| Author | Post |
|---|
Alan Pritchard
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 20th, 2011 12:35 pm |
|
I am trying to construct a (fairly) rational scheme for alchemical processes to arrange material in my bibliography.
I have looked at a number of arrangements (Ripley's Twelve Gates, the Dictionary of Gnosis, Hauck (from a web site), Roob (from his book), and Edinger (a series of articles).
I have attached a .zip file of an Excel file, with the different lists arrange side by side.
Is Ripley a good standard to go by? to fit anything else into his list, or is there a better arrangement?
Any comments would be much appreciated.
AlanAttachment: Alchemical processes.zip (Downloaded 1315 times)
|
Paul Ferguson
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1538 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 20th, 2011 05:41 pm |
|
There's also Fromm, who lists 109(!!!):
http://www.3rd1000.com/alchemy/alchemy_proc.htm
|
Alan Pritchard
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 20th, 2011 07:18 pm |
|
Lifted from Adam's site.
I just need a few!
|
Paul Ferguson
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1538 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 20th, 2011 07:24 pm |
|
Alan Pritchard wrote:
Lifted from Adam's site.
I just need a few!
Sorry - I was misled by his copyright notice at the bottom.
Personally I would go with Ripley.
|
Alan Pritchard
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 21st, 2011 09:47 am |
|
That's what I was beginning to think.
Sometimes just asking the question helps to clarify the mind.
|
adammclean
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 606 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 21st, 2011 12:55 pm |
|
| The Scala Philosophorum presents one of the earliest statements of the classic series of 12 processes, as used in Ripley's Gates
|
Alexander Guthrie Stewart
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 192 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 21st, 2011 02:50 pm |
|
I suppose the advantage of Ripley's is that it has more categories meaning you can be more precise about what you file things under, and you will also be able to cover medieval alchemy as well as more modern variations. I don't know who Roob, Edinger or the dictionary of gnosis are, and Hauk is a modern esotericist or such, so using a shorter modern list of processes cuts out specific processes which were in use (Whether chemically or allegorically) in the earlier period.
|
Alan Pritchard
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 21st, 2011 03:14 pm |
|
Sorry, 'Roob' meant Alexander Roob's Alchemy & mysticism (Taschen); 'Dictionary of Gnosis' meant the 2-volume Dictionary of Gnosis & Western esotericism edited by Hanegraff et al; 'Edinger' meant a series of articles published in 1978/82 in the Jungoan magazine Quadrant.
You are right, though, and I have gone with Ripley's list.
Thanks to all.
|
Current time is 09:38 am | |
|
