Conversation

Troy Winfrey
@twinfrey
The main problem here is that the question is inevitably framed in terms of post-Enlightenment scientism and empiricism, not a framing a serious alchemist of the period would have accepted or even understood. "Alchemy was pre-science" story dates ~1930s? as far as I can tell.
1
1
Troy Winfrey
@twinfrey
Replying to
@andy_matuschak
Not 280-friendly topic, but: alchemy was not an experimental, but a spiritual/ritual practice. It *looked* like they were trying to transmute lead into gold, and they often said so, but this obscured a lot of esoteric ritual and spirituality. More like meditating for enlightenmen
1
2
Jack Rusher
@jackrusher
I would gently push back on this to say that alchemy was *both*, and reemphasize — as you said a tweet ago — that that categorical distinction wouldn’t have made sense to them.
Troy Winfrey
@twinfrey
Replying to
@andy_matuschak
So meditation, like prayer, is not experimental in the sense of chemistry. It's more experiential. Turning something into gold would show you a far more important process, spiritual transformation of your inmost essence. We think. They were deliberately obscure, a big part of it.
1
1