h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A608906

This is an accompanying piece to my entry on the secret art of alchemy, giving historical background, methods, purpose, relevance, etc. This entry supplements this main entry and I feel is strong enough to stand alone.
Thanks for reading and your feedback.
Zaphod

Hi Zaphod,

I've just quickly skimmed over this entry, as I'm . The first thing that struck me that this was a very interesting subject. The second was that I got a bit confused as some of the sections seem to have a fair degree of overlap with others, so I wonder whether some look at the structure might be in order.

I'll have another look when I'm more awake.

Is it any clearer now, singing fish?
Zaphod

Yes, thanks.

I've still more reading to do on this. Shame I haven't a printer. It makes it difficult, scrolling up and down to check sense and understanding.

A couple more questions (and undoubtedly more later).

Why opus, as opposed to process?

Why did the alchemist have to see the value in stopping in order to move on?

You mention different traditions. I would be interested in knowing more about them.

I know I have still more questions, but I will reread the entry before making them (unless someone else gets there first).

muttering under breath-"be kind....Urk!....be kind.....RERURPH!..no, no, be kind.....be nice."

Zaphod....I could not get a handle on it.

The usefulness of a connection between philosophy and alchemy eludes me regularly as it is, but a connection between the philosophy of alchemy and the archetypal fantasies of Jung goes right over my head.

It exceeds my grasp.

The nature of the entry seems to increase the difficulty of the subject. Not only was I trying to understand what you were talking about but I was also trying to understand why you were saying it in that manner.

So, stylistically, I could not even begin to see what is right with it, let alone what might be wrong.

My ignorance blinds me.

I apologise for failing you.

exits
runs to library to find
Asimov's guide to alchemy
in the children's section.
Searchs in vain for a young persons guide to
Jung.

I liked it Peanut xx

I'm sorry

?

I'm sorry, my because I don't seem to be able to follow those colours, planets and fe/male aspects and their relation to chemistry. I don't want to be funny but somehow I gather just *why* they never actually *made* gold.

I'm afraid it doesn't work very well as a stand-alone piece. While carefully researched, it would require a background knowledge in basic alchemical principles to understand. You might want to make a note at the beginning of the entry saying words to the effect of : "If you are not familiar with alchemy, please read this entry first" and point to your first entry.

Also, the title of it is accurate, but it might be more descriptive to call it "Alchemy and Jung" or "Alchemy and Jungian Theory/Analysis" since the entry treats the two subjects almost equally.

Nireena

Thanks very much for *all* your comments, feedback, and advice - much of which I accept and have accordingly revised relevant parts, hopefully for the better.
Sorry for not responding sooner.
Zaphod

?

!

Um. Sorry. Read it again.
Stupid question.
Is there any chronological data for the changes in philosophy?
Was there any particular point in the Good Doctor's life when he began to make these associations?
And, outside of Newton, was there any direct result in the scientific commnunity of these mystical ruminations?
Did the Arab scientists have anything similar or is it just the infidels that are crazy?

Did you mean the trinity from the quaternity? It probably co-incided with the death of the paganistic imagination and the birth of humanism in Renaissance Europe, culminating in the 17th century enlightenment and the rationalist/scientists.
Jung became interested in alchemy and all things alchemical in later life (in his early 50s in fact) though he had been collecting old manuscripts for some time before then.
I guess the impact alchemy had on the community was a negative (heretical) one, though it had been a legitimate/respectable branch of a comprehensive philosophical system. It mainly operated as a counter-culture, and was obviously superceded by science and technology who are more into proving things in a conrete way rather than methaphorically.
It seems the arabs (who translated many of the ancient Greek Hermetic texts) advanced alchemy in many *mystical* ways, when we in Britain were in the dark ages. Whether they had similar (pre-scientific)*methodologies* or discrete stages guiding the alchemical opus is arguable. It was probably very individualistic.
Anyhow, hope this is useful.

Ok. Thank you. But I was asking the questions as a reader of the entry. The entry brought those questions to mind.
Also, I was showing off to show that I had actually read it.

tr,s.a.d.

Ok. Thank you. But I was asking the questions as a reader of the entry. The entry brought those questions to mind.
Also, I was showing off to show that I had actually read it.

tr,s.a.d.

Being rhetorical, eh? Ah well, it's pre-emptive stuff in the event of similar Q's. By the way, did you find Asimov's guide to alchemy helpful?
Zaphod

He seems to have shared his wisdom on the matter in several dozen scattered articles and chapters. He doesn't really sit down and tackle it. But he was a biochemist and he does have an interest.
In one piece he did for Omni many years ago he discussed the relationship of fantasy and philosophy to science and their usefulness to such people as Newton and Davy. That's why he thought science should be taught as part of a liberal arts program, because without imagination it doesn't matter what you discover or develop because you probably won't be aware of the true nature of it without a sense of your own place in the universe.
Or something like that. then he went on to tell a dirty limerick.

Oh that reminds me. Above you were talking about the death of paganism and the rise of humanism...(or something like that)and a silly thought occurred to me. Most of the fundamental religious pundits I know think humanism is pagan....

tr, s.a.d.