PDA

View Full Version : Armchair Alchemy: The First Distillation -> Truth from BS



ghetto alchemist
08-02-2011, 03:16 PM
The most important distillation in our art, and the one that you must master before you even think of commencing any physical lab work, is to learn how to distill the truth from the BS.
I am but an armchair alchemist, but I have already performed many many distillations because there is a heck of a lot of BS in alchemical writings.

In a former job I spent a few years working as an analyst. I was lucky enough to have been taught by some very very smart people and I am forever grateful for that. The field I worked in also had a lot of BS, and so analysis from there to alchemy translated across very nicely.

Every person (or source) can be classified into one of these groups:

Type A: tells everything, never lies
Type B: tells some things, never lies
Type C: tells everything, tells a few lies
Type D: tells some things, tells a few lies
Type E: tells everything, always lies
Type F: tells some things, always lies

There is not a single author on alchemy who are type A, shame really.
Maybe someone will step forward and prove me wrong someday.
There might be about 4-5 alchemy authors who are type B.
There might be a few types E and F.
Almost all of them are types C and D, and these 2 are essentially the same group.
For our purposes types C and D are completely useless, once you identify them, never read
another thing from any of these authors.

Type B should be where you spend most of your energy on with a bit of backup from the types E and F
if you can find em.

Since there is not a single type A source in alchemy.
Anything that never gets mentioned should be considered as the starting substance.
Because nobody is telling the truth, then the thing that never gets mentioned is the one you're looking for.

I can find authors who will name almost anything as the starting substance for alchemy:
Antimony, gold, silver, copper, lead, mercury, cinnabar, vitriol, milk, blood, hair, fingernails, piss, spit, all number of salts, plants, leaves, dew, rain, snow blah blah blah, even shit.

All of these substances are listed as the starting substance to make a material that will create gold.
Yet walk up to any wiley old gold prospector and start up a conversation about how to find the yellow stuff. You won't ever get more than 5 minutes into the conversation before quartz gets mentioned, and that will be with every single one of them.

In all my searching and reading of dozens of alchemy texts I have never yet seen it mentioned.
Quartz is the elephant in the room that nobody dares to acknowledge.

If quartz actually wasn't the starting material for the philosophers stone, I would expect that one of the type E and F authors would mention it, since it is so obvious, they should. Yet they never ever do.

Of course type A sources would certainly mention it, but that is only if there actually are any.

I am not a practicing alchemist.
I have never ever been intiated into any secret information from an alchemist.
In fact no one has ever directly told me anything at all about the actual work.
To an alchemy adept I am but one of the vulgar masses who knows nothing, I am the very kind of person who they want to protect the information from at all costs.

Yet I can imagine that any adepts reading this are probably right now gasping that I have dared to mention the name of their precious starting matter so openly and in a public arena.

Yet knowing this is simple, from basic analysis of the texts written from their own hands to protect the information from people like me. And of course I might be wrong, I honestly don't know that quartz is in fact the starting matter.

I am an armchair alchemist writing from a position of complete ignorance about the true work written about in alchemy texts. Which is of course why I am doing this, if I knew the actual starting substance for a fact, I would probably not be so bold.

Lastly, I believe that Fulcanelli is a type B author.
Judging from his popularity on this forum I would say that opinion is shared by others.
Bacstrom is probably also a type B author, as is LeoRetilus from this forum.

Your brother in art
Ghetto Alchemist

Awani
08-02-2011, 03:26 PM
I can find authors who will name almost anything as the starting substance for alchemy:
Antimony, gold, silver, copper, lead, mercury, cinnabar, vitriol, milk, blood, hair, fingernails, piss, spit, all number of salts, plants, leaves, dew, rain, snow blah blah blah, even shit.

Probably not appreciated by those committed only to lab-work but the only starting substance is the essence of self, or an entheogen of some sort. For me anything else is stumbling in the dark.

One type you forgot is:

Type G: tells somethings, or all things, but really knows jack shit!

:cool:

Hellin Hermetist
08-02-2011, 04:52 PM
There are some authors which speak quite openly, but I am not sure if the members of the forum shall recognize their work as real alchemy or medieval chemistry. The most important among them are Kirchweger (Golden Chain of Homer), Basil Valentine (only at his Last Will and Testament), Glauber (many works) and Joannes Agricola (Treatise on Gold). Most of the above are praised by the modern chemists for their contribution to the science of chemistry, metallurgy and even chemical engineering, so I can not believe that they were charlatans or impostors. On the other hand, I am not sure if all the procedures which are described at their treatises work as they describe. Agricola seems to be a real sincere author.

There are some other authors which don't give any practical directions and their treatises are more philosophical than practical. Ι should place Cosmopolite (New Light of Alchemy), Nicolas Valois (Cinq Livres), and Bernard Trevisan at that category.

ghetto alchemist
08-02-2011, 05:54 PM
Further to the last post about quartz being the nail that sticks out from all the alchemical texts.
I won't bother to reference any particular authors, but there are quite a few that have pointed out the need to look towards nature for inspiration in art.

Here is what I could find about natures biggest success to make gold:

> On February 5, 1869 Richard Oates and John Deeson found the Welcome Stranger nugget, the largest
> ever recovered gold nugget in the world. It was resting upon red clay, rubbly rock and quartz,
> just below the surface, 55m on the down hill side of the black Reef. It was rumored at the time
> that the nugget was exposed in a rut made by a digger's cart. The nugget's gross weight was
> 2520 ozs, its net weight 2284 oz 16 dwt 22 gr. A monument now marks the place of the discovery.
> Much of the area surrounding the nugget produced gold and the Black Reef immediately above the
> Welcome Stranger was exceptionally rich. Crushing produced as much as 14 oz per tone of rock.

> It weighed nearly three hundred weight (4,300oz), at first there was much quartz with the gold.
> As the nugget lay in the ground, the solid piece of gold was underneath and it was deep in the
> ground but the top of the nugget was not more than 1" below the surface. The nugget was about
> 18" long by 16" wide and about 16" deep. My mate, Richard Oates, was working a short distance
> below the puddling machine in his paddock and I send my son down to call him. When my mate came,
> I said, "What do you think of it Dick? It is worth about 5,000 pounds?" "Oh" he said "more like
> 2,000 pounds".

> We then got the dray and lifted the nugget into it and carted it down to my hut, which stood
> about 1 1/2 chain to the north of the old puddling machine. We took it out of the dray and put
> it in the fireplace, built a good fire on it and kept it burning for about 10 hours, leaving
> it cool for 2 hours, we sat up all night breaking it free from quartz. My wife, my mate and
> myself were the only persons who saw the nugget as it was first found.

> When it was cool we broke 70lbs. quartz away from it . Besides detached pieces of gold there
> was one solid piece of it that weighted 128 lbs. troy (1,536 oz.). This was on the bottom of
> the nugget as it lay on the ground. There was a great deal of loose gold when the quartz was
> broken off. The 70 lbs. of quartz broken away had course and fine gold through it. It was
> taken to Mr. Edward Udey's battery close by and a load of other quartz with no gold in it
> was crushed with it and 60 oz. Of smelted gold was obtained.

Quartz ...... contained in red clay beneath a black reef.

No traces of antimony, cinnabar or arsenic.
I am not intending to say that these other substances are the wrong path. In fact if anyone has had success with them I would very much love to hear about it. LR did report success with GW, and that is something that is inspiring. But I've already started down my own path, so I'm just gonna continue to run with it.

I am going somewhere with this folks, so please bear with me.
First, I'm gonna build up a straw man while still sitting in my armchair. Then once he is solidly described and the suggested path is perfectly clear I will perform the actual lab work and attempt to disprove him and document the process. Thus probably illustrating one way NOT to make the stone.
That is also why I have published this under practical alchemy, because I do soon intend to become practical once off the armchair, probably in a month or so.

And yes, I am a type G :D

your brother in art
ghetto alchemist

Ghislain
08-02-2011, 06:35 PM
Ghetto Alchemist

One has to be careful of coming to obvious conclusions...
pigs are often found wallowing in their own excretion...
does one suppose to create a pig from such material?

Perhaps the quartz is the defecation of gold? :)

Good Luck in your endeavours.

Ghislain <-G

P.S. I was going to put, "Does Quartz = 2 Pintz ?", but it wasn't that funny :cool:

Edit: Could gold be the starting material for Quartz?

solomon levi
08-04-2011, 06:55 PM
Greetings Ghetto Alchemist.
I'm not sure if you've read my thread "V.I.T.R.I.O.L.", but i am much in agreement
with looking into silicates.
Fulcanelli was into phonetic cabala, and in latin oak is "quercus" which may be a quartz reference, I have so pondered anyways.

Most of what you will find in plain language on quartz is in oil of sand/flints. Many have written of this.
Othwer ways you might find it are in the alchemical process of cementation.
If your cement is philosophical (conducive to morphing: solid solution series) this is an interesting vase for the work.
Cementing was used often to graduate metals.
Pumice was sometimes used as a cement, or bricks of clay, sand, etc. All silicates.

The alchemist speak of antimony, which means "not alone" - a definition which better applies to silica than antimony.
Sand in french is sable which also means "black" as in al-khem.
The alchemists declare that gold lies in their lead. This could be interpreted several ways, but practically,
gold IS found in sand/sable and quartz as you mentioned, but not generally with lead or antimony.
:)

ghetto alchemist
08-07-2011, 07:15 PM
Thanks for the heads up Solomon, I checked out the VITRIOL thread.
Antimony is code for quartz, great find!!
Confirmation from a separate source .... another plus for quartz.

Here is some more from the armchair.

Legends and myths from around the world that give weight to the quartz theory:

Egyptians:
They had a myth that Osiris body was broken up into many pieces and scattered around the world.
His lover Isis gathered them all up and put them back together, however she was not able to find his penis which remained hidden somewhere in the Earth.

The egyptians also highly esteemed the semen of RA.
Semen comes out of a penis, hmmmm.....I wonder what the penis of RA (or Osiris) looked like?

http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00OBbtiSscwepd/Crystal-Cluster-Quartz-Crystal-Wand-Point.jpg

Chinese:
If you check the classical book from the china "Journey to the west", (which in my opinion
is a Taoist treatise on how to make the pills of immortality hidden in plain sight) it tells that
the monkey king comes into being by breaking out of a rock.
We later learn that another important character the ogre (named for pure sand - magnetite maybe), he was kicked out of heaven after breaking a crystal vessel.
Link Here: www.chine-informations.com/fichiers/jourwest.pdf

Jewish people have an ancient custom of breaking a crystal glass during their wedding ceremonies.

and my favourite one of all is the Arabian story of a powerful spirit (genie) trapped inside a glass bottle, when someone breaks the vessel and sets the spirit free. He comes out and grants 3 wishes.
Usually wealth, power and immortality.

So......we know what is the glass vessel, now just have to work out ho to break it,
and capture the spirit that is hidden inside it.

Regards
Ghetto alchemist

True Initiate
08-07-2011, 08:12 PM
In the Compass of the Wise there are described two kinds of philosophical vessels: a natural and a philosophical one.

Natural Vessel is revealed openly in the Golden Chain of Homer

http://img274.imagevenue.com/loc245/th_746513574_1_new_122_245lo.jpg (http://img274.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=746513574_1_new_122_245lo.jpg)
http://img139.imagevenue.com/loc451/th_746554692_2_new_122_451lo.jpg (http://img139.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=746554692_2_new_122_451lo.jpg)
http://img257.imagevenue.com/loc469/th_746577153_3_new_122_469lo.jpg (http://img257.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=746577153_3_new_122_469lo.jpg)
http://img219.imagevenue.com/loc1013/th_746608741_4_new_122_1013lo.jpg (http://img219.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=746608741_4_new_122_1013lo.jpg)
http://img42.imagevenue.com/loc544/th_746633664_5_new_122_544lo.jpg (http://img42.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=746633664_5_new_122_544lo.jpg)

Philosophical Vessel is the one that we are using to hold the Natural Vessel and they are both of the same origin.

The Metals are engendered in their Mother-womb or Bedrock where their Ores are found.

True Initiate
08-07-2011, 09:38 PM
The egyptians also highly esteemed the semen of RA.
Semen comes out of a penis, hmmmm.....I wonder what the penis of RA (or Osiris) looked like?


Maybe it was shaped like an Obelisk it reminds little on the crystalization pattern of Quartz, doesn't it?
http://img134.imagevenue.com/loc367/th_752065331_399px_Heliopolis200501_122_367lo.JPG (http://img134.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=752065331_399px_Heliopolis200501_122 _367lo.JPG)

In the High degrees secret instructions of the O.T.O they worship the Sun as the life giver of Macrocosmos and Phallus as the small Sun and life giver of the Microcosmos. When you unite Phallus and Sun you get Monogram of Christ.
http://img163.imagevenue.com/loc406/th_753540248_monogram_of_christ384x389vatican_122_ 406lo.jpg (http://img163.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=753540248_monogram_of_christ384x389v atican_122_406lo.jpg)

Just like in the Vatican:
http://img37.imagevenue.com/loc529/th_754155234_stpetersquarevatican_122_529lo.jpg (http://img37.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=754155234_stpetersquarevatican_122_5 29lo.jpg)

Aleilius
08-07-2011, 10:17 PM
*whistles*

4, q, the feather, i/a, k/q, the reed (cane, staff, phallus), the hill/mountain, the head, etc...


The most vested about traditional cabala, among ourselves, have probably been struck by the relation existing between the way, the path drawn by the hieroglyph which borrows the shape of the number 4, and the mineral antimony or stibium, clearly signified by this topographic word.

http://www.all-about-egypt.com/image-files/alphabet-hieroglyphs.jpg

http://members.peak.org/~jeremy/dictionaryclassic/chapters/pix/alphabet.gif

http://www.earthyfamily.com/Egypt/picts/chart.gif

horticult
08-08-2011, 01:14 AM
Dt 32:13

THX SL!

True Initiate
08-08-2011, 03:36 AM
Deuteronomy 32:13-14

King James Version (KJV)

13 He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields; and he made him to suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock;

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

13 He made him ride on the heights of the land
and eat the produce of the field.
He nourished him with honey from the rock
and oil from flintlike rock,

ghetto alchemist
08-08-2011, 02:07 PM
I love your work True Puffer, here is another one .....:


Again: "You shall see the Philosopher's Stone, our King and Lord of Lords, go forth from the chamber of its crystal tomb into this world, with its glorified body, regenerate and transcendently perfect, a brilliant carbuncle, whose most subtle and fully purified parts, being harmoniously mixed, are bound inseparably into one, altogether smooth, translucid as crystal, compact and exceedingly weighty.
.....
I was filled with admiration, and asked my visitor whence he had obtained that wonderful knowledge of the whole world? He replied that it was a gift freely bestowed on him by a friend who had stayed a few days at his house, who had also taught him to change common flints and crystals into stones more precious than rubies, chrysoliths, and sapphires;
.....
But the Artist replied: "It is not so in our Magistery; if you do not know the whole operation from beginning to end, you know nothing at all. I have told you all; yet you do not know how the crystal seal of Hermes is broken, and how the Sun colours it with the marvellous splendour of its metallic rays, or in what mirror the metals see with the eyes of Narcissus the possibility of their transmutation, or from what rays adepts collect the fire of perfect metallic fixation."

JOHN FREDERICK
HELVETIUS’
GOLDEN CALF,
WHICH THE WORLD WORSHIPS AND ADORES:


This one is a bit of an enigma:


33rd. The White Medicine, after the First Multiplication, coagulates and fixes a tumbler or glass full of clear water into a rock crystal. Put grain after another into the water until a disturbance is observed to take place in the water; then cease, and in half an hour the glass will break leaving the crystal fixed.

Rosicrucian Aphorisms and Process - Bacstrom

No other text I have ever seen says that the white stone will turn water to quartz crystal.
The number 33 is also interesting as it is the highest degree in Freemasonry, and it is also supposedly the maximum number of faces that can occur on a single quartz crystal. (It is hard to find a good reference for that though).


Ghetto Alchemist
As in Type G Alchemist

Aleilius
08-08-2011, 02:20 PM
So you all of you know about the secret. Go do it! I want to see Philosopher's Stones, and a hunk of gold from lead. :D

It's not a jest. In all seriousness. Forget armchair alchemy. This is the work of the ages. You have everything you need, and it's never been clearer.

True Initiate
08-08-2011, 05:29 PM
I love your work True Puffer, here is another one .....:

Thank you G Alchemist, here are also few tidbits...

You quoted:
1.yet you do not know how the crystal seal of Hermes is broken,
2.and how the Sun colours it with the marvellous splendour of its metallic rays,
3.or in what mirror the metals see with the eyes of Narcissus the possibility of their transmutation,
4.or from what rays adepts collect the fire of perfect metallic fixation.

From the four operations mentioned by this Adept i think i fully understand the number two.
2.and how the Sun colours it with the marvellous splendour of its metallic rays,
http://img289.imagevenue.com/loc337/th_822716765_1_new_122_337lo.jpg (http://img289.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=822716765_1_new_122_337lo.jpg)

This is done by concetrating Sun Rays through a lense and projected at some base in this case flints.
http://img120.imagevenue.com/loc423/th_823092787_2_new_122_423lo.jpg (http://img120.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=823092787_2_new_122_423lo.jpg)

It seems that the Flints can hold of the Sun's Sulphur. It is also interesting to note that if we are using numerous lenses that will gives us very High temperatures and we project them on flints then they will be fused into glass.

Also an interesting fact is thar when we project Sun rays through a Quartz Prism we get Peacock's Tail or Rainbow.
http://img207.imagevenue.com/loc79/th_823803250_white_light_dispersion_122_79lo.jpeg (http://img207.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=823803250_white_light_dispersion_122 _79lo.jpeg)

Now if we manage to petrify the Sun ray into a body of Quartz and colour it with it...

I forgot to mention that Obelisk was thought to represent a petrified Sun Ray.

ghetto alchemist
08-08-2011, 06:51 PM
Seems we really are on the same page True Puffer,

I'm pretty stunned that you can clearly see the peacocks tail connection.

As for these:


1.yet you do not know how the crystal seal of Hermes is broken,
2.and how the Sun colours it with the marvellous splendour of its metallic rays,
3.or in what mirror the metals see with the eyes of Narcissus the possibility of their transmutation,
4.or from what rays adepts collect the fire of perfect metallic fixation.

I have known about secrets 1,3 and 4 for a little while, thanks to the ormus researchers.
I never knew about secret 2 though. I previously had guessed that it might have meant physically dissolving gold, but I acknowledged that was only a guess. It has only been in the past month that I have realised the actual meaning of secret 2 and that was from LR's help. He went to some trouble to mention the importance of gentle heat from the sun and how accurate the Roger Caro mercury process is, it finally sunk in to my thick skull after a couple of months. So he was always going to have a claim to helping me on that. Ironically though I didn't need his help because I still got the exact same information from you anyway :D

This is for Aelius, time to make a start ....... (True Puffer I realise you already know this)

Number 1, breaking the crystal seal of hermes, is accomplished through the use of lye.
NurdRage has a video showing how here:
http://sites.google.com/site/nurdrage/chemistry-experiments/dissolve-glass-with-drain-cleaner
and here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmktRTHL1NA

This is actually the dry path described by fulcanelli.
I already have a stainless steel pot ready to use, I will order some lab grade lye after I post this message and can get started in 1-2 weeks.

True Puffer, I am going to have to build some special apparatus for secrets 3 and 4.
Already have a clear idea about how to do it cheaply, but if you've already cracked them, feel free to beat me to the punch ;)

Regards
G Alchemist

Aleilius
08-09-2011, 03:15 AM
Enthusiasm is what I like to see! Get to work my friends. The lab calls. :D

ghetto alchemist
08-09-2011, 05:04 AM
True Puffer, I realise now that you are thinking of heating the quartz in the sun before starting the work.
So we do have slightly different thinking in the order of the process, but it seems that we agree on the substance and that placement in the sun is important. The only difference is in the exact timing.

I interpret the texts to mean that first dissolve quartz, then create philisophical mercury,
then place the philisophical mercury in the sun to make it turn red. At least that is what I have interpreted from Roger Caro, but I also got the same idea from the attachment in your last message.

I do know that quartz in the sun will change color, because (this is pretty amazing timing really) I noticed it yesterday when looking at some specimens. White quartz will form a dark brown stain inside its cracks, and this color changes to a red/purple color in sunlight.

I'm starting to think that your way is right True Puffer, and my way is wrong.
I need to jump back under my rock and have a bit of a think about this one, get my head around it.

In the meantime, the lye has been ordered already and is on its way.

Ghetto Alchemist

True Initiate
08-09-2011, 07:34 AM
I was not particularly aiming at the wholle process and the production of the Stone but only giving my inerpretation of the second sentence.
The point of exposing the Quartz crystal to the Sun is to catch the Sun's Sulphur. How to proceed from there is another question but i am sure there are multiple options.

Check PM...

Hellin Hermetist
08-09-2011, 12:29 PM
In the High degrees secret instructions of the O.T.O they worship the Sun as the life giver of Macrocosmos and Phallus as the small Sun and life giver of the Microcosmos. When you unite Phallus and Sun you get Monogram of Christ.
http://img163.imagevenue.com/loc406/th_753540248_monogram_of_christ384x389vatican_122_ 406lo.jpg (http://img163.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=753540248_monogram_of_christ384x389v atican_122_406lo.jpg)



Guys that is not the Christ monogram. The letters I see there is Χ, Ρ, Λ, ω and Ο as the exoteric cycle. So we get ΧΛΩΡΟ or ΧΛΩΡΟΣ which means green, fertile. Where do you find that pic?

Aleilius
08-09-2011, 12:40 PM
Guys that is not the Christ monogram. The letters I see there is Χ, Ρ, Λ, ω and Ο as the exoteric cycle. So we get ΧΛΩΡΟ or ΧΛΩΡΟΣ which means green, fertile. Where do you find that pic?
Well, in a way it is, but in a way you are also 100% correct. Good catch!

In the image we have XP (Chi-Rho, Cairo, Caro, Crow, etc) which is the labarum, and on either side is the Alpha & the Omega (beginning & end).

Another interpretation is that the XP and the enclosing O is representative of a stargate (Windows XP & Bill GATES). Didn't it appear in the sky to Constantine?

solomon levi
08-10-2011, 07:51 PM
This one is a bit of an enigma:

33rd. The White Medicine, after the First Multiplication, coagulates and fixes a tumbler or glass full of clear water into a rock crystal. Put grain after another into the water until a disturbance is observed to take place in the water; then cease, and in half an hour the glass will break leaving the crystal fixed.

Rosicrucian Aphorisms and Process - Bacstrom

No other text I have ever seen says that the white stone will turn water to quartz crystal.
The number 33 is also interesting as it is the highest degree in Freemasonry, and it is also supposedly the maximum number of faces that can occur on a single quartz crystal. (It is hard to find a good reference for that though).


Ghetto Alchemist
As in Type G Alchemist

Nice correlations True Puffer, Horticult and Ghetto Alchemist!
This one above reminds me of John French:
(forget if i already posted this, or where)
http://www.alchemywebsite.com/jfren_5.html

"Stones are produced out of water that has a mucilaginous mercury which the salt, with which it abounds, fixes into stones. This you may see clearly by putting stones into water, for they will after a time contract a mucilaginous slimy matter which, being taken out of the water and set in the sun, becomes to be of a stony nature. And whence come those stones, gravel, and sand which we see in springs ? They are not washed down out of the mountains and hills (as some think) from whence the waters spring. Neither were they in the earth before the springs broke forth (as some imagine) and now appear by washing away of the earth from them. For if you dig around the springs, even beyond the heads of them, you shall find no stones at all in the earth, only in the veins thereof through which the water runs. Now, the reason of the smallness of the stones is the continual motion of the water which hinders them from being united into a continued bigness. I shall make a further confirmation of this in the artificial process of manifesting the heterogeneity of water. I shall here only add the assertion of Helmont, saying that with his alkahest all stones and, indeed, all things may be turned into water. If so, then you know what the maxim is, viz., all things may be resolved into that from whence they had their beginning."

"Take a flint out of river water and put it into a gourd glass. Pour upon it as much river water as will fill the glass. Evaporate this water until the flint be dry. Then pour on more fresh water. Do this so long until the flint will fill up the glass (for in a little time it will fill it up and become to be of the form or figure of the glass) for it attracts to itself the mucilaginousness of the water which, indeed, is a slimy saltish matter and the true matter of stones. And thus you shall have that done by art in few days which nature would have been perfecting many years and, indeed, just such a flint as is produced in the rivers. Anyone that should see this flint in the glass would wonder how it should come in there. You may break your glass and take out your flint."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R54vivyrYbE&playnext=1&list=PL219A9ABDF8DC7E87

True Initiate
08-11-2011, 09:08 AM
Guys that is not the Christ monogram. The letters I see there is Χ, Ρ, Λ, ω and Ο as the exoteric cycle. So we get ΧΛΩΡΟ or ΧΛΩΡΟΣ which means green, fertile. Where do you find that pic?

I have found it exactly here:
http://www.jesuswalk.com/christian-symbols/chi-rho.htm

True Initiate
08-11-2011, 09:22 AM
Here is a very nice Gold Mine Tour and try to guess from what kind of Rock the Gold was mined?

Gold Mine Tour 1 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5-3z7wsO-Y

Gold Mine Tour 2 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlW9FzQe2Oo&feature=related

Gold Mine Tour 3 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEl-5o59ZCI&feature=related

Gold Mine Tour 4 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXJt03TDVhU&feature=related

Gold Mine Tour 5 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H15QYvPne3Q&feature=related

Ghislain
08-12-2011, 06:40 AM
Hi

It's the Devil's Advocate again.

A while back while doing some work with dew and sea salt



Dew and sea salt/ Ganges water


Some of the sea salt recrystalised from the solution. The point is how it started to recrystalise.

In the solution I had palced some gold flakes...these acted as a seed for the salt crystals.

http://genius.toucansurf.com/Sea%20salt%20work/gold%20in%20sea%20salt%20a.jpg (http://genius.toucansurf.com/Sea%20salt%20work/gold%20in%20sea%20salt.jpg)

What I am wondering is, could the gold be a magnet for the Quartz, as found in the mine seams;
rather than Quartz actually having some part in the creation of the gold?

A little bit like, "what came first the chicken or the egg?"

Ghislain

True Initiate
08-12-2011, 07:13 AM
What I am wondering is, could the gold be a magnet for the Quartz, as found in the mine seams;
rather than Quartz actually having some part in the creation of the gold?

Ghislain

This one is easy.
Just look at the quantity of both. If the Gold were endendering Quartz it should be found in greater quantity that Quartz but this is not the case it is the other way around.

Haven't you heard what the cowboy says? There are no Veins of Gold but these are the Veins of Quartz containing Gold!

Salazius
08-12-2011, 08:56 AM
Pressure upon Quartz = Piezzo electricity = energy = transmutation of base material (silica) into metal = cooking = gold.

True Initiate
08-12-2011, 10:21 AM
Pressure upon Quartz = Piezzo electricity = energy = transmutation of base material (silica) into metal = cooking = gold.

Maybe we can use eletrolysis instead of vulgar heat on a small scale experiment?
Not a bad idea at all!

Thanks for inspiration Sal.

rogerc
08-12-2011, 10:35 AM
Hi

It's the Devil's Advocate again.

A while back while doing some work with dew and sea salt




Some of the sea salt recrystalised from the solution. The point is how it started to recrystalise.

In the solution I had palced some gold flakes...these acted as a seed for the salt crystals.

http://genius.toucansurf.com/Sea%20salt%20work/gold%20in%20sea%20salt%20a.jpg (http://genius.toucansurf.com/Sea%20salt%20work/gold%20in%20sea%20salt.jpg)

What I am wondering is, could the gold be a magnet for the Quartz, as found in the mine seams;
rather than Quartz actually having some part in the creation of the gold?

A little bit like, "what came first the chicken or the egg?"

Ghislain

We should not dream,.... really, anyone ever take basic geology in high school or college? Gold is found alongside quartz in hydrothermal activity where both ocurred as a vapor because tectonic action thrust the plates downward and the host rock where both( gold and quartz, gold in the form of low grade sulphide deposits) are finely disseminated becomes molten, the metallic vapors collect and steam drives the vapor upwards and because of the way they(gold and quartz) cool they condense together in the same strata, generally in cracks and fissures that the gases and molten metal vapors find as they rise that now become veins of quartz, you can find quartz in a million places where there is no trace of gold and where it has lied for milenia.....all of this is proven fact, it is why the majority of the gold that exists on the surface of the earth is not metallic (native) gold but sulphide or arsenic based mineral deposits i.e it takes leaching to get it out!

The problem with most uninitiates is that they try to tie the genesis of gold to the stone in the search for the prima matera, we should get one thing straight,.... gold is not the stone. I don't care how long it lies in the ground it will not become the philosophers stone, neither will quartz ,...focusing too hard on the genesis of metals and gold in particular is a trap laid by the adepts... don't fall into it! And don't fool yourselves.

True Initiate
08-12-2011, 12:01 PM
Haven't you claimed that you have transmuted small quantity of Silver into Gold by urinating on Limestone?

Well, Gold is also found in Limestone Rock but more abundatly in Quartz. Now if Gold was just evaporated with the Quartz then we should find the Gold on every other kind of Rock but this is not the case.

rogerc
08-12-2011, 07:02 PM
Haven't you claimed that you have transmuted small quantity of Silver into Gold by urinating on Limestone?

Well, Gold is also found in Limestone Rock but more abundatly in Quartz. Now if Gold was just evaporated with the Quartz then we should find the Gold on every other kind of Rock but this is not the case.

like I explained above it is only because of the similarity in how they condense when they are vaporized and later rise and cool that they are found together..chemically gold has no affinity with silica.....gold has only two affinities....sulfur and tellurium. Also to get my point across well over 90% of the gold mined annually as well as well over 95% of the gold that exists in the earth in totality occurs in low grade sulfur and arsenic deposits not in the native gold state.....native gold is rare that is the reason that when you find a nugget in a placer deposit, its intrinsic value has it being worth two to three times its spot gold value. That means the spot value is not determined from these deposits which constitute the minority but from low grade deposits from which they are chemically leached that represents the majority. There is more gold in the ocean than there is with quartz, there is more gold locked up in metalliod ores like bismuth, pyrite, stibinite, iron ores, copper ores, tin ores than there is with quartz.


We should not confuse the action of the spiritus mundi in the instant transmutation of metallic gold with billions of years of mineral genesis that creates finely diseminated low grade ores and volcanic action which basically acts as an fire assay, that is millions of tons of rock and low grade ore bodies are made molten deep below the surface which allows what is similar to come together and what is dis-similar to separate just like in a fire assay.

Lapis Solaris
08-13-2011, 12:39 AM
Ghetto Alchemist, I must say (although the thread has developed further than this) that although I myself am not far down the rabbit hole so to speak, you must build things up before you are able to break them down. If you criticise more than you have so far accomplished then where is your starting point other than a theory based on the fact that no one has mentioned it (that you have seen)?
Truth is Truth, you seek Truth and you will find Truth.
Seek to destroy, however, and Chaos will make it very difficult to break down enough to gain Order, as the mind is inclined to step just off the end process which purifies it so (due to the heart of the matter, I'm not sure why people would often rather stay in a state of Chaos rather than moving forward to Order). ;)
Nature is a good example. Perhaps you should listen to the sounds and see the sights even if it's only your front/back lawn and understand before looking for cold, hard knowledge in this manner. Understand the way things work before starting to lose your heart to your mind (regardless of how far it has gone you can always turn back). Of course, both the heart and mind are crucial to understanding, not one or the other. If you believe that this method of finding gold works, then sure, try it. "Armchair alchemy" only goes so far before you actually start to do something to see if you're right or not. Or "faith without works is dead".

I mean this only to help, not to discourage you. I hope that God will bless you in all that you do in discovering these things. :)

solomon levi
08-14-2011, 10:25 AM
The problem with most uninitiates is that they try to tie the genesis of gold to the stone in the search for the prima matera, we should get one thing straight,.... gold is not the stone. I don't care how long it lies in the ground it will not become the philosophers stone, neither will quartz ,...focusing too hard on the genesis of metals and gold in particular is a trap laid by the adepts... don't fall into it! And don't fool yourselves.

I don't think anyone is claiming that the length of time something lies in the ground is the basis of transmutation or production of the philosophers' stone.
Silicates are the genesis of all minerals, not just metals and gold. It is common knowledge that the stone is not made in the earth - nature does not produce it.
The "trap" IMO is that they lead people to lead (Pb) or mercury which are not prevalent enough to be true matrices.
The matrix of minerals must be the most common, or one of the most common, elements.
Knowing the genesis shows us what the matrix is:
Most abundant is oxygen; second is silicon (we now have the elements for quartz/sand);
the genesis is from the mantle (peridotite) to the crust (granite, basalt).
I don't see any trap in that. Would you care to elaborate rogerc?

solomon levi
08-14-2011, 10:37 AM
..chemically gold has no affinity with silica.....
I don't know about "chemically", but they certainly have an affinity. Show me sand that doesn't have gold in it.

ghetto alchemist
08-15-2011, 05:34 AM
Hooray, I knew that if we dangled the worm long enough that the fish wouldn't be able to resist taking a bite. We finally got one. ;)

RogerC, I really loathe to get bogged down in a lengthy argument when clearly you have already made up your own mind, I have no reason to convince you otherwise.
I am posting this reply only for the sake of Luna and anyone else who reads this thread in the future who hasn't yet decided about quartz.


you can find quartz in a million places where there is no trace of gold and where it has lied for milenia.....all of this is proven fact

Quartz is the precursor to the stone, but not the sole condition required. If you look back in this thread there is a description for the conditions that created the welcome stranger nugget (the largest chunk of gold ever created in nature) and those conditions were QUARTZ and RED CLAY together. This probably wouldn't come as any surprise to experienced members of this forum though, because the importance of the red clay vessel in alchemy is already well established. So if RogerC can find quartz with no red clay in a million places and still with no gold.......... it doesn't say anything about quartz not making gold.


it is why the majority of the gold that exists on the surface of the earth is not metallic (native) gold but sulphide or arsenic based mineral deposits

AND

my point across well over 90% of the gold mined annually as well as well over 95% of the gold that exists in the earth in totality occurs in low grade sulfur and arsenic deposits not in the native gold state.


This is really only because human civilisations all around the world have been using thousands of workers (and the best technology available), working tirelessly for hundreds of years to extract the gold from all the native gold deposits around the world. We've overmined the native gold, it's always been the easy stuff, was in the past and still is today. The deposits which have the gold chemically bound up are most of what is left now. In fact if you watch those amazing youtube videos recommended by true puffer you will see that there are extensive gold sulphide deposits in that mine. The sulphide deposits formed around the outside of the quartz veins containing native gold. And those gold sulphides are still there today because it is too expensive to extract it. These sulphide deposits formed from the native gold recting with the iron pyrites that surrounded the vein (Hint: RED CLAY), Eg pure gold first - gold sulphides second.
So RogerC's arguments still say nothing about quartz not being the precursor to gold generation in nature.


The problem with most uninitiates is that they try to tie the genesis of gold to the stone in the search for the prima matera, we should get one thing straight,.... gold is not the stone.


Neither uninitiates nor initiates tie the genesis of gold with the stone. There are many alchemy texts written by non-adepts and adepts alike and none of them are claiming quartz is the material to work with. Quartz is the elephant in the room that NOBODY ever acknowledges, not even the uninitiates. If it was truly not the prima materia then the liars should at least have mentioned it.


Luna, I didn't take a geology class in college, by my own admission I am not an expert.
RogerC presents as an expert, you could ask him what materials you should work with, I personally think that he won't answer. But if you really pressed him then he will probably tell you either urine and/or cinnabar.
That would be great news for all of the sewerage treatment plants around the world, they are sitting on
an absolute fortune and don't even know it. Also good news for local dumps because once everyone starts throwing away their low energy mercury vapour light globes, they'll be sitting on a fortune as well. I don't buy it, you shouldn't either.

Ok I'm overdoing it a little, basically my point is that any true adepts who have read this thread will be upset that quartz is named so openly, they would want to try to kill the argument before it grows wings. So in short Luna, be careful who you trust and who you listen to, we all have our own agendas, not everyones agenda is for you Luna to know the truth.

rogerc
08-15-2011, 09:16 PM
I don't think anyone is claiming that the length of time something lies in the ground is the basis of transmutation or production of the philosophers' stone.
Silicates are the genesis of all minerals, not just metals and gold. It is common knowledge that the stone is not made in the earth - nature does not produce it.
The "trap" IMO is that they lead people to lead (Pb) or mercury which are not prevalent enough to be true matrices.
The matrix of minerals must be the most common, or one of the most common, elements.
Knowing the genesis shows us what the matrix is:
Most abundant is oxygen; second is silicon (we now have the elements for quartz/sand);
the genesis is from the mantle (peridotite) to the crust (granite, basalt).
I don't see any trap in that. Would you care to elaborate rogerc?

Solomon, the true matrix of the prima matera and of gold lies in your heart, the true matrix is nothing but pure undeferentiated potential, in short it is nothing, and no-thing, the primodial aether and the chief component of your astral body. Silicon is not silica, and sand is not silicon, neither is glass, glass is only an appropriate vessel to hold pure spiritus mundi, it holds it without ingress but not because of the silica content in the glass but because of the geometric configuration of the molecules, this is the only connection silica has with the prima matera (spiritus mundi). I can make glass from many of the metalliods besides silica and it would still be an appropriate vessel or vase to hold pure S.M.

rogerc
08-15-2011, 11:33 PM
Show me sand that doesn't have gold in it.

And I say show me some that does, I still have not seen it, if you are refering to the claims on the subtleenergies website by Barry Carter and his gang that some how sea salt precipitate as well as the product of the sodium burn on black sand contain metallic gold...well this is unproven, these people take all these processes and support them upon David Hudson work and through a shot gun appraoch with no support on sound doctrine or philosophy and call it all .."ormus". Hudson only initially could not perform spectroscopic analysis on his white powders of platinum group metals this was not the case for the white powder of gold, all the miraculous results that he claimed came as a result of ingestion of the "white powder" was from the rhodium, not the gold and certainly not sea salt or sodium burn precipitates as Carter makes out .Carter and Hudson alike used the difficulty of assaying the PGMS as a support with the white powder of gold, he takes things out of context and shuffles them around, he is not a scientist no matter how much he makes himself out to be and he is no alchemist, neither was Hudson, later when he(Hudson) read the soviet academy sciences books on assaying PGM's he realized normal carbon arc spectroscopy wouldn't work, the burn was too short, and then resorted to paying high prices for neutron absorbtion analysis, these analysis don't lie, there is no gold in sand, in short Hudson never proved any of his claims, that's why the patent applications were never granted, and when he was broke he started looking into alchemy and the new age foundation types lecture circuit as a means to generate revenue because these people will believe anything. There is no gold in sand, but you can get gold from magnetite, which is not silica but iron in a certain geometric configuration which attracts S.M. and coats the iron by ingressing into it, which will later gas out with the application of heat, especially in a microwave because magnetite is a mircowave susceptor, we can then use glass as a top flux when it is melted to the consistency of honey to capture the gased out S.M. and these gases create voids in the molten glass and use them as a pocket until enough gas accumulates and becomes "metallic" gold, this is John Mileski's method for growing gold in magnetite. How do I know the silica in the glass has nothing to do with the formation of gold in this regard? Well because I used powdered borax as well, which also makes a molten glass cover in which the gases are still caught, the yield was increased when I added lime, because thats what soda lime glass is, sand and limestone. but in this case I eliminated silica and used boron and still good results, this told me exactly where the gold was coming from, the magnetite. The virtue of the S.M. in the magnetite is the basis for the "M3" product of the sodium burn on black sand not the silica. Especially we should not forget the hints Fulcanelli leaves us in Dwellings concerning the proximity that gold deposits are found in iron rich earth, these deposits he speaks of do not contain quartz, they may contain silica in the clay but he goes to length to make dissertation about iron so that is the emphasis he places where the formation of gold is concerned, is on iron not silica, many other iron mineralizations contain gold, every bit of iron pyrite and marcasites contain gold, remember the emphasis LeoRetilus put also in this connection. We also have all the paths that utilize the iron in the blood that attracts the spiritus mundi. Gold will also grow in limestone or Fullers's earth(kitty litter) when it is wetted with urine and the moons rays are concentrated on it, in other places gypsum is mentioned, so here we have another possible matrix or magnet for the spirtus mundi. So like I said above we must not confuse the million year genesis of gold in rock with the instaneous action of the S.M. in the maturation of metals.

ghetto alchemist
08-16-2011, 06:17 AM
Hooray, RogerC for the first time it seems that we finally agree on something.

Magnetite or black sand is an important ingredient for making the stone.
It serves the same purpose as iron oxide (red clay), iron sulphide, mu metal, joe cell, orgone accumulator or mesmers device. That purpose is to protect the starting material from the earths magnetic field.

Nature uses red clay, black sand or iron ore to accomplish the task.

RogerC, since you have associated magnetite with gold formation in nature then I am in complete agreement with you.

Ghetto Alchemist

solomon levi
08-17-2011, 05:52 PM
Solomon, the true matrix of the prima matera and of gold lies in your heart, the true matrix is nothing but pure undeferentiated potential, in short it is nothing, and no-thing, the primodial aether and the chief component of your astral body. Silicon is not silica, and sand is not silicon, neither is glass, glass is only an appropriate vessel to hold pure spiritus mundi, it holds it without ingress but not because of the silica content in the glass but because of the geometric configuration of the molecules, this is the only connection silica has with the prima matera (spiritus mundi). I can make glass from many of the metalliods besides silica and it would still be an appropriate vessel or vase to hold pure S.M.

Hi rogerc!

Well, I won't argue the astral/etheric origin of the prima materia, since I agree with that.
But there do exist vessels more equipped to accumulate it.
For example, Paracelsus mentions lemon balm and human blood, but, of course, doesn't
mention the corresponding mineral.

solomon levi
08-17-2011, 06:42 PM
And I say show me some that does, I still have not seen it, if you are refering to the claims on the subtleenergies website by Barry Carter and his gang that some how sea salt precipitate ....

No. I'm referring to Glauber, the Goden Chain of Homer, and Tugel, to name the ones off the top of my head.
In Golden Chain it is said that the "gur" from rain water when given the same test as Glauber prescribes for
sand, will reveal some gold. That silica/diatoms are found in the dew or rain is another good indication
to search for the mineral mercury in silicates.

I don't know Barry Carter. I've met Hudson a couple times at lectures.
But my main source of m-state info comes from knowing the Essene and spending
a couple days with him many years ago. He showed me how to get gold from
Dead Sea salt precip and from the ocean. He showed me a lead plate
that was coated with gold sitting in a 5 gallon bucket that had Dead Sea precip in it.
The way he does it is by running a specific current through lead, like electrolysis. :)

I don't disagree with your insight and knowledge on iron. But you do know that
iron comes from silicates, don't you? You've read Golden Chain?
We do well to look at the ores of metals, as "The Stone of the Philosophers" in Collectanea Chemica indicates.
But IMO, I think we do even better to look at the ore of ores - the peridotite mantle,
and it's two primary offspring - basalt (where the mantle contacts ocean water) and granite (where it does not).
I do not disagree with other ways. I think they're possible. But it seems logical to follow the thread to the source.

Iron is indeed a significant part as most texts will tell us. It is especially interesting in its magnetic quality.
Quartz is also interesting in its piezoelectric quality. It has a hexagonal structure (Fulcanelli said
nature has signed it with a six).
Both magnetism and electricity are manifestations of the etheric Od or Orgone or Chi...
Having both of these is important to the work IMO. I have suggested the use of iron and magnesium silicates
as male and female of solid solution series. So I don't leave out iron by any means.
But iron is not the matrix of metals. I think that should be obvious. :)

Does it not strike you that many minerals will grow dendritically in sodium silicate,
just as the veins are found in the mine? Is it not strong evidence how gemstones
are found in these veins - gemstones being varieties of all kinds of metals in a silicate
or alumino-silicate matrix?
Can you really argue a better candidate for the matrix of metals?

Sincerely, SL

rogerc
08-18-2011, 12:06 AM
No. I'm referring to Glauber, the Goden Chain of Homer, and Tugel, to name the ones off the top of my head.
In Golden Chain it is said that the "gur" from rain water when given the same test as Glauber prescribes for
sand, will reveal some gold. That silica/diatoms are found in the dew or rain is another good indication
to search for the mineral mercury in silicates.

I don't know Barry Carter. I've met Hudson a couple times at lectures.
But my main source of m-state info comes from knowing the Essene and spending
a couple days with him many years ago. He showed me how to get gold from
Dead Sea salt precip and from the ocean. He showed me a lead plate
that was coated with gold sitting in a 5 gallon bucket that had Dead Sea precip in it.
The way he does it is by running a specific current through lead, like electrolysis. :)

I don't disagree with your insight and knowledge on iron. But you do know that
iron comes from silicates, don't you? You've read Golden Chain?
We do well to look at the ores of metals, as "The Stone of the Philosophers" in Collectanea Chemica indicates.
But IMO, I think we do even better to look at the ore of ores - the peridotite mantle,
and it's two primary offspring - basalt (where the mantle contacts ocean water) and granite (where it does not).
I do not disagree with other ways. I think they're possible. But it seems logical to follow the thread to the source.

Iron is indeed a significant part as most texts will tell us. It is especially interesting in its magnetic quality.
Quartz is also interesting in its piezoelectric quality. It has a hexagonal structure (Fulcanelli said
nature has signed it with a six).
Both magnetism and electricity are manifestations of the etheric Od or Orgone or Chi...
Having both of these is important to the work IMO. I have suggested the use of iron and magnesium silicates
as male and female of solid solution series. So I don't leave out iron by any means.
But iron is not the matrix of metals. I think that should be obvious. :)

Does it not strike you that many minerals will grow dendritically in sodium silicate,
just as the veins are found in the mine? Is it not strong evidence how gemstones
are found in these veins - gemstones being varieties of all kinds of metals in a silicate
or alumino-silicate matrix?
Can you really argue a better candidate for the matrix of metals?

Sincerely, SL

Solomon all the iron concretions I 've found have been in limey chalky earth the consistency of clay or hardened caliche not in sand or any earth containing silica, so this is not true, also metallic generation doesn't really teach anything about alchemy, so yes it is a blind to get stuck on this and concentrate on tangible materials and periodic tables to go looking for the prima matera, ....so ok even if everything you said above was irrefuteable and true, you goal is to what then? to make gold in a million years or aeons like nature does? or is your goal since you study the alchemy, the fabrication of the philosophers stone? if the latter then you know by now, the spiritus mundi is the chief and only component of the philsophers stone, the spiritus mundi is not silicic acid or any silicate, it is not found anywhere on earth but only attracted or manifested when the sound doctrine of philosophy in the classical texts are followed through art, the only difference between the spagery and the alchemy is where we place the focus, on the tangibility or the intangibility, we can use iron in a spagerical way or use it in an alchemical way without destroying it to get what is inside by corroding it (spagery) when all the while what we want is on the outside (alchemy), check the philsophers matter thread and the martian influence, which is why I brought up magnetite in the first place, and read this through the lens of the classical texts, including Fulcanelli in Dwellings where he gives the processes to make the common but "authentic" spagyrical mercuric salt from iron filings and then the natural iron concretions or pyrites found in the earth, the latter he claimed to contain more and in a purer state, additionally what I mean from all the commentary above, (which I don't mean to be an attack on your views) that you seem to have some difficulty in understanding is that there is no metallic gold in magnetite, but when fire is added and if the spiritus mundi was present it will be liberated from the iron and ingress into other inferior metalloids or metals and cause them to mature into gold, this gives a false assumption that it was present from the beginning when appartenly from the assays show that it was not present, that is the problem with Hudson and Carter they don't understand enough about the spiritus mundi to know its action on metals, they didn't go to school with the philsophers and therefore take away the wrong notions, and they say well the gold is simply in a state in which it cannot be assayed, this silly white powder state, which they call the white stone.

solomon levi
08-18-2011, 02:41 AM
Solomon all the iron concretions I 've found have been in limey chalky earth the consistency of clay or hardened caliche not in sand or any earth containing silica, so this is not true, also metallic generation doesn't really teach anything about alchemy, so yes it is a blind to get stuck on this and concentrate on tangible materials and periodic tables to go looking for the prima matera, ....so ok even if everything you said above was irrefuteable and true, you goal is to what then? to make gold in a million years or aeons like nature does? or is your goal since you study the alchemy, the fabrication of the philosophers stone? if the latter then you know by now, the spiritus mundi is the chief and only component of the philsophers stone, the spiritus mundi is not silicic acid or any silicate, it is not found anywhere on earth but only attracted or manifested when the sound doctrine of philosophy in the classical texts are followed through art, the only difference between the spagery and the alchemy is where we place the focus, on the tangibility or the intangibility, we can use iron in a spagerical way or use it in an alchemical way without destroying it to get what is inside by corroding it (spagery) when all the while what we want is on the outside (alchemy), check the philsophers matter thread and the martian influence, which is why I brought up magnetite in the first place, and read this through the lens of the classical texts, including Fulcanelli in Dwellings where he gives the processes to make the common but "authentic" spagyrical mercuric salt from iron filings and then the natural iron concretions or pyrites found in the earth, the latter he claimed to contain more and in a purer state, additionally what I mean from all the commentary above, (which I don't mean to be an attack on your views) that you seem to have some difficulty in understanding is that there is no metallic gold in magnetite, but when fire is added and if the spiritus mundi was present it will be liberated from the iron and ingress into other inferior metalloids or metals and cause them to mature into gold, this gives a false assumption that it was present from the beginning when appartenly from the assays show that it was not present, that is the problem with Hudson and Carter they don't understand enough about the spiritus mundi to know its action on metals, they didn't go to school with the philsophers and therefore take away the wrong notions, and they say well the gold is simply in a state in which it cannot be assayed, this silly white powder state, which they call the white stone.

Thanks for the reply rogerc. :)
I don't think that proves anything. Limestone is the result of washed out feldspar which came from granite/silicates, as did the iron come from the mantle which is a magnesium-iron silicate (peridotite).
Just because the silicate gets washed out doesn't mean it was not the mother.
My goal is not to make gold in a million years. I think you brought that into this topic. I don't know why. It seems a deviation to me.

Here's something I posted before that you may have missed.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v12/n1/opals

So it doesn't take millions of years to grow opals, and if a silicate is the mercury for opals, it is for all minerals.

I'm not just interested in pure alchemy with the SM, but in spagyrics and archemy as well.
My goal... to discover what I can. There's plenty of evidence that silicates are the matrix of metals.
That means something, don't you think? Well, other alchemists thought so, enough to write about it.

I never said there was metallic gold in magnetite. You brought up gold. I don't think the presence of gold proves anything
towards silica being a matrix. It is a matrix if everything is present, which it is. Everything on the crust comes from the mantle
(and weathering, oxidation, etc). What's wrong with that science? I think this is a good enough point in itself.
The temporary goal, for me, IS to understand the genesis of minerals and metals. Many Philosophers wrote concerning the mercury
that comes from the center of the earth pressed out by the interior sun and meeting different environments/sulfurs/temperatures/imurities
becomes this metal or that. I am pointing out that this resembles the activity of sodium silicate in the earth's crust and the mine.
They say to study nature. That's all I'm doing. This is not a thread about SM.

The white powder does assay as iron, silica and aluminum. You don't find that interesting? I do. :)
It does not seem totally unrelated to alchemy to me. In fact, it makes sense when we look at the mantle and the crust.

You've said that metallic generation is a blind. I've asked you to elaborate. If you can't I understand.
But just making a claim with no evidence or proof is not going to move me one way or another.
I'm not the kind of person to take someone's word for the actual truth without understanding.
I'm sure you can respect that.
I do find something of value in studying the generation of metals which Bacon, Valentine, and many others
took the time to stress. I see no reason why it is a blind. I've given lots of evidence.
But the simple fact that this guy makes opals as real as they are made in the earth should tell you enough.
There is only one mercury for each kingdom, and this guy could not have made real opals without mineral mercury.

Can we go slow and argue just that one point? How did he make opals that are indistinguishable from earth made ones
without mineral mercury? Does that not interest you?
My answer is, he can't make real opals without the mercury of the mineral kingdom.
And he says his secret is TEOS. And I say - "makes sense to me, as i can observe silicates in the generation of all minerals."

I know you know the SM, but that doesn't make this nothing just because SM is the ultimate.
This is not a thread about SM.
In some way you are arguing for iron and against silicates, but avoiding saying whether or not either is the matrix of minerals.
That is what this thread is about IMO. Certainly you don't think iron is the matrix of metals when it is a metal itself.
So why do you bring up iron? or gold? It seems like you're diverting the topic and I don't know why.
SM may be the astal matrix, but Fulcanelli speaks of a mineral subject with which we begin the work, no??
Seems like you're being difficult. Are you saying that iron or pyrites are the matrix of metals? Or sulfides?
Where are these sulfides in the peridotite mantle? Do you not recognise that as an inconsistency?

Sorry, but if we're going to argue this, be as plain as I am. If you want to keep secrets, which I respect, then we can't
really argue this can we? Nothing you have said has put a dent in the silicates as matrix theory, to me. And I am not a closed-minded person.
You're arguments just seem to run parallel without counter-indicating anything I have argued.
How do you explain the peridotite mantle as anything other than a matrix? And the solid solution series proves it is a living breathing matrix
capable of transmutation, just as the Philosophers say it is alive while in the mine/earth.

Can you attack these points or invalidate them?
Or argue as strongly for sulfides?
Sure, I accept that you find iron concretions in limey chalky earth. But that doesn't mean they are not in silicates as well, or even more.
I'm quite certain that the iron silicates far outweigh the iron sulfides. There's no question about that.
So how does that argument apply? Are you saying iron concretions are the matrix of metals, or the prima materia?
I'm not sure what your point is and/or how it lessens the probablility of silicates as matrix.

Oh. My goal is to apply the multiplying capacity of silicates towards the stone. I see this multiplying factor which
the alchemists mention (i.e. multiplying the mercury, multiplying the white stone by adding more mercury, multiplying gold by adding the stone...)
reflected in the silicates as I have mentioned. I do not agree that SM is the only component of the stone. SM is not a mineral. The initial subject is.
Certainly you can have your SM path where that is all that is required. But that is not the only possibility in making a medicine for men or metals.
If you thought that, why bring up iron concretions?

Perhaps this will go nowhere. It is too diffuse at the moment I think. I don't even know what you are arguing. :)
If you like, we can start over and maybe go one question at a time.

vega33
08-18-2011, 09:18 PM
Carissimi Fratres Rogerus

Gratias vobis ago for your attempts at setting out the tenets of the iter ad perfectionem rei. You mentioned concentrated moonlight on moistened Fuller's Earth, and the geometric configuration of certain glasses (although I'm not sure that ingress was the correct term). Am I correct in assuming based on my reading of your posts that you are advocating a model based on vibrational resonances or reordering of materials due to similar within the spiritus-mundi?

Fulcanelli said once:

You will obtain confirmation of it by discovering, in the midst of the igneous water, or of this earthly heaven, according to the typical expression of Wenceslaus Lavinus of Moravia, the hermetic sun, centric and radiant, made manifest, visible, and obvious.

Catch a ray of sun, condense it into a substantial form, nourish this corporified spiritual fire with elemental fire, and you will possess the greatest treasure of this world.

I've always been very interested in the absorption and emission spectra of matter, along with the properties surrounding light and its cousin magnetism, both particular emanations from the SM. The cathedral builders also were and knew how to make stained glass thanks to the inclusion of metals.

Science offers the view that if an object is red, often it has absorbed a photon of a specific wavelength and emitted it again (a preponderance of emission lines in one area of the visible spectrum), but my own personal theory is one of the material having a specific frequency response when excited by energy in the right band, producing a specific sequence of overtones/waves in the SM which are then perceived as light. Fluoresence under UV light is the perfect example of this. I understand therefore proper regulation of the fire as relating to this use of the "divine word" to cause patterns in the formless substance known as prima materia, which is manifested most obviously in electromagnetic behaviours. Static cling is another great example of an area where we can see hermetic principles in action.

Anyway, I see the focussing of the light of the moon or sun as trying to reproduce the original frequency of transmitted light through mass preponderance of the one type of wave overtaking the seemingly random oscillations of the air molecules, and in this context directly ultrasonic frequencies could be uses as well, though with less success as the overtones involved are more octaves apart.

Have you ever heard of Emmens (http://journal.borderlands.com/1997/americas-amazing-alchemist/)? If so what is your opinion of his work, especially his thoughts on slow cooling lava flows?

solomon levi
08-18-2011, 11:57 PM
Fulcanelli said once:
You will obtain confirmation of it by discovering, in the midst of the igneous water, or of this earthly heaven, according to the typical expression of Wenceslaus Lavinus of Moravia, the hermetic sun, centric and radiant, made manifest, visible, and obvious.

Catch a ray of sun, condense it into a substantial form, nourish this corporified spiritual fire with elemental fire, and you will possess the greatest treasure of this world.


Greetings Vega 33.
I was wondering if you are familiar with Reich's work on sand bions. He realised due to eye strain from observing them under the microscope that he was
getting a dose of radiation. In another instance, he had the bion material on his skin and it left a red mark - a sun burn from uv rays of the sand bion material.
This sounds a lot like a candidate for the quote you supplied. I'm sure Reich never thought to take the bion matter from its white stage to the red ("nourish with elemental fire").

sol

rogerc
08-19-2011, 12:05 AM
Thanks for the reply rogerc. :)
I don't think that proves anything. Limestone is the result of washed out feldspar which came from granite/silicates, as did the iron come from the mantle which is a magnesium-iron silicate (peridotite).
Just because the silicate gets washed out doesn't mean it was not the mother.
My goal is not to make gold in a million years. I think you brought that into this topic. I don't know why. It seems a deviation to me.

Here's something I posted before that you may have missed.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v12/n1/opals

So it doesn't take millions of years to grow opals, and if a silicate is the mercury for opals, it is for all minerals.

I'm not just interested in pure alchemy with the SM, but in spagyrics and archemy as well.
My goal... to discover what I can. There's plenty of evidence that silicates are the matrix of metals.
That means something, don't you think? Well, other alchemists thought so, enough to write about it.

I never said there was metallic gold in magnetite. You brought up gold. I don't think the presence of gold proves anything
towards silica being a matrix. It is a matrix if everything is present, which it is. Everything on the crust comes from the mantle
(and weathering, oxidation, etc). What's wrong with that science? I think this is a good enough point in itself.
The temporary goal, for me, IS to understand the genesis of minerals and metals. Many Philosophers wrote concerning the mercury
that comes from the center of the earth pressed out by the interior sun and meeting different environments/sulfurs/temperatures/imurities
becomes this metal or that. I am pointing out that this resembles the activity of sodium silicate in the earth's crust and the mine.
They say to study nature. That's all I'm doing. This is not a thread about SM.

The white powder does assay as iron, silica and aluminum. You don't find that interesting? I do. :)
It does not seem totally unrelated to alchemy to me. In fact, it makes sense when we look at the mantle and the crust.

You've said that metallic generation is a blind. I've asked you to elaborate. If you can't I understand.
But just making a claim with no evidence or proof is not going to move me one way or another.
I'm not the kind of person to take someone's word for the actual truth without understanding.
I'm sure you can respect that.
I do find something of value in studying the generation of metals which Bacon, Valentine, and many others
took the time to stress. I see no reason why it is a blind. I've given lots of evidence.
But the simple fact that this guy makes opals as real as they are made in the earth should tell you enough.
There is only one mercury for each kingdom, and this guy could not have made real opals without mineral mercury.

Can we go slow and argue just that one point? How did he make opals that are indistinguishable from earth made ones
without mineral mercury? Does that not interest you?
My answer is, he can't make real opals without the mercury of the mineral kingdom.
And he says his secret is TEOS. And I say - "makes sense to me, as i can observe silicates in the generation of all minerals."

I know you know the SM, but that doesn't make this nothing just because SM is the ultimate.
This is not a thread about SM.
In some way you are arguing for iron and against silicates, but avoiding saying whether or not either is the matrix of minerals.
That is what this thread is about IMO. Certainly you don't think iron is the matrix of metals when it is a metal itself.
So why do you bring up iron? or gold? It seems like you're diverting the topic and I don't know why.
SM may be the astal matrix, but Fulcanelli speaks of a mineral subject with which we begin the work, no??
Seems like you're being difficult. Are you saying that iron or pyrites are the matrix of metals? Or sulfides?
Where are these sulfides in the peridotite mantle? Do you not recognise that as an inconsistency?

Sorry, but if we're going to argue this, be as plain as I am. If you want to keep secrets, which I respect, then we can't
really argue this can we? Nothing you have said has put a dent in the silicates as matrix theory, to me. And I am not a closed-minded person.
You're arguments just seem to run parallel without counter-indicating anything I have argued.
How do you explain the peridotite mantle as anything other than a matrix? And the solid solution series proves it is a living breathing matrix
capable of transmutation, just as the Philosophers say it is alive while in the mine/earth.

Can you attack these points or invalidate them?
Or argue as strongly for sulfides?
Sure, I accept that you find iron concretions in limey chalky earth. But that doesn't mean they are not in silicates as well, or even more.
I'm quite certain that the iron silicates far outweigh the iron sulfides. There's no question about that.
So how does that argument apply? Are you saying iron concretions are the matrix of metals, or the prima materia?
I'm not sure what your point is and/or how it lessens the probablility of silicates as matrix.

Oh. My goal is to apply the multiplying capacity of silicates towards the stone. I see this multiplying factor which
the alchemists mention (i.e. multiplying the mercury, multiplying the white stone by adding more mercury, multiplying gold by adding the stone...)
reflected in the silicates as I have mentioned. I do not agree that SM is the only component of the stone. SM is not a mineral. The initial subject is.
Certainly you can have your SM path where that is all that is required. But that is not the only possibility in making a medicine for men or metals.
If you thought that, why bring up iron concretions?

Perhaps this will go nowhere. It is too diffuse at the moment I think. I don't even know what you are arguing. :)
If you like, we can start over and maybe go one question at a time.

Hi Solomon there is too much to answer here and it does seem too diffuse plus you seem to have your own ideas which seem to be unshakable for the moment, which I respect, so I am sure you will follow them to the point you have exhausted every avenue before you abondon them and turn towards subtler truths, that is a path everyone seems doomed to take irregardless of all the warnings that were written by the philosophers so with the time I have so I'll just try to be as brief as I can.

Firstly I didn't bring up gold, others did when they cite the proximity gold is found with quartz as a support or proof that quartz or silica for that matter is the prima matera for the philsophers stone, And I say once again gold is not the philosophers stone and gold isn't required to make it, so the support however true, is completely unfounded, so what if silicates are the matrix for gold formation how does the make its use suitable towards the alchemy? read what Paracelsus says below, all other adepts echoed the same philosophy, the virtue of the philsophic stone is found in no mineral, but my point on all the commentary as I said before was that the locality of quartz to gold deposits occurs as a minimum when compared to sulfide and tellurium and iron complexes and represents a slim minority of the gold in totality in the earth's crust and its only reason for its proximity to quartz is the way they (the vapors) condense as they rise,.... find any quartz deposit that contains gold and I'll show you evidence of hydrothermal activity. The actual genesis of gold occurs in the beginning as sparsely diseminated deposits in sulfide matrices and the chance encounter where limey earths near the surface feel the heavenly influences of celestial activity, large deposits of metallic gold later found in veins and nuggets are formed by volcanic action near the mantle which comglemorates metallic vapors from these ore bodies and releases them towards the surface where they condense or crystallize in native metallic deposits or veins as they rise, these are proven facts of modern geology irregardless of what some so called alchemists wrote in their books regarding the metallic formation, also we should keep in mind in this regard that in so much as most books where authors spoke of metallic generation in nature weren't meant to be taken so literally, they meant for us to become familiar with the more invisible, intangible and philosophical components of nature,these components they named earth, air, fire water and spirit, which work to generate philosophical mercury,salt and sulfur which then reach a level of less and less subtelty till they become tangible. Fulcanelli himself goes to great lengths to illustrate these spirits especially in regard to metals when he cites evidence for viable intelligence and memory in metals. My other point is alternatively to the slow and eventual genesis of gold we can create gold artifically through art with the use of condensed spiritus mundi when we apply a suitable earth and unite it to an inferior metal such as silver through the agency of heat, and its spontaneous appearance in this sense should not be confused with the normal mineral genesis of gold, the case in example I cite is in limestone rock, and this limestone is the result of ocean floor sediment of millions of years of organic life deposits not feldspar, the deposits that Ghetto Alchemist refers to above where these large nuggets come from in Australia are the result of coral deposits where these large reefs have risen and been subjected to celestial influences for milenia, and what is coral made of?... the area where I collect iron concretions in limestone is in the great permian basin area of the US that used to be the bottom of the ocean. Earlier you stated :
Well, I won't argue the astral/etheric origin of the prima materia, since I agree with that.
But there do exist vessels more equipped to accumulate it.
For example, Paracelsus mentions lemon balm and human blood, but, of course, doesn't
mention the corresponding mineral.
Of course he mentions it, he wraught his alkahest from it, it is limestone!!! Not from silica... also he mentions in his books making a stone from mineral ore bodies: the vitriols, the pyrites, the cinabar, the arsenic and marcasites as well as from the nitrogen family metalliods: bismuth and antimony especially where they occur together in ore bodies we also always find gold, but he never gives a process from silicates or quartz in his later writting however he said in reagard to true alchemy :
Now, here note that Nature has distributed its mineral sperm into various kinds, as, for instance, into sulphurs, salts, boraxes, nitres, ammoniacs, alums, arsenics, atraments, vitriols, tutias, haematites, orpiments, realgars, magnesias, cinnabar, antimony, talc, cachymia, marcasites, etc. In all these Nature has not yet attained to our matter; although in some of the species named it displays itself in a wonderful aspect for the transmutation of imperfect metals that are to be brought to perfection. Truly, long experience and practice with fire shew many and various permutations in the matter of minerals, not only from one colour to another, but from one essence to another, and from imperfection to perfection. And, although Nature has, by means of prepared minerals, reached some perfection, yet philosophers will not have it that the matter of the philosophic stone proceeds out of any of the minerals, although they say that their stone is universal..

Furthermore, if we read the classics the only reference we find to silicates if we follow the clues because they are also well hidden, they are always in regard to an appropriate vessel, and by "vessel" they do not mean in the sense that the virtue(spiritus mundi) behind the stone was born from this "vessel" but only because it is the only suitable material good to hold it the issue here is the resistance to ingressibility of the spirutus mundi into the container and contain-a-bility of such subtlelty if you will and this only to certain extent, in certain texts we are informed if we multiply the stone past a certain point it will run through every glass not just silicate glass, but any glass. Also please don't not take that I am attacking or trying to invalidate your work, I know you work with many materials and your focus has gone from mineral to mineral and material to material and you work as well on the spiritual path but I have still seen very little in trying to apply spirit to laboratory alchemy without returning to the use of minerals, my only aim was to present an alternative viewpoint, threads like these seem to get people stuck on materials and minerals again and put the emphasis on the wrong place.

rogerc
08-19-2011, 01:09 AM
Carissimi Fratres Rogerus

Gratias vobis ago for your attempts at setting out the tenets of the iter ad perfectionem rei. You mentioned concentrated moonlight on moistened Fuller's Earth, and the geometric configuration of certain glasses (although I'm not sure that ingress was the correct term). Am I correct in assuming based on my reading of your posts that you are advocating a model based on vibrational resonances or reordering of materials due to similar within the spiritus-mundi?
I am advocating the use where materials or minerals are involved in not trying to dissect them or corrode them or break them down to get at the kernel of truth that is in fact inseperable from them as with the use of acids or gross chemistry as in spageric fashion but to use them in the manner that the ancients intended in an artistic sense to create a suitable matrix or magnet for the spiritus mundi, the only true transmuter and ingresser into metals and the cheif component of the philosophic stone. As I tryed to convey to you in the past I am also not interested in trying to redefine alchemy through the lens of current scientific thought, so I don't approve on the use of terms like, wavelength, spectrum, photon, we don't need to follow any protocol that requires the use of light to attract the spiritus mundi, electricity or any energy transference in the way we are familiar with in the normal or everyday sense,
Fulcanelli said once:

You will obtain confirmation of it by discovering, in the midst of the igneous water, or of this earthly heaven, according to the typical expression of Wenceslaus Lavinus of Moravia, the hermetic sun, centric and radiant, made manifest, visible, and obvious.

Catch a ray of sun, condense it into a substantial form, nourish this corporified spiritual fire with elemental fire, and you will possess the greatest treasure of this world.


..... but while on the subject, the only strata that is appropriate for capturing a ray of sunlight is the darkness itself, what really is the light if not darkness wound up to the point of incandensence? The capturing of an image requires light however the developing of that image occurs in the dark, both are needed or there is no image, the same goes for philosophy, so it speaks little to the particles or waves that make up light in a scientific sense and more to the interaction of the two media have amongst each other in a philosophic sense . We can pull the a similar quote from the Dujols commentarty on the Mutus Liber an appropriate matter here because seemingly they had the same teacher and thus the same ideas, although they may not have understood the implications in their totally at the time that they wrote:
Certain authors, and not the lesser ones, have pretended that the greatest operatory artifice consists in capturing a solar ray, and to imprison it in a flask closed with the seal of Hermes. This gross image has caused rejection of the operation as something ridiculous and impossible. And yet, it is literally true, to the degree that the image coincides with reality. It is moreover unbelievable that one should not have thought of it. This miracle is accomplished in a way by the photographer when he makes use of a sensitive plate which one prepares in different ways. In the Typus Mundi, edited in the 17th century by the Fr. of the Society of Jesus, one sees an apparatus, described also by Tiphaigne de Laroche, by means of which one can steal the Heavenly fire and fix it. One can no longer say that the procedure is scientific, and we candidly declare that we are here revealing, if not a great mystery, at least its application to practical philosophy

This method and others to condense S.M. however are the purist methods and require no tangible matter as a support, but solomon wishes not to discuss them here, and they should be kept secret anyway.



Have you ever heard of Emmens (http://journal.borderlands.com/1997/americas-amazing-alchemist/)? If so what is your opinion of his work, especially his thoughts on slow cooling lava flows?

Yes I have heard of his work but never the spin on the use of limestone, but it stands to reason, and the work briefly parallels my own, however the aim of his always seemed more archemic than alchemic to me after all he was trying to do exactly what Fulcanelli described as archemy:
As for archemists,
they formed a special category, more restricted, more obscure also, among the ancient
chemists. The aim which they pursued presented some analogy with that of the
alchemists, but the materials and the means which they had at their disposal were
uniquely chemical materials and means. To transmute metals into one another, to produce
gold and silver from coarse minerals, or from saline metallic compounds, to force the
gold potentially contained in silver and the silver potentially contained in tin to become
real and extractable, was what the archemist had in mind. In the final analysis, he was a
spagyrist confined to the mineral realm and who voluntarily neglected animal
quintessences and vegetable alkaloids.
We can say without a doubt this was what he was doing because he required the use of mexican silver which was not pure and still contained a seed of gold as all silver naturally contains in nature.

Rueb
08-19-2011, 01:41 AM
So what do all these matters have in common? What principals do they follow?
The most obvious for me is their geometric order.

http://www.luc.edu/faculty/spavko1/minerals/tom.htm
http://www.luc.edu/faculty/spavko1/minerals/prelims/plato/plato-main.htm

vega33
08-19-2011, 07:29 PM
As I tryed to convey to you in the past I am also not interested in trying to redefine alchemy through the lens of current scientific thought, so I don't approve on the use of terms like, wavelength, spectrum, photon, we don't need to follow any protocol that requires the use of light to attract the spiritus mundi, electricity or any energy transference in the way we are familiar with in the normal or everyday sense,

OK, never mind, I thought you might actually be willing to have a normal conversation without putting your blinders on. Obviously I was mistaken. It seems you don't "approve" of pretty much anything conceptually beyond the 1500s, and that is a pretty dangerous position to be in. Have you not heard the axiom that "whosoever ignores the means of destroying metals also ignores the means of perfecting them", and therefore the artist in some works decomposes what Nature has done in order to eventually obtain the metallic seed?


.... but while on the subject, the only strata that is appropriate for capturing a ray of sunlight is the darkness itself, what really is the light if not darkness wound up to the point of incandensence? The capturing of an image requires light however the developing of that image occurs in the dark, both are needed or there is no image, the same goes for philosophy, so it speaks little to the particles or waves that make up light in a scientific sense and more to the interaction of the two media have amongst each other in a philosophic sense .

I disagree with you here, as I have done works before that differ from this and prove themselves through results. I think that personally you are simply arbitrarily trying to push a particular perspective here to emphasise the paradox of light versus darkness, and while that's wonderful and all, darkness is clearly not the only way to capture a ray of sunlight. You mention the photographic camera - the silver emulsion is affected by the light, but the SOLE and ONLY reason darkness is involved consists in selectively applying the light to a medium, rather than allowing other light - which is everywhere, ubiquitous, as the great Tablet of Hermes points out - to expose the film at the same time, or to continue exposing the film long enough to change the entire thing to a state where only white can be developed.

Also, the development of images does not occur in total darkness, in fact low frequency (red) filtered light is used in the darkroom while handling the film. This comes back to my point earlier - certain chemical reactions are often catalyzed only by light higher than a specific frequency - at lower frequencies no matter what the intensity of the light it does not cause a reaction. This is how a darkroom works. Does this not suggest to us that frequency, paired with geometry, is key in all experiments aiming to manipulate/grow matter? Leon Sprink seems to have demonstrated the veracity of this already with his experiments.

While we're on the topic of light, did you know it is used as a communications medium between cells, separately from the other communications mediums such as ions or peptides? Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophoton) is a link to some information about it. Ultra weak photon (OMG I said it again!) emission, a "light that shines in darkness" (just as you could interpret ultraviolet light the same way), within ones-self. Did not the great Fulcanelli quote the author of La lumiere, as follows:


"It is in light’s nature", said the author of a famous book (11), "to not be able to appear to our eyes without being clothed with a body of some kind, and this body must also be appropriate to receiving light; therefore where light is there must necessarily also be the vehicle of this light. Here is the easiest means to not err. Look then, with the light of your spirit, for the light clothed with darkness, and learn from it that the most vile of all subjects in the ignoramus’ opinion".

Even this great author admits a body is needed for it to be perceptible - this is essentially what photons are, and why their perception in our physical body is associated with what is essentially an organic photomultiplier within our brain. Energy in order to clothe itself with a body must essentially oppose itself - whereas the state of aether or void is essentially a unification and non-opposition, a homogeneity, a body is a dishomogeneity within the field of space, and spin/constant energy flux is what keeps the body from disintegrating or uniting again with the field of space.

This of course does not preclude the possibility that the energy which we call electromagnetic does not exist when we are not perceiving it with our measuring devices as a unified, homogeneous medium which some call the aether. The fact of the existence of human consciousness is proof enough that an intelligent force directs this energy of light, and it was for such reasons that the mysticism of Meister Eckhart could say such things as "The eye with which I see God is the same with which God sees me. My eye and God's eye is one eye, and one sight, and one knowledge, and one love." There is a whole hidden mysticism of optics that existed in parallel with Western mysticism and alchemy for quite a long time, and not without good reason. The supreme revelator was also called "The Father of Lights", and the mysteries spoke of the "3 Greater Lights" - sun, moon and MERCURY, associated with the glyph of a star - interesting, ne c'est pas?

solomon levi
08-22-2011, 06:44 PM
Hi Solomon there is too much to answer here and it does seem too diffuse plus you seem to have your own ideas which seem to be unshakable for the moment, which I respect, so I am sure you will follow them to the point you have exhausted every avenue before you abondon them and turn towards subtler truths, that is a path everyone seems doomed to take irregardless of all the warnings that were written by the philosophers so with the time I have so I'll just try to be as brief as I can.

Hi rogerc!
I honestly don't mean to be "unshakeable". I just don't think the arguments are any better than the silicate argument.
Sure, again, I agree on the more subtle path, or most subtlest path :) but yes, I do see many paths and not just one worth elaborating.
There are many ways to work with the most subtle SM, many magnets. I just think some are better than others. The martial regulus
is one, quartz is one, limestone is one. This is a post about quartz, so.... :) For example, the Great Pyramid is a wonderful magnet
for the subtle secret fire. It is made of limestone, but with strategically placed granite (which is quartz, feldspar and mica - mostly quartz).
So I think we're talking Reese's here ("you got your peanut butter in my chocolate - you got your chocolate in my peanut butter").
Ok. I get your argument with quartz as ore of gold, sort of - but I have never argued that as a case for the prima. But I would argue
that the mantle being a silicate is a case for the prima, although not THE subtlest prima, but the/a mineral subject which with to begin the work.
I suppose I do seem unshakeable about that, but it's damn hard evidence - harder than limestone and iron sulfides. Although, as I have said,
I wouldn't argue that one can follow a path with these as well. I would only argue which is more near to the "source"/prima. Looking at the mantle
and watching it morph into the crust, and watching that morph and weather into the gemstones and metal ores is very convincing evidence.
No one can argue rationally that granite comes from iron sulfides or limestone. The limestone comes from the feldspar (from the granite). It is
progeny, not mother/matrix. Same with sulfides - it's just not logical. So i am not unshakeable in any unreasonable, dogmatic way. I am open-minded,
weighing the options without prejudice. :) I have yet to meet a better candidate for matrix than silicates.
While on that subject, I read something probably most are unaware of, so i'll share it. I thought it fascinating coming from a geologist and sounding
like alchemy. The book is something like "geology of washington state". But the author uses this analogy: he says that basalt is to peridotite as
if you had a flavored popsicle and you sucked all the flavor out and the popsicle was just white ice - the juice is the basalt. Anyway, I thought that
was interesting.


... so what if silicates are the matrix for gold formation how does the make its use suitable towards the alchemy?

??? How does it not? I think you sometimes use a very specific definition of alchemy, perhaps as the most subtle. My definition is broader.
Extremely broad. The subtle and the dense are simply the above and the below. The most subtle is found everywhere, with everything.
Anyway, it may not be true, pure alchemy - SM and light and all - but if you have the matrix, you can plant seeds in it. That's also alchemy.
I'm not real particular about those definitions. The fact is, people get into alchemy to a) understand nature, b) make medicine, c) make gold/$.
So archemy and spagyrics and even chemistry can do those things to a degree as well. So when Fulcanelli gave that purist definition of
alchemy that everyone now parrots, I don't see the big deal. It's still nature, medicine and money - just the most subtle parts. That doesn't mean
to cast away the dregs as worthless.
And i also want to mention, from the subtle perspective, our SM is not this, not that - not in the periodic table, not dew or alkali or antimony
or water or electricity or magnetism... but always accompanies them because of its magnetic virtue (not alone - antimony). This "energy" has
another dimension to it as well that the art of light must not neglect. This energy is "psycho-energetic". It is magnetised to mind, imagination.
So when we go there, which we must, who can tell who what is and isn't SM when SM responds to mind/imagination? How does one know that it
can't be dirt for somebody, or sea salt, or silicates, or whatever? To presuppose such is to cast a limitation on God and the genius of man. And to
do so is also to NOT understand the very thing we claim to know - the SM. One can produce the stone from mind alone. Or mind can act on dirt
or water or an empty vessel or pyrites, etc.... Is that not true my friend?




Of course he mentions it, he wraught his alkahest from it, it is limestone!!! Not from silica...

:) I meant he didn't mention it openly like he did the others. He "mentions" lots of things! :)


also he mentions in his books making a stone from mineral ore bodies: the vitriols, the pyrites, the cinabar, the arsenic and marcasites as well as from the nitrogen family metalliods: bismuth and antimony especially where they occur together in ore bodies we also always find gold, but he never gives a process from silicates or quartz in his later writting however he said in reagard to true alchemy...

Okay, but that IS or was the point of this thread - that no one mentions quartz. Not my argument, but i follow it. If they're not allowed to
mention it, or in agreement not to, then quartz is a good candidate. I have other arguments for quartz, as i've supplied. Of course, not mentioning
something is not the strongest argument. They don't mention horse poop either but.... oh wait. they do! :) Just having fun.



Furthermore, if we read the classics the only reference we find to silicates if we follow the clues because they are also well hidden, they are always in regard to an appropriate vessel...

So John French, Glauber, Tugel and Golden Chain of Homer are not classics?? You have more reading to do. :)


Also please don't not take that I am attacking or trying to invalidate your work, I know you work with many materials and your focus has gone from mineral to mineral and material to material and you work as well on the spiritual path but I have still seen very little in trying to apply spirit to laboratory alchemy without returning to the use of minerals, my only aim was to present an alternative viewpoint, threads like these seem to get people stuck on materials and minerals again and put the emphasis on the wrong place.

No problem. Absolutely. :) Thanks for mentioning it, but I am not reading any attack in your words. I really respect your views and would like
to learn more from you, especially about the subtle. I am getting more subtle. I'm shifting most of my attention from silicates to orgone, and in
that we have not only mineral vessels, but also the human vessel, breathing/prana/chi, and magick/imagination/radionics. This area really
dwells on the archetypes or the true energies beyond the elements. Reich established the four step - tension, charge, discharge, relaxation.
Such is breathing, and also pH swings, or multiple firings/fusion, or chemical reactions, or electrolysis, or alternating layers of organic and
inorganic, or varying degrees of dielectricity, or fire and water, air and earth, saturn and jupiter, sex magick, hatha yoga, etc, etc....
This is where most of my focus lies. Silicates/sand and quartz crystals are powerful orgone accumulators, as is salt water. But there are many.
I just mention these because we shouldn't dismiss or thumb our noses at the dense "steels" that attract our magnet.
For example, many dismiss m-state/ormus based on Hudson or whatever. But look at it from an orgone point of view: Reich already established that
sea salt is an extraordinary orgone accumulator. Then we have the pH swing AND the chemical reaction of acid and base - both orgone accumulators.
Adding alkali to acid creates tension, increases charge, charge is released and relaxation (precipitation) follows...
There was also an interesting work by Frances Nixon which has been verified by others. She placed sea salt in one container and baking soda
in another (these could easily be the ingredients for m-state/ormus precip). If the sea salt is placed in the west and the baking soda in the east,
one gets a nice bridge between them of positive orgone. :)

Nibiru
08-22-2011, 07:18 PM
I am getting more subtle. I'm shifting most of my attention from silicates to orgone, and in
that we have not only mineral vessels, but also the human vessel, breathing/prana/chi, and magick/imagination/radionics. This area really
dwells on the archetypes or the true energies beyond the elements. Reich established the four step - tension, charge, discharge, relaxation.
Such is breathing, and also pH swings, or multiple firings/fusion, or chemical reactions, or electrolysis, or alternating layers of organic and
inorganic, or varying degrees of dielectricity, or fire and water, air and earth, saturn and jupiter, sex magick, hatha yoga, etc, etc....
This is where most of my focus lies. Silicates/sand and quartz crystals are powerful orgone accumulators, as is salt water. But there are many.
I just mention these because we shouldn't dismiss or thumb our noses at the dense "steels" that attract our magnet.
For example, many dismiss m-state/ormus based on Hudson or whatever. But look at it from an orgone point of view: Reich already established that
sea salt is an extraordinary orgone accumulator. Then we have the pH swing AND the chemical reaction of acid and base - both orgone accumulators.
Adding alkali to acid creates tension, increases charge, charge is released and relaxation (precipitation) follows...
There was also an interesting work by Frances Nixon which has been verified by others. She placed sea salt in one container and baking soda
in another (these could easily be the ingredients for m-state/ormus precip). If the sea salt is placed in the west and the baking soda in the east,
one gets a nice bridge between them of positive orgone. :)

I like the connections you've made between orgone and ormus drops, firings, etc. It appears everything is truly an expression of Yin and Yang and the balance between them. I can feel the orgone energy field quite intense at times while precipitating m-states. This field seems much stronger than my cone shaped orgone devices I've made, which are quite effective themselves. Would you mind sharing the links to Frances Nixon's work if you have it? Thanks :)

solomon levi
08-24-2011, 05:27 PM
I like the connections you've made between orgone and ormus drops, firings, etc. It appears everything is truly an expression of Yin and Yang and the balance between them. I can feel the orgone energy field quite intense at times while precipitating m-states. This field seems much stronger than my cone shaped orgone devices I've made, which are quite effective themselves. Would you mind sharing the links to Frances Nixon's work if you have it? Thanks :)

Greetings Nibiru!
I read about Frances Nixon, and many others in the same field, in a book called
"Earth Energies" :
http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Energies-Quest-Hidden-Planet/dp/0835606821

Oh - here's googlebooks. The Chapter is "Vivaxis".
http://books.google.com/books?id=qqnEtTMSaxwC&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=Frances+Nixon+vivaxis&source=bl&ots=pstgIndL00&sig=vAT2hp2mQ2NMwrabKYB4Mp_ILwo&hl=en&ei=VjJVTorjHcPQiAKMlZHzDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Frances%20Nixon%20vivaxis&f=false

solomon levi
10-06-2011, 07:12 PM
Hi Rogerc.
I was feeling last night that this was left undone.
May i ask you, do you think it is impossible to make a virgin earth receptacle for SM from a silicate?
You mention Fulcanelli's way of the poor with clay, which is a silicate.
You mention quicklime is "living", but the 'living' (Eve means living) also came from red clay (Adamah),
which red clay is and will always be a silicate - all clays are alumino-silicates.
Do you think a silicate can be prepared to receive the SM?

rogerc
10-06-2011, 11:11 PM
Hi Rogerc.
I was feeling last night that this was left undone.
May i ask you, do you think it is impossible to make a virgin earth receptacle for SM from a silicate?
You mention Fulcanelli's way of the poor with clay, which is a silicate.
You mention quicklime is "living", but the 'living' (Eve means living) also came from red clay (Adamah),
which red clay is and will always be a silicate - all clays are alumino-silicates.
Do you think a silicate can be prepared to receive the SM?

Yes I mentioned the way of the poor but it is not for the silicate that clay can be substituted for the sulfur of gold, read well this passage from Dwellings of The Philosophers:


Our two vases appear well defined, clearly marked and in absolute agreement with the
precepts of hermetic theory. One is the vase o nature made of the same red clay God used
to form the body of Adam with. The other is the case of the art, whose entire material is
composed of pure, clear, red, incombustible, fixed, and diaphanous gold, of an
incomparable brightness. And these are our two vessels which truly represent only two
distinct bodies containing the metallic spirits, the only agents we need(The only physcial agents).
If the reader is acquainted with the traditional manner of writing of the philosophers ---
which manner we try to imitate correctly so that the Ancients can be explained through us
and se we can be controlled by them, it will be easier for him to understand what the
hermeticists meant by vessels. For these vessels represent not only two matters, or rather
one matter in two states of its evolution("unless you prefer to use iron, whose specific sulphur is, of all the metals, the one for which gold manifests the greatest affinity".), but they also symbolize our two ways based on the use of these different bodies.
The first of these ways which uses the vase of the art is time-consuming, painstaking,
thankless, accessible to wealthy people, but is in a place of great honor in spite of the
expenditures it entails, because it is the one which authors preferably describe. It s used
as a support for their reasoning as well as for the theoretical development of the Work,
requires an uninterrupted labor of twelve to eighteen months, and starts with natural gold
prepared and dissolved in the philosophical mercury which is then cooked in a glass
matrass. This is the honorable vase reserved for noble use of these precious substances
which are the exalted gold (exalted gold is the sulfur of gold)and mercury of the sages.
The second way demands, from beginning to end, only the help of a coarse clay
abundantly available, of such a low cost that in our time ten francs are sufficient to
acquire a quantity more than enough for our needs. It is the clay and the way of the poor,
of the simple and the modest, of those whom nature fills with wonder even by her most
humble manifestations. Extremely easy, it only requires the presence of the artist, for the
mysterious labor perfects itself by itself and is achieved in seven to nine days at the most.
This way, unknown to the majority of practicing alchemists, is elaborated from start to
finish in one crucible made of fireproof clay. It is the way that the great masters called
woman’s work and child’s play; it is to it that they apply the old hermetic axiom: una res,
una via, una dispositione. One matter, one vessel, one furnace. Such is our earthen vase, a
despised, plain vase of common use, "which everyone has before his eyes, which costs
nothing, which can be found at everyone’s house, yet which nonce can recognize without
a revelation".
Panel 9 --- Cut through its middle, a snake, in spite of the fatal nature of its wound, yet
believes itself able to survive for a long time in this sate:
.DVM.SPIRO.SPERABO.
He is made to say:
As long as I breath, I hope.
The serpent-like image of mercury, by its two sections, represents the two parts of the
dissolved metal which will become fixed later, one by the other, and whose joining will
give it its new nature, its physical individuality, its efficiency.
For the sulphur and mercury of metals, when extracted and isolated under the
disintegrating energy of our first agent, or secret solvent, on their own by simple contact
are reduced to the form of a viscous oil --- a fatty and coagulable smoothness which the
ancients called metallic humid radical and mercury of the sages. It is evident from this
that it can logically be considered as representing a liquefied and reincrudated metal, i.e.,
artificially put back into a state close to its original form..... now put in the proper context, here he is speaking of the refractory envelope or vase/ vessel that will serve as a vechicle for SM in the mineral alchemy to form the philosophers stone, in otherwords he allows for two methods 1) We get SM or PH. Mercury we add to the gold, he calcines the gold in the manner explained (ice in warm water) he exhalts the gold to the level of astral stone, here he uses the more cocted sulfur of gold, this is the way reserved for the rich because only they can afford it. 2) The way of the poor, we still need to get SM or PH. Mercury and we cook it in a clay ballon, or the SM enters "mysteriously" after about nine days the ballon cracks revealing its plebian majesty when the Ph. Mercury/SM has united with the specific sulfur of the iron of the clay thereby ruining its molecular structure
Panel 4 --- Closed by its narrow lid, with a fat albeit split belly, a common clay pot fills with its plebian and cracked majesty the surface of this panel. Its inscription states that the vase of which we see the image, must open by itself and manifest by its destruction
the completion of that which it holds:
.INTVS.SOLA.FIENT.MANIFESTA.RVINA.
Only the inside makes the ruin manifest..... here the SM/Ph. Mercury, instead of being united to the specific sulfur of gold(as the refractory envelope), the less cocted sulfur of iron is implied , it was not for nothing that Fulcanelli kept saying this sulfur was more plentiful than that of gold only less mature, eariler in the book he goes into an exposition on iron and even give a spagerical process on iron and show how to separate its mercury and sulfur.These sulfurs are only going to give us our contingency of metallic spirits, we still need the universal one in order to have any action, this SM therfore is not in the clay, if he was he would have already reincrudated the iron to reach his sulfur and made gold, the furthest it can go in the earth with the gross elements impeding. He gives notice of this here:
Therefore the affinity establishing the profound chemical identity of these
bodies, it is logical to think that the same spirit, used in the same conditions, will bring
about the same effects. This is what happens with iron and gold which are bound by a
close affinity. When Mexican prospectors come to discover a sandy, very red earth
composed mostly of iron oxide, they conclude that gold is not very far away.
Consequently they regard this red earth as the matrix and the mother of gold(they regard, not us we know the sulfur is the father and the mercury is the mother, moreover we know this mercury comes from a different place), and the best
indication of a nearby gold vein. This fact seems rather unusual, given the physical
differences of these metals. In the category of common metallic bodies, gold is the rarest
among them; iron, by contrast, is certainly the most common, the one that is found
everywhere, not only in mines where it forms enormous and numerous deposits but also
disseminated on the very surface of the ground. Clay owes to iron its special coloration,
sometimes yellow when iron is found divided as a hydrate, sometimes red when it is in
the form of sequioxide, a color which is further intensified by baking (as in bricks, tiles
and pottery). Of all the classified ores, iron pyrite is the most common and the best
known. The black ferruginous masses in variously sized balls, in shell-like
agglomerations, in nodules, are often encountered in fields, on the sides of paths, in
chalky terrain. Country children often play with these marcasites which show a fibrous
crystalline radiating texture when they are broken. Sometimes they contain small
quantities of gold. Meteorites, chiefly composed of molten magnetic iron, prove that the
interplanetary masses from which they come primarily owe their structure to iron. Certain
vegetables contain assimilable iron (wheat, watercress, lentils, beans, potatoes). Man and
vertebrates owe to iron and to gold the red coloration of their blood. Indeed, iron salts
constitute the active element of hemoglobin. They are even so necessary to organic
vitality that medicine and pharmacopoeia have at all times sought for ways to give
impoverished blood the metallic compounds needed for its reconstitution (iron peptonate
and carbonate). Common people still use water rendered ferruginous by the immersion of
oxidized nails. Finally, iron salts present such a variety of colorations that we can be
assured that they would suffice to reproduce all the tonalities of the spectrum, from violet
which is the actual color of the our metal, all the way to intense red, the color that it gives
to silica in various kinds of rubies and garnets.

Now if clay rich in iron serves as the "metallic spirit of sulfur" then where comes from our contingency of metallic spirit of mercury? To make the stone or even gold we need our red man and his white wife, as you say above:
You mention quicklime is "living", but the 'living' (Eve means living) also came from red clay (Adamah), what mineral body then is this "virginal" fatty body which serves as the doorway for the dew of heaven , the astral spirit? Of course there is not just one but we need to recognize moreover we need to know the affinites of the different bodies for each others metallic spirits so that we can correctly identify which are "lunar"(rob sulfur) and which are "solar"(rob mercury). But, it is not just that, we can work in other kingdoms, or in a universal way which does not need the bodies at all, then we can see the truth behind nature, it is not these matters that give these spirits, they only specify themselves therein. Now in light of all this,....Paracelsus being a true philosopher, do you think it strange he wrought his alkahest(mercury) out of limestone and not silica?(like limestone when properly prepared, does it not incise deeply into metals? do we see this action with silica? (see note below)
Or does it seem congruous to the principles implied when we make a deeper study of nature?

N.B. Moreover we see that limestone was the basis for the very profitable archemic process: The Gold of the Two Cementations that Fulcanelli discusses when speaking of Vincent De Paul and he said this process although highly archemic did make use of one of the laws of alchemy of which I perhaps will make a thread on a later time. Another one that uses it I already spoke of here: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2112-the-mysteries-in-limestone reply #2 and although the experiment here is not complete and not-profitable its basis is sound .

solomon levi
10-07-2011, 08:41 PM
Thanks Rogerc.
I get the sulphur part - iron/gold. I've understood that for some time.
Silicates, being the most abundant matrix on earth, make sense to be the mercury part
as all these tinctures/sulphurs are found therewith. Nature is speaking here.
They are not the most abundant and common by accident. Something is being said if we will listen.

Limestone is also a mercury/matrix, and as you say there are others (not just one).

I appreciate your generous reply, but I asked one question twice which you did not directly answer.
I would have been happy with a 'yes' or 'no' this time. :)

I may not know exactly what you mean by "incise". Bite into. I imagine it is the way that
any alkali will draw the tincture of a metal, as Starkey well-proved.
Alkahest = alkali-est.
Certainly there are plenty of alkali silicates.
Do I misunderstand "incise"?

rogerc
10-07-2011, 10:29 PM
Thanks Rogerc.
I get the sulphur part - iron/gold. I've understood that for some time.
Silicates, being the most abundant matrix on earth, make sense to be the mercury part
as all these tinctures/sulphurs are found therewith. Nature is speaking here.
They are not the most abundant and common by accident. Something is being said if we will listen.

Limestone is also a mercury/matrix, and as you say there are others (not just one).

I appreciate your generous reply, but I asked one question twice which you did not directly answer.
I would have been happy with a 'yes' or 'no' this time. :)

I may not know exactly what you mean by "incise". Bite into. I imagine it is the way that
any alkali will draw the tincture of a metal, as Starkey well-proved.
Alkahest = alkali-est.
Certainly there are plenty of alkali silicates.
Do I misunderstand "incise"?

A simple answer....ok......The answer is no!.....If our mercury was there together in the clay with the sulfur, then clay would already be a pretty good ore of gold and so plentiful that it would be worthless,no?
Read here what Salazius says on the SM thread:
The status of vitrification is the last one in the , sequence of matter.
When SM touches "glass"/vitrificated substance, nothing happens at first : why ?
Because :
1 - the vitrification implies that all the doors of the "glass" are closed because of its "crystallisation" state.2 - the ingress of the SM is not strong enough in order to penetrate glass/vitrified material, and thus stay as it is.

Only after multiplication (well the classics say only after 7 or 9 multiplications will glass not be able to contain it anymore) it is able to be in the state ingress, and because of it's powers/ingress and particularly of its closeness of the state of glass it can penetrate glass and go into its structure.

Since the moment SM do not penetrate and mix with a sulfur, there is no specification to a kingdom whatsoever

About the above he couldn't be anymore correct, silicates because of their molecular crystalization state don't allow for ingress into the metalloid's sulfur (in this case silicon).

Solomon,.... its for the same logic that a glass is the only thing proper to perform our work in, otherwise the very container we would be doing our cocting in would become determental to our experiment. That is why for me silicates was the first subject I could logically eliminate.
Moreover, it is for that reason that when SM is caught in a glass it stays pure, the molecular configuration doesn't allow ingressability into the atoms of silicon, now apply that logic to the clay ballon which is not vitrified...if we put SM into the clay ballon it would ingress and seek out and unite with the sulfur of the iron and make the stone.

And what of the silicates in the clay, why didn't SM penetrate them instead of the iron? Oh yeah, could it be for the same reason? And it is for this same reason that silicates don't incise into metals, for work in archemy and get at their mercury and sulfur to effect change, their systems are closed, they do not let anything in or out, thats why they make good containers. Especially when reading an exposition on nature don't confuse "vessel" for container.

For me its really philosophically a dead matter to work on, and I am tired of beating a dead horse. I wish you well with silicates, Solomon. Adieu :)

solomon levi
10-07-2011, 10:53 PM
Adieu? Really?

I follow your logic. Thank you.
But silicates are not vitrified. Remember, clay is a silicate?
Why do you confuse the two?

ghetto alchemist
10-08-2011, 05:50 AM
RogerC says: "I am tired of beating a dead horse"

Me too, but here I go again.
Mother nature has already shown us her best effort yet to make gold in the welcome stranger nugget.
It was a quartz gold matrix surrounded by red clay.

This is already inpartial agreement with RogerC as he says:

"(as the refractory envelope), the less cocted sulfur of iron is implied"
When she made the welcome stranger nugget, Mother nature did in fact make a refractory envelope with the "sulfur of iron"

RogerC also says:

"Moreover, it is for that reason that when SM is caught in a glass it stays pure, the molecular configuration doesn't allow ingressability into the atoms of silicon,"
This is exactly the reason why quartz is the material, any SM caught in the crystal molecular structure of quartz crystal must stay there locked in place unable to escape. It is the genie caught in a glass bottle, remaining trapped in its prison until the artist breaks the glass to let him out.

Nicolas Flamel knew the entire process and equipment needed, yet he still floundered in the dark with no success for several decades, simply because he never knew what substance to start operating on. What a shame for him that rogerC was not around in Flamels time. Could have saved poor flamel a shitload of trouble by simply telling him that you don't need to start operating on any substance, your substance will magically appear inside a red clay vessel. The magical substance will in fact congeal inside a red clay vessel, but this is only half the story. The artist must still provide a source for the magical substance to emerge out of.

The substance which provides the source is none other than the pure crystal of quartz.

But really, is there anyone who would be surprised about that mystics and energy sensitives have known about latent magical powers within quartz crystal for a long time. Even the most skeptical scientists will point out how quartz crystal is very special because of the piezo effect and its ability to vibrate with precision when electricity is appled to it.
Native peoples have also venerated it because when you bang or rub quartz crystals together they will give off light.
I think just about everyone no matter how faithful or skeptical would have to concede that quartz crystal is a pretty amazing substance. So what is the surprise when it turns out to be the first substance of art?

Anyway it is all irrelevant because while people can argue with my words, you can't argue with mother nature.
The biggest chunk of gold was produced by nature from white quartz and red clay.
Argue with that if you can....... but please stop telling mother nature how you think she should make gold.

Instead simply look to the example of her biggest success in gold generation, and learn, because all of her secrets are there.

rogerc
10-08-2011, 06:49 AM
This is exactly the reason why quartz is the material, any SM caught in the crystal molecular structure of quartz crystal must stay there locked in place unable to escape. It is the genie caught in a glass bottle, remaining trapped in its prison until the artist breaks the glass to let him out.


And? ......Then by your own admission your logic becomes flawed, if it is locked and unable to escape(I'm glad we agree!)... then how does it act on the sulfur of the iron? Thats assuming it ever got in, because if it is locked one way it is locked both ways.... Do you have any working knowledge of alchemy past the rhetorical? It is no other question than a purely logical one. Like I said above, if clay contains silicates which are ground up quartz crystals then why isn't clay riddled with gold and why is it worth over $1700 an ounce if silicates are the source of SM it should be that plentiful enough to make gold worthless.


What a shame for him that rogerC was not around in Flamels time. Could have saved poor flamel a shitload of trouble by simply telling him that you don't need to start operating on any substance, your substance will magically appear inside a red clay vessel. The magical substance will in fact congeal inside a red clay vessel, but this is only half the story. The artist must still provide a source for the magical substance to emerge out of.

The substance which provides the source is none other than the pure crystal of quartz
About this process...You should not dream! Until you have a practical working knowledge and know by what reason things are as they are, archemy=making gold...alchemy=making the stone...big difference....the process implied here will not work like that, it requires a training highly occult in nature about which nothing is ever been written...read again Fulcanelli's description....this method requires the presence of the artist, and it is the only one that does! The artist makes the SM to enter into the work in an occult manner, the other methods do not require the presence of the artist no matter how much fools dream that their minds are influencing the results, if we put nature in a position in which where its laws can be applied then for these other methods that is all that is needed.

As for the rest of the rhetoricians and silicateers... squeeze a quartz crystal all you want you will never get our dry water, this is not what is implied by the oak tree in alchemy, it is a fools path for a fools errand, designed by God to lead all those who lust for gold away from the right road ;)

Nibiru
10-08-2011, 07:17 AM
Is it possible that the substance(mercury) could "magically appear inside a red clay vessel" under the right conditions, or be extracted from quartz, silica, sand, or other potential substances in a more specified form? Maybe there's a way to find unity to the alternative answers that are being offered??

rogerc
10-08-2011, 08:12 AM
Is it possible that the substance(mercury) could "magically appear inside a red clay vessel" under the right conditions, or be extracted from quartz, silica, sand, or other potential substances in a more specified form? Maybe there's a way to find unity to the alternative answers that are being offered??

Specified=archemy=gold.......universal=SM=alchemy= philosophic stone ... I don't know how much clearer I could make it.
We cannot use silica to even get to the level of the archemy, so how would it ever make it to the level of the alchemy? Since they are grounded in the same philosophical laws, lets get past the level of making assumptions and apply the laws if we are going to have a serious discussion, all I keep hearing is what if? what if? Its like having a discussion with an irrational child who keeps saying what if. The natural laws are laid out, if we ignore them we get nowhere.

Nibiru
10-08-2011, 09:57 AM
Specified=archemy=gold.......universal=SM=alchemy= philosophic stone ... I don't know how much clearer I could make it.
We cannot use silica to even get to the level of the archemy, so how would it ever make it to the level of the alchemy? Since they are grounded in the same philosophical laws, lets get past the level of making assumptions and apply the laws if we are going to have a serious discussion, all I keep hearing is what if? what if? Its like having a discussion with an irrational child who keeps saying what if. The natural laws are laid out, if we ignore them we get nowhere.

Thank you, I was writing my post at the same time your response to ghetto alchemist was being posted and had not read it before I asked the offending question, so I'm sorry as I may have been slightly out of context. I only thought that perhaps since at times glass/silicate is able to hold S.M. that under the right conditions that some S.M. may get captured within the crystals geometric structure while it is being formed. I'll be the first to admit that I probabally don't know what I'm talking about, that's why I usually formulate my posts in the form of questions. I'm sure the others who have posted on this topic know far more than I, as I've only recently began my work and have only been working in a universal way. I have no experience with other methods, unless you would consider m-state or water traps a form of alchemy.

I did think this was interesting: apparently scientist performed experiments on sterilized sand/silica that they had treated in a specific manner. After treated, they collected a foam that formed on the surface. That foam, even though sterilized, grew into plant formations at times, and micro-organisms at others. I'm sure it formed minerals under the right conditions too..

Here's the link for anyone who's interested: http://www.orgone.org/articles/ax2001igna01a.htm
Here's another: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread600818/pg1

I apologize for any disruptions I may have caused in this thread, I was only hoping to help our fellow researchers find a common ground but if none exists then I suppose none can be found..

-Peace

True Initiate
10-08-2011, 10:50 AM
Thank you for this Nibiru.

This is incredible... The very same thing is explained in the Opus Mago that the base sand or silica is the Virgin Earth born out of putrefied water containing the seeds of life. I am truly speechless...

solomon levi
10-08-2011, 07:02 PM
Adieu? Really?

I follow your logic. Thank you.
But silicates are not vitrified. Remember, clay is a silicate?
Why do you confuse the two?

I ran out of time again. Have to stop leaving half messages. :)

The other part of my question that Rogerc ignores due to some prejudice is that I asked if a silicate can
be prepared. Even limestone is prepared. Even limestone is determined. So he is really making no sense
in his arguments, nor is he reading closely or carefully, probably he has dismissed silicates as vitrified - which would be
an excellent argument and reasoning if it were only true.
How do we prepare our chosen subject?
It needs to become alkaline. With limestone, one can fire it from carbonate to oxide and then make quicklime.
In some cases the limestone is combined with the oak, potassium carbonate/tartar as we see in the process
on cinnabar, to eventually make KOH/ potassium hydroxide.
Well, even our vitrified sand or quartz can be PREPARED with the same salt of tartar and be made DELIQUESCENT,
that is, very porous, as our subject must be as Sendivogius and many others tell us. This deliquesced oil of sand/
sodium or potassium silicate now is not vitrified AND it contains the SM.

Now is this not sound logic?
So the answer to my question should have been, YES, a silicate can be prepared for SM.

Any arguments?

And, yes, the orgone experiments are also evidence that silicates can be prepared in a work with SM.
And yes, that crystals contain SM locked inside is a great explanation for the powers attributed to them.

Knowing one thing well (limestone) should not close the mind to other things.
This isn't beating a dead horse. This is assuming responsibility for your words and directing people
away from the truth. BOTH limestone and silicates can be prepared to receive SM, and any alkaline
deliquescent substance. It may not be the one vessel, one matter one fire path. But that doesn't
mean that an alchemist with some ingenuity cannot find a way.

And Rogerc's argument about the presence of SM turning matters to gold (sorry, sloppy paraphrase) is
also substantiated by Tugel in processes with oil of sand increasing the yield of gold. If this gold appears/multiplies,
then according to these arguments, which I agree with, SM was present.

rogerc
10-08-2011, 09:46 PM
Nice arguments guys...but I have worked with silicates enough for me, it was researchers like Solomon who insisted on them that caused me to waste countless hours on them, lead who astray? Me?.....no quite the contrary ......and the arguments well.....Reich an ...alchemist? Not for me.....but just call me a purist... ...furthermore, The Tugel experiments didn't work I invite you to try them, the SM its just not in the silica, not even a mercury metallic spirit we can reach for work in the realm of the little particulars, its somewhere else, experimentation makes this clear, I only wanted to save time for the student and put the focus on the right place by studying natural law ... even the easy to perform so called alkahest of sand/soil given in Aurea Cantea does not open gold or act on it in any way, this only comes with the observance of the natural laws and still we can do without. So, Solomon the answer is still no, I am so very sorry now you have to resort to personally attacking my views when especially it was you and you alone that asked for them, so well I don't agree with you ...does that really make me a bad guy? That you now have to present me in the light of someone who is trying to purposely lead people astray? My arguments don't make sense? So now I am either a moron or trying to lead people astray? This is exactly why I hate forums for discussion, no one wants to really discuss anything, they only want everyone to agree with them and so they single out the one guy that didn't and try to get him to agree, and when he doesn't he has to be painted in a certain light? Isn't that really why you felt this was undone? Just a thought you don't have to answer, but I already knew how this would all turn out, but I bit anyways, so think about that, what does it really say about my character....

About the oak I invite you to read again Fulcanelli,..... for those who approach the problem w/o a matter in mind, especially silica, the solution becomes very, very apparent. The true oak tree mineral becomes one that even in its gross state can support life, it is even scientifically proven and accepted by the entire community..... this is not the case of the silica experiment above, melt the sand then everything is really dead, by putting sand in water and autoclaving doesn't reach the interior lattice where these micro-organisms are locked up, the interior lattice never reaches the high temperatures in the autoclave, when the lattice is twisted enough by the repeated heating & cooling it finally cracks and this "dna material" spills out into the water and resumes its life like when it got locked up in the sand to begin with, micro-organisms are not the spiritus mundi their is nothing magic about it, its really a cheap parlor trick, convincing? Not for me, its a convinient experiment for those who want to prove a point to a room full of non-discerning individuals who already have firm pre-conceptions, if it was really true it would have been held up by the rest of the scientific community not just by a few rogue researchers. But like I said already ...everyone believe as you wish...do not allow my arguements to......lead you astray! I am already sorry I imposed my views on this thread. Now I will take a big break! Thanks for all the fish :cool:

Nibiru
10-08-2011, 10:12 PM
Hello rogerc, I'm in agreement with you about the true matter not being found in any matter in a universal state. I was only considering that since S.M. should be present in all material in one state or another, that it could by art, be extracted from most if not all matters in a specified form. I understand that specefied would equate to archemy rather than alchemy but it appears as if some are not yet attempting to work with "true" alchemy and would be more than happy extracting specified mercury from a preexisting source. If there are physical substances that do not contain S.M. in some form, I was not yet aware of this and I thank you for enlightening me towards this possibility. Also I would think that if a substance was devoid of S.M. that it would make that substance a perfect candidate as a magnet to draw the spirit. Please be patient with me, as I am still learning, and a big part of the process is asking questions. After all I am, as my signature reads, still searching...

-Thank you

solomon levi
10-08-2011, 10:21 PM
Hello rogerc, I'm in agreement with you about the true matter not being found in any matter in a universal state.

Me too. But limestone nor silicates are universal. Rogerc says 'yes' to limestone and 'no' to silicates.

Rogerc said: "the SM its just not in the silica" referring to the Tugel experiments which do not use silica.
They use sodium silicate from deliquescence. Now you want to say the SM is not in the air moisture attracted by the alkali?

solomon levi
10-08-2011, 10:29 PM
"The true oak tree mineral becomes one that even in its gross state can support life, it is even scientifically proven and accepted by the entire community..... this is not the case of the silica experiment above, melt the sand then everything is really dead, by putting sand in water and autoclaving doesn't reach the interior lattice where these micro-organisms are locked up, the interior lattice never reaches the high temperatures in the autoclave, when the lattice is twisted enough by the repeated heating & cooling it finally cracks and this "dna material" spills out into the water and resumes its life like when it got locked up in the sand to begin with, micro-organisms are not the spiritus mundi their is nothing magic about it,.."

You do not seem to understand the subject or Reich's work. The same orgone from the sand bions is in
the layers of organic/inorganic material and pyramids which produce healing, preserve foods, sharpen razor blades...
Yeah, a nice parlor trick indeed. A parlor trick not explained away by microorganisms.

rogerc
10-09-2011, 12:32 AM
Well, even our vitrified sand or quartz can be PREPARED with the same salt of tartar and be made DELIQUESCENT,
that is, very porous, as our subject must be as Sendivogius and many others tell us. This deliquesced oil of sand/
sodium or potassium silicate now is not vitrified AND it contains the SM.

Now is this not sound logic?
So the answer to my question should have been, YES, a silicate can be prepared for SM.
..........
Me too. But limestone nor silicates are universal. Rogerc says 'yes' to limestone and 'no' to silicates.

Rogerc said: "the SM its just not in the silica" referring to the Tugel experiments which do not use silica.
They use sodium silicate from deliquescence. Now you want to say the SM is not in the air moisture attracted by the alkali?

From Recreations Hermetiques:

Therefore, be sure that no water igneous composed of pure light of the sun and moon, it will be impossible to overcome the many obstacles that will multiply even about you, when you attempt the passage of this famous strait leading to the sea of ​​the wise; this water with good reason that someone called universal spirit, and that English Dikinson has sufficiently made known, is such a great virtue and insight, that all bodies who are affected easily return to their first being.

I already know that the water was neither rain nor dew, which agreed to this, add here that not even the water from a fungus commonly known as Flos Coeli or Flower of Heaven and that we take very improperly for the Nostoc of the ancients, but water is admirable for fireworks from the sun and moon. I will say that the salts and other magnets that are used to attract moisture from the air, are not good at anything in this circumstance, and that there is only the fire of Nature of which we can serve here usefully.



Yeah, he said it, and *I* say it's NOT Spiritus Mundi, even if it's a very interesting process. It was a call in order for you to change your mind about Spiritus Mundi. If you can't hear that, it's your problem.

GOOD LUCK, and it was always sincere, take it or not, I don't care.

I say the same thing moisture from air is not SM, neither is orgone, neither is water concentrated by sunlight moonlight which is what Salazius was commenting on here, take it not I don't care either. Now today starts Yom Kippur time to atone.

True Initiate
10-09-2011, 12:44 AM
N ... even the easy to perform so called alkahest of sand/soil given in Aurea Cantea does not open gold or act on it in any way, this only comes with the observance of the natural laws and still we can do without.

If you had read a bit more carefully Aurea Catena you would know that this experiment was not meant to dissolve any Gold but it was meant to show different degrees in the coarseness of the Earth. The Water as the next nearest element cann't dissolve the wholle lump of Earth at once but only the subtle part at first and so on... The true Alkahest is revealed in the last Chapter of Aurea Catena Homeri.

There is a major flaw in your understanding that you inherited from Fulcanelli and that is the definition of the determined/undertermined matter. Plain and simple, the definition presented by Fulcanelli is wrong. Simple as that!

Determined means the matter or solvent that belongs particularly to only one Kingdom, a Universal has two meanings:
the mattter or solvent that not stem from the three kingdoms but from the fouth one, Astral kingdom (there are only two of them) and the second meaning of the Universal solvent is the combination of three separate solvents made from all three kingdoms and joined together thus making them Universal.

This is the explanation given by the early Philosophers in the past, later after 17th century the original meaning was lost and sophisticated theories take their place of which the Fulcanelli is the best example.

Seth-Ra
10-09-2011, 02:30 AM
Determined means the matter or solvent that belongs particularly to only one Kingdom, a Universal has two meanings:
the mattter or solvent that not stem from the three kingdoms but from the fouth one, Astral kingdom (there are only two of them) and the second meaning of the Universal solvent is the combination of three separate solvents made from all three kingdoms and joined together thus making them Universal.

This is the explanation given by the early Philosophers in the past, later after 17th century the original meaning was lost and sophisticated theories take their place of which the Fulcanelli is the best example.


Yes! :D Well stated.

All vibrates and exists together - the SM/Life manifest as one of the 3 - so take a hand full of each to have All, or a hand full from before there is a manifesting to one - and still have All. That, which in its Mercury, may grow as plant or animal, and when matured to leave said Mercury, is by appearance and form, mineral/metallic in design. A Living Stone, and a living universe, from the 3, to the 1 and vis-versa.

Still dont see why there is not union on this topic of SM - universal and determined...




~Seth-Ra

Nibiru
10-09-2011, 02:39 AM
Still dont see why there is not union on this topic of SM - universal and determined...

With unity, all questions will have been answered :)

ghetto alchemist
10-09-2011, 03:47 AM
RogerC says:
"Then by your own admission your logic becomes flawed, if it is locked and unable to escape(I'm glad we agree!)... then how does it act on the sulfur of the iron?"

The quartz must first be dissolved into solution. Water doesn't dissolve quartz very well, hot water is only marginally better. This is the reason why some quartz veins have gold and some don't, it is only the hydrothermal quartz veins that have generated gold. This is also why there is plenty of quartz around the place, but not much gold, quartz really doesn't dissolve very easily at all. It is however the reason why the ocean is full of gold, even though silicates are only maginally soluble, in the ocean there is plenty of surface area between the rocks and water and plenty of time.



rogerC says:
"Do you have any working knowledge of alchemy past the rhetorical?"
As you imply, I am indeed an armchair alchemist, just like Fulcanelli was when he published his books.
Does that make me (or him) wrong?


rogerC says:
"archemy=making gold...alchemy=making the stone...big difference....the process implied here will not work like that"

There are three processes that I know of, I was only talking about one of them, perhaps you are referring to another.
Just to avoid confusion, these are the 3 ways that I am aware of in how to separate the magical stuff from its liquid solution.

1st way:
Used in the time of Jesus and the early christians, of dangling a length of fabric into the solution, a process that is metaphor of the fisherman casting his net into the water. This is the reason that the christians adopted the symbol of the fish as their emblem and for the many proverbs involving fish in Christian teaching.
It is clearly illustrated in the book "the art of distillation":

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/images/jfren37.gif

2nd way:
Used by the templar knights and all breakaway groups as well as by most Europeans, probably the one Fulcanelli was aware of.
Any group who bangs on about the importance of travel from west to east utilised this (it is code for a moving magnet). It is a basic distillation setup where the distilling vessel is not agitated by heat, but rather by a spinning magnet, the receiver is not a water cooled pipe and vessel but rather is a bottle inside a magnetically shielded vessel, a couple of concentric red clay pots would have been used in the old days.

3rd way:
My favourite, invented by the arabs, and utilizised by anyone taught by the arabs. Eg Paracelsus and Lullius, diethyl ether is added to the solution and then separated and eveaporated. A great method, fast, clean and accurate.

So..... I was referring to the second way when I said that a red clay vessel was only half the story, perhaps rogerC was thinking of another one, but that doesn't make my argument less valid. Whichever way you are using, you still need a source to generate the magical stuff.


rogerC says:
"squeeze a quartz crystal all you want you will never get our dry water"
"dry water" is a metaphor for the pure crystal of quartz.


rogerC says:
"this is not what is implied by the oak tree in alchemy,"
You better not be hinting that the oak tree refers to red iron oxide, ochre or magnetite, if so, that is still in complete agreement with what I am saying (and also with mother natures quartz path), but this still only represents HALF the story.


rogerC says:
"it is a fools path for a fools errand"
alchemy is an art for fools.....I don't mind at all, but being a fool still doesn't make me wrong.

solomon levi
10-11-2011, 05:06 PM
I say the same thing moisture from air is not SM, neither is orgone, neither is water concentrated by sunlight moonlight which is what Salazius was commenting on here, take it not I don't care either. Now today starts Yom Kippur time to atone.

I didn't say SM is any of those things. I'm tired of trying to talk to you and having you twist my words
to make yourself appear correct and me appear incorrect.
If you are not going to read carefully and reply honestly, please save us the time.
For someone who is supposed to understand the SM, astral, QE, ether - you suck at communicating.
I don't care what you do know - that you cannot communicate (mercury) to another human being says all I need to know.
Vega33 tried to bring this to your attention as well.

I will now assume my duties as a moderator and ask you to not twist people's words.
So if I say "prepared", do not conveniently leave that word out to make you correct.
If I say the SM is in the moisture and air, do not leave out the word "in" and pretend I said the SM is the moisture.
If you want to have one-sided pretend conversations where you see what you want to see according to your prejudices,
please do it elsewhere.

I would also suggest that because your attempt to reproduce Tugel failed does not make Tugel wrong.
Again, if you understand SM so well, you know that the alchemist is an essential part of any recipe.
Your failure to achieve the same results does not make Tugel, and therefore also Glauber and the author of the Golden Chain of Homer,
incorrect or liars or false. That's a very arrogant view.

Arrogance did not serve Paracelsus too well, if we are to take his story as true. What a waste to have such knowledge
and be killed by one's own arrogance and attitude towards one's fellowmen.
Alchemy is about love.


RogerC said: "So, Solomon the answer is still no, I am so very sorry now you have to resort to personally attacking my views when especially it was you and you alone that asked for them, so well I don't agree with you ...does that really make me a bad guy? That you now have to present me in the light of someone who is trying to purposely lead people astray? My arguments don't make sense? So now I am either a moron or trying to lead people astray? This is exactly why I hate forums for discussion, no one wants to really discuss anything, they only want everyone to agree with them and so they single out the one guy that didn't and try to get him to agree, and when he doesn't he has to be painted in a certain light? Isn't that really why you felt this was undone? Just a thought you don't have to answer, but I already knew how this would all turn out, but I bit anyways, so think about that, what does it really say about my character...."

I'm not attacking your personal views. I'm looking at holes and inconsistencies and especially places where you
remove words from a sentence to change its meaning. You could easily answer the questions as I presented them instead of your edited versions
and then you would not be accused of purposefully leading people astray. Since all silicates are not vitrified you are leading people astray.
For the same reasons your arguments do not make sense.
Don't hate the forums. Take responsibility for your communication. Especially don't manipulate other people's words.
I don't need you to agree with me. I need you to present reasonable arguments when you disagree, and I need you to answer
the questions I ask and not your edited manipulated versions of those questions.

It was undone because of the inconsistencies and lack of rational argument. It is undone because you come here
claiming knowledge, claiming Green Lion as your mentor, claiming limestone, not silicates... and yet you gave no
evidence as to why not silicates. And now the "evidence" you do provide is not about silicates but vitrified silicates...
For the sake of consistency, if limestone can be prepared as you have said with urine and the astral influences caught
in the moist night air - limestone, a determined matter - then why can't clay or other silicates? You avoid answering that
question because the answer is that they can and they have.

solomon levi
10-11-2011, 05:24 PM
As Thomas Vaughn said,

"In the outward shape or figure she resembles a stone and yet is no stone, for they call her their White Gum and Water of the Sea, Water of Life, Most Pure and Blessed Water; and yet they mind not water of the clouds or rain water, nor water of the well, nor dew, but a certain thick, permanent, saltish water, that is dry and wets not the hands, a viscous, slimy water generated out of the fatness of the earth. They call her also their twofold Mercury and Azoth, begotten by the influences of two globes, celestial and terrestrial. Moreover, they affirm her to be of that nature that no fire can destroy her, which of all other descriptions is most true, for she is fire herself, having in her a portion of the universal fire of Nature and a secret celestial spirit, which spirit is animated and quickened by God Himself, wherefore also they call her their Most Blessed Stone. Lastly, they say she is a middle nature between thick and thin, neither altogether earthy nor altogether fiery but a mean aerial substance -- to be found everywhere and every time of the year.

This is enough. But that I may speak something myself in plain terms, I say she is a very salt, but extreme soft and somewhat thin and fluid, not so hard, not so thick as common extracted salts, for she is none of them, nor any kind of salt whatsoever that man can make. She is a sperm that Nature herself draws out of the elements without the help of art. Man may find it where Nature leaves it; it is not of his office to make the sperm, nor to extract it. It is already made and wants nothing but a matrix and heat convenient for generation. Now should you consider with yourselves where Nature leaves the seed, and yet many are so dull they know not how to work when they are told what they must do. We see in animal generations the sperm parts not from both the parents, for it remains with the female, where it is perfected. In the great world, though all the elements contribute to the composure of the sperm yet the sperm parts not from all the elements but remains with the earth or with the water though more immediately with the one than with the other. Let not your thoughts feed now on the phlegmatic, indigested vomits of Aristotle; look on the green, youthful and flowery bosom of the earth. Consider what a vast universal receptacle this element is. The stars and planets overlook her and -- though they may not descend hither themselves -- they shed down their golden locks, like so many bracelets and tokens of love. The sun is perpetually busy, brings his fire round her, as if he would sublime something from her bosom and rob her of some secret, enclosed jewel. Is there anything lost since the creation? Wouldst thou know his very bed and his pillow? It is the earth. How many cities, dost thou think, have perished with the sword? How many by earthquakes? And how many by the deluge? Thou dost perhaps desire to know where they are at this present: believe it, they have one common sepulchre. What was once their mother is now their tomb. All things return to that place from whence they came, and that very place is earth. If thou hast but leisure, run over the alphabet of Nature; examine every letter -- I mean every particular creature -- in her book. What becomes of her grass, her corn, her herbs, her flowers? True it is, both man and beast do use them, but this only by the way, for they rest not till they come to earth again. In this element they had their first and in this will they have their last station. Think -- if other vanities will give thee leave -- on all those generations that went before thee and anticipate all those that shall come after thee. Where are those beauties the times past have produced and what will become of those that shall appear in future ages? They will all to the same dust; they have one common house; and there is no family so numerous as that of the grave. Do but look on the daily sports of Nature, her clouds and mists, the scene and pageantry of the air. Even these momentary things retreat to the closet of the earth. If the sun makes her dry she can drink as fast; what gets up in clouds comes down in water; the earth swallows up all and like that philosophical dragon eats her own tail. The wise poets saw this and in their mystical language called the earth Saturn, telling us withal she did feed on her own children. Verily, there is more truth in their stately verse than in Aristotle's dull prose, for he was a blind beast and malice made him so.

But to proceed a little further with you, I wish you to concoct what you read, to dwell a little upon earth, not to fly up presently and admire the meteors of your own brains. The earth, you know, in the winter-time is a dull, dark, dead thing -- a contemptible, frozen, phlegmatic lump. But towards the spring and fomentations of the sun what rare pearls are there in this dung-hill, what glorious colours and tinctures doth she discover! A pure, eternal green overspreads her, and this attended with innumerable other beauties -- roses red and white, golden lilies, azure violets, the bleeding hyacinths, with their several celestial odours and spices. If you will be advised by me, learn from whence the earth hath these invisible treasures, this annual flora, which appears not without the compliments of the sun. Behold, I will tell you as plainly as I may. There are in the world two extremes -- matter and spirit. One of these, I can assure you, is earth. The influences of the spirit animate and quicken the matter, and in the material extreme the seed of the spirit is to be found. In middle natures -- as fire, air, and water -- this seed stays not, for they are but dispenseros or media, which convey it from one extreme to the other, from the spirit to the matter -- that is, the earth. But stay, my friend; this intelligence hath somewhat stirred you, and how you come on so furiously, as if you would rifle the cabinet. Give me leave to put you back. I mind not this common, feculent, impure earth; that falls not within my discourse, but as it makes for your manuduction. That which I speak of is a mystery: it is coelum terrae and terrae coeli, not this dirt and dust but a most secret, celestial, invisible earth."

solomon levi
02-08-2012, 07:15 AM
I am still finding many references to silicates.
Very briefly, I will refer you to a couple interesting finds.

Hornstone is a name not very familiar nowadays.
It refers to flint, chert, jasper-type stones.
It is something to consider when thinking of horns besides ammoniac salts.

Chalcedony has the name calx in it and refers to many gem silicates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcedony
Some of these may also be considered as 'seals'.

Finally chrysoprase actually means "green gold".

Nibiru
02-08-2012, 07:12 PM
Hi Solomon :) I know I've posted about this before but can't remember what thread. Diatomaceous earth is very high in amorphous silica. I was able to order a few kilos of food grade powder for around $20. It's very porous and has properties that are also similar to dolomite limestone. I've always felt that something of worth could be made of its use..


Diatomaceous earth (play /ˌdaɪ.ətəˌmeɪʃəs ˈɜrθ/) also known as diatomite or kieselgur/kieselguhr, is a naturally occurring, soft, siliceous sedimentary rock that is easily crumbled into a fine white to off-white powder. It has a particle size ranging from less than 1 micrometre to more than 1 millimetre, but typically 10 to 200 micrometres.[1] This powder has an abrasive feel, similar to pumice powder, and is very light, due to its high porosity. The typical chemical composition of oven dried diatomaceous earth is 80 to 90% silica, with 2 to 4% alumina (attributed mostly to clay minerals) and 0.5 to 2% iron oxide.[1]


Diatomite forms by the accumulation of the amorphous silica (opal, SiO2·nH2O) remains of dead diatoms (microscopic single-celled algae) in lacustrine or marine sediments. The fossil remains consist of a pair of symmetrical shells or frustules.[1]


In 1836 or 1837, the peasant and goods waggoner, Peter Kasten,[3] discovered diatomaceous earth (German: kieselgur) when sinking a well on the northern slopes of the Haußelberg hill, in the Lüneburg Heath in north Germany. Initially, it was thought that limestone had been found, which could be used as fertiliser. Alfred Nobel used the properties of diatomaceous earth in the manufacture of dynamite. The Celle engineer, Wilhelm Berkefeld, recognised its ability to filter, and developed 'filter candles' fired from diatomaceous earth.[


Its absorbent qualities make it useful for spill clean-up and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control recommends it to clean up toxic liquid spills. These qualities also lend themselves to use in facial masks to absorb excess oils.

It has been employed as a primary ingredient in a type of cat litter. The type of silica used in cat litter comes from freshwater sources and does not pose a significant health risk to pets or humans.

Quotes taken from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatomaceous_earth

nav2010
03-08-2012, 05:53 PM
Very interesting thread, enjoyed reading it. It is very interesting about the gold appearing in quartz layers and the hydrothermal explanations. Chemically speaking if we had vapourized au, si and o4 forming in quartz veins across the planet personally I don't think they would form in the way that we are told. The oxygen formation within the silicon doesn't make sense to me. Most crystals are formed via heat and pressure combined with oxygen and can actually grow. If gold and silicon came up hydrothermal vents together then there would be more far more combined compounds such as gold silicates in greater numbers. This is most likely at or near the surface of the earths crust. It is also very interesting when you consider the piezoelectric properties of quartz in the equasion. As mentioned before, gold doesn't always appear with quartz but there may be a reason for that which hasn't yet been explored.
Imagine that the gold was being formed in the quartz layer by piezoelectricity. It is interesting that the veins of quartz are trapped between other rock layers and it may be that geological events trigger the piezolelectrical effect. Earhquakes, tremors and geological crushing of the quartz may be the reason we get the effect. Where does the gold come from? Well, the surrounding rock and soil layers may be the answer. It may be the heat of the electrical spark which is an ac voltage somewhere in the region 50kv and many thousands of degrees C that converts surrounding elements into gold.
Another subject which is interesting and very much related to this is when the actual Philosophers stone converts base metals into gold and the processes involved. I have read many times that the stone is crystaline in form and when applied to a base metal there is a violent reaction with many colours of the rainbow visible at the time. How does the stone effect the atomic structure of the base metal for sub atomic particles to re-arrange themselves into a different element in this case gold?
The only possible way I can think of is some kind of piezoelectrical reaction where the stone is effected by the heat of the molten metal and releases a current. We know very little about current but the one thing we do know is that electrons are involved, the same electrons that lay in shells around the nuclious of an atom and balance the electrical charge of an atom. If this is the case then the stone may be releasing a certain type of electron into the soup which causes the other sub atomic particals to reform into a new element and the violence and colours of the rainbow we see are photons being ejected in the process. It would seem like a cold fusion process. But the current we need would have to be of a specific value, it may have to be an exact voltage and temperature for this to take place otherwise dropping any crystal into any molten metal would have the same result.
Now if it can happen in nature this way then perhaps we are doing nothing more than replicating natures processes with the stone. The reason we see quartz sometimes without gold may be because that quartz has never been subjected to the correct pressure to produce the correct voltages and it may have not been surrounded by the correct elements in the rocks. Also, the type of quartz could be of importance too because certain types may not supply the correct voltages under pressure. The answer to this would be to examine all the quartz types found with gold, examine the surrounding rock types and so forth.
Producing a philosophers stone in the complex way described may be either the long way around, a red herring to keep us away from the truth or a complex alternative crystal that mimics nature and mimics quartz.

ghetto alchemist
03-12-2012, 01:38 PM
nav2010, I like the idea that maybe crystal is providing electricity while under pressure, and to be truthful I had never considered it before.

I do find it hard to believe that the old timers were creating electrical discharges in their laboratories.......BUT.....I do have to concede that in the chinese story Xi You Ji (journey to the west, the story of the monkey king) the Taoist priest tells SuWukong about the importance of the electrical discharges from lightning. Maybe the old timers were leaving their flasks of manna outside attached to lightning rods, a low-tech way to do the same. I do doubt it, but the fact that Xi You Ji mentions it is significant. I've mentioned it many times before, but to reiterate, I believe that this classic book from ancient chinese literature is actually a Taoist alchemy text hidden in plain sight.

Just to add something regarding gold in nature, often quartz seams that contain gold only have gold in the portion near to the earths surface.
There are many many examples of gold mining operations being abandoned in their infancy after the miners follow the seam into the earth to find that the gold disappears very quickly once they start to dig down. It does seem to indicate that perhaps exposure to sunlight or exposure to air is important, or perhaps exposure to surface water from rain or dew is the answer. I would also add that this fact reduces the liklihood that intense pressure is required.

NAV2010 says:

Also, the type of quartz could be of importance too because certain types may not supply the correct voltages under pressure. The answer to this would be to examine all the quartz types found with gold, examine the surrounding rock types and so forth.

That is a fantastic idea.

G Alchemist

solomon levi
11-17-2012, 04:44 PM
A possible particular with silicates - very curious:

"Komarovsky prepared a compound by the action of 30 % hydrogen peroxide on silicic acid gel,
which, from its analysis and chemical reactions, was shown to be a persilicic acid or perhydrogel...
He states that this compound which could be obtained in a hard, powdery condition, gave a constant
supply of oxygen and ozone when allowed to stand in air."

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/114/768/517.full.pdf

Avatar
12-01-2012, 09:20 PM
I may be way off base here. But has anyone tried working with pure mulch?
As pure white ash is mineral. Mulch is black. My main thing being purification of black to white by washing with water. IE moistening and drying is how plants in nature turn colors.

Mulch was once a plant then it died. It being plantn essence, should turn white by moistening and drying. Just a thought.
Though I find distillation via extremely low temperatures very hard. :(

solomon levi
12-30-2012, 03:08 AM
In relation to this thread suggesting quartz as the initial subject, I found this piece:

"To conjure is nothing else than to observe anything rightly, to know and to understand what it is.
The crystal is a figure of the air. Whatever appears in the air, moveable or immoveable, the same
appears also in the speculum or crystal as a wave. For the air, the water, and the crystal, so far as
vision is concerned are one, like a mirror in which an inverted copy of an object is seen."
- Paracelsus, Coelum Philosophorum

Ezekiel also likens the air/firmament/heavens to a crystal:
"And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal,
stretched forth over their heads above." - Ezekiel 1:22

Found this info in "the Philosophers' Stone" by Joseph P. Farrell
He suggests a similarity between the lattice structure of crystals and metals.

glenerson
02-16-2013, 05:27 AM
One person knows something. 100 persons know the same thing. The thing that the 100 persons know will be the truth, even that one person knows the Truth.

For if that one person says he can transmute plastic to gold, he will be laughed at for 100 persons know that the only way to transmute gold is from lead.

What is truth? Define truth? Does truth always tally with material world? What if the material world is not real, will it be the truth?

No one knows bro. But it can be known. You can ridicule the one whom you don't subscribe to. You may not agree with me that the true riches of the world exist only in Spirit.

I don't claim that what I know is the Truth. But I know in myself is that what I know is the Truth.

The elements are many. I would say that the starting material of transmutation to gold is from Radon. Or fusing element 50 and 29 together or 49 and 30 or 20 and 59 dot dot dot. which will be true? I don't know either, but what I do is what I believe is the Truth.

Aka Truth is relative. For what is a lie will become True when you believe in it. Or what is True will become a lie when you don't believe in it. For those who don't believe in the Truth, they won't know the Truth. And Those who believe in a lie, also won't know the Truth. So the only thing to do is to identify what is True and once you identified, believe in it.

ghetto alchemist
02-17-2013, 09:57 AM
Glenerson says:


Aka Truth is relative. For what is a lie will become True when you believe in it. Or what is True will become a lie when you don't believe in it. For those who don't believe in the Truth, they won't know the Truth. And Those who believe in a lie, also won't know the Truth. So the only thing to do is to identify what is True and once you identified, believe in it.


Nature cares not what is truth, nor what are lies.

She happily produces gold using nothing other than quartz crystals magnetic shielding (usually iron ore) and water.

See the details (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2252-Armchair-alchemy-the-first-distillation-Truth-from-BS&p=15511#post15511) (Page 1: Post #4) surrounding "the welcome stranger" nugget earlier in this thread, the largest piece of gold ever found in nature. Mother nature uses the same principle to produce gold in black sand beaches and amongst the magnetite sand on the bottom of mountain streams.

G Alchemist

thrival
02-17-2013, 11:21 AM
Glenerson says:



Nature cares not what is truth, nor what are lies, nor what you or I say.

She happily produces gold using nothing other than quartz crystals magnetic shielding (usually iron ore) and water.

See the details (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2252-Armchair-alchemy-the-first-distillation-Truth-from-BS&p=15511#post15511) (Page 1: Post #4) surrounding "the welcome stranger" nugget earlier in this thread, the largest piece of gold ever found in nature. Mother nature uses the same principle to produce gold in black sand beaches and amongst the magnetite sand on the bottom of mountain streams.

It matters not how many people say the philosophers stone is generated from quartz crystal, the principle works regardless.

Argue with me if you must, but stop trying to tell nature what she can or can't do.

G Alchemist

Hey there, G Alchemist, ditto with what you said; also may I add that opinions are like elbows, in that everyone has them? (LOL). My perspective of the truth, big or small, is just keep one's eyes open, and see what drops out ;) (...it conserves oxygen & ammunition.) Anyway, are you sure the "principle" involves magnetic shielding? Could it be possible that something in the sand is attacking the iron and producing gold as an effect? (Just sayin'.)

ghetto alchemist
03-05-2017, 06:47 AM
This post is just a bit of housekeeping, tidying up the thread for the future. In case anyone hit's the thread from a google search. I wouldnt want to mess anybody up by leading them down a false path that I myself have already abandoned.

I did eventually do my experiment, added powdered quartz to a lye solution, did a partial dissolution. Ether extracted the result, and vacuumed the ether to boil it off. I was left with a yellow coloured water solution. Not the famed philosophical mercury that I was hoping for.

I then went back to the armchair, re-visiting the alchemy texts and have remained there ever since.

My current thinking on quartz is that it is a vital ingredient for the philosophers stone, but that it is not the first matter. The first matter is probably another rock often associated with gold, mentioned in this thread many times already.
As I currently understand, the artist will use the other rock to make philisophical mercury, use that to make the red liquid (split in 2 parts, make red and white, recombine them). The red liquid can be added to alcohol and used as a medicine for humans, OR the red liquid can be added to powdered quartz, it ingresses into the quartz powder, becomes fixed and becomes the stone used for transmutation of metals.

I should provide refernces, but I admit I'm a little lazy.
You all know the references to passages that say stuff like ...besides transmuting base metals to gold, the stone can also be used to turn rock crystal into gemstones more precious than rubies and diamonds.... or something like that.
These sort of sentences are letting you know the final step to make the philosophers stone. I do have access to a very specific reference from Agricola or Glauber saying the above. Also, from memory, the Art of Distillation says something similar.

In nature the process is similar....deeper in the earth through a very slow dissolution, the first rock dissolves into water and becomes philosophical mercury and water mixed together. As the water approaches the surface, if it should pass through a zone which shields it from earth's magnetic field (Eg an iron sulfide/iron oxide deposit) then the philosophical mercury will separate from the water and remain inside the shielded area. If that shielded area happens to be warm, due to either heat in the earth or heat from the sun (if close to the surface), it will cook into a mild form of the red liquid, and if that shielded zone also happens to contain quartz, the red liquid will ingress into the quartz and the ingressed quartz will covert some of the iron in the surrounding iron sulfide / iron oxide into metallic gold. Obviously for all of the above to happen is very rare, hence why there's lots of quartz around the earth, but not a lot of gold. Also since nature is only partially creating the ideal conditions it is a very slow and incomplete process even when the conditions in the earth are right.

Many gold miners are often shocked when they follow a quartz reef into the earth and are dismayed to find the gold peters out as they dig down only a short way from the surface. But some of the deposits in Africa continue to deliver loads of payable gold even after penterating very deep into the ground. Warmth is very important.

Anyway, quartz is still necessary for the great work, but only at the very end. This explains why references to quartz (or rock crystal) sometimes appear in the corpus.
I mentioned the book "Journey to the west". I now believe that the character, Sandy [sand awakened to purity] refers to the powder created by the artist from quartz crystal.
All other references I provided are still accurate, only my analysis of the specific application has changed.