Paracelsus 4
The double nature of the Light of Nature
Paracelsus was not aware that his own pioneering work in pharmacology would lead to the huge international pharmachemical industries in Basle. Neither was he aware that his words “to make the unfruitful fruitful”[1] could support artificial insemination and an industry pursuing the genetic engineering of recombinant DNA. Both of these developed with the help of the shadow (greed, ambition, and desire for power over nature – read Satan’s influence if you will) as the driving force as well as a genuine desire to heal the sick and better the health of mankind.[2] The mixture of lumen naturae plus the shadow is a dangerous concoction[3] not particularly conducive to psychological development. Yet Paracelsus often emphasized that man must use the light of nature to heal the sick and better mankind. He was well aware that we cannot avoid the fate of being conscious and having a shadow. His words:
| It is well known and generally understood that all natural and important things grow and come to ripeness with moisture and warmth. This is adequately proven by the rain and the sun that follows the rain. No one can deny the truth that rain makes the Earth fruitful and similarly one must admit that the sun makes fruit timely, that is, ripe.[4] … | Es ist genügend bekannt und männiglich wissend, dass alle naturlichen und wesentlichen Ding von der Feuchte und Wärme wachsen und reif werden. Solches wird genugsam durch den Regen und durch die Sonne, welche darauf folgt, bewiesen.,denn das kann niemand leugnen, dass der Regen die Erde fruchtbar macht, und so muss man auch zugeben, dass die Sonne alle Früchte zeitig, das ist reif, macht… |
| …Since things are possible and must appear in nature through God’s order, who would deny and not believe that man could also bring them about through the clever abilities of the art of alchemy and make the unfruitful fruitful, the untimely timely, and drive all things to grow. | …Weil nun solches der Natur nach der Ordnung Gottes möglich ist und geschehen muss, wer wollt dann den widersuechen und nicht glauben, dass der Mensch solches auch vermöge und durch seine kluge Geschicklicktheit der Kunst alchimia tun könne, und das Unfruchtbare fruchtbar, das Unzeitige zeitig machen und alle Ding zum Wachsen treiben könne. |
| …Indeed the Scriptures say: God made all creatures servient to man and gave them to him as possessions in his own hands, so that he could use them for his needs, to govern, to control all earthly things, nothing excepted.[5] Because of this it is allowed that man should rejoice that God in the light of nature has so highly enlightened and gifted him, so that all things obey and serve him, especially the whole Earthly kingdom and everything that within it and over it grows, lives, and moves. | …Denn die Schrift sagt, Gott habe dem Menschen alle Geschöpf unterwürfig gemacht und als ein Eigentum in seine Hände gegeben, um die selbigen zu seiner Notdurft zu gebrauchen, und zu regieren, zu herrschen über all irdische Ding, nichts ausgenommen, deswegen sich billig der Mensch freuen soll, dass ihn Gott im Licht der Natur so hoch erleuchtet und begabt hat, so dass ihm alle Kreaturen Gottes gehorsam und untertant sein müssen, besonders, das ganze Erdreich und alles, was darinnen und darauf wächst, lebt, und schwebt.[6] |
Harriet: “Armed with this quote, you could justify artificial insemination and genetic manipulation. He says: ‘…to make the unfruitful fruitful…’ This is the worst of scientific hubris!”
T. B.:”If someone acted only by these words and no feeling function, yes. But Paracelsus had a feeling function and an awe of God. He meant this to be taken in his view of how man and God, the microcosm and macrocosm, are related. He probably never imagined that someone could become so split as to do science for the ego (money, ambition, or power) and not in the service of God.”
Despite certain impressions that the foregoing quote may create, Paracelsus, in contrast to Fermi, seemed to have been aware of the double nature of lumen naturae. He often stressed the importance of taking a stand relative to the integrity of his sources of intuitions. Paracelsus ends his prologue to the Astronomia Magna with a prayer-like appeal to be understood in the correct way.
| So I have the gift and the grace of the same spirit that goes out from the Father in the Natural Light that otherwise goes through the Son, from the Father in the eternal light. And that is what I want to attest with nature, that there are many people who are honored as gods or saints who should have long been taken as Cadaver. Then this is because the devil sows his satanical virtues to turn mankind around. | So hab ich doch die Gab und Gnad desselbigen Geists, der vom Vatter aussgehet in das Natürlich Liecht, der sonst durch den Sohn aussgehet, von der Vatter in das Ewig Liecht. Dann das will ich mit der Natur bezeugen, das viel under den Menschen seindt, die für Götter oder Heiligen geachtet werden, die ellender dann ein Cadauer sollten gehalten werden. Dann das ist einmahl also, das der Teuffel seine Satanische Tugendt anseet, damit er den Menschen wider anrichte. |
| …Therefore it is necessary to teach the right light so that these satanical virtues can be striken from us. I hope that in what I have written herein I can be judged with the same truth, as much from the mortal light, as that which is given by God through the Spirit, who illuminates and brings to completion our work and deeds, Ingenia and doctrines. Amen. | …Darumb zu lernen das recht Liecht von nöten ist, damit dieselbigen Satansiche Tugenden von uns geschlagen werden. Verhoff mich hierinnen mit gleicher Warheit gefunden zu werden, soviel von dem Tödtlichen Liecht, von Gott durch den Geist geben ist, der uns unser Werck und Arbeit Ingenia und Doctrin erleuchten und vollenden wölle. Amen.[7] |
The dark side of the light
An inspiration with an archetypal basis is both numinous and powerful. It can be emotionally impressive and momentarily exhilarating, rendering a feeling of coming close to the ultimate truth. However, it usually has two faces. Natural science – the reflection of the numinous light of nature on mankind – currently casts a long shadow. Already at the dawn of our modern technological age Paracelsus foresaw the problems inherent in the exhileration and excitement of working in the this field. He wrote:
| The [wisdom] from the light of the Holy Ghost is of only one species, the just and untarnished wisdom. The other, from the Light of Nature is of two species: the good and the evil wisdom. The good attaches itself to the eternal, and the evil to the damned. | Die aus dem Liecht des Heiligen Geists, hatt nur Ein Speciem an ihr, das ist gerecht, unbresthafftig Weisheit. Die aber auss dem Liecht der Natur, hatt zwo Species an ihr, die gutt und die böse Weisheit. Die gutt henckt sich an die Ewig, die böse an das Verdammlich. [8] |
In terms of intuitions from the “stars” Paracelsus wrote:
| So you should know that Lucifer and his gang in Heaven do the opposite to that for which they were created. Similarly with the stars: perfidious conceptions spring up; twisting and confusing the arts, medicine, and all the other proper natural sciences. Therefore not every spirit should be believed since there are two kinds. Just as there are two kinds of angels in heaven: one remaining as created by God, the other making of himself something different; so too are the spirits. | So sollen ihr auch wissen, dieweil im Himmel der Lucifer mit seiner Geselschaft anderst sich macht, weder er geschaffen war: Also in den Sternen anderst werden mag: Also auch wiederwertig Conceptiones geboren mögen werden, als zerüttet und wiederwertig allen Künsten, der Artzney und allen andern gerecht Natürlich Weissheiten. Darumb soll nit eim jedlichen Geist geglaubt werden, dann ihr sein zweyerley: Nemlich wie auch zweyerley Engel im Himmel wohnen, der Ein blieb wie er geschaffen wass worden von Gott, der ander macht sich anderst: also auch das Gestirn thut: |
Immediately following up this statement comes his main point:
| Likewise mankind, who is their child, can also try to evade the responsibility that it inherited from the light of nature. Therefore note that the art of Astronomy[9] is an imperfect art and that [fact] man should finally know. Astronomy teaches the differentiation of the two spirits in the light of nature one from the other, the correct light and the false light, as the Holy Scriptures teach,[10] to tell God from the Devil, and the false from the proper Prophets, etc. | Also auch der Mensch der ihr Kindt ist, so er sich nicht nach dem Urtheil ziehen will, so er im Liecht der Natur angeboren hatt. Darumb so merckendt auff, das die Kunst Astronomey, ein notturfftige Kunst ist, die der Mensch endtlich wol wissen soll. Dann die Astronomei lernet die zween Geist im Liecht der Natur von einander zuendtscheiden, das recht Liecht und das falsch, wie dann auch die Heilige Schrifft lernet, Gott und den Teuffel erkennen, die Falschen und Gerechten Propheten, etc.[11] |
Four hundred years later Jung reminds us that we are too easily possesed by the archetypes: all too often we think that the brilliant ideas are “ours” and that our illuminations are infallible. We do not realize that once again Lucifer has duped us. Jung notes:
Truth and error lie so close together and often look so confusingly alike that nobody in his right sense could afford not to doubt the things that happen to him in the possessed state.[12]
Paracelsus:
| …Since man is born from the Light of Nature it follows that he knows good and evil; not from the flesh and blood, but from the stars in the flesh and blood.[13] This is the treasure, the natural “Greatest Good”. Does not a person see this is a treasure: to differentiate the eternal wisdom from the temporal by realizing that he is the image of God? Through this he understands that the natural cannot reciprocate the eternal. | So nuhn der Mensch aus dem Liecht der Natur geboren wirdt, aus dem folgt nuhn, das der Mensch gutts unnd böses wies: Nicht aus Fleisch unnd Blutt, sondern aus dem Gestirn in Fleisch unnd Blutt, das ist der Schatz, das natürlich Summum Bonum. Ob solches nicht einem Menschen ein Schatzsen zu wissen, die Ewige Weisheit von Tödlichen zu erkennen, in dem das er die Bildtnus Gottes ist? Durch dieselben verstehet er das, dass das Natürlich gegen dem Ewigen nichts dienet. |
| Therefore he should search further, to separate the temporal wisdom into the good and the evil by measuring it against the image [of God]. That is he could now take on the good or the evil, knowing well towards what ends the evil serves, and also from what source the good comes… | Darumb soll er weither suchen, das der Bildtnus gemess, unnd die tödliche Weisheit zu scheiden in das gutt und böse. Das ist, dass er jetzo mag das Böss oder gutt annemmen, unnd weiss doch darbei wo das Böss hin dienet, und weiss auch mit dem Gutte, zu wem er kommt. |
| …Now I consider it a great good to separate, in each and every particular being, one from the other: so that one can pick out that part which is good, first the eternal wisdom then the temporal; keeping the good and dropping the evil. | Jetzo schetz ich das für ein gross Gutt, wo ein Scheidung geschicht eines jedlichen bosondern Wesens, von dem andern: Darum das, dass einer kan aussklauben, das jenig, das Gutt ist. Am ersten die Ewige Weisheit, demnach die Tödltichen: Aber die Gutt behalten, unnd die Böss fallen lassen.[14] |
Harriet: “Paracelsus makes it sound easy to separate good from evil. Evidently for him if the information was written in the Bible, then it was guaranteed to be from the Holy Ghost. We, who cannot so easily trust the Bible, how are we supposed to tell the difference?”
Ash: “I am sure that Paracelsus, in his medical practise, met with cases not referenced in the Bible. He must have sweated them out himself, and taken the consequences.”
This dilemma is described in a conversation from the novel The Estate by Isaac Beshevis Singer. Rabbi Mendel asks his son, Ezriel, a modern medical doctor:
“If a father gives his child a nut and the child swallows it, shell and all – how is the father guilty?”
“The father should have warned him, or removed the shell. You are referring, of course, to our Father in Heaven?”
“Naturally. He gave man reason so that he could choose. He gave reason and a law which tells what is allowed and what is forbidden. But we refuse to listen – How can we blame Him?”
“We might listen if we knew they were words of God. But how can we be sure? Each people has its own religion.”
“If a man could actually see the workings of Providence, he would have no doubts and, therefore, no free will. This world is based on free choice. Of what can we be sure? Of life? Of one’s livelihood? Man must constantly choose between truth and falsehood. If the heavens opened up and we could observe the celestial host, then everybody would be a saint. Do you understand or not?”
“Yes, Father, I understand.”
“Everything is easy for angels. Therefore they have no reward. Man must fight for his faith. Every day, every minute. Even the holiest man doubts.”[15]
A colleague of mine, an inorganic chemist, related an experience of his which serves as an excellent example of how one scientist differentiated the two spirits.
Example 2: A chemist’s discovery
During my doctoral research I had to design a series of reactions to study the exchange kinetics of a chelated ligand[16] in solution. One day I had an intuition to try this with a substance having sulphur as the metallic ion. In the next few days, this idea appeared to hold great promise. In fact, I became convinced that it could be a major breakthrough in my field. However, these flights of inflation began to be disturbing, they were too ambitious. The moods became so intense that I could not work productively and decided to discontinue the trial experiments with sulphur. Several weeks later, I had the idea to try this series of experiments with a copper solute. This time, I felt at ease and comfortable. There was no flush of ambition. Over the next few months I carried out the experiments with copper. Later I learned that had I indeed continued to work with sulphur, I would have wasted months because the sulphur solution was totally inappropriate for his research goals. (It was too strong a chelate to study the kinetics). Looking up the alchemical meaning of sulphur I found that it was noted as being fiery element associated with Saturn, experienced as producing poisonous, heavy, dark, and ambitious moods. On the other hand, copper was associated with Venus, praised for its warmth and friendliness.
Speaking of Paracelsus’ concept of lumen naturae, Jung wrote that “The light of nature is an intuitive apprehension of the facts, a kind of illumination.”[17] Creative scientists experimenting with the unknown properties of matter, as those of my two examples, often experience this kind of illumination. Recall the example of Fermi’s discovery. The experiment of Fermi’s proved successful; it subsequently paved the way for the creation of the atom bomb. (Paraffin slowed down neutrons by elastic collisions and in this way made the neutrons more effective in causing fission). Typical of the creative scientist, he accepted these intuitions as his own genius, furthering the progress of science. He did not even acknowledge that his intuition came from the light of nature, something even Newton might have done, as the following quote demonstrates.
And if natural Philosophy in all its parts, by pursuing this Method, shall at length be perfected, the Bounds of Moral Philosophy will also be enlarged. For so far as we can know by natural Philosophy what is the first Cause, what Power he has over us, and what benefits we receive from him, so far our duty towards him, as well as that towards another, will appear to us by the Light of Nature.[18]
Paracelsus put it even more clearly:
It is God who makes you fly, with or without wings. He induces your imaginations, opinions, judgements…We can do nothing unless God has ordained…”[19]
Even when the first nuclear reactor built by Fermi and his associates at the University of Chicago “went critical” and technically speaking, out of control, he did not seem to consider the dark side of what “he” was discovering.[20] Due to the reticence of scientists to heed (and make public) anything subjective, it is difficult to know whether Fermi experienced doubts which he, however, kept to himself. I have skimmed a biography of Fermi by his wife[21] and have not yet found evidence that he was more differentiated than I suggest. By contrast, the chemist I know consulted his feeling function before carrying out his experiment. He based his decisions on his discomfort with flushes of inflation, his relief upon feeling humbler, and his associated fantasies and subjective reactions.
Jung, and I assume that Paracelsus if he had access to the vocabulary, would have noted that scientific intuitions are psychic phenomena, like all intuitions, and not simply objective facts about nature. Jung wrote:
“[A] psychic phenomenon cannot be grasped in its totality by the intellect, for it consists not only of meaning but also of value, and this depends on the intensity of the accompanying feeling-tones.”[22]
It is the feeling function which can evaluate an intuition on levels other than the purely outer application. This feeling evaluation was apparently missing in Fermi. (Possibly, like most physicists, he did not know how to evaluate his “subjective” information[23]). But it was present in my colleague, the chemist. The only way to tell whether the devil has his hand in the light of nature is to test it with the feeling function. The criteria is that the Self is behind the idea, that there is some personal meaning in terms of the scientists individuation process. If ambition and ego goals predominate, then suspicion is in order.[24] Of course, having sensed the devil, Fermi might have anyway tried his experiment with paraffin or my chemist friend might have used sulphur. Here I can only repeat one of Jung’s most favorite quotes from the apocryphal sayings of Christ: “Man if indeed thou knowest what thou doest, thou art blessed; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed, and a transgressor of the law”.[25] I suspect that any scientist who doubts the correctness of what he is doing can quickly rationalize away any uncertainty by pleading the peaceful use of atomic energy, or the saving of thousands of lives of cancer victims through recombinant DNA technology, or some other excuse. (I am well aware from my personal life of how easily the ego can disregard the small voice of the feeling function in favor of its own arguments – with catastrophic consequences.) After all, Paracelsus says we must use the light of nature (see quote on page 14). However, he insists that it be done knowing the dangers, being aware of the power of Satan (the darkness, the unconscious), and seeking the ultimate goal in God and the eternal light.
By definition, science takes a wide detour around subjective evaluations and the feeling function. Thus Satan, well-known for his intelligence and slyness, can have a more-or-less free reign, of which he constantly takes advantage. But who is this Satan? What is the dark side of the light of nature? Who gave Fermi the intuition to use paraffin? God or the Devil?
On a personal level, ambition and power are formidable drives and everpresent companions in all fields of scientific research, (especially in those areas in which the Nobel Prize is given, thank God not in geophysics!). On an impersonal level, the problem lies deeper. Was it the eternal light shining through the light of nature in the form of radioactive light that fascinated (and killed) Mme Curie? Surely one cannot place on her soul the responsibility for her own death (due to the exposure to radioactive cesium) nor onto Albrecht Hahn and Lise Meitner (the experimental discoverers of atomic fission) or Enrico Fermi the responsibility for thousands at Hiroshima who died because of the atomic bomb. Yet like myself, these scientists were fascinated by the light shinning in the darkness of matter. Whose hand was at work here? The Light of Nature? What lurks in the spaces between the jellybeans? Surely it is the dark side of God. He who does not know what His left hand is doing, yet is all-knowing. Evidently He needs some help in bringing light to His Light. Characteristically heretical and deeply human, Paracelsus states his viewpoint clearly and profoundly:
| Natural reason and eternal wisdom belong together. Natural reason may exist without eternal wisdom, as when it follows the heathen and is unconcerned with the Eternal. But eternal wisdom cannot exist without natural wisdom because man, through the natural, must recognize the eternal. Therefore they both dwell in a man who lives in God and they are the perfect match for all things.[26] | Also mag die Natürlich Vernunfft, und die Ewige Weisheit wol sein in Eim: Aber die Natürlich Vernunfft mag wol ohn die Ewige Weisheit sein, die nach dem heydnischen handelt, und nicht nach dem Ewigen achtet. Die Ewige Vernunfft aber mag ohn die Natürlich Weisheit nicht sein, in dem, dass der Mensch auss dem Natürlich an das Ewig soll erkennen. Darumb sein sie beyde bey dem Menschen, den in Gott lebet, fürtrefflich für alle ding.[27] |
This could have been Paracelsus’ answer to the question: “Who is behind the intuitions of Fermi and other scientists?” Eternal wisdom can exist only if mankind uses the natural to realize the eternal. How is mankind to do this? This is the greatest trick, the heart of alchemy. The eternal must somehow be in Nature, in matter and in the psyche. However, Nature alone cannot differentiate, she needs man to do this. This is why man is possessed to know, to experiment, to theorize, and to search into matter.[28]
The Goal: Transformation of oneself
For Paracelsus the supreme task was not only to use the light of nature for discoveries and healing the ills of mankind but to use it to transform oneself. He wrote:
| Therefore albeit it begins in nature, it does not follow that it ends with nature and remains in nature. Rather search further to end in the eternal, that is, in godly being and transformation. We human beings were created naturally, and were born naturally, but the point is not that we must die the same as we were created and born. Rather we should put away the same [old] clothes, and the same sourdough, and put on new ones, and step from the old birth into the new one.[29] | Darumb ob gleichwol mit der Natur angefangen wirt, so folgt doch nicht auss dem, dass in der Natur soll auffgehört werden, und in ihr bleiben, sonder weiter suchen, und enden in dem Ewigen das ist, im Göttlichen Wesen und Wandel. Dann natürlichen seind wir Menschen beschaffen worden, auch natürlich geboren: dass aber aus dem folge, dass wir in denselben sollen sterben, in dem und auss dem wir geschaffen und geboren seind, das sey weitt von uns: Sondern von uns soll dasselbig Kleid hingethan werden, und derselbig alt Sauerteig von uns, unnd da ein neues anlegen, von der alten Geburt in die neue tretten.[30] |
The theme of putting on new clothes is also found in early Christian traditions as exemplified by the following quotes:
For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Here indeed we groan, and long to put on our heavenly dwelling so that by putting it on we may not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we sigh with anxiety; not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.[31]
And:
But first you must tear off this garment which you wear – this cloak of darkness, this web of ignorance.[32]
For the Gnostics and early Christians “Life” meant eternal life in the “Light”, the Light-man, or Christ. Paracelsus also said:
| Well do I know that the Natural Light is not eternal, but rather through the eternal I must become eternal. But what if I do not want to merge the soul of the temporal light with the eternal light? Even then the body and soul are still together, who can not use two lights, as [I have written] above? Thus God made two beings in man, the earthly and the eternal, and they are wedded together until the Resurrection, when the earthly will be delivered to the Earth, the eternal to the kingdom of God. | Wol is mir das bekanntlich, dass das Natürlich Licht nicht Ewig ist, sondern durch das Ewig muss ich Ewig werden. Ob ich aber nicht möge der Seel des zergenglich Liecht vereinigen mit dem Ewigen? Noch ist doch Leib und Seel bei einander, wer kan dann nicht zwei Liechter, wie obstehet, gebrauchen? So doch Gott zwei Wesen im Menschen gemacht hatt, das Irdisch und das Ewig, und seind zusammen vermälet biss an die Aufferstehung, da wirdt das Irdlich der Erden zugestelt, dz Ewig dem Reich Gottes.[33] |
And:
| Therefore we are from the father and mother, corporeally out of the elements, spiritually from the stars: together in white of marriage, these produce the complete man. | Also Menschen seindt wir von Vatter und Mutter, Leiblich auss den Elementen, Sinnig auss dem Gestirn: Die all zusammen in Heirats weiss, geben den vollkommenen Menschen.[34] |
Paracelsus’ ideas are in essence about the spiritual development of the individual. I will review some of what I believe are his main points.
An individual receives the “light of nature” from the stars, the inner firmament. Following Jung’s work, my crude psychological translation of this is that ideas, hunches, intuitions (scientific or otherwise) derive from the archetypes of the collective unconscious. These archetypes are lights, centers of psychic energy and sources of consciousness. They also structure our perception of the world.
The stars control the fates of those who live in the elemental light. Living instinctively and emotionally without differentiation, even if it seems momentarily to be positive or negative, is still being bound to a collective fate, manipulated by the collective unconscious. We are not yet born as individuals, answerable to our true inner personality, the Self.
It is an individual’s duty to use the knowledge from the stars to heal himself and his fellow man. However, these sources of inspiration (the archetypes) are important healing factors. As exemplified by Jung’s favorite story of the Chinese rainmaker,[35] living in tune with central currents of our individual fate can be of great healing value for the collective. We cannot cut ourselves off from our archetypal roots or else we are lost to a purely instinctual chaos.
One can thus establish a certain independence from the elemental and natural lights and therefore from a purely “astrological” fate (i.e. governed by the stars). On the other hand, to develop a relationship with the psychic center (the Self) we must strive to differentiate the emotions, ideas, and intuitions that the archetypes emanate. The purpose of our life is not just to live off momentary powers of the unconscious, but to make contact with the center of our personality and consciously follow its guiding light.
In using the natural light, one should be aware that it has two natures, good and bad. The point is to separate the good from the bad and follow the good. One must use the light of the natural to find and give existence to the eternal. In being aware of the influence of the archetypes in our daily lives, we are making conscious the role that the eternal powers play in our lives, we are giving reality to the eternal. Evidently nature herself cannot differentiate these aspects, she cannot make them conscious, each individual must help her do this. This might be the inner meaning of my fascination with geology, which was in its historical development the carrier of the scientific study of time. Looking at the immensity of mountains and the incredible development of man and consciousness, one is confronted very concretely with both the eternal and temporal aspects of both outer (material) and inner (psychic) nature.
The ultimate goal is not just using the knowledge derived from the stars for the betterment of mankind and the healing of all mortal ills, but to transform oneself into a spirit living in the heavenly light. The point is to use the sparks of wisdom (intuitions, guidance, and life energy) from the collective unconscious to guide our individual path of development that Jung called individuation.
[1] Quote in context follows below.
[2] As one of many recent examples, recall the battle between Robert Gallo and Henri Montaigner over who was the first to isolate the HIV virus that causes AIDS.
[3] Recall the example of Fermi: the nuclear bomb and nuclear power both create light and heat from matter.
[4] This is the natural, temporal light. In heaven there is no “coming to ripeness,” everything is simultaneously unborn, living, and dead.
[5] I assume Paracelsus is referring to Genesis 1; 28 (King James Version):
…and God said unto them, be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Or he may have been thinking of Genesis 9; 1-3:
And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth. The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon all that moveth upon on the earth and all the fishes of the sea; into your hand they will be delivered.
[6] Theophrastus Paracelsus, De natura rerum (Liber primus. De generationibus rerum naturalium) in : W.-E. Peuckert, Paracelsus Werke, Band V, Schwabe & Co , Basle/Stuttgart, 1968, p. 66-7.
[7] Paracelsus, Vored, p. 10
[8] Paracelsus, Vored, p. 5-6.
[9] For Paracelsus, “astronomy” meant the in-depth study of the relationship between the microcosm and the macrocosm. As exemplified in the next sentence, Paracelsus’ astronomy would today be called depth psychology.
[10] Paracelsus is probably referring to the New Testament (I John 4:1) where John admonishes: “Beloved, believe not every spirit but try the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out in the world.”
[11] Paracelsus, Erklärung der ganzen Astronomei, Huser X, [Olms 5], p. 411.
[12] C. G. Jung, Mysterium, p. 552.
[13] Note that the stars in the flesh and blood enable one to know good and evil. Again, it is clear that the stars are the innate consciousness that can differentiate between good and evil, and discern the eternal.
[14] Paracelsus, Vored, Huser, X [Olms, 5] p.6.
[15] Isaac Beshevis Singer, The Estate, Penguin Books, New York, p. 47-48.
[16] Chelate comes from the word “crab” and refers to a molecule that has many “legs” and “grabs on”(my subjective association here). A chelated ligand is one that attaches itself easily to a central molecule in solution. The kinetics of such a system is the speed that one species of these attached molecules exchanges for another. This rate of exchange is poorly understood and has important consequences for some environmental and physiological processes.
[17] Jung, Paracelsus , p. 115
[18] I. Newton, Opticks or a treatise of the reflections, refractions, inflections & colours of light, Dover Publications, New York, 1952, based of the fourth London edition of 1730. p. 405. (The first Cause was, for Newton, “certainly not mechanical” i.e., it was spiritual or God).
[19] Paracelsus, Liber Prologie in vitam bestiam quoted in Jacobi, p. 205.
[20] As I write this (April-May 1989) the search for “cold fusion” has caught the excitement of the applied physics world, with an equal lack of thought about the dark side of what they might be producing.
[21] A. Fermi, From Apples to Atoms, University of Chicago Press, 1954, pp 154.
[22] C. G. Jung, Aion, Collected Works vol. 9ii (Princeton, Bollingen XX, 1973), p. 27-8.
[23] Note that from the point of view of Jung (and Paracelsus and T.B.) these “subjective” feeling reactions are actually objective, coming as they are from outside the ego.
[24] However easy this sounds, I am aware that it is a matter that needs constantly to be tested. The Self can also be mercurial and tricksterish. Fallible humans can never be 100% sure that they have judged correctly.
[25] Quoted by Jung, translated by M. R. James, The Aprocryphal New Testament, (Oxford, 1924) p. 33.
[27] Paracelsus, Astronomia Magna, Liber Primus, Huser X, (Olms 5), p. 24.
[28] There is another aspect of this I would like to mention here. Nature appears to want to become more human also. In her interpretation of the various figures of the Great Mother in fairytales (Baba Yaga, Frau Holle) Von Franz speaks of nature’s shyness at being seen in her naked inhuman form. When poking into the secrets of nature a woman (or the anima of a scientist?) with an instinct for survival must act as if she has not seen anything. “On the other hand, perhaps it is sometimes a man’s fate that he has to expand into such thoughts.” (M.-L. von Franz, The feminine in fairytales, Spring Publications, Irving, Texas, 1972, page 170.) She goes on to discuss that: “There seems to be a tendency in nature which longs for the greater humanity of man…” (Ibid., p. 174.)
[29] Paracelsus is unconsciously picking up on ancient Egyption motives of life = bread and changing clothes = resurrection.
[30] Paracelsus, Astronomia Magna, Liber Primus, (Huser X, Olms 5), p. 244.
[31] II Corinthians 5: 1-4. This “earthly tent” is the material body; the “building from God”, “eternal in the heavens”, would be (in a rational interpretation) the psyche.
[32] From Libellvis VII, Scott, Hermetica I, p. 173. Scott notes that “garment” refers to the body.
[33] Paracelsus, Vored, Huser X [Olms 5], p.8.
[34] Paracelsus Erklärung der ganzen Astronomei, Huser X [Olms 5], p. 406.
[35] Jung tells this story in many places, one is in Mysterium, p. 419f, footnote 211.