Talk:Alchemy
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
Contents |
[edit] dict.org entries for 'alchemy'
2 definitions found for alchemy
- You are an amusing fellow. I hope you will add your definitions to the 'Alchemy'page and
hope you do not require dictionary defintions to smile :-) Lobster 05:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I sincerely hope you will add some of your defining ideas to the alchemy page
It would be a delight to correct them
Many thanks for your suggestions and comments Lobster 05:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :
Alchemy \Al"che*my\, n. [OF. alkemie, arquemie, F. alchimie, Ar.
al-k[=i]m[=i]a, fr. late Gr. ?, for ?, a mingling, infusion,
? juice, liquid, especially as extracted from plants, fr. ?
to pour; for chemistry was originally the art of extracting
the juices from plants for medicinal purposes. Cf. Sp.
alquimia, It. alchimia. Gr. ? is prob. akin to L. fundere to
pour, Goth. guitan, AS. ge['o]tan, to pour, and so to E.
fuse. See Fuse, and cf. Chemistry.]
1. An imaginary art which aimed to transmute the baser metals
into gold, to find the panacea, or universal remedy for
diseases, etc. It led the way to modern chemistry.
2. A mixed metal composed mainly of brass, formerly used for
various utensils; hence, a trumpet. [Obs.]
Put to their mouths the sounding alchemy. --Milton.
3. Miraculous power of transmuting something common into
something precious.
Kissing with golden face the meadows green, Gilding
pale streams with heavenly alchemy. --Shak.
From WordNet (r) 2.0 :
alchemy
n 1: a pseudoscientific forerunner of chemistry in medieval times
2: the way two individuals relate to each other; "their
chemistry was wrong from the beginning -- they hated each
other"; "a mysterious alchemy brought them together" [syn:
chemistry, interpersonal chemistry]
You will note that all but two definitions (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) - definition 3; WordNet (r) 2.0, definition 2) relate solely to metallurgy. The other two use the term as a literary device in a metaphorical sense.
Please fully cite your sources that contradict these definitions.
Perhaps you would be good enough to find these and add them to the page?
If you are unable to then I must conclude that Alchemy is little more than you suggest
Perhaps anywhere other than reference material might be a start Lobster 05:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
--Eibwen 05:09, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Structure and goals
1. An imaginary art which ... led the way to modern chemistry.
*snerk* Interesting how something they claim is imaginary could lead the way to anything.
I was delighted to see there was a book on alchemy, but I do think the structure and organization as suggested in the TOC needs some serious work. I'll see if I have time to think about it this weekend. (That's beyond the header levels, which are messed up right now -- everything under "Relationship to Chemistry and Physics", for instance. Unfortunately, it's five to midnight and I'll be lucky if I finish this comment coherently, much less trying to fix the headers.)
However, before the structure can be finalized, I think some of the book's basic goals need to be clarified. What is the purpose of this text--what is it intended to teach, and why? Who are the audience, what do they already know about the topic, and what do they want to learn? What should they have gained after reading it that they didn't have when they started, and how are they going to use that information?-Bedawyn
- It is intended to teach what it becomes - I hope that makes some sense. What people gain whether in construction or in reading is dependent on intent. I suppose the question will be answered during the construction. Lobster 17:41, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It seems from your mention of "operative alchemy" that you're aiming for a practical text, but the actual organization of the TOC seems only partly practical, partly theoretical, historical, and cultural. I actually think the latter would work better, if only because there's a much larger audience for an introduction to the ideas of alchemy than for an introduction to the practice of alchemy. Maybe a book focusing more on the practice would be suitable for a followup, if there's enough public domain sources to work with. (I suspect there are... I know I've seen at least a few of the old occult texts at Internet repositories, and it might be interesting to seek out and maybe interview some of the modern practitioners.) -Bedawyn
- most occultist practice befuddlement - first of themself and then others ;-) However you are more than welcome to structure and arrange in way you like Lobster 17:41, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Accuracy dispute
Eibwen, can you specify exactly what part of the module you are disputing? The few specific paragraphs need some work for citations and NPOV, but overall, there's not a lot there yet to dispute. If you'll point out what you think is inaccurate, I'll know what to start working with first.
If I've read the previous discussion correctly (which I may very well not have -- the formatting makes it difficult to know who's saying what), it sounds like you're disputing the idea that alchemy includes anything other than turning lead into gold. I don't really think that idea needs any citation, since it's pretty basic to the field. Citations for specific elaborations of the idea will be added as the content is written, but for now there's not much here but an outline.--Bedawyn 17:21, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I commiserate that this page is particularly difficult to follow, particularly since Lobster interjected commentary into what I wrote, often without organization or appending a signature. Your assesment however is largely correct. I concur with the Wikipedia Entry, however I would prefer to see citations for such claims as "Alchemical relaxation". Additionally, the denotations were taken largely out of context. I grant that this is a work in progress, but in its current form, even its scope itself is a contradiction:
This is an exercise in operative alchemy. ... Speculative alchemy is what you are reading.
- It is presumed that both are exclusive, yet neither is defined. Hopefully with further revisions, the page will improve dramatically.
- --Eibwen 19:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] TOC Reorganization
Okay, here's a possible second draft for the structure. I've fixed the header heirarchy, added a few sections, and rearranged a few others. I haven't deleted any, although I think a few of them should be deleted. Proponents and Achievements, for instance, are obviously very important types of information, but I do think they're types of information rather than topics on their own. I'd suggest deleting them as sections and instead incorporating the material into the relevant history or science sections. Newton, for instance, would go under the Western section. I didn't know what you were thinking of doing with Media and Language, so I didn't try putting them anywhere. The "As Above, So Below" concept needs to be included, but I wasn't sure whether to give it a section of its own or to thread it in throughout the History/Significance and Theory sections. Maybe a subsection within Theory? Except my own feeling is that it's important enough it needs to be introduced sooner. Maybe mentioned in passing in the introduction and/or the relevant history portions, and described fully as a subsection under Theory?--Bedawyn 23:41, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- All your ideas are fine with me - I like the idea of the planets and suggest adding the twelve types of Man Lobster 17:43, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-
- I'll have to leave that to you, as I'm not sure what they are. Unless you mean the Zodiac? I've actually never studied alchemy per se, just picked up bits of it as it overlaps other areas I was studying (although there is quite a bit of overlap). This book will be a good excuse for me to finally start studying it!--Bedawyn 19:15, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
First of all my apologies for not using my signature properly - still learning. The 12 types of Man (the use of the word Man is similar to the use of Sir to denote seniority when applied to women - and is a referral to a time of greater ignorance regarding the potential of women) So it might be more politically correct to use some other term. Alchemy is not a time or fashion centered study however. If you are interested in developing this part of the book then I suggest splitting the 12 types into the 4 elements. Then think of it is a system of balancing. If you do it in this way a horoscope becomes a quite profound form of psychological profiling (forget the stars for now). 82.69.58.117 01:06, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Excelent re organisation - the work needs to be fleshed out to make 'Adam Kadmon' the primal man come to life Lobster 08:46, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Appropriate Bookshelf
What on earth is this doing in the science section? There's no possible explanation for that. I personally don't see the utility of this "textbook" at all, but if people want to write it on Wikibooks that's fine as long as it's not in the science section. And for those who suggest that alchemy being a precedent to chemistry makes it a science, religion and witchcraft and magic etc. played a similar role, but I think you'll agree there should not be a science textbook on religion, witchcraft or magic (if you disagree, you're even more strangely deluded than I thought). --24.103.207.38 22:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- So, the ptoblem with this matter is the classification in the Science section. It is not, in the frame of modern definition of scientific methodology. But it is an old and comprehensive body of knowledge, a very interesting expression of human colective psyche, as it used to express when mankind was not so tied to matter and to causal thought to had become unable to feel the flow of energy among living beings and other things.
- Alchemy is a major basis of C.G.Jung's work. See his Psychology and alchemy, Mysterium conjuncionis, etc. Deleting this book is medieval censorship. --Ligia 02:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Alchemical principles are used in wiki creation, scientific method, medicine preparation, architecture, art and gastronomy. It has long engaged at the highest level of human endeavour whilst the unintiated say Gu? - just like when we first showed them metal as superior to flint Lobster 17:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For some reason this is under "Chemistry" in the Natural Sciences section of Wikibooks. Surely, we can think of a better category?
- The Alchemy book has been removed from the chemistry bookshelf and placed on the miscellaneous bookshelf. Perhaps if texts on astrology, witchcraft, karma, and the like are written, it can get a more conspicuous position on a such a new-age/mysticism bookshelf. Zolot
[edit] Neo Alchemy
Alchemy is not a static science and it is borne in fire and flaming - in the furnace. I wish everyone success in cooking up the magic of a book. It may end in flames. It may result in a great future. Lobster 08:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is a pretty general book. There's a fine line between sciences and new age hippies' books.
[edit] VfD discussion
I've removed the discussion from the VfD page, as the consensus was to keep the book. The debate can be found at /Deletion. Gentgeen 09:48, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
