
Isaac Newton and Alchemy - Hooke
http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/project/about.do
======
Jun8
Everyone who puzzles why Newton, perhaps one of the greatest geniuses in
recorded history, dabbled in Alchemy should read Keynes's lecture that he
prepared to read at tercentenary of Newton: [http://www-history.mcs.st-
and.ac.uk/Extras/Keynes_Newton.htm...](http://www-history.mcs.st-
and.ac.uk/Extras/Keynes_Newton.html).

Keynes was fascinated by Newton and when his papers were sold in 1936 he
managed to buy about half of them. This part in the opening of the lecture
fascinates me:

"In the eighteenth century and since, Newton came to be thought of as the
first and greatest of the modern age of scientists, a rationalist, one who
taught us to think on the lines of cold and untinctured reason.

I do not see him in this light. I do not think that any one who has pored over
the contents of that box which he packed up when he finally left Cambridge in
1696 and which, though partly dispersed, have come down to us, can see him
like that. Newton was not the first of the age of reason. He was the last of
the magicians, the last of the Babylonians and Sumerians, the last great mind
which looked out on the visible and intellectual world with the same eyes as
those who began to build our intellectual inheritance rather less than 10,000
years ago. Isaac Newton, a posthumous child bom with no father on Christmas
Day, 1642, was the last wonderchild to whom the Magi could do sincere and
appropriate homage."

~~~
snowwrestler
I would also highly recommend James Gleick's biography of Newton, which spends
quite a bit of time on his alchemical work.

The short story is that we can look back with the filter of 200+ years of
science to appreciate Newton's role in the founding of what we know as science
today, so we focus on his work in math and physics. But Newton did not have
that perspective; he was discovering then, for himself, what we now take for
granted. Some of his work produced lasting results, some did not.

A much more recent example of a similar effect is the high levels of interest
in ESP and mental powers in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. Enormous numbers of very
serious and educated scientifically minded people believed that it was
possible that we would discover latent powers of the mind. We never did, and
today that stuff is largely a punchline among the scientifically minded.

To get a sense of this, read "golden age" sci-fi from these decades and see
how often mental powers are included. Asimov's _Foundation_ series, Larry
Niven's _Known Space_ series, Heinlein's _Stranger in a Strange Land_ , Arthur
C. Clarke's _Childhood 's End_, and of course Herbert's _Dune_ series are just
a few examples.

~~~
api
While I am skeptical of psi, I'm not 100% sure the drop off of that interest
is progress. You can count me among those who believe that _fundamental_
ground-breaking innovation has declined considerably since the late 70s. One
potential cause that I see is a narrowing of acceptable interests and lines of
inquiry, especially in academia, and the rise of a kind of hidebound dogmatic
skepticism.

If we don't already know it, it doesn't exist. If it hasn't already been done,
it can't be done.

That's gonna cut out a certain amount of possibly-silly stuff like psi, but
it's also going to eliminate a lot of potentially very fruitful "out there"
lines of inquiry. I am not sure you can have one without the other. How do you
a priori determine what's "silly" without actually investigating things? I
feel like that's analogous to solving the halting problem -- you are claiming
to know whether an avenue of research will be fruitful without actually
pursuing it.

As far as I can see the same establishment skeptical science that no longer
takes psi seriously also no longer takes any hopeful, visionary vision of the
future seriously. Space colonization? Life extension? _Really_ solving our
socioeconomic problems? Meh. Hell, a huge chunk of this crowd thinks that
industrial civilization itself is doomed to collapse because we've already
discovered all potential sources of energy and none of them are sustainable.
To these guys even suggesting visionary futures that are wholly within known
physics and even known technology is too "woo woo" for them if it involves
steps that have not already been taken.

This isn't scientific. It's rebranded medieval scholasticism with already-
known scientific theory taking the place of Vatican dogma.

I'll take my psi-researching acid-dropping 50s-70s woo-woo nuts over today's
boring hidebound curmudgeons any day.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _I 'll take my psi-researching acid-dropping 50s-70s woo-woo nuts over
> today's boring hidebound curmudgeons any day._

Walter Bishop comes to mind...

I agree with your sentiment. The atmosphere of skepticism went into overdrive
now. It seems as if a lot of otherwise smart people don't expect anything else
than incremental improvements for profit of what is already here. And it's as
if people lost hope. Hard problems are hard, be it living on another planet,
slaughtering Moloch or conquering death - but they all are in the realms of
scientific possibility, and I wish more people would be enthusiastic about
pursuing them.

~~~
api
Skepticism was a reaction mostly against the excesses of new age mysticism and
later religious fundamentalism. Those were also huge parts of the 70s
intellectual meltdown. Now that both those movements seem on the wane,
dogmatic skepticism can join them. Maybe we can finally be rid of the entire
post-70s zeitgeist. Then we'll dream again.

------
api
We want G-rated curiosity. We want the benefits of creativity and invention,
but without the naughty bits.

Newton practiced alchemy, occultism, and religious heresy. Thomas Edison
researched the use of electromagnetic fields to communicate with the dead.
Francis Crick claims that LSD played a role in the discovery of the structure
of the DNA molecule. Jack Parsons, an early pioneer in solid rocketry and co-
founder of NASA's JPL, was a practicing occultist and student of Alister
Crowley. Robert Bigelow, founder of Bigelow Aerospace, has bankrolled
investigations into the paranormal (Google 'NIDS') and claims that a UFO
sighting inspired him to found an aerospace company. Burning Man is
practically a Silicon Valley networking event.

Is some of that stuff silly? Sure. But invention is a product of feral minds.
If a truly questing mind wants to go there, it's gonna go there and your
religious or skeptical-scientific reservations are not going to dissuade it.

I suspect there are many more heretics we don't know about, especially among
the non-tenured or not-yet-tenured in academia. Even with tenure, espousing
really wild beliefs or asking really out there questions can get you hoisted
up on a rail. In the private sector there's a bit of a bias too-- I'm sure
many executives or entrepreneurs might feel wary of espousing out-there or
unconventional beliefs for fear it might impact their ability to win customers
or raise capital.

------
budu3
If his manuscripts were labeled "not fit to be published" then why are the
Univ. of Sussex and Indiana Univ. going out of their way to publish Newton's
work in Alchemy. Wouldn't this be against his wishes.

~~~
jessaustin
The living owe nothing to the dead.

~~~
knodi123
The motto of grave robbers

~~~
jessaustin
...and historians, and anyone who has ever devoted a moment's thought to the
question.

------
kryptiskt
> by Hooke

Figures

