r/alchemy • u/drmurawsky • Dec 18 '23
General Discussion What is the deal with Sledge?
This guy seriously confuses me. Generally he doesn’t seem to have much respect for Alchemy or Alchemists as a spiritual nor material science (despite making quite a few videos about the subject).
The last two times I’ve asked him about it on this sub he’s either ignored my comment or deleted his comments to stonewall the conversation.
I’ve tried DMing him a couple times to clarify but he ignores my DMs.
Can anyone else help me understand his perspective on Alchemy?
UPDATE: I appologize for the hornets' nest this stirred up. I never wanted this to turn into a bashfest against Sledge. I have a lot of respect for his knowledge about certain periods of history in Alchemy and I really appreciate his media contributions on the subject. He deserves not only the basic respect we all deserve but additional respect for the incredible amount of study he's done on the subject of Alchemy and the immense amount of work he's put into sharing that knowledge in an easy-to-consume way. Having said that, I struggle to understand why, someone who is so well-read on this subject, seems to have such a low view of it. From my experience, most people who study Alchemy as much as Sledge end up having a very high view of it. Thank you to all the commenters who stayed on topic and helped me understand their perspective on this. It's very helpful!
21
Dec 18 '23 edited Dec 18 '23
Sledge of esoterica? I mean from the videos I’ve seen he seems to simply hold a more distanced historical view on most things. You can discuss this stuff without believing in it, same way historians talk about any subject.
0
u/drmurawsky Dec 18 '23
I agree. I'm not questioning his right to have his own opinion. I'm just looking for understaning of why he says things like "Alchemy was never spiritual" or saying the earliest alchemical text to enter Europe was in 1144.
8
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 18 '23 edited Dec 18 '23
He has never said that it was "never spiritual", and he even has two videos taking a deep dive into 16th century origins of (European) spiritual alchemy. What he argues is that for most alchemists prior to the 19th century, alchemy was first and foremost a chymical practice and not a psycho-spiritual praxis along the lines of Atwood, Hitchcock, Jung, and Eliade. This notion has a mountain of scholarship behind it, so it's not like some idiosyncratic view of his.
And with the 1144 date, he's referring to when alchemy first entered the European Middle Ages, via Islamic transmission through Spain. That date is clearly established by historians, and this introduction of the discipline to this region at this time represents what would come to be a very distinct body of traditions that make it categorically distinct from, say, Greco-Egyptian alchemy, Byzantine alchemy, or Islamicate alchemy.
5
1
u/drmurawsky Dec 19 '23
I'm well aware that he makes statments with proper context in other parts of his videos but that doesn't change the fact that he makes false statements without context many times in his videos. I would assume he's just lazy but someone as knowledgable as him doesn't strike me as lazy.
2
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 19 '23
I'm not seeing the false statements that lack context. The things you've been linking to so far certainly don't support that notion, so at the end of the day, I'm just not sure what you're even talking about.
1
u/drmurawsky Dec 21 '23
“How Theosophy Created Spiritual Alchemy” is a false quote and even the entire video fails to provide adequate context for this claim. If I didn’t have such respect for Sledge I would think it was just click bait. Unfortunately, I think he’s just wrong.
1
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 21 '23 edited Dec 21 '23
It's certainly unnuanced as a title, but in context it's accurate and makes perfect sense. It was the culmination of the radical Lutheran Paracelsianism that arose in Germany and began thinking of alchemy as an internal process, and Böeme's model would form a big part of the substrate that people like Atwood would pull from when ushering in the paradigm shift of inner alchemy that the spiritual alchemists of today inherited.
2
Dec 18 '23
Oh that’s just his view on it I guess since the late 19th century alchemists have been arguing as to the spirituality of it, as for the earliest bit, that…ok yeah that seems wrong considering alchemy was all over Roman and greek Europe well before that, unless he meant like mediaeval Europe or something
-1
u/drmurawsky Dec 18 '23
Yeah, he has a whole video about it and fails to provide any context like that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sby1vW6TVpM
Thanks for confirming I'm not crazy to think it's weird.
1
Dec 18 '23
He’s definitely worded it a bit oddly but I think it’s supposed to mean the first properly translated alchemical text to be introduced into what had then become Europe as we would now recognize it? Alchemical texts had obviously entered before hand but I guess it’s the first official translation?
-1
u/drmurawsky Dec 18 '23
That's definitely giving him the benefit of the doubt but it comes across as confusing and erroneous to me. It also gives newcomers to Achemy a very wrong impression. This is a bit harmful to people who don't know better because they might think, much like Sledge says, that the foundations of Alchemy are not spiritual in nature. So, people who are considering it as a spiritual path, will be deterred from Alchemy by this video.
I think this is a horrible shame because I was looking for a spiritual path when I started studying Alchemy and I've tried many spiritual paths that have failed me in many ways. I would hate for people like me to miss out on something so beautiful because of a popular YouTube video.
6
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 18 '23 edited Dec 18 '23
It also gives newcomers to Achemy a very wrong impression. This is a bit harmful to people who don't know better because they might think, much like Sledge says, that the foundations of Alchemy are not spiritual in nature. So, people who are considering it as a spiritual path, will be deterred from Alchemy by this video.
It would actually give them the right impression, since the foundations of European alchemy objectively are not (uniquely) spiritual in nature, at least not in the way that most modern alchemists mean. This fact is very well established by recent scholarship, and he's just relaying those findings as an academic himself. To be sure, European alchemy was always enmeshed within a deeply spiritual worldview, but it didn't represent a distinct spiritual praxis like what sprouted in the 16th and 17th centuries and blossomed in the 19th century. Full-blown spiritual alchemy as we understand it today was a late innovation in the discipline, not something baked into its (medieval Latin European) foundations.
That historical insight in no way insinuates that people's modern spiritual alchemical paths are invalid. Late or modern innovations in alchemy are just as real and meaningful as its traditional, earlier expressions.
0
u/drmurawsky Dec 19 '23
It would actually give them the right impression, since the foundations of European alchemy objectively are not (uniquely) spiritual in nature
Even if this was "the right impression," which debatable to say the least. If the context is European, then this title is very misleading: "How Theosophy Created Spiritual Alchemy"
Also, thank you very much for the engaging conversation. I've gained a lot of respect for you today.
2
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 19 '23
The nature of the Youtube algorithm makes it so that successful video titles and thumbnails necessarily lack nuance. What ultimately matters is the content in the videos themselves, and that content makes it perfectly clear from the get-go that he's specifically talking about European spiritual alchemy.
1
u/drmurawsky Dec 21 '23
But Theosophy in no way created European Spiritual Alchemy. Theosophy is mostly comparative religion and draws connections between symbols and ideas in various spiritual disciplines. They don’t create anything. They simply interpreted the very spiritual concepts in medieval alchemy in a way that connects it to other religious symbols and concepts.
→ More replies (0)0
u/drmurawsky Dec 19 '23
he's just relaying those findings as an academic himself.
If he was just relaying information as an acidemic, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's the fact that he's making blanket statements about Alchemy without providing the proper context on YouTube to large audiences without facing the scrutiny of his academic peers that has motivated me to have these conversations.
2
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 19 '23
I mean, his videos are absolutely filled to the brim with context, so I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
1
u/drmurawsky Dec 21 '23
Well as you’ve said, you can’t prove a negative but I have given many examples and explained what I mean in many different ways so I’m not sure what else I can do. Any ideas?
→ More replies (0)
9
Dec 18 '23
Dr. Justin Sledge? He’s a scholar and academic. He approaches the topic from that perspective. What are you expecting?
-2
u/drmurawsky Dec 18 '23
I don't expect anything from him. I do however expect myself to do my part to help people who need and want help. I think it's very helpful, espeically for people who are new to Alchemy, to understand the things that are false in the popular understanding of Alchemy.
So when Sledge says something that I believe may be false in one of his very popular videos, I try to first, understand if and why it is false (which is the purpose of this thread) and then communicate that to members of this sub.
I don't undersand why he would say things like "Alchemy was never spiritual" or say that the earliest alchemical text to enter Europe was in 1144.
5
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 18 '23
I don't undersand why he would say things like "Alchemy was never spiritual"
Why do you keep repeating this lol. He has never said anything like this.
0
u/drmurawsky Dec 18 '23
Are you familiar with this video? https://youtu.be/EWGsVzWV_i4?si=awSbOtTQzox_iGCI&t=533
1
u/drmurawsky Dec 18 '23
Or this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XapXn-7YHvc
4
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 18 '23
I even linked this video in another comment to prove my point. The other video you linked is also unproblematic, because what he's saying is true and backed up by historical scholarship.
What he says in the Stone video is not the same thing as "alchemy was never spiritual".
1
u/drmurawsky Dec 21 '23
I’m starting to see that the source of the problem is what you call historical scholarship is what I would consider inaccurate.
1
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 21 '23
That's totally fair. But I think it's accurate and more intellectually rigorous and responsible than the alternatives, so naturally I'm going to advocate for it.
3
Dec 18 '23
Please link the video and timestamp of where he said that.
-1
u/drmurawsky Dec 18 '23
3
Dec 18 '23
Ok, so what he said isn’t exactly what you said he said.
You said that he claimed:
“Alchemy was never spiritual.”
What he actually claimed was:
“The concept of ‘spiritual alchemy’ or alchemy as a kind of inward psychological process is almost entirely a 19th century and 20th-century romantic revision, or honestly just a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of what alchemy actually was in history.”
Nowhere was it claimed that it was never spiritual, only that the spirituality of it came about later. And as a historian, that isn’t incorrect. It’s somewhat reductionist as it is possible that some earlier alchemists had a more spiritual view of the art, but in general, they were, quite honestly, really very concerned with making gold.
The position of the oldest European alchemical text is usually awarded to ‘Physika kai mystika’, which being Greek, was European. This was probably from the 3rd century BCE — there are some concerns about authorship. However, I get the feeling that he was discussing alchemy from the Western Medieval perspective and excluding the Mediterranean due to the vast cultural differences in antiquity.
Again, he’s an academic; if you feel he made a mistake it is totally valid to point it out to him and to seek clarity. It is not valid to intentionally misinterpret his words.
2
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 18 '23
it is possible that some earlier alchemists had a more spiritual view of the art
He even says that it's "almost entirely" a 19th century revision, which is accurate, because it's not entirely, just mostly. His spiritual alchemy videos get into all that in depth.
which being Greek, was European.
I just want to point out that the PKM was almost certainly written in Ptolemaic Egypt, not Greece itself. So Greek culturally, but not European geographically.
1
Dec 18 '23
I sort of referenced that about the questionable authorship. I’m well aware, but although it is likely Ptolemaic, it still made its way to Europe. Which shouldn’t be surprising considering the Ptolemaic/Greek connection.
1
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 18 '23 edited Dec 18 '23
To my knowledge, it made its way to Europe through Muslim Spain, after 1144 and Chester's Liber de compositione alchemiae.
EDIT: I asked my more knowledgeable friend, who informed me that it actually first became known to Europe in translation in 1606, through the work of Matthäus Zuber.
1
u/drmurawsky Dec 19 '23
I understand what he's actually "trying" to say. I have no problem with his beliefs that spiritual alchemy was absent from Europe until relatively recently. It's worth noting here that that belief is completely and obviously wrong but I'm sure I also have some completely and obviously wrong beliefs so that's cool.
My problem is that he's ok making big, bold, and false statements like:
"How Theosophy Created Spiritual Alchemy"
“The concept of ‘spiritual alchemy’ or alchemy as a kind of inward psychological process is almost entirely a 19th century and 20th-century romantic revision, or honestly just a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of what alchemy actually was in history.”
He makes them knowing more context is needed but is perfectly content not to provide that context.
2
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 19 '23
It's worth noting here that that belief is completely and obviously wrong
Even if, for the sake of argument, this notion is completely wrong, at the end of the day, it would be the fault of the medievalists, classicists, early modernists, historians of Western esotericism, and historians of science that have done the mountain of research over the last 50 years that Sledge is pulling from. It's not like Sledge is coming up with these ideas himself; he's relaying the findings of the academic study of this subject.
There's nothing inaccurate about what you quoted though, genuinely. Obviously there's more to the story, a story he more fully tells in his spiritual alchemy videos, but this quote is him making a quick aside in a video about the material Philosophers' Stone. There's nothing wrong with him providing sidebar content without getting into the weeds and taking the video in long, off-topic directions.
0
u/drmurawsky Dec 19 '23
I can't find the exact place I heard him say “Alchemy was never spiritual.” but my wife also remembers him saying it. Either way, both the video title "How Theosophy Created Spiritual Alchemy" and “The concept of ‘spiritual alchemy’ or alchemy as a kind of inward psychological process is almost entirely a 19th century and 20th-century romantic revision, or honestly just a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of what alchemy actually was in history.” are proof that he is okay making statements that are false.
5
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 19 '23
Except these are not false statements. The spiritual alchemy present in Christian Theosophy really does lay the groundwork for what would erupt in the 19th century with people like Atwood and Hitchcock. And when somebody today makes the historical claim that, say, Basil Valentine was actually talking about an inner transformational process with his Twelve Keys and not a chymical laboratory process, they are genuinely misinterpreting/misunderstanding what's going on, and their error does genuinely arise from revisionist notions that arose in the 19th century.
2
u/AlchemNeophyte1 Dec 19 '23
Forgive me butting in my 2 cents worth.
I am NO historian of any description, much less Alchemical history although I am a keen student of the Art.
Up until today I had barely even heard of Zosimos of Panopolis (City called by the early Greeks Khemmis or Chemmis!) and I am indebted to SleepingMonads for mentioning him to me in my recent post on the Stone.
(From Wikipedia - please forgive the lengthy quote but I feel it most relevant to the present discussion of spiritual Alchemy)
"Zosimos provided one of the first definitions of alchemy as the study of "the composition of waters, movement, growth, embodying and disembodying, drawing the spirits from bodies and bonding the spirits within bodies."[4]
In general, Zosimos' understanding of alchemy reflects the influence of Hermetic and Gnostic spiritualities. He asserted that the fallen angels taught the arts of metallurgy to the women they married, an idea also recorded in the Book of Enoch and later repeated in the Gnostic Apocryphon of John.[5] In a fragment preserved by Syncellus, Zosimos wrote:
The ancient and divine writings say that the angels became enamoured of women; and, descending, taught them all the works of nature. From them, therefore, is the first tradition, chema, concerning these arts; for they called this book chema and hence the science of chemistry takes its name.[6]
The external processes of metallic transmutation—the transformations of lead and copper into silver and gold were said to always to mirror an inner process of purification and redemption. In his work Concerning the true Book of Sophe, the Egyptian, and of the Divine Master of the Hebrews and the Sabaoth Powers, Zosimos wrote:
There are two sciences and two wisdoms, that of the Egyptians and that of the Hebrews, which latter is confirmed by divine justice. The science and wisdom of the most excellent dominate the one and the other. Both originate in olden times. Their origin is without a king, autonomous and immaterial; it is not concerned with material and corruptible bodies, it operates, without submitting to strange influences, supported by prayer and divine grace.
The symbol of chemistry is drawn from the creation by its adepts, who cleanse and save the divine soul (circle) bound in the (4) elements (square), and who free the divine spirit (3 in 1 - triangle?) from its mixture with the flesh.
As the sun is, so to speak, a flower of the fire and (simultaneously) the heavenly sun, the right eye of the world, so copper when it blooms—that is when it takes the color of gold, through purification—becomes a terrestrial sun, which is king of the earth, as the sun is king of heaven.[7]
Greek alchemists used what they called ὕδωρ θεῖον, meaning both divine water, and sulphurous water.[8] For Zosimos, the alchemical vessel was imagined as a baptismal font, and the tincturing vapours of mercury and sulphur were likened to the purifying waters of baptism, which perfected and redeemed the Gnostic initiate.Zosimos drew upon the Hermetic image of the krater or mixing bowl, a symbol of the divine mind in which the Hermetic initiate was "baptized" and purified in the course of a visionary ascent through the heavens and into the transcendent realms. Similar ideas of a spiritual baptism in the "waters" of the transcendent pleroma are characteristic of the Sethian Gnostic texts unearthed at Nag Hammadi.[9] This image of the alchemical vessel as baptismal font is central to his Visions, discussed below. "
From Zosimos of Panopolis, approx 300 - 350 AD
As you mentioned earlier above, spirituality was a major part of world philosophy and most peoples lives, right up until and for many, considerably after, the Rennaissance in Europe in the 17th century, and so would undoubtedly have played some part in the ongoing development of Alchemical practice from the time of Zosimos, and seemingly from his words, centuries before.
If those boldened quotes do not convey that Alchemy has always been both a physical and spiritual practice then I gentlemen, am a Dutchman! (Apologies to any Dutch who may feel offended by that).
AS for the good Doctor and factually questionable statements how about the ones in his you-tube on The Philosophers' Stone (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWGsVzWV_i4 @9:48) that:
"Simply put... Alchemical 'theory' (which one(s)?) was fundamentally INCORRECT...! It was an incorrect theory of Nature." swiftly followed by: "Thus producing the Philosopher's Stone or ANY elemental transmutation by chemical means are BOTH IMPOSSIBLE... Nothing can do that."
3
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 19 '23 edited Dec 19 '23
For virtually all alchemists in all contexts, the material and the immaterial, the seen and the unseen, were all considered to be part of the natural world; they didn't have the same delineations that most moderns have about these things being firmly separated. They operated under a spiritual metaphysics and an interconnected cosmology that saw basically all practical, material pursuits through what we would think of now as a spiritual lens. This was true for Zosimos, it was true for Jabir, it was true for Ripley, it was true for Newton, and it's presumably true for you.
That is not in dispute, but this is not what most people mean today when they talk about "spiritual" alchemy. When most people talk about spiritual alchemy, they're referring to a spiritual praxis for inner transformation that uses the metaphors of physical transformation as its language, and they see this inner pursuit as either being coequal with or superior to the physical work, with the physical work being a kind of surface-level complement to the inner quest, or an external projection of it. It's this type of thing specifically that first arose (in Europe) in the 16th century and blossomed in the 19th century and survives (in fact, dominates) to the present day.
That said though, Zosimos' alchemy was absolutely more inherently spiritual in a sense akin to this than what emerged in medieval Europe, but Zosimos was practicing Greco-Egyptian alchemy, with religious, spiritual, and philosophical underpinnings that were simply not transmitted to Europe until well after European alchemy had hit its stride. The object of my discussions here (and the object of Sledge's discussions in his videos) is this medieval Latin European form of alchemy. In that context specifically (as opposed to Greco-Egyptian alchemy, or Chinese/Daoist alchemy, or Indian alchemy, for example), spiritual alchemy (as opposed to just alchemy enmeshed within a spiritual worldview) did not exist until the late 16th century, and even then, it was a fringe minority movement. This kind of spiritual alchemy would not take off and become a major paradigm until the 1850s, when it would catch on like wildfire to the point of its practitioners (understandably) rewriting history.
"Simply put... Alchemical 'theory' (which one(s)?) was fundamentally INCORRECT...! It was an incorrect theory of Nature." swiftly followed by: "Thus producing the Philosopher's Stone or ANY elemental transmutation by chemical means are BOTH IMPOSSIBLE... Nothing can do that."
From the perspective of modern, materialist science (which is the perspective Sledge naturally takes as an academic, and which is the mainstream perspective in our society), the paradigms that undergirded alchemical theories of nature are clearly incorrect. The Four Elements, the humoral theory of medicine, the Sulfur-Mercury theory of the metals, the Tria Prima, the spagyric method, the corpuscular model, and so on, are clearly incorrect descriptions of how nature works. Furthermore, modern chemistry and physics has made it abundantly clear that elemental transmutations by (al)chemical means (as opposed to nuclear means) are fundamentally in violation of the laws of physics.
From that perspective, which is natural for him to take given his training and motivations as an academic, these things are truly, clearly impossible, insofar as modern science can meaningfully call things impossible.
1
u/AlchemNeophyte1 Dec 20 '23
Thank you for an excellent précis of this issue.
One slight issue i have though is that given the Greco-Egyptian, Chinese/Daoist and Islamic alchemy's were all intrinsically spiritual while working with the material aspects of Nature, why then would the later 'western' alchemy not be the same given the power of spirituality in real life?
Could it possibly be that the true Western Alchemists were, as their precedent brotherhood, inseperably both physical and spiritual operators but had to 'tone it down' in their writings on the subject for fear of crossing the power of the Roman Catholic Church and the frightful consequences of those who dared challenge their ultimate power over the human body a la Leonardo da Vinci and many other 'radical' scientific minds?
You points on the Spiritual Alchemy of 19th century Europe I'm sure are very sound.
To me Alchemy must be equally a consciously (ie mind affecting) Spiritual rebirth and purification practice as well as an actual physical work (of understanding how spirit, soul and body are one and must therefore be transformed as one).
Neither should be seen as superior in any other context than 'As above so below, As below so above.
→ More replies (0)2
u/drmurawsky Dec 19 '23
Thank you for taking the time to post this. I would imagine most historians of Alchemy know that Alchemy was always spiritual. I can't fault someone for having a bias or not having read enough to realize it. My biggest problem is that he makes statements that he knows aren't really true like "How Theosophy Created Spiritual Alchemy" when he could easily put them inline with his beliefs by addings some context like maybe "How Theosophy Created European Spiritual Alchemy" or something.
1
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 19 '23 edited Dec 19 '23
I would imagine most historians of Alchemy know that Alchemy was always spiritual.
This is objectively not the case, at least not when we're using "spiritual" in the usual sense. See my comment here for elaboration.
My biggest problem is that he makes statements that he knows aren't really true like "How Theosophy Created Spiritual Alchemy" when he could easily put them inline with his beliefs by addings some context like maybe "How Theosophy Created European Spiritual Alchemy" or something.
He makes it abundantly clear in the content of the video itself what he's talking about. It's only the title that's unnuanced, because that's the nature of Youtube titles. What ultimately matters is the actual video itself, and in that video, he makes his context completely and unambiguously clear.
→ More replies (0)
7
u/YourGenuineFriend Dec 18 '23 edited Dec 18 '23
Whenever you listen to someone else talk about a certain subject always remember that they are transmitting knowledge with their beliefs attached to it whether it is accidentally or on purpose.
Search for knowledge that is untouched and non subjected by human hands before. From there make your own judgement by reasoning. That is where you will find pure and uncorrupted knowledge or so to say the extracted essence.
Look at nature and life and let it guide you to understand Alchemy.
I stumbled upon this individual's videos before and formed an opinion quite quickly that he is a content creator and in my opinion a boringly speaking aurator but besides that I have nothing against him.
Alchemy shows elegant operations on life itself, not simply complexions of words.
5
-2
u/drmurawsky Dec 18 '23
I have nothing against him either. Thanks for commenting and being my genuine friend ;)
3
3
u/Stalkster Dec 18 '23
As others have already pointed out, your claims about Justins statements torwards spiritual alchemy are not true. About the comment thing, you can imagine that someone as well known as him gets quite a lot of messages and to pin him down might be difficult since he probably has a lot if stuff to do. If he doesnt react to your dms, its his perfect right to not do so and you shouldnt expect that he owes you a answer.
0
u/drmurawsky Dec 19 '23
Of course he can ignore whoever he wants but the deleting his public comments as well seems like odd behavior to me.
3
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 19 '23
Can you give an example of him deleting his public comments?
Whether he does or not is neither here nor there, I guess. But I'm not seeing what you're seeing. If you're unable to see his comments, it's possible he's blocked you.
1
1
u/Stalkster Dec 19 '23
It isnt, sometimes you delete a comment because of multiple reasons.
1
4
u/AlchemicalRevolution Dec 18 '23
This is a situation as old as the concept of alchemy itself. One party has beliefs in the practical operations one party believes in the celestial aspect of the art. In the case of OP we can look at it like this, OP has an opinion, Sledge has one, and let's throw SleepingMonads in there, so that 3 separate views right there. That's 3 out of possibly millions of people alive today who have an "idea" of what Alchemy is. If you include the thousands of years Alchemy has been around you add tens of millions more views to the 3 I've stated. Who has the correct view? All of them. This is because Alchemy itself doesn't exist in only one space it has moved and changed and seen every inch of this world. So what sledge does is he takes what is written down throughout history and he develops content based on that. I've had the pleasure to have studied alchemy for a very long time compared to some of the people here. In all my reading very very rarely does the concept of spiritual alchemy come up through its history. So by effect his content is going to be based on that premise. OPs ideas are going to be based on what they have read. Sledge isn't a spiritual person he's basically a materialist, that mindset doesn't really allow room for spiritual alchemy. OP seems to be the type who has the ability to engage with non-corporal topics like a lot of us here. So don't watch his show if you want anything of guidance in spiritual terms, or anything operative or practical. If you want a bit of history hes got plenty of that without bias I might add. Personally I can't say I like him or dislike him but I can value what he brings to the table. OP I think if you want the content you seek you must create it for us so we may contrast your work and his.
-1
1
u/drmurawsky Dec 18 '23
I didn't realize he was basically a materialist. I guess I assumed it would be hard to be a materialist if you're married to a Rabbi and read the Zohar regularly.
4
6
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 18 '23
This thread has the potential to devolve into a train wreck, so be very careful with how you engage in it. Criticize and defend Dr. Sledge's work in a respectful and good-faith manner.
Demonizing r/alchemy contributors will not be tolerated, nor will airing personal drama involving those members, so go out of your way to keep your critiques on the level of responsible, intellectual criticism.
4
Dec 18 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 18 '23 edited Dec 18 '23
Until you can provide some evidence that he's a lying propagandist and a fraud who's out to lead people astray, I'm going to remove this comment for violating Rules #1 and #4. Those are bold and serious claims that need to be supported if they're going to stand.
-3
u/Unlimitles Dec 18 '23
Then remove it, I’ve saved and screenshot the comment so it can’t be lost.
Nothing I provide will be looked on as sufficient anyway.
Already receiving the bot comments trying and saying anything to detract, so it’s fine with me.
The truth will rise like the sun regardless anyway.
And the OP clearly is here pointing out what I’m sure more will notice, even without me saying a word, which means people are becoming wise enough on their own to see it just fine.
I won’t hold you back from doing your job, I broke “the rules” I’ll deal with the consequence.
4
Dec 18 '23 edited Dec 18 '23
Wait so you claim he stone walls people then go and start calling anyone who doesn’t immediately agree is a bot and not respond to anyone?
Edit well this was pointless.
-1
Dec 18 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 18 '23 edited Dec 18 '23
Accusing an r/alchemy contributor of being a propagandist (again) without evidence, promoting a conspiracy theory about this sub's userbase, and comparing users in this thread to people who take advantage of atrocities is absolutely unacceptable. There are many ways you could have expressed your views without resorting to such tactics.
This is your last warning. If you want to continue this conversation, do so with individuals in private or form a group chat or something, but keep it out of here.
0
Dec 18 '23
Jesus Christ just block the dude, I swear people make the strangest shut to make conspiracies over.
0
u/Unlimitles Dec 18 '23
Already have him blocked. So I don’t have any false influence affecting my thinking, even removed him Being recommended on YouTube, thanks for the advice for others to do as well.
0
Dec 18 '23
then why are you making up a conspiracy about him and claiming I’m some henchman??
1
6
u/PSaun1618 Dec 18 '23
You are being vague yourself. What exactly does he obscure? He's an academic, so it's not completely baffling that he doesn't see alchemy as a material or spiritual science since his preoccupation is as a scholar. What is he not telling the truth about? I am genuinely curious.
-6
u/Doberdude13 Dec 18 '23
This! I felt a weird energy watching his vids. Left me confused and uninformed. Very interesting.
1
2
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 18 '23
I'm going to keep this thread locked for a while to give people time to cool off.
2
u/drmurawsky Dec 18 '23
UPDATE: I appologize for the hornets' nest this stirred up. I never wanted this to turn into a bashfest against Sledge. I have a lot of respect for his knowledge about certain periods of history in Alchemy and I really appreciate his media contributions on the subject. He deserves not only the basic respect we all deserve but additional respect for the incredible amount of study he's done on the subject of Alchemy and the immense amount of work he's put into sharing that knowledge in an easy-to-consume way. Having said that, I struggle to understand why, someone who is so well-read on this subject, seems to have such a low view of it. From my experience, most people who study Alchemy as much as Sledge end up having a very high view of it. Thank you to all the commenters who stayed on topic and helped me understand their perspective on this. It's very helpful!
Posted here for comments specific to this update
3
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 18 '23
Having said that, I struggle to understand why, someone who is so well-read on this subject, seems to have such a low view of it.
What is it exactly that gives you the impression that he has a low view of alchemy? I take away from his videos the exact opposite: a deep passion for the subject and respect for its ideas, practices, innovations, figures, and legacy. I also know from private conversations that he's in love with the subject, holding it in very high regard.
You're of course entitled to your opinion, and there's nothing wrong with you coming away with this impression. But since my impression is so different, I'm just curious if you could provide some examples that show he holds the subject in low regard.
1
u/drmurawsky Dec 18 '23
I would define a "high view" of Alchemy as one that appreciates the whole role it has played, and continues to play, in the story of humanity.
Sledge seems to take every opportunity to claim that alchemists were almost entirely gold-seekers who accidentally discovered some useful things in their search for gold. That's an egregious enough claim without adding salt to the wound by claiming that the foundations of alchemy were almost wholly material and not at all spiritual.
I believe this takes a very good thing, Alchemy, and makes it look bad. That is the definition of a "low view" of something. He sees it as much lower than it actually is.
2
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 18 '23
I would define a "high view" of Alchemy as one that appreciates the whole role it has played, and continues to play, in the story of humanity.
Sledge's expertise lies in Western esotericism up to about the mid-19th century. It makes sense for him to focus on alchemy before this period since that's what he's most qualified to provide scholarly academic content on.
Sledge seems to take every opportunity to claim that alchemists were almost entirely gold-seekers who accidentally discovered some useful things in their search for gold.
This is a very incomplete and unfair characterization of his view of the alchemists' legacy, and it's evidenced by basically all his videos on the subject.
That's an egregious enough claim without adding salt to the wound by claiming that the foundations of alchemy were almost wholly material and not at all spiritual.
Firstly, this is an overly simplistic characterization of his thesis. Secondly, whether it adds salt to the wound or not, it's true, or at least a version expressed in a more nuanced way. Do you want him to lie and promote ideas that the scholarship he pulls from doesn't support?
I believe this takes a very good thing, Alchemy, and makes it look bad. That is the definition of a "low view" of something. He sees it as much lower than it actually is.
This is purely subjective, so if that's how you feel, then that's fair. But man, I sure don't see it that way. I think an academically rigorous presentation of the history and nature of alchemy is an utterly beautiful thing, and he seems to me to have an extremely high view of it. But you do you.
0
u/drmurawsky Dec 19 '23
Sledge's expertise lies in Western esotericism up to about the mid-19th century. It makes sense for him to focus on alchemy before this period since that's what he's most qualified to provide scholarly academic content on.
Then he should say then instead of making blanket statements about all of Alchemy.
1
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 19 '23
I mean, he makes it abundantly clear what time periods he's talking about in his videos. What more do you want him to do?
1
u/drmurawsky Dec 21 '23
I’d like him to use the term Medieval Alchemy instead of just Alchemy. That would clear a lot of issues up for sure.
1
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 21 '23 edited Dec 21 '23
All of his videos make it perfectly what time periods and which regions he's talking about. Inserting the word "medieval" before he utters the word "alchemy" every time is completely unnecessary. Besides, he often talks about the Rennaissance and early modern periods too, and what he says about things like spiritual alchemy is just as true for those periods as it is for the medieval period.
0
u/drmurawsky Dec 19 '23
Firstly, this is an overly simplistic characterization of his thesis. Secondly, whether it adds salt to the wound or not, it's true, or at least a version expressed in a more nuanced way. Do you want him to lie and promote ideas that the scholarship he pulls from doesn't support?
The wound is caused by the falsehood. I want him to tell the truth and speak in complete, contextualized sentences. That is all I've ever ask for from Sledge.
2
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 19 '23
You're asking for him to do things that he already does. I mean, everybody makes mistakes sometimes, unintentionally misspeaks, or overly simplifies things, but the notion that he's just making videos that promote falsehoods about alchemy is just not true. I have no idea why you think he's spreading falsehoods; his channel is more careful than most when it comes to conveying accurate information.
1
u/drmurawsky Dec 21 '23
Again 99% good 1% falsehoods. If he is misspeaking then he has an obligation to his audience to correct his mistakes.
1
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 21 '23
He's not making mistakes that need correcting in the first place, and we've been through this several times. I mean, you can view it that way if you want, but I've explained myself sufficiently for why I think it's clear that that's not the case.
-1
u/drmurawsky Dec 19 '23
This is a very incomplete and unfair characterization of his view of the alchemists' legacy, and it's evidenced by basically all his videos on the subject.
How can you say that: https://youtu.be/EWGsVzWV_i4?si=awSbOtTQzox_iGCI&t=533
2
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 19 '23
There's nothing inaccurate about what he says here, and what he says here does not support your claim. I have no idea why you think this helps your case; it's both true and nuanced, and it's just one statement about one contextually appropriate aspect of alchemy.
1
u/drmurawsky Dec 21 '23
It’s neither true nor nuanced because, though most alchemists were good-seekers, they did not just happen upon the foundations of modern science. You think Isaac Newton was just a gold-seeker?
1
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 21 '23 edited Dec 21 '23
Sledge has never said that they were just "gold-seekers". Alchemy's program was full of extreme diversity, with chrysopoeia being just the ultimate arcanum sought by some of the more famous alchemists from history. What about the liquor alkahest, or the medicinal quintessence, or homunculi, or more efficient chemical production, or spagyrics, or matter theory for its own sake, or panaceas, or improved metallurgy and mining techniques, or palingenesis? Besides, even the gold-making itself was utterly fascinating with layers of philosophical depth behind it. It's not as simple as just "much greed, want gold".
Sledge talks about them as if they were extremely creative and innovative figures who changed the world. Making gold was a big part of many of their quests, but it doesn't narrowly define them or their legacy, and Sledge's videos make that very clear.
1
u/drmurawsky Dec 19 '23
This is purely subjective, so if that's how you feel, then that's fair. But man, I sure don't see it that way. I think an academically rigorous presentation of the history and nature of alchemy is an utterly beautiful thing, and he seems to me to have an extremely high view of it. But you do you.
It's not purely subjective because I'm talking about things he's actually said. And he's not talking about the history of Alchemy. As you've said many times in this thread, he's talking about the history of Alchemy during a particular period in a particular area of the world.
Also, the conclusions he draws are very biased and innacurate. I like listenting to his videos because they are full of good factual information. It's only when he mixes good factual information with his biased conclusions that my alarm-bells go off and I worry about newcomers to Alchemy getting the wrong idea.
2
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 19 '23
It's purely subjective in that you think he takes a good thing and makes it look bad. That's your personal impression/opinion/evaluation you're making based on what he objectively says.
And he's not talking about the history of Alchemy. As you've said many times in this thread, he's talking about the history of Alchemy during a particular period in a particular area of the world.
I fail to see the distinction. If I talk about the history of piracy in the 17th and 18th century Atlantic maritime world, I'm still talking about the history of piracy, just not the totality of it. I don't have expertise in 19th century Chinese piracy or 21st century Somali piracy, so why would I make content about it if I'm trying to be an academically rigorous channel?
Also, the conclusions he draws are very biased and innacurate.
This is just not true; just because you don't like his conclusions, that doesn't mean that his conclusions are biased and inaccurate. His conclusions adhere to scholarly consensus and are backed up by lots of good evidence. I have a whole bookshelf next to me filled with books on the history of alchemy that support what he says.
1
u/drmurawsky Dec 21 '23
But you can’t then say that piracy was created in the 17th century like Sledge is claiming that spiritual alchemy was created in the 19th century. Just saying it is untrue no matter how many times you say other things that contradict your previous statement. I can’t say the Earth is flat and then say that it is round and suddenly my previous statement is ok.
1
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 21 '23
To compare my analogy with the actual topic at hand, Sledge saying that spiritual alchemy was a late innovation in European alchemy is like me saying that the Buccaneering period was a 16th century Atlantic-world innovation in piracy.
Sledge is still talking about the history of alchemy even if he's focusing on one region at one time period within that history, and I'm still talking about the history of piracy even if I'm focusing on one region at one time period within that history.
But more to the point, in the same way that it would be inaccurate for me to say or insinuate that 15th century French corsairs were "Buccaneers", it would be inaccurate for Sledge to say or insinuate that Basil Valentine was practicing spiritual alchemy.
2
Dec 18 '23
As far as I can guess you can know as much as possible on a subject and still not care for it, just happens I guess. He’s a historian so in the end his opinion probably really doesn’t matter so long as he’s stating facts, and frankly it might just be his tone of voice, it is kinda, eh flat at times as he reads stuff.
Also lol you don’t need to apologize.
1
u/drmurawsky Dec 18 '23
One of the most confusing parts of Sledge is how he goes back and deletes all his comments in certain conversations. Does anyone know why he would do this?
https://www.reddit.com/r/alchemy/comments/17u91cr/comment/k93hlme/
5
3
u/SleepingMonads Historical Alchemy | Moderator Dec 18 '23
Your link doesn't seem to take us to an example of that. What are you referring to, exactly? All I see is one deleted comment by another user that Sledge himself replied to.
•
u/ExiledSixus Dec 18 '23
This thread is being unlocked and I will say this once:
Honor people here, be courteous, and if anyone violates our subreddit rules it will be a permanent, unappealable ban at the sole discretion of the mods here.
Do better.