From: wilforddumont@gmail.net   
      
   On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:48:24 -0400, John M. wrote:   
      
   > On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:45:13 -0400, Chan Welbourne wrote:   
   >   
   >> Wilford Dumont explained on 8/10/2011 :   
   >>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:24:56 -0400, Sirius Black wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:23:48 -0400, Wilford Dumont wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:22:02 -0400, Sirius Black wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:21:22 -0400, Chan Welbourne wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> VD wrote :   
   >>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:44:00 -0400, Wilford Dumont wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:43:10 -0400, John M. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> I would like to jump in here to say that the reading of an   
   alchemical   
   >>>>>>>>>> text (Potter, Chymical Wedding, Flamel, others) requires a training.   
   >>>>>>>>>> That does not mean that simple alchemical symbols cannot be pointed   
   >>>>>>>>>> out as Victor is doing, understood and made relevant. Think the   
   Bible   
   >>>>>>>>>> which has its inner and outer knowledge sanctums. Both are relevant.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Well said.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Yes it is and a very good point. There has to be a level of trust that   
   >>>>>>>> you have in any teacher which I don't purport to be, btw. Any data,   
   >>>>>>>> information source, has to be credible, believable and understandable.   
   >>>>>>>> I have read enough of John Granger, Hans Andrea, Mark McClean and many   
   >>>>>>>> others to feel very comfortable with their understandings of alchemy.   
   >>>>>>>> I know enough about Ms. Rowling to feel comfortable with her...and   
   >>>>>>>> with the fully valid assessment that she has written a Septology using   
   >>>>>>>> alchemical symbology at its literary heart.   
   >>>>>>>> I also believe that she understands that there may be a small   
   >>>>>>>> percentage of her readership that will be able to tear open the   
   >>>>>>>> superficial layers of HP and get at the underlying, alchemical   
   >>>>>>>> symbology.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Not having to be an educated alchemical expert either as long as you   
   >>>>>>>> have a credible source to lean on.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> What is rather depressing is that there are very few people interested   
   >>>>>>> in trying to find out what marvels there really are in alchemical texts   
   >>>>>>> and imagery. :/   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Would you mention any names like "name" who posts here? lol   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> For one.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Werks4Me. lol   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> We seem now to live in a world of rhetoric, where people are trying to   
   >>>>> win us over to their particular viewpoint and who don't care at all   
   >>>>> about the true facts or original meaning of something.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The now defunct group of historical posters to AFHP represent this   
   >>>>> group.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Their viewpoint is that this alchemy stuff is all shit.   
   >>   
   >>> They're Da Vinci Code experts. It is a bit sad that people take a   
   >>> novel that seriously as a guide to exploring paintings or alchemy.   
   >>   
   >> I suspect the writer of that novel only saw his writing as a novel and   
   >> never expected that people would confuse his fiction with fact and   
   >> research. But it seems to have left a trail of nonsense behind it that   
   >> we inherit and have to try to clear up. :'(   
   >   
   > That is a real time problem, alchemy being rather obscure and arcane   
   > is wide open to be exploited in this way. To get past the Tarot and   
   > Ouija board inspired reader is a serious issue. The only way is this   
   > style of discussion.   
      
   Dix has been on AFHP enough time that he is very credible. If readers   
   of this newsgruppe don't want to take in the information, it's their   
   heads in the sand, they have no excuses.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)