (besides: sense
perception is never objective, as our senses have a syntactical structure for
the information process and use massively preinterpretation algorithms "invented
by evolution" before they send their messages to brain structures).
To be percepted, the above described interaction minimum possibility must be
fullfilled and interactions must take place on one or more channels of the
sensory organs. Perception then is the first step in an algorithm for creating a
model in the mind. That model is semi-stable while the reason of the perception
(e.g. the house before my eyes) has no self-identity (analytical philosophy) and
goes on to change permanently and to disintegrate thermodynamically (entropy).

>But as Logodox notes, we need not take
>this tradition as sacrosanct. Being part of the still evolving
>human enterprise, it too is open to question and susceptible to
>basic change.

We need to make nothing sacrosanct. But our suggestions have to be reasonable!
Its simply wrong to suggest that every picture of phantasy is of scientific
relevance. Otherwise everything is relevant.
In information theory we conclude, that a message which contains every
permutation of elements which is possible is equivalent to NO MESSAGE.
When the message of our brain would be that every thinkable idea is relevant,
that would be equivalent to have no ideas.
So we must differentiate between nonsense and sense, and the differentiator, the
only one we got from evolution, is our reason.

> I don't agree with Waldemer that David Bohm limited his thinking to
>only that which is observable in principle. For one thing,
>particularly in the modified version of his "hidden variables"
>approach, there is a paradoxical element of nonlocality that in my
>mind raises doubts about the straight-forward treatment of
>observability.

That point is also in my opinion not quite clear.
But it should be without relevance in this discussion.
It is proofed that quantum physics does not fail because of "hidden variables" or
"unobservables". The description of quantum systems is complete and valid. Also
the observer seems not to be the reason for the appearing contradictions (e.g.
wave/particle dualism). A new "experimentum crucis" before round about one year
(I can search the literature about it, when you are interested) seems to give a
curious solution: The result of a quantum scala experiment depends on the kind
(quality) of information which the observer is reading out from the setting.
Feeding back that information with an experimental trick (a so called
quantum-eraser) changes the experiments results to the dual opposite.
The algorithms of what means "observation" seem to be more complicated than
expected.

> One last point. Waldemer said that objects inside black holes
>would continue to exist. But if I'm not mistaken, is it not true
>that once an object would cross the event horizon and enter the black
>hole, it could never return, and thus would never again be
>observable to us? If we say as Waldemer suggests that it
>nonetheless stays in existence, what does that do to his equation of
>existence with observability?

Answer: (all that is hypothetical, because black holes are not observed until
now, although many astrophysicists want the Nobel prize so their heaven is
interlarded with such objects!)
I have to argue now a little sophisticated.
An object would be accelerated to the velocity of light when approaching the
event horizon, not relevant from which direction it approximates. As matter
cannot be accelerated to the speed of light (relativity theory) black holes
would be surrounded by huge areas of collected matter emitting large quantities
of x- and gamma-radiation (the prosaic called "death-cry of matter"). This
radiation would be absorbed by the black hole at least. After a certain time
there is no matter left, because all of it has changed into radiation which then
is absorbed by the black hole.
The black hole owns a gravitational field around it and it evaporates slowly by
the well known quantum physics tunnel effect (it emits the so called
Hawking-radiation). By that it has interactions with the space arround it, and
so its right to say: it exists! (its even meassurable, also visible by the
matter arround it, which emits ultrabright radiation).
The sophisticated question now: when matter is transported into the black hole
as radiation and the black hole itself is measurable (observable), is it right
then to say, that matter (radiation/energy) is further existing inside the black
hole although it is positioned behind the event horizon and unable to make
further effect to the universe?
I would say NO, because of my own thesis: without interaction no existence.
But, and here is the breakpoint, that energy/matter behind the event horizon
charges the object "black hole" with gravitational force and enables a
gravitational field around it, and the Hawking radiation of the evaporating
black hole is generated by the matter/energy behind the event horizon and goes
out to the space as a signal with interaction capability.
That in mind I would argue (from the logic of language): Yes, the matter/energy
collection exists also behind the event horizon, because it makes effects
outside the black hole.
That could be an example for existence without time, because at the event
horizon time is quasi "stopped" for the involved particles (not for an
observer!).
But I should stop my argument here, otherwise I myself create a possibility for a
dubious subtle body existing without time.

Best regards
Waldemar Hammel

Subject: A0331 Corpus subtile

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 23:10:03 -0500
From: Jeremiah Cunningham


Mr. Rosen's post was very thorough and well documented with
thoughts of leading quantum physicists. I would like to add a distinguished
name to that list, Fred Alan Wolf.

Dr. Wolf, a quantum physicist, has written several books that this
forum would find interesting. His first "Taking the Quantum Leap" has been
a bestseller for several years now.

I won't go into details, as Mr. Rosen does, but let me say that Dr.
Wolf writes from the heart and intuition as much as from the brain and
reason.

Jeremiah

Subject: A0332 Alchemy & homeopathic dilutions

From: Leonid M. Kokun
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 96 14:21:10 +0300

To Waldemar Hammel

<.. I swear that I never heard about lectures on how homeopathy works.

That is because of the simple fact that there is no physical explanation
to it. All the existing attempts (they cannot be called theories) are
merely unseemly.
The predominant trend is to ascribe the maintenance of homeopathic
effect to water crystalline structures. They are untenable because of
many reasons the main ones among whom are:
1. The energy passed to the solvent during percussions is too
small to withstand dissipation by thermic molecular movement.
2. Even if such structures could preserve oneselves in liquid
solvents, they could not withstand the process of pellet saturation
(accompanied by drastic exsiccation!).
3. In practice, the recipient is usually non-liquid (most
frequently lactose).


Because the complexity of the mathematical apparatus gives illusion of
solving all riddles.


There is a web page; unfortunately, I can't recollect its URL now, but
I do rememeber that it can be found through YAHOO via the homeopathy home
page.

Leo Kokun

Subject: A0333 Alchemy & homeopathic dilutions

From: Leonid M. Kokun
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 96 13:38:21 +0300

To Wendy Howard

Lengthy messages obfuscate the thread of reasoning and can cache logical jumps;
therefore I shall divide your letter into three chunks which appear to be
mutually independent logically, and shall answer them separately.

>There is very obvious ground to link homeopathic remedies with psychic
>phenomena: the provings of the remedies which go to make up our materia medica
>and...

Obviously, you mean the fact that while proving a remedy (for non-initiated:
when healthy persons take in very small doses of it according to a certain
procedure) psychical symptoms arise rather frequently. Well then, what
inference you make from the fact that gross doses of heroine produce still
stronger effects?

I am afraid you have not caught completely the point between me and
Pereira. The factor that produces homeopathic effects may be physical,
psychical, immaterial but not psychical, or of any nature else; the fact
that it can produce psychical effects speaks nothing of its nature.

If you are of contrary opinion, i.e. that if something can cause
psychical changes it should itself be psychical in nature, please,
elaborate it.

With best wishes

Leo Kokun

Subject: A0334 Corpus subtile

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 06:00:19 -0500
From: Logodox

I enjoyed very much the recent postings on physics and shall try to sell my
conjecture which relates 20th century physical interpretations to Alchemy.

I was incredulous years ago reading through modern physics when encountering
the "participation" analysis of physical events and the strict notion that a
thing could not be said to exist without direct observation. A colleague
once asked Einstein if the moon would be up there if human beings had not
evolved to see it. This concept troubled me greatly so I set about over a period of
time to resolve it for myself. Of course to reach satisfaction, my concept
had to stand the basic tests of known science.

I reasoned that the "laws" of physics should be the same throughout the
universe, both in space and time. Of course they would appear modified by
extreme conditions such as black holes, wormholes, and etc. Cosmological
constant values would change over long periods of time also. Basic premise
here is that the universe is "lawfull" and "orderly" although not necessairly in
a way that we can yet (or ever ?) completely understand. "God does not play
dice" may in actuality be true; All the (very successful) assumptions and
postulates of quantum theory are just a sophisticated "map" for perceiving
human beings limited anthropomorphically to their perceptual mechanisms and
language (including mathematics). What appears to be actually random to us
might actually be a determinate phenomenon given a mind which could perceive
space and time dimensions differently than us.

In later years when reading and learning of many other concepts of
science, physics, and metaphysics I sought for a way for the moon to have
objective existence independent of us. The solution came after reading the
Greeks and then blending some of their ideas with modern ones. Crudely put,
I understand them to say that there exists a prima materia or chaos which
was determinately "developed" into all things now observable.
I am still having problems deciding if this chaos is pre-matter (wave/particles)
or corresponds to same. Continuing on, I sought for the Agent that did
the "determinate developing" and found it to my satisfaction in MIND.
Analysing mind to the nth degreee eventually yields
"lawfullness" "order" "number" etc. One cannot really conceptually
(directly) imagine disorder. Perfect disorder would be equivalent to
perfect order. This is similar to "Ain Soph" no thing or non-thing as we
can even imagine. We speaking of MIND this way, it is not necessarily
Human; it is a principle of order or reason; meaningfullness; mathematical
relation; correspondence; etc.

This MIND or NOUS is the pre-existent agent which made all. It does not
necessairly occupy space/time as we know it. This intelligible principle
sometimes called "intellect" by the Platonics gives objective actuality to
all things, although not as we Human Beings perceive them. When the right
conditions were present, this MIND assembled itself (via matter) into
sentient beings. Imagine a table. It remains a table (to humans) from
moment to moment. To the extent that it is a collection of mass/energy
persisting in a certain form, it can be considered to have be an orderly
existent thing REGARDLESS OF OUR OBSERVING IT AT ANY GIVEN
INSTANT. If the laws of physics are constant (even though we can't pin
them down to exactness) then the table still exists between observations.

If observers were required to "create" the universe, then how did the
first observers evolve to observe something which could'nt exist without them ?
(Chicken & Egg).

These considerations do not negate the participation / observer concept
of quantum physics. Schrodinger's cat can still live or die unobserved but
I believe the "state" of that cat is actual and independent of opening the door
(at least within any one time/space track if "many-worlds" idea is actual).

In order for the above conjecture to be actual, science needs to become a
little less anthropo-centric in its reasoning.

As it relates to the prima materia. MIND must form an energy pattern
which circulates into/out of itself in perfect harmony then "project" this
active/passive agent into the chaos to form order.

For the quantum physicists: The MIND which surmounts our space/time
dimensions could understand the "double-slit" experiment and explain how
the waveicles seem to "know" when one door is closed...

Logodox@worldnet.att.net

Subject: A0335 Corpus subtile

From: Adam McLean
Date: 24 Oct 1996

Logodox writes:-
>I was incredulous years ago reading through modern physics when
>encountering the "participation" analysis of physical events and the
>strict notion that a thing could not be said to exist without direct observation.
>A colleague once asked Einstein if the moon would be up there if human
>beings had not evolved to see it...

I think this arises from a misunderstanding and misreading of Neils Bohr's strong
interpretation the 'Copenhagen' view of quantum theory. Logodox confuses this
with the 18th century immaterialism of Bishop George Berkeley, and throws in
a pinch of solipsism (which Berkeley would never have done). The moon does
not need to be seen by someone's eyes in order for it to exist, it exists through
its interaction with the matter around it, not only with the retina of our eyes. The
earth "sees" the moon though the tides and many other phenomena. If our earth
was continually shrouded in clouds, we would still discover the moon when our
science reached the point where it could detect the effects of the moon. The
moons of Jupiter did not spring into existence when Galileo pointed his telescope
at the planet.

A difficulty arises for esoterics when someone posits the existence of a realm,
say the mysterious "eighth sphere" of the theosophists, which doesn't appear to
interact with matter. How can we judge the existence of such a realm? Is there
not a difference between these kinds of ideas and mystical ideas such as that
of the Ain Soph? Mystical ideas are not intended to be seen as outer physical
domains. We don't have a problem with these, but we do have a problem if we
try to drag such an idea into the outer phyical world. If we were to say that the Ain
Soph exists as a glowing sphere around the Moon then physicists would quite
rightly ask us to demonstrate the evidence for its existence - what wavelength of
light it emitted, etc.? We try to drag our mystical ideas into the physical world
because of our insecurity, in that we need the reassurance of grounding our
mystical concepts in solid, observable, objective reality. This is surely an
existential problem, rather than one directly touching on the mystical.

Perhaps the real culprits in this are the Theosophists, who at the end of the last
century tried to build a bridge between religion and science, the mystical and the
phenomenal. Some of their ideas worked within the framework of the science of
their time, but others have been much superceded by developments in physical
science and also in philosophy, over the past 100 years. If I may remind us, this discussion was originally sparked off by the observation that we should perhaps
be more careful in using the idea of "higher vibrations" (as did the theosophical
writers) to describe esoteric ideas such as that of the subtle bodies.

Alchemy leads us back to a time when this existential difficulty did not press so
hard upon the souls of humanity.

Adam McLean

Subject: A0336 Alchemy & homeopathic dilutions

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 09:06:17 -0500
From: George Leake

>From: Waldemar Hammel
>Why does everyone to prove their thesis refer to "the most modern physics",
>especially in the esoteric, alchemical, and homeopathic circles?

A very interesting question. My guess would be the outlook changed with
Einstein. And perhaps as a result of conundrums created by the classical
approach--like the "black-body" problem.

George Leake

Subject: A0337 Corpus subtile

From: calhhh
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 21:19:34 -0500

Dear Dr. Hammel :

I have read with great interest the ongoing discussion about "Corpus
Subtile" and the different aristas regarding the "physics'" points of view,
and as always I dearly respect everyone's opinions, assuming they are
well intended.
However I would just like to make a humble comment. You said :

>Nevertheless I cannot follow the first statement, that physics will be
>subsumed into metaphysics, because from the historical development
>physics is an emancipated child of metaphysics just as chemistry and
>in general all sciences.
>And the development of metaphysics stopped as soon as these children
>weregrown up. That exactly is the basical calamity of e.g. alchemy today.
>While this metaphysical science was the engine of progress in the past, its
>foundations even predicted radioactivity and the possibilities of
>transmutations of elements (as physics does today), this "royal art" has
>become today a mixture of nonsense and reasonless phantasies far away
>from its serious roots.

The central argument of your discussion, technology aside, is that we all
remain objective, consider what the principles that science has "discovered"
and hold to be true, and then from our observations make serious analysis
that may conduct our reasoning towards valuable and specially reliable
conclusions. To this, I must agree ! However, when you go as far to say that
"THE ROYAL ART HAS BECOME TODAY A MIXTURE OF NONSENSE AND
REASONLESS PHANTASIES ....", I must confess that I feel you defeat your own
argument.

In the same manner that I do not know enough about physics, let alone
quantum physics, and therefore I am not a qualified individual to enter into a
serious discussion to attack/defend its scientific principles, I must ask you
if you feel that you know enough about ALCHEMY and specially operative
ALCHEMY as to make a broad statement as you did. Let me tell you Waldemar,
that on this point, based on facts, you are absolutely WRONG.

I am not arguing that on any system of body of knowledge there might not
be quacks, or simply people that indulge in phantasies, dreams or ego trips.
I think there is a lot of that as well in the traditional "scientific" world. What
I am defending here is that also, on all sides of the spectrum, there are
serious, well intended research and results, and on this side of the issue,
I respectfully say, that based on your statements, I do not think that you know
enough of The Sacred Art as to express about it as you did.

It is true that Metaphysics in general, and alchemy in particular, was the
mother of a child, now called Science. It is also true, that nowadays it would
seem that this child, in its adolescence seems to be much wiser that its
mother ... But as it always happens, everything will come someday to a
balance. The Mother will prove to be much wiser than it seemed upon the
face of the "adolescence discoveries" but also the child, over time, will also
bring about wisdom and new discoveries to both, the Mother and itself.

Best Regards to all,

ORCIS

Subject: A0338 Alchemy & homeopathic dilutions

From: Leonid M. Kokun
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 96 16:57:01 +0300

To Wendy Howard who wrote:

>... I would also question the statement that most remedies have a peak of
>curative action within a relatively low band of dilutions... it is certainly
>not born out in homeopathic practice.

As concerns your individual practice, your statement can be understood only in
such way that you choose maximal dilutions for all remedies whenever possible,
e.g. Convallaria and Equisetum in 10M and higher (it should be so if effect
grows without limit with growing dilution). It could make a tiny
sensation...
However, we have objective data that reflect the general practice: the
statistical data on dilutions most commonly used for every remedy by drug
producers and by individual prescribers as a whole; these data show clear
difference in optimum dilution between deep-acting remedies and the small
ones; also, there exists an upper boundary beyond which remedies are used
extremely rare (and which differs from remedy to remedy). I believe your
own druggist can provide you with corresponding figures.
Thence, either I have misunderstood your assertion, or the general
practice is erroneous, or perhaps you may be in error.

With best wishes

Leo Kokun

Subject: A0339 Biological transmutations

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 09:44:55 -0700
From: rob

Here is the current Books-in-Print info. for the Kervran book. I am in the
process of reading it myself, and have been fascinated by the work. It seems
(to my neophyte understanding) to mesh quite well with the study of Alchemy.
I would enjoy hearing anyone elses thoughts on this work or on biological
transmutations in general. rob

Author: Kervran, C. Louis
Title: Biological Transmutations
Edition: 2nd Reprint ed.
Publisher: Happiness Pr, 1987 (Feb),c1987
Description: 163p. 9 in. X 6 in.,0 kg.

Status: Active Record
ISBN: 0-916508-47-1
Price: Paper Text $18.50 (Retail Price)

Subject(s): TRANSMUTATION (CHEMISTRY)
BIOLOGY
NATURAL FOODS
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
BIOMASS ENERGY

Other names: Abehsera, Michael, Translator


rob
rys@ucla.edu

Subject: A0340 Alchemy & homeopathic dilutions

From: Leonid M. Kokun
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 96 19:54:09 +0300

To Wendy Howard

When the first two parts of my answer were concerned with your statements
clearly connected with the point at issue (the nature of the bearer of
homeopathic effect), be they true or wrong, this last one is concerned
with the remainder of your message whose relevance to the issue escapes
my understanding.


>Homeopathy ... treats the patient as a whole - mind, emotions and physical
>signs and symptoms are all part of the same picture...

In which connection this fact is with the nature of the phenomenon?

>To gain this understanding of a patient's mental state, the homeopath will
>enquire (among other things) about fears, dreams, and delusions...
>The central delusion of a patient is what creates his/her physical pathology,
>which is why the homeopath seeks to treat the central delusion..

I am ashamed to confess that I have no delusions - does it mean that I should
not be treated homeopathically? And which was your point at all to penetrate
into this suspected area?

>Some authorities believe it is water that is the carrier of 'memory' and the
>water contained in the microtubules within our cells is where our 'memory'
>(and sense of selfhood within this incarnation) resides...

There are other authorities with quite contrary views; what of it?

>The repeated dilution (and shaking) of homeopathic preparations progressively
>elevates the nature of the substance being diluted to its higher vibrational
>levels, freeing it from its more gross material manifestation, with the
>information being carried in the water used as diluent...

It just remains to be shown.

So much with your points. I shall be sincerely glad if you will be able
to transform them into logically valid refutation of my reasoning.

With best wishes

Leo Kokun

Subject: A0341 Corpus subtile

From: Steve Rosen
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 16:32:24 -0400

Waldemar Hammel wrote:

> Your explanations are very new and interesting, although I would change the
> word "action" against "interaction" in your first chapter, because
> there is a greatdifference between the implications of these two
> expressions from the point of view of information theory.
> And -as far as I know- physics treats always with
> interactions, what means: (both) partners of the ensemble are affected
> (simplified: Newton's action/reaction theorem).

I agree with your point about the fundamental importance of
*inter*action: there can be no action without inter-action.
Nevertheless, I suspect we have quite different notions of what
interaction entails and of what is interacting.

I believe part of the communication problem that has developed in this
discussion of the "corpus subtile" is that participants hold
radically different belief systems and make radically different
assumptions. I, for example, have been profoundly influenced by the
contemporary questioning of empiricist scientific philosophy that has
emerged in the last hundred years or so, particularly in the field of
phenomenological philosophy. So, from my standpoint, it would be
legitimate and desirable to open to examination much of what we have
taken for granted about "scientific proof," "reason," "sense and
nonsense," "reality" and "fantasy," etc. As I implied in my last
post, the development of our convictions on these matters can be
*historically situated.* I believe the emergence of such beliefs
coincides with the demise of medieval alchemy. Furthermore, my
reading of the history of science would be a little different from
Waldemar's. I would agree with him that modern science grew out of a
less developed, more undifferentiated, pre-scientific alchemical
approach. Also, I would concur with Waldemar that this historical
transformation was necessary and desirable. However, I would suggest
that, with the burgeoning of modern science after the Renaissance, a
certain price was paid. We lost contact with what I might call the
"lived body of inner experience" -- the "life world," as
phenomenologists say. I would further propose that now that our
reflective abilities and powers of discrimination have been sharpened
by centuries of refinement via scientific rationalism, we may need to
resensitize ourselves to the part of us that has long been repressed.
I believe the paradoxes of modern physics constitute the cue for us
to do just that.

Steve Rosen

Subject: A0342 Alchemy & homeopathic dilutions

From: Michela Pereira
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 22:48:09 +0100

>From: Wendy Howard
> As might be gathered, I am not an
>alchemist but a homeopath, and subscribe to this forum because there is much of
>interest here and many similarities to the homeopathic 'world view'. I am
>particularly interested in the alchemical understanding of the nature of the
>elements - there is much that confirms homeopathic provings. (A proving is
>where a remedy is tested on healthy people to elicit the symptoms it produces.
>These are then used as the basis for establishing symptom similarity in a
>patient.) I would love to hear from anyone interested in pursuing the topic further,
>though whether Adam would regard it as suitable material for the forum,
>I don't know.


I am happy to have found a homeopath in the forum. I am not a homeopath
myself, but I wrote my message about homeopathy in the higher vibration
debate because since many years my research on alchemy (historical research,
on medieval alchemy) and my homeophatic reading (along with the use of
homeopathic remedies) led me to consider the interesting structural similarities
among alchemical and homeopathic themes. First of all, the theme of the
dilution/shaking, as it is described in Hanehmann's Organon, displays
impressive similarities with the theme of multiplicatio, i.e. the final
stage of alchemy, where the elixir or lapis philosophorum, however obtained,
is increasingly diluted (according to a ratio of 10) and is said to acquire
a proportionally increasing capacity of transmuting. Transmuting, on the
other side, does not only mean to make gold: in the Latin alchemical texts
on the elixir, the main concern of the authors is surely to obtain a remedy,
whose main expected effect should be prolongevity. This links back to Roger
Bacon's dream of a universal medicine, but it also points to the making of
remedies in a different way - i.e., it points towards the connection of the
alcohol distillation to the alchemical idea of quintessence. Historically,
this developed into the research of John of Rupescissa, which was one of the
sources of Paracelsus research. Under another point of view, this link of a
material product (wine distillate) to a metaphysical 'object' like
quintessence seems to connect to the problem of 'higher vibrations'. And
the whole alchemical-philosophical debate about quintessence concerns the
alchemical theory of the elements - as quintessence is conceived of as the
dynamic core of every material (i.e. composed of a mix of the four elements)
thing. On its turn, this idea seems to go back very far into the oriental
origin of such doctrines of alchemy or magic, that the Western Middle Ages
partly (in a great part, I should say) misinterpreted, ultimately leading to
their rejection from the 'institutional' science and occultation. In their
very core, these doctrines seem to propose a worldview not cut into the two
halves of 'psyche' and 'matter', and so to offer - not a solution to an
exclusively Western (in its origin) problem whose very linguistic
enunciation forcludes a solution - but quite another view of things,
expressed in the first aphorism of the Tabula smaragdina better than
everywhere (as far as I know) and implied in a series of practices
(homeopathy is one) that, not incidentally, are still considered 'suspect'
when not openly rejected from 'science'.

Michela Pereira

Subject: A0343 Oestrogens and Alchemy

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 08:44:35 +1000 (EST)
From: Gionni Di Gravio

I saw an interesting documentary last night concerning the effects that
chemicals had been having on various species. The general idea was that
there were chemical compounds that were oestrogenic in their effects.
They were stored in the body fat of animals having the effect of making
the male organism believe that it was female. This produced offspring
that were both male and female in nature. This was put forward as an
explanation for the rise of prostate cancer, reduced sperm counts and the
higher incidence of males born with undescended testicles.

The question I would like to ask the forum is what connection the idea of
the androgyne in alchemy would have to this argument. I'm wondering if
the alchemists had a answer for this mystery.

Sincerely,
Gionni Di Gravio

Subject: A0344 Corpus subtile

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 96 02:57 +0100
From: Waldemar Hammel

I see things similar as you in your conciliatory letter (A0335), but my knowledge in
history unfortunately is not sufficient enough to discuss about Bishop Berkeley
and the Theosophists.
Further you try politely to concentrate the discussion again on typical
alchemistic features, because this is the alchemy forum list.
So I do not want to disturb this any longer with physics, I myself guess that here
is not the right place for that.

My essential request was (and is) to find a new way for alchemy today.
All the hints that science knows nearly nothing etc. are right, the animosity of
alchemists against science is to my opinion wrong.
What else are we (scientists) doing in our hardware- and mind-laboratories than
working out alchemy? We separated the elements, we found a new universe, we
worked out the old dream of transmutation, we liberated the fire in the heart of
matter and transformed it into bread, we found remedies for a longer life, we
recovered the basic nature forces in the background (gravitation, weak force,
electricity, strong force), we recovered a new universal valid agens:
structure and information, etc., what is all that when not alchemy?
Alchemy was our mother, but now she is a grandmother, faded and exhausted.
She gave us the initial questions, with them we started and kept successful
until today.

And now, as we have a lot of new questions since long, she has no answers for
us, only repeats the old statements and pictures like a soul-less robot.
She has lost her overview, her power for synopsis is gone. She worked once
successfully with matter, she tried to work later on with energy (but that
became already mystic and esoteric), she lost by sleeping the "great work" with
information. She was not able to transmute herself into the modern setting.
She works like every ideology: her old axioms are petrified, her language is no
longer understandable, her implications no longer plausible, she lost the
cultural keys for keeping connected to the development.

That does not mean that alchemy is superfluous.
The opposite. To my opinion we would imperatively need a new, living alchemy in
a time, where the cultural plausibilities (not only of the Occident) are descending,
the structure of societies is hit, the consciousness is struggling more and more
into chaos.
In former times alchemy implied great ethical ideals, it was religion,
science, philosophy, it was holistic.
That holistic or synoptical overview would be what we need today urgently.
Why not deliberate if alchemy could form such a overview - in former times it was
able to do so!

We should trace the historical important ideas of "the royal art" on one side
and connect them with historical elaborations of themselves and further
provable historical implications and interactions on the other side.
Then we could recognize where the development stopped and analyse why it
stopped.

After we could create kernels of alchemistic idea-conglomerates.
Then we would have to extrapolate these kernels to the modernity and develop
them sensibly or to make new, modern kernels and to connect them with
actuality (neurosciences, linguistics, physics etc., etc.) (Eventually producing
a change of paradigm...)

That would be a kind of matrix for the further development of alchemy as a
holistic science, and we would be able to get sensible predictions out of it (in a
scientific manner, alchemy was science!!)

The argument would be that alchemy has diversified into the different kinds
of human knowledge and activities (that is necessary, because in former times
most kinds of knowledge and investigating-activities simply did not exist).
With that basic structure alchemy could have professorial chairs in
universities.

That kind of new alchemy would even have important cultural spin-off effects:

- a new connection between the object-orientated perception of former times with the
structure-orientation today
- the connection between the quality-reception of world (symbolism and semantics) in
the middle ages and the quantity-reception (syntax and (pragma)) of today
- the connection to the decline of anthropocentrism from "king of the universe" to
"meaningless dust" (evolution theory, but evolution was an original theme of
alchemy!)
- from the dream to understand the world to the bitter realisation of an even
not-knowing-myself (perception and language, also an original alchemistic theme:
e.g. kabbala)
- and so on....

To give one example for the power and implications which an alchemy could have
when worked out into modernity:
An Arabian alchemist (scientist), I think to remember it was Al Kindi, tried to
find numerical values for what we call "quality" or "attributes" of the objects
of perception. He constructed a very sophisticated system, quite plausible in
those times, and he was able to make astonishing and correct predictions with
it. (If someone is interested, I'll find out where I found it).
Modern thermodynamics (Prigogine et al) and the science of "synergetics" have
the same problem, but they go another way: they try to find out how quality emerges
from quantity, and then to make it numerical describable. (The middle-ages tried
to deduce quantity out of quality). The problem is much more important than it
seems on the first view.

This above explained would be my dream of the future of alchemy.
And therefore I am so much disappointed by many features on this list.
I myself became an alchemist in the age of 13/14, I ran a laboratory during all
my life, coming from matter-alchemy at least to mind-(theoretical)-alchemy.
I experience my studies in physics (university), philosophy and linguistics
(private) as special educations on the background of alchemy.

With my best regards
Waldemar Hammel

Subject: A0345 Alchemy & homeopathic dilutions

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:52:58 +1000
From: Don Foster

> Waldemar Hammel wrote:

> I do not know enough about homeopathic practice to argue pro or contra, but I
> have been learning physics for some years at the technical university of
> Aachen in Germany, and I swear that I never heard about lectures on how
> homeopathy works.
> Why does everyone to prove their thesis refer to "the most modern physics",
> especially in the esoteric, alchemical, and homeopathic circles?
> I would very like to get exact information, where physics proves homeopathy.
> Could You please name titles/books/authors which refer to that theme?

Certainly the most comprehensive scientific attempt to explain the
mechanism of action of homoeopathy is published in both English and German
by Barthel & Barthel Publishing, 1987. Titled, "Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen
der Homöopathie" or "Scientific Foundations of Homeopathy" by Gerhard
Resch and Viktor Gutmann.

Subject: A0346 Corpus subtile

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 23:14:47 -0500
From: Logodox

Dear Waldemar,

Thank you for your excellent and well considered response. Please allow
me to clarify myself:

Waldemar wrote:
>Nevertheless I cannot follow the first statement, that physics will be subsumed
>into metaphysics, because from the historical development physics is a
>emancipated child of metaphysics just as chemistry and in general all sciences.

Rather than say physics will be subsumed into metaphysics, I am really meaning
that because of the "Uncertainty Principle" and the Quantum Probabalistic
Postulates, and the barriers of the unimaginable smallness of today's physics
(e.g. a superstring as much smaller than a proton as a proton is smaller
than the Earth) physics may only progress by the utilization of "Meta"
ideas, concepts which are no longer proveable by "scientific method"
directly. We are already describing 1-dimensional "strings" of energy !
How can anyone observe a 1-dimensional piece of energy ? My meaning
here should not be misconstrued to be in support of the myriad of nonsense unconscious symbolisms taken today as "new age enlightenment.".

Logodox:
>>What is definition of physical ? An object occupying space/time ? Would You
>>rule out the existence of anything with zero mass as existing ? Is not
>>physical only a relative term describing interaction between frequencies ?

Waldemar:
>"Physical" means a perception quality, this quality subsumes some primary
>attributes: touchablity, visibility, localizeability, 3-dimensionality....

With all respect to perception and its subjectivity, something "out there"
in the unified-field "soup" is actual (IN ITSELF) regardless of Yours, mine,
or the ant's perception of it.

Waldemar:
>By the way: there are objects which are not occupying space because they are
>space: these particles are called gluons, and they constitute what we call
>"space".

I thought the gluons were the "carrier" particles of the strong nuclear force ?
As a gag, I would say that space exists without any interaction ?


Logodox:
>>Any object with less time/space/energy than a planck or with a wavelength
>>longer than the spatial extent of the universe.

Waldemar:
>I am sorry, but the Planck quantum is the smallest entity for interactions. On
>the value of that quantum most "nature laws" are based. When an
>"interaction-coin" smaller than the planck quantum would exist and be used by
>nature, the results would be unimaginable: whole universe would be totally
>different, its evolution would have gone other ways, we would not exist, matter
>would not, and so on.
>That idea is nonsense!...
>A wavelength longer than the spatial extent of the universe does not create a
>wave. I don't know, what to do with such an unicum, as it does not possess
>frequency.
>Physics knows about many exotic singularities, but they all do not fit
>parapsychology, esoterics, mysticisms.

Sorry. Just playing with finites.


Waldemar:
>As science did not need the "aether-model" it was left behind. To postulate
>newly an "aether" must be necessary, otherwise it is scientific inadmissible.

It might be necessary as the "carrier" of the prima materia ?

Waldemar:
>Science itself knows well, that it has not completely described what we call
>nature or world. Our knowledge may be only one or two percent. But
>science was until now the way on which we reached most of knowledge, the
>scientific method is the most successful one mankind ever had.

I have utmost respect for good science. Scientists who have forgotten that
the universe is a lot bigger than them, now thats different!

Logodox:
>>Have Ya heard of unified field theory, superstrings ? Don't forget to
>>check out Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox (1935) and Bell's Theorem (1960's).

Waldemar:
>The EPR-paradox has a solution when you remember the above described:
>the observer refers on the virtual reference, not on the "physical object"...

"Virtual Reference" this sound like a euphemism for existentialism to me.

>>Yeah, within the current context of knowledge. In other words a closed
>>and "fixed" system. It does work well to some extent.

Waldemar:
>Under some aspects a closed system, yes, but fixed, no!

Sorry. By fixed I meant limited and self-rigged, not static.
Wittgenstein... I knew You had read great minds !

Waldemar:
>O.K. I am not a great mind. Satisfied?

Yes You are a great mind. Satisfied, no. Only when a little close to
"actuality" will I be satisfied. I don't care to be greater or lesser
than anyone.

Waldemar, I am very poor with words. Many times in history, the only
advance was a "new" thinking individual or two who questioned all assumptions.
Einstein is a superb case in point. Im only saying that as great as science
is, it still has a ways to go. Consider it possible for things to exist
(philosophically, not necessarily scientifically) of which we don't yet
conceive.

What was it Bill said ? There are more things in heaven and earth...

Best,

Logodox@worldnet.att.net

Subject: A0347 Corpus subtile

From: Leonid M. Kokun
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 96 16:40:51 +0300


>I believe part of the communication problem that has developed in this
>discussion of the "corpus subtile" is that participants hold
>radically different belief systems and make radically different
>assumptions.

Certainly so.

>So, from my standpoint, it would be legitimate and desirable to open
>to examination much of what we have taken for granted about "scientific
>proof," "reason," "sense and nonsense," "reality" and "fantasy," etc.

It looks impossible; philosophers of different schools were never able
to concur in basic definitions for 2,500 years.
What would be desirable and possible, it is to establish some rules
of communicating the arguments. E.g., I can grant that a particular
person can perceive the truth in mystical way, i.e. through direct
intercourse with higher being(s); however, as I do not share such
experience, I cannot know whether it is so indeed, or his experiences
are mere hallucinations. Therefore he should not make an argument of
them.
The above is only an illustration, no proposal. What I would like to
propose, is to observe the twelfth commandment: not to write about what
one can't understand. E.g., if a forum member is not in a state to come
through the mathematical technicalities of a quantum physics article to
its contensive core, he cannot use it to corroborate his own view.
Otherwise, any discussion on serious problems will drown in diletantism.

Leo Kokun

Subject: A0348 Oestrogens and Alchemy

From: Leonid M. Kokun
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 96 16:02:00 +0300

To Gionni Di Gravio who wrote:

>I saw an interesting documentary last night concerning the effects that
>chemicals had been having on various species. The general idea was that
>here were chemical compounds that were oestrogenic in their effects.
>They were stored in the body fat of animals having the effect of making
>the male organism believe that it was female. This produced offspring
>that were both male and female in nature...
>The question I would like to ask the forum is what connection the idea of
>the androgyne in alchemy would have to this argument. I'm wondering if
>the alchemists had a answer for this mystery.

The facts you are speaking of are a particular example of the phenomenon
of hormonal action simulation by other compounds. The most frequent case
is mutual conversion of steroid hormones, in particular, sex hormones.
E.g., great quantities of oestrogens reproduce the masculinizing effect
of testosteron in new-born males due to testosteron aromatization in
hypothalamus. It is explained by the common evolutionary root of steroid
hormones which is reflected in the paths of their synthesis in most highly
organized mammals, including humans.

The phenomena were rather extensively studied during two past decades,
and there is absolutely no mystery in them.

Leo Kokun

Subject: A0349 Titian and alchemy

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:53:29 +0100
From: Maurizio Nicosia


Dear Nick DeMarco,

I thank you. My actual interests bring me to orbit fascinated around the
distillers of the time, to the portraitists of immobility: Piero della
Francesca, Vermeer, Seurat, Duchamp.
With time my volumes on Titian accumulated dust. Thanks to you I am
re-approaching Titian, a titanic, vibrant painter of the time.

While, thanks to you, I observe the 'Piety' with different eyes,
prudent voices rise whispering warnings. One among the many:
Melotti, delicious and sage Italian sculptor of this century:
"A crooked egg could be: a naked of woman/ the evolution of the
self/ a spatial play/ and also simply an egg." And also our stone
could be simply a stone. The matter in hand to brood the egg is a
hen or a philosopher. We need to attribute a scenery to our actor, Titian.

Sage Melotti: engineer of merit, excellent musician, preferred to cut
out fair rhythms in thin brasses. Dry as one who loves the essential, he
invited to mistrust "of whom, hurling a fist of sand on the table, says
you: «That's the desert»." The part is not the all, and a portrait of
Hermes is not the hermetism. To pave the viaticum we need stones.

And from where do we start our viaticum (journey)? It was easy to number
Parmigianino as an alchemist: the trace was wide, showy, fluorescent:
a highway with three passages- Vasari, Armenini, Lomazzo.
So likewise with Beccafumi, a main road. Thinner was the thread between
Lotto, Campagnola and alchemy. But in the case of Titian we do not see
at the horizon any Arianna. Unless Diana, the executioner
of Arianna, doesn't assist us

Because the arc of the "Piety", in virile ashlar, cubic and so rustic,
has its ancestor in "Diana and Actaeon", found today in Edinburgh,
"poetry" that was of Phillip II, to behavior by pendant with "Diana and
Callisto," where the ashlar adorns itself of friezes and of the
unequivocal sense of herma (and Aquarius, maybe). It reappears in the
yearning "Coronation of thorns" at Munich, and frames the spiritual
testament of Titian, the "Piety", like the gem do a casket.

Subtle but unequivocal is the thread of the analogy that ties Actaeon and
Christ. Both see, and die. The one at the spring, the other in the
Gethsemane, both 'devoured' by their own 'people'. Curious and odd, the
interpretation? For the man of today, perhaps. Not however for a Greek
of Bysantium, a Christian Greek. For example Gregorius Nazianzenus (of
Natiance's town), father of the Church, has written the "Christus
patiens" literally gluing verses drawn from the grand Greek tragedy:
Aeschylus, Sophocles and above all Euripides. His Christ frequently speaks
with the voice of Hippolytus, the child of Theseus who dies, like Adonis,
for having too much loved the masses, the woods, the shoot, and the
chastity, that is Diana. And thanks to Diana, 'rises'.

Several 'Byzantines' circulated into Italy, above all after the fall of
Constantinople. Otherwise how would be reborn the karst (underground)
stream of Platonism in our Land? Bessarion, the secretary of the platonic,
neopagan Plethon, preferred the zone of Venice. The zone where flourished
the Platonism of Bembo and his entourage of Asolo, that Pietro Bembo,
who Titian portrayed four or five times. But the disposition which
the Byzantines liked best was the Adriatic coast: and were accustomed to
continuous contact with the Venetians, and in first place for the
orthodox dioceses that studded Oriental Italy from Sicily to Venice, of
course, the most oriental of the cities of East.

Less odd than thought, therefore, the analogy between Actaeon and
Christ, the analogy between history and fable. 'Odd' on the contrary
remains the frame: the virile and rustic ashlar that since the Bramante
characterized the city fortalices, the vigorous foundations of the grand
palaces and the sacred buildings of the Renaissance devoted to
warrior saints, fiery and heroic: S. Michael, S. George, even S. Martial.
Instead Actaeon and Christ have few warriors, they suffer the
martyrdom, silently, without heroism. They suffer from, don't act. Same
fate, therefore.

And 'analogous' the origin: Actaeon was an 'Actaeon', a rocky demon who
turned travellers, shepherds into stone and a raw demon who would have calmed
down only whenever someone had raised him a statue at side of the rock.
Christ instead, explains S. Paul to the Greeks, is the "foundation of a
building" (1 Cor., 3, 1), "is he the angular stone onto which all the
building grow in harmonious disposition" (Ef. 2, 21). Is it only a
caprice of the Mannerism, a concession to the style that Titian urges to
encircle them with raw stone and not with sober Ionic?

In "Diana and Actaeon" it is the same 'odd' taste that Titian
induces to set as keystone a lion or a Leo, flaming sign that deserves
the red underlying cloth? In "Diana and Callisto" instead the red cloth
that overhangs Diana is punctuated with unicorns. And in the vault at the
shoulders of Actaeon we seem to glimpse cherubs of sincere Byzantine
style! Byzantine cherubs in a Greek myth? And is the bucrane of a bull
or of a Taurus? And the remains, or the fleeces hung on the branches?
A black woman assists Diane. Is Latona, the black mother of Diana, the
dark side of the moon?

The appetite comes from eating. And who knows how many things we
still have not seen. Does desire come just by skimming through Dom Pernety?
So it is. But, since when? Since when, that is, the myth becomes interpreted
as hermetic-alchemical allegory? Since when does it begin to read
like a fable that conceals the Regal art? If we restrain from immediately
going to skim through the pages on Diana in "The Egyptian and Greek
fables", and patiently we read the introduction, the honest
ex-Benedictine, mason and hermetist offers us a grapnel hook to raise the
chain of which he is the complete, brilliant link: "I have read quite a
lot dealing with Michael Maier with great attention, and I have been
greatly helped by his work entitled 'Arcana arcanissima', that has
served me as canvas for this my work."

Maier was the personal physician of Rudolf II since 1608. In his
court he certainly found nourishment for his hermetic incursions on
ancient myths, and nine years later he gave birth to the "Atalanta
fugiens". The court of Rudolf II, like that of Maximilian II, was deeply
impregnated with the culture, traditions and Italian models. Was he perhaps
observing the pictures of Titian that he found sprouts to decipher the
mythical fables and cipher them in fugues and emblems?

There were in the rooms of court seven 'cameos' of the Venetian artist:
"Endimione and Diana", "Actaeon at the spring", "Actaeon torn to pieces
by the dogs", "Pregnant Callisto", Adonis "andato alla caza contro il
voler de Venere fu dal cinghiale ucciso" (gone he to the shoot against
the will of Venus, had killed from the wild boar), "Andromeda tied at
the stone", "Jupiter and Europa". Offered by von Dornberg, they caught the
enthusiasm of Maximilian II: Titian, they told him, holds for him "a
group of fables". The list envoy to Maximilian II hammering repeats, for
each picture, the magic word "fabula" (fable), and the Emperor wanted
them. "Adonis" perhaps was liked by Michael Maier, so that he wanted to
portray him in analogous posture in his XLI emblem.

Titian and his emissaries were therefore eminently acquainted with
interests of Maximilian II, well accustomed, already then, to the delights of
fables of the Regal Ars. On the other hand, four years before, John Dee
dedicated to the Emperor his "Hieroglyphic Monad", insisting on delivering a
cutting blow on the alchemists, to the astonishment of the
researchers of this century, and consecrating at the altars the
'voarchadumics', that is the Venetian alchemy of Panteo. Eloquent sign,
also is this, that originates from the lagoon felt echoing in
Maximilian's court.

Panteo had published his book in 1518 (reprinted at Paris in the
1550) with a dedication to Andrew Gritti, the Doge immortalized by Titian
two or three times. This unusual Venetian priest, who derived the more
unusual term "voarchadumia" from the "Chaldean", is at the origin of the
introduction of the christian cabal and of the so much legendary
alphabets of Enoch in the hermetic-alchemical universe. Evident traces
and quotations remain in Blaise de Vigenere and, as been said already, in
Doctor Dee.

It would seem from these occurrences that the hermetic-alchemical
interpretation of the myth discovers a vigorous epicentre in Venice,
perhaps unique. And not only this. I don't wish to injure the British
masonic and Hutchinson's pride, but also Masonry comes from the
"Venitians", as affirms the manuscript in the Bodleian attributed to
Henry from England and recovered by Locke, it seems, in 1696.
"Venitians", not Phoenicians is written there. Palladianism, after all, is a
sufficient testimony. Palladianism, or the great architect, Trissino and
Daniele Barbaro, that Titian has portrayed three times.

Will also it be for this inclination to the hermetic-alchemical reading
that Christine of Sweden, when she didn't traffic with the alembics of
the marquis Palombara, behind the magic portal of Rome, did she
hoard the mythological subjects of Titian? "Venus and Adonis", "Venus
with lute" and of course "Diana and Actaeon". And the magic portal of
Rome brings the same crusader globe that holds up the Christ of the
Ermitage.

Unfortunately at Venice there was not a Maier, and neither a Dom Pernety,
but a less known priest, (unusual also like Panteo), that has left us the
"Hypnerotomachia Poliphili", published in the 1499 richly furnished
with woodcuts (Francesco Colonna, "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili", II voll.,
anastatical, Padova 1980, editrice Antenore; excellent edition!), where
Diana, in number of quotations, is second only to Jupiter and Cupidine.
The trio surpasses of a nice few all the others. And here are situated
the "Triumphs" that George Leake mentioned and so much other things also.
And that Triumphs! Edgard Wind there has counted about eighty versions
of the motto FESTINA LENTE (hast you slowly). Pyramids, Obelisks,
Temples, Myths.

The beginning of the story is as the "Divine Comedy", but with
antiquarian tones, at the manner of Mantegna, but it early turns towards
a loving combat that culminates in the temple of Diana, where Polia, the
young girl loved by Poliphilo, dies and rises like Hippolitus. From this
text certainly is born that 'bun' of mythological works that in vain the
critic tries to recognize among Giovanni Bellini, the great father of
the Venetian painting, and the radiant students of his numerous brood:
Giorgione and Titian. Titian, for the very thin pyramid surmounted by a
sphere in the "Presentation of Maria to the temple", has very
probably drawn it from a woodcut of the Poliphilo with an obelisk also
surmounted from the solid.

Devoted to Diana there are in Italy, at that time: the abbess of Parma,
for whom Correggio has realized the most touching fresco of the 1500's,
more intimate, except the algid Diana painted on the fireplace. And
Isabella of Este, that wanted to be portrayed by Titian with the visage
of the youth. Isabella: or Mantua and above all his "cave," cultural,
aesthetical and esoterical paradigm of all the court, and the city. And
the "Parnaso" of Mantegna, as justly suggested George Leake, fulcrum of
her cave, of all the "studiolo" (little study) and summary of the
pictorial program: Orpheus on the left and Hermes at the right, the muses
dance in the center and the opposite for excellence, Mars and Venus, joined
on a cave, and the lame Vulcan near at his cavern: the figure of
Harmony, therefore, flutters on the work.

Titian wanted certainly to see the champion of the "studioli" (little
studies), that replaced the great cathedrals at that epoch: the culture
was made self reserved, hidden, secret. There they there were for him
touching and meaningful testimonies of "Zorzon" (Giorgione), and of
"Zambelin" (Giovanni Bellini), whose sacred allegories have endured as
inexpugnable fortresses at each critical assault. It ran the year 1523,
and the age of Titian was crucial: 33 years. Perhaps in that "studiolo"
sets out that viaticum that leads to the "Piety", to the Christ who lies
as dead body lies.

«Questi è colui che giacque sopra 'l petto
del nostro pellicano, e questi fue
di su la croce al grande officio eletto».
Dante, Paradiso, XXV, 112-114


«This is who lay above the breast
of our pelican, and these was
on the cross to the grand office elected».
Dante, Paradise, XXV, 112-114


With my BEST wishes,

Maurizio Nicosia

Subject: A0350 Titian and alchemy

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 16:03:07 -0500
From: George Leake

>From: Nick DeMarco [edited for brevity]
>The point for me -- or at least one of them -- is that with Giorgione
>placed within the alchemical/hermetic tradition in those works which he
>produced at the time Titian was his partner it would be very difficult for
>the latter to have escaped knowledge of the imagery and philosophy. I think
>artists of the Cinquecento absorbed the imagery and
>thought of alchemy and particularly the hermetic aspects in ways that we
>are only beginning to comprehend.

*My point being mainly not to make too big a thing about these influences.
I suppose one could make some sort of tenuous point of alchemical influence
in this particular painting and in Titian's work in general, but all we
have to substantiate that is basically the image of the Phoenix, right?

> The Pieta lends itself, most particulary, to this alchemical tradition
>in its singular focus upon STONE as symbol, metaphor and substance for the
>artistic endeavor.

*Honestly, now--aren't we blowing this out of proportion? Isn't the
painting basically on the surface a religious one, behind the curtains, a
psychological study?

>I am aware of the Siena pavement the tie between Moses
>and Hermes Trismegestus and the Hellespontine Sibyl.

*Sure, such ties were asserted during the period...

> As for Mantegna and George Leake's comment I demonstrate in my manuscript
>that Titian's year in Padua in 1510 was of great importance for his work
>Giotto and Mantegna being of special importance.The fact that stone is so
>intrinsic a part of Mantegna's vision is no accident, I think, and helped
>to set Titian in that direction.

*You've lost me! Perhaps there's a reference you can pass on to illuminate
this point?

******************************************************
From: Maurizio Nicosia

>While, thanks to you, I observe the 'Piety' with different eyes,
>prudent voices rise whispering warnings. One among the many:
>Melotti, delicious and sage Italian sculptor of this century:
>"A crooked egg could be: a naked of woman/ the evolution of the
>self/ a spatial play/ and also simply an egg." And also our stone
>could be simply a stone. The matter in hand to brood the egg is a
>hen or a philosopher. We need to attribute a scenery to our actor, Titian.

*I think this is a wise course. The middle path of moderation

>It reappears in the yearning "Coronation of thorns" at Munich

*Which fits the paradigm of the trionfi...

[edited for brevity]
>His Christ frequently speaks
>with the voice of Hippolytus, the child of Theseus who dies, like Adonis,
>for having too much loved the masses, the woods, the shoot, and the
>chastity, that is Diana. And thanks to Diana, 'rises'.

*This previous bit is interesting but seems to belong more to a discussion
of Graves' White Goddess than alchemy...

>Several 'Byzantines' circulated into Italy, above all after the fall of
>Constantinople. Otherwise how would be reborn the karst (underground)
>stream of Platonism in our Land?

*from Arabs, perhaps? From streams that never died? What about Romance of
the Rose?

>Bessarion, the secretary of the platonic,
>neopagan Plethon, preferred the zone of Venice. The zone where flourished
>the Platonism of Bembo and his entourage of Asolo, that Pietro Bembo,
>who Titian portrayed four or five times. But the disposition which
>the Byzantines liked best was the Adriatic coast: and were accustomed to
>continuous contact with the Venetians, and in first place for the
>orthodox dioceses that studded Oriental Italy from Sicily to Venice, of
>course, the most oriental of the cities of East.

*I don't have much of a problem with this (clearly Venice being the main
funnel for ideas heading to the West), but I think we're getting far
afield...

>Less odd than thought, therefore, the analogy between Actaeon and
>Christ, the analogy between history and fable. 'Odd' on the contrary
>remains the frame: the virile and rustic ashlar that since the Bramante
>characterized the city fortalices, the vigorous foundations of the grand
>palaces and the sacred buildings of the Renaissance devoted to
>warrior saints, fiery and heroic: S. Michael, S. George, even S. Martial.
>Instead Actaeon and Christ have few warriors, they suffer the
>martyrdom, silently, without heroism. They suffer from, don't act. Same
>fate, therefore.

*Again, this seems more germane to another type of discussion. Interesting
nonetheless. The tarot dimensions are intriguing.

>There were in the rooms of court seven 'cameos' of the Venetian artist:
[edited for brevity]

*So, Titian influenced Maier. He also influenced many others. See Sir
Phillip Sidney's Arcadia.

>Titian and his emissaries were therefore eminently acquainted with
>interests of Maximilian II,

*Wait--how does that follow?

>Panteo had published his book in 1518 (reprinted at Paris in the
>1550) with a dedication to Andrew Gritti, the Doge immortalized by Titian
>two or three times. This unusual Venetian priest, who derived the more
>unusual term "voarchadumia" from the "Chaldean", is at the origin of the
>introduction of the christian cabal and of the so much legendary
>alphabets of Enoch in the hermetic-alchemical universe. Evident traces
>and quotations remain in Blaise de Vigenere and, as been said already, in
>Doctor Dee.

*what the...?!

>It would seem from these occurrences that the hermetic-alchemical
>interpretation of the myth discovers a vigorous epicentre in Venice,
>perhaps unique.And not only this. I don't wish to injure the British
>masonic and Hutchinson's pride, but also Masonry comes from the
>"Venitians", as affirms the manuscript in the Bodleian attributed to
>Henry from England and recovered by Locke, it seems, in 1696.
>"Venitians", not Phoenicians is written there. Palladianism, after all, is a
>sufficient testimony. Palladianism, or the great architect, Trissino and
>Daniele Barbaro, that Titian has portrayed three times.

*You might be onto something...I've always felt that Venice was too
downplayed in terms of its central role in the Renaissance and East to West
ideas...but I fail to see any revelation or strong connections...the
Palladio/Titian connection just doesn't wash at all

>Will also it be for this inclination to the hermetic-alchemical reading
>that Christine of Sweden, when she didn't traffic with the alembics of
>the marquis Palombara, behind the magic portal of Rome, did she
>hoard the mythological subjects of Titian? "Venus and Adonis", "Venus
>with lute" and of course "Diana and Actaeon". And the magic portal of
>Rome brings the same crusader globe that holds up the Christ of the
>Ermitage.

*Honestly, what is the connection here? The subject of Christina of Sweden
and Alchemy might be interesting, but is there really *any* tangible
connection to Titian?

>Unfortunately at Venice there was not a Maier, and neither a Dom Pernety,
>but a less known priest, (unusual also like Panteo), that has left us the
>"Hypnerotomachia Poliphili", published in the 1499 richly furnished
>with woodcuts (Francesco Colonna, "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili", II voll.,
>anastatical, Padova 1980, editrice Antenore; excellent edition!), where
>Diana, in number of quotations, is second only to Jupiter and Cupidine.
>The trio surpasses of a nice few all the others. And here are situated
>the "Triumphs" that George Leake mentioned and so much other things also.
>And that Triumphs! Edgard Wind there has counted about eighty versions
>of the motto FESTINA LENTE (hast you slowly). Pyramids, Obelisks,
>Temples, Myths.

*Indeed. I'm surprised you've not mentioned Aldus Manutius and barely
touched on Bembo, who some scholars attribute the Visconti-Sforza deck
to...anyhow, indeed interesting material, but the alchemical/hermetic
connections I think need to be more fleshed out. I have mentioned the
Poliphilo elsewhere vis a vis the Triumph conceit, but its not that strong,
and I feel that the alchemical connections there are few, in fact more of
an indirect nature, or in symbolic dimensions absorbed in the culture at
the time. Again, Romance of the Rose comes to mind.

>The beginning of the story is as the "Divine Comedy", but with
>antiquarian tones, at the manner of Mantegna, but it early turns towards
>a loving combat that culminates in the temple of Diana, where Polia, the
>young girl loved by Poliphilo, dies and rises like Hippolitus. From this
>text certainly is born that 'bun' of mythological works that in vain the
>critic tries to recognize among Giovanni Bellini, the great father of
>the Venetian painting, and the radiant students of his numerous brood:
>Giorgione and Titian. Titian, for the very thin pyramid surmounted by a
>sphere in the "Presentation of Maria to the temple", has very
>probably drawn it from a woodcut of the Poliphilo with an obelisk also
>surmounted from the solid.

*too bad we don't have Northrop Frye to comment on this. Some of this is
simply reflects the structure of what Frye termed the "Secular Scripture",
ie the Romance genre.

[edited for brevity]
>Titian wanted certainly to see the champion of the "studioli" (little
>studies), that replaced the great cathedrals at that epoch: the culture
>was made self reserved, hidden, secret. There they there were for him
>touching and meaningful testimonies of "Zorzon" (Giorgione), and of
>"Zambelin" (Giovanni Bellini), whose sacred allegories have endured as
>inexpugnable fortresses at each critical assault. It ran the year 1523,
>and the age of Titian was crucial: 33 years. Perhaps in that "studiolo"
>sets out that viaticum that leads to the "Piety", to the Christ who lies
>as dead body lies.

*again, very interesting dimensions, though I remain puzzled as to its
relevance...

George Leake
taliesin@mail.utexas.edu