PDA

View Full Version : One Matter - One Vessel - One Fire



Pages : [1] 2

Andro
02-04-2010, 10:51 AM
Now that the cat is slowly crawling out of the bag...

I want this to be a special thread, so everyone please lend a hand to make and keep it so...

This is a PRACTICAL thread, related to the most simple and Universal of all Works: One Matter - One Vessel - One Fire.

This is about the Practice by which the Stone may be had by anyone with a good understanding of nature, at close to zero expenses and with barely any need to put your hands to it. No complicated devices or technical/chemical skills required!

I have a few simple requests for posting on this thread:

* Please ONLY post here if you (not someone you know or heard of) are physically performing (or have performed in the past or are currently preparing to perform) this most simple and Universal of all Works, as described in the thread title.

* NO philosophical debates and quarreling over opinions and interpretations. Let's make this about sharing, not fighting... so don't post here if you have a problem with diversity. We all have a common goal, and we're dreaming this together.

* NO quoting of any writings other than your own, with the exception of quotes being plainly and directly related to the aforementioned practical Work.
If the relation is not plainly and readily clear, then please explain/clarify it yourself.

* If you desire to present a certain abstract concept, you must CLEARLY explain how it is directly related to your pactical work. Don't leave it hanging!

* Everything you post here MUST be based on your own practical experience. Not anyone else's! If you're not actually doing this Work, then please don't post here!

* Simple and easily intelligible posts, written in plain English. No parables, riddles or cryptic messages, please!

* NO preaching, NO book/allegory/myth/bible thumping please!

Examples of topics to be discussed here:

The nature of the First Matter(s) and how/where it is to be obtained at its fullest potency.

The nature of the preliminary preparations of the Matter.

The nature/material/shape of the Vessel, and how it is to be most efficiently sealed.

The nature of the External Fire which moves the Internal one, and how it is best attracted/focused/concentrated.

The stages you have observed your Matter to go through in your Vessel.

Please remember that noone is asking anyone to reveal more than they are comfortable to...

Mr. Solomon Levi / Moderators - your help in keeping this thread's integrity will be greatly appreciated.
If this thread turns out to be a failure, I'd rather have it deleted than having it miss its purpose. I hope you understand...

Let's see where it goes from here...

Andro
02-05-2010, 11:08 AM
OK, no response yet, so I'll go first :)

I have (so far) worked with four different Matters in the same way.

The Matters are Dew, Urine, Sweat and Saliva.

When put to the fire in their proper vessel, they all behaved in a similar way, by eventually separating into a white section and a red section all by themselves.

However, they all putrefied differently before being put to the fire, since two of the Matters turned completely black at the end of putrefaction, whereas putrefying the other two Matters resulted in lighter shades.

Here, there's a starter.

Come on, bring out your aphorisms!
Unless you think it's still too early to thread this path :eek: ...

LeoRetilus
02-05-2010, 11:45 AM
OK, no response yet, so I'll go first :)

I've worked with four different Matters in the same way.

The Matters are Dew, Urine, Sweat and Saliva.

When put to the fire in their proper vessel, they all behaved in a similar way, by eventually separating into a white section and a red section all by themselves.

However, they all putrefied differently before being put to the fire, since two of the Matters turned completely black at the end of putrefaction, whereas putrefying the other two Matters resulted in lighter shades.

Here, there's a starter.

Come on, bring out your aphorisms!
Unless you think it's still too early to thread this path :eek: ...


I have often contemplated using sweat and tears since they are both salty and I sense them to be quite useful. As well as anything of a human origin that contains our DNA as I beleive this is where the hidden light of man resides. I've often thought about burning my hair as well, since there seems to be some highly alchemical associations with it in the bible...the story of Samson and Delilah comes to mind, plus I read the other day that they are finding a high degree of mercury (vulgar) in peoples hair especially in white/grey hair.

But as for the theme of your thread here..no offense to you or anybody else personally, you know I have the utmost respect for you, but I'm sorry I just don't see the need to try to conform to a particular dogma, such as the one fire, one flask, one matter hooplah, bruhaha. The notion that a "real" alchemist does it this way alone is absurd to me, Geber was a real alchemist and he invented practical lab alchemy and a great deal of the body of modern chemistry in the process all for the purpose of making alchemy more accessible to people who didn't live close enough to the prima materias that other alchemists might have been talking about that could be utilized/achieved with the one fire one pot bs, really this notion is stone aged to me and we should abandon this idea for the same reason .....to make alchemy more accessible. Plus what Geber did by showing us that the three principals can indeed be had from all matters, and illustrating the four elements in the process through lab work: dissolution, putrefaction, circulation, calcination, etc..etc..is what makes the art of alchemy into a science, which is what is absolutely mandatory in this day and age. I hope I haven't sullied your aim much , Sol feel free to erase this post if what Androgynus had in mind develops.

Andro
02-05-2010, 11:55 AM
Leo, I absolutely agree with you on the uselessness of being dogmatic :)

And the respect is absolutely mutual :)

But this thread is one of many, after all... That's what diversity is all about...
And I never said this is 'The Way' or that this is how 'Real Alchemists' do it... Someone else may have said/implied that in other threads, but not me.
Like I said before, there are many ways to rectify a cat :D


one fire one pot bs

Here's where I disagree... It's not bs in my experience.


I've often thought about burning my hair

And how right you would be! Dry distillation of hair can be brought to manifest the 'Virgin Milk' containing the spirit and volatile salts able to dissolve gold into an oil...
I am currently using a very powerful and rejuvenating elixir made by dry distillation :)


The three principals can indeed be had from all matters.

True and without doubt!!!

But my purpose here is to focus on just one approach out of many, NOT to invalidate all the others. The last thing I am is dogmatic. I am placing focus on this approach right now because I personally believe it can make rewarding results accesssible even to the least technically/scientifically inclined. I myself am personally also working on other paths, which are by the way much inspired by your posts and the correspondence with you ;)


[...] a different or more modern angle to consider some of the alchemical processes that we have been reading about lately. And maybe this will lead to more work with dew and more specifically extracting the mercury principal from where it originates, the air or in my opinion, the aether(vacuum).

Altogether quite similar to the approach I am presenting here: It does, indeed, originate in the Aether, it's parented into our realm by the Sun and the Moon, it's carried and further concentrated by the atmosphere (air) and even further concentrated in our Vessel by Art. So our methods may differ, but I see no disagreement of principles whatsoever :)


[...] you'd be doing yourself a great service by reading this entire page and following all the links, especially this one:Air Trap (http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/airtrap.htm)

From the above link and in light of my own results posted above, the following text speaks for itself:

"The Philosopher's Stone [...] is a process of evolution through death and rebirth brought about by the captured Mercury. It is clearly described as being NOT available to simply pick up off the ground or extract as ready-made Philosophers Stone. The Mercury in the air, (read Life), when bonded to a matter gives a 'philosophical vitriol', a salt of unusual physico-chemical properties. This is digested and it separates into a red and white 'Mercury' - as oils, and a solid. These in union gave rise to the evolutionary process described by so many alchemists. In fact it is the manipulation of the white and red that is the beginning of most tracts. They assume you already have these."


The point is that these substances are the same, they haven't changed their nature since the beginning of time, the only thing that has changed is humans, they come and go, and call things by different names.

AND use different ways to manifest them.


But in my experience if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then most likely it's a duck.

It most certainly is! Quack! Quack! Quack! :D


Sol feel free to erase this post if what Androgynus had in mind develops.

I see no need to erase this post. It's an important one. I'd rather have the friction and differences naturally iron themselves out, before this thread - hopefully - starts to generate its own spin and gradually comes closer to the heart of the matter it was intended for.

Ghislain
02-05-2010, 12:34 PM
I have been working with dew, saliva and water from the Ganges but used them
all in the sea salt method as described by ***.


The process name

I think this is where it all went wrong as none of these flasks went into any black
stage.

I may start over without the salt.

Ghislain

Salazius
02-05-2010, 12:57 PM
Hi Androgynus,

The 'one fire, one flask, one matter' idea is very interesting. In my knowledge I know only one process where we put one matter in one vessel and we apply one fire, until when could reach the end of the process. But saying that there is only one fire ... no, there is the vulgar fire, the philosophical fire, the secret fire, the fire of reaction in the matter ...
And often, you need several flasks, several manipulations and often several kind of matters to make "one matter".

memphis_mizraim
02-05-2010, 01:05 PM
I have worked with the GW but never managed to get the alkahest dissolve the Gold.
I seem to be missing some key. Everyone on here seems to have completed this or have they?

Andro
02-05-2010, 01:20 PM
I seem to be missing some key.

I designed this thread with the hope that all the neccessary keys for this simple work will be gradually revealed here :)

I'm also aware that pictures can't really prove anything - but I do however intend to post some here, when I feel the time is right for me to do so.

I'm aware this can be quite a challenge for those who are more experienced in this Art - walking the fine line between gentle guidance and spoonfeeding major revelations to the recipe hunters lurking out there. And I'm not refering to this thread alone...

Andro
02-05-2010, 01:28 PM
The 'one fire, one flask, one matter' idea is very interesting.

I know :)


In my knowledge I know only one process where we put one matter in one vessel and we apply one fire, until when could reach the end of the process.

And please feel free to share as much as you are comfortable to about this, so those who are ready will be able to discern...


But saying that there is only one fire ... no, there is the vulgar fire, the philosophical fire, the secret fire, the fire of reaction in the matter ...

Please consider the concept of there being only one fire that manifests in the different ways/names that you mentioned, as it passes through its various incarnations.


And often, you need several flasks, several manipulations and often several kind of matters to make "one matter".

Indeed, there are many such working processes, but they are not the ones I am focusing on in this thread.

I myself am very NOT technically inclined, so my desire for simplicity has evolved out of the neccessity to succeed in spite of my being relatively technically challenged :)

And thank you very much for your contribution(s), I was already starting to lose hope with this thread :)

solomon levi
02-06-2010, 12:44 AM
I only have experience with gw and I haven't gone too far with that.
The only white and red I'm aware of are the ammoniacal/nitrous salts
(which can be white or reddish - the red I achieved but not following the
1 matter rule) and the thick, oily coagulated gw by evaporation.
Does one vessel imply that distillation is not allowed?

What are the red and white of gw in your experience Androgynus?

Ghislain
02-06-2010, 02:51 AM
I have a demijohn 3/4 full of putrefied GW. The 1/4 I reduced over heat to see what I would get...never again...the smell was awful.
Well never say never...I kept looking at it sitting there and thought, "what would happen if I added sugar and yeast". So that’s what I did...
I have a bubble trap on it and I threw in a couple of spoons of KNO3 for good measure.

There is very little logic in this, but it may be interesting.

Ghislain

Edit: There was a tiny bit of logic in the KNO3 as people have stated in the past that a high potassium diet before collecting GW is good.

Andro
02-06-2010, 09:47 AM
The first step (after collection) is putrefaction and afterwards physically getting rid of what the Matter has already expelled/dropped by itself as non-homogenous.
Ab Roek's words come in handy here:


Putrefaction occurs in order to separate and purify. That which truly belongs together, cannot be broken by putrefaction.

After the Matter has gone to the bathroom for Number Two, it is put to the Fire.


Does one vessel imply that distillation is not allowed?

If by distillation you mean a separate retort and receiver, then the answer is no, this kind of split distillation is not needed for this path. One Vessel only :)

In the Vessel I've designed, the internal Mercury circulates inside the Vessel vertically and the external Mercury circulates through the Vessel horizontally. Like in my attic :)
However, the more subtle parts of the external Mercury also penetrate the glass walls of the Vessel from all sides, and they are further concentrated therein by Nature and Art.
It's way more simple than it sounds... And there can be many different designs able to perform the same functions exactly.

By very slow and controlled simultaneous circulation and coagulation by Art in the same vessel and fire, a White starts to slowly manifest by itself within the red-brownish, which red-brownish also starts growing more towards dark Red. This (in my case) happened much slower with GW than with Dew, for example...

Care must be taken in the temperature department, so that nothing of essence permanently sublimes.

Each matter that I've subjected to this process behaved slightly differently than the others, but ultimately resulted in the manifestation of the Red and the White.


What are the red and white of gw in your experience Androgynus?

I would say that the White are the (niterous) salts and the Red are the oils (sulphurs), but their initial separation in the vessel is not performed by hands, but rather occurs on its own, by gentle and natural 'cooking', mediated by the Mercury from within and from without. Quite fascinating to observe...

From all the Matters I used, rich fat Dew was the most 'compliant', but the others performed as well, with Saliva coming in second...

It's not easy to collect the Matter in a good saturated state. With Dew, there are seasons, astrological and environmental conditions to be observed. With Microcosmic Matters it's even more complex, because there are also dietary factors in play. For good reason it is often advised to collect micros from healthy young men, so the life force is in full power and concentration. But even if you're older, if you've converted/sublimed the life force of youth into wisdom and extasy, you won't go wrong :)

All and all, the process itself is quite easy (although not fast), but one must have high quality starting material to work with.

After that, it's simply a matter of Solve & Coagula, until the matter reaches its desired fixed and unified state. It may also be necessary to go through a few cycles of Solve & Coagula before the White and the Red become separately manifest, and further cycles for them to unite.

I would also love to experiment with condensed vapors from a cave or a mine, or any sort of good quality condensed Air, for that matter...

Andro
02-06-2010, 01:12 PM
Ghislain,

If you want your GW to contain some extra ingredients, add them to your diet, not to the GW directly.
Potassium and Magnesium are excellent, as well as the foods (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?p=5403#post5403) outlined by Leo in the 'Success' thread.

Rueb
02-07-2010, 01:24 PM
I only have experience with gw and I haven't gone too far with that.
The only white and red I'm aware of are the ammoniacal/nitrous salts
(which can be white or reddish - the red I achieved but not following the
1 matter rule) and the thick, oily coagulated gw by evaporation.
Does one vessel imply that distillation is not allowed?

Hello,

actually by using liquid ammonia you used a chemical very close to our matter.
The spirit of GW is just that and much more. Of course this requires distillation.

Anyway I think through distillation the rule of one vessel isnt broken, but more advanced. Distillation is a simple way in this path to get rid of the excess phlegm without evaporating off our spirit.

It should be possible to do that in one vessel if you simply evaporate off the phlegm before putrefying it however I havent confirmed that by myself yet.

Rueb

Andro
02-07-2010, 02:50 PM
Anyway I think through distillation the rule of one vessel isnt broken, but more advanced.

It's not a rule, only an speciffic approach :)
And in this speciffic approach, distillation is not required at all, let alone more advanced.

Distillation is a wonderful tool, but it's absolutely not required (but rather even counterindicated) in the method I'm trying to focus on here...


Distillation is a simple way in this path to get rid of the excess phlegm without evaporating off our spirit.

I believe you're refering to the liquid alkahest/circulatum methods, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
There are plenty of other threads and posts focusing on the liquid alkahest/circulatum.

In the '1/1/1' approach, the principles are eventually coagulated into one uniform, non-liquid mass.


It should be possible to do that in one vessel if you simply evaporate off the phlegm before putrefying it however I havent confirmed that by myself yet.

Both Head (Phlegm) and Tail (Feces) are cast off by the matter during putrefaction without any special interference, if the nature and the placement of the Vessel are in agreement with its purpose. But on the other hand, I see no problem with the variation of evaporating some phlegm before putting the Matter to putrefy. I didn't do it, but it doesn't mean it's not a valid variation.

Maybe it's more tightly knit
If you spit before you shit

:)

Rueb
02-09-2010, 03:42 PM
Both Head (Phlegm) and Tail (Feces) are cast off by the matter during putrefaction without any special interference, if the nature and the placement of the Vessel are in agreement with its purpose. But on the other hand, I see no problem with the variation of evaporating some phlegm before putting the Matter to putrefy. I didn't do it, but it doesn't mean it's not a valid variation.

Maybe it's more tightly knit
If you spit before you shit

:)

Head (Phlegm): Beheading, volatile principle
Tail (Feces): salamander, fixed principle

Quite far fetched however it struck my mind immediately.

Andro
02-09-2010, 04:00 PM
Head (Phlegm): Beheading, volatile principle
Tail (Feces): salamander, fixed principle

Quite far fetched however it struck my mind immediately.

You're right in that the matter casts off/rejects both fixed and volatile parts during putrefaction, but only the superfluous ones.

After putrefaction and separation of the superfluous, the homogenized starting matter still contains both fixed and volatile principles, but only the ones which are essential to complete the Work.

As for beheading and betailing - that's because it's the homogenous trunk/body we're after.

Rueb
02-09-2010, 06:09 PM
The matter is supposed to come from one source but in order to strengthen it, it has to be introduced to the metallic kingdom and multiplied. So I am a bit lost on this specific path.

Andro
02-09-2010, 07:11 PM
The matter is supposed to come from one source but in order to strengthen it, it has to be introduced to the metallic kingdom and multiplied. So I am a bit lost on this specific path.

For now, this thread is meant to focus on making an Universal Ferment/Alkahest - but after it's completed, it can be introduced into any of the three kingdoms.

No need to feel lost - let's just take things one step at the time :)

Rueb
02-09-2010, 08:19 PM
Ok our matter put into a big glass vase covered with a porous (earthen) lid best at body temperature (but not above 40 to 50°C), wait a few months ...

hmm... impurities... it has to be decanted at some point...
...maybe even less heat, simply put outside to evaporate through the earthen lid, during spring or autumn, when it doesnt freeze but it gets cold enough for crystals to sprout and warm enough for the phlegm to evaporate...

ok, restart
we take our fresh matter put it an earthen, porous (unglazed) vessel, sealed. Put it outside in the spring (may) or autumn (september), for 1 month.
decant the solution during a warm day (25+°C) after 2 weeks and keep the decanted solution.
after another 2 weeks the solution hopefully evaporated slowly enough that you will find sprouted crystals.

Rueb

Andro
02-10-2010, 11:53 PM
Mr. Rueb,

Some interesting ideas and connections there, but:

These conjectures are insufficient to make our Magnets fat, heavy and saturated with the First Matter (Corporified Light) which is the key to this whole Work.

Our Magnets can be of of various grades, depending on the chosen materials and on the conditions of their birth, and they already contain the First Matter within themselves.
However, they only have barely enough of this Corporified Fire to perform the vulgar functions of the 'common' cycles, and are therefore in need of constant replenishment.

Our Magnets need to cast off all superfluities, so they are most naturally attractive and conductive to become fat and heavy and most saturated with our First Matter.
In this regard, some Magnets are better than others, in that they contain more Corporified Light to start with.
The more they have of it in the first place, the better and the sooner they attract more of it.

And when our Matter is fat and heavy and satiated with this Corporified Fire, it will be truly married with itself and will also stand the test of common fire/heat.
(By flowing like wax on a hot plate without fuming, for example... I use a copper plate with a candle underneath for this test, but some texts recommend silver...)

So, I would suggest to take things one step at the time, and not jump straight ahead to formulas and recipes...

As a matter of fact, I am personally against posting formulas and recipes, because without truly understanding the work from within, the recipes would most likely fail.
I would rather use this thread for building, gathering and sharing insights that will help those who's eyes are open to create their own processes/variations.

Please keep in mind that even if 'All Roads Lead To Rome', the roads can still be different and diverse, but nevertheless lead to the same place eventually.

Therefore, I'd like this to be a joint effort in understanding and creativity, so everyone can taylor their own path through the insights gained here.

So why don't we start by talking a bit about putrefaction...

What are we trying to achieve through putrefaction?
What is putrefaction, and what causes it?
Why is it such a neccessary stage in our Work?

We know that one of the most efficient ways to make something rot/putrefy is to leave it ouside in the open, exposed to the sun and the air.
But then our matter would be lost by evaporation...

Then again, leaving our matter in a vacuum sealed vessel is not very likely to produce the rotting/putrefying results we're after...
Vacuum is rather preserving, and we don't want that...

So how are we to properly putrefy our Matter without losing or spoiling it?

Let's start with these questions, and move on from there...

solomon levi
02-13-2010, 09:59 AM
"So how are we to properly putrefy our Matter without losing or spoiling it?

Let's start with these questions, and move on from there..."


Naturally, we are not allowed to add anything to catalyse the putrefaction
in your methods, correct?


Putrefaction occurs in sealed containers. I putrefy my urine in wine bottles
indoors all the time. Remember something in the GW thread about when
air is allowed we get more nitrates and when not allowed we get more ammonia, I think it said.

Andro
02-13-2010, 12:49 PM
Naturally, we are not allowed to add anything to catalyse the putrefaction in your methods, correct?

Not anything that isn't already being provided by and through our Matter, Vessel and Fire.


Putrefaction occurs in sealed containers.

There is more than one way to seal a container. Mr. Rueb posted some interesting ideas. Some texts recommend to putrefy in wooden barrels with access to Air/wind.
Bacstrom's Oak Stoppers also come to mind:


The globe glass is immediately to be shut with a stopper made of oak, which fits nicely, in order that the superfluous remaining humidity (the phlegm) may, during the putrefaction, penetrate and evaporate through the pores of the oak.

Also, regardless of how I seal my vessel, I never fill it more than 1/3, to allow for enough space/Air (medium, feedback, communication) for the Matter to negotiate with itself which parts to keep and which parts to reject as superfluous.


When air is allowed we get more nitrates and when not allowed we get more ammonia.

Have you found one to be more desirable than the other?

Is there a middle way?

solomon levi
02-13-2010, 01:27 PM
Have you found one to be more desirable than the other?


No, but I haven't researched the nitre side as much as the ammoniac salts,
so I can't say. From what I've done myself so far, I find the ammoniac salts
very useful - ability to carry spiritual part of metals over the helm; ability
to make strong menstruums/alkahests - KM, etc.
I simply don't know how to use the nitre salts due to lack of study in this area. I'll have to remedy that.



Is there a middle way?

Ammonium nitrate?
Maybe mix the two together??

Ghislain
02-13-2010, 01:40 PM
Mr. Rueb,

leaving our matter in a vacuum sealed vessel is not very likely to produce the rotting/putrefying results we're after...
Vacuum is rather preserving, and we don't want that...

So how are we to properly putrefy our Matter without losing or spoiling it?



Just recently while putrefying GW I put one of those fluid traps on top to allow it to breath...not sure if that was good or bad.

Ghislain

Ghislain
02-13-2010, 01:46 PM
Ammonium nitrate?
Maybe mix the two together??

I just read a post on mixing ammonium nitrate and sal ammoniac
to make aqua regia... I lose track of where I read these things:confused:

Ghislain

solomon levi
02-13-2010, 01:53 PM
I just read a post on mixing ammonium nitrate and sal ammoniac
to make aqua regia... I lose track of where I read these things:confused:

Ghislain


If you do this, be aware of the possibility of precipitating a fulminating gold
since there is plenty of ammonia.

I'm not saying avoid it. It's possible that fulminating gold is a key to the work.
I'm just saying be careful.

Ghislain
02-13-2010, 02:13 PM
Thanks Sol'

I will keep that in mind. Thankfully I don't have that much gold
to do a lot of damage. ;)

Ghislain

Andro
02-13-2010, 03:19 PM
Just recently while putrefying GW I put one of those fluid traps on top to allow it to breath...not sure if that was good or bad.

What are those fluid traps?

Anyway, I think it's a very good idea to allow the matter to breath a little during putrefaction.
It remains up to the individual researcher to devise the most adequate means of achieving this...

Ghislain
02-13-2010, 10:18 PM
I am not conversant with wine making Androgynus
but it is the little u'bend trap one puts on the demijohn
while the wine ferments...it allows vapours out but
stops impurities getting into it.

Ghislain

horticult
02-14-2010, 12:43 PM
I am afraid this device is 1 way device for fermentation, so it will allow nothing to go inside.

Andro
02-14-2010, 01:15 PM
The various vessels I've assembled for my main works are all two-way devices to some extent.

Andro
02-27-2010, 01:14 PM
Harvesting season is nearing...

The next Full Moon (in Virgo) occurs on February 28. Afterwards, we have the Libra Full Moon at the very end of March (29 or 30, depending where you're located).
Then we have the most powerful Scorpio Full Moon (usually associated with the month of May) that occurs this year on April 28.
And the latest would be May 27-27 (Full Moon in Sagittarius).

I would recommend the Scorpio Full Moon season for the best collections, although I've had excellent collections from February to May.

If you plan on collecting Dew, make sure it's fat and stinky :D
Clear and light Dew is not a very good candidate...

If you plan to work with body fluids that take longer to collect (like saliva or semen) - I suggest you already start now, so you have enough by the end of May.
In any case, make sure you go easy on table salt and also follow some dietary guidelines posted somewhere else on this forum.

Have in readiness your putrefaction vessels. The vessels must leave enough space and Air for the matter to circulate and converse/negotiate with itself.

If your putrefaction Vessel is completely airtight (which I don't recommend), you should at least open it once or twice a day to allow some new Air to enter.

Access to Air is far more important than direct exposure to the luminaries.
Whatever it is that the Sun and the Moon radiate - It will be carried in the Air/Wind.


"The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind
The answer is blowing in the wind."

Putrefy at body temperature, or at least don't go too much above that. Be gentle with your matters!

Proper putrefaction will turn the matter(s) quite dark-hued, and in some cases very close to black.
Don't get hung up on various time frames for putrefaction - just feel when it's ready.

If anyone is intending to actually perform this '1/1/1' process, please let me know and also share your experiences and ideas.
I'd hate to waste time sharing my experience if noone is going to participate in this project....

Good luck!

Andro
02-27-2010, 03:03 PM
And another variation for the most purist among you:

If the design and placement of your Vessel are in agreement with its purpose, you will have no need to manually collect any starting material whatsoever...

The Vessel by itself will be the Magnet for the Mercurial Fire, which will form/condense/collect/become corporified by itself in your Vessel and it will go through the stages/cycles without any inteference on your part.

It will, however, take quite some time :)

theFool
02-27-2010, 08:16 PM
Then again, leaving our matter in a vacuum sealed vessel is not very likely to produce the rotting/putrefying results we're after...
Vacuum is rather preserving, and we don't want that...

So how are we to properly putrefy our Matter without losing or spoiling it?

Let's start with these questions, and move on from there...
I have some experience in putrefying matter as many procedures require putrefaction first. About GW, with which I have worked a lot, I use closed but not airtight vessels. Usually I let the lid slightly open or use vessels with a small hole.Then I let te GW on a heat radiator until it becomes black colored. If one uses open vessel, the matter evaporates too much, it doesn't become black. In a tightly closed vessel (like bottle) I have not observed the blackening of the matter up to now. Then I usually continue with distillation.
I find the 1/1/1 approach kind of ambitious, somehow phlegm or feces must be removed in order for the operation to continue.

Some other materials I tried to putrefact are saliva, dew+salt, K2CO3 delequiem and CaNO3 delequiem.

Saliva was put in an airtight closed vessel and then in digestor --> no blackening at all, only a white sediment.
Dew+salt in an airtight vessel gave no blackening. But when I tried repeated distillations (cohobation) it turned black quickly and gave a magnetic brown-green sediment.
The delequiems, gave a brown spongy sediment when digested in airtight vessel, no blackenng.

I have not thought of the differences between aitight and 'breathing' vessel until I read this post. The conditions of putrefaction seem to be important in order to get to black stage or the matter doesn't reach there.


If anyone is intending to actually perform this '1/1/1' process, please let me know and also share your experiences and ideas.
I'd hate to waste time sharing my experience if noone is going to participate in this project....

It is very important to do sth together as a group but I dont think I can participate. Main reason is the smells involved. I'm in an appartment and no longer have my lab close to me. Saliva and GW stinks and dew is difficult to collect in city with no equipment. Anyway, if I change my mind or find a solution till May I'll let you know.

Andro
02-27-2010, 08:45 PM
I have some experience in putrefying matter as many procedures require putrefaction first. About GW, with which I have worked a lot, I use closed but not airtight vessels. Usually I let the lid slightly open or use vessels with a small hole.Then I let te GW on a heat radiator until it becomes black colored. If one uses open vessel, the matter evaporates too much, it doesn't become black. In a tightly closed vessel (like bottle) I have not observed the blackening of the matter up to now.

What you described above is absolutely true (reflected) in my own experience - and your input to this effort is MUCH appreciated!

Thank you!


I find the 1/1/1 approach kind of ambitious, somehow phlegm or feces must be removed in order for the operation to continue.

The putrefied matter needs to be decanted/filtered off its phlegm and feces before operations continue.
The remaining homogenous matter is put in the 'cooking' vessel.


Saliva was put in an airtight closed vessel and then in digestor --> no blackening at all, only a white sediment.

That's because the vessel was airtight :)


Dew+salt in an airtight vessel gave no blackening. But when I tried repeated distillations (cohobation) it turned black quickly and gave a magnetic brown-green sediment. The delequiems, gave a brown spongy sediment when digested in airtight vessel, no blackening.

I haven't done any work with combined Dew and Salt, so I can't really comment on that.
Neither have I worked with delequiems, except for some Ens experiments years ago.

I can only share what I have verified through my own experience :)


I have not thought of the differences between airtight and 'breathing' vessel until I read this post. The conditions of putrefaction seem to be important in order to get to black stage or the matter doesn't reach there.

Absolutely :)


It is very important to do this together as a group but I dont think I can participate. Main reason is the smells involved. I'm in an appartment and no longer have my lab close to me. Saliva and GW stinks and dew is difficult to collect in city with no equipment. Anyway, if I change my mind or find a solution till May I'll let you know.

I very much agree that this should be a group effort.

About the city location and the smells - I'll PM you within the next days, and I'm sure we'll find a way to get around this (if you wish).

I truly understand the issue. I myself have moved to a remote countryside location almost two years ago, for the purpose of dedicating myself to what matters most to me, without unneccessary distractions or prying eyes :)

Again, thank you very much for your input here - it really means a lot to me.

theFool
02-28-2010, 03:26 PM
What you described above is absolutely true (reflected) in my own experience - and your input to this effort is MUCH appreciated!

Thank you!

Glad I helped.
I wouldn't have realised the importance of putrefaction vessel if it wasn't for this thread (even if I've tried to putrefact matter a lot of times).

The putrefied matter needs to be decanted/filtered off its phlegm and feces before operations continue.
The remaining homogenous matter is put in the 'cooking' vessel.

Yes. You mention this earlier also ("physicaly separated") but I haven't noticed it.



Saliva was put in an airtight closed vessel and then in digestor --> no blackening at all, only a white sediment.
That's because the vessel was airtight

This is interesting thing to test. I have tried saliva in airtight vessel, I could make now this experiment with saliva in a losely closed vessel to observe differences.

So, let it be, I will follow the '1/1/1' method with saliva, according to Androgynous guidance.


About the city location and the smells - I'll PM you within the next days, and I'm sure we'll find a way to get around this (if you wish).

I truly understand the issue. I myself have moved to a remote countryside location almost two years ago, for the purpose of dedicating myself to what matters most to me, without unneccessary distractions or prying eyes

It is more a matter of motivation and determination, to be honest. Now that I have decided to participate, I am sure I will overcome those 'city' problems. About the practical ones (like odor, digestor), I will address them when they appear, I am technically inclined and I will also ask for specific advices. Maybe the most difficult to overcome is distraction, hehe. Those experiments require introvert attitude and need of a private space.

Andro
03-01-2010, 09:44 AM
I will follow the '1/1/1' method with saliva.

Thank you for chosing to participate!

As I said before, I envision this as a group effort.
I hope that more members of this forum will join in and announce their participation and willingness to share their progress and insights.

If this doesn't happen, this effort will sadly die out (publicly) and continue to live in more private 1x1 communications - but this is NOT my intention.

I wouldn't have started this thread if I hadn't experienced first hand what this approach/process can lead to.
I know many people out there are tired of countless processes that don't work, and may have lost their drive and motivation to try out something new.

I also realize that some of you expect some sort of 'proof' before you actually start getting your hands dirty.
I'm sorry, but this is not how I perceive our Art to work.
You'll only know by looking back - but this shouldn't stop you from dreaming ahead...

Last night I was talking with a friend in the Art, and he said that what's needed are simple processes and a lot of patience.
This reflects my personal view as well.

One major key that's missing (or veiled) in most Alchemical literature is the importance to supersaturate our Matter(s)/Magnet(s) with Our Mercurial Fire, up to the point where the Matter has itself become Corporified Fire and can not absorb anymore of it from outside. This is why our Magnets must be so attractive and have the least possible non-homogenous superfluities :).

It is also my opinion that most processes don't work out as expected because they're missing the major key mentioned above.

We'll have to wait and see where this is going...

theFool
03-01-2010, 05:01 PM
Thank you for chosing to participate!

As I said before, I envision this as a group effort.
I hope that more members of this forum will join in and announce their participation and willingness to share their progress and insights.

If this doesn't happen, this effort will sadly die out (publicly) and continue to live in more private 1x1 communications - but this is NOT my intention.

I wouldn't have started this thread if I hadn't experienced first hand what this approach/process can lead to.
I know many people out there are tired of countless processes that don't work, and may have lost their drive and motivation to try out something new.

I also realize that some of you expect some sort of 'proof' before you actually start getting your hands dirty.

I participate mainly for the following reasons:

- It is a group effort. We can support each other and double check our results.

- The process is simple enough (from materials viewpoint) to be followed (eg, no need for distillation).

- The process of putrefaction is mentioned in many alchemical works. We must answer questions like "does it always lead to a black stage for different materials?" or "what are the proper conditions?". How many times have you tried recipes where you putrefact mater (wine, dew+salt, GW, ...) and never reach to a result? Have you ever thought that we don't know what proper putrefaction means maybe?
We need to master the first step before moving on.

- As for the proof mentioned by Androgynous, after many failures, I have learnt not to expect any final result from my work. I do it for the experience and if I'm lucky to reach the final result, then, oh well I wouldn't say no! If someone follows the recipe in order only to obtain the final result, then, probably he will lose many months working in vain. Even if I don't reach to the end, I will do some useful observations on putrefaction.


Last night I was talking with a friend in the Art, and he said that what's needed are simple processes and a lot of patience.
This reflects my personal view as well.

Sometimes I see the work we have to do as the hatching of an egg. We maintain the proper conditions steady, for a long time, and nature does the work.

Good luck to everyone in his endeavours. Now lets spit, piss, collect dew and ..(oh, you know).. lol. So sarcastic, hehe :D

Aleilius
03-01-2010, 05:04 PM
Hi Androgynous, I am confounded, but certainly "dew, urine, sweat, and salt" isn't one matter. This appears to be four matters!

Certainly, the Stone is one matter, composed of three principles, and the four elements. The prima materia is a single matter, composed of three principles, and contains the four elements. It is not able to become the Stone because of its crude nature. This is where nature halts, and the work of the alchemist begins. In the alchemist lies the redemption, and perfection of this matter.

Andro
03-02-2010, 11:48 AM
Hi, and nice to see you return! I joined after you had already left, but I've read many of your contributions here :)


I am confounded, but certainly "dew, urine, sweat, and salt" isn't one matter. This appears to be four matters!

It really is one matter, and all the magnets/starting materials you (and I) mention contain it and attract it according to their internal coherence (brought upon by casting off superfluities during putrefaction).

The magnets mentioned above are probably the best and easiest to work with, but in fact you might just as well use distilled water or even an empty vessel (properly designed).

The One Matter I refer to is the Mercurial Fire parented into our realm by the Sun and the Moon, and carried by the Air/Wind in accord with the natural cycles of night and day.
Our 'one' starting matter/magnet of choice is an earthly and unrefined reflection of the Universal 'One Matter' of our relm.

All our possible starting matters/magnets contain this Mercurial Fire and attract it. Once the physical magnet/matter is first made attractive and homogenous, it must be naturally supersaturated with the Mercurial Fire until it becomes by itself Corporified Fire.

Only then will it stand the test of common fire and will be the key to overcome, quicken and penetrate gross and subtle alike.

I hope I've answered your question :)

Andro
03-02-2010, 02:57 PM
Here's a possible point of interest, maybe even a teaser of sorts...

One of my best Dew collections (from one of last spring's Full Moons) turned completely black after proper putrefaction. Afterwards, when put to the 'fire', it first turned green (a stage I believe to be mentioned in many Alchemical texts) and then, after going through a few more color variations (dark yellow/orange/light brownish) gradually changed towards a darker red. After more time had passed, a White material (Salt?) started to emerge from the dark Red.

Of all the materials I've subjected to this process, fat stinky dew was most responsive and best behaved. The other matters behaved slightly differently, but in general eventually showed similar results.

There's a starter...

Andro
03-04-2010, 11:07 AM
This is one of six Demijohns I've aquired as optional putrefaction vessels. This one holds 54 Liters and should be filled up to 1/3. (18 Liters of material!)

It's interesting to notice that the plastic lid that came with the Demijohn (second picture) has a tiny hole in it ;)

horticult
03-04-2010, 02:03 PM
Cuz closed bottle stinx. Common knowledge.

Andro
03-04-2010, 02:24 PM
Cuz closed bottles stinx. Common knowledge.

The hole is optional. The lid has a preparation for it, but you can chose to make the hole or not. This lid incidentally came with the hole already made.
In our case, the hole has nothing to do with the stench, and everything to do with allowing the matter to putrefy properly and cast off some superfluities while at it.


The Seal of Hermes, with which Nature could and may perform its function from the beginning until the End, is to be made loosely, if not, then so the Radicale Humidum should not have enough space and air to be able to throw off the Superfluous and Heterogeneous things; everything should stand still, and putrefy sooner [...]. Each one has their own just and firm idea, how such could, should, and maybe occur.

You're completely off the mark and you're missing the scope of this discussion.


Rather than to go to the bottom of any given idea, to examine into its origin and meaning, most people will either condemn it altogether, or rely on some superficial or prejudicial definition of non-essentials.

I know it's a free forum and all, but if you're not performing or planning to perform this experiment yourself, I'd appreciate it if you'd spare us from your contributions here.
There is plenty of room at these forums for you to cast your 'common' pearls elsewhere.

The same suggestion goes for anyone not interested in actual experiencial participation and subsequent sharing on this process.

Thank you.

Ghislain
03-05-2010, 10:54 PM
Hi Androgynus

I shall be participating in this endeavour
If that’s ok?

It sounds very interesting

Ghislain

Andro
03-06-2010, 07:39 AM
I shall be participating in this endeavour.

Thank you, I'm glad to hear :)

It takes very little effort and costs close to nothing...

Just please share your progress here as much as you see fit for a public forum, things like your matter(s)/magnet(s) of choice and your experience with your means/vessels of putrefaction, and later on - your observations on how the matters behave during and after putrefation (to start with). Pictures will be most welcome!

Best of luck!

theFool
03-06-2010, 01:56 PM
I've been collecting my matter for some days now, still much to go. It has already started to putrefy, even if it is not in a digestor.

http://forum.alchemyforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=298&stc=1&d=1267886108

It seems to have brown color but this is only because of reflection from the table. True color is gray and murky.
I have the lid closed and open it for small amount of time every day. More coming ..

horticult
03-06-2010, 02:35 PM
I wonder, if there will be reported some synchronicities between mr alchemist & his matter? :confused:

horticult
03-06-2010, 02:38 PM
I have the lid closed and open it for small amount of time every day. More coming ..
Maybe non-metal lid would be better.
Are keeping it in dark?

theFool
03-06-2010, 02:41 PM
I wonder, if there will be reported some synchronicities between mr alchemist & his matter? :confused:
I'll keep an eye open if any of such synchronicity occurs. You must take care of the matter like a living thing (provide steady temp, air every day) so I wouldn't be surprised.

theFool
03-06-2010, 02:43 PM
Maybe non-metal lid would be better.
Are keeping it in dark?
It has plastic from the inside. I keep it in room light, no direct sunlight.

Andro
03-06-2010, 02:45 PM
I wonder, if there will be reported some synchronicities between mr alchemist & his matter? :confused:

This is from a chanelled text I read a long time ago, focusing on the variation with the Alchemist's own Microcosmos as the Starting Matter:


The quality of the individual goes into the making of the Philosopher's Stone. It is related to the Law of Sympathetic Vibration: Whatever the Alchemist is in his own vibration, that vibration resonates in the crystal of the Philosopher's Stone, and thus, the Philosopher's Stone is of the same frequency as the Philosopher or Alchemist.

Andro
03-21-2010, 02:37 PM
Anyway I think through distillation the rule of one vessel isn't broken, but more advanced.
Distillation is a simple way in this path to get rid of the excess phlegm without evaporating off our spirit.

I just found this segment from Vaughn that confirms my views on distillation in this specific '1/1/1' approach:


[...] avoid the broiling destruction. This doctrine will spare you the vain task of distillation, if you will but remember this truth - that sperms are not made by separation but by composition of elements; and to bring a body into sperm is not to distill it but to reduce the whole into one thick water, keeping all the parts thereof in their first natural union.

Also, from Mr. Tugel:


"A certain Artist came to see me and persuaded me not to distil my putrefied Water at all, saying that this tender Matter could not bear common Fire."

Andro
03-21-2010, 08:59 PM
One Vessel

A little 'Vessel Design' inspiration from a great Artist...

http://static-p4.fotolia.com/jpg/00/11/70/37/400_F_11703794_0pmtsFZZ3PBkUWDDY2uW9raH63KEJxMA.jp g

http://i861.photobucket.com/albums/ab172/androgynus_album/Oyster.jpg

http://images.clipartof.com/small/11945-Open-Oyster-Shellfish-With-Planet-Earth-The-Size-Of-A-Pearl-Clipart-Illustration.jpg

Andro
03-26-2010, 06:34 PM
The above pictured see-shells/oysters are what inspired one of my Vessel designs.
Some Artists used saucers covered with watchglass - quite similar in principle.

This time around I'm thinking of actually using real oyster shells as part of my vessel collection.
They close lightly and therefore allow for simultaneous circulation, slow evaporation and controlled air flow from the sides.

I find this to be one of Nature's most brilliant designs.


Vaughn: "The true furnace is a little simple shell; thou mayst easily carry it in one of thy hands."

Another tip - learned from past mistakes - is to only work with small quantities per Vessel (when starting, and also at each subsequent imbibition).
You can use as many Vessels as you want, but ideally, the remaining Matter after each dessication should be thinly and evenly spread at the bottom of the Vessels.

Andro
03-27-2010, 07:29 PM
OK...

I feel I've shared enough about this path for now.

I'll only add that I've peformed this path myself last year, and the results have been quite satisfying. (don't ask)

However, I did make a few mistakes (not all under my control), which I am going to rectify this time around.

I will gladly share more about my experiences, if more people will actively participate in discussion/sharing and praxis alike - but it doesn't look like this is going to happen...

Otherwise, this discussion will move to 1x1 communications with the very few who are truly interested.

In any case - if you take the trouble to search, find and read the related thoughts of Bacstrom, Tugel, Vaughn, Fleisher and also Urbigerus (Circulatum Majus) to some extent, you will have more than enough information to understand and hopefully even achieve success with this path.

Also, please do not forget that the time factor is of essence in this approach.

Eile mit Weile ;)

My most sincere Best Wishes to everyone interested ! ! !

Andro
04-10-2010, 04:33 PM
This is one particular application of the '1/1/1' method discussed in this thread, with one of the starting matters mentioned.
The picture below is from last year, and the matter is in the very initial stages of processing.
No artificial fires, calcinations or separations are involved, only natural cycles with minimal intervention.
Nothing external is manually added to the matter.

http://i861.photobucket.com/albums/ab172/androgynus_album/S1-1.jpg

Andro
04-18-2010, 12:40 PM
More Vessels inspired by the same excellent School of Design:

http://i861.photobucket.com/albums/ab172/androgynus_album/OneVessel1.jpg

http://i861.photobucket.com/albums/ab172/androgynus_album/OneVessel2.jpg

Andro
04-23-2010, 06:46 AM
There is another interesting application to the 'One Matter/One Vessel/One Fire' approach.

It is referred by some (including Fulcanelli) as the 'Via Sicca' (Dry Way) or 'Ars Brevis', although it can take some time to perform, depending on how you chose to work.

It concerns the use of a certain Saturnian Matter, indeed a poor and distant relative of the mineral/metal family, not mentioned in this thread.

This dualistic Saturnian Matter contains our Double Mercury (Mercury Duplex) within itself, as it gives us both the allegorical 'Dew of Heaven' and 'Fatness of the Earth'.
(As quoted in the 'Mutus Liber' and in many other Alchemical texts).

I have already seen this vile Composite Chaos in its vulgar state a few times, but was too blind at the time to recognize it for what it was.

The texts say it can be done in a single crucible with a strong fire and in the course of a few days. They also say it's the 'Way of the poor' :o.

I am not yet ready/prepared/equipped to deal with the possible dangers involved, but I'm slowly getting there.

For now, I have started to work on this path in a more 'laid-back' manner, so it may take a while.

I myself have arrived at this understanding after a few weeks filled with sleepless nights and deep contemplation, but only time will tell if I'm really up to something...

You can find lots of quotes referring to this path at this LINK (http://www.rexresearch.com/adept/aai2vsb.htm).

For now, I just wanted to share the existence of this possiblility and the fact that I have actively started to implement my own version of the process.
I have absolutely no idea how long it may take to get there, if at all.

:cool:

Andro
05-07-2010, 12:45 PM
Just a little update...

This is GW putrefied to a very dark color:

http://i861.photobucket.com/albums/ab172/androgynus_album/PutrefiedBlack1.jpg

I'll give it a some more time to putrefy before I start the processing...

Andro
05-10-2010, 09:49 PM
One more bit about putrefaction:

From: The Secret Of The Immortal Liquor Alkahest:

(Source (http://www.sacred-texts.com/alc/cc/cc03.htm))


Q: "What kind of putrefaction should the urine undergo that such a spirit may be got from it?"

A: "In a heat scarce to be perceived by sense, in a vessel lightly closed, or covered rather; it may also be sometimes hotter, sometimes cooler, so that neither the heat nor cold exceed a due mean."

Nibiru
11-18-2010, 07:05 AM
Thank you Androgynus for starting this topic. This thread has always been one of the most inspiring to me and I just finished reading it through for the second time. I'm hoping that my questions will serve to help resurrect interest in this informative thread... I've been wondering if an infusion like green tea used in this form of the art would qualify? Since it would technically be two matters, the tea leaves and the water. Does the matter have to be a liquid from the start, i.e. dew, sweat, spit, rain water, tears, or even perhaps ocean water? Or could a solid material that has moisture within its body be utilized?

-Thank you

Andro
11-18-2010, 10:23 AM
Nibiru,

There is a mention in Ruessenstein about the Ancients using only Ocean/Sea Water to prepare their Fire-Matrix. The general guideline for this approach is 'Solve et Coagula', for the sake of evolving the chaotic material into a fixed, coherent and homogenous Matrix, best suited for the purpose of serving as an incarnational vessel for the Invisible Light.

All matters have their moisture/humidity. Some are easier to work with than others. In the end, it's the fixed and homogenous Fire-Matrix we're after (in this approach).
The essential principle is the same, no matter what matter(s) you work with.

The Philosophers sometimes say that it's best to start with that which is in Nature, in order to finish properly - so I'm not sure I'd use plastic, for example :)

Jerry
11-18-2010, 02:28 PM
All matters have their moisture/humidity. Some are easier to work with than others. In the end, it's the fixed and homogenous Fire-Matrix we're after (in this approach).
The essential principle is the same, no matter what matter(s) you work with.


Are you saying that you only "claim to know the process"?

Andro
11-18-2010, 03:00 PM
Are you saying that you only "claim to know the process"?

How can I claim to only know 'the process'?!? There is no such thing as 'the process', just as there is no such thing as 'the recipe'.

I only know what my revelations and my corresponding practical work have taught me.
I have various friends who have worked with various matters/applications and achieved (in essence) more or less similar 'effects'.

I obviously haven't worked with all possible 'matters', but I had the privilege to commune with others who have worked different 'starts' - and the underlying principles are invariably the same.

Practical Applications/Implementations always do (and always will) depend on the Artist and his/her interpretation of the underlying principles.

All roads lead to Rome, nevertheless. Eventually.
________________________________________

PS: In case you are asking if my posts are merely 'theoretical' - then the answer is no. I have observed the gradual incarnation of the invisible light into physical matter with my own eyes, in my own laboratory.

Nibiru
11-18-2010, 10:41 PM
Thank you Androgynus, I plan to start working on this path very soon. I'm just still contemplating what matter I'd like to work with. I live in an apartment so I need to choose one that wont stink too much. I've been thinking that juices from either fruits or vegetables would work quite well, maybe coconut milk or especially grape juice. Then again if I use grape juice will I only succeed in making wine? Also still wondering if using tea would work, or if it wouldn't qualify as one matter since it is an infusion of tea and water?

-Thanks

Andro
11-19-2010, 09:06 AM
The more you understand the desired qualities of the end 'product' - the better you'll be guided to choose the most suitable matter to start with.
After that, one step leads to another, and mistakes are part of the learning process.

People live in apartments and still manage to work with urine.

I've never worked with tea, grape juice or coconut milk, and I don't know anyone who has - so I can't really comment.
Besides, making your own SV (alcohol of wine) can be a very interesting and rewarding experience in itself.

Also, as a side note and possible point of interest, I'll quote myself from 9 months ago:


And another variation for the most purist among you:

If the design and placement of your Vessel are in agreement with its purpose, you will have no need to manually collect any starting material whatsoever...

The Vessel by itself will be the Magnet for the Mercurial Fire, which will form/condense/collect/become corporified by itself in your Vessel and it will go through the stages/cycles without any inteference on your part.

It will, however, take quite some time :)

I'm sure there are others practicing or intending to practice in similar directions, so their input would likely contribute a lot.

Best wishes.

Nibiru
11-19-2010, 09:38 PM
^^ Thank you! I've also been considering the best vessel to collect the Mercurial Fire without the use of a starting matter. I've been thinking of finding a glass globe that I can seal in some way. Perhaps a clear Christmas tree bulb. I was thinking that it may work well if I was able to create a vacuum within the vessel. Perhaps I could heat the inside of the globe just prior to sealing it and this would cause an interior vacuum upon cooling. Then I would leave the globe outside to absorb the rays of the sun and moon, or maybe it would be more efficient if buried in the ground? For now I am still in the contemplation stage and am hoping that the best method to work with will come to me soon though meditation upon this subject. Any further suggestions that anyone is willing to offer would still be greatly appreciated. I am not asking to be spoon fed, just for gentle guidance along my path....

-Peace

solomon levi
11-20-2010, 08:31 AM
Hi Nibiru.
Sounds like a great idea. I wonder if light bulbs would work.
http://i68.servimg.com/u/f68/12/78/17/61/th/pict0610.jpg

There's already a vacuum in there. The metals may contaminate the experiment,
but they're cheap enough that one could at least see if anything collects inside.
Or go ahead and remove the metal and reseal with a vacuum as you said.

Both methods seem worth trying - the burial and the rays above ground.
I feel something may come more from the burial, considering a recent omen just yesterday:
I was translating latin text from an alchemical diagram. One of the lines read:
"Infra, non supra, captandus in aere Phoenix."
That is, "Below, not above, the Phoenix is captured in the air."
http://www.jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/mss/newton/popUpWin.html?winMode=&pageId=bk19

Bona Opera Tibi!
(Good Works for you!)
sol

Nibiru
11-20-2010, 09:28 PM
Thank you S.L.!! I hadn't thought of using a light bulb, that is a good idea. Do light bulbs have other gasses added to them, or are they complete vacuums? I'd also wonder if the metal inside the bulb may prevent the spirits accumulation or react with anything that does form preventing its accumulation? It's worth a try though, burying a light bulb under ground with only the metal tip exposed would be an interesting experiment and would cost little time, effort, or money. I only wish I had thought of this before the cold weather, I live in the Midwest U.S. and winter time is quickly approaching. Sadly I may have to wait until spring to experiment with these methods that do seem like they could be quite promising. I have a good feeling about the Christmas tree bulb sealed with a vacuum and perhaps wrapping copper wire around the outside and extended beyond the bulb to a point to keep above ground to work as an antenna to attract the spirit....

-Peace

Avatar
11-25-2010, 09:19 PM
I do not seem to have the same extent of knowledge as you guys, when it comes to alchemically associated words.
I have read all the posts here, and aim to read them agian.

I read one post saying no to distillation. yet evaporation/coagulation I see as a form of low heat distillation.
Retort distillation/ or distillation within an air tight vessal is a magnificent trick.

my personal work is done in the plant kingdom.
And is in the form of retort distillation.
But I am having a problem replicating the celestial fire.
IE, creating it out of the matrix of nature " the sun"

I am also experimenting with a dry path.
no vessal. one matter, vulgar fire, no combustion. Absolutely no combustion, not even smoke.
this may or may not lead to anything.
my starting matter is that which is green, and is probably in you front yard. my medium is moisture that is present in the green itself, as well distilled pure form works as well if their is not enough internal moisture.
celestial fire is what makes the whole world go round.

I'm not sure how open I am allowed to be here?
I am willingy to be raw and vulgar in my explanation of my work, as I wish to attain it.
I am also going to start working with a putrificated matter as my starting material.
living earth is black earth!

I have seen all the colors in both my dry path and wet one.
but have not perfected the operation.
I am poor man.
I need to replicate the dryness of air created by the sun.
For fluctuation of moisture and dryness, separates and conjoins the spirits simultaneously.
And the celestial fire does this wonderfully.
please inform me on any rules and regulations on open-ness
Ps. I love the fact that I have found this site, it is extremely hard to find practicing alchemists. : D

Andro
11-25-2010, 10:14 PM
I have no intention to invalidate anyone's research, but please allow me to suggest a slightly different angle than the vacuumed bulbs and copper wires variety :)

If one truly wishes to take the purist approach, one has no choice but to 'reverse engineer' Genesis - that is, to make a 'Nothing' out of Something, so our 'Nothing' will be a new Archetypal Spring of Origin, created by Art.

A vacuum bulb is not an Archetypal 'Nothing'. It's merely an enclosure from which we have extracted all 'matter' we can possibly extract, to the extent of our suction abilities. But this is not a true Philosophical Void.

Our true Philosophical 'Nothing' posesses one single original quality and has one single primordial function.

To perform this function, it requires a Subject. But there is no such Subject/'Something' within our Philosophical Void.

Lacking such a Subject, our Philosophical (not vulgar) 'Nothing' has no choice but to IMAGINE it, and subsequently manifest it.

And if we can grasp this one single original quality and function of Archetypal Nothing, we can take this understanding and apply it in our laboratories.

Aleilius
11-25-2010, 10:27 PM
I read one post saying no to distillation. yet evaporation/coagulation I see as a form of low heat distillation.
Retort distillation/ or distillation within an air tight vessal is a magnificent trick.
I think this really depends on the path you're working on, and how you're carrying it out. Generally speaking though, the vessel must remained sealed (however this is not always the case), and in some instances the vessel must be sealed with the hermes seal. With a glass matrass we're speaking of the wet/humid path. With a crucible often we speak of the fast/dry route. In all instances, the end result of the concoction should result in the cracking of the vessel. This is mentioned by Fulcanelli. He likened it to the cracking of an egg.




my personal work is done in the plant kingdom.
And is in the form of retort distillation.
But I am having a problem replicating the celestial fire.
IE, creating it out of the matrix of nature " the sun"
You can read the texts of many alchemists that try to point the neophyte away from the plant/vegetable kingdom as they warn that these realms cannot give the Stone of the Philosophers. I could post a Fulcanelli quote, but I'm sure you all get tired of me quoting from Fulcanelli.


my starting matter is that which is green, and is probably in you front yard. my medium is moisture that is present in the green itself, as well
Some kind of algae, moss, or simply fresh green plant matter?


I'm not sure how open I am allowed to be here?
I am willingy to be raw and vulgar in my explanation of my work, as I wish to attain it.
I am also going to start working with a putrificated matter as my starting material.
living earth is black earth!
You are allowed to say whatever you want to say here (alchemy-wise). To hold secrets, or to reveal secrets is entirely your choice. However, be aware that once you get past a certain point that you may notice a sort of "curse" being cast upon you. Some would call this the Curse of the Philosophers, and it often affects those that say too much/reveal too many things about the Opus of creating the Stone of the Philosophers.

The work you're carrying out with earth wouldn't happened to be akin to Barbault work? If you do not know of Barbault I bet it would help you out a great degree if you're working with vulgar soil/earth.



I have seen all the colors in both my dry path and wet one.
but have not perfected the operation.
Seeing colors shouldn't be the end all. The colors must be in succession. Sometimes these color changes are merely chemical/vulgar changes/reactions taking place in the matter, and not the result of alchemical evolution.

solomon levi
11-26-2010, 12:02 AM
Hi Nibiru! Sorry, I didn't see your reply 'til now.
Yeah, I just read on wikipedia that light bulbs are filled with an inert gas.
Still would be fun to try. :)


Avaar186, welcome!
Interesting experiments. Yes, say as much or as little as you like. No rules.
Whatever you are comfortable with sharing. :)

Nibiru
11-26-2010, 06:05 AM
Thank you Androgynus for your post concerning the void, though now I would have to say I am quite confused. Is there any way you could be a little less cryptic? I'm beginning to feel as if my head is spinning from all of the recent contemplation, maybe I need a break. If this is a subject that you feel shouldn't be discussed openly feel free to contact me privately, that is if you feel I am deserving of further guidance. Either way what you've said thus far is much appreciated, thank you....

Andro
11-26-2010, 07:07 AM
Is there any way you could be a little less cryptic?

I don't feel I was being cryptic at all - unless of course you expected a recipe for 'Nothing' :).


I'm beginning to feel as if my head is spinning from all of the recent contemplation.

I certainly know the feeling. It is often the mark of deconstructing one's learned/aquired 'logical/rational' mind patterns and seeing through different eyes.


If this is a subject that you feel shouldn't be discussed openly feel free to contact me privately.

I feel I am being very open with this discussion. And I am not the only one, there are quite a few others on this forum - if you're able to distil the spirit of what's being said.
If you look closely, this is everywhere, and not always in the 'practical' sections.

If you are a lover of wisdom - maybe you should start (or re-start) with the philosophy, before (or at least in parallel with) drawing a technical spec sheet :)

A mind filled with spec sheets and 'methods' is less likely to be open to revelations.

I am simply posing a possibly different angle/perspective, so please do not allow my (or anyone else's) words detract you from your own intuitive guidance and practical implementations of what you feel is right for you at this point.

.

Nibiru
11-26-2010, 07:53 AM
"Our true Philosophical 'Nothing' possesses one single original quality and has one single primordial function.
To perform this function, it requires a Subject. But there is no such Subject/'Something' within our Philosophical Void.
Lacking such a Subject, our Philosophical (not vulgar) 'Nothing' has no choice but to IMAGINE it, and subsequently manifest it."

-Thank you Androgynus, so were you speaking of an actual practical process that can be utilized here to manifest "it" or is this meant to be taken on a purely spiritual/philosophical level? This is where I am confused.
I will try to meditate further on what has been said...

Andro
11-26-2010, 08:01 AM
Were you speaking of an actual practical process that can be utilized here to manifest "it" or is this meant to be taken on a purely spiritual/philosophical level?

Both - and that's the beauty of it :)

Avatar
11-26-2010, 10:21 AM
Ahh I did not know about the cracking of the vessal. makes sense though.
Yes freshly green plant material, only differing factor is the internal moisture present, which can be good or bad. As fluctuation between moist and dry relies in the fact that theirs not too much water and not too little.

Na when I said "black earth" I simply meant rotting substance, putrification.

with my retort distillation I relie in the sun, as I have yet to learn to replicate the heat of air perfectly.
the colors when green material, to tan/dried out color, to white, then shriveled to red and quickly turned black.
When I got to black my work was throwin away...sadly.

we shall see what's up, my progress is slow as I work on both internal and external alchemy.

Hermetically sealed? simply air tight or somthing more?

Oh yes, my container was air tight from the start.
I kind of want to start with putrifying matter, seal it off sir tight, then use vulgar figher.

Anyways I'm rambling but am happy to have found such s grouping of people.

jnjone4
12-01-2010, 03:03 AM
Does cinnamon have the capabilty to convert metals into nanoparticles?...http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-cinnamon-chemicals-nanoparticles.html

Nibiru
12-01-2010, 07:21 AM
Hello, apparently is does! As well as certain types of tea and even soybeans. Here is the thread I started concerning the use of soybeans to create the "red lion" using soybeans to convert gold chloride into red-gold nanoparticles and then using them to accumulate the universal charge or spirit...
http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?1776-Red-Lion-simple-and-natural-path

-Peace

Avatar
12-08-2010, 10:16 PM
The universal charge or spirit comes from the air no?

spirit is what? Latin for air and breath?

This makes things simpler huh?

oratius
12-24-2010, 10:53 AM
Excuse my ignorance, but what is "GW"???????

:-)

Oratius

Aleilius
12-24-2010, 10:55 AM
Excuse my ignorance, but what is "GW"???????

:-)

Oratius
It stands for golden water (urine).

Andro
12-24-2010, 10:58 AM
What is "GW"?

Initials/short for 'Golden Water'. Usually referring to urine. I say 'usually', because urine is not the only 'Golden Water'.

Salazius
12-24-2010, 11:11 AM
We can have a lot of G.W in Alchemy, but there is only one that "matter". :)

Aleilius
12-24-2010, 11:22 AM
We can have a lot of G.W in Alchemy, but there is only one that "matter". :)
Haha, nice pun Salazius.

oratius
12-24-2010, 11:52 AM
... has no choice but to IMAGINE it, and subsequently manifest it."

I am sorry for being a bit naive, but... when I am thirsty, no matter how hard I IMAGINE water, taps, springs, fountains, waterfalls, bottles, glasses etc.... I do not get less thirsty...

So, this manifestation stays in the plane of imagination; it does not reach reality (unless there is something I'm missing here...)

:-)

Oratius

Salazius
12-24-2010, 11:57 AM
Yes, TIME.

Time do not exist, but you still believe in it, and thus, you delay the manifestation of something by putting it in some hypothetical future, less you believe in time, less you take "time" to manifest things.

Everything is in the present moment, that's how masters 'do' to manifest what they imagine very quickly ! Simply, because they are one with the Now, and then there is no resistance.

Aleilius
12-24-2010, 12:00 PM
Yes, TIME.

Time do not exist, but you still believe in it, and thus, you delay the manifestation of something by putting it in some hypothetical future, less you believe in time, less you take "time" to manifest things.

Everything is in the present moment, that's how masters 'do' to manifest what they imagine very quickly ! Simply, because they are one with the Now, and then there is no resistance.

Oh oh oh! I like that a lot. :D

Andro
12-24-2010, 12:12 PM
Or maybe you're just not thirsty enough :)

Thirst is a very strong NEED, indeed.

Quoth Queen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWQWelkljUo) (the band, but also the archetypal 'moon'):


I want it All
I want it All
I want it All
And I want it NOW!

horticult
12-24-2010, 12:15 PM
I am sorry for being a bit naive, but... when I am thirsty, no matter how hard I IMAGINE water, taps, springs, fountains, waterfalls, bottles, glasses etc.... I do not get less thirsty...

So, this manifestation stays in the plane of imagination; it does not reach reality (unless there is something I'm missing here...)

:-)

Oratius

Should be imagined that things are OK.
/!!!Not I am no thirsty!!!/ NB that thinking about some drink is a terrible long way about.

Andro
12-24-2010, 12:22 PM
Elaboration:

Thinking does not manifest anything, and is actually contraindicated, because it results in more time/space-based delay.

Manifestation is fueled by NEED.

Allow NEED to need, and get yourself and your 'thinking' the hell out of the equation :)

horticult
12-24-2010, 12:28 PM
& mostly u can use GW ;-) .

Aleilius
12-24-2010, 12:29 PM
This is good. Haha!

Salazius
12-24-2010, 12:30 PM
Yes, you can use GW, but don't drink it putrefied ... yuck !

Aleilius
12-24-2010, 12:30 PM
Yes, you can use GW, but don't drink it putrefyed ...

*dies*

solomon levi
12-24-2010, 09:08 PM
I am sorry for being a bit naive, but... when I am thirsty, no matter how hard I IMAGINE water, taps, springs, fountains, waterfalls, bottles, glasses etc.... I do not get less thirsty...

So, this manifestation stays in the plane of imagination; it does not reach reality (unless there is something I'm missing here...)

:-)

Oratius

Are you imagining drinking it? :D
You have to see it going to your cells to stop feeling thirst. Cells are what thirst, not your mind.
Be the cells receiving water.

"Receiving" is the key word as well.
It denotes a change in the direction of time.
Instead of moving into the now from the past, the now receives the future.
Instead of moving into the now from the known, the now receives the unknown.

If you've never satiated thirst with your imagination, then obviously you can't use the personal past/knowledge to create this event.
But you can use the collective subconscious past of your cells/DNA.
To do this, you have to stop being you, your identity, and become all cells, all DNA.
Which you already are. :)
So how do we do what we already are?
Emphasize! Appreciate! Concentrate!
De-emphasize the personality and emphasize your connection to all.
The personality cannot do Magick.

"New wine must be poured into new wineskins"
A new receiver/mind for new wine/thoughts.

"It is not I, but the Father within me who do these things."
Who's your daddy?

Aleilius
12-24-2010, 09:19 PM
Are you imagining drinking it? :D
You have to see it going to your cells to stop feeling thirst. Cells are what thirst, not your mind.
Be the cells receiving water.

An Unknown Villain: "Yeah well, some people can manifest fire, electricity, and such forth, but I can manifest water! Maybe I can drown my enemies. That would be impressive. Eh?"

Water manifesting powers activate!!!

solomon levi
12-24-2010, 10:47 PM
Hs and Os are everywhere. What could be easier! :D

horticult
12-25-2010, 02:05 AM
Just keep the ratio :D !

Andro
12-25-2010, 02:20 AM
So, this manifestation stays in the plane of imagination; it does not reach reality (unless there is something I'm missing here...)

EVERYTHING starts in the realm of imagination. 'Created in the Image...',etc...

May sound 'bizarre' - but here we are :)

And what I am talking about is applicable in practical 'laboratory' work. Please re-read the relevant post(s).

solomon levi
12-25-2010, 03:24 AM
An image is a green lion. It only need be given it's proper "pondus" and maturity.

Pondus = weight, burden, impediment. To ponder - to dwell on, to have a 'weight' on one's shoulders...

"In hoc signo vinces" - In this sign/image you will conquer.

http://wordonfire.org/getmedia/f1e06c2e-19ef-444a-b779-e2ef5d5133c4/Constantine-Chi-Rho.aspx

http://www.keystoneparanormal.com/chi_rho_px.jpg

Chi Rho are the first two letters in the name Christos, and also in Chronos/Saturn.

Chi (600) + Rho (100) = 700 = purple-red, phoenix

Aleilius
12-25-2010, 05:53 AM
Yeah, the Chi-Rho monogram (labarum/lab aurum) is a great symbol. It represents the Philosopher's Stone in my opinion. Chi represents the crucible, and Rho represents the matter in the crucible (Christos). Another interpretation is that Rho represents the philosophic gold, and Chi represents the philosophical mercury. Yet another one is that Rho represents the salt, and that Chi represents the rebis of sulphur & mercury. There are a number of different ways to interpret it.

Chi-Rho is also phonetic similar to cairo, crow, caro, chrío (χρίω - to annoit), kuro (black - Japanese), koru (a jewel - Finnish), khronos, etc.

solomon levi
12-25-2010, 01:22 PM
And it has your sal ammoniac symbol in there. ;)

Thillum
12-25-2010, 11:34 PM
Greetings To All Brothers!!

My, am I elated to have this site back up and running! I had ignored this forum for a few months since the security issues and so forth. Nick's Forum: Lost-Academy has been rather lonely, as I seem to have the most recent post dated Nov 29...

Anyhow, I am in fact practicing a few various works of note: Dew, 'Philosophical Dew' or Golden Water, and Semen.

I hate to mention that I skipped all relevant posts, but I did. The relative resistance at the beginning of this thread made me want to keep the positive intention of this thread intact, therefore, I will share my own practice and experience with such matters.

Firstly, I consider simplicity key. So much so that the prolific misinformation propaganda that inundates this western industrial military complex has in fact stunted my intellectual desire for succulent and specific details. My state of being has for the most part reached its saturation point with pain; thus I treat the Great Work purely from a philosophical and artistic nature. God Willing I achieve the light of the world, I envision the assured integration between my logical and emotional or male and female counterparts.

The essence which I believe inspired this thread, is in the nature of creating the most basic grounds to simply reflect the eloquence and perfection of Mother Nature's intrinsic design (Fibonacci Sequence/Golden Ratio, Cube/Sphere, or Heaven and Earth), such that the notion of complexity as the empirical nature of existence is erased and reveals the eloquence of simplicity or ergonomic design as it stems throughout all of Life. Surely if you are familiar with Sacred Geometry or the Flower of Life, this is assured, such that the assimilation of this knowledge is from a rudimentary nature of experience. In essence, however one may go about the Great Work, inevitably, Success is interdependent with one's affinity and harmonious integration within the cycles of Nature's rhythmic nuances. Verily all of Life is of a oscillatory or vibratory nature (Electro[Male]-Magnetic[Female] Spectrum). Lucifer, the Brightest of all Angels, was gifted with the revelation or ministry of Music.... (for those who are balls deep in conspiracy theories and have not been able to see the light for what it is, Only Truth Exists, everything else is a limiting belief that holds you in your current level of awareness, and so it is).

And so, To the heart of the matter:

There are a few keys which I think are empirical to success in uncovering this Spiritus Mundi.

Fire alone is too dry and of such a potency that it alone would destroy that which we hope to achieve, therefore, water is the relevant counterpart. With this said, it is the balance between Wet/Dry and Hot/Cold that will provide the perfect conditions for One Matter, One Vessel, One Fire.

This being said, I shall go further to point out that this vessel must mirror the truth explicit in Nature, therefore namely, Life is not a closed system but a beautiful interplay of relative planes of existence all interconnected and thus so shall this be reflected with said vessel, open, or 'Hermetically' sealed.

As for direct experience, only with Semen am I practicing 'One Matter, One Vessel, One Fire.' The nature as to why should be obvious, Life force is lost with ejaculation, hence my desire to capture one of the most sacred liquids of a human origin. Semen/Blood (White/Red) are symbolical references that pertain to a sexual nature, both of which should they marry can create some of the most profoundly sacred moments of intimacy with another human being. The effect of which can bridge the 'distance' that goes beyond the limitations of this re-incarnation in physicality. Suffice is to say, Intention is the catalyst.
Anyhow, my collection of Semen has been gradually been shifting in color. Originally the substance went from white, yellow, brown, orangish, and has a very slight reddish hue as well.

This manner is through the wet path, therefore a key to this 'One Matter, One Vessel, One Fire' is a balance between Wet and Dry, hence the addition of distilled water, rain water, or dew is required in order to lead the process to fruition. Otherwise the Fire will overcome the subtle and fragile matrix of this Salt, releasing the Spiritum.

As for Dew, I am still putrefying my current resources. Interestingly enough, my 1L oak keg during the heat of the summer was greatly reduced in volume and as a result a crystalline salt would gather around the stopper. As a matter of fact, my keg which was all brown and new is now being tinged black as if a mold is taking root all around the proximity of the stopper.

Lastly my practice with Golden Water involves two various methods. One is by gentle drying through the the purest and closest flame readily available to all, the light of the Sun, whereas the other requires the destruction of the corpus in order to release this "Mother's Milk."

On one stove, I gently evaporate the GW and separate the dregs, in order of greatly saturating the black solution, for I use this to achieve ample amounts of Spirit and Salt in one go rather than multiple distillation attempts.

Well, this is my progress, some of =)

May they serve those in Service of the Light.

Blessings

vega33
12-25-2010, 11:44 PM
EVERYTHING starts in the realm of imagination. 'Created in the Image...',etc...

May sound 'bizarre' - but here we are

In line with this, Arnoldus, in at least one compilation of the Rosarium, mentions the attraction between materia and Form (essentia), saying that Form works on Matter to change it. In other words, the spirit working on the matter is the most important aspect. Fulcanelli points out the connection too in several places. It is the metallic spirit that sculpts the matter to produce things, and this is why the burning fire is useless in the Art (except perhaps to excite the ardour of the active agent to begin with). Much more useful is the natural fire, which may be concentrated from the "excrements" of certain philosophical bodies.

Aleilius
12-25-2010, 11:59 PM
Hey vega33, glad you mentioned the Rosarium.


It is the metallic spirit that sculpts the matter to produce things, and this is why the burning fire is useless in the Art (except perhaps to excite the ardour of the active agent to begin with).
Would it be too much to say that the whole of our Art lies upon Sol, Luna, and Mercury? The metallic spirit may be the first matter of metals, but our most perfect white & red sulphur is found in Sol, and Luna.


Hermes: Philosophy hath three parts, that is to say, Sol, Luna and Mercury. Of those being joined together, father Hermes knew how to make tincture.

The Philosopher: The foundation of this art is Sol and his shadow.

Albertus: The property of Sulphur is to congeal Mercury and to bring it to pass or make it perfect with Mercury, but tincture only consisteth of two perfect bodies out of which those Sulphurs may be chosen.

Also this:


Arnoldus: Let the Artificers of Alchemy know this, that the forms of metals cannot be transmuted unless they be reduced into their first matter, and then they are transmuted into another form than that which they had before. And that is because the corruption of one thing is the generation of another thing, as well in artificial things as in natural things. For Art imitates nature and in certain things it correcteth it and excelleth it as nature is helped by the industry of the Physician.

There is an agent that is needed in order to reduce Sol, and Luna into their first matter. That is our mercury. I believe it has been said that without this agent our Art would be hopeless, and our work in vain.


He that will search out the secret of this Art must know the first matter of our bodies, for otherwise he shall spend his labour in vain.

Andro
12-26-2010, 12:24 AM
Much more useful is the natural fire, which may be concentrated from the "excrements" of certain philosophical bodies.

Absolutely - true and without doubt! You have been more than explicit with your description, except maybe for one word I would change in the above statement :)

I would be glad to hear you have also found this reflected in your personal experience, for it brings much joy to hear from someone successfully implementing those keys.

Aleilius
12-26-2010, 12:37 AM
Absolutely - true and without doubt! You have been more than explicit with your description, except maybe for one word I would change in the above statement :)
Oh yeah?

vega33
12-26-2010, 02:57 AM
Absolutely - true and without doubt! You have been more than explicit with your description, except maybe for one word I would change in the above statement :)

I would be glad to hear you have also found this reflected in your personal experience, for it brings much joy to hear from someone successfully implementing those keys.

Its a gradual process, I count myself as travelling the path of Samekh, where such ideas must be tried in the fire multiple times. Obtaining the right equipment (even if it is different to the sophist's equipment) costs money and time, and certain aspects require fair weather and the right external conditions. I consider myself lucky though to be able to benefit for now in other ways from these teachings about how everything grows down here.

Andro
12-26-2010, 09:39 AM
Oh yeah?

Yeah :)

At least as much as my own observation and experience reflects it so far...

The Highest Light is in closest proximity to the Lowest Places. See the Ouroboros model...

And (as I see it), this or that specific matter is of much lesser importance to focus on than the underlying keys/principles, some of which Vega33 has explained quite plainly.

Aleilius, this is all strictly my perspective, and the fact that I've found it to be of great value to me, does not mean it needs to invalidate different perspectives with which I have no revelatory or practical experience.

Andro
12-26-2010, 11:33 AM
Obtaining the right equipment (even if it is different to the sophist's equipment) costs money and time, and certain aspects require fair weather and the right external conditions.

IME, the deeper one digs into the philosophy, the less money will be needed for equipment Per Se. But then again, time may be counted as money as well (for those with limited resources), since there are bills to pay, etc...
Fair weather and external conditions DO come into play as factors, but are not of huge importance if time is not an issue.
I have also found the Full Moon to be extremely beneficial for the concentration of the Natural Fire. And an Eclipse is even stronger in this regard...


I consider myself lucky though to be able to benefit for now in other ways from these teachings about how everything grows down here.

This is wonderful, as I feel we should be in sync with our work. The Work itself may be autonomous, but are we? Or, unlike Our Work, do we resist this natural autonomous process inside ourselves?

Because IMO, all we can really, actually 'DO' - is resist. Resistance creates tension, and subsequently space/time delay, in our work and in ourselves.

I kind of went on a philosophical tangent here :)

In any case, I enjoyed reading what you wrote...

Aleilius
12-26-2010, 03:53 PM
Yeah :)

At least as much as my own observation and experience reflects it so far...

The Highest Light is in closest proximity to the Lowest Places. See the Ouroboros model...

And (as I see it), this or that specific matter is of much lesser importance to focus on than the underlying keys/principles, some of which Vega33 has explained quite plainly.

Aleilius, this is all strictly my perspective, and the fact that I've found it to be of great value to me, does not mean it needs to invalidate different perspectives with which I have no revelatory or practical experience.

Hi Androgynus, no worries. I was reading an article yesterday that noted that radioactive decay rates were altered by seasonal, and solar influences (flares, etc). If you are speaking of the Sun as the highest light. :)

There are strange things afoot out there that I can only begin to fathom.

vega33
12-26-2010, 07:02 PM
There is an agent that is needed in order to reduce Sol, and Luna into their first matter. That is our mercury. I believe it has been said that without this agent our Art would be hopeless, and our work in vain.

So this brings up a good point: what is this first "one" matter?

Philosophically one could make a lot of discussions about energy being the first created. But whether the ancient philosophers had this in mind is another matter. Water, Thales said to be the source from which all things are formed. This would seem like a first matter.

Additionally, one of Pernety's most important statements (seemingly quoting an aphorism of the philosophers also quoted somewhat differently in the Compass of the Wise) is about how out of all things ashes can be made, from ashes can makes a salt, from salt one can separate water and mercury. "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust". A composite body takes more energy to transform than a simple body, because it holds its form together and this form battles against the transformation of its substance. The Rosary says:


And this water of which and with which our magistery is effected, is both dear and cheap, for it dissolveth bodies not with common solution as the ignorant report, which converts the body into cloud water, but by the true philosophical solution, in which the body is changed into its first water of which it hath been from the beginning this self same body. That is, the water transforms bodies into Ashes.

I suspect that when some authors talk of the dissolving mercury "opening the pores of the metal" this is what they refer to. If you'll recall there was a story told by Canseliet about a goldsmith in Helvetius' time who prepared some special "spirits of salt" to transmute some metals and a yarn about the star that appeared on top of the bath after a certain period of time. Of course the "spirits of salt" was not common HCl though. Most likely it was of a composition specific to the metal being dissolved.

solomon levi
12-26-2010, 08:02 PM
:D Forgive my crudeness; my green mind sees and does -
"Out of all things ashes can be made"
Ashes + Sol = Assholes :D From assholes come excrement.
In the spring, under the sign of torus. :)
The sphinx is fire, air, water and earth.
Macro/microcosmic sphinx(ters):

http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/images/scalar_torus.gif

This is the action of the Void contemplating/pondering itself, becoming self-aware.
The head swallows the tail. The resulting expansion/excrement is light - our first matter.

vega33
12-31-2010, 10:36 PM
To further refine the concept of First Matter I mentioned above I thought I would provide some quotes from Compass of the Wise, which references several well known texts (btw: much kudos goes out to True Puffer for help in my understanding of the German text).

In Section 1.5 of Part 2 of Compass of the Wise, the anonymous author quotes "the son of Sendivogius" (author of the Waterstone of the Wise) as follows:


"Its red substance is at first in the form of an ore from the ore clefts, and it is truly a stone because it is hard and dry, and it must be crushed and triturated like a stone, then dissolved into the first beginnings which Nature herself had at first combined; then disolved, and finally again dried and boiled into a fireproof artificial Stone."

They then go on to say:


In these few lines the author has taught the whole process of Nature and the Art, omitting however the manipulations. Therefore, at every beginning, the Artist must divide and grind this hard Stone, and after that divide it again with the Philosopher Hammer, into the three first beginnings or magical Elements and restore it, so that a fourth something, which is the curse, be separated from outside, and it can thus be delivered up to Nature for its further inner lapidation. All the Wise assert this, saying that it would be impossible to reach the Prima Materia (ie, the Hyle primordiali) without opening up the hard bonds.

They further explain later on that by the Philosophical Hammer they mean the maical fire or steel (which the Ram hides in its belly).

The same chapter elaborates even more in some of the footnotes, which are very instructive. It reproaches the "mentally feeble" who are seeking the matter which takes no effort to putrefy "such as May Dew, rainwater, hailstones, snow, etc" and explains that while such things may yield many marvels, their virgin earth, universal salt, etc, is "so extended in their porous and fluid housing that it is difficult to collect and keep them together, because the box is transparent, as Philalethes says so acutely".

It quotes Jakob Boehme as saying: each hard matter ("such as metals and stones, wood, herbs and the like"), has within it quite a noble tinctur and high spirit of Life-force, as is also to be understood in the bones of creatures, as the noblest tinctur according to the vitality of the light lies in the marrow of the bones. And, on the other hand, only a fiery tinctur lies in the blood, that is, sulfur, salt, and mercury.


In a like manner know this: Everything in this world's essence that is soft, mild, and thin is emanating and self-giving, and its ground and origin is according to the the unity of Eternity, for the unity is eternally emanating from itself, as one understands there is no perceptibility or pain in the essence of thinness, as in water and air, that this same essence is a unity in itself.

But whatever is hard and impressing, like bones, wood, herbs, metals, fire, earth, stones, and similar materials, therein lies the image of divine Life-force and movement, and it encloses [sic] itself against the crassness with its Separator (as an emanation of divine desire) as a noble jewel or spark of divine Life-force. Therefore it is hard and fiery, and it has its own ground of divine subjectivation, as where the Eternal One continually introduces itself into a trinitarian basis for the movement of Life-forces, and shuts itself up against the emanation, against the introduction of Nature's egocentric will, operating with the Life-force of unity through Nature.

And thus it is to be understood with the noble tinctur: Where it is noblest, there it is the most encompassed in the hardness (my emphasis - V33). For in it Unity is contained in a mobility, as in a percepibility of mobility. Therefore, it hides itself again. But in thinness it does not enclose itself in such perceptibility, but it is the same in all things, just as water and air are similar to all things and in all things. But the dried water is the true Pearl-ground in which the subtle Life-force of the mobility of the Unity in the center is contained. To those of us who are worthy of this it is hereby intimated that they should not appropriate to themselves the soft apart from the fiery nature, seeking the mystery therein.

This was not meant to be a Boehme quote-fest, but I do not know of any other place where the philosophical grounds (pardon the pun) of our Art are contained so explicitly and clearly. Furthermore, the Separator mentioned is mentioned as meaning that every thing contains within itself its own solvent and coagulant.

Further, Philalethes mentions that every body is a kind of black lantern, containing held within itself a light which cannot be seen because it is obscured by the coarseness of the materia. This is an interesting adjunct to the writings above.

Its worth meditating a while on this information (I certainly still am), and understanding the need to designate between the prima materia universalum and the prima materia metallorum. The thing that returns to Unity in the metallic kingdom, and the thing that returns to unity in the general or other kingdoms, is different, although they both participate in the Unity with the celestial realms. And whereas nitre is symbolic of the process moved to a different realm, it is, we may perhaps say, not literal nitre in the realm of the metals, as should be evident to any geologist. Each realm has its own Golden Chain whereby the primordial becomes manifest in a specific body. In order for that hard body to be created, it must be manifested from above, and thus it is said that the original body must be ground up and dissolved, so that a new body may be evolved out of it and the universals above.

Andro
01-01-2011, 05:49 AM
I was reading an article yesterday that noted that radioactive decay rates were altered by seasonal, and solar influences (flares, etc). If you are speaking of the Sun as the highest light.

No, I am not speaking of the Sun as the Highest Light. The Highest Light does not come from a Sun, but is the Light which FORMS Suns (Black/Dark/Invisible Suns included, as these are 'Nodes'/'Islands' of this invisible Stream/Ocean of Light), and actually forms everything else for that matter.

And it is this Highest Light which is in closest resonance/proximity with the most 'lowly', 'vile', 'rejected' and 'despised' things. Again, see the Ouroboros model.

Another thing to remember is that those vile things are but gateways for the Higher Light to enter this realm. They are not 'Our Mercurial Matter' per se, but are indeed highly desirous for it.

A nice quote from the movie 'I ♥ Huckabees': "No Manure - No Magic"

teofrast40
01-03-2011, 06:08 PM
One more bit about putrefaction:

From: The Secret Of The Immortal Liquor Alkahest:

(Source (http://www.sacred-texts.com/alc/cc/cc03.htm))

hallo androgynous,
thank you for making me know a work of Philalete that i was not aware of.
and while i'm at it, I have to make my public apologies to you, salazius and others on this forum for having affirmed the unorthodoxy of urine as alchemical subject.
after that many more books have passed under my eyes, I became much less cathegoric in considering the saying una via, una re, una dispositio (I found the ancient greeks specially enlighting on that matter..).
with humility
t

Aleilius
01-03-2011, 06:14 PM
No, I am not speaking of the Sun as the Highest Light. The Highest Light does not come from a Sun, but is the Light which FORMS Suns (Black/Dark/Invisible Suns included, as these are 'Nodes'/'Islands' of this invisible Stream/Ocean of Light), and actually forms everything else for that matter.

And it is this Highest Light which is in closest resonance/proximity with the most 'lowly', 'vile', 'rejected' and 'despised' things. Again, see the Ouroboros model.

Another thing to remember is that those vile things are but gateways for the Higher Light to enter this realm. They are not 'Our Mercurial Matter' per se, but are indeed highly desirous for it.

A nice quote from the movie 'I ♥ Huckabees': "No Manure - No Magic"

Okay, thanks for the correction.

Andro
01-03-2011, 06:33 PM
Okay, thanks for the correction.

And thank YOU for sometimes pointing out the lack of semantic clarity in some of my posts. I assure you it is unintentional.
_______________________________________

Hi Teo,

I'm glad you are open to other avenues.

Urine, as many other matters and secretions, can be prepared to serve as a support for fixing our Living Mercurial Fire (which is actually Our 'One Matter').

Maybe this is the appropriate place to mention that Human secretions are a bit special (compared to Animal secretions) for the simple reason that they are a sort of 'spiritual interregnum', since the human form is double-animated: First by the Individual (Human) Soul/Higher Self using the body as an incarnational vehicle, and second by the Nature/Earth Spirit animating the physical body itself. More Desire for the Fire, maybe... :)

Aleilius
01-04-2011, 02:07 AM
And thank YOU for sometimes pointing out the lack of semantic clarity in some of my posts. I assure you it is unintentional.

Hey, no problem! It's what I do. I'm also a grammar & spelling nazi. Probably suffer from OCD. ;)

asta
03-29-2011, 02:04 PM
In my humble oppinion, the matter is the vessel and the vessel contains the fire. So the matter its the vessel and the fire. If theres only one matter, there should only be one vessel with one fire.

The matter contains something, so it's a vessel. It is called the Vessel of the Nature (do not mess with Vessel of the Art), and contains a Fire, the Secret Fire; some weird substance that has the power to calcinate. But this Fire isn't a common fire, it is philosophical, and isn't a fire at all, it is a Water (a Dry Water), called "fire" because it calcinates.

Andro
03-29-2011, 02:44 PM
This '1/1/1' approach may be interpreted in more ways than one.

Still, in most cases, there is a need for an external vessel to contain the matter and for an external heat to 'fuel' the process, at least at some stages of the work..

Awani
03-29-2011, 02:50 PM
But this Fire isn't a common fire, it is philosophical, and isn't a fire at all, it is a Water (a Dry Water), called "fire" because it calcinates.

We have two areas in these forums, one for Spiritual and the other Practical. You might be preaching to the wrong crowd posting here:)

asta
03-29-2011, 02:55 PM
We have two areas in these forums, one for Spiritual and the other Practical. You might be preaching to the wrong crowd posting here:)

I'm sorry, but I'm talking about practical alchemy, in a laboratory, with borosilicate flasks, a bunsen burner and such. I'm also talking only about what I've experienced myself. I do not see anything Spiritual here.

Awani
03-29-2011, 02:55 PM
Then I misunderstood what you wrote.

:cool:

Andro
03-29-2011, 02:59 PM
We have two areas in these forums, one for Spiritual and the other Practical. You might be preaching to the wrong crowd posting here:)

I believe Asta is referring to a practical (laboratory) aspect. But please, Asta, correct me if I'm wrong.

I also think that what Asta wrote, may pertain equally to both 'crowds' :)
✂-----------------------------------
Oops, I just saw the issue has already been addressed :)

Andro
03-29-2011, 03:22 PM
Just for a quick memory refresh, I will re-quote myself from this very thread, something I wrote here more than a year ago, in February 2010:



If the design and placement of your Vessel are in agreement with its purpose, you will have no need to manually collect any starting material whatsoever...

The Vessel by itself will be the Magnet for the Mercurial Fire, which will form/condense/collect/become corporified by itself in your Vessel and it will go through the stages/cycles without any interference on your part.

It will, however, take quite some time :)

abdo
03-29-2011, 06:58 PM
I share you 100 % on this conclusion. No one no this fact unless he run a lot of alchemy works.

psykopanther
10-16-2014, 09:25 PM
this is a pretty old thread i know, but so far I do not see any other specific thread on the forum relating to the 1-1-1 method. I am wanting to learn more on this method and would like to share my experiences on here as I do. Also, I am curious if there are anymore interests into this method from the members that we might revive this path? I do not know very much on the vessel designs that are important, but hopefully this will come.

My initial thoughts are to use a simple mason jar with the lid have a punched small hole in it to allow some air exchange but limit the amount that is free to fly away. should this jar be placed in another larger jar to farther slow the air exchange? The mason jar lids are metal, however have a rubber side facing inside the jar. is this ok? i seem to be confused with what "modern" materials i can or cannot use. like plastic for example.

anyways, i will probably use GW. I have a small amount of white salt from GW i gathered in the past. maybe a teaspoon worth that i feel i can use somehow. I have read alot of threads here, although most seem to be dated a few years back and its hard to decipher the information when most is usually just clues from those that seem to know wrapped around theories from those who are searching so my mind races with fragmented information. If we can revive this thread, that would be awesome. With maybe some new insights from members, this thread can continue the path it was intended from the beginning. If not, my PM box is always empty :) as i have no close friends lol. to be continued...

Kiorionis
04-30-2016, 02:36 AM
Look, I'm reviving the dead (thread)! lol....

My new interpretation of the 'One Matter, One Vessel, One Fire':

If you have a flask, an alcohol, and a candle to heat it, you have three things. They are separate and individual and go about their own way. The trick will be, how to make these three One Thing...

So tricky.

zoas23
04-30-2016, 07:55 AM
I'm breaking a bit the rules of Andro if I post, so I won't participate again in this thread (i.e, I still have not found how to PRACTICE this method).

The two most interesting Arcanums I've received follow this path... and, if I follow them (the two of them needed to be *deciphered*), then I get the philosophy behind this path, but its practical side: I have not been able to decipher it yet.

My intellectual understanding has been that the matter, the vessel and the fire are the same thing (probably a second vessel is used -i.e, a flask-... but the "true" vessel is the matter itself).

The most interesting of the two Arcanums was very much using the idea of YHY AVR in Hebrew ("Fiat Lux")... with AVR (Light) being the source of the Y (the matter), H being an adaptation of Y and the vessel/uterus... and the final Y being the son of Y + H and the manifestation of the matter and the source of the fire.

I still have not found a way to take these ideas to a Lab... but I am investigating... but my general understanding is that one matter, one vessel and one fire actually means "one matter that is its own vessel and its own fire"... rather than 3 things working as a "team" (Then again I have NOT practiced this method in a practical way, so I shouldn't even be posting here, so this is my first and last post on the subject).

alfdib
05-30-2016, 12:51 AM
This 1-1-1 method, from my study is:
The most simple for a man
The most dangerous for a man
The most high for the Spirit
To get it done you need:
40 days
All the time dedicated to it and nothing else
The Sun corporified and in perfect dosage
Patience- constance- no addiction
A person close to you

If you have all this you can try... But this path is not for every man...and it can lead to bad consequences sometimes...

pierre
06-17-2016, 02:59 PM
Andro ... I'm seeing this number (111) in every place I look, since long time ago. Too many times to be coincidence.
What the hell it´s going on here?

Andro
06-17-2016, 03:24 PM
What the hell it´s going on here?
What's going on is that there you have dug up a thread that deals with Alchemy :D

BTW, I'm quite certain that THIS (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?1310-One-Matter-One-Vessel-One-Fire&p=8601#post8601) was also a deliberate occult use of the 1/1/1 thing...

The 1/1/1 is actually/finally only 1, whereby 1 transmutes both 1 and 1 into its own nature, into an inseparable One Thing.

1 is Sol-Soul-Matter, 1 is Luna-Body-Vessel and 1 is Spirit-Fire.

It's a 'time immemorial' Universal 'Formula'.

The 'Three which become One' are a representation of the Philosophical Mercury ('stone'-fixed or not).

--------------------------------------------------

pierre
06-17-2016, 04:04 PM
What's going on is that there you have dug up a thread that deals with Alchemy :D

BTW, I'm quite certain that THIS (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?1310-One-Matter-One-Vessel-One-Fire&p=8601#post8601) was also a deliberate occult use of the 1/1/1 thing...

The 1/1/1 is actually/finally only 1, whereby 1 transmutes both 1 and 1 into its own nature, into an inseparable One Thing.

1 is Sol-Soul-Matter, 1 is Luna-Body-Vessel and 1 is Spirit-Fire.

It's a 'time immemorial' Universal 'Formula'.

The 'Three which become One' are a representation of the Philosophical Mercury ('stone'-fixed or not).

--------------------------------------------------

Ok, thanks, Andro.

I need to find the meaning of all this...

True Initiate
06-17-2016, 06:16 PM
How about the christian trinity? Father, Son and the Holy Ghost?

Andro
06-17-2016, 06:37 PM
How about the christian trinity? Father, Son and the Holy Ghost?

Father: The UN-created & UN-Knowable Origin. Not rooted in space, time, memory, becoming, etc... NOT the Demiurge/Creator/C.A.I. (Central Artificial Intelligence).

Son: Body and Soul fully transmuted into Spirit and made manifest in Code-Land. 'Sang Real' or 'True Blood' (more to come on 'Sang Real' in a future post, maybe...). The term 'Son' (in this context) is interchangeable with the Completed Stone or a fully transmuted Adept.

Holy Spirit: The UN-Created 'Essence' or 'Energy' emanating from Origin and permeating ALL the VR 'Planes', imprisoned in matter/code, used by the latter to 'propel' and perpetuate the 'False Creation(s)'. The matter of 'Our Stone' and the only 'real' matter in Code-Land. (I prefer 'Holy Spirit' rather than 'Holy Ghost', but it's just as well).

Awani
06-17-2016, 10:57 PM
Andro ... I'm seeing this number (111) in every place I look, since long time ago. Too many times to be coincidence.
What the hell it´s going on here?

Indeed. After reading your post I saw this at the bottom of the forum:

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h18/deviadah/forum/Untitled_zpspkqsdcxh.jpg

:cool:

Michael Sternbach
06-18-2016, 03:21 AM
Some time ago, in a forum far, far away, I was participating in an interesting thread on a topic closely related to 111:

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/38456-my-theory-on-the-1111-phenomenon/

Talking about the particular alchemical method which is the main theme of this thread, I think of it mostly as a reference to the "dry way" of doing the Magnum Opus in a simple and quick manner, using one vessel (crucible), as was sometimes suggested from the 17th century on.

It could also have something to do with the "Mercury alone" approach first represented by Geber though.

JDP
06-18-2016, 04:24 AM
Talking about the particular alchemical method which is the main theme of this thread, I think of it mostly as a reference to the "dry way" of doing the Magnum Opus in a simple and quick manner, using one vessel (crucible), as was sometimes suggested from the 17th century on.

The thing is that in that 17th century "dry way" claim, the "one matter" part of the rather misleading adage does not add up. If we give credit to the person most responsible for popularizing the idea of this crucibles + open fires "dry way", viz. the brassfounder who gave Helvetius a sample of the Stone for testing purposes, the Stone is made of at least 3 substances: two minerals or metals (but he says the minerals work better since they have more "mature sulphur"), and a mysterious "Solvent Salt", which, for all we know, might very likely itself be a composite of several other materials. Additionally, the brassfounder hints at a certain "glassy" or "crystal Seal of Hermes", which might in fact be yet another substance used in this method.

The whole "one matter, one vessel" adage seems like nothing but a "philosophical" trap, to fool people into making endless trials on singular matters, which obviously will lead nowhere but to failure. There is no single, simple substance found in nature that can give all the reactions the alchemists describe. Additionally, some of them have pretty much explained or hinted at that this whole "one matter, one vessel" thing is a subtle misdirection by some of their colleagues, when they are rather maliciously talking about the prime matter of the Stone -i.e. the one that is ready for the "coction"- as a single substance AFTER it has already been COMPOSED by the operator. In other words, the "one matter" is actually a COMPOUND of several, and it is put together by the alchemist himself, but some of them maliciously refer to it as "one thing" without informing their readers of the previous operations with several matters that have brought about that "one" substance. It certainly CAN'T be found already made in nature, so it is up to the alchemist to prepare it. Nature does not make the Stone, man does. Nature only provides raw matters.

Dwellings
06-18-2016, 09:48 AM
The whole "one matter, one vessel" adage seems like nothing but a "philosophical" trap, to fool people into making endless trials on singular matters, which obviously will lead nowhere but to failure. There is no single, simple substance found in nature that can give all the reactions the alchemists describe. Additionally, some of them have pretty much explained or hinted at that this whole "one matter, one vessel" thing is a subtle misdirection by some of their colleagues, when they are rather maliciously talking about the prime matter of the Stone -i.e. the one that is ready for the "coction"- as a single substance AFTER it has already been COMPOSED by the operator. In other words, the "one matter" is actually a COMPOUND of several, and it is put together by the alchemist himself, but some of them maliciously refer to it as "one thing" without informing their readers of the previous operations with several matters that have brought about that "one" substance. It certainly CAN'T be found already made in nature, so it is up to the alchemist to prepare it. Nature does not make the Stone, man does. Nature only provides raw matters.

I recommend you to study the "One Matter" more deeply, your opinions might be up for a change.

Hermes seems to disagree with you BTW


1) It is true without untruth, certain and most true:
2) that which is below is like that which is on high, and that which is on high is like that which is below; by these things are made the miracles of one thing.
3) And as all things are, and come from One, by the mediation of One, So all things are born from this unique thing by adaption.
4) The Sun is the father and the Moon the mother.
5) The wind carries it in its stomach. The earth is its nourisher and its receptacle.
6 The Father of all the Theleme of the universal world is here.
6a) Its force, or power, remains entire,
7) if it is converted into earth.
7a) You separate the earth from the fire, the subtle from the gross, gently with great industry.
8) It climbs from the earth and descends from the sky, and receives the force of things superior and things inferior.
9) You will have by this way, the glory of the world and all obscurity will flee from you.
10) It is the power strong with all power, for it will defeat every subtle thing and penetrate every solid thing
11a) In this way the world was created.
12) From it are born wonderful adaptations, of which the way here is given.
13) That is why I have been called Hermes Tristmegistus, having the three parts of the universal philosophy.
14) This, that I have called the solar Work, is complete.

Can you please explain which "Earth" is Hermes talking about?

pierre
06-18-2016, 01:20 PM
Indeed. After reading your post I saw this at the bottom of the forum:

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h18/deviadah/forum/Untitled_zpspkqsdcxh.jpg

:cool:

Oh my God! This number is chasing me wherever I go. And it must be contagious!

pierre
06-18-2016, 01:25 PM
Some time ago, in a forum far, far away, I was participating in an interesting thread on a topic closely related to 111:

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/38456-my-theory-on-the-1111-phenomenon/

Talking about the particular alchemical method which is the main theme of this thread, I think of it mostly as a reference to the "dry way" of doing the Magnum Opus in a simple and quick manner, using one vessel (crucible), as was sometimes suggested from the 17th century on.

It could also have something to do with the "Mercury alone" approach first represented by Geber though.

Hi Michael. The link is down. I´ll try later again...
Thanks for the link anyway.

Michael Sternbach
06-18-2016, 04:21 PM
Hi Michael. The link is down. I´ll try later again...
Thanks for the link anyway.

The link isn't down, the website was temporarily. I keep telling my fellow staff that we need to finally fix those issues for good. Thanks for bearing with us. (I think it's worth it though. ;))

JDP
06-18-2016, 05:34 PM
I recommend you to study the "One Matter" more deeply, your opinions might be up for a change.

There is nothing else to look into. The "one matter" adage has been around for centuries and it never led anyone anywhere. Countless seekers who guided themselves by this claim subjected virtually every substance found in nature all on their own to all sorts of procedures, but what the alchemists described did not happen. Find me a single, naturally occurring substance that you can place in one single vessel and warm with one single heat and which shows everything the alchemists describe.



Hermes seems to disagree with you BTW



Can you please explain which "Earth" is Hermes talking about?

Does he? First of all, this text, like many others, is too vague and enigmatic to derive any definitive conclusions, that's why it has been the subject of lots of interpretation through the centuries. But since we are talking about the "only one matter" death-trap, at least this text also tells you that "The Sun is the father and the Moon the mother", that's two things, not "only one". Can you please explain what are these "Sun" and "Moon" that Hermes is talking about? Any "explanation" you can give will be as plausible or implausible as any I can give you on what he means by "Earth". Why? Again, because the text is written in a very obscure, vague and general sense that is very open to interpretation. I can give you examples of alchemical texts which are not so open to interpretation, like this one, which, keeping up with the subject at hand, will be about the "only one matter" ruse. The author of "Radius ad Umbra" (The Ray of the Shadow) says the following regarding this topic while defending "Philalethes" from both his critics as well as those who interpret him as claiming that antimony is the matter to work with (page 389):

https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_fBiJ0NxcL9sC#page/n261/mode/2up

Therefore from antimony (to retake the discourse) it does not seem possible to extract the Sulphur and the Mercury, but only the single/unique Salt of nature, according to the interpretation that many give to the Introitus Apertus, which I never believe has to be interpreted so literally; in fact, according to his (true) sense even if it were interpreted to the letter by those who think to find all in antimony only, the Introitus has said: "We know that our Water is composed of many things and yet it is one thing made from diverse substances into one single concrete essence."

This sentence is finally sufficient to know that our Water, namely our Mercury, cannot be extracted from any (single/one/only) mineral nor of any single/one/only metal, but we must (extract it) from many things, which are in essence one substance, and of one root.

"Our work", says Bernard Trevisan, "is from two mercurial substances taken crude from the mine, extracted pure and clean, with fire conjoined in friendship, as required by this matter, and continually cooked until from the two one thing is made, in which one is Body, Spirit; and this body is made from a mixture."

As you can see, the above passages (both by the author of the treatise as well as by the other authors he cites in support of his statement) are examples of very plain and straightforward pronouncements, not open to interpretation, unlike the vague and obscure statements of the "Emerald Table".


This type of contradiction abounds in many alchemical texts, BTW: an author will keep claiming that it is "only one matter" yet his descriptions plainly mention two, three, four, or sometimes even more substances coming into play in the reactions described. You have to be familiar with the mentality of the average alchemist of past centuries to understand why they thought such misleading statements were "fair game" and "justified". Never mind the fact that they made countless people waste their time and money in dead-ends by popularizing misleading adages like "only one matter". To their minds they were only misleading "unworthy" seekers with such "subtleties". But then again, to their minds it did not occur that things like "unworthy" are totally arbitrary concepts that may vary from one person to another. What or who seems "unworthy" to me might not be the same as to you. So their misleads ended up affecting a bunch of different people, not just those they envisioned as "unworthy" and thus justified in their minds to be misled into erroneous approaches.

Dwellings
06-18-2016, 07:47 PM
Therefore from antimony (to retake the discourse) it does not seem possible to extract the Sulphur and the Mercury, but only the single/unique Salt of nature, according to the interpretation that many give to the Introitus Apertus, which I never believe has to be interpreted so literally; in fact, according to his (true) sense even if it were interpreted to the letter by those who think to find all in antimony only, the Introitus has said: "We know that our Water is composed of many things and yet it is one thing made from diverse substances into one single concrete essence."

This sentence is finally sufficient to know that our Water, namely our Mercury, cannot be extracted from any (single/one/only) mineral nor of any single/one/only metal, but we must (extract it) from many things, which are in essence one substance, and of one root.

"Our work", says Bernard Trevisan, "is from two mercurial substances taken crude from the mine, extracted pure and clean, with fire conjoined in friendship, as required by this matter, and continually cooked until from the two one thing is made, in which one is Body, Spirit; and this body is made from a mixture."

As you can see, the above passages (both by the author of the treatise as well as by the other authors he cites in support of his statement) are examples of very plain and straightforward pronouncements, not open to interpretation, unlike the vague and obscure statements of the "Emerald Table".


This type of contradiction abounds in many alchemical texts, BTW: an author will keep claiming that it is "only one matter" yet his descriptions plainly mention two, three, four, or sometimes even more substances coming into play in the reactions described. You have to be familiar with the mentality of the average alchemist of past centuries to understand why they thought such misleading statements were "fair game" and "justified". Never mind the fact that they made countless people waste their time and money in dead-ends by popularizing misleading adages like "only one matter". To their minds they were only misleading "unworthy" seekers with such "subtleties". But then again, to their minds it did not occur that things like "unworthy" are totally arbitrary concepts that may vary from one person to another. What or who seems "unworthy" to me might not be the same as to you. So their misleads ended up affecting a bunch of different people, not just those they envisioned as "unworthy" and thus justified in their minds to be misled into erroneous approaches.

The adepts are only complicating what I told you in plainest terms. Of the statements you have quoted only Trevisan seems to be speaking in plainer terms, though he has colored it a bit.

Do you know what mineral substance Dragon is and what are its properties? Think about it.


Once upon a time, the planet was tyrannized by a giant dragon. The dragon stood taller than the largest cathedral, and it was covered with thick black scales. Its red eyes glowed with hate, and from its terrible jaws flowed an incessant stream of evil-smelling yellowish-green slime.

http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html

JDP
06-18-2016, 11:09 PM
The adepts are only complicating what I told you in plainest terms. Of the statements you have quoted only Trevisan seems to be speaking in plainer terms, though he has colored it a bit.

I don't envision how could anyone not see how plain all the quotations above are. They quite unequivocally say that in making the Stone several matters come into play, not "only one" as some authors have rather misleadingly claimed.


Do you know what mineral substance Dragon is and what are its properties? Think about it.

Again, this is just an example of "decknamen", which can be given many interpretations. A bunch of substances found in nature can be given the name of "dragon" on account of any of a number of the properties they may possess, like being able to catch fire, for example, and chosen by the whim and fancy of any given author.

Dwellings
06-19-2016, 04:42 PM
I don't envision how could anyone not see how plain all the quotations above are. They quite unequivocally say that in making the Stone several matters come into play, not "only one" as some authors have rather misleadingly claimed.
Again, this is just an example of "decknamen", which can be given many interpretations. A bunch of substances found in nature can be given the name of "dragon" on account of any of a number of the properties they may possess, like being able to catch fire, for example, and chosen by the whim and fancy of any given author.

It seems you are hell bent on complicating a simple science.

Anyway, what they are speaking involves purifying two substances which must be subjected to coction. This involves many matters but this path is a VEIL & an EVASION.

JDP
06-19-2016, 09:53 PM
It seems you are hell bent on complicating a simple science.

Anyway, what they are speaking involves purifying two substances which must be subjected to coction. This involves many matters but this path is a VEIL & an EVASION.

Or maybe you are hell bent on over-simplifying a more complex science.

Logic, common sense and empirical experience (if you have lots of it) should already have told you that the "one matter only" ruse is the actual "VEIL & an EVASION". It has been around for centuries, yet it made no one who adhered to it none the wiser. Find me a single, simple, natural substance which you can simply gather and put inside a vessel to "cook" it and that will show all the reactions the alchemists describe. Good luck in succeeding finding such a thing, because it simply does not exist. The countless failures of those who through the centuries adopted such an over-simplistic and naive approach should have given you a hint that it is just a misleading statement, as some other (of the more honest among them) alchemists openly acknowledged.

Chasm
08-28-2016, 03:39 PM
I've decided to make my first post here on this thread. The reason why is because I think it's significant. My own personal experience has shown me that this method has veritable merit. But first some background.
In 2012, my researches into free energy, which spans over two decades off and on, caused me to follow the path of alchemy. I was led through a link to the Book of Aquarius which I read a found intriguing. I thought, I'm going to try this as it seems easy enough.
I began to read the abundance of literature out there and in short time began my own quest.
I found out right that the method of the BoA was incorrect. I'm speaking first attempt here.
What was occurring in my flask was totally unlike what others were doing and quite frankly more akin to what was so cryptically being said in the alchemic literature.
In my excitement, I posted on the BoAf of my findings and what followed was pure hell. Seriously, it was my first time participating on a public forum and the attacks that I received were fierce.
You all know how the Author had these premises about the Work and limited the discussion to these which led the combined experimental power of the forum nowhere.
Well, needless to say, my posts were erased, I was admonished and banned for basically posting my findings of this method.
He created a section on the forum called "under the bridge" for me...Incredible!!!

That's the background info in a nutshell. 4 years later, I glimpse this forum and find that Andro appears to have pierced the veil as far back as 2010. This was exciting stuff for me. Imagine, this great forum has a member working along the same lines as me with two years hed start. Wow!!! I'm home. But as I read through the thread, I noticed the opposition, the hiatus , and now the resurrection of this topic.:cool:

Ok, I'm going to do my part to continue this discussion which hasn't gotten the attention I feel that it deserves.

Pause to figure out attachments,
To be cont'd

Well, it looks like my already cropped pics are too large to upload.

In any case, I know some you think that this route is a rouse, but I'd beg to differ.

First of all, I've found that all of the signs, even some hardly spoken of by the sages, appear in this particular method of working. This is the work that is spoken of as being done without hands.
The simplicity of this is befuddling, however, it's quite true and clear that every last operation of the alchemists takes place as spoken of. Furthermore, watching what takes place within the flask allows one to easily follow the alchemical/Hermetic Doctrine.

I will sum what I know as such:

Our matter begins as GW

It is separated into two components.
(Many scripts begin here)

The two components give rise to a third component
(A philosophical marriage occurs)

All components recombine and morph into a fixed component
(This component is the regenerated matter, fertile soil)
Some texts begin here.

Andro, is this the method to which you ascribe? I am all but certain from what has been discussed here so far, that this way of working, is what you have in fact been speaking of.

No one has posted any pics at all. Am I missing something? I eventually wish post a few pic here. I can't say what I've seen and not back it up now can I?

JDP, this one you will have to see to believe. I admire your defence of practical alchemy over what is called spiritual alchemy, but this 1/1/1 method is something you're going to want to champion;).
I'm going to find away around my image size limitations and post some pics that will go well in this thread.

alfr
08-28-2016, 05:07 PM
hi Chasm welcome we wait read your experience welcome

my best regard alfr

Hellin Hermetist
08-28-2016, 05:27 PM
The vase in the alchemical literature isnt a glass cucurbite or a crucible as some people think. Its the dry part of the compost which receives to itself and congeals the humid part during the imbibitions. So we have at least two distinct matters. The dry one, which is the real vase of nature, and the humid one, with which we imbibe the dry.

Illen A. Cluf
08-28-2016, 05:56 PM
The vase in the alchemical literature isnt a glass cucurbite or a crucible as some people think. Its the dry part of the compost which receives to itself and congeals the humid part during the imbibitions. So we have at least two distinct matters. The dry one, which is the real vase of nature, and the humid one, with which we imbibe the dry.

I agree. The "vase" can be a decknamen for the matter itself. In this sense it is the "container" of the important interior essence.

Chasm
08-28-2016, 07:14 PM
In my humble oppinion, the matter is the vessel and the vessel contains the fire. So the matter its the vessel and the fire. If theres only one matter, there should only be one vessel with one fire.

The matter contains something, so it's a vessel. It is called the Vessel of the Nature (do not mess with Vessel of the Art), and contains a Fire, the Secret Fire; some weird substance that has the power to calcinate. But this Fire isn't a common fire, it is philosophical, and isn't a fire at all, it is a Water (a Dry Water), called "fire" because it calcinates.


I agree. The "vase" can be a decknamen for the matter itself. In this sense it is the "container" of the important interior essence.
I'm in total agreement here. We're all on the same page. The vessel is the matter. The matter has its humidity. This humidity is imo, our pontific water. It thickens itself, it calcines...not dry, but moist.

Chasm
08-28-2016, 07:39 PM
Has anyone seen the method to this stage?

http://forum.alchemyforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=942&d=1472413036

Can anyone tell me what I'm looking at considering that this image is authentic and is a progressive stage in this method?

------------------------------------------

JDP
08-28-2016, 07:46 PM
JDP, this one you will have to see to believe. I admire your defence of practical alchemy over what is called spiritual alchemy, but this 1/1/1 method is something you're going to want to champion;).

I find it quite impossible to defend such a claim, for the very simple reason that such a "only one matter" that performs everything the alchemists describe does not exist in nature. It has to be made by the alchemist himself, and to do this you actually have to use several substances. So the "only one matter" axiom is a big misleading statement, just like the "only one vessel" or the "only one fire". No matter how one wants to see it, all of them are misleading statements. Countless seekers through the centuries took such "axioms" to the letter and went around heating any single, naturally-occurring substance (ex: all manner of minerals, resins, gums, flowers, eggs, hair, feces, etc.) that fell in their hands and observing if all the reactions and color changes described by the alchemists would manifest themselves. Of course, they found nothing. As the more honest alchemists imply, or even explicitly say, the matter of the Stone is a composite. The older alchemists often called this compounded matter "Magnesia", and always talk about its composition in a not too clear manner. Figuring out what are its components, and in what proportions, is the pivotal point in alchemy. It is from this man-made (not natural) composite material that you get the "Water" and the "Earth" to make the Stone. Without it you will never be able to make it.

Dwellings
08-28-2016, 07:49 PM
Has anyone seen the method to this stage?

http://forum.alchemyforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=942&d=1472413036

Can anyone tell me what I'm looking at considering that this image is authentic and is a progressive stage in this method?

Did your matter "Urinate" in the beginning of the work?

I am not able to understand which path you are using.


----------------------------------------------------

Chasm
08-28-2016, 08:10 PM
I find it quite impossible to defend such a claim, for the very simple reason that such a "only one matter" that performs everything the alchemists describe does not exist in nature. It has to be made by the alchemist himself, and to do this you actually have to use several substances. So the "only one matter" axiom is a big misleading statement, just like the "only one vessel" or the "only one fire". No matter how one wants to see it, all of them are misleading statements. Countless seekers through the centuries took such "axioms" to the letter and went around heating any single, naturally-occurring substance (ex: all manner of minerals, resins, gums, flowers, eggs, hair, feces, etc.) that fell in their hands and observing if all the reactions and color changes described by the alchemists would manifest themselves. Of course, they found nothing. As the more honest alchemists imply, or even explicitly say, the matter of the Stone is a composite. The older alchemists often called this compounded matter "Magnesia", and always talk about its composition in a not too clear manner. Figuring out what are its components, and in what proportions, is the pivotal point in alchemy. It is from this man-made (not natural) composite material that you get the "Water" and the "Earth" to make the Stone. Without it you will never be able to make it.
This is why I dig you. Your argument is near perfect. It's beautiful. It's an argument that I'd love to make myself; in this case, there's an oversight. The one matter is not found in its required state naturally. This magnesia is found nowhere. In fact, the starting matter isn't found either without manipulation. And were I to tell you that all the differing compounds spoken of are actually derivations of this "one" matter; would you see it as being possible? Consider:
Take the note middle C , scale it up 3dozen octaves, would you agree that the note has not changed, yet the tone has increased in pitch and its sound seems rather different?
What would this sound look like in material form as compared to the original middle note?

This is the mindset you are omitting. It would change your argument no?

Chasm
08-28-2016, 08:15 PM
Did your matter "Urinate" in the begining of the work?

I am not able to understand which path you are using.
Sure did! I'm using the same method this thread speaks of. Ok, I won't play dumb. You guys are very clever here. I know what I'm looking at. It's the land of milk and honey philosophically speaking. I'm curious if anyone has gotten this far. I want to discuss everything about this 1/1/1

JDP
08-28-2016, 08:31 PM
This is why I dig you. Your argument is near perfect. It's beautiful. It's an argument that I'd love to make myself; in this case, there's an oversight. The one matter is not found in its required state naturally. This magnesia is found nowhere. In fact, the starting matter isn't found either without manipulation. And were I to tell you that all the differing compounds spoken of are actually derivations of this "one" matter; would you see it as being possible? Consider:
Take the note middle C , scale it up 3dozen octaves, would you agree that the note has not changed, yet the tone has increased in pitch and its sound seems rather different?
What would this sound look like in material form as compared to the original middle note?

This is the mindset you are omitting. It would change your argument no?

I am afraid I can't agree. The analogy does not quite work. Music is an abstract concept, it does not compare well with actual substances. If I had to apply such musical analogy to actual substances, I could reach such erroneous and confusing conclusions as saying that common salt as found in nature ("note middle C" in your analogy) is the same and yet not the same as after it has been calcined ("note middle C, scaled up 3 dozen octaves"). But the calcination only removes its superfluous humidity, it does not do anything else to it and the salt remains the same. How would that help in any way? Nothing has been done except remove a totally accidental feature in the material, everything else remains as it was. That's just one example of the multitude of errors one would fall into by following such arguments.

Single naturally-occurring substances will never work, no matter what you do to them. Besides the fact that countless "puffers" failed to obtain any results by taking such an approach, chemistry has also been around for 250 or so years and it has examined virtually all natural substances found on our planet. It too never stumbled upon any such single substance that will do everything the alchemists describe. That should tell you something. The reason why alchemy is so difficult to discover is actually because it is not as simple as just finding some already nature-made substance and submitting it to heat in a closed flask. If it was really this simple it would have ceased to be a mystery a long time ago, and even chemists and physicists would not deny that the Stone exists and think that alchemy is (at best) a "dream".

Dwellings
08-28-2016, 08:49 PM
Sure did! I'm using the same method this thread speaks of. Ok, I won't play dumb. You guys are very clever here. I know what I'm looking at. It's the land of milk and honey philosophically speaking. I'm curious if anyone has gotten this far. I want to discuss everything about this 1/1/1

Have you cut the head of the crow?

The color that your attachment is showing can only happen post that but that still does not expalin two different colors in your setup.

Chasm
08-28-2016, 09:02 PM
I am afraid I can't agree. The analogy does not quite work. Music is an abstract concept, it does not compare well with actual substances. If I had to apply such musical analogy to actual substances, I could reach such erroneous and confusing conclusions as saying that common salt as found in nature ("note middle C" in your analogy) is the same and yet not the same as after it has been calcined ("note middle C, scaled up 3 dozen octaves"). But the calcination only removes its superfluous humidity, it does not do anything else to it and the salt remains the same. How would that help in any way? Nothing has been done except remove a totally accidental feature in the material, everything else remains as it was. That's just one example of the multitude of errors one would fall into by following such arguments.

Single naturally-occurring substances will never work, no matter what you do to them. Besides the fact that countless "puffers" failed to obtain any results by taking such an approach, chemistry has also been around for 250 or so years and it has examined virtually all natural substances found on our planet. It too never stumbled upon any such single substance that will do everything the alchemists describe. That should tell you something. The reason why alchemy is so difficult to discover is actually because it is not as simple as just finding some already nature-made substance and submitting it to heat in a closed flask. If it was really this simple it would have ceased to be a mystery a long time ago, and even chemists and physicists would not deny that the Stone exists and think that alchemy is (at best) a "dream".
Ok, I thought my analogy was pretty good. All things are reducible to nothingness given the correct vibration. When you used salt to counter my musical analogy, you'd of been more correct if you'd have suggested that I concentrate the salt via distillation 3dozen times rather than jump to a vulgar calcination which would make you correct.
What I wanted to float at you is that, after being concentrated, as the note c is done through octave potentiation, the salt in your analogy, after such a potential increase, through concentration, may resemble an acid as opposed to just salt; ie The nature of the subject changes . Like putting pure carbon crystal under extreme pressure until it turns into diamond. You can find carbon crystal a plenty, but the diamonds, although being just pressurized carbon crystals are rare.
The secret of the alchemists would then turn into a word game. You agree?

Andro
08-28-2016, 09:03 PM
One thing that JDP is very right about is that this ("our") matter is NOT readily found as physically occurring in nature, anywhere.
____________________________

"Our" matter is not physical, hence it needs to be corporified via the Alchemical process. And not only does it need to be "corporified", but in order for it to remain in the physical realm, it needs an "anchor" to bind with, an anchor of the material/physical/chemical variety. If we wish to go beyond spagyrics, that is. This "anchor" can be more or less subtle (chemically speaking), but it is nevertheless physical, as opposed to "our" matter with which it will have to bind.

It's not different from magickal spells (for example), mostly needing a physical object to "anchor" the spell in order for it to have an effect in the physical realm. The same rules apply...

Urine can be used, yes. So can other matters, for that matter. But "our" matter is not physically present in the urine. I remember having this HUGE a-ha moment with a few fellow Alchemist friends (in the lab), a few years ago, when we realized that certain 'salts' which manifested were actually "new matter", not formerly physically present in the physical matter(s) we were studying.

Chasm
08-28-2016, 09:09 PM
Have you cut the head of the crow?

The color that your attachment is showing can only happen post that but that still does not expalin two different colors in your setup.
This is good Dwellings. This is what I'm looking for. My image is taken as is for a reason.
I have many images of the crow. The blackest of black. This picture comes after that yes, but how? What is this image signifying?

Chasm
08-28-2016, 09:32 PM
One thing that JDP is very right about is that this ("our") matter is NOT readily found as physically occurring in nature, anywhere.
____________________________

"Our" matter is not physical, hence it needs to be corporified via the Alchemical process. And not only does it need to be "corporified", but in order for it to remain in the physical realm, it needs an "anchor" to bind with, an anchor of the material/physical/chemical variety. If we wish to go beyond spagyrics, that is. This "anchor" can be more or less subtle (chemically speaking), but it is nevertheless physical, as opposed to "our" matter with which it will have to bind.

It's not different from magickal spells (for example), mostly needing a physical object to "anchor" the spell in order for it to have an effect in the physical realm. The same rules apply...

Urine can be used, yes. So can other matters, for that matter. But "our" matter is not physically present in the urine. I remember having this HUGE a-ha moment with a few fellow Alchemist friends (in the lab), a few years ago, when we realized that certain 'salts' which manifested were actually "new matter", not formerly physically present in the physical matter(s) we were studying.
Now this is exactly what I am talking about Andro. What would you say is the cause of this centrepital action that causes this substance to attract itself? Do you feel that it comes in through the glass? Or does it perhaps exist as a polarity within itself? Somewhat like the discordant note of the scale that leads into the higher octave.

JDP
08-28-2016, 09:39 PM
Ok, I thought my analogy was pretty good. All things are reducible to nothingness given the correct vibration. When you used salt to counter my musical analogy, you'd of been more correct if you'd have suggested that I concentrate the salt via distillation 3dozen times rather than jump to a vulgar calcination which would make you correct.
What I wanted to float at you is that, after being concentrated, as the note c is done through octave potentiation, the salt in your analogy, after such a potential increase, through concentration, may resemble an acid as opposed to just salt; ie The nature of the subject changes . Like putting pure carbon crystal under extreme pressure until it turns into diamond. You can find carbon crystal a plenty, but the diamonds, although being just pressurized carbon crystals are rare.
The secret of the alchemists would then turn into a word game. You agree?

But to distill salt you need other substances, salt will not distill by itself. It will sublime if you heat it strong enough, true, but the result is just the same salt. Nothing else. See? The analogy does not work that way either.

I chose simple calcination because I wanted to keep up with the simplistic "only one matter" approach. What else can you possibly do in such a situation where nothing else but one substance is supposedly used? The only thing you can do is heat the substance in question. But since no naturally-occurring substance will display all the reactions the alchemists describe by merely heating it, the only possible logical conclusion is that this statement is a malicious "philosophical" trap. Sure, the "one matter" (in appearance) does exist, but only after the operator makes it out of several substances. This last crucial "detail" is the one that many authors maliciously omit to clarify, thus sending "unworthy" seekers into wild-goose chases for some mysterious naturally-occurring substance that simply put inside a flask and heated will display all the things the alchemists describe. Obviously they never find such a substance, simply because nature does not make such a thing.

The diamond analogy is also faulty because the change is only one of appearance, the composition of the diamond is still in fact just carbon, the difference is only that its composing carbon corpuscles ("atoms") are put together differently than in graphite or coal. Unless you are suggesting that the Stone is really just a very unusual form of some common substance found in nature, which I would find very hard to believe.

Chasm
08-28-2016, 10:26 PM
JDP wrote:
But to distill salt you need other substances, salt will not distill by itself. It will sublime if you heat it strong enough, true, but the result is just the same salt. Nothing else. See? The analogy does not work that way either.


Ok, the ecclesiastical which came first. Suppose we began with salt water and gathered our starting matter, salt, from there. At some point the brine will be supersaturated and "the water of crystallization" will dry up. This same water which was and then wasn't, is easily brought back about by use of common heat. Can we agree on this?

Now, if we were to enclose the salt and its water of crystallization if a flask and allow it to circulate, well this is what I'm talking about. This is how crystals are purified. I've done this with many compounds for profit.
I wouldn't want to burn anything per se but rather to calcinate in the alchemistic way.

As for the diamond, more than just the appearance changes. Most of its characteristics change. It's measure of hardness is altered, it's melt point, it's refractive index, etc. In a nutshell, the dimensions (Walter Russell) change.

JDP wrote:
Unless you are suggesting that the Stone is really just a very unusual form of some common substance found in nature, which I would find very hard to believe.
Well my friend, this is what I'm getting at. It's what the sages mean when they say the matter is common. It really is. Atoms are common, but just finding one isn't that easy until you invent an advanced microscope. It's word play. Are we finding common ground?

Chasm
08-28-2016, 11:05 PM
hi Chasm welcome we wait read your experience welcome

my best regard alfr
Thank you alfr. I'm happy to be here. My experience I most certainly wish to share. ;)

JDP
08-29-2016, 06:51 AM
Ok, the ecclesiastical which came first. Suppose we began with salt water and gathered our starting matter, salt, from there. At some point the brine will be supersaturated and "the water of crystallization" will dry up. This same water which was and then wasn't, is easily brought back about by use of common heat. Can we agree on this?

But now we are really dealing with two substances in this analogy, not one: salt + water. The alchemists did not know that salt was itself a composite of two very different substances since they did not have the required analytical tools to decompose it into its constituents (it was only with the electrochemical researches of chemists like Humphry Davy in the early 19th century that metals like sodium and potassium were discovered, and that chlorine itself was a "simple" or "elemental" substance, not a compound, contrary to what had been theorized by the chemists of the 18th century; and thus it became possible to be aware of the fact that common salt was the chloride of the previously unknown metal sodium), so to them it would have counted as "one" substance, but sea water was well within the capabilities of their analytical tools. A simple distillation revealed that it was a mixture of fresh water and salt. Nobody would have considered sea water to really be "one matter" but a mixture of two well known substances.


Now, if we were to enclose the salt and its water of crystallization if a flask and allow it to circulate, well this is what I'm talking about. This is how crystals are purified. I've done this with many compounds for profit.
I wouldn't want to burn anything per se but rather to calcinate in the alchemistic way.

But water will not do what the alchemists describe. They keep pointing out over and over that "vulgar" or "common" water does not coagulate with heat, on the contrary, it always becomes volatile, no matter what it is mixed with, quite unlike their secret "water" or solvent, which coagulates after prolonged digestions with its "earth". The preparation of this "water" is what is crucial in alchemy, and it is not found made by nature, it is made by human "art" and intervention, and it is generated out of the reaction between the several substances that compose the "Magnesia", or "Chaos", or "Molybdochalkos", or "Black Lead", or "Saturn", or "Abar-Nuhas", or "Sericon", or "Red Lead", or "Green Lion", or "Azoquean Vitriol", or "Antimony", or whatever other code-name you want to choose among the dozens and dozens that the alchemists invented for this secret composite matter, and not out of "one" substance that is already found in nature ready to simply be picked up and "cooked" into the Stone.


As for the diamond, more than just the appearance changes. Most of its characteristics change. It's measure of hardness is altered, it's melt point, it's refractive index, etc. In a nutshell, the dimensions (Walter Russell) change.

Those changes are not "radical" but only "accidental", as the alchemists themselves would say. The diamond can be decomposed or reverted back into the more common forms of carbon. But once you make the Stone, it cannot be decomposed back into its constituents, it forms an entirely different substance from its "parents".


Well my friend, this is what I'm getting at. It's what the sages mean when they say the matter is common. It really is. Atoms are common, but just finding one isn't that easy until you invent an advanced microscope. It's word play. Are we finding common ground?

Like I said, I find this claim quite difficult to believe. Simple rearrangement of particles/atoms will not allow any substance to become radically different from its "close cousins" with different particle arrangements. Diamonds, to keep up with the above analogy, do not become capable of doing such seemingly extraordinary things as transforming many times their own weight of other substances into diamonds. What makes you think, then, that any natural substance, simply by rearranging its particles, will be capable of performing such a feat? There is no analogical example for such a radical change in characteristics by simple rearrangement of particles. In fact, chemistry is well aware of such rearrangements, they are called "allotropes". Needless to say, none of them has ever proven anything regarding the Stone and transmutation.

Chasm
08-29-2016, 12:53 PM
JDP wrote:
But now we are really dealing with two substances in this analogy, not one: salt + water. The alchemists did not know that salt was itself a composite of two very different substances since they did not have the required analytical tools to decompose it into its constituents (it was only with the electrochemical researches of chemists like Humphry Davy in the early 19th century that metals like sodium and potassium were discovered, and that chlorine itself was a "simple" or "elemental" substance, not a compound, contrary to what had been theorized by the chemists of the 18th century; and thus it became possible to be aware of the fact that common salt was the chloride of the previously unknown metal sodium), so to them it would have counted as "one" substance, but sea water was well within the capabilities of their analytical tools. A simple distillation revealed that it was a mixture of fresh water and salt. Nobody would have considered sea water to really be "one matter" but a mixture of two well known substances.
Actually we're dealing with one compound substance...ocean water. Also, I'd have to disagree that the alchemist didn't know it was compound. They were masters of distillation. In fact, their whole philosophy of Mercury, Sulphur, Salt , indicates that they had a knowledge that ALL things were compounds. There are no simples as once believed. Viewing and understanding Walter Russell's periodic table will substantiate this as it will also show the proper relationship between sodium and chlorine.

But water will not do what the alchemists describe. They keep pointing out over and over that "vulgar" or "common" water does not coagulate with heat, on the contrary, it always becomes volatile, no matter what it is mixed with, quite unlike their secret "water" or solvent, which coagulates after prolonged digestions with its "earth". The preparation of this "water" is what is crucial in alchemy, and it is not found made by nature, it is made by human "art" and intervention, and it is generated out of the reaction between the several substances that compose the "Magnesia", or "Chaos", or "Molybdochalkos", or "Black Lead", or "Saturn", or "Abar-Nuhas", or "Sericon", or "Red Lead", or "Green Lion", or "Azoquean Vitriol", or "Antimony", or whatever other code-name you want to choose among the dozens and dozens that the alchemists invented for this secret composite matter, and not out of "one" substance that is already found in nature ready to simply be picked up and "cooked" into the Stone.
This is because what is in fact efficacious is "hidden" within the salt water. We need to find the philosophical earth of the water. This "earth" comes about by natures own hands, the operator does nothing other than set up the conditions. Bear in mind that all waters contain their proper earth and all earths contains their proper water. The earth of sea water is particular and it is this that we work with. Then we begin to see the earth transform through many compositions until it reaches its next fixed state. If you can "see" what I'm talking about, then you'll realize that you missed something. Otherwise, you're right, BUT, the earth of sea water, is NOT salt.

Those changes are not "radical" but only "accidental", as the alchemists themselves would say. The diamond can be decomposed or reverted back into the more common forms of carbon. But once you make the Stone, it cannot be decomposed back into its constituents, it forms an entirely different substance from its "parents".
This argument means that gold itself is accidental. It is after all the mature fruit of metals. A diamond isn't an accident occurring from carbon crystal. The diamond is a transformed body born of pure carbon crystal. Accidents would be the differing colours that occlude the crystal itself, coming from other minerals. The growth of gold and diamond occur through time, a dimension and pressure, also a dimension.

Consider grape juice turning to wine. Who facilitates this? Nature and time. Are we getting closer?

JDP
08-29-2016, 09:40 PM
Actually we're dealing with one compound substance...ocean water.

A mixture, actually, and easily separable by simple distillation. Both substances remain exactly after separation as they were before they were mixed. There is no "radical" change in either from such a superficial mixture. Alchemists like Geber, for example, refer to such types of mixtures as simply mechanical, a "juxtaposition" of particles, while "true mixture" was "per minima" (i.e. intimately through its smallest parts), the substances in question becoming "one substance" and no longer separate substances merely one next to the other.


Also, I'd have to disagree that the alchemist didn't know it was compound. They were masters of distillation. In fact, their whole philosophy of Mercury, Sulphur, Salt , indicates that they had a knowledge that ALL things were compounds. There are no simples as once believed. Viewing and understanding Walter Russell's periodic table will substantiate this as it will also show the proper relationship between sodium and chlorine.

The alchemists had no idea about sodium or even chlorine. To them salt was just a "simple" substance, not a mixture of several substances that could be easily separated (like sea-water could by simple distillation), and like everything else it was composed of varying amounts of the supposed "four elements" that made up the whole universe.

Walter Russell was not an alchemist and he did not live in Antiquity or the Middle Ages, but in the 19th-20th centuries.


This is because what is in fact efficacious is "hidden" within the salt water. We need to find the philosophical earth of the water. This "earth" comes about by natures own hands, the operator does nothing other than set up the conditions. Bear in mind that all waters contain their proper earth and all earths contains their proper water. The earth of sea water is particular and it is this that we work with. Then we begin to see the earth transform through many compositions until it reaches its next fixed state. If you can "see" what I'm talking about, then you'll realize that you missed something. Otherwise, you're right, BUT, the earth of sea water, is NOT salt.

There is no such thing as a "philosophical earth" of common water. Water is just H2O and nothing else. It will never, not even if you lived 1000 years to heat it continually, "coagulate" into a totally different substance with anything you mix it with. Alchemists scoffing at those who worked with "vulgar water", "water of the fountain" or "water of the clouds" (i.e. common water) is a common topic in the literature. As Bernard Trevisan very eloquently puts it:

"Nevertheless this fat and viscous humidity, vivifying or giving Life, the Philosophers have called Mercurial Water, or Oil Permanent, a Water abiding the Fire and also a Divine Water, and is the Key and Foundation of the whole Work, and this Mercurial Water impregnated and permanent, it is said in Turba, “That Bodies must be wrought by flame of Fire that they may be broken, torn and debilitated”, to wit, by this Water full of Fire wherein the Perfect Bodies are so much washed as it is dissolved and made Water, which is not Water of the Clouds, or Fountain Water, as think the ignorant and foolish Sophisters: But this our Permanent Water which cannot yet be made permanent without the Body with which it is joined, that it resists the Fire without flying, wherein our Permanent Water is the whole Secret of our Stone, for by that Water is our Stone perfected, for that in it lodges the vivifying humidity of our Stone, as being the Life and Resurrection of it, of which our Secret Water it is said in Turba, “The Water alone does all, for it dissolves all, it congeals all that is congealable and divides and rends all without any other aid. It is that which Tinges and is Tinged”.


This argument means that gold itself is accidental. It is after all the mature fruit of metals. A diamond isn't an accident occurring from carbon crystal. The diamond is a transformed body born of pure carbon crystal. Accidents would be the differing colours that occlude the crystal itself, coming from other minerals. The growth of gold and diamond occur through time, a dimension and pressure, also a dimension.

People who followed Aristotelian concepts considered such things as hardness, color, fragility, melting points, etc. as "accidental" qualities imprinted on an underlying "prima materia" common to all substances. That's in fact the theoretical reasoning many people since antiquity had for transmutation being possible. You could remove the "accidental qualities" from one substance and put others in their place, thus generating a new substance. Therefore you could, at least theoretically, make gold or silver if you only could figure out how to imprint their "accidental qualities" on the "prima materia" of other metals. So, following this reasoning, a general plan for making gold would be: take a cheap metal, like lead, for example, and remove its "accidental qualities" (its livid gray color, its inability to resist calcination, its low melting point, its inability to resist corrosive vapors, etc.) and "imprint" on it the "accidental qualities" of gold (its bright golden color, its ability to resist calcination, its higher melting point, its ability to resist corrosive vapors, etc.) and you have gold out of lead! Isn't that just totally awesome!?!? Of course, all this falls squarely under the "easier said than done" category. Theories and speculations sound very nice on paper, but often do not translate very well into reality. Achieving metallic transmutations is quite more complicated than the above simplistic theory implies. Alchemists and chymists were very well aware of how resilient and resistant to true change metals really are. Empirical experience taught them that. As Thomas Norton very eloquently and funnily puts it in Middle English verses during one of his attacks against the type of medieval "puffers" that he labels as "multipliers" (and so does George Ripley, thus showing that this type of "puffer" must have been very common in the 15th century) :

"But Metal holds his whole Composition,
When corrosive waters have made dissolution,
Therefore nothing is nearer to simplicity,
Than is Metal, and may it not increased be,
Truly you may trust as I said before,
How of one ounce of Silver, may Silver be no more,
Also nothing multiplied shall you find,
But in Vegetative or of Sensitive kind:
Whereas Metals be only Elementative,
Having no seed, neither feeling of life;
Wherefore concluding all Multipliers must cease,
For Metals once Metals shall no more increase;"

It should be noted here that Thomas Norton was a classic alchemist, he would have nothing to do with any other transmutation claims other than the Philosophers' Stone, a typical trait of most alchemists. However, as a staunch alchemist concerned only with defending the reality of the Stone, Norton obviously either ignored or simply launched malicious negative propaganda against the techniques of these "unworthy" type of seekers after transmutation. The "multipliers", specifically, as the name clearly implies, sought to increase the amount of precious metals in a given alloy at the expense of the base metals in it. So, for example, if you started with an ounce of silver, at the end of the process you would have gained an increase, like for example "double" or "triple", in the silver content of the alloy, so you would end up, after separation, with two or three ounces of silver out of one ounce employed. Their usual techniques, contrary to what Norton says regarding "corrosive waters" as if it was their main "modus operandi", in fact involved "cementations" of alloys that contained a certain amount of gold or silver (or both.) These types of processes passed even into the "chymistry" of the 17th-18th century. I have found examples of such processes being approved by some "chymists" even as late as the mid 1700s. The majority of these processes are obviously sophistical and false and do not give any increase of gold or silver at all, but some appear to indeed be genuine, though the gold and silver yields seem exaggerated; I very much doubt that any of the successful ones can "triple" or even "double" the amount of gold or silver employed (but this remains to be tested; some of these processes use a specially prepared gold, usually called "exalted gold", which was approved by many chymists.) The use of "corrosive waters" in such "multiplying" processes is usually limited to the very beginning (when some substances that enter into the "cements" are prepared by their means) or the very end (when "aqua fortis" is used to separate whatever gold has been produced from the other metals involved.) So, contrary to Norton's statements, it is not the "corrosive waters" that were said to effect the actual transmutation in this case. There was another type of "puffer" who indeed sought transmutation by means of "corrosive waters", but not usually for "multiplying" a given amount of gold or silver contained in an alloy, but for producing gold or silver directly from other metals. These types of special corrosive liquids were usually called "gradatory waters" or "gradatory oils". So we might more appropriately label such gold/silver-makers that made use of them as "gradators" rather than "multipliers".



Consider grape juice turning to wine. Who facilitates this? Nature and time. Are we getting closer?

No, because grape juice is, once again, a complex mixture of several concrete substances. It is not a good analogy either. Simpler things like common water will not be subject to the same changes as such a complex mixture of substances as grape juice.

Chasm
08-29-2016, 10:25 PM
JDP wrote:A mixture, actually, and easily separable by simple distillation. Both substances remain exactly after separation as they were before they were mixed. There is no "radical" change in either from such a superficial mixture. Alchemists like Geber, for example, refer to such types of mixtures as simply mechanical, a "juxtaposition" of particles, while "true mixture" was "per minima" (i.e. intimately through its smallest parts), the substances in question becoming "one substance" and no longer separate substances merely one next to the other.
Semantics, it's still sea water and if left sitting in a sealed vessel becomes stagnant and precipitates a slime. This slime is philosophical earth.

The alchemists had no idea about sodium or even chlorine. To them salt was just a "simple" substance, not a mixture of several substances that could be easily separated (like sea-water could by simple distillation), and like everything else it was composed of varying amounts of the supposed "four elements" that made up the whole universe.

Walter Russell was not an alchemist and he did not live in Antiquity or the Middle Ages, but in the 19th-20th centuries.
To them they were probably called by some colourful name yet I'm sure they were aware of their difference. I won't pretend to sell short their knowledge. The goal of the alchemists wasn't to separate simply by simple distillation either. Once they had their philosophical earth, they sealed it up and set it to coction. This process showed the many events that they spoke of.
About Walter Russell, well one of his books, "The Universal One", will teach you much about matter. He explains physics in a way that is unlike any other. For this reason, I like to refer to him. He is very credible.

There is no such thing as a "philosophical earth" of common water. Water is just H2O and nothing else. It will never, not even if you lived 1000 years to heat it continually, "coagulate" into a totally different substance with anything you mix it with. Alchemists scoffing at those who worked with "vulgar water", "water of the fountain" or "water of the clouds" (i.e. common water) is a common topic in the literature. As Bernard Trevisan very eloquently puts it:
The slime/philosophical earth can be precipitated from common water as well as sea water. It can be precipitated from dew and urine as well. Surely you don't think the alchemists expected one to put plain water into a flask and coct it?
I'm hoping you're beginning to follow me now.

No, because grape juice is, once again, a complex mixture of several concrete substances. It is not a good analogy either. Simpler things like common water will not be subject to the same changes as such a complex mixture of substances as grape juice.
Regardless, grape juice changes to wine. Again, who conducts this operation?
Our grape juice becomes a different substance from what it was. How?

JDP
08-30-2016, 03:43 AM
Semantics, it's still sea water and if left sitting in a sealed vessel becomes stagnant and precipitates a slime. This slime is philosophical earth.

You are talking about purely accidental organic/inorganic impurities in water. The water still is H2O and will continue to be so forever. Common water is NOT the "water" of alchemy, no matter what you do to it or from where you get it. It will never display the reactions described by the alchemists.


To them they were probably called by some colourful name yet I'm sure they were aware of their difference. I won't pretend to sell short their knowledge. The goal of the alchemists wasn't to separate simply by simple distillation either. Once they had their philosophical earth, they sealed it up and set it to coction. This process showed the many events that they spoke of.

There is no evidence that the alchemists knew about either sodium or chlorine. The alchemists were not aware that almost all the so-called middle minerals (under which category they included common salt) in fact contained metals. They lumped these minerals as not quite "metallic", but, as the name suggests, something "in the middle" between metals and the "lesser minerals". Not even 18th century chemists knew about sodium, and chlorine was thought to be a compound then. It was only after the electrochemical research of Humphry Davy in the early 1800s that it became clear that chlorine was not a compound of two or more substances and that a whole new metal that no one had heard of before, sodium, was the metallic base of such substances as common salt and "caustic soda" (sodium hydroxide.) To the alchemists salt was just a "simple" substance. The "four elements" composed it, just like everything else in the universe, but that was nature's work. As far as the alchemist was concerned, salt counted as one substance, not a compound or mixture of two or more well-known other substances. Sea-water, on the other hand, was easy to recognize as a mere mixture of water and salt. All you had to do is submit it to a simple distillation to easily perceive this separation into its constituent parts.


The slime/philosophical earth can be precipitated from common water as well as sea water. It can be precipitated from dew and urine as well. Surely you don't think the alchemists expected one to put plain water into a flask and coct it?
I'm hoping you're beginning to follow me now.

Those are just accidental impurities. Common water dissolves many other matters. But it itself remains the same old water it has always been and can always be recovered from such mixtures. It will never "coagulate" into something else entirely different, no matter what you mix it with or how long you digest it.

Regarding this topic: you should read Lavoisier's testing of the erroneous claim by Boyle that by digesting water for some time you could obtain a small amount of an "earth". Boyle fell into the erroneous conclusion that water could be "transmuted" into "earth" because of the unfortunate fact that he happened to have performed that experiment in a glass vessel that must not have been very well-made and therefore did not resist the slow solvent action of the hot water. The "earth" he thought was produced from the water was in fact just silica separated from the not-very-well-made glass he was working with. When distilled water is digested in well-made glass vessels (which are not attacked by the hot water), no such "earth" is seen anywhere.

Sea water and urine are complex mixtures of water and various salts and microorganisms. Again, these are not examples of "one matter only" by any means.


Regardless, grape juice changes to wine. Again, who conducts this operation?
Our grape juice becomes a different substance from what it was. How?

Again, these are just the effect of microorganisms that encounter the appropriate conditions and substances in the water to "ferment" them into another substance. Notice that the water itself is just a "medium" and remains unaltered in these fermentations. What changes are the more complex substances, like sugars and urea.

Chasm
08-30-2016, 02:20 PM
JDP wrote:
You are talking about purely accidental organic/inorganic impurities in water. The water still is H2O and will continue to be so forever. Common water is NOT the "water" of alchemy, no matter what you do to it or from where you get it. It will never display the reactions described by the alchemists.
Yes, yes, the water is still water, but nature attaches it to the air, this is not accidental. This just is. So let's not keep nature out of its proper place, which always must be considered a priori. This whole planet is an accident otherwise. What exists where earth meets water and water meets air? This is what I want you to consider. Mud, slime, gur, bitumen. All of these things are compounded substances, yet we call each of these by one name. Their compositions are various, but in general, we can say that mud is one matter, as is sputum, sea water, wine or an apple. The matter is the subject and the subject is composed of its elements. And no, common water is NOT, the water of alchemy. The water is uncommon, so let's just say it's a liquid.

There is no evidence that the alchemists knew about either sodium or chlorine. The alchemists were not aware that almost all the so-called middle minerals (under which category they included common salt) in fact contained metals. They lumped these minerals as not quite "metallic", but, as the name suggests, something "in the middle" between metals and the "lesser minerals". Not even 18th century chemists knew about sodium, and chlorine was thought to be a compound then. It was only after the electrochemical research of Humphry Davy in the early 1800s that it became clear that chlorine was not a compound of two or more substances and that a whole new metal that no one had heard of before, sodium, was the metallic base of such substances as common salt and "caustic soda" (sodium hydroxide.) To the alchemists salt was just a "simple" substance. The "four elements" composed it, just like everything else in the universe, but that was nature's work. As far as the alchemist was concerned, salt counted as one substance, not a compound or mixture of two or more well-known other substances. Sea-water, on the other hand, was easy to recognize as a mere mixture of water and salt. All you had to do is submit it to a simple distillation to easily perceive this separation into its constituent parts.
There were countless types of salts and they were given names that suited the fancy of the discoverer.
I can appreciate that through the centuries, the nomenclature may have changed, but it is my belief that the substances of the alchemists were altogether different from those of the chemists. You acknowledge that nature does its own work and I'd like you to keep this in mind. Again, I want you to consider that the alchemists didn't just distill. They cocted. This process involves a distillation, but this distillation is only a part of coction. Furthermore, let us consider matter as the subject and not its constituent parts. As such, sea water is one matter, agreed? Otherwise ALL matter is simply energy existing at differing potentials.

Those are just accidental impurities. Common water dissolves many other matters. But it itself remains the same old water it has always been and can always be recovered from such mixtures. It will never "coagulate" into something else entirely different, no matter what you mix it with or how long you digest it.

As I've said before, Nature joins air to water and water to earth. This is not accidental. It just is. And as water dissolves many earths, as does urine, let this water/liquid, taken from wherever it may reside in its natural setting, be our subject. Agreed?

Again, these are just the effect of microorganisms that encounter the appropriate conditions and substances in the water to "ferment" them into another substance. Notice that the water itself is just a "medium" and remains unaltered in these fermentations. What changes are the more complex substances like carbohydrates and urea.
Aha! Naturally occurring "microorganisms that encounter appropriate conditions..."
Now we're talking. Is alcohol water or mostly water? Or has the subject "fermented into another substance?"
I know that you will agree that water isn't alcohol, I know that you're aware that microorganisms existing in nature all around us play a part in grape juice turning to wine with no addition made by the hands of man.
Can you now consider a one matter, one vessel approach?

JDP
08-30-2016, 03:29 PM
Yes, yes, the water is still water, but nature attaches it to the air, this is not accidental. This just is. So let's not keep nature out of its proper place, which always must be considered a priori. This whole planet is an accident otherwise. What exists where earth meets water and water meets air? This is what I want you to consider. Mud, slime, gur, bitumen. All of these things are compounded substances, yet we call each of these by one name. Their compositions are various, but in general, we can say that mud is one matter, as is sputum, sea water, wine or an apple. The matter is the subject and the subject is composed of its elements. And no, common water is NOT, the water of alchemy. The water is uncommon, so let's just say it's a liquid.

There were countless types of salts and they were given names that suited the fancy of the discoverer.
I can appreciate that through the centuries, the nomenclature may have changed, but it is my belief that the substances of the alchemists were altogether different from those of the chemists. You acknowledge that nature does its own work and I'd like you to keep this in mind. Again, I want you to consider that the alchemists didn't just distill. They cocted. This process involves a distillation, but this distillation is only a part of coction. Furthermore, let us consider matter as the subject and not its constituent parts. As such, sea water is one matter, agreed? Otherwise ALL matter is simply energy existing at differing potentials.

Coction was important, but so was distillation. The alchemists knew that they could separate many matters into their constituent parts by simply distilling them. For hundreds of years distillation was in fact the main operation used in "fire analysis". The idea that substances could be divided into their "sulfureous", "mercurial" and "saline" parts or "principles" was born out of this old habit of submitting anything at hand to distillation to see what products would be obtained.


As I've said before, Nature joins air to water and water to earth. This is not accidental. It just is. And as water dissolves many earths, as does urine, let this water/liquid, taken from wherever it may reside in its natural setting, be our subject. Agreed?

None of this is "one matter only". Simple analytical techniques well-known to the alchemists would easily show their constituent parts. Unlike in the example of common salt, where the components are so strongly bound to each other that the alchemists simply had no way of separating them in a manner that would allow them to realize its composing substances (i.e. chlorine and sodium.) The technology to be able to do this did not come about until around the early 19th century. So from the point of view of an alchemist it was perfectly logical to consider something like salt as "one matter", even if itself was supposedly composed of the "four elements", but he had no way of knowing how nature operated to create it out of these supposed primordial "elements" that made up everything in the universe, so this part had to be overlooked, it did not appertain to the alchemist to know this. Only nature could create such "simple" substances as salts, minerals and metals (notice "create", as opposed to "transmute", "transform", "separate" or "change", which is quite different; the alchemists did not presume that they could create anything out of the "four elements", that was nature's work. He only separated or transformed already existing matters into other ones by applying certain techniques.)


Aha! Naturally occurring "microorganisms that encounter appropriate conditions..."
Now we're talking. Is alcohol water or mostly water? Or has the subject "fermented into another substance?"
I know that you will agree that water isn't alcohol, I know that you're aware that microorganisms existing in nature all around us play a part in grape juice turning to wine with no addition made by the hands of man.
Can you now consider a one matter, one vessel approach?

No, because grape juice is not any "one matter" but a complex mixture of several substances, plus you can't prepare the "water" of alchemy from it either. You get alcohol, common water, and some solid compounds left behind. None of these will provide you with the "water" of alchemy, at least not by themselves they won't.

PS: there are some alchemists, most notably the "adept" who called himself "Theodorus Mundanus", who openly claim that common spirit of wine CAN be used to prepare the secret solvent of alchemy, BUT NOT ALONE BY ITSELF. As he very plainly says, it needs to be "united with another vegetable nature which bears the Character of a trefoyle" for this to be possible. So no, the "one matter only" ruse does NOT work here either, as plainly more than one substance enters into play in this "alternative" way of preparing the secret solvent. There just is no way, not even the slightest chance, that from "one matter only" you will be able to prepare the Stone. It just ain't going to happen. This claim is plainly a "philosophical" death-trap to send unwary seekers on a wild-goose chase for this mysterious and inexistent (in nature) "one matter" that supposedly will display all the reactions the alchemists describe.

Chasm
08-30-2016, 06:55 PM
JDP wrote:
Coction was important, but so was distillation. The alchemists knew that they could separate many matters into their constituent parts by simply distilling them. For hundreds of years distillation was in fact the main operation used in "fire analysis". The idea that substances could be divided into their "sulfureous", "mercurial" and "saline" parts or "principles" was born out of this old habit of submitting anything at hand to distillation to see what products would be obtained.
I've asked you to consider naturally occurring substances as one matter in my previous post. You simply ignored that request. I attempted to point out to you that ALL matter can be divided into its constituent parts. If you only choose to consider "one matter" as being a constituent part of a substance, then you're not interested in alchemy which is a hermetic science with its own nomenclature and a true natural philosophy.
Water is matter. It is homogenous as it appears in its natural state. It is one substance. We cannot have an honest discussion if you ignore this simple truth.

What do you suppose the purpose of coction was?

One "matter" can be composed of many constituent parts. In fact all matter is composed of different elements.
Do you not think the alchemist's subjected simple naturally occurring matters...as feces to coction? Feces is not called breakfast, lunch and dinner waste, it's not even called waste. It's called feces. It is a matter. It is the byproduct of many different substances subjected to coction. If you choose to maintain that "one matter" must be elemental, then I'm afraid your position is based on an assumption that in my opinion is erroneous.

Only nature could create such "simple" substances as salts, minerals and metals (notice "create", as opposed to "transmute", "transform", "separate" or "change", which is quite different; the alchemists did not presume that they could create anything out of the "four elements", that was nature's work. He only separated or transformed already existing matters into other ones by applying certain techniques.)

"...by applying certain techniques." So this is how grape juice is turned into wine then? The grape juice is existing, the microorganisms are existing. All of it is made out of the four elements, not to mention that many, many texts tell us that the Work is like making wine; Is it all a ruse? No, nature creates the wine from grape juice. This is a truth. Even if as you claim, that grape juice consists of many constituent parts, so what! Everything else consists of consituent parts as well. Matter is infinitely divisible in gradation to the inertial plane, the eidos or source, the hypothetical zero of nothingness WALTER RUSSELL

None of these will provide you with the "water" of alchemy, at least not by themselves they won't.
This is not what I'm suggesting. What I am suggesting, is that one naturally occurring substance, such as salt water, after having been allowed to become what we call stagnant, will yield a philosophical earth that we can subject to coction.
This coction, develops the water of alchemy.


PS: there are some alchemists, most notably the "adept" who called himself "Theodorus Mundanus", who openly claim that common spirit of wine CAN be used to prepare the secret solvent of alchemy, BUT NOT ALONE BY ITSELF. As he very plainly says, it needs to be "united with another vegetable nature which bears the Character of a trefoyle" for this to be possible. So no, the "one matter only" ruse does NOT work here either, as plainly more than one substance enters into play in this "alternative" way of preparing the secret solvent. There just is no way, not even the slightest chance, that from "one matter only" you will be able to prepare the Stone. It just ain't going to happen. This claim is plainly a "philosophical" death-trap to send unwary seekers on a wild-goose chase for this mysterious and inexistent (in nature) "one matter" that supposedly will display all the reactions the alchemists describe.
How often have you read that when the alchemists spoke most plainly, that it was their intention to all the more deceive? They engage in word play my friend.
Urine was often veiled as "wine" and so spirit of wine would be a spirit lifted from urine.
Therefore, from one matter you beget two. Continue the coction and other "matters" appear. I have personally seen this approach manifest many signs. But I don't want you to accept my word for it. I want you to see it for yourself.
Metals grow in vein patterns within the earth. This vein pattern is vegetal. Therefore, the joining of something else vegetal may well be itself. Word play! Are we finding common ground?:D

JDP
08-30-2016, 09:10 PM
I've asked you to consider naturally occurring substances as one matter in my previous post. You simply ignored that request. I attempted to point out to you that ALL matter can be divided into its constituent parts. If you only choose to consider "one matter" as being a constituent part of a substance, then you're not interested in alchemy which is a hermetic science with its own nomenclature and a true natural philosophy.
Water is matter. It is homogenous as it appears in its natural state. It is one substance. We cannot have an honest discussion if you ignore this simple truth.

What you are asking is to throw historical context out the window and substituting it with your own concepts of what "one matter" is. This is not how it works. We are talking about the point of view of people from past centuries. I already explained why a matter like salt was easy to have been considered as a "simple" or singular matter by the alchemists, but obvious mixtures of two or more well known and easily separated substances like sea salt would not. It's just a solution of salt in water. These are two distinct substances easily obtainable by the techniques known to the alchemists. Chlorine and sodium are not.


What do you suppose the purpose of coction was?

Generally to join the "volatile" with the "fixed" to form the Stone. Others also used it to perform what they envisioned as a "putrefaction" or "fermentation" of some substances/mixtures.


One "matter" can be composed of many constituent parts. In fact all matter is composed of different elements.
Do you not think the alchemist's subjected simple naturally occurring matters...as feces to coction? Feces is not called breakfast, lunch and dinner waste, it's not even called waste. It's called feces. It is a matter. It is the byproduct of many different substances subjected to coction. If you choose to maintain that "one matter" must be elemental, then I'm afraid your position is based on an assumption that in my opinion is erroneous.

I already explained what could be labelled as "one matter" from the alchemist's point of view and what not. Salt could (and was) easily be considered so, but things like sea water could hardly qualify as such. It was just too well known to just be a mixture of plain water and salt.



"...by applying certain techniques." So this is how grape juice is turned into wine then? The grape juice is existing, the microorganisms are existing. All of it is made out of the four elements, not to mention that many, many texts tell us that the Work is like making wine; Is it all a ruse?

What text tells us that making the Stone is like making wine? Most alchemical texts that mention wine do so with the wine already made, which is then submitted to distillation, cohobation, digestion, etc. And it is extremely dubious that the alchemists that do describe such operations with "wine" really mean the fermented drink we all know. The things they claim the "spirit of wine" does simply do not happen in reality. This is why Weidenfeld wrote a whole book (and was preparing several others that he never got around publishing) on the subject of why what these writers meant could not be "wine" but something else (which, surprise-surprise, as Weidenfeld's explanations very clearly imply is actually made from the interaction between several matters, some "vegetable/animal", some "mineral", and most definitely not "only one matter") hiding under the analogy with wine and its "spirit".


No, nature creates the wine from grape juice. This is a truth. Even if as you claim, that grape juice consists of many constituent parts, so what! Everything else consists of consituent parts as well. Matter is infinitely divisible in gradation to the inertial plane, the eidos or source, the hypothetical zero of nothingness WALTER RUSSELL

"So what?"??? So it means what I have been pointing out all this time: that the "only one matter" claim is nothing but a deceitful strategy to fool unwary seekers into going on a hunt for things that have no basis whatsoever in reality. There is no single, simple, naturally-occurring substance that will do all the things the alchemists describe in their texts.

And Walter Russell was not an alchemist.


This is not what I'm suggesting. What I am suggesting, is that one naturally occurring substance, such as salt water, after having been allowed to become what we call stagnant, will yield a philosophical earth that we can subject to coction.
This coction, develops the water of alchemy.

There just is no way this will ever happen. What you call the "philosophical earth" is nothing but the byproduct of some accidental impurities in the water (which can easily vary from place to place and from time to time: purely accidental stuff), and the water that contains it won't change into something radically different than it was, it will remain the same old H2O as it has always been.


How often have you read that when the alchemists spoke most plainly, that it was their intention to all the more deceive? They engage in word play my friend.

If you think that saying "united with another vegetable nature which bears the Character of a trefoyle" is some sort of very clear revelation of what substance he means, you are more than welcome to clear up this conundrum for all of us, because there is hardly anything "clear" about what substance he means with such code-names as "vegetable nature" and "trefoyle". The objection you are trying to raise here only applies when it comes to dishing out information regarding what substances are actually used to make the Stone, not when giving general explanations. You will find that many alchemists are surprisingly lucid and clear when giving information regarding most aspects of the work, with the very conspicuous only exception of what are the matters actually used. Here even the clearest authors switch gears and start being more vague, imprecise and mysterious.

And also, by the same token, we can apply your objection here to the "one matter only" claim as well: "when the alchemists spoke most plainly, it was their intention to all the more deceive." So by your own logic, those who made this plain and straightforward claim must have been deceiving others. See how you would never be able to come to any conclusions by so liberally applying this excuse to everything the alchemists said? You could put question marks on virtually everything that they wrote. But that is not how the alchemists meant this warning. No one will discover how to make the Stone by being told more general information on the subject, like for example that several matters are actually used to make the Stone. Another example: the alchemists never made any mystery of the fact that during the "coction" stage you are supposed to use a controlled temperature and, ideally, a glass vessel so you can keep an eye on the changes that will develop inside. This is not what they considered "vital" information. Such information will not allow you to know exactly what substances they were using. They only talk in riddles or vague or confusing fashions when it comes to the matters that were used to make the Stone. So "Mundanus" is very much in keeping with this tradition: he doesn't mind telling you that you can make the secret solvent from common spirit of wine, but only if you also know how to prepare some other matter that he carefully keeps wrapped under mysterious utterances. How will this allow you to know how to make the secret solvent? Where is the super "revelation" here that we supposedly have to be so weary of for fear that he could be trying to mislead us? In fact, his statement is much less "revealing" than the "one matter only" claim. With Mundanus' statement we have no idea what this "vegetable nature that bears the character of a trefoyle" is, and if itself is actually composed of several matters or only one. All we can gather from his explanation is that with this mysterious substance + common spirit of wine somehow you can also make the secret solvent ("Mundanus" himself uses another mixture of substances to make the secret solvent, he only mentions the method with common spirit of wine as a casual comment and does not give any more explanations regarding this alternative way of operating.) With the "only one matter" claim we are being led to believe that the matter of the Stone is already made by nature, that you only need to correctly identify it, pick it up and then somehow use it (and nothing else whatsoever) to make the Stone. Call me crazy, but with the second claim you theoretically have most of your work cut out for you from the very start! You don't have to waste any time and money experimenting with the wide world of possibilities and variation that mixtures offer. All you have to do is stumble upon a sample of this remarkable naturally-occurring single matter and voila! you are half-way through the work already. Pure wishful thinking, my friend. There is no such "one matter only" found in nature that will perform everything the alchemists say.


Urine was often veiled as "wine" and so spirit of wine would be a spirit lifted from urine.

Quite unnecessary tactic, since works plainly describing the distillation of urine also exist. In fact, just like some authors say that those who pretended to work with "wine" and its "spirit" were really working with something else, some other authors also say that those who pretended to work with "urine" and its "spirit" were also really working with something else.


Therefore, from one matter you beget two. Continue the coction and other "matters" appear. I have personally seen this approach manifest many signs. But I don't want you to accept my word for it. I want you to see it for yourself.
Metals grow in vein patterns within the earth. This vein pattern is vegetal. Therefore, the joining of something else vegetal may well be itself. Word play! Are we finding common ground?:D

I don't think so. And he plainly says "another vegetable nature", meaning different than the nature of common spirit of wine. We can try to interpret what he means by "vegetable" here (maybe he does literally mean that it is a substance derived from other vegetable matters than wine, or maybe he means some non-vegetable matter that has some analogy with vegetables) but we definitely can safely conclude he means two separate substances of different origin here: common spirit of wine + something else that does not come from wine (i.e. the "nature" of common spirit of wine.)

Chasm
08-30-2016, 10:56 PM
JDP wrote:
What you are asking is to throw historical context out the window and substituting it with your own concepts of what "one matter" is.
No, I'm asking you not to assume the historical context of one matter. By any definition you are assuming that one matter means what is erroneously termed simple.
Your assumption appears to be that a mixture of simples is required to make the Stone.
There is no alchemical text that definitively states such a thing. Not to my knowledge.
You are assuming that what the alchemists meant by one matter, is that it was a simple matter, viz. a salt of some sort.

Generally to join the "volatile" with the "fixed" to form the Stone. Others also used it to perform what they envisioned as a "putrefaction" or "fermentation" of some substances/mixtures.

Do you agree that ALL matter contains both volatile and fixed parts? That the separation of matter into these positive and negative parts is achievable alchemically? I am here suggesting the reverse operation to what you imply above.

I already explained what could be labelled as "one matter" from the alchemist's point of view and what not. Salt could (and was) easily be considered so, but things like sea water could hardly qualify as such. It was just too well known to just be a mixture of plain water and salt.
Well, I'd challenge this. You're not one of the alchemists :D You possess much knowledge of the subject (which I deeply admire), however, even you cannot deem to be an authority on what they considered one matter, therefore we've reached an impasse here. I mean really, "from the alchemists point of view?" You're rigging the discussion.

What text tells us that making the Stone is like making wine?
Really? Ok, I'm going to have to dig that one up for you. I should have done it before. Can't believe you haven't seen this.

"So what?"??? So it means what I have been pointing out all this time: that the "only one matter" claim is nothing but a deceitful strategy to fool unwary seekers into going on a hunt for things that have no basis whatsoever in reality. There is no single, simple, naturally-occurring substance that
:confused: Hardly, but nice try! I don't claim that a simple substance using your definition of the term does as is written. What I do claim is that one matter as I define it and perhaps the alchemists define it, cocts and performs all of the myriad operations claimed by they who've done this. This also may be a matter of interpretation and as such ambiguity may exist and so I'll interpret as it suits mine own observations sir! :D

There just is no way this will ever happen. What you call the "philosophical earth" is nothing but the byproduct of some accidental impurities in the water (which can easily vary from place to place and from time to time: purely accidental stuff), and the water that contains it won't change into something radically different than it was, it will remain the same old H2O as it has always been.

Really? Have you tried? Don't tell me your one of those. Your argument says that wine is accidental. I say it's not. I say it's a creation of nature through genero-fermentative processes. I also claim that this process occurs in one vessel from the one matter ,by my definition, grape juice in this case, and requires not the hands of an operator.
My philosophic earth is no more an accident than wine.

I won't comment on the last part of your reply because I realize that how we read the texts and what we obtain from them is highly speculative and left much to the imagination.
The veil is only lifted when we've formed correlations amongst the many texts and can show a parallel in the practical works.
I've done this to my own satisfaction and can assure you that this method is valid.

Chasm
08-31-2016, 12:20 AM
"The Golden Tripod" by Thomas Norton
Concerning which I here intend to write in a style manly, but not curious. For he who desires to instruct the common people should speak to them in a language they understand. But though I must express myself in a plain and unassuming style, no candid reader should therefore contemn me. For all that before me have written on this matter have rendered their books obscure and unintelligible by an exaggerated use of poetical imagery, parables, and metaphors which grievously obstruct the path of those who first enter on this field of knowledge. This is the reason that a beginner, who strives to put their precepts into practice, only loses his trouble and his money, as is daily seen. Hermes, Rhasis, Geber, Avicenna, Merlin, Hortulanus, Democritus, Morienus, Bacon, Raymond, Aristotle, and many others, have concealed their meaning under a veil of obscurity.
This one I found quickly but there are more texts which advance what I'm saying about speaking "plainly".
Also, "Trefoyle" is a yellow flowering field grass used mainly as hay for feed. The clue is in the "yellow" flower. Think canola.
Ergo, yellow oil. Your intelligent, you need to be more cunning ;)

JDP
08-31-2016, 11:16 AM
No, I'm asking you not to assume the historical context of one matter. By any definition you are assuming that one matter means what is erroneously termed simple.

Alchemists embraced the systems of classification of substances very current in late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Things like sea water, as if it was a separate matter on its own, appear nowhere in their lists of substances simply because they are mixtures of other substances that were well known to be separate things. Water and salt, on the other hand, are found as concrete simple substances in their classification systems. Things like "marcasites", "vitriols", "boraxes", "salts", etc. were recognized as concrete separate matters. So when you hear alchemists speaking about "one matter" they had such things in mind, certainly not mixtures of several things like sea water.


Your assumption appears to be that a mixture of simples is required to make the Stone.

An "assumption" that is based both on what plenty of alchemists themselves say (i.e. "Magnesia", "Sericon", "Green Lion", "Azoquean Vitriol", "Antimony", etc. being a COMPOUNDED matter, made by the operator himself, not something found already made in nature) as well as from empirical experience (there is no such single, simple substance that can be labelled "only one matter" from the point of view of people who lived hundreds of years ago that can do all the things that the alchemists describe.)


There is no alchemical text that definitively states such a thing. Not to my knowledge.
You are assuming that what the alchemists meant by one matter, is that it was a simple matter, viz. a salt of some sort.

That is what the way they had of classifying substances shows. They distinguished between "simple" matters and mixtures. In the quote I gave you above from Norton's "Ordinal of Alchemy", for example, he calls metals the most "simple" matters. The reason he adduces for this is how resistant they are to change. He gives the example of one ounce of silver dissolved in "corrosive waters" and how you can get the whole ounce of silver back intact as proof of what he means. Despite the apparent changes the metal underwent, in the end it remained quite intact. The more resistant to change a substance was, the more "simple" was its "constitution". Animal and vegetable matters, accordingly, were seen as "less simple" and more complex, seeing as how relatively easy they would undergo changes (simple heat alone is enough to decompose most organic materials.)


Do you agree that ALL matter contains both volatile and fixed parts? That the separation of matter into these positive and negative parts is achievable alchemically? I am here suggesting the reverse operation to what you imply above.

No, because such a generalization would be false. Show me where is the "volatile" part of, say, iron? You can heat it to a white heat and none of it will volatilize. Conversely, show me the "fixed" part of, say, camphor? Even without applying any heat to it, it will eventually volatilize on its own without leaving anything behind. The matter that makes up the universe is far too varied and complex for making such unwarranted generalizations.



Well, I'd challenge this. You're not one of the alchemists :D You possess much knowledge of the subject (which I deeply admire), however, even you cannot deem to be an authority on what they considered one matter, therefore we've reached an impasse here. I mean really, "from the alchemists point of view?" You're rigging the discussion.

I told you, the alchemists embraced the medieval ways of classifying substances. "Simple" substances would not have included obvious mixtures like sea water.


Really? Ok, I'm going to have to dig that one up for you. I should have done it before. Can't believe you haven't seen this.

Alchemical texts mentioning wine and manipulations with it as the centerpiece came about around the 13th-14th century, and all of the ones I have seen so far say such things as "take red/white wine, put it in an cucurbit etc." In other words, they start with an already-made wine. None of them pretend that the Stone is made like the wine itself is made, but rather that wine, or more precisely its "spirit", is used in making the Stone. Sometimes we hear references to "the juice of grapes" in alchemical texts, like in Ripley's "Vision", but these texts are so obviously using "decknamen" that no one in his right mind has ever interpreted them as literally meaning actual grape juice. The "juice of grapes" in question is about as "literal" as the "toad" that drinks it! All the substances and creatures mentioned in this type of heavily allegorical texts are obviously code-words for the actual substances used. In fact, you can classify alchemical literature into two general methods of exposition:

1- Works that seem to give clearer instructions on how and on what to operate (which does not necessarily mean that their authors really were working with the substances they very openly mention)

2- Works that heavily rely on "decknamen", allegories, riddles, analogies, etc.

The above referred to works that say such things as "take red/white wine, distill its spirit, etc.", like for example Rupecissa's "Book of the Quintessence", would fall in the first category, while a work like Ripley's "Vision" would fall under the second.


:confused: Hardly, but nice try! I don't claim that a simple substance using your definition of the term does as is written. What I do claim is that one matter as I define it and perhaps the alchemists define it, cocts and performs all of the myriad operations claimed by they who've done this. This also may be a matter of interpretation and as such ambiguity may exist and so I'll interpret as it suits mine own observations sir! :D

But that is your concept of what "one matter" should mean. And even according to it you are accepting that from a strict point of view the "one matter" claim is erroneous. The matters you have in mind are in fact mixtures of several substances, not really "one matter" in the true, literal sense of such an expression.


Really? Have you tried? Don't tell me your one of those. Your argument says that wine is accidental. I say it's not. I say it's a creation of nature through genero-fermentative processes. I also claim that this process occurs in one vessel from the one matter ,by my definition, grape juice in this case, and requires not the hands of an operator.
My philosophic earth is no more an accident than wine.

Really? Take pure distilled water, do not allow it to be contaminated with anything, and see where your "philosophical earth" is then. I can assure you that you will not find it anywhere. Why? Because you have taken precautions to eliminate the accidental contents, like mineral/organic impurities in the water, that make it possible for any such "earth" to be produced. Similarly, take grape juice and do not allow it to come in contact with air. Will it "ferment" then? Nope. What happened to your "philosophic earth" that supposedly can be generated out of "one matter only"? Why does it need to be in contact with YET ANOTHER matter (i.e. air, which is actually a mixture of gases itself, and not a "simple" substance as the alchemists would have seen it) to be able to be produced? No matter how you want to see this topic, the whole "one matter only" thing is pure nonsense.


I won't comment on the last part of your reply because I realize that how we read the texts and what we obtain from them is highly speculative and left much to the imagination.
The veil is only lifted when we've formed correlations amongst the many texts and can show a parallel in the practical works.
I've done this to my own satisfaction and can assure you that this method is valid.

This "method" is actually using complex mixtures of substances too, not any "one matter only". Such a "method" does not exist. Truly simple matters that could be considered as "only one", either from the point of view of the alchemists or our own more modern concepts, will NEVER perform what the alchemists describe.

JDP
08-31-2016, 11:36 AM
This one I found quickly but there are more texts which advance what I'm saying about speaking "plainly".
Also, "Trefoyle" is a yellow flowering field grass used mainly as hay for feed. The clue is in the "yellow" flower. Think canola.
Ergo, yellow oil. Your intelligent, you need to be more cunning ;)

The actual work is Norton's "Ordinal of Alchemy", included in Maier's "Golden Tripod" collection, and what he mentions is a very common topic in alchemical literature: saying that others have written obscurely, but of course not the author himself, who always claims to write more clearly than anyone. In reality, they all adopt a more vague style when it comes to declaring what exactly are the substances employed in making the Stone. Norton, by the way, implies that the Stone is made from 4 substances. So you won't get the "one matter only" nonsense from him either. Like I said, the more honest among the alchemists did not subscribe to such a claim, or if they did, they were careful to clarify what was really meant by this "one matter only" (i.e. the matter of the Stone AFTER it has been COMPOUNDED from several by the operator.)

"Trefoyles" are just clovers:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trefoil

and it does not readily suggest anything in particular. Your "explanation" of what it supposedly means is pure speculation based on the color of a flower. Purely arbitrary choice. Maybe he was instead referring to the fact that it has three leaves and this "other vegetable nature" is composed of three things, thus the analogy. Who knows. We can't be sure of what "Mundanus" had in mind by such a strange reference since he does not give any more explanations regarding this.

Chasm
08-31-2016, 01:36 PM
[


JDP wrote:
"Trefoyles" are just clovers:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trefoil

and it does not readily suggest anything in particular. Your "explanation" of what it supposedly means is pure speculation based on the color of a flower. Purely arbitrary choice. Maybe he was instead referring to the fact that it has three leaves and this "other vegetable nature" is composed of three things, thus the analogy. Who knows. We can't be sure of what "Mundanus" had in mind by such a strange reference since he does not give any more explanations regarding this.
Trefoyle is not clover, it's a yellow flowering grass commonly planted along side clover.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=xUxXAAAAcAAJ&pg=RA1-PA85&lpg=RA1-PA85&dq=trefoyle&source=bl&ots=KJw-59sbH9&sig=vrpzXw_2nmzu5QqXpebSnUnjWsw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwih6_iFrerOAhWIOhoKHdZkBUkQ6AEIKjAG#v=on epage&q=trefoyle&f=true
It's clearly distinguished from clover on page 84. The fact that it's a yellow flowering grass with yellow oil is speculation to you but what I see, you don't.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/matter
Matter is made up of substance. So no more ambiguity here.


Alchemists embraced the systems of classification of substances very current in late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Things like sea water, as if it was a separate matter on its own, appear nowhere in their lists of substances simply because they are mixtures of other substances that were well known to be separate things. Water and salt, on the other hand, are found as concrete simple substances in their classification systems. Things like "marcasites", "vitriols", "boraxes", "salts", etc. were recognized as concrete separate matters. So when you hear alchemists speaking about "one matter" they had such things in mind, certainly not mixtures of several things like sea water.

As should be clear now, sea water is matter. This matter is composed of substance. No longer can you use the word erroneously. Please refer to the link above.
ALL matter contain substances...period! Therefore one matter can contain the many substances that you require.

An "assumption" that is based both on what plenty of alchemists themselves say (i.e. "Magnesia", "Sericon", "Green Lion", "Azoquean Vitriol", "Antimony", etc. being a COMPOUNDED matter, made by the operator himself, not something found already made in nature) as well as from empirical experience (there is no such single, simple substance that can be labelled "only one matter" from the point of view of people who lived hundreds of years ago that can do all the things that the alchemists describe.)

Again, matter is composed of substance. You are wrong in your assumption. Please refer to the definition above.

That is what the way they had of classifying substances shows. They distinguished between "simple" matters and mixtures. In the quote I gave you above from Norton's "Ordinal of Alchemy", for example, he calls metals the most "simple" matters. The reason he adduces for this is how resistant they are to change. He gives the example of one ounce of silver dissolved in "corrosive waters" and how you can get the whole ounce of silver back intact as proof of what he means. Despite the apparent changes the metal underwent, in the end it remained quite intact. The more resistant to change a substance was, the more "simple" was its "constitution". Animal and vegetable matters, accordingly, were seen as "less simple" and more complex, seeing as how relatively easy they would undergo changes (simple heat alone is enough to decompose most organic materials.)

I'm in full agreement with Norton. Many "puffers" don't realize that all of their sophistications are reducible back to silver and gold which is falsely placed in their coctions. Matter, however, is still composed of substances. Matter can be compounded. An example is water and dirt to make mud. Simple common heat is enough to decompose these.

No, because such a generalization would be false. Show me where is the "volatile" part of, say, iron? You can heat it to a white heat and none of it will volatilize. Conversely, show me the "fixed" part of, say, camphor? Even without applying any heat to it, it will eventually volatilize on its own without leaving anything behind. The matter that makes up the universe is far too varied and complex for making such unwarranted generalizations.
In the metals, the volatile parts are consumed by the great "tyro", "common fire". Hence the need for "our Mercury" or the alkahest. This is spoken of by many of the esteemed alchemists. Only the "secret fire" will volatize the metals.
Camphor is only semi-fixed, thus it volatizes when exposed to the air.

told you, the alchemists embraced the medieval ways of classifying substances. "Simple" substances would not have included obvious mixtures like sea water.

Matter is composed of substance. You keep using this word substance to mean matter.

Really? Take pure distilled water, do not allow it to be contaminated with anything, and see where your "philosophical earth" is then. I can assure you that you will not find it anywhere. Why? Because you have taken precautions to eliminate the accidental contents, like mineral/organic impurities in the water, that make it possible for any such "earth" to be produced. Similarly, take grape juice and do not allow it to come in contact with air. Will it "ferment" then? Nope. What happened to your "philosophic earth" that supposedly can be generated out of "one matter only"? Why does it need to be in contact with YET ANOTHER matter (i.e. air, which is actually a mixture of gases itself, and not a "simple" substance as the alchemists would have seen it) to be able to be produced? No matter how you want to see this topic, the whole "one matter only" thing is pure nonsense.
Where do you find pure distilled water in nature? Does nature take these precautions? You're sounding like a modern my friend:p
In nature matter mixes. You wish to sterilize the natural conditions which is not alchemy. Where in nature does anything alienate itself from the life giving properties of its environment? Your argument is moot as you are delving into chemical practices, not alchemy.
Now given that you've been using the words matter and substance rather erroneously and liberally at that, can you now consider one matter composed of many substances in the Work?

JDP
09-01-2016, 10:00 AM
[

Trefoyle is not clover, it's a yellow flowering grass commonly planted along side clover.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=xUxXAAAAcAAJ&pg=RA1-PA85&lpg=RA1-PA85&dq=trefoyle&source=bl&ots=KJw-59sbH9&sig=vrpzXw_2nmzu5QqXpebSnUnjWsw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwih6_iFrerOAhWIOhoKHdZkBUkQ6AEIKjAG#v=on epage&q=trefoyle&f=true
It's clearly distinguished from clover on page 84. The fact that it's a yellow flowering grass with yellow oil is speculation to you but what I see, you don't.

You are referring to an 18th century book, while I am referring to more modern botanical classification. The trefoil is just a member of the "trifolium" family of plants, like the clover, and there's actually a bunch of them:

https://books.google.com/books?id=NkASAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA257&dq=trefoil+clover&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizodWx4e3OAhUCOiYKHSKcAq0Q6AEIJDAB#v=on epage&q=trefoil%20clover&f=false

What they have in common is the fact that they have three leaves. Notice how "trefoil" and "clover" are often used synonymously for many specimens.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/matter
Matter is made up of substance. So no more ambiguity here.


As should be clear now, sea water is matter. This matter is composed of substance. No longer can you use the word erroneously. Please refer to the link above.

You need to work on your logic and reading & comprehension a bit more. You did not notice that the dictionary entry has in fact many possible definitions for "matter", such as "the substance of which a physical object is composed", "a material substance of a particular kind or for a particular purpose <vegetable matter>", "the substance things are made of : something that takes up space and has weight", or "the formless substratum of all things which exists only potentially and upon which form acts to produce realities". When you say "one matter" you mean it in the sense of "substance", in other words, "one substance", and as I keep pointing out taking this adage to the letter is nothing but a trap. It is trying to fool you into thinking that you have to find an already made (AND NOT TO PREPARE IT FROM SEVERAL SEPARATE ONES, as it is actually done) one only substance with which (and nothing else whatsoever) you will supposedly be able to make the Stone. Since nature makes no such substance that can perform all the things the alchemists describe, you are being sent on a wild goose chase. You have been fooled and will never be able to perform what the alchemists describe. The deceitful alchemist who invented this ruse has then "won". One less "unworthy" (from his purely arbitrary point of view) seeker out of the way.

As for sea water, I find it strange that you are having so much difficulty understanding that it was plainly recognized, even as far back as Aristotle, that it was just a mixture of "sweet" water and salt, TWO SEPARATE SUBSTANCES. It was, therefore, not any concrete, specific substance, but a mixture of two. In fact, Aristotle was sometimes such a keen observer (other times he was also a very lousy one) that he even suspected that there was "something else" dissolved in sea water besides salt, since unlike salt derived from other sources sea-salt was more "bitter" (what Aristotle was detecting through his discerning palate is in fact the smaller amounts of other salts, such as of magnesium and potassium, that are also dissolved in sea water.) For a general overview of what the ancients and their medieval successors deduced about sea water and their theories and speculations regarding how could so much salt have ended up in the water, you should read the first chapter of this book:

https://books.google.com/books?id=5QwWBFyxtUcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false



I'm in full agreement with Norton. Many "puffers" don't realize that all of their sophistications are reducible back to silver and gold which is falsely placed in their coctions. Matter, however, is still composed of substances. Matter can be compounded. An example is water and dirt to make mud. Simple common heat is enough to decompose these.

The issue is that "one matter" implies only ONE SUBSTANCE, not a mixture of two or more. Mud would be a mixture of two or more substances, definitely not "one matter". And just like heat is more than enough to separate "dirt" and water, so it is more than enough to separate other simple mixtures, like sea water. That's why there was no chance in hell that any alchemist worth his salt (pardon the pun!) would have considered something like sea water to be only "one matter". Water or salt, on the other hand, could have been easily considered "one matter" by themselves, since the alchemist had no way of decomposing these two substances into simpler constituents. They were "simpler" substances than sea water from the alchemist's point of view.


In the metals, the volatile parts are consumed by the great "tyro", "common fire". Hence the need for "our Mercury" or the alkahest. This is spoken of by many of the esteemed alchemists. Only the "secret fire" will volatize the metals.
Camphor is only semi-fixed, thus it volatizes when exposed to the air.

You are following theories that have been once and for all shown to be erroneous since Lavoisier and his followers. "Common fire" only gives the superficial impression of "consuming" base metals, or part of them. In reality all their substance is preserved. You can reduce the metal calxes formed in calcination back to their metallic state, and you get the same amount of metal you started with. I find it amazing that you can recognize the basic truth (which is not completely so, but only valid in a general sense) of Thomas Norton's observation that many a "puffer" was mistaken into thinking that he could somehow "increase" metals by using "corrosive waters", since you could always get back the same amount of metal that you had dissolved in them, yet you apparently can't realize the same general truth from calcinations, which, amusingly enough, had already been realized by many an alchemist and chymist, but unlike Lavoisier they could not come up with a fully satisfactory theoretical explanation for the fact that you could always get back the calcined metals. This entire confusion was cleared up by Lavoisier and his researches with the then newly discovered gas destined to be called "oxygen" (the gas in question was actually discovered by Joseph Priestley, but due to the fact that he was an ardent "phlogistonist" he too was unable to come up with fully satisfactory theoretical explanations for calcination & reduction despite his discovery.) The root of the problem was that oxygen was unknown to the alchemists and chymists, so they could never have come up with a fully adequate theoretical explanation for the observed empirical facts. Lavoisier was at the right place & time in history to have come up with the most logical explanation for the observed phenomena.

You don't need any "secret fire" or "alkahest" to volatilize metals. There's more than one way of achieving this. Volatilization per se does not imply "decomposition" of the metal in question.

Camphor has nothing "fixed" in it, it is wholly volatile.


Where do you find pure distilled water in nature? Does nature take these precautions? You're sounding like a modern my friend:p
In nature matter mixes. You wish to sterilize the natural conditions which is not alchemy. Where in nature does anything alienate itself from the life giving properties of its environment? Your argument is moot as you are delving into chemical practices, not alchemy.

Nature is full of "accidents". The alchemist does not rely on "accidents". Unlike nature, he intervenes in the appropriate manner to make the Stone. Nature left to its own devices does not make this peculiar substance, the alchemist does.


Now given that you've been using the words matter and substance rather erroneously and liberally at that, can you now consider one matter composed of many substances in the Work?

Check your very own dictionary reference and you will see that it is you who has failed to understand what "matter" and "substance" are. The terms can in fact be used interchangeably. And when you say "one matter only" you definitely mean "one substance only", not some abstract metaphysical concept that can't be quantified.

Chasm
09-01-2016, 01:07 PM
JDP wrote:
You are referring to an 18th century book, while I am referring to more modern botanical classification. The trefoil is just a member of the "trifolium" family of plants, like the clover, and there's actually a bunch of them:


What they have in common is the fact that they have three leaves. Notice how "trefoil" and "clover" are often used synonymously for many specimens.

Regardless of of where you get your definition, trefoyle and clover are different. They are NOT the same. Clover grows on my lawn, but it's not lawn grass.

You need to work on your logic and reading & comprehension a bit more. You did not notice that the dictionary entry has in fact many possible definitions for "matter", such as "the substance of which a physical object is composed", "a material substance of a particular kind or for a particular purpose <vegetable matter>", "the substance things are made of : something that takes up space and has weight", or "the formless substratum of all things which exists only potentially and upon which form acts to produce realities".When you say "one matter" you mean it in the sense of "substance", in other words, "one substance", and as I keep pointing out taking this adage to the letter is nothing but a trap. It is trying to fool you into thinking that you have to find an already made (AND NOT TO PREPARE IT FROM SEVERAL SEPARATE ONES, as it is actually done) one only substance with which (and nothing else whatsoever) you will supposedly be able to make the Stone. Since nature makes no such substance that can perform all the things the alchemists describe, you are being sent on a wild goose chase. You have been fooled and will never be able to perform what the alchemists describe. The deceitful alchemist who invented this ruse has then "won". One less "unworthy" (from his purely arbitrary point of view) seeker out of the way.

No, it is you who must do these things. Read your definitions. Each one is qualified which is to say conditioned with the noun, (person, place, thing). I've placed the locations in bold to be clear. Matter is composed of substance. Please don't insult me by attempting to spin this, I admire you too much:D

When you say "one matter" you mean it in the sense of "substance", in other words, "one substance", and as I keep pointing out taking this adage to the letter is nothing but a trap.
Are you telling me what I mean after pointing out and clarifying the definition?
No, matter are things. You just said this. The trap is a contrivance of your own making.

It is trying to fool you into thinking that you have to find an already made (AND NOT TO PREPARE IT FROM SEVERAL SEPARATE ONES, as it is actually done) one only substance with which (and nothing else whatsoever) you will supposedly be able to make the Stone.
This is your assumption and also your belief based on what you appear to comprehend from the available literature.
How dare you say "as it is actually done" as though you were there and witnessed the process in person. You've created a self imposed trap my friend. You need to see this.

As for sea water, I find it strange that you are having so much difficulty understanding that it was plainly recognized, even as far back as Aristotle, that it was just a mixture of "sweet" water and salt, TWO SEPARATE SUBSTANCES. It was, therefore, not any concrete, specific substance, but a mixture of two. In fact, Aristotle was sometimes such a keen observer (other times he was also a very lousy one) that he even suspected that there was "something else" dissolved in sea water besides salt, since unlike salt derived from other sources sea-salt was more "bitter" (what Aristotle was detecting through his discerning palate is in fact the smaller amounts of other salts, such as of magnesium and potassium, that are also dissolved in sea water.) For a general overview of what the ancients and their medieval successors deduced about sea water and their theories and speculations regarding how could so much salt have ended up in the water, you should read the first chapter of this book:
Sea water is a specific "matter". It has consituent parts. These constituent parts compose the substance of the matter. Period period!!!

You are following theories that have been once and for all shown to be erroneous since Lavoisier and his followers. "Common fire" only gives the superficial impression of "consuming" base metals, or part of them. In reality all their substance is preserved. You can reduce the metal calxes formed in calcination back to their metallic state, and you get the same amount of metal you started with. I find it amazing that you can recognize the basic truth (which is not completely so, but only valid in a general sense) of Thomas Norton's observation that many a "puffer" was mistaken into thinking that he could somehow "increase" metals by using "corrosive waters", since you could always get back the same amount of metal that you had dissolved in them, yet you apparently can't realize the same general truth from calcinations, which, amusingly enough, had already been realized by many an alchemist and chymist, but unlike Lavoisier they could not come up with a fully satisfactory theoretical explanation for the fact that you could always get back the calcined metals. This entire confusion was cleared up by Lavoisier and his researches with the then newly discovered gas destined to be called "oxygen" (the gas in question was actually discovered by Joseph Priestley, but due to the fact that he was an ardent "phlogistonist" he too was unable to come up with fully satisfactory theoretical explanations for calcination & reduction despite his discovery.) The root of the problem was that oxygen was unknown to the alchemists and chymists, so they could never have come up with a fully adequate theoretical explanation for the observed empirical facts. Lavoisier was at the right place & time in history to have come up with the most logical explanation for the observed phenomena.
JDP, you do realize the 1/1/1 method is done in a sealed vessel? Where may I ask does the oxygen come from in this case to calcine the one matter placed within it?
I have Lavoisiers text on my shelf. Oxygen replaced the weight of the missing volatile components in the vulgar calcination of metals forming a calx. Alchemical calcination is achieved by a peculiar water, liquid derived from the one matter itself.

Nature is full of "accidents". The alchemist does not rely on "accidents". Unlike nature, he intervenes in the appropriate manner to make the Stone. Nature left to its own devices does not make this peculiar substance, the alchemist does.

Nature just is. There are no real accidents. The alchemist takes nature and applies its laws to his artistry, however, to call nature's acts accidental is erroneous. We're not going to question cause and effect here.
The alchemical calcination occurs in the absence of an oxygen supply yet the one matter is blackened like soot. I have images. I have seen with my own eyes this combustion by water with NO fume.
Do you still think it impossible? The alchemists did it. You must agree it's possible yes?

JDP
09-02-2016, 07:52 AM
Regardless of of where you get your definition, trefoyle and clover are different. They are NOT the same. Clover grows on my lawn, but it's not lawn grass.

Once again, dictionary definition of the term:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trefoil

It is equated to a clover.


No, it is you who must do these things. Read your definitions. Each one is qualified which is to say conditioned with the noun, (person, place, thing). I've placed the locations in bold to be clear. Matter is composed of substance. Please don't insult me by attempting to spin this, I admire you too much:D

What were you saying about "semantics" before? :) You are the one who is being tempted to do "spins". You were saying that "matter" was different than "substance" yet the very dictionary definitions you brought up use the terms interchangeably. Plus none of this that you keep trying to bring up eliminates the fact that there is a big difference between "ONE SUBSTANCE" and "MIXTURE". Things like sea water are not "one substance" but two or more combined together. The fact that mixtures may appear to be "one substance" on superficial inspection does NOT mean that they actually are.


Are you telling me what I mean after pointing out and clarifying the definition?
No, matter are things. You just said this. The trap is a contrivance of your own making.

No, I am telling you what it means plain and simple, according to the very definitions from the dictionary. It is you who started to give supposed new meanings to what I plainly said. I explained to you over and over that things like salt may appear to be "one matter", or one "substance", if you prefer, which might be fine from the point of view of someone who ignores what sodium and chlorine are, but it is obviously not so from the point of view of someone who knows these other substances that compose this "one matter/substance". Supposing that some alien civilization out there has figured out that sodium and chlorine are in fact themselves mixtures of something else, they too could launch the same argument: "Those earthlings think that things like chlorine or sodium are one substance, yet we know for a fact they are composed of two other substances in their turn."


This is your assumption and also your belief based on what you appear to comprehend from the available literature.
How dare you say "as it is actually done" as though you were there and witnessed the process in person. You've created a self imposed trap my friend. You need to see this.

Since neither you nor I have made the Stone we have to work on "assumptions", based on what the alchemists themselves say. And a lot of them plainly say or imply that the Stone is made from several substances. Then comes empirical experience, which, if you have plenty of it, will allow you to realize that naturally occurring substances, on their own, without any mixture with other ones, will never perform all the things they describe. Add to that the fact that chemistry has been around for some 250 years and has not stumbled upon any such fabled "one matter" that can do such things as the alchemists describe, and you will see how pretty safe it is to assume that the Stone is in fact made from combinations of certain substances, not from a single substance already found made in nature.


Sea water is a specific "matter". It has consituent parts. These constituent parts compose the substance of the matter. Period period!!!

No, it is simply an accidental mixture of several substances. TRUE "PERIOD"!!! No amount of spinning of the words "matter" and "substance" is going to get rid of this simple fact. For a "matter" to truly be considered "one" it needs to be seen as not being a simple mixture of two or more. Since the alchemists were well aware that sea water was just a solution of salt in water, it cannot have been considered "only one" substance. This was an obvious mixture of two or more bodies.


JDP, you do realize the 1/1/1 method is done in a sealed vessel? Where may I ask does the oxygen come from in this case to calcine the one matter placed within it?

Unless you are working in a vacuum (which the alchemists did not know how to achieve, BTW), an amount of air is always trapped inside sealed flasks.


I have Lavoisiers text on my shelf. Oxygen replaced the weight of the missing volatile components in the vulgar calcination of metals forming a calx.

The "missing volatile components" are in fact truly "missing" since they do not exist. If you had studied Lavoisier's work more carefully you would see that he was well aware of the arguments of the "phlogistonists", so he took the precaution of carrying out many of his calcination experiments in closed systems, that way he would know if any "volatile" principle supposedly causing the phenomenon was really being given off. Of course, he found no such thing. The only cause of common calcination is absorption of oxygen, nothing else.


Alchemical calcination is achieved by a peculiar water, liquid derived from the one matter itself.

This "peculiar water" is the secret solvent of alchemy, and it obviously can't be prepared from any naturally occurring "one matter only" by itself, with nothing else admixed to it.


Nature just is. There are no real accidents. The alchemist takes nature and applies its laws to his artistry, however, to call nature's acts accidental is erroneous. We're not going to question cause and effect here.

The fact that water in nature can happen at all levels of salinity, from virtually none whatsoever to so supersaturated with salts that people will "float" on it, already shows how "accidental" the whole thing is. It is pure chance. Yes, nature "just is", indeed, but it is not a conscious, thinking, rational being like man is, its productions are not guided by conscious rational thinking (I am obviously leaving religious aspects out of the equation here and adopting a purely naturalistic point of view, with no hypothetical rational supreme being guiding it.) The fact that nature does not make the Stone (among a bunch of other substances that only man knows how to make) and yet man can, also shows this.



The alchemical calcination occurs in the absence of an oxygen supply yet the one matter is blackened like soot. I have images. I have seen with my own eyes this combustion by water with NO fume.

Many reactions can give such an appearance. Plus I am willing to bet that, unless you are working in actual vacuums, your experiments do indeed include the accidental presence of oxygen. Sealed flasks always (unless the trapped air is evacuated) have varying amounts of air in them.


Do you still think it impossible? The alchemists did it. You must agree it's possible yes?

No, because what they did was NOT done with "one matter only" as you think.

Ghislain
09-02-2016, 10:33 AM
Substance (n.)
c. 1300, "essential nature, real or essential part," from Old French sustance, substance "goods, possessions; nature, composition" (12c.), from Latin substantia "being, essence, material," from substans, present participle of substare "stand firm, stand or be under, be present," from sub "up to, under" (see sub-) + stare "to stand," from PIE root *stā- "to stand" (see stet).

Latin substantia translates Greek ousia "that which is one's own, one's substance or property; the being, essence, or nature of anything." Meaning "any kind of corporeal matter" is first attested mid-14c. Sense of "the matter of a study, discourse, etc." first recorded late 14c.


Matter (n.)
c. 1200, materie, "subject of thought, speech, or expression," from Anglo-French matere, Old French matere "subject, theme, topic; substance, content, material; character, education" (12c., Modern French matière), from Latin materia "substance from which something is made," also "hard inner wood of a tree" (source also of Portuguese madeira "wood"), from mater "origin, source, mother" (see mother (n.1)). Or, on another theory, it represents *dmateria, from PIE root *dem-/*dom- (source of Latin domus "house," English timber). With sense development in Latin influenced by Greek hyle (see hylo-), of which it was the equivalent in philosophy.

Meaning "physical 'substance' generally, matter, material" is early 14c.; that of "substance of which some specific object is made or consists of" is attested from late 14c. That of "piece of business, affair, activity, situation, circumstance" is from late 14c. From mid-14c. as "subject of a literary work, content of what is written, main theme." Also in Middle English as "cause, reasons, ground; essential character; field of investigation."

Matter of course "something expected" attested from 1739. For that matter attested from 1670s. What is the matter "what concerns (someone), the cause of the difficulty" is attested from mid-15c. To make no matter "be no difference to" also is mid-15c.

As can be seen from the explanations above the words "matter" and "substance" are circular and interchangeable, but neither refer to one element and I think this is the word this conversation is missing. I don't know the Alchemical texts and thus I am not aware if the word "element" is used, or the term "the simplest component".

I would say from my understanding, whether the word matter or substance is used, it does not refer to it being one element.


Element (n.)
c. 1300, "earth, air, fire, or water; one of the four things regarded by the ancients as the constituents of all things," from Old French element (10c.), from Latin elementem "rudiment, first principle, matter in its most basic form" (translating Greek stoikheion), origin and original sense unknown. Meaning "simplest component of a complex substance" is late 14c. Modern sense in chemistry is from 1813, but is not essentially different from the ancient one. Meaning "proper or natural environment of anything" is from 1590s, from the old notion that each class of living beings had its natural abode in one of the four elements. Elements "atmospheric force" is 1550s.

Source of all quotes: Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com)



Ghislain

Edit: I would like to add that my belief ATPT is that everything that is, is made from only one "Matter, Substance, Element" which is the primary particle/wave, whatever that may be.

Chasm
09-02-2016, 01:51 PM
As can be seen from the explanations above the words "matter" and "substance" are circular and interchangeable, but neither refer to one element and I think this is the word this conversation is missing. I don't know the Alchemical texts and thus I am not aware if the word "element" is used, or the term "the simplest component".

I would say from my understanding, whether the word matter or substance is used, it does not refer to it being one element.

Edit: I would like to add that my belief ATPT is that everything that is, is made from only one "Matter, Substance, Element" which is the primary particle/wave, whatever that may be.
Hello Ghislain,
Thanks for weighing in. I can see why you'd say that they are circular. This is because the substance of matter can be divided into subcomponents such as the elements as you've pointed out. Substance or substances make up matter and this is obvious from which ever definition one may peruse. Substance is associated with an object. The object is material. To think otherwise I feel is disingenuous.
Therefore, one matter, being composed of many substances, would certainly fit the requirements that JDP is looking for.
And you are correct in that, the one matter, is not referred to as being one element; Not by a long stretch.
You are also correct in that everything is ultimately made up of the same stuff. What makes things different is their motion.
Sound becomes heat> radiant energy> electricity> magnetism> light> gravity, John Keely, Walter Russell.
It'd be nice to hear what others feel of this 1/1/1 possibility :D

Chasm
09-02-2016, 02:59 PM
Once again, dictionary definition of the term:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trefoil

It is equated to a clover.



What were you saying about "semantics" before? :) You are the one who is being tempted to do "spins". You were saying that "matter" was different than "substance" yet the very dictionary definitions you brought up use the terms interchangeably. Plus none of this that you keep trying to bring up eliminates the fact that there is a big difference between "ONE SUBSTANCE" and "MIXTURE". Things like sea water are not "one substance" but two or more combined together. The fact that mixtures may appear to be "one substance" on superficial inspection does NOT mean that they actually are.

The texts do not claim to enclose ONE SUBSTANCE within a flask. We are speaking of one matter.



No, I am telling you what it means plain and simple, according to the very definitions from the dictionary. It is you who started to give supposed new meanings to what I plainly said. I explained to you over and over that things like salt may appear to be "one matter", or one "substance", if you prefer, which might be fine from the point of view of someone who ignores what sodium and chlorine are, but it is obviously not so from the point of view of someone who knows these other substances that compose this "one matter/substance". Supposing that some alien civilization out there has figured out that sodium and chlorine are in fact themselves mixtures of something else, they too could launch the same argument: "Those earthlings think that things like chlorine or sodium are one substance, yet we know for a fact they are composed of two other substances in their turn."
Sodium and Chlorine are elements. You already know this and why you play this game is beside me. They compound to form substances which make up matter.



Since neither you nor I have made the Stone we have to work on "assumptions", based on what the alchemists themselves say. And a lot of them plainly say or imply that the Stone is made from several substances. Then comes empirical experience, which, if you have plenty of it, will allow you to realize that naturally occurring substances, on their own, without any mixture with other ones, will never perform all the things they describe. Add to that the fact that chemistry has been around for some 250 years and has not stumbled upon any such fabled "one matter" that can do such things as the alchemists describe, and you will see how pretty safe it is to assume that the Stone is in fact made from combinations of certain substances, not from a single substance already found made in nature.
What the alchemists said is often left up to interpretation. The texts are "acroamatic cyphers". Have you considered that your interpretations may be incorrect? I have!
Also, "naturally occurring substances, without the addition of other substances", is a HUGE assumption on your part. Because neither you nor Newton or Boyle have found the correct matter to work on over the past 250 years means nothing other than that you've all failed. This isn't something to be ashamed of. The texts do say that only a few succeed. Perhaps Newton and Boyle both failed as you have, to realize that matter is made up of substances which are composed of elements;) though I highly doubt this!


No, it is simply an accidental mixture of several substances. TRUE "PERIOD"!!! No amount of spinning of the words "matter" and "substance" is going to get rid of this simple fact. For a "matter" to truly be considered "one" it needs to be seen as not being a simple mixture of two or more. Since the alchemists were well aware that sea water was just a solution of salt in water, it cannot have been considered "only one" substance. This was an obvious mixture of two or more bodies.
So my questions to you now are: Is mud matter? Is sea water matter? Are they distinct in what they are called by name viz, do these separate things have a definition of their own that identifies them as a particular thing, a noun?
Seriously, we don't say "dirt" and "water" in place of "mud". Nor do we say "sodium", "chloride", "hydrogen", "oxygen" for "sea-water". This is just ridiculous :mad:


Unless you are working in a vacuum (which the alchemists did not know how to achieve, BTW), an amount of air is always trapped inside sealed flasks.
True, but when the apparatus is set up so as to expel the air via external heat, a vacuum can be created even unbeknownst to the alchemist which I highly doubt :D


The "missing volatile components" are in fact truly "missing" since they do not exist. If you had studied Lavoisier's work more carefully you would see that he was well aware of the arguments of the "phlogistonists", so he took the precaution of carrying out many of his calcination experiments in closed systems, that way he would know if any "volatile" principle supposedly causing the phenomenon was really being given off. Of course, he found no such thing. The only cause of common calcination is absorption of oxygen, nothing else.
The absorption of oxygen accounts for the missing weight, this is a proven fact and I agree. The fact in this situation, is that Lavoisier didn't calcine with a liquid derived from his subject :D


This "peculiar water" is the secret solvent of alchemy, and it obviously can't be prepared from any naturally occurring "one matter only" by itself, with nothing else admixed to it.

Objection!!! Assumption.


The fact that water in nature can happen at all levels of salinity, from virtually none whatsoever to so supersaturated with salts that people will "float" on it, already shows how "accidental" the whole thing is. It is pure chance. Yes, nature "just is", indeed, but it is not a conscious, thinking, rational being like man is, its productions are not guided by conscious rational thinking (I am obviously leaving religious aspects out of the equation here and adopting a purely naturalistic point of view, with no hypothetical rational supreme being guiding it.) The fact that nature does not make the Stone (among a bunch of other substances that only man knows how to make) and yet man can, also shows this.
Yet nature has provided all the necessities of life to keep you comfy cosy;)
You call this an accident? Shameless!


Many reactions can give such an appearance. Plus I am willing to bet that, unless you are working in actual vacuums, your experiments do indeed include the accidental presence of oxygen. Sealed flasks always (unless the trapped air is evacuated) have varying amounts of air in them.
Refer to explanation above.


No, because what they did was NOT done with "one matter only" as you think.
Objection!! Assumption.
JDP, I hope I've given you cause to reconsider. If you do, you will see that 1/1/1 is possible. You may say that it is unlikely, but, you must admit that it is possible.

Chasm
09-02-2016, 08:21 PM
Twelve Keys of Basil Valentine
"But our Stone, as it has been bequeathed to me by the Ancients, is derived from two things, and one thing, in which is concealed a third thing."

The two things are begotten of one thing. The coction of the two yields a third thing.

It is clear that the one thing must be composed of these other things.
One may assume that the esteemed Monk is implying that two things are added to one thing resulting in a concealed third thing, but this would be an error in grammatical comprehension.
It is therefore, on solid ground that the "one thing", MATTER, which yields "two", SUBSTANCES, who's coction reveals a "third" Substance, is throughly in line with the 1/1/1 method.
We should note that the word "substance" has as its root "sub" which means below or under. In alchemy we have body, spirit, soul OR mercury, sulphur, salt. Clearly, we can see how matter, substance, element closely correlates here.
Substance underlies the object/matter as spirit and soul exist within the body.

Twelve Keys of Basil Valentine
You need not look for our metallic seed among the elements. It need not be sought so far back. If you can only rectify the Mercury, Sulphur, and Salt (understand, those of the Sages) until the metallic spirit and body are inseparably joined together by means of the metallic soul, you thereby firmly rivet the chain of love, and prepare the palace for the coronation.
"Sought so far back" is synonymous with "so far below or under" the matter.

Just trying to be a bit more thorough without getting carried away :D

JDP
09-03-2016, 06:58 AM
As can be seen from the explanations above the words "matter" and "substance" are circular and interchangeable, but neither refer to one element and I think this is the word this conversation is missing. I don't know the Alchemical texts and thus I am not aware if the word "element" is used, or the term "the simplest component".

I would say from my understanding, whether the word matter or substance is used, it does not refer to it being one element.



Source of all quotes: Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com)



Ghislain

Edit: I would like to add that my belief ATPT is that everything that is, is made from only one "Matter, Substance, Element" which is the primary particle/wave, whatever that may be.

The word "element' has been mentioned before in the thread. The alchemists had a somewhat different concept of it, though. To them there only were four such "elements", while everything else was composed of them in varying proportions. But that did not stop them from realizing that some substances/matters were more complex than others. Sea water would obviously have been more complex since it could easily be divided into water and salt. Salt and water, on the other hand, could not be divided into anything else by methods like simple distillation, thus they had a more stable constitution and were "simpler". Metals were in fact so resilient to undergo actual permanent changes that we have already seen Thomas Norton declare them the "simplest" substances. That does not mean, though, that he considered metals "elements". He in fact refers to their "constitution" remaining intact after such harsh treatments as dissolution in "corrosive waters". So despite their "simplicity", he still considered them to be composite bodies (i.e. composed of the supposed "four elements")

JDP
09-03-2016, 07:48 AM
The texts do not claim to enclose ONE SUBSTANCE within a flask. We are speaking of one matter.

Matter, substance... same difference. The alchemist was quite capable of discerning mixtures from substances that, from his point of view, would not be considered so.



Sodium and Chlorine are elements. You already know this and why you play this game is beside me. They compound to form substances which make up matter.

"Elements" from the point of view of modern chemistry (since no chemist so far has found a way of decomposing them into anything else.) These two substances, separated, by themselves, were unknown to the alchemists, though. So a substance like salt could very easily be seen as "simpler" than the sea salt where it could be found. So from their point of view salt could be considered "one matter", but hardly sea salt, since it was composed of two others that could be easily separated. It was merely a mixture of two separate bodies. Capisce? I don't see why you are finding this so hard to understand.


What the alchemists said is often left up to interpretation. The texts are "acroamatic cyphers". Have you considered that your interpretations may be incorrect? I have!

Sure, but when you consider all the factors that have been mentioned, the likelihood that one single matter/substance found already made in nature can give rise to all the reactions necessary to generate the Stone is extremely slim. If this substance really exists, then how can so many through so many centuries have failed in stumbling upon it? The options are more limited. On the other hand, the huge amount of possibilities when it comes to mixtures between several substances can account very easily for why so many have failed: stumbling upon the right combination of substances is almost like "finding a needle in haystack".


Also, "naturally occurring substances, without the addition of other substances", is a HUGE assumption on your part. Because neither you nor Newton or Boyle have found the correct matter to work on over the past 250 years means nothing other than that you've all failed. This isn't something to be ashamed of. The texts do say that only a few succeed. Perhaps Newton and Boyle both failed as you have, to realize that matter is made up of substances which are composed of elements;) though I highly doubt this!

It is not an "assumption" but a logical consequence of the "only one matter" axiom. You obviously can't add anything else to it for this statement to be true, otherwise you would already have two (or more) matters/substances, not "only one". Simple arithmetic.

Boyle and Newton don't seem to have fallen for the "only one matter" ruse. They fell for another one: antimonial amalgams. Another dead end.


So my questions to you now are: Is mud matter? Is sea water matter? Are they distinct in what they are called by name viz, do these separate things have a definition of their own that identifies them as a particular thing, a noun?
Seriously, we don't say "dirt" and "water" in place of "mud". Nor do we say "sodium", "chloride", "hydrogen", "oxygen" for "sea-water". This is just ridiculous :mad:

What were you saying about "semantics" again? In fact, it may sound "absurd" to you, but you can easily say all the things you just said above and still be correct. Popular denominations for substances do not invalidate others. If that was so, we would have no scientific notation or nomenclature. For example, scientists, depending on context, prefer to say "H20" than "water", or "sodium chloride" than "salt".


True, but when the apparatus is set up so as to expel the air via external heat, a vacuum can be created even unbeknownst to the alchemist which I highly doubt :D

That would require for the flask to be heated first and then sealed, a difficult task, even today, let alone in past times. When alchemists direct to seal a flask they do so after the substance/s intended to be heated have been put in, then they direct to place the sealed flask on the water/sand bath and heat it.


The absorption of oxygen accounts for the missing weight, this is a proven fact and I agree. The fact in this situation, is that Lavoisier didn't calcine with a liquid derived from his subject :D

No, there is no "missing weight". There is NOTHING expelled from metals when they are calcined. Lavoisier demolished the "phlogiston" theory with some of his careful calcination experiments inside closed apparatuses. He proved that there was nothing "lost" during calcination. The weight of the metal + air trapped inside the apparatuses remained exactly the same, the only difference is that the air invariably lost a certain percentage of its weight while the metal gained in weight and turned into a powder. When the metallic calx was decomposed, then the air gained back the same weight it had lost. The only possible conclusion is that "something" (the gas that later on Lavoisier baptized "oxygen") in the air was causing the whole phenomenon.

Lavoisier was not an alchemist, he did not know how to prepare the secret solvent of alchemy.


Objection!!! Assumption.

One based on careful consideration of several things.


Yet nature has provided all the necessities of life to keep you comfy cosy;)
You call this an accident? Shameless!

Strange. Did nature invent air conditioners, refrigerators, kitchens, houses, TVs, computers, cars, planes, ships, etc.? Last time I checked it was man who did all these things. If it was up to nature we would still be living like our remote primate ancestors, gathering naturally occurring food to survive and being part of the "food chain"! Let us be thankful to whoever or whatever caused for man to develop his brain and become the unique thinking being that he is. It is he who has "tamed" nature's wild ways and turned them in his favor, and many times actually improved over nature.


Refer to explanation above.


Same thing.


Objection!! Assumption.

Based on very pertinent reasons.


JDP, I hope I've given you cause to reconsider. If you do, you will see that 1/1/1 is possible. You may say that it is unlikely, but, you must admit that it is possible.

Yes, it is very unlikely.

JDP
09-03-2016, 08:28 AM
The two things are begotten of one thing. The coction of the two yields a third thing.

It is clear that the one thing must be composed of these other things.
One may assume that the esteemed Monk is implying that two things are added to one thing resulting in a concealed third thing, but this would be an error in grammatical comprehension.
It is therefore, on solid ground that the "one thing", MATTER, which yields "two", SUBSTANCES, who's coction reveals a "third" Substance, is throughly in line with the 1/1/1 method.
We should note that the word "substance" has as its root "sub" which means below or under. In alchemy we have body, spirit, soul OR mercury, sulphur, salt. Clearly, we can see how matter, substance, element closely correlates here.
Substance underlies the object/matter as spirit and soul exist within the body.

"Sought so far back" is synonymous with "so far below or under" the matter.

Just trying to be a bit more thorough without getting carried away :D

Not so fast. These are rather enigmatic utterances. And he actually says " is derived from two things, and one thing, in which is concealed a third thing." Notice he first mentions the "two things" and then "one thing", and not the other way around, as you seem to wish he had said. I much rather prefer the already quoted passage from Bernard Trevisan in post #148, which being less ambiguous than the above also asserts that the Stone is made from "two substances":


"Our work", says Bernard Trevisan, "is from two mercurial substances taken crude from the mine, extracted pure and clean, with fire conjoined in friendship, as required by this matter, and continually cooked until from the two one thing is made, in which one is Body, Spirit; and this body is made from a mixture."

Chasm
09-03-2016, 01:09 PM
Not so fast. These are rather enigmatic utterances. And he actually says " is derived from two things, and one thing, in which is concealed a third thing." Notice he first mentions the "two things" and then "one thing", and not the other way around, as you seem to wish he had said. I much rather prefer the already quoted passage from Bernard Trevisan in post #148, which being less ambiguous than the above also asserts that the Stone is made from "two substances":


"Our work", says Bernard Trevisan, "is from two mercurial substances taken crude from the mine, extracted pure and clean, with fire conjoined in friendship, as required by this matter, and continually cooked until from the two one thing is made, in which one is Body, Spirit; and this body is made from a mixture."
Yes, the two things, which is our rebis, comes from the one thing. I've done the experiment . This thread requires that you do the experiment. Have you done it?
You need to understand that the alchemists used much word play. You, because you haven't made the experimental link yet, have not seen any of the reactions that you long to see. This is because you take the scripts too literally where it suits you.
I was certain that you would read B. Valentine incorrectly. I'm not surprised anymore.

Although Trevisan says that our matter is taken from two mercurial substances, he adds that they are taken from the mine. What do you suppose the mine is? Is it not the original "ore", the "one matter"?
"Book of Lambspring" says to cook the two sulphurs together. But where did these two fish come from? The one sea.
JDP, you've virtually eliminated yourself from even having a chance to explore the art of alchemy. If you believe that some unknown combination of elements must be combined by hand before being placed in a flask for coction, then the math says that youre better off trying to win a lottery;
Yet the alchemists tell us that if we understand them correctly, the task is easy. Do you not think it is better to understand them correctly?

The quotes from Trevisan and Valentine are in complete agreement with Lambspring. There is no ambiguity.
The problem is that it appears that you err in understanding the phraseology of the alchemists. Do you suppose Newton and Boyle were thrown off by antimony? The clue of antimony is that it is black. That's all!
But excuse my simplicity and not sophisticating the matter.:D

Chasm
09-03-2016, 05:04 PM
Matter, substance... same difference. The alchemist was quite capable of discerning mixtures from substances that, from his point of view, would not be considered so.
If you say so, I guess we'll just take your word for that;)


"Elements" from the point of view of modern chemistry (since no chemist so far has found a way of decomposing them into anything else.) These two substances, separated, by themselves, were unknown to the alchemists, though. So a substance like salt could very easily be seen as "simpler" than the sea salt where it could be found. So from their point of view salt could be considered "one matter", but hardly sea salt, since it was composed of two others that could be easily separated. It was merely a mixture of two separate bodies. Capisce? I don't see why you are finding this so hard to understand.
Why you choose to confound yourself by using words as matter, substance, and elements to mean the same thing is beyond me. But if it works for you....great!:)


Sure, but when you consider all the factors that have been mentioned, the likelihood that one single matter/substance found already made in nature can give rise to all the reactions necessary to generate the Stone is extremely slim. If this substance really exists, then how can so many through so many centuries have failed in stumbling upon it? The options are more limited. On the other hand, the huge amount of possibilities when it comes to mixtures between several substances can account very easily for why so many have failed: stumbling upon the right combination of substances is almost like "finding a needle in haystack".
Do you see the way that you look at things? Because you deny the definition of matter, you make the possibilities of finding the substance slim and next to none.
Recall, our matter is a vile thing and despised by the ignorant. Perhaps this is why "sophisters" have such a hard time finding it.
That so many have failed is only proof that the alchemists were correct in that most "common" people are "profanely" "ignorant".


It is not an "assumption" but a logical consequence of the "only one matter" axiom. You obviously can't add anything else to it for this statement to be true, otherwise you would already have two (or more) matters/substances, not "only one". Simple arithmetic.
Even logic needs to have its base in grammar, otherwise it's all gibberish my friend ;)


Boyle and Newton don't seem to have fallen for the "only one matter" ruse. They fell for another one: antimonial amalgams. Another dead end.
No doubt, they certainly made things more sophisticated than necessary. They had no "eyes" to see. Perhaps it's only the idiot savants that see through the alchemists cloak.


What were you saying about "semantics" again? In fact, it may sound "absurd" to you, but you can easily say all the things you just said above and still be correct. Popular denominations for substances do not invalidate others. If that was so, we would have no scientific notation or nomenclature. For example, scientists, depending on context, prefer to say "H20" than "water", or "sodium chloride" than "salt".

This makes you a scientist and not an alchemist I guess. Words generally have specific meaning.


That would require for the flask to be heated first and then sealed, a difficult task, even today, let alone in past times. When alchemists direct to seal a flask they do so after the substance/s intended to be heated have been put in, then they direct to place the sealed flask on the water/sand bath and heat it.
This shows me that you're probably not a practicing chemist familiar with even the simplest of lab ware and lab procedure. By the way, you don't and wouldn't have any idea as to how 1/1/1 would be set up. We start with one matter and this, your at odds with ab initio.


No, there is no "missing weight". There is NOTHING expelled from metals when they are calcined.
Not when calcined in the vulgar, common, profane way, no.

Lavoisier demolished the "phlogiston" theory with some of his careful calcination experiments inside closed apparatuses. He proved that there was nothing "lost" during calcination.
Again, vulgar calcination. Let's expand our view and consider the alchemical side. Oh no!
You haven't figured it out, neither did Newton or Boyle, so nobody else can; Except, the alchemists did it.

The weight of the metal + air trapped inside the apparatuses remained exactly the same, the only difference is that the air invariably lost a certain percentage of its weight while the metal gained in weight and turned into a powder. When the metallic calx was decomposed, then the air gained back the same weight it had lost. The only possible conclusion is that "something" (the gas that later on Lavoisier baptized "oxygen") in the air was causing the whole phenomenon.
Chemistry 101. An excellent program can be found on PBS that shows the history of these experiments. It's great viewing, unfortunately, nothing interesting for the alchemist.

Lavoisier was not an alchemist, he did not know how to prepare the secret solvent of alchemy.
This much is true, evidenced by the experiments that you use to show that what he
proved by chemical means, has absolutely no bearing on the alchemical method.


One based on careful consideration of several things.
More like dogma if you were to ask me.


Strange. Did nature invent air conditioners, refrigerators, kitchens, houses, TVs, computers, cars, planes, ships, etc.? Last time I checked it was man who did all these things.
Because these are all necessities right? We should be appreciative that nature has placed all of the raw materials at our disposal so that we could confound them in unnatural ways and poison ourselves into oblivion.

If it was up to nature we would still be living like our remote primate ancestors, gathering naturally occurring food to survive and being part of the "food chain"!
Because nature didn't allow you to evolve the largest brain capable of many things right?
Let us be thankful to whoever or whatever caused for man to develop his brain and become the unique thinking being that he is. It is he who has "tamed" nature's wild ways and turned them in his favor, and many times actually improved over nature.Spoken like a true modern who sees himself greater than nature itself.

JDP, it has been a pleasure discussing the possibilities of this method with you.;) I don't believe you've performed the experiments that this thread requires. As such, it appears that you are unqualified to participate more in depth seeing that you fail to accept that a one matter exists in the first place that isn't as you require, an element.
Although I'd of liked that you champion this method, well, it looks as though this won't be the case.

Chasm369

JDP
09-04-2016, 09:23 AM
Yes, the two things, which is our rebis, comes from the one thing. I've done the experiment . This thread requires that you do the experiment. Have you done it?
You need to understand that the alchemists used much word play. You, because you haven't made the experimental link yet, have not seen any of the reactions that you long to see. This is because you take the scripts too literally where it suits you.
I was certain that you would read B. Valentine incorrectly. I'm not surprised anymore.

Although Trevisan says that our matter is taken from two mercurial substances, he adds that they are taken from the mine. What do you suppose the mine is? Is it not the original "ore", the "one matter"?
"Book of Lambspring" says to cook the two sulphurs together. But where did these two fish come from? The one sea.
JDP, you've virtually eliminated yourself from even having a chance to explore the art of alchemy. If you believe that some unknown combination of elements must be combined by hand before being placed in a flask for coction, then the math says that youre better off trying to win a lottery;
Yet the alchemists tell us that if we understand them correctly, the task is easy. Do you not think it is better to understand them correctly?

The quotes from Trevisan and Valentine are in complete agreement with Lambspring. There is no ambiguity.
The problem is that it appears that you err in understanding the phraseology of the alchemists. Do you suppose Newton and Boyle were thrown off by antimony? The clue of antimony is that it is black. That's all!
But excuse my simplicity and not sophisticating the matter.:D

You've done some experiments and you have seen some black color and you think that you are already on the right track. Plenty of people through history also made that mistake of making such assumptions. Plenty of reactions will give such appearance. It does not mean that it is the actual "blackening" of the alchemists.

The Basil quote is ambiguous and vague, plus it does not quite say what you wish it to say. You are simply trying to impose your belief in the "one matter only" ruse to what he says. The Trevisan quote is quite clearer and there is just no way around it: he says that the Stone is made from two substances, a MIXTURE, not "one matter only". The "mine" means exactly that:the places where the CRUDE (i.e. raw) matters are dug up from the ground. You have to find the substances somewhere, they are not going to drop into your hands from thin air as if by magic. Nature produces the raw matters to make the Stone, while the alchemist does what nature itself can't do: combines them in the appropriate proportions and submits them to the right operations.

I "haven't made the experimental link"??? One of the main reasons why I totally reject the absurd notion that only one substance can generate the Stone is precisely because I have plenty of years of empirical experience with all manner of substances. It is you who is falling into a trap, not me, as such a substance that can display ALL the reactions the alchemists describe is simply not found in nature. It has to be MADE by the operator, and this is done by means of several substances, not "one only".

Lambspring is even more enigmatic and vague than the Valentine quote and can easily be given more than one interpretation. Just like you arbitrarily choose to see your "one matter" theory in it, I could easily arbitrarily interpret "the one sea" to simply be the kingdom (for argument's sake, let us assume he means the mineral kingdom) where the "two fishes" are found. In which case Lambspring is in total agreement with Trevisan indeed: two separate raw substances, extracted from the mines where they are found (the "one sea", i.e. the mineral kingdom), and then manipulated together to generate the Stone. See how easy it is to give interpretations to vague statements? But Trevisan's statement is quite clearer and not so free of interpretation as you wish it would be. I am in fact not surprised that you would try to twist what he plainly says. And I have seen even clearer ones regarding the COMPOUNDED nature of the Stone. Read, for example, Ripley's "Liber Secretissimus". He clearly says that the "Antimony" of alchemy is not the naturally occurring mineral everyone knows but an ARTIFICIAL COMPOSITE material that the alchemist makes himself out of THREE distinct separate substances. But I am sure that you will again try to twist what he says to try to make it mean the "one matter only" fairy tale, just like you tried to do with the Trevisan quote.

Boyle and Newton were thrown off by Starkey's theories, who, much like you, was very confident that he was on the right track (he too had seen the "blackening" of his amalgams and so forth, and was very convinced he would succeed) but in the end all his efforts with antimonial amalgams failed. That's because amalgams are also a dead end, just like the "one matter only" fantasy. The history of alchemy is full of such cases of seekers who were very confident that they were on the right track but in the end their premature confidence came to failure. Most of the time the misleading factor was what appeared to be a partial "confirmation", like their substances turning "black" at some point in the operations. Same thing that could very well be happening to you. "Don't count the chickens before they hatch", says an old and wise adage.

It is you who keeps trying to bend and twist what lots of alchemists say to suit the "one matter only" ruse that you believe in.

JDP
09-04-2016, 11:09 AM
If you say so, I guess we'll just take your word for that;)

No, not "if I say so" (as if I was inventing things out of thin air!) You can take the words of the alchemists themselves, like this one, describing sea water as a simple mixture of water and salt:

"It may be objected to our view that if the water of our springs were derived from the sea, it would be salt, and not sweet, as we actually find it to be. The answer to this objection lies in the fact that the sea water, in its passage through the pores of the earth, gradually deposits all the salt which it contains, and thus wells forth from the ground in a sweet and fresh condition. It should, however, be remembered that some of our springs -called mineral or saline springs- actually do exhibit all the original saltness of the sea water which has not passed through earth calculated to retain its mineral element."


Why you choose to confound yourself by using words as matter, substance, and elements to mean the same thing is beyond me. But if it works for you....great!:)

This coming from someone who actually totally failed to see that his very own link to a dictionary entry actually gave many definitions for the word "matter" and that several of these use the term "substance" interchangeably? That's sweet. Don't try to project your confusions and misunderstandings upon others.


Do you see the way that you look at things? Because you deny the definition of matter, you make the possibilities of finding the substance slim and next to none.

The only one confused about words like "matter", "substance" and "element" is you.


Recall, our matter is a vile thing and despised by the ignorant. Perhaps this is why "sophisters" have such a hard time finding it.

This shows how easily you fall for the vague sweeping generalizations the alchemists had a taste for in order to befuddle many "unworthy" seekers. There's plenty of "vile and despised" things all over the world that no one gives much value to. This is hardly a very revealing clue at all. That's why some alchemists like to dispense it: it won't make you much the wiser regarding what the actual matters to work with are.


That so many have failed is only proof that the alchemists were correct in that most "common" people are "profanely" "ignorant".

What it actually proves more than anything is the mess and confusion that the alchemists themselves have made. It is a very common tactic of theirs to try to place the blame for failure on the seekers, not themselves. The fact is that a major part of the fault is in fact coming from the alchemists themselves. The more honest alchemists in fact openly recognized so, and accused many of their peers of having misled countless people. You yourself quoted Norton very openly accusing many of those who preceded him of having been excessively obscure.


Even logic needs to have its base in grammar, otherwise it's all gibberish my friend ;)

What is this supposed to mean? It makes no sense as a response to what I said.


No doubt, they certainly made things more sophisticated than necessary. They had no "eyes" to see. Perhaps it's only the idiot savants that see through the alchemists cloak.

No, they simply were misled by someone who, much like you, thought he was on the right track. Unfortunately, he was not. A case of "counting the chickens before they hatch". An all too common mistake.


This makes you a scientist and not an alchemist I guess. Words generally have specific meaning.

Words in fact have several specific meanings. You failed to notice this very fact in the dictionary entry for "matter".


This shows me that you're probably not a practicing chemist familiar with even the simplest of lab ware and lab procedure.

This actually shows me your lack of familiarity with the very subject.


By the way, you don't and wouldn't have any idea as to how 1/1/1 would be set up.

The 1/1/1 ruse means that you take only one substance, close it in a flask and heat it. If, on the other hand, you put it in the glass and then heat it, whatever is it that you are enclosing inside will start "reacting" and emitting whatever is it that it's supposed to emit. You then would have to heat the neck of the flask, while itself is being heated from below, to the softening temperature of glass so you could seal it, or you would have to provide a stopper to the mouth of the flask and "lute" it into place. In both cases the operation would be quite difficult to achieve, specially in an age without gas torches, rubber stoppers and/or ground glass joints with hooks & springs. In fact I can't remember having read such directions of heating the contents of the flask first and then sealing the glass in any alchemical text I have read so far. When a flask/bottle is directed to be sealed, it is done so before it is placed on the water/sand bath to be heated.


We start with one matter and this, your at odds with ab initio.

Huh? You are going to have to rephrase this, as it is in fact quite grammatically incorrect and barely makes much sense. Strange for someone who keeps making gratuitous accusations against others regarding faulty grammar.


Not when calcined in the vulgar, common, profane way, no.

It is you who started by quite mistakenly saying that a volatile "parts" or principle are expelled from metals during calcination. I merely pointed out that this is in fact not so.


Again, vulgar calcination. Let's expand our view and consider the alchemical side. Oh no!

The "alchemical calcination" that you referred to AFTER referring to ordinary calcination is made with a composite substance: the secret solvent. So how do you know what is being "given off"? Have you analyzed it to see if in fact is some real "volatile principle" of metals or actually just some gaseous byproduct from the solvent itself? Methinks that you have not.


You haven't figured it out, neither did Newton or Boyle, so nobody else can; Except, the alchemists did it.

Since you "haven't figured it out" either, what makes you think that you know what exactly is supposedly "given off"? And besides, in the alchemical "coction" the "soul/sulfur/tincture" contained inside the "water" is supposed to JOIN and COAGULATE with the "body/earth" to form the Stone, not be given off into the air.


Chemistry 101. An excellent program can be found on PBS that shows the history of these experiments. It's great viewing, unfortunately, nothing interesting for the alchemist.

First of all, it was you who brought it up, and second, it certainly is interesting for the alchemist as it is for anyone else. Why follow theories that have been proven erroneous? The fact that what really causes calcination was discovered by a chemist should not be an obstacle to anyone for taking advantage of it. As Bruce Lee would say: "Foreign or not, if it helps you... then you should learn to use it. It doesn't matter at all where it comes from, we should realize that."


This much is true, evidenced by the experiments that you use to show that what he
proved by chemical means, has absolutely no bearing on the alchemical method.

Unless oxygen and/or metallic calxes do not play any part on the alchemical method, that's fine and dandy. But what if they do?


More like dogma if you were to ask me.

That would be more what you base yours on.


Because these are all necessities right? We should be appreciative that nature has placed all of the raw materials at our disposal so that we could confound them in unnatural ways and poison ourselves into oblivion.

If you don't like them, then why are you using a computer to communicate with? Why are you using something as useful as electricity at all? And yes, very much necessities for our way of life, or are you going to tell me that you live in the jungle or in a cave without any of the many improvements that man has made on his living conditions since the Stone Age?


Because nature didn't allow you to evolve the largest brain capable of many things right?Spoken like a true modern who sees himself greater than nature itself.

Even many alchemists said that man improved on nature. You should read Newman's paper on this interesting topic:

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/14077623/technology-and-alchemical-debate-in-the-late-middle-agespdf


JDP, it has been a pleasure discussing the possibilities of this method with you.;) I don't believe you've performed the experiments that this thread requires. As such, it appears that you are unqualified to participate more in depth seeing that you fail to accept that a one matter exists in the first place that isn't as you require, an element.
Although I'd of liked that you champion this method, well, it looks as though this won't be the case.

Chasm369

There isn't much to "experiment" here. Heating things like sea water or grape juice won't do much of anything that can be labelled "alchemical", even if we could somehow consider such mixtures as "one matter only". No matter how you look at it, this whole claim is a big dead-end. For hundreds of years seekers digested, fermented, distilled, separated, cohobated, etc. virtually all singular naturally occurring matters that fell into their hands hoping to achieve the "one matter only" ruse, and none got anywhere with such an approach.

Chasm
09-04-2016, 01:20 PM
No, not "if I say so" (as if I was inventing things out of thin air!) You can take the words of the alchemists themselves, like this one, describing sea water as a simple mixture of water and salt:

"It may be objected to our view that if the water of our springs were derived from the sea, it would be salt, and not sweet, as we actually find it to be. The answer to this objection lies in the fact that the sea water, in its passage through the pores of the earth, gradually deposits all the salt which it contains, and thus wells forth from the ground in a sweet and fresh condition. It should, however, be remembered that some of our springs -called mineral or saline springs- actually do exhibit all the original saltness of the sea water which has not passed through earth calculated to retain its mineral element."
Im not going to argue these words any further ;)



This coming from someone who actually totally failed to see that his very own link to a dictionary entry actually gave many definitions for the word "matter" and that several of these use the term "substance" interchangeably? That's sweet. Don't try to project your confusions and misunderstandings upon others.
;) ok!




The only one confused about words like "matter", "substance" and "element" is you.
;) ok!


This shows how easily you fall for the vague sweeping generalizations the alchemists had a taste for in order to befuddle many "unworthy" seekers. There's plenty of "vile and despised" things all over the world that no one gives much value to. This is hardly a very revealing clue at all. That's why some alchemists like to dispense it: it won't make you much the wiser regarding what the actual matters to work with are.
Ok!


What it actually proves more than anything is the mess and confusion that the alchemists themselves have made. It is a very common tactic of theirs to try to place the blame for failure on the seekers, not themselves. The fact is that a major part of the fault is in fact coming from the alchemists themselves. The more honest alchemists in fact openly recognized so, and accused many of their peers of having misled countless people. You yourself quoted Norton very openly accusing many of those who preceded him of having been excessively obscure.
If only they wrote openly.


What is this supposed to mean? It makes no sense as a response to what I said.
It does, you simply don't get the meaning. I'm not going to explain.


No, they simply were misled by someone who, much like you, thought he was on the right track. Unfortunately, he was not. A case of "counting the chickens before they hatch". An all too common mistake.
If you say so. Misinformation, misinterpretation...who knows!


Words in fact have several specific meanings. You failed to notice this very fact in the dictionary entry for "matter".
Ok!


This actually shows me your lack of familiarity with the very subject.
Ok!


The 1/1/1 ruse means that you take only one substance, close it in a flask and heat it. If, on the other hand, you put it in the glass and then heat it, whatever is it that you are enclosing inside will start "reacting" and emitting whatever is it that it's supposed to emit. You then would have to heat the neck of the flask, while itself is being heated from below, to the softening temperature of glass so you could seal it, or you would have to provide a stopper to the mouth of the flask and "lute" it into place. In both cases the operation would be quite difficult to achieve, specially in an age without gas torches, rubber stoppers and/or ground glass joints with hooks & springs. In fact I can't remember having read such directions of heating the contents of the flask first and then sealing the glass in any alchemical text I have read so far. When a flask/bottle is directed to be sealed, it is done so before it is placed on the water/sand bath to be heated.
ALL of your error lies here. But I'm not going to even try and explain it to you.


Huh? You are going to have to rephrase this, as it is in fact quite grammatically incorrect and barely makes much sense. Strange for someone who keeps making gratuitous accusations against others regarding faulty grammar.
Ouch!!:p


It is you who started by quite mistakenly saying that a volatile "parts" or principle are expelled from metals during calcination. I merely pointed out that this is in fact not so.

Mistake? Because the lost weight is replaced by oxygen? OK! ;)


The "alchemical calcination" that you referred to AFTER referring to ordinary calcination is made with a composite substance: the secret solvent. So how do you know what is being "given off"? Have you analyzed it to see if in fact is some real "volatile principle" of metals or actually just some gaseous byproduct from the solvent itself? Methinks that you have not.
All I have for you is my image posted earlier. It says all that I can possibly say online. You've either duplicated it using this method or you haven't. In either case, it's OK!


Since you "haven't figured it out" either, what makes you think that you know what exactly is supposedly "given off"? And besides, in the alchemical "coction" the "soul/sulfur/tincture" contained inside the "water" is supposed to JOIN and COAGULATE with the "body/earth" to form the Stone, not be given off into the air.
I calcined with water. My flask is well sealed with wax.


First of all, it was you who brought it up, and second, it certainly is interesting for the alchemist as it is for anyone else. Why follow theories that have been proven erroneous? The fact that what really causes calcination was discovered by a chemist should be not be an obstacle to anyone for taking advantage of it. As Bruce Lee would say: "Foreign or not, if it helps you... then you should learn to use it. It doesn't matter at all where it comes from, we should realize that."
Ok, those are some great words. I haven't seen anyone calcinate with water though.


Unless oxygen and/or metallic calxes do not play any part on the alchemical method, that's fine and dandy. But what if they do?
What if JDP, what if!!




That would be more what you base yours on.
Ok!


If you don't like them, then why are you using a computer to communicate with? Why are you using something as useful as electricity at all? And yes, very much necessities for our way of life, or are you going to tell me that you live in the jungle or in a cave without any of the many improvements that man has made on his living conditions since the Stone Age?
Is that what I said? Ok!


Even many alchemists said that man improved on nature. You should read Newman's paper on this interesting topic:

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/14077623/technology-and-alchemical-debate-in-the-late-middle-agespdf
Ok!!


There isn't much to "experiment" here. Heating things like sea water or grape juice won't do much of anything that can be labelled "alchemical", even if we could somehow consider such mixtures as "one matter only". No matter how you look at it, this whole claim is a big dead-end. For hundreds of years seekers digested, fermented, distilled, separated, cohobated, etc. virtually all singular naturally occurring matters that fell into their hands hoping to achieve the "one matter only" ruse, and none got anywhere with such an approach.
Again, I refer you to my image. It's all I have. Well not really. I have more. Might some convince you otherwise?

Chasm
09-04-2016, 01:28 PM
Do you see blackness in my image?http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?1310-One-Matter-One-Vessel-One-Fire&p=43567#post43567
Mind you, it was there, but it was gradually replaced with new clothes.
You can see three matters in the image. The fourth, black matter is missing. It has been cut off...gradually!
Now you may say as you please and call me liar. I don't expect this of you, but I am prepared nonetheless ;)

Andro
09-04-2016, 02:01 PM
http://forum.alchemyforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=942&d=1472413036

Have you by any chance tested/assayed those 'salts', for the possibility that they may simply be Ammonium Carbonate, the 'common' volatile salts from decomposing urine? (or tartar, etc...)

I'm not saying they are, but you know, just to make sure...

Such salts are often the result of decomposing matter, either by long putrefaction in gentle heat, or by higher heat dry distillation.

I've obtained such very pure salts many years ago, before "I knew better" :)

All I'm doing is suggesting to test them. Not only have them essayed, but also test their solubility (what dissolves them and what doesn't), sublimation temperature, etc... This can give you valuable indications...


Can anyone tell me what I'm looking at considering that this image is authentic and is a progressive stage in this method?If you post such results here, I may be better equipped to offer my (own version of a) reply to your initial (above quoted) 'question'...
______
I.M.S.I.

Chasm
09-04-2016, 06:47 PM
http://forum.alchemyforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=942&d=1472413036

Have you by any chance tested/assayed those 'salts', for the possibility that they may simply be Ammonium Carbonate, the 'common' volatile salts from decomposing urine? (or tartar, etc...)
Are you speaking of the white salts in the image?


I'm not saying they are, but you know, just to make sure...These white salts I'm actually a bit cautious of having assayed.


Such salts are often the result of decomposing matter, either by long putrefaction in gentle heat, or by higher heat dry distillation.Well, they sure didn't show up over night. These white foliated salts came from black salts.

I've obtained such very pure salts many years ago, before "I knew better" :Did your salts progress to exhibit these characteristic circular iris?
943


All I'm doing is suggesting to test them. Not only have them essayed, but also test their solubility (what dissolves them and what doesn't), sublimation temperature, etc... This can give you valuable indications... I'm in agreement. It's just that given the nature of what we're doing...Imagine having some company freaking out because you/me, Joe nobody, shows up with an unclassified substance. I'm being cautious.


If you post such results here, I may be better equipped to offer my (own version of a) reply to your initial (above quoted) 'question'...Well this is what I hope for. ;) What do you make of the iris?

This link from CERN interesting. https://press.cern/sites/press.web.cern.ch/files/image/inline-images/jhaffner/screen_shot_2015-07-14_at_08.13.14.png
Note*. The CERN image is a cgi representing what was captured by high speed photography, after atomic bombardment.
"pentaquark"??? I'm open to discussion. 1/1/1 method is very interesting.

Andro
09-04-2016, 07:02 PM
Are you speaking of the white salts in the image?

Apparently yes, since I placed that very image above the question about the essaying...



http://forum.alchemyforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=943&d=1473014177

Did your salts progress to exhibit these characteristic circular iris?
What do you make of the iris?

The picture is way to tiny for me to make anything of it.

Chasm
09-04-2016, 07:26 PM
Apparently yes, since I placed that very image above the question about the essaying...
These white salts are regenerated matter. The common white ammoniacal salts are saturated with a yellow oil in this image. To be precise, these white salts are the second white salts which arrive after/during the fading black of blacks putrefaction.


The picture is way to tiny for me to make anything of it.
Well, the salts have basically turned into a white "grease" as opposed to the black, opened and putrefied bituminous matter. The iris got me to thinking of the peacocks tail.
Who knows, I've only seen images such as these posted by myself.

I have images of the first matter giving off all the colours of the world as it turns black.

Theses bubbles of colour appear sublimated as the pure white ammoniacal salts. White consists of all colours while the absence of colour leaves blackness.
What's the max. pixel width on this forum? Perhaps I can enlarge. I captured only the most interesting part.

JDP
09-05-2016, 09:07 AM
Im not going to argue these words any further ;)

Glad to see you finally got the point about this one. Since the alchemists were well aware that sea water was a mixture of two separate substances that could easily be isolated from each other, it obviously was not any "one matter only" but a mixture of two or more.


If only they wrote openly.

But many times they do write very openly. It is only when it comes to the true identity of the substances to work with that they all assume more vague and obscure styles.



It does, you simply don't get the meaning. I'm not going to explain.

No, it doesn't, and I think it is more that you can't explain it.


If you say so. Misinformation, misinterpretation...who knows!

Boyle and Newton were very well acquainted with Starkey's claims and spent a lot of time doing tests along those lines. This is well known to historians. Read the historical researches of Newman and Principe.


ALL of your error lies here. But I'm not going to even try and explain it to you.

Find me even one alchemical text from BEFORE Torricelli's times (Torricelli was the first man to experimentally prove that Aristotle was wrong when he proclaimed that "nature abhors a vacuum" and showed that vacuums are indeed perfectly possible with his mercury barometer) that describes the opposite of what I said and we'll talk.


Mistake? Because the lost weight is replaced by oxygen? OK! ;)

Now it seems you are being purposely obtuse. I have already explained that there is no "replacement" because there is no "lost weight" to begin with. Lavoisier very effectively proved that nothing is given off during the calcination of metals.


All I have for you is my image posted earlier. It says all that I can possibly say online. You've either duplicated it using this method or you haven't. In either case, it's OK!

An image does not really tell us much about any of this.


I calcined with water. My flask is well sealed with wax.

You "calcined" with a "water", which might very well not be "water" at all but something else.


Ok, those are some great words. I haven't seen anyone calcinate with water though.

Not with common water (H20), but maybe with some other "waters". Acids, for example, throughout their early history were often compared to a "fire" in a "humid" form. The alchemical works of Llull, Guido, Ripley, etc. sometimes refer to them as "fire against nature".


What if JDP, what if!!

Indeed, "what if". Bracesco, for example, clearly said that the best matter to dissolve in the "vinegar" in order to make the Stone is a certain metallic calx.

Bracesco, BTW, is in fact YET ANOTHER in the long list of alchemists who clearly say or imply that the Stone is made from the interaction between several substances, not "one matter only". Bracesco obviously implies that the Stone is made from at the very least two substances: the metallic calx + the "distilled vinegar" that dissolves it (which is the secret solvent and obviously not common vinegar. Acetic acid, no matter how concentrated, will NEVER do the things that he describes.) Since what he calls "distilled vinegar" must be the secret solvent, and this cannot be obtained from "only one matter", obviously Bracesco must have been working with more than two or three substances.


Again, I refer you to my image. It's all I have. Well not really. I have more. Might some convince you otherwise?

But an image by itself can't really prove much regarding this topic.

Chasm
09-05-2016, 02:49 PM
Glad to see you finally got the point about this one. Since the alchemists were well aware that sea water was a mixture of two separate substances that could easily be isolated from each other, it obviously was not any "one matter only" but a mixture of two or more.
:D Is that what you think? That I got the point? I'm taking the high road my friend. The discussion gets childish when we constantly make assumptions and feign ignorance for the sake of not wanting to be wrong. You are wrong here by every measure, but if it pleases you, have any flavour you like ;).


But many times they do write very openly. It is only when it comes to the true identity of the substances to work with that they all assume more vague and obscure styles.
So what you're saying is that when they often speak openly, they speak about nothing of real importance?


No, it doesn't, and I think it is more that you can't explain it.
Let us recap:

Chasm wrote:Do you see the way that you look at things? Because you deny the definition of matter, you make the possibilities of finding the substance slim and next to none.
Recall, our matter is a vile thing and despised by the ignorant. Perhaps this is why "sophisters" have such a hard time finding it.
That so many have failed is only proof that the alchemists were correct in that most "common" people are "profanely" "ignorant".

JDP wrote:
It is not an "assumption" but a logical consequence of the "only one matter" axiom. You obviously can't add anything else to it for this statement to be true, otherwise you would already have two (or more) matters/substances, not "only one". Simple arithmetic.

Your view of what costitutes matter is myopic. Because of this, you trap yourself, force yourself to use the words matter and substance interchangeably, when simple logic and the dictionary for the most part says that matter is composed of substance. Your argument relies on this myopia, which I feel is you being intentionally obtuse and for what? Regardless, before we can get logical, we must define the words that we are to use if we are to make any sense at all. It's the same with numbers. Each unit must have its denomination in relation to the others before we can say that arithmetic is simple. Hence my comment which you failed to understand. Grammar before logic. QED!


Boyle and Newton were very well acquainted with Starkey's claims and spent a lot of time doing tests along those lines. This is well known to historians. Read the historical researches of Newman and Principe.
Again you miss my meaning. Both Boyle and Newton had to interpret the texts just like you and I. They either misinterpreted them or they were misinformed by someone like you who thought they could correctly comprehend the texts. Perhaps this led them down the rabbit hole.


Find me even one alchemical text from BEFORE Torricelli's times (Torricelli was the first man to experimentally prove that Aristotle was wrong when he proclaimed that "nature abhors a vacuum" and showed that vacuums are indeed perfectly possible with his mercury barometer) that describes the opposite of what I said and we'll talk.
Torricelli was brilliant and his discovery has implications that I'm not sure you'll understand. In any case, show me a naturally occurring vacuum here on planet Earth, which basically provides our "nature" setting. Then perhaps you would better understand Aristotle, who was also brilliant.


Now it seems you are being purposely obtuse. I have already explained that there is no "replacement" because there is no "lost weight" to begin with. Lavoisier very effectively proved that nothing is given off during the calcination of metals.
Your chemical explanation was found wanting JDP. ;) We are privy to the same information. You go on slanting the argument. It's not fun anymore!


An image does not really tell us much about any of this.
No, it doesn't. Convenient too wouldn't you say?


You "calcined" with a "water", which might very well not be "water" at all but something else.
Did you honestly take me literally? Rather pompous of you considering I've been "puffing" this 1/1/1 method. Get real...really! This is just insulting.


Not with common water (H20), but maybe with some other "waters". Acids, for example, throughout their early history were often compared to a "fire" in a "humid" form. The alchemical works of Llull, Guido, Ripley, etc. sometimes refer to them as "fire against nature".
Thanks for the quick refresher in the obvious basics.


Indeed, "what if". Bracesco, for example, clearly said that the best matter to dissolve in the "vinegar" in order to make the Stone is a certain metallic calx.
I've shown you what this calx looks like. You simply don't want to see it.


Bracesco, BTW, is in fact YET ANOTHER in the long list of alchemists who clearly say or imply that the Stone is made from the interaction between several substances, not "one matter only". Bracesco obviously implies that the Stone is made from at the very least two substances: the metallic calx + the "distilled vinegar" that dissolves it (which is the secret solvent and obviously not common vinegar. Acetic acid, no matter how concentrated, will NEVER do the things that he describes.) Since what he calls "distilled vinegar" must be the secret solvent, and this cannot be obtained from "only one matter", obviously Bracesco must have been working with more than two or three substances.

The substances that you see in my images are from one matter. I added nothing. If you find this hard to believe, then ask yourself why!


But an image by itself can't really prove much regarding this topic.
That's right! As I said, it's convenient. :)

chasm369

JDP
09-06-2016, 10:14 AM
:D Is that what you think? That I got the point? I'm taking the high road my friend. The discussion gets childish when we constantly make assumptions and feign ignorance for the sake of not wanting to be wrong. You are wrong here by every measure, but if it pleases you, have any flavour you like ;).

Let me get this straight: I am the one actually quoting the alchemists themselves to back up what I say while you just talk gratuitous nonsense and show bad pictures, and yet YOU are "taking the high road" and I am the one who is supposedly "wrong"? Stop wasting my time, kid. Your truly childish tactics of accusing others of doing what you actually do have a well known name: psychological projections.


So what you're saying is that when they often speak openly, they speak about nothing of real importance?

No, stop trying to twist what others say. It's called "building straw men", and you do it very often. Grow up.


Let us recap:


Your view of what costitutes matter is myopic. Because of this, you trap yourself, force yourself to use the words matter and substance interchangeably, when simple logic and the dictionary for the most part says that matter is composed of substance. Your argument relies on this myopia, which I feel is you being intentionally obtuse and for what? Regardless, before we can get logical, we must define the words that we are to use if we are to make any sense at all. It's the same with numbers. Each unit must have its denomination in relation to the others before we can say that arithmetic is simple. Hence my comment which you failed to understand. Grammar before logic. QED!

Are you being obtuse just to try to irritate people or are you just really dense and do not even understand your very own links? You were not fooling anyone with your twists and spins of words like "matter" and "substance" then, you are not fooling anyone now either, specially after the "umptieth" time you repeat them only to be shown that you do not know what you are talking about. Stop wasting my time by going back over and over to things that have already been explained to you as if you were a 5 year old child. Or are you really that age? Because that might explain this silly behavior.


Again you miss my meaning. Both Boyle and Newton had to interpret the texts just like you and I. They either misinterpreted them or they were misinformed by someone like you who thought they could correctly comprehend the texts. Perhaps this led them down the rabbit hole.


Now you are just copying what I said to you and childishly trying to say it to me. Grow up.


Torricelli was brilliant and his discovery has implications that I'm not sure you'll understand. In any case, show me a naturally occurring vacuum here on planet Earth, which basically provides our "nature" setting. Then perhaps you would better understand Aristotle, who was also brilliant.

Let's see, you had no idea about Torricelli and his experimental demonstration that for the first time showed that a vacuum is indeed possible before I brought the subject up against your gratuitous claim that the old alchemists knew it all about how to achieve vacuums, and yet you pretend I am the one who doesn't understand such things? Again, are you 5 years old or are you just trying to troll others?


Your chemical explanation was found wanting JDP. ;) We are privy to the same information. You go on slanting the argument. It's not fun anymore!

You are so "privy" to that info that you in fact keep absurdly thinking that the oxygen "replaces" something else lost in the calcination (and no, you were very clearly talking about COMMON FIRE, not the secret solvent; go back and read your own posts for a change.) How many times did I have to explain this one to you? And apparently you still don't get it, or you pretend you don't get it just to be annoying. Don't waste any more of my time with your obvious obtuse and stubborn behavior.



No, it doesn't. Convenient too wouldn't you say?

Yes, for the person making the completely gratuitous claims that he can't back up in any other way.


Did you honestly take me literally? Rather pompous of you considering I've been "puffing" this 1/1/1 method. Get real...really! This is just insulting.

Considering all the mistaken things you have claimed so far, like sea water being "one matter only" and capable of somehow giving the secret solvent by heating it in a sealed flask (in accordance with the ridiculous "one matter, one vessel, one fire" ruse designed for misleading naive and inexperienced seekers), nothing surprises me coming from you anymore. What is really insulting is your silly attempt at trolling by being obtuse (that's if you are doing all this on purpose and you are not really a 5 year old kid who doesn't know any better yet.)



Thanks for the quick refresher in the obvious basics.

"Obvious basics" after I point them out to you in answer to your usual mistaken statements and assumptions, mind you. I remind you that my above reply was to your absurd "I haven't seen anyone calcinate with water though" remark, when in fact plenty of old writers say the very thing, and not just when talking about the secret solvent, but even when talking about common acids.


I've shown you what this calx looks like. You simply don't want to see it.

You haven't shown anything but some bad pictures of who-knows-what.


The substances that you see in my images are from one matter. I added nothing. If you find this hard to believe, then ask yourself why!

Your images are bad to begin with, and your understanding of alchemy and even ordinary chemistry is just in the same vein as the pictures. Why should anyone in their right mind have much confidence in anything of what you claim after such bizarre display of obtuseness?


That's right! As I said, it's convenient. :)

That's right! Convenient for the person making empty claims that he can't back up with anything else.

Ghislain
09-06-2016, 11:44 AM
Guys, would it not be better to agree to disagree?

Ghislain

Lux Natura
09-06-2016, 11:56 AM
Guys, would it not be better to agree to disagree?

Ghislain

I'm rather new here myself, and have been watching something unfold - mainly another member as new as myself who has dove in and been very assertive in their beliefs, and has been stirring things up, so to speak. Myself (in the context of this thread specifically) I see this as a process similar to how, when on IS running a fermentation, instead of allowing things to evolve how they are evolving naturally, one adds in something like diammonium phosphate, and suddenly there is a flurry of activity and pressure builds up, and there is generally lots of action occurring that stirs things up.

No judgement here, just noticing that sometimes the conversations heat up, the details do get bogged down into ego, but the thread of the message still evolves in a meta / macro sense. Perhaps the brew was sitting in a false local minimum state, and energy needed to be added to get it over a hump. Or perhaps we want to be results orientated, so we doctor our brew in order to push it past it's natural capabilities. Not sure which... again, no judgement.

Chasm
09-06-2016, 12:29 PM
Let me get this straight: I am the one actually quoting the alchemists themselves to back up what I say while you just talk gratuitous nonsense and show bad pictures, and yet YOU are "taking the high road" and I am the one who is supposedly "wrong"? Stop wasting my time, kid. Your truly childish tactics of accusing others of doing what you actually do have a well known name: psychological projections..
JDP, you quote the alchemists often and project your own wayward understanding of their meaning onto others. You've not backed up your understanding anywhere that I've seen here on this forum.


No, stop trying to twist what others say. It's called "building straw men", and you do it very often. Grow up.
If you really know what you mean, then say it! Don't spurt intellectual gibberish.


Are you being obtuse just to try to irritate people or are you just really dense and do not even understand your very own links? You were not fooling anyone with your twists and spins of words like "matter" and "substance" then, you are not fooling anyone now either, specially after the "umptieth" time you repeat them only to be shown that you do not know what you are talking about. Stop wasting my time by going back over and over to things that have already been explained to you as if you were a 5 year old child. Or are you really that age? Because that might explain this silly behavior.
Stop it already! Do you think others cannot read for themselves? Whose projecting???


Now you are just copying what I said to you and childishly trying to say it to me. Grow up.
Can you not appreciate that I have other views? Must I conform to your understanding?
Do you consider yourself that smart as to be unchallengeable?


Let's see, you had no idea about Torricelli and his experimental demonstration that for the first time showed that a vacuum is indeed possible before I brought the subject up against your gratuitous claim that the old alchemists knew it all about how to achieve vacuums, and yet you pretend I am the one who doesn't understand such things? Again, are you 5 years old or are you just trying to troll others?
I possess a "RESTRICTED IN ONTARIO" physics book that speaks of Torricelli and his experiments with the pipettes and mercury. You assume a lot! Still, you haven't answered the question. Where do we find a naturally occurring vacuum here on Earth? You want to sound smart, so be smart. Showing mnemonic abilities isn't smart.


You are so "privy" to that info that you in fact keep absurdly thinking that the oxygen "replaces" something else lost in the calcination (and no, you were very clearly talking about COMMON FIRE, not the secret solvent; go back and read your own posts for a change.) How many times did I have to explain this one to you? And apparently you still don't get it, or you pretend you don't get it just to be annoying. Don't waste any more of my time with your obvious obtuse and stubborn behavior.
How about you go back and reread the posts with some honesty, huh?
Lavoisiers experiments proved chemical operations as he "established " and codified the nomenclature. On the contrary, his calcination was vulgar and proves nothing of alchemical calcination.
This, you don't wish to acknowledge. Oh well!


Yes, for the person making the completely gratuitous claims that he can't back up in any other way.
Although my images don't say much to you, they may say something to others. I will continue to post them. You can continue to criticize them. It bears me no burden.


Considering all the mistaken things you have claimed so far, like sea water being "one matter only" and capable of somehow giving the secret solvent by heating it in a sealed flask (in accordance with the ridiculous "one matter, one vessel, one fire" ruse designed for misleading naive and inexperienced seekers), nothing surprises me coming from you anymore. What is really insulting is your silly attempt at trolling by being obtuse (that's if you are doing all this on purpose and you are not really a 5 year old kid who doesn't know any better yet.)
JDP, leave the matter alone. I'm not trolling. You're trolling. Again you call the 1/1/1 method a ruse. Again you're projecting your beliefs onto this forum. You don't realize it though, because your attitude is that of a self appointed impiricist. Now you're name calling! Whose the child?


"Obvious basics" after I point them out to you in answer to your usual mistaken statements and assumptions, mind you. I remind you that my above reply was to your absurd "I haven't seen anyone calcinate with water though" remark, when in fact plenty of old writers say the very thing, and not just when talking about the secret solvent, but even when talking about common acids.
Don't quote me out of context please. I still have respect for your ability to retain information.


You haven't shown anything but some bad pictures of who-knows-what.

If they were good pictures, would you still not know what the images signified?
In fact, unless you duplicated this 1/1/1 method, you wouldn't know a thing and wouldn't be able to make any fair criticisms. Well, this is what I had suggested to you when I said that I enjoyed this discussion, but it was time to move on. This thread requires your experimental experience. You appear to have none. For you, it's all a ruse.


Your images are bad to begin with, and your understanding of alchemy and even ordinary chemistry is just in the same vein as the pictures. Why should anyone in their right mind have much confidence in anything of what you claim after such bizarre display of obtuseness?
Ok, you're attacking me because you don't understand my images, nor the way that I view the alchemical process.
Please, criticize my points and views. Don't criticize me. You keep putting me in a position to defend and I've been holding back....taking the high road. That can change.


That's right! Convenient for the person making empty claims that he can't back up with anything else.
No picture will satisfy you JDP...not until you've been able to pierce the veil and duplicate the same.

Chasm
09-06-2016, 01:31 PM
In my attempts to better show what I've discovered for myself, I hope that this offsite image is easier to depict.

http://i.picasion.com/resize82/c481d10bf5334b583001ceaf3e81b3d8.png

This image is taken as the matter is exiting the black of blacks stage or the reign of Saturn. It signifies the triumph of antimony.
Notice what is depicted as a "starry sky", the coating of the glass. Again, the circular iris are reminiscent of the caudal pavonis features.

Who has seen this? Let's share privately!

What else is notable, yet speculative, is that some of these colours, in particular, the yellow centre with blue ring iris nested in pure white are the colours of the Virgin Mary.
The matter here is virginous. It is forming as the blackness begins to turn orange.
Meaningful comments? Even privately, I'm open to discussion.
Please, only those who've accomplished the 1/1/1 at least this far should contact via PM. Otherwise let's remain in the forum and I'll conduct myself accordingly.

Chasm
09-06-2016, 04:07 PM
Is it just me or is there something in this image that resembles mine?
Please, before any negativity, observe closely:

http://i.picasion.com/resize82/d16cb62004dfdde1bf6d07257d961fb7.jpg (http://picasion.com/resize-gif/)

If the symbolism isn't obvious, then I'm wasting my time here. Understanding the symbolism is what an educated criticism will come down to. Again I invite any constructive discussion.

JDP
09-07-2016, 11:20 AM
.
JDP, you quote the alchemists often and project your own wayward understanding of their meaning onto others. You've not backed up your understanding anywhere that I've seen here on this forum.

Let's see, I just got done quoting an alchemist for your edification who plainly talks about sea water as a mixture of fresh water and salt, which is what I have been saying all along, while you stubbornly keep trying to deny it, and you have the brazenness of saying that I have not backed up what I say? Please, grow up.



If you really know what you mean, then say it! Don't spurt intellectual gibberish.

More like work on your reading & comprehension, because it was always clearly spelled out for you, yet you keep getting things wrong or, even worse, purposely twisting & spinning them.



Stop it already! Do you think others cannot read for themselves? Whose projecting???

Of course they can, that's why your games do not work. All one has to do is go back in the thread and see when and what you wrote, and how whenever you were proven wrong you started the spinning & twisting games.


Can you not appreciate that I have other views? Must I conform to your understanding?
Do you consider yourself that smart as to be unchallengeable?

But the most important topic here is not so much one's personal views, but those of the alchemists' themselves, they are the main subject of the discussion.


I possess a "RESTRICTED IN ONTARIO" physics book that speaks of Torricelli and his experiments with the pipettes and mercury. You assume a lot! Still, you haven't answered the question. Where do we find a naturally occurring vacuum here on Earth? You want to sound smart, so be smart. Showing mnemonic abilities isn't smart.

I wasn't aware that Canada was banning books about physics LOL! Torricelli worked with mercury and glass tubes (not pipettes) to build his barometer, which ended up showing that vacuums are indeed very much possible. And why do you ask about vacuums happening naturally anywhere on Earth? What has this to do with your type of argument? You were telling me that alchemists made vacuums inside their flasks (which I very much doubt, as I have not seen even one such instruction in any alchemical work.) Since you admit that vacuums do not happen naturally on our planet, you would in fact be agreeing with me that the alchemists surpassed nature and employed methods that nature itself does not employ. There is a reason why the Stone is not found in nature but in the alchemists' labs.



How about you go back and reread the posts with some honesty, huh?

But that is what I already do. You, on the other hand, have already tried several times to pretend that you did not say what you plainly said in some previous posts.


Lavoisiers experiments proved chemical operations as he "established " and codified the nomenclature. On the contrary, his calcination was vulgar and proves nothing of alchemical calcination.
This, you don't wish to acknowledge. Oh well!


BUT YOU ARE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP "VULGAR" CALCINATION IN THE FIRST PLACE! Again, read YOUR VERY OWN POSTS! Here, let me help you "refresh" your very faulty memory:



In the metals, the volatile parts are consumed by the great "tyro", "common fire". Hence the need for "our Mercury" or the alkahest. This is spoken of by many of the esteemed alchemists. Only the "secret fire" will volatize the metals.


It was this mistaken claim that prompted me to bring up Lavoisier, since his work proved once and for all that calcination was NOT the product of any emission from the metals, but in fact totally the opposite: them absorbing "something" from the air (i.e. oxygen.) After you were proven wrong, then you kept pointing out that you were not talking about "vulgar" calcination, but we can all see that you plainly were (yes, you were also talking about the alchemical solvent, but the fact is that you were also talking about "common" calcination in the same context.) You thought that it "consumed" the "volatile parts" of metals, but there are no such "volatile parts" to begin with. If they really existed, Lavoisier would have been able to detect their presence in the closed apparatuses he used for several of his calcination experiments.


Although my images don't say much to you, they may say something to others. I will continue to post them. You can continue to criticize them. It bears me no burden.

Maybe if they can read your mind, but to normal people images like that, with no further explanation, can mean either a bunch of things or nothing at all.


JDP, leave the matter alone. I'm not trolling. You're trolling. Again you call the 1/1/1 method a ruse. Again you're projecting your beliefs onto this forum. You don't realize it though, because your attitude is that of a self appointed impiricist. Now you're name calling! Whose the child?

I already told you why it is quite difficult to give any credit to the 1/1/1 claim. There's just too much evidence against it. And it was you who started making offensive insinuations and remarks. Your attitude is that of people who come to troll others in forums.



Don't quote me out of context please. I still have respect for your ability to retain information.

How was that "out of context"?


If they were good pictures, would you still not know what the images signified?

No, because plenty of reactions can give similar superficial results.


In fact, unless you duplicated this 1/1/1 method, you wouldn't know a thing and wouldn't be able to make any fair criticisms. Well, this is what I had suggested to you when I said that I enjoyed this discussion, but it was time to move on. This thread requires your experimental experience. You appear to have none. For you, it's all a ruse.

This coming from someone who naively thinks that by sealing things like sea water inside a flask and heating it it will somehow produce something very unusual?


Ok, you're attacking me because you don't understand my images, nor the way that I view the alchemical process.
Please, criticize my points and views. Don't criticize me. You keep putting me in a position to defend and I've been holding back....taking the high road. That can change.

But your images are not clear to anyone. Just look at the other responses you got on the subject.


No picture will satisfy you JDP...not until you've been able to pierce the veil and duplicate the same.

I have seen tons of pictures in many different forums. The submitters all thought they were the ones on the right track. In reality, none proved anything. As the old saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding", not a picture of it.

JDP
09-07-2016, 11:24 AM
Is it just me or is there something in this image that resembles mine?
Please, before any negativity, observe closely:

http://i.picasion.com/resize82/d16cb62004dfdde1bf6d07257d961fb7.jpg (http://picasion.com/resize-gif/)

If the symbolism isn't obvious, then I'm wasting my time here. Understanding the symbolism is what an educated criticism will come down to. Again I invite any constructive discussion.

That image is not from any alchemical text. You also have a bit too much imagination.

Chasm
09-07-2016, 12:40 PM
Let's see, I just got done quoting an alchemist for your edification who plainly talks about sea water as a mixture of fresh water and salt, which is what I have been saying all along, while you stubbornly keep trying to deny it, and you have the brazenness of saying that I have not backed up what I say? Please, grow up.
Yes you did JDP. It's meaningless because you choose to ignore that sea water is matter. And I don't deny that a mixture of substances is matter. Add this word and its meaning to your vocabulary and use it honestly and you'll have no argument.


More like work on your reading & comprehension, because it was always clearly spelled out for you, yet you keep getting things wrong or, even worse, purposely twisting & spinning them.
:rolleyes:



Of course they can, that's why your games do not work. All one has to do is go back in the thread and see when and what you wrote, and how whenever you were proven wrong you started the spinning & twisting games.
No comment (N/C)




But the most important topic here is not so much one's personal views, but those of the alchemists' themselves, they are the main subject of the discussion.
Because you know the views of the alchemists right?


I wasn't aware that Canada was banning books about physics LOL! Torricelli worked with mercury and glass tubes (not pipettes) to build his barometer, which ended up showing that vacuums are indeed very much possible. And why do you ask about vacuums happening naturally anywhere on Earth? What has this to do with your type of argument? You were telling me that alchemists made vacuums inside their flasks (which I very much doubt, as I have not seen even one such instruction in any alchemical work.) Since you admit that vacuums do not happen naturally on our planet, you would in fact be agreeing with me that the alchemists surpassed nature and employed methods that nature itself does not employ. There is a reason why the Stone is not found in nature but in the alchemists' labs.
Because you know all about restricted books right?
By the way, it was you who jumped all over Aristotle because he said "nature abhors a vacuum". You then brought up Torricelli to prove that a vacuum was easily created.
SO WHAT!!! Nature does abhor a vacuum. Aristotle was right and YOU wrong. You haven't shown where nature is content to sustain a vacuum here on Earth yet. Why? Wait for it.......BECAUSE YOU CANT!!!
Also, I wasn't telling you anything about alchemists creating vacuums. You assume a lot as I've said before. Don't quote me out of context please.


But that is what I already do. You, on the other hand, have already tried several times to pretend that you did not say what you plainly said in some previous posts.
:rolleyes:

BUT YOU ARE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP "VULGAR" CALCINATION IN THE FIRST PLACE! Again, read YOUR VERY OWN POSTS! Here, let me help you "refresh" your very faulty memory:
Yes I did! If you can't figure it out, oh well!


It was this mistaken claim that prompted me to bring up Lavoisier, since his work proved once and for all that calcination was NOT the product of any emission from the metals, but in fact totally the opposite: them absorbing "something" from the air (i.e. oxygen.) After you were proven wrong, then you kept pointing out that you were not talking about "vulgar" calcination, but we can all see that you plainly were (yes, you were also talking about the alchemical solvent, but the fact is that you were also talking about "common" calcination in the same context.) You thought that it "consumed" the "volatile parts" of metals, but there are no such "volatile parts" to begin with. If they really existed, Lavoisier would have been able to detect their presence in the closed apparatuses he used for several of his calcination experiments.
If the metals gained oxygen, how is it that the weight remained the same? I don't dispute that the metals gained oxygen. But if Lavoisier found that the weight was unchanged, then oxygen must be weightless. Is this what you're saying?


Maybe if they can read your mind, but to normal people images like that, with no further explanation, can mean either a bunch of things or nothing at all.
N/C


I already told you why it is quite difficult to give any credit to the 1/1/1 claim. There's just too much evidence against it. And it was you who started making offensive insinuations and remarks. Your attitude is that of people who come to troll others in forums.
Like I said, you assume a lot. I see no evidence against it...at all.


How was that "out of context"?
Go back and read what was said.


No, because plenty of reactions can give similar superficial results.

So we agreed on something :D


This coming from someone who naively thinks that by sealing things like sea water inside a flask and heating it it will somehow produce something very unusual?
How soon we forget! Or is it that you just assume a lot?


But your images are not clear to anyone. Just look at the other responses you got on the subject.
Fact is, my images are largely unfamiliar. If one were acquainted with what is depicted,
there would be more clarity.


I have seen tons of pictures in many different forums. The submitters all thought they were the ones on the right track. In reality, none proved anything. As the old saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding", not a picture of it.
Exactly!!

Chasm
09-07-2016, 12:48 PM
That image is not from any alchemical text.
Who cares where the image is from? What is important is what it depicts.

You also have a bit too much imagination.
Apparently so did the alchemists in writing their texts and using symbolic imagery. :)

Did I not say that an educated critique would come down to understanding the symbolism?

JDP
09-08-2016, 09:55 AM
Yes you did JDP. It's meaningless because you choose to ignore that sea water is matter. And I don't deny that a mixture of substances is matter. Add this word and its meaning to your vocabulary and use it honestly and you'll have no argument.

You keep failing to understand that matter can be quantified. Your attempts at spinning & twisting words like "matter" and "substance" (which are in fact interchangeable) mean nothing in this context. When you specifically say "one matter only" you are bringing in quantification, it therefore implies something which is NOT KNOWN TO BE A MIXTURE OF ANYTHING ELSE AND IS ONLY ONE SINGLE THING. Otherwise it is NOT "one matter only" but several mixed with each other, i.e. a MIXTURE. Look up the definition of "mixture", since you like playing semantics games so much:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mixture


:rolleyes:

Yes, "rolleyes" indeed, your games get old real quick.


No comment (N/C)

I didn't expect any, so I am not surprised. Anyone can simply go back in the thread and see who said what & when. So your games don't work in a forum where the posts get recorded in chronological order. Too bad!



Because you know the views of the alchemists right?

What do you think you can gather by reading their works? That's right, their beliefs and points of view.



Because you know all about restricted books right?

So Canada must be under the control of the Inquisition now, since you claim that some physics books are getting banned there. What do you think this is? The year 1633?


By the way, it was you who jumped all over Aristotle because he said "nature abhors a vacuum". You then brought up Torricelli to prove that a vacuum was easily created.

Yes, because you were claiming that the alchemists made vacuums in their flasks.


SO WHAT!!! Nature does abhor a vacuum. Aristotle was right and YOU wrong. You haven't shown where nature is content to sustain a vacuum here on Earth yet. Why? Wait for it.......BECAUSE YOU CANT!!!

Oh no? Then what do you call space? It is basically a giant vacuum, and man certainly did not make it! Aristotle was wrong, plain and simple.

In our planet nature can't encounter the proper conditions to make a vacuum because we live in a closed system with an atmosphere. It requires man's intelligent intervention for the proper conditions to exist where a vacuum can happen. Torricelli's mercury barometer proved this.


Also, I wasn't telling you anything about alchemists creating vacuums. You assume a lot as I've said before. Don't quote me out of context please.

Oh, boy! So you weren't saying so? Here are your own words:



True, but when the apparatus is set up so as to expel the air via external heat, a vacuum can be created even unbeknownst to the alchemist which I highly doubt :D

I told you, your games don't work in a forum that RECORDS the posts in chronological order. One can easily go back in the thread and check what was said by who and when. It was this claim of yours that prompted me to have to explain to you not only the many difficulties that making a vacuum (which will only be partial and not complete, BTW) in such a manner would present for the alchemists, but that in fact I have not encountered even one alchemical account for making such a partial vacuum. When the alchemists direct to heat something in a sealed flask, they first put the substance/s in, then seal the vessel (either by placing a stopper on the mouth of the flask and "luting" it into place, or by heating the upper part of the neck of the flask to the point where the glass softens enough to be able to close it with tongs) and then place them in the water/sand baths to be heated. That's the invariable order. But if you have found evidence to the contrary IN THE LITERATURE, please by all means bring it forth to our attention. I am sure historians of science are going to be very interested in knowing that alchemists already knew how to achieve partial vacuums.


Yes I did! If you can't figure it out, oh well!

The one who apparently "can't figure it out" is you. I just showed you that you got caught denying something which you plainly said (it is RECORDED in these forums and therefore very easy to check), and the only thing you can do is write the above nonsense.


If the metals gained oxygen, how is it that the weight remained the same? I don't dispute that the metals gained oxygen. But if Lavoisier found that the weight was unchanged, then oxygen must be weightless. Is this what you're saying?

Who says that they do not gain weight? Even the alchemists themselves had noted that metals DO NOT KEEP THEIR WEIGHT but gain weight after calcination. The problem is that they did not know about oxygen, so they could never come up with a fully satisfactory explanation for the observed facts regarding calcination. It was Lavoisier who for the first time came up with a theoretical framework that could fully explain all the observed facts regarding this topic. Like I said before, Lavoisier was at the right place & time in history to allow him to come up with the most satisfactory explanation for calcination.


Like I said, you assume a lot. I see no evidence against it...at all.

That's because you are being purposefully obtuse and don't want to abandon your strange infatuation with this obvious ruse. You have been shown plenty of evidence, both from common sense & empirical experience as well as the statements of many alchemists themselves regarding the fact that the Stone is made from the interaction between several substances.



Go back and read what was said.

Follow your own "advice".



So we agreed on something :D

Yes, and it means that you really have no proof that you are on the right track :D


How soon we forget! Or is it that you just assume a lot?

The one who keeps mysteriously "forgetting" what you implied or even very specifically said is you.



Fact is, my images are largely unfamiliar. If one were acquainted with what is depicted,
there would be more clarity.

Your images are about as "unfamiliar" as any others that do not have any explanations attached to them.


Exactly!!

Indeed, and it means that your pictures don't really prove anything!!! Thanks for finally agreeing with common sense.

JDP
09-08-2016, 10:04 AM
Who cares where the image is from? What is important is what it depicts.

Apparently so did the alchemists in writing their texts and using symbolic imagery. :)

Did I not say that an educated critique would come down to understanding the symbolism?

If you can't understand the fact that you are taking an image that has nothing to do with alchemy (it's a 19th century engraving from a text on meteorology) totally out of context and arbitrarily wanting to see some sort of "link" to what you are doing in your flasks, then neither I nor anyone else in their right mind can help you.

Chasm
09-08-2016, 12:14 PM
You keep failing to understand that matter can be quantified. Your attempts at spinning & twisting words like "matter" and "substance" (which are in fact interchangeable) mean nothing in this context. When you specifically say "one matter only" you are bringing in quantification, it therefore implies something which is NOT KNOWN TO BE A MIXTURE OF ANYTHING ELSE AND IS ONLY ONE SINGLE THING. Otherwise it is NOT "one matter only" but several mixed with each other, i.e. a MIXTURE. Look up the definition of "mixture", since you like playing semantics games so much:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mixture

Full Definition of mixture
1
a : the act, the process, or an instance of mixing
b (1) : the state of being mixed (2) : the relative proportions of constituents; especially : the proportion of fuel to air produced in a carburetor
2
: a product of mixing : combination: as
a : a portion of matter consisting of two or more components in varying proportions that retain their own properties
b : a fabric woven of variously colored threads
c : a combination of several different kinds

1a Mixture is a process of mixing (great definition btw)!
1b The state of being mixed (another great definition)

2a A portion of matter consisting of two or more parts.


Yes, "rolleyes" indeed, your games get old real quick.
You claim that I'm being obtuse, I'm just tired!



I didn't expect any, so I am not surprised. Anyone can simply go back in the thread and see who said what & when. So your games don't work in a forum where the posts get recorded in chronological order. Too bad!
Ok!


What do you think you can gather by reading their works? That's right, their beliefs and points of view.
Yet mine are different to yours!


So Canada must be under the control of the Inquisition now, since you claim that some physics books are getting banned there. What do you think this is? The year 1633?. You can investigate. Begin at 1951


Yes, because you were claiming that the alchemists made vacuums in their flasks.What I said was that it was unlikely that they didn't know of vacuums. I stated this because of my experiments with vapour locks following John French, Art of Distillation. I asked you not to quote me out of context.


Oh no? Then what do you call space? It is basically a giant vacuum, and man certainly did not make it! Aristotle was wrong, plain and simple.
First of all, did Aristotle make it into space? Is space here on Earth? Again, you just can't be wrong! It's tiring JDP. And if you really are into quantum, there is no true vacuum, just varying degrees. So get over it!


In our planet nature can't encounter the proper conditions to make a vacuum because we live in a closed system with an atmosphere. It requires man's intelligent intervention for the proper conditions to exist where a vacuum can happen. Torricelli's mercury barometer proved this.
On this we agree! Nice! :cool:


Oh, boy! So you weren't saying so? Here are your own words:
Yes, here they are. Now read them without your myopic view.


Quote Originally Posted by Chasm View Post
True, but when the apparatus is set up so as to expel the air via external heat, a vacuum can be created even unbeknownst to the alchemist which I highly doubt


I told you, your games don't work in a forum that RECORDS the posts in chronological order. One can easily go back in the thread and check what was said by who and when. It was this claim of yours that prompted me to have to explain to you not only the many difficulties that making a vacuum (which will only be partial and not complete, BTW) in such a manner would present for the alchemists, but that in fact I have not encountered even one alchemical account for making such a partial vacuum. When the alchemists direct to heat something in a sealed flask, they first put the substance/s in, then seal the vessel (either by placing a stopper on the mouth of the flask and "luting" it into place, or by heating the upper part of the neck of the flask to the point where the glass softens enough to be able to close it with tongs) and then place them in the water/sand baths to be heated. That's the invariable order. But if you have found evidence to the contrary IN THE LITERATURE, please by all means bring it forth to our attention. I am sure historians of science are going to be very interested in knowing that alchemists already knew how to achieve partial vacuums.
This thread requires that you do the experiment. You're arguing with me possessing no familiarity with this rudimentary method.


The one who apparently "can't figure it out" is you. I just showed you that you got caught denying something which you plainly said (it is RECORDED in these forums and therefore very easy to check), and the only thing you can do is write the above nonsense.
:rolleyes:


Who says that they do not gain weight? Even the alchemists themselves had noted that metals DO NOT KEEP THEIR WEIGHT but gain weight after calcination. The problem is that they did not know about oxygen, so they could never come up with a fully satisfactory explanation for the observed facts regarding calcination. It was Lavoisier who for the first time came up with a theoretical framework that could fully explain all the observed facts regarding this topic. Like I said before, Lavoisier was at the right place & time in history to allow him to come up with the most satisfactory explanation for calcination.
I'll get back to this!


That's because you are being purposefully obtuse and don't want to abandon your strange infatuation with this obvious ruse. You have been shown plenty of evidence, both from common sense & empirical experience as well as the statements of many alchemists themselves regarding the fact that the Stone is made from the interaction between several substances.
Objection!!! Ruse is speculation! JDP has no personal knowledge of the method to form an educated opinion. JDP has not endeavoured to carry out the experiment himself!!


Follow your own "advice".
Ok!


Yes, and it means that you really have no proof that you are on the right track :D
What would the right track look like to you JDP? You haven't even found the right mixture of substances to even begin. Good luck with that. :)


The one who keeps mysteriously "forgetting" what you implied or even very specifically said is you.
Ok!


Your images are about as "unfamiliar" as any others that do not have any explanations attached to them.
A picture says a thousand words my friend. The fact is, it's an authentic image. You're bashing what you don't understand. That, dear JDP, is infantile and often dangerous. I still respect your vast retention of information.


Indeed, and it means that your pictures don't really prove anything!!! Thanks for finally agreeing with common sense.
If they were good pictures, would you still not know what the images signified?
In fact, unless you duplicated this 1/1/1 method, you wouldn't know a thing and wouldn't be able to make any fair criticisms. Well, this is what I had suggested to you when I said that I enjoyed this discussion, but it was time to move on. This thread requires your experimental experience. You appear to have none. For you, it's all a ruse.
See how repetitive I have to be?
JDP, I love ya man. You are staunch. I admire you. It's in my application. You are ,however, disappointing me here :(

Chasm
09-08-2016, 12:19 PM
Guys, would it not be better to agree to disagree?

Ghislain

I've tried that...respectfully even!

@ Lux,
I'm not shy Lux. I'm here to participate. I have tact. I'm not trying to force beliefs on anyone. I'm challenging a HUGE bias on JDP's part who hasn't done any experimenting with this method because he has intellectually dismissed it based on his erroneous assumptions.

Illen A. Cluf
09-08-2016, 01:30 PM
The question can be solved quite easily. There are at least two matters, not one. Period.

Why? Because the alchemists repeat again and again and again, endlessly, that the Stone is born from two parents - a mother and a father, mercury and sulphur, the knight and the dragon, etc. The "one matter" they refer to is the "prepared matter", which also has numerous other names such as "Philosophical mercury", "compound", "celestial salt", "rebis", "animated mercury", etc. It can not come from an androgynous matter because the alchemists also repeat that the two matters are antagonistic towards each other. and have to engage in a deadly battle An androgynous matter cannot be antagonistic towards itself. The only androgynous matter the alchemists talk about is Mercury, and they say that vulgar Mercury cannot be used to prepare the Stone. So their "Mercury" is the prepared matter, the son or "little king" resulting from the battle between the two parents.

End of story. Any other interpretation cannot come from a proper understanding of the classical texts.

Chasm
09-08-2016, 02:19 PM
The question can be solved quite easily. There are at least two matters, not one. Period.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here Illen. Thank you first of all for using the word matter. You claim that there are at least two matters, but you are wrong!
"In the beginning the earth was without form and darkness hovered in the midst of the deep...and the Lord separated the waters from the waters"...


Why? Because the alchemists repeat again and again and again, endlessly, that the Stone is born from two parents - a mother and a father, mercury and sulphur, the knight and the dragon, etc.
This is true, but it doesn't void the initial chaos as written in Genesis and many, many, many texts.

The "one matter" they refer to is the "prepared matter", which also has numerous other names such as "Philosophical mercury", "compound", "celestial salt", "rebis", "animated mercury", etc.
Now you're doing the same thing as JDP. Do you know what Rebis means? It means "two-thing". Why for the life of Fulcanelli would you tell everyone here that it is referring to one matter without suggesting that it came from the one matter. Are you looking to confuse or obfuscate?


It can not come from an androgynous matter because the alchemists also repeat that the two matters are antagonistic towards each other.
Mixing up the stages of the work are we? The one first matter they speak of, our philosophical sea, our red earth of Hadama is certainly one matter. Hence the need to perform the philosophical operations.


and have to engage in a deadly battle An androgynous matter cannot be antagonistic towards itself.
This is the conjunction and it occurs via an intermediary sulphur; Appollo if you will.
None of this happens in the first preparatory stage.


The only androgynous matter the alchemists talk about is Mercury, and they say that vulgar Mercury cannot be used to prepare the Stone. So their "Mercury" is the prepared matter, the son or "little king" resulting from the battle between the two parents.
I respectfully disagree with your use of terms. The prepared matter you refer to is correctly called "our Mercury of the Sages". It's the regenerated matter, foliated earth, the risen Christ. To call the androgynous matter Mercury is deceptive. You should know this already. It's all mercury....One matter! Remember?

End of story. Any other interpretation cannot come from a proper understanding of the classical texts.
:) If you say so Illen.

Illen A. Cluf
09-08-2016, 02:58 PM
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here Illen. Thank you first of all for using the word matter. You claim that there are at least two matters, but you are wrong!
"In the beginning the earth was without form and darkness hovered in the midst of the deep...and the Lord separated the waters from the waters"...

But we're no longer at the beginning of time. The waters have already been separated. Read carefully.


Now you're doing the same thing as JDP. Do you know what Rebis means? It means "two-thing". Why for the life of Fulcanelli would you tell everyone here that it is referring to one matter without suggesting that it came from the one matter. Are you looking to confuse or obfuscate?

Well that means that at least two of us seem to understand the principles. You're not making any logical sense whatsoever. You're saying that two things, called one thing, comes from one thing. In other words, one thing comes from one thing. Why would anything need to come from itself?


Mixing up the stages of the work are we? The one first matter they speak of, our philosophical sea, our red earth of Hadama is certainly one matter. Hence the need to perform the philosophical operations.

Not mixing up any stage - simply saying that if you are suggesting that two things come from one thing, then the first thing must be androgynous. Why would anyone need to perform any philosophical operations on one thing? It's already one thing and nothing else can come from it but itself. Again lack of logic.


I respectfully disagree with your use of terms. The prepared matter you refer to is correctly called "our Mercury of the Sages". It's the regenerated matter, foliated earth, the risen Christ. To call the androgynous matter Mercury is deceptive. You should know this already. It's all mercury....One matter! Remember?

So you really believe that the alchemists used only one term for their prepared matter??? You have a LOT of reading to do. "Mercury" can refer to several stages of the process (e.g. the initial mercury and the Philosophic Mercury which contains the sulhur). Even the sulphur can sometimes be considered their mercury in a deliberately confusing way. So mercury could be considered either as one matter or two matters.

According to the alchemists (and Genesis), the Universe started with one thing (water/chaos), but then split into at least two things. Actually four - earth, air water and fire. The whole alchemical process doesn't start with one thing, its purpose is to bring those two things, fire and water (each of which represent two things, (itself and either air or earth) back to the original quintessential chaos.

So, bottom line, philosophically, the alchemical process starts with four things as represented by two things, and ends up with one thing, the quintessence. A reverse type of Genesis. Very, very basic alchemical understanding.

Chasm
09-08-2016, 03:29 PM
But we're no longer at the beginning of time. The waters have already been separated. Read carefully.
I've seen the separation Illen. This separation forms yin and yang...volatile and fixed earths. Why must we separate the one thing?
Off the cuff of my head: "our matter separates itself, purifies itself, albifies, coagulates itself, it descends and all these operations are one operation."
Sound familiar? It's because I've done the reading.


Well that means that at least two of us seem to understand the principles. You're not making any logical sense whatsoever. You're saying that two things, called one thing, comes from one thing. In other words, one thing comes from one thing. Why would anything need to come from itself?
Aahhh! Now you're sounding like an alchemist. :D


Not mixing up any stage - simply saying that if you are suggesting that two things come from one thing, then the first thing must be androgynous. Why would anyone need to perform any philosophical operations on one thing? It's already one thing and nothing else can come from it but itself. Again lack of logic.
So why separate the volatile from the fixed? What does this mean? I can show you an image, but you haven't been very nice. You've been hostile.
By the way, do you agree on the meaning of rebis? Must I find the quote?


So you really believe that the alchemists used only one term for their prepared matter??? You have a LOT of reading to do. "Mercury" can refer to several stages of the process (e.g. the initial mercury and the Philosophic Mercury which contains the sulhur). Even the sulphur can sometimes be considered their mercury in a deliberately confusing way. So mercury could be considered either as one matter or two matters.
Here we agree. I've said as much!


According to the alchemists (and Genesis), the Universe started with one thing (water/chaos), but then split into at least two things.
Yes , I agree.

Actually four - earth, air water and fire.
Aahhh! So the one thing is composed of four elements. Nice Illen :)

The whole alchemical process doesn't start with one thing,
Time to make up your mind Illen.

its purpose is to bring those two things, fire and water (each of which represent two things, (itself and either air or earth) back to the original quintessential chaos. This is good ;)

So, philosophically, the alchemical process starts with four things as represented by two things, and ends up with one thing, the quintessence. Very, very basic alchemical understanding.
No, philosophically we begin with one thing, it separates into two as written everywhere. The two partake of blending characteristics warm and moist, cold and dry. It's perspective here. The comixtion of these two form a third thing. All of this is achieved by the interplay of the four elements.
P.S. Why do you insist on telling me to read more? Do recall, "I noticed your words".
I complemented you. You gave me attitude. It was uncalled for. I've shown that you erred with the meaning of rebis. This is rudimentary! As such, you can err elsewhere. None of us is infallible. Fortunately, I speak from experience if I haven't shown that already.
1/1/1 is an interesting and viable method. I'm not asking!

Dwellings
09-08-2016, 04:48 PM
But we're no longer at the beginning of time. The waters have already been separated. Read carefully.

Well that means that at least two of us seem to understand the principles. You're not making any logical sense whatsoever. You're saying that two things, called one thing, comes from one thing. In other words, one thing comes from one thing. Why would anything need to come from itself?

Not mixing up any stage - simply saying that if you are suggesting that two things come from one thing, then the first thing must be androgynous. Why would anyone need to perform any philosophical operations on one thing? It's already one thing and nothing else can come from it but itself. Again lack of logic.

So you really believe that the alchemists used only one term for their prepared matter??? You have a LOT of reading to do. "Mercury" can refer to several stages of the process (e.g. the initial mercury and the Philosophic Mercury which contains the sulhur). Even the sulphur can sometimes be considered their mercury in a deliberately confusing way. So mercury could be considered either as one matter or two matters.

According to the alchemists (and Genesis), the Universe started with one thing (water/chaos), but then split into at least two things. Actually four - earth, air water and fire. The whole alchemical process doesn't start with one thing, its purpose is to bring those two things, fire and water (each of which represent two things, (itself and either air or earth) back to the original quintessential chaos.

So, bottom line, philosophically, the alchemical process starts with four things as represented by two things, and ends up with one thing, the quintessence. A reverse type of Genesis. Very, very basic alchemical understanding.

Rebis means when you have combined the Rose colored blood of the Lion and Gluten of the Eagle in due proportions and are going to subject it to coction which the final stage. The Rebis is an exclusive feature of the long path. Please come out of your obsession with long path.

Chasm is quite right IMO in what he wants to convey.

You start with one thing and you end with one thing. Read one of the treatise that I send you over during previous PM's.

Illen A. Cluf
09-08-2016, 05:04 PM
Chasm, I've been trying very hard to put my head into yours, and I think I see where your understanding may not be correct.

First you quote Genesis as the ultimate source. Fine, many alchemists also do that. However, I think your understanding of genesis has a flaw.

I think you assume that, because there was only one matter at the beginning of time, that there must be somewhere in the world where that "one matter" still exists.

Wrong! The totality of that "one matter" was split at the beginning of time. Thus the philosophers insist that there is no longer any of the original "one matter" that exists in Nature. It can only be created by Nature with the assistance of Man. That "man-made assistance" is the very purpose of alchemy itself. "Split" means "more than one thing". Thus, since Creation, the world has been existing with a multitude of "things" or matters, separated from the "one matter", which the philosophers have grouped under only four principles (earth, air, fire and water). Further, they repeatedly teach that ALL metals consist of only TWO components - mercury and sulphur in various stages of perfection. BOTH these 'things" are absolutely required in order to make the Stone. It cannot be made from mercury alone or from sulphur alone. Even Fulcanelli states that.

Thus "two matters", each containing at least two principles, are required to start the work. Several alchemists say that the two "matters" are a mineral and a metal.

The key is to first separate these two principles, purify them to some extent, then join them together again to eventualy create an indivisible union, or (one thing), the "prepared matter". Then further exaltation is done to create the Medicine. The result is a product representing the original "one matter" at the time of Creation.

Chasm
09-08-2016, 05:36 PM
Chasm, I've been trying very hard to put my head into yours, and I think I see where your understanding may not be correct.
This is good Illen.


First you quote Genesis as the ultimate source. Fine, many alchemists also do that. However, I think your understanding of genesis has a flaw.
I cited it off the cuff. The essentials are there.


I think you assume that, because there was only one matter at the beginning of time, that there must be somewhere in the world where that "one matter" still exists.
Genesis for me, is an Acroamatic Cypher. I don't take it literally.


Wrong! The totality of that "one matter" was split at the beginning of time. Thus the philosophers insist that there is no longer any of the original "one matter" that exists in Nature. It can only be created by Nature with the assistance of Man.
Yes, and we must begin to trace back to the root of this original one matter from somewhere. The ancients philosophized over it and searched out where it, this root could be found. It was found in a vile place. It is the one matter that they speak of.

That "man-made assistance" is the very purpose of alchemy itself. "Split" means "more than one thing". Thus, since Creation, the world has been existing with a multitude of "things" or matters, separated from the "one matter", which the philosophers have grouped under only four principles (earth, air, fire and water).
I'll give you this :)

Further, they repeatedly teach that ALL metals consist of only TWO components - mercury and sulphur in various stages of perfection.
I'll give you this as well.


BOTH these 'things" are absolutely required in order to make the Stone. It cannot be made from mercury alone or from sulphur alone. Even Fulcanelli states that.
Agreed!


Thus "two matters", each containing at least two principles, are required to start the work. Several alchemists say that the two "matters" are a mineral and a metal.
Now you need to refine your beliefs. I've seen you state in "orienting the stone", that no metal exists within it.
Do you still feel that the two matters are a mineral AND a metal?


The key is to first separate these two principles, purify them to some extent, then join them together again to eventualy create an indivisible union, or (one thing), the "prepared matter". Then further exaltation is done to create the Medicine. The result is a product representing the original "one matter" at the time of Creation.
Exactly! But where did you find these two principles? Do they not come from one thing? If you haven't figured this out, you are far from being inside of my head. :) , but you're close!

Awani
09-08-2016, 07:10 PM
This attitude of knowing the answer and handing out clues is not a rhetorical technique that has any merit or high regard in these forums (at least not from management perspective). It is a cheap trick usually used by snake oil salesmen and guru-wannabe charlatans... I can spot them a mile away. Can you? Or do I have to show examples?

:cool:

Illen A. Cluf
09-08-2016, 07:12 PM
Yes, and we must begin to trace back to the root of this original one matter from somewhere. The ancients philosophized over it and searched out where it, this root could be found. It was found in a vile place. It is the one matter that they speak of.

No - it's trying to recreate the "one thing" that they speak of. The roots are found in all metals, but is found better served in two matters (a mineral and a metal) than in the other metals/minerals.


Now you need to refine your beliefs. I've seen you state in "orienting the stone", that no metal exists within it.

Exactly! At that point I'm talking about the Stone or Medicine. It is no longer a metal, sulphur or mercury but a quintessence.


Do you still feel that the two matters are a mineral AND a metal?

Of course. Two things, not one. The alchemists have stated that exactly.


But where did you find these two principles? Do they not come from one thing? If you haven't figured this out, you are far from being inside of my head. :) , but you're close!

You can find them in ANY metal. But they are only close to perfection in some and impossible to extract without some other matter. Gold contains both in perfection, but they can't be separated without another mercury. In fact, the mercury and sulphur in ANY metal cannot be extracted without "another" thing. Thus you need "two matters".

Chasm
09-08-2016, 08:15 PM
No - it's trying to recreate the "one thing" that they speak of. The roots are found in all metals, but is found better served in two matters (a mineral and a metal) than in the other metals/minerals.
You must follow your logic Illen. The roots are found in all metals yes. But how will you access these metals? What is your solvent? Where does it come from? Not a metal. They're all closed. What they speak of is the matter from which the universal solvent is extracted. One matter, the monad, which was quickened by the Eidos. This monad separated itself, polarized itself in the Duad. This is the fixed and volatile salts.
This is your requisite two matters.


Exactly! At that point I'm talking about the Stone or Medicine. It is no longer a metal, sulphur or mercury but a quintessence.
Are you saying that in creating the Stone, actual gold is needed? It's not. It can be used for sure for the red, but that path is less noble. You still need to create your third principle from the two matters first...Mercury Simplex. This is done without metals. In fact, to do it with metals is an impossibility.


Of course. Two things, not one. The alchemists have stated that exactly.
Two things from one. Neither of them metal. You can call one living silver and the other antimony, but these are philosophical denominations.


You can find them in ANY metal. But they are only close to perfection in some and impossible to extract without some other matter. Gold contains both in perfection, but they can't be separated without another mercury. In fact, the mercury and sulphur in ANY metal cannot be extracted without "another" thing. Thus you need "two matters".
I can clearly see your error. The other thing that you're talking about is the one matter that cocts and becomes the stone whose fixed states of white and red perform the works of the alchemists. Try and enter the metals without this and you will fail to illicit the seed. You will only succeed in illiciting a calx, commonly called oxide which is convertible back into the metal it originally appeared from . Once the seed is procured from a metal, that metal cannot be recouped. It is lost. Many have lost good gold this way.

Chasm
09-08-2016, 09:06 PM
Elements of Chemistry, by Antoine Lavoisier
Chapter VII.

Of the Decomposition of Oxygen Gas by means of Metals, and the Formation of Metallic Oxyds.

Oxygen has a stronger affinity with metals heated to a certain degree than with caloric; in consequence of which, all metallic bodies, excepting gold, silver, and platina, have the property of decomposing oxygen gas, by attracting its base from the caloric with which it was combined. We have already shown in what manner this decomposition takes place, by means of mercury and iron; having observed, that, in the case of the first, it must be considered as a kind of gradual combustion, whilst, in the latter, the combustion is extremely rapid, and attended with a brilliant flame. The use of the heat employed in these operations is to separate the particles of the metal from each other, and to diminish their attraction of cohesion or aggregation, or, what is the same thing, their mutual attraction for each other.
The absolute weight of metallic substances is augmented in proportion to the quantity of oxygen they absorb; they, at the same time, lose their metallic splendour, and are reduced into an earthy pulverulent matter. In this state metals must not be considered as entirely saturated with oxygen, because their action upon this element is counterbalanced by the power of affinity between it and caloric. During the calcination of metals, the oxygen is therefore acted upon by two separate and opposite powers, that of its attraction for caloric, and that exerted by the metal, and only tends to unite with the latter in consequence of the excess of the latter over the former, which is, in general, very inconsiderable. Wherefore, when metallic substances are oxygenated in atmospheric air, or in oxygen gas, they are not converted into acids like sulphur, phosphorus, and charcoal, but are only changed into intermediate substances, which, though approaching to the nature of salts, have not acquired all the saline properties. The old chemists have affixed the name of calx not only to metals in this state, but to every body which has been long exposed to the action of fire without being melted. They have converted this word calx into a generical term, under which they confound calcareous earth, which, from a neutral salt, which it really was before calcination, has been changed by fire into an earthy alkali, by losing half of its weight, with metals which, by the same means, have joined themselves to a new substance, whose quantity often exceeds half their weight, and by which they have been changed almost into the nature of acids. This mode of classifying substances of so very opposite natures, under the same generic name, would have been quite contrary to our principles of nomenclature, especially as, by retaining the above term for this state of metallic substances, we must have conveyed very false ideas of its nature. We have, therefore, laid aside the expression metallic calx altogether, and have substituted in its place the term oxyd, from the Greek word οξυς.

Illen A. Cluf
09-08-2016, 09:11 PM
You must follow your logic Illen. The roots are found in all metals yes. But how will you access these metals? What is your solvent? Where does it come from? Not a metal. They're all closed. What they speak of is the matter from which the universal solvent is extracted. One matter, the monad, which was quickened by the Eidos. This monad separated itself, polarized itself in the Duad. This is the fixed and volatile salts.
This is your requisite two matters.

I knew you'd come around sooner or later! Yes, the root ("seed") is found in all metals. And how do you access the seed? You have to "open" the metal with an alkahest. Thus two matters - a seed (sulphur) and a solvent (mercury). Finally you admit that two matters are absolutely required!


No, of course not (although some say that it can be used with great difficulty). There is a more manageable source for the gold.

Are you saying that in creating the Stone, actual gold is needed? No, of course not (although some say that it can be used with great difficulty). Where did I say that? There is a more manageable source for the gold.

Chasm
09-08-2016, 09:36 PM
Torricelli was not out to simply produce a vacuum, but to make an instrument that would show mutations in the air. This occurred in 1644. This is mid 17th century folks.
I had found it unlikely that the alchemists didn't know about a vacuum and this is why.

http://i.picasion.com/resize82/fc3de85659f06dac8793279a3719d38e.jpg (http://picasion.com/resize-gif/)

As I said JDP, I respect your vast ability to retain information. I simply connect dots where you don't see any. I'm not trying to be a prick. I just don't like things happening to me like being scolded by a mod after being disrespected.
I too can retain information. I've studied for years classical physics and quote always off the cuff. I said I'd get back with info to be thorough and I have.

Chasm
09-08-2016, 09:54 PM
I knew you'd come around sooner or later! Yes, the root ("seed") is found in all metals. And how do you access the seed? You have to "open" the metal with an alkahest. Thus two matters - a seed (sulphur) and a solvent (mercury). Finally you admit that two matters are absolutely required!
Illen, the seed still resides in the metal. You must first obtain the alkahest to extract it from the metal. The two matters that compose the alkahest is cocted from one matter. The seed is locked and inaccessible. You cannot count it as one of the matters.
The solvent in and of itself contains the two conjoined matters.
I'd sooner have you say thanks rather than tell me I've come around. As you've spoken above, you're still wrong!


No, of course not (although some say that it can be used with great difficulty). Where did I say that? There is a more manageable source for the gold.
You said it here:


Illen said:
Thus "two matters", each containing at least two principles, are required to start the work. Several alchemists say that the two "matters" are a mineral and a metal.
Hence why I asked you if this is your belief. I don't think I read you wrong. I think your a bit unsure of your meaning. Thus I ask the specific questions.
I think now things are clear?

Chasm
09-08-2016, 10:34 PM
From "The Art of Distillation", John French
http://i.picasion.com/resize82/d84952582e2ad2aefa4f1d875b299d3d.gif (http://picasion.com/resize-gif/)
This setup, which I've used, clearly shows that a partial vacuum is created in our flasks. One can see the fluid within the crooked tube strain to be expelled. At other times, the fluid strains to enter the flask. An exchange of pressure gradients is taking place. This is observable. The cycles are continuous. I can attest that this setup is the best for this method. Heaven only knows the difficulty in containing the Gods. One the spirit is gone, it's gone.

Illen A. Cluf
09-08-2016, 10:56 PM
The seed is locked and inaccessible. You cannot count it as one of the matters.

What??? Are you kidding? It's THE most important matter in alchemy. You can't ignore it. I guess you haven't come around and never will.

I'm really through this time. If THAT basic concept can't be understood, we can never get anywhere.

Good luck in making a Stone out of nothing but a solvent, your "one matter"!

Chasm
09-09-2016, 12:02 AM
What??? Are you kidding? It's THE most important matter in alchemy. You can't ignore it. I guess you haven't come around and never will.
No Illen, I told you that you were close, but you're far from being inside of my head.
I could never back track. Neither would you! I'm sure of it!


I'm really through this time. If THAT basic concept can't be understood, we can never get anywhere.
That's ok Illen! I'd hoped that the active experimenters here who've pierced the veil would come out and play. It's difficult certainly and we all know why. It's why I can't stand a bully. Bullies don't realize that there's always a tougher guy around the block.

I've placed a lot of information here on this forum with images of which no one has duplicated (at least none willing to share). This fact is not lost on me. You're a smart individual, it's not lost on you either.
My hope is to follow in the steps of the ancients, assisting the true lovers of philosophy.
When I come up against hostility, I see it for what it is...egoism! I'm not criticizing you...I'm just being honest. If anyone has anything to say about me, I'd hope that they'd say that I was honest and showed a grasp of the alchemical literature. You're free to disagree. Again,my hope is that one day, perhaps even you, will see the truth in what I've had to say. My words are a lot clearer than most of what you obtain from the texts. I've given you personally, much detail.
I'm not surprised that you oppose my words. Reading of the torments incurred by the ancients and experiencing it myself has taught me much in dealing with humility.
You're a long standing member here. You will most assuredly study my words in this thread. I hope they assist you to further the cause.


Good luck in making a Stone out of nothing but a solvent, your "one matter"!
This is what I seek out, those whom comprehend and whom can show comprehension.
Good luck to you Illen, and thank you for making it quite clear where you are in terms of comprehension. You put yourself out there and that in itself, is commendable.

Kindest regards,
chasm369

Illen A. Cluf
09-09-2016, 01:31 AM
It's difficult certainly and we all know why. It's why I can't stand a bully.

My last comment. A bully???!!? I try to be more open than I have with others, in relatively CLEAR language, but you continue to confuse everyone with your riddles, statements that contradict what the alchemists say, and your lack of classical references that could assist in your unusual understanding. Also, suddenly changing characters from Dwellings to Chasm. At least both JDP and myself don't understand what you are saying because it is SO contrary to what the alchemists say.

So come on, now. When you say that the seed of a metal plays no part in alchemy, that's SO contrary to what the alchemists say, and what is commonly understood, that it requires a major reference, which you never offered. I could have asked, but I was hoping you would offer it yourself, seeing that it conflicts with commonly held understandings. I tried many times to be as patient and understanding as I could, and now that you make such an out-in-left-field statement about the metallic seed, seemingly based only on your authority, and not that of any alchemist that you are freely willing to quote, and I lose my patience because of that, you call me a BULLY?? Bullies attack and hurt. I merely walked away from what seemed like a discussion going nowhere. That does NOT make me a "bully".

This forum is known for being very open and helpful. Of course not every secret can be revealed, but at least those who know are willing to provide some support and sources for where someone can learn more. Pictures by themselves are often not helpful since numerous interpretations can be made of various colors, etc., only leading to more confusion. Pictures with explanations are quite helpful. There are some wonderful people here. But what always creates tension are those who assume authority, have very unusual ideas, and then are unwilling to back up their views or provide further sources, without being asked, when they are not being understood. That has been the way of this forum as long as I have been a guest here. I'm not the one providing unusual concepts. The concepts I refer to can be found in numerous texts and represent common understanding. You have mentioned Fulcanelli. Even he, who is often criticized, provides all the concepts that I have mentioned in his Dwellings and Mystere as a basis of understanding. This basic understanding is not what is criticized. in his books.

However your views are unusually unorthodox, and therefore require substantial support. It's not enough to just take your word for it, because that is exactly what's leading to great confusion. You need to be more clear, open, and provide sources, if you want to be understood. Then you can be of great assistance. You seem to be a clever person, and I'm sure you have an understanding that makes perfect sense to you. Maybe you have even found a way that no other alchemist has ever dreamed of. But only you know the meaning behind your riddles and sense of logic, and the gaps in your statements, so why get upset when people lose their patience after trying for some time? If you're not following the philosophies of the masters, how can anyone follow your understanding when there are no classical milestones to attach them to?

So no, I'm not an egotistical person. Far from it - I'm only expressing common understanding which can be obtained from numerous treatises. Are those alchemists egotists because they also express these commonly held views? If I were an egotist, I would be the one initiating discussions of unorthodox concepts and demanding people to believe in these views simply because I say so. There have been many like this on this and other forums. I (and JDP) was/were merely trying to understand your view, and using classical understandings to measure your views against. I'm not throwing out anything new. Because they don't match your views, it makes you angry, and then you call ME a bully.



My words are a lot clearer than most of what you obtain from the texts.

But I'm saying that they are far from clear, and a LOT less clear than many of the standard treatises some of which are exceedingly generous. It may be clear to you because you already know the parts that you are deliberately leaving out. I'm not a mind reader, so am not able to follow the thread of the few 'crumbs' that you throw out. Maybe others can, but so far, nobody else to my knowledge has come out and agreed with you.

Hope you understand.

Kiorionis
09-09-2016, 02:50 AM
Before this moves any further, I'll remind everyone of Andro's original post towards the purpose of this thread. After 24 pages and six years of conversation, it's understandable to loose track of things.


Now that the cat is slowly crawling out of the bag...

I want this to be a special thread, so everyone please lend a hand to make and keep it so...

This is a PRACTICAL thread, related to the most simple and Universal of all Works: One Matter - One Vessel - One Fire.

This is about the Practice by which the Stone may be had by anyone with a good understanding of nature, at close to zero expenses and with barely any need to put your hands to it. No complicated devices or technical/chemical skills required!

I have a few simple requests for posting on this thread:

* Please ONLY post here if you (not someone you know or heard of) are physically performing (or have performed in the past or are currently preparing to perform) this most simple and Universal of all Works, as described in the thread title.

* NO philosophical debates and quarreling over opinions and interpretations. Let's make this about sharing, not fighting... so don't post here if you have a problem with diversity. We all have a common goal, and we're dreaming this together.

* NO quoting of any writings other than your own, with the exception of quotes being plainly and directly related to the aforementioned practical Work.
If the relation is not plainly and readily clear, then please explain/clarify it yourself.

* If you desire to present a certain abstract concept, you must CLEARLY explain how it is directly related to your pactical work. Don't leave it hanging!

* Everything you post here MUST be based on your own practical experience. Not anyone else's! If you're not actually doing this Work, then please don't post here!

* Simple and easily intelligible posts, written in plain English. No parables, riddles or cryptic messages, please!

* NO preaching, NO book/allegory/myth/bible thumping please!

Examples of topics to be discussed here:

The nature of the First Matter(s) and how/where it is to be obtained at its fullest potency.

The nature of the preliminary preparations of the Matter.

The nature/material/shape of the Vessel, and how it is to be most efficiently sealed.

The nature of the External Fire which moves the Internal one, and how it is best attracted/focused/concentrated.

The stages you have observed your Matter to go through in your Vessel.

Please remember that noone is asking anyone to reveal more than they are comfortable to...

Mr. Solomon Levi / Moderators - your help in keeping this thread's integrity will be greatly appreciated.
If this thread turns out to be a failure, I'd rather have it deleted than having it miss its purpose. I hope you understand...

Let's see where it goes from here...

Chasm
09-09-2016, 03:16 AM
My last comment. A bully???!!? I try to be more open than I have with others, in relatively CLEAR language, but you continue to confuse everyone with your riddles, statements that contradict what the alchemists say, and your lack of classical references that could assist in your unusual understanding. Also, suddenly changing characters from Dwellings to Chasm. At least both JDP and myself don't understand what you are saying because it is SO contrary to what the alchemists say.
Illen, I am not Dwellings. I've noticed him/her as well. And did you think I called you a bully? :D Well that's very interesting. I did no such thing. I was actually likening the refusal of the major players here as protecting their turf through non disclosure so as to keep the unknown kid from really knowing how "tough" they are. It's all this crypto babble. I've read many old occult and esoteric and now alchemic books.
What I'm saying isn't contrary at all. You can sense something true in what I'm saying, you just can't picture it.


So come on, now. When you say that the seed of a metal plays no part in alchemy, that's SO contrary to what the alchemists say, and what is commonly understood, that it requires a major reference, which you never offered.
Hold on, don't do that. Did I say that the seed plays no part? Where? The end goal is to access the seed of all things. That's what the Stone does. You just don't get it. You're half lost in projection and I know this from your words. Were I to quote you references, I'd truly be teaching those who aren't looking for a teacher.

I could have asked, but I was hoping you would offer it yourself, seeing that it conflicts with commonly held understandings. I tried many times to be as patient and understanding as I could, and now that you make such an out-in-left-field statement about the metallic seed, seemingly based only on your authority, and not that of any alchemist that you are freely willing to quote, and I lose my patience because of that, you call me a BULLY?? Bullies attack and hurt.
I offered much by questioning your understanding. You weren't receptive...fully.
I'm not out to lunch by far. My unusual images is curious enough aren't they? The misunderstanding is not mine, that's why my images are different. Again, I didn't call you a bully. Bullies think they can get away with their antics all of the time, like people who feel they are smarter and superior to others. They don't suppose that one day they'd be challenged. This is more clarity to my meaning.

I merely walked away from what seemed like a discussion going nowhere. That does NOT make me a "bully".
It doesn't, I held the door open and shook your hand Illen :D


This forum is known for being very open and helpful. Of course not every secret can be revealed, but at least those who know are willing to provide some support and sources for where someone can learn more. Pictures by themselves are often not helpful since numerous interpretations can be made of various colors, etc., only leading to more confusion. Pictures with explanations are quite helpful. There are some wonderful people here. But what always creates tension are those who assume authority, have very unusual ideas, and then are unwilling to back up their views or provide further sources, without being asked, when they are not being understood. That has been the way of this forum as long as I have been a guest here. I'm not the one providing unusual concepts. The concepts I refer to can be found in numerous texts and represent common understanding. You have mentioned Fulcanelli. Even he, who is often criticized, provides all the concepts that I have mentioned in his Dwellings and Mystere as a basis of understanding. This basic understanding is not what is criticized. in his books.

I'm feeling you. Still, what I do is ask questions. I'm familiar with many texts. They all read the same. Where the noble path is taken, I see it. Where the less noble path is taken, I see that too. I was going to show you an error in a post that may help you. I think it's locked now but I'll check. Regardless, the misunderstanding is not mine.


However your views are unusually unorthodox, and therefore require substantial support. It's not enough to just take your word for it, because that is exactly what's leading to great confusion. You need to be more clear, open, and provide sources, if you want to be understood. Then you can be of great assistance. You seem to be a clever person, and I'm sure you have an understanding that makes perfect sense to you. Maybe you have even found a way that no other alchemist has ever dreamed of. But only you know the meaning behind your riddles and sense of logic, and the gaps in your statements, so why get upset when people lose their patience after trying for some time? If you're not following the philosophies of the masters, how can anyone follow your understanding when there are no classical milestones to attach them to?
As paradoxical as it may seem to you, I've basically put the true meanings of the texts on a platter. As I said, you do sense something in my words, you just don't get it. Ive lurked here for a while. It's my style. I only come out when I see a possibility. A few members here possess that potential. You are one. Again, I noticed you. To read the scripts requires an uncanny ability. I've realized that. Those smart ones, as you, prove it all the time. Same goes for JDP. Unfortunately, no one else has engaged as you two have.


So no, I'm not an egotistical person. Far from it - I'm only expressing common understanding which can be obtained from numerous treatises.
I didn't say that to you in a personal sense. And trust me (or not), but your understanding is flawed. I've allowed you to deduce where. You're not yet ready to accept it though.

Are those alchemists egotists because they also express these commonly held views? If I were an egotist, I would be the one initiating discussions of unorthodox concepts and demanding people to believe in these views simply because I say so.
Paracelsus was an egotist. I think it got him killed. Many alchemists were vain, but they still left you a book where they didn't have to. I call that charity. Check my posts, I initiated nothing. I merely followed up on the current discussions.

There have been many like this on this and other forums. I (and JDP) was/were merely trying to understand your view, and using classical understandings to measure your views against.
I know the game Illen. You guys have a comfy club here. As I said, I lurk. I'm here to participate. I'm obviously not a troll. My knowledge is on par with the best. It was in my application. I simply offer a bit more than say Krysztian.

I'm not throwing out anything new. Because they don't match your views, it makes you angry, and then you call ME a bully.
;) What pissed me off was being admonished after you "dissed" me on another thread.


But I'm saying that they are far from clear, and a LOT less clear than many of the standard treatises some of which are exceedingly generous. It may be clear to you because you already know the parts that you are deliberately leaving out. I'm not a mind reader, so am not able to follow the thread of the few 'crumbs' that you throw out. Maybe others can, but so far, nobody else to my knowledge has come out and agreed with you. Illen, both you and JDP spend too much time throwing tomatoes. Instead, you should take your own advice and read me more clearly. I'm not being snotty, just frank.
Your response to me is not unusual. I've come to expect it. Nonetheless, I've left a grain...a mustard seed for you to ponder. I've left you an image of the land of milk and honey and more. You just have to see it if and when you are willing.

Hope you understand.
I do. You must walk your own journey. But remember, Christ preached that he'd come like a thief in the night. You just never know. Be welcoming and less hostile.
I'm not equating myself to Christ. I'm using the parable suitingly.
Reread my posts along with your favourite text. It's got to help you. Cheers!

chasm369

Chasm
09-09-2016, 03:24 AM
Before this moves any further, I'll remind everyone of Andro's original post towards the purpose of this thread. After 24 pages and six years of conversation, it's understandable to loose track of things.
I believe that I've kept true to these requests.The truth is I've spent much time fighting off criticism from one who has done no experimentation in this method.

JDP
09-09-2016, 10:38 AM
1a Mixture is a process of mixing (great definition btw)!
1b The state of being mixed (another great definition)

2a A portion of matter consisting of two or more parts.

Notice the "two or more parts". If a "matter" has any such identifiable "parts" then it is obviously no longer "only one" but a composite of two or more.



You claim that I'm being obtuse, I'm just tired!

Then take a break, some time to "digest" what is being shown and explained to you.


You can investigate. Begin at 1951

I took a look at lists of books that have been banned in Canada, but I could not see a single one about physics. Modern societies do not have a penchant for banning books on science. We only see such things happen in cases involving political extremists (Nazis/Fascists/Communists) or religious fanatics (some Muslim fundamentalists, "Creationists", etc.)



What I said was that it was unlikely that they didn't know of vacuums. I stated this because of my experiments with vapour locks following John French, Art of Distillation. I asked you not to quote me out of context.

John French was not an alchemist, plus his book on spagyrics was published QUITE AFTER (1651) Torriceli's work with mercury barometers (early 1640s.) Also, the apparatus that you have in mind was not designed with the purpose of making a vacuum inside the flask but to prevent too much pressure from accumulating inside the flask. Plus the "mercury lock" limits the substances you can use this apparatus with. Obviously it only works well with substances that do not emit vapors that attack mercury.


First of all, did Aristotle make it into space? Is space here on Earth? Again, you just can't be wrong! It's tiring JDP. And if you really are into quantum, there is no true vacuum, just varying degrees. So get over it!

So you think that nature is only down here on our planet and not everywhere in the universe? Aristotle was wrong because he simply did not have better information about what goes on out there in space. But we do. We know that "nature does NOT abhor a vacuum", in fact, it seems to love it! Just look at the vastness of space. The universe is mostly empty space.


On this we agree! Nice! :cool:

But if you agree, then why are you claiming that the alchemists used something like vacuums, which would be "unnatural"? According to you, the alchemist worked like nature.


Yes, here they are. Now read them without your myopic view.

There is no "myopic view" but what you plainly said and implied.


This thread requires that you do the experiment. You're arguing with me possessing no familiarity with this rudimentary method.

What "experiment"? All you have said are some vague references to things like grape juice or sea water being heated in sealed flasks.


Objection!!! Ruse is speculation! JDP has no personal knowledge of the method to form an educated opinion. JDP has not endeavoured to carry out the experiment himself!!

The "one matter only" claim has been around for centuries, yet it made nobody none the wiser. Empirical experience also points to no such "one matter only" existing that can display all the reactions that the alchemists describe. On top of all that, we have plenty of alchemists stating the COMPOSITE NATURE of the Stone. So yes, it is a ruse.


What would the right track look like to you JDP? You haven't even found the right mixture of substances to even begin. Good luck with that. :)

That's because the world of mixtures is so vast in possibilities that you may live your entire life experimenting and still not have tried all possible combinations. Chemistry itself has been around for some 250 years and it too, in all this time, has not tried every possible combination of substances. Discoveries about reactions between substances are still being made. It is almost like finding "a needle in a haystack". No one said alchemy was an easy and pleasant task to discover. So the COMPOSITE nature of the Stone does fit the bill with how difficult to unravel alchemy is, unlike the absurdly naive "find one matter only and cook it in one vessel and in one fire" ruse. Can't you see you are being sent on a hopeless wild goose chase for a substance that does NOT exist already made in nature? Like I said, the deceitful alchemist who invented this "philosophical" ruse must be having a good laugh in his grave. He probably did not imagine that after so many centuries his trap would still be fooling people into "cooking" any singular natural substance that fell into their hands.


A picture says a thousand words my friend. The fact is, it's an authentic image. You're bashing what you don't understand. That, dear JDP, is infantile and often dangerous. I still respect your vast retention of information.

That only applies to images that are self-explanatory. Vague pictures of flasks and contents that could be anything out of a large number of possibilities do not fit the adage.


If they were good pictures, would you still not know what the images signified?

No, because I have seen a number of reactions that can produce similar things.


In fact, unless you duplicated this 1/1/1 method, you wouldn't know a thing and wouldn't be able to make any fair criticisms. Well, this is what I had suggested to you when I said that I enjoyed this discussion, but it was time to move on. This thread requires your experimental experience. You appear to have none. For you, it's all a ruse.

How can it be "duplicated" when the supposed "one matter only" that will display ALL THE REACTIONS (not just some) that the alchemists described simply does not exist in nature? For this claim to be true NATURE MUST BE ABLE TO MAKE THE MATTER OF THE STONE FOR YOU, AND ALL THAT IS LEFT IS TO FIND IT AND "COOK IT", but this does not happen in nature, sorry. The alchemist composes this "one matter only" OUT OF SEVERAL THAT NATURE PROVIDES HIM WITH. This is the proper meaning of the "one matter only" claim, a double-edged sword. If taken too literally (as you do), then you are falling into the trap that the mischievous alchemist who invented it wanted the "unworthy" (from his purely arbitrary point of view) to be misled with.

JDP
09-09-2016, 10:49 AM
Elements of Chemistry, by Antoine Lavoisier
Chapter VII.

Of the Decomposition of Oxygen Gas by means of Metals, and the Formation of Metallic Oxyds.

Oxygen has a stronger affinity with metals heated to a certain degree than with caloric; in consequence of which, all metallic bodies, excepting gold, silver, and platina, have the property of decomposing oxygen gas, by attracting its base from the caloric with which it was combined. We have already shown in what manner this decomposition takes place, by means of mercury and iron; having observed, that, in the case of the first, it must be considered as a kind of gradual combustion, whilst, in the latter, the combustion is extremely rapid, and attended with a brilliant flame. The use of the heat employed in these operations is to separate the particles of the metal from each other, and to diminish their attraction of cohesion or aggregation, or, what is the same thing, their mutual attraction for each other.
The absolute weight of metallic substances is augmented in proportion to the quantity of oxygen they absorb; they, at the same time, lose their metallic splendour, and are reduced into an earthy pulverulent matter. In this state metals must not be considered as entirely saturated with oxygen, because their action upon this element is counterbalanced by the power of affinity between it and caloric. During the calcination of metals, the oxygen is therefore acted upon by two separate and opposite powers, that of its attraction for caloric, and that exerted by the metal, and only tends to unite with the latter in consequence of the excess of the latter over the former, which is, in general, very inconsiderable. Wherefore, when metallic substances are oxygenated in atmospheric air, or in oxygen gas, they are not converted into acids like sulphur, phosphorus, and charcoal, but are only changed into intermediate substances, which, though approaching to the nature of salts, have not acquired all the saline properties. The old chemists have affixed the name of calx not only to metals in this state, but to every body which has been long exposed to the action of fire without being melted. They have converted this word calx into a generical term, under which they confound calcareous earth, which, from a neutral salt, which it really was before calcination, has been changed by fire into an earthy alkali, by losing half of its weight, with metals which, by the same means, have joined themselves to a new substance, whose quantity often exceeds half their weight, and by which they have been changed almost into the nature of acids. This mode of classifying substances of so very opposite natures, under the same generic name, would have been quite contrary to our principles of nomenclature, especially as, by retaining the above term for this state of metallic substances, we must have conveyed very false ideas of its nature. We have, therefore, laid aside the expression metallic calx altogether, and have substituted in its place the term oxyd, from the Greek word οξυς.

In other words: I told you so! :)

JDP
09-09-2016, 10:52 AM
Torricelli was not out to simply produce a vacuum, but to make an instrument that would show mutations in the air. This occurred in 1644. This is mid 17th century folks.

I had found it unlikely that the alchemists didn't know about a vacuum and this is why.

http://i.picasion.com/resize82/fc3de85659f06dac8793279a3719d38e.jpg (http://picasion.com/resize-gif/)

As I said JDP, I respect your vast ability to retain information. I simply connect dots where you don't see any. I'm not trying to be a prick. I just don't like things happening to me like being scolded by a mod after being disrespected.
I too can retain information. I've studied for years classical physics and quote always off the cuff. I said I'd get back with info to be thorough and I have.

And alchemy existed for a LONG time before that! So I ask you again: where is the evidence that alchemists from before Torricelli's times knew how to make vacuums in their flasks?

JDP
09-09-2016, 10:55 AM
I knew you'd come around sooner or later! Yes, the root ("seed") is found in all metals. And how do you access the seed? You have to "open" the metal with an alkahest. Thus two matters - a seed (sulphur) and a solvent (mercury). Finally you admit that two matters are absolutely required!

Indeed. Touché! Amazing how he unwittingly had to admit that the Stone can't be made from "one matter only", in the totally literal sense of that claim.

JDP
09-09-2016, 11:00 AM
From "The Art of Distillation", John French
http://i.picasion.com/resize82/d84952582e2ad2aefa4f1d875b299d3d.gif (http://picasion.com/resize-gif/)[/URL]
This setup, which I've used, clearly shows that a partial vacuum is created in our flasks. One can see the fluid within the crooked tube strain to be expelled. At other times, the fluid strains to enter the flask. An exchange of pressure gradients is taking place. This is observable. The cycles are continuous. I can attest that this setup is the best for this method. Heaven only knows the difficulty in containing the Gods. One the spirit is gone, it's gone.

This apparatus is not for making a vacuum inside the flask, but to avoid too much pressure from building up inside the flask and bursting it. John French explains the purpose of it:

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/jfren_1.html (http://picasion.com/resize-gif/)

"But the best way is to have a crooked pipe which may have quicksilver in it, and be well luted to the body [U]that no spirit can get forth. By this means the glass will never break, for the quicksilver will first yield."

In other words, the mercury column sealing the flask will give way if the pressure builds up too much inside the glass vessel, thus avoiding its rupture. It's simply a security measure. And as already stated, French was not an alchemist, plus his work came AFTER Torricelli's work on barometers. Furthermore, this type of apparatus only works well for substances that do not emit vapors/gases that have an affinity for mercury. So the apparatus, as clever as it is, has its limitations.

JDP
09-09-2016, 11:17 AM
Now you're doing the same thing as JDP. Do you know what Rebis means? It means "two-thing". Why for the life of Fulcanelli would you tell everyone here that it is referring to one matter without suggesting that it came from the one matter. Are you looking to confuse or obfuscate?

Strange that you would bring up "Fulcanelli" since he in fact also implies that the Stone is made from the interaction between several substances, not "one matter only".

Chasm
09-09-2016, 12:13 PM
Notice the "two or more parts". If a "matter" has any such identifiable "parts" then it is obviously no longer "only one" but a composite of two or more.
A mixture, which we were not even talking about yet I entertained, is matter.
Get over it. Obtuse?


I took a look at lists of books that have been banned in Canada, but I could not see a single one about physics. Modern societies do not have a penchant for banning books on science. We only see such things happen in cases involving political extremists (Nazis/Fascists/Communists) or religious fanatics (some Muslim fundamentalists, "Creationists", etc.) The National Security Act of 1951 saw certain books banned. Dig!

John French was not an alchemist, plus his book on spagyrics was published QUITE AFTER (1651) Torriceli's work with mercury barometers (early 1640s.) Also, the apparatus that you have in mind was not designed with the purpose of making a vacuum inside the flask but to prevent too much pressure from accumulating inside the flask. Plus the "mercury lock" limits the substances you can use this apparatus with. Obviously it only works well with substances that do not emit vapors that attack mercury.
And none of what you say means a thing. Fact is Torricelli was contemporary with alchemists. The vapour lock shows pressure fluctuations. Don't assume things weren't investigated. Being impiricist can make one appear daft. Btw, 1644-1651 is QUITE AFTER!!! Yes, a whole 7 years. How you embellish to make yourself appear correct is rank egoism JDP. It's unbecoming!


The "one matter only" claim has been around for centuries, yet it made nobody none the wiser. Empirical experience also points to no such "one matter only" existing that can display all the reactions that the alchemists describe. On top of all that, we have plenty of alchemists stating the COMPOSITE NATURE of the Stone. So yes, it is a ruse.
Again, your view of what matter is, is myopic. You also assume a lot. You certainly do not understand the words of the alchemists. It's very apparent. You do retain the historic information well.


That's because the world of mixtures is so vast in possibilities that you may live your entire life experimenting and still not have tried all possible combinations. Chemistry itself has been around for some 250 years and it too, in all this time, has not tried every possible combination of substances. Discoveries about reactions between substances are still being made. It is almost like finding "a needle in a haystack". No one said alchemy was an easy and pleasant task to discover. So the COMPOSITE nature of the Stone does fit the bill with how difficult to unravel alchemy is, unlike the absurdly naive "find one matter only and cook it in one vessel and in one fire" ruse. Can't you see you are being sent on a hopeless wild goose chase for a substance that does NOT exist already made in nature? Like I said, the deceitful alchemist who invented this "philosophical" ruse must be having a good laugh in his grave. He probably did not imagine that after so many centuries his trap would still be fooling people into "cooking" any singular natural substance that fell into their hands.
Thank you for the emphatic denial. It shows where you're at in this field. You still retain knowledge well. I continue to give you that.;)


That only applies to images that are self-explanatory. Vague pictures of flasks and contents that could be anything out of a large number of possibilities do not fit the adage.Was I not the one who initially suggested that my images proved nothing to anyone other than the one who has duplicated the experiment? Did I not say that it was convenient for your argument? You clearly exhibit myopic tendencies JDP. You retain knowledge well but how you compile it is left wanting.


No, because I have seen a number of reactions that can produce similar things.
How about the peculiar circular rainbows?


How can it be "duplicated" when the supposed "one matter only" that will display ALL THE REACTIONS (not just some) that the alchemists described simply does not exist in nature? For this claim to be true NATURE MUST BE ABLE TO MAKE THE MATTER OF THE STONE FOR YOU, AND ALL THAT IS LEFT IS TO FIND IT AND "COOK IT", but this does not happen in nature, sorry. The alchemist composes this "one matter only" OUT OF SEVERAL THAT NATURE PROVIDES HIM WITH. This is the proper meaning of the "one matter only" claim, a double-edged sword. If taken too literally (as you do), then you are falling into the trap that the mischievous alchemist who invented it wanted the "unworthy" (from his purely arbitrary point of view) to be misled with.
Wow! Truly you've convinced yourself. I'm amazed actually. More reinforcement of the words of the ancients. Language must be a magical thing. How so many can read a given text and come away with totally different perspectives, each as far apart as this planet to the Sun is a wonderful proof of their assertions. Do you know which I'm referring to?
Probably not, but it's ok!

Chasm
09-09-2016, 12:18 PM
In other words: I told you so! :)
I was being thorough and decided to cite the relevant page so readers can get the full context of this part of our discussion. That you only see what you wish and nothing else is expected. Do you think I had to dig this up?