PDA

View Full Version : Back at the beginning...



pierre
01-04-2016, 01:27 PM
Hi, everyone...

This post is for people who are looking for the alchemical truth, honestly, like I do. This reflection is a way to put my thoughts in order and I wanted to share them with everyone on this forum.

A major confusion seems to be the Prima Materia, which is the real subject. The Prima Materia is one and only one subject. In all subjects you can find the Prima Materia.
But I´m not telling nothing new... right?

Then, there are basically, two alchemical ways. The "material" path (minerals), and the universal path (pure Prima materia)

So, we can obtain the Prima Materia of any mineral compound, or can obtain it pure, no pollution of any kind, prior to materialize in minerals. So the Prima Materia always remains (and is) unique. No matter in what vehicle it is found.

Broadly speaking, we have here the two great alchemical ways. Each of them has its own particular tricks. One of them breaks down and disintegrates minerals for the Prima Materia, and the other is covered in its previous state, in filling with minerals.

When we say that the pure Prima Materia, is embodied in our kingdom, it means lost its universality. But at what point does this lost happen? Under what conditions? At what point the spirit becomes flesh? Or rather: At what point can we avoid the Spirit become flesh? Because there must be a limit. A barrier that separates both conditions, and we to take advantage of...

But beware! The pure spirit, this escapist elf, can be a big motherfucker, say all those who knows him... Protect yourself well.

There are some brothers in this forum have been very generous with us, guiding us in this search. I take the audacity to name a few: Green Lion, Salazius, Androgynus, Solomon Levi, Leo Retilus… Thanks to all of them.

The simplest things are black and white, but we complicate by adding too much other colors.


I wish you all have a great 2016

Hellin Hermetist
01-04-2016, 02:08 PM
For me the materia prima of the work is the dry and humid part of gold which have been seperated, philosophically purified, conjoined again and put to the athanor. We have to make use of corrosive waters in order to seperate the metallic humidity from its earth, as we have to follow Nature in all our works, and Nature creates the metals by congealing corrosive fumes in the stony matrixes, as Kirchweger, Vallois and other capable experimenters and sound philosophers have clearly shown.

Illen A. Cluf
01-04-2016, 02:21 PM
For me the materia prima of the work is the dry and humid part of gold which have been seperated, philosophically purified, conjoined again and put to the athanor. We have to make use of corrosive waters in order to seperate the metallic humidity from its earth, as we have to follow Nature in all our works, and Nature creates the metals by congealing corrosive fumes in the stony matrixes, as Kirchweger, Vallois and other capable experimenters and sound philosophers have clearly shown.

Well said, Hellin Hermetist - you have revealed a lot in only two sentences!

pierre
01-04-2016, 09:20 PM
For me the materia prima of the work is the dry and humid part of gold which have been seperated, philosophically purified, conjoined again and put to the athanor. We have to make use of corrosive waters in order to seperate the metallic humidity from its earth, as we have to follow Nature in all our works, and Nature creates the metals by congealing corrosive fumes in the stony matrixes, as Kirchweger, Vallois and other capable experimenters and sound philosophers have clearly shown.

Ok, Hellin Hermetist, you´re right.
It´s just that I spoke in more universal sense.
I meant as Prima Materia to the first and indeterminate substance.
I speak on a more conceptual than technical way.
Please, do not dwell on the terminology but the concept behind it.

Hellin Hermetist
01-04-2016, 09:58 PM
The concept in the path you describe is to take the supposed materia prima under a liquid form and boil metallic gold inside it. Am I right?

pierre
01-04-2016, 11:01 PM
The concept in the path you describe is to take the supposed materia prima under a liquid form and boil metallic gold inside it. Am I right?

Think of Prima Materia as Spiritus Mundi...

Hellin Hermetist
01-04-2016, 11:12 PM
Think of Prima Materia as Spiritus Mundi...

Ok. Why does this spiritus mundi is able to trasmute many time its own weight of any imperfect metal to gold, when its congealed by itself and by the art to a certain crystallic form?

pierre
01-05-2016, 09:12 AM
Ok. Why does this spiritus mundi is able to trasmute many time its own weight of any imperfect metal to gold, when its congealed by itself and by the art to a certain crystallic form?

Oh... it can do that?
I don´t know Hellin, but I guess you know the answer...

Hellin Hermetist
01-05-2016, 12:50 PM
Oh... it can do that?
I don´t know Hellin, but I guess you know the answer...

If we believe in the doctrines of the old alchemists, then it can do that. As you dont seem to accept their opinion, will you tell us what exactly you are trying or expect to accomplish by the manipulation of the supposed spiritus mundi? To create a powerful medecine, to transform yourself, simply to study nature or sth else? If your research doesnt have some certain and specific goal, I guess that you will be back at the begining all the time.

Hellin Hermetist
01-05-2016, 05:17 PM
"XXXVI. If the Caput Mortuum has not the Magnetic Quality in attracting the Spiritus Mundi into itself from the Astrums, it is a sign, that at time end of the Distillation of the red Oil the outward fire was so violent, as quite to burn up the Magnet, which is contained in the first Feces of our Mercurial Water.

XXXVIII. The above-mentioned Spiritus Mundi, although of no use at all in this our great Work, is yet a great Menstruum in extracting of Tinctures out of Metals, Minerals, Animals, and Vegetables, and in performing great things in the Art volatilizing all fixed Bodies, and principally Gold."

This is from the aphorisms of Baro Urbigerus. We can clearly see that even the authors who make mention to spiritus mundi (the older masters, like Geber and Raymond Lulle, dont make any mention to it at all), affirms emphatically that this substance has nothing to do with the Magnum Opus. At least it may give you a good solvent to perform extractions.

pierre
01-05-2016, 05:31 PM
If we believe in the doctrines of the old alchemists, then it can do that. As you dont seem to accept their opinion, will you tell us what exactly you are trying or expect to accomplish by the manipulation of the supposed spiritus mundi? To create a powerful medecine, to transform yourself, simply to study nature or sth else? If your research doesnt have some certain and specific goal, I guess that you will be back at the begining all the time.

IMHO, get a pure portion of SM in our kingdom, is similar to when the lepers, by just tapping the robe of Jesus, instantly cured of their disease.

Can you imagine what it would get a pure spark of the spiritual realm in our physical world?
Can you imagine the implications of this? Yes, of course, you do.

That's my goal: bringing a little piece of Spiritual realm into our everyday reality, (and maybe his light can be spread among people of good will...)

Pretty naive, ha...

Hellin Hermetist
01-05-2016, 06:13 PM
IMHO, get a pure portion of SM in our kingdom, is similar to when the lepers, by just tapping the robe of Jesus, instantly cured of their disease.


Kind of Butler's stone I guess then.



Can you imagine what it would get a pure spark of the spiritual realm in our physical world?
Can you imagine the implications of this? Yes, of course, you do.


I dont know what the spiritual realm is so I cant imagine what shall happen if we get a spark of it at our physical work. Maybe you can give some hints to help me and others understand better that unknown reality.




That's my goal: bringing a little piece of Spiritual realm into our everyday reality, (and maybe his light can be spread among people of good will...)

Pretty naive, ha...

No, not naive. At least for me it sounds highly metaphysical. Ancient alchemists, who used corrosive waters to extract the humid part of gold and seperate it from its earth, and after that purified the dry and humid part and reconjoined them, tried to accomplish more naive things for sure.

pierre
01-05-2016, 07:28 PM
Kind of Butler's stone I guess then.



I dont know what the spiritual realm is so I cant imagine what shall happen if we get a spark of it at our physical work. Maybe you can give some hints to help me and others understand better that unknown reality.


No, not naive. At least for me it sounds highly metaphysical. Ancient alchemists, who used corrosive waters to extract the humid part of gold and seperate it from its earth, and after that purified the dry and humid part and reconjoined them, tried to accomplish more naive things for sure.

According to my poor understanding, the realm of the spirit has a renewing power. Encourages material life. It is the breath of life that animates matter. The divine spark. It is the place of residence of the quintessence that gives life to the four elements. Is living Spirit. Is sacred fire. An inextinguishable light...
A piece of that is what we trying to catch in our realm without any corruption.
A spark of pure and living Spirit!

Andro
01-05-2016, 07:41 PM
And yet, these authors use prepared matters/spirits which are characterized by their strong affinity for Spiritus Mundi - Urbigerus and Lully included (similar methods) - for better concentration of SM after being 'liberated' from the various materials where it was previously imprisoned. (e.g. Philosophical Spirit of Wine, etc...)

Indeed, this line of authors does use various corrosives - "Radical Vinegars" and the "Vinegar of the Mountains" (read "Metals") on starting matters such as minerals, metallic oxides, salts (vegetable salts in the case of the Circulatum Minus), etc, but they omit (perhaps innocently) the affinity that the resulting spirits and/or prepared matters have for SM and the role those prepared spirits/matters play in its concentration via repetition of lab cycles/sequences.


"XXXVI. If the Caput Mortuum has not the Magnetic Quality in attracting the Spiritus Mundi into itself from the Astrums, it is a sign, that at time end of the Distillation of the red Oil the outward fire was so violent, as quite to burn up the Magnet, which is contained in the first Feces of our Mercurial Water.

XXXVIII. The above-mentioned Spiritus Mundi, although of no use at all in this our great Work, is yet a great Menstruum in extracting of Tinctures out of Metals, Minerals, Animals, and Vegetables, and in performing great things in the Art volatilizing all fixed Bodies, and principally Gold."

This is from the aphorisms of Baro Urbigerus. We can clearly see that even the authors who make mention to spiritus mundi (the older masters, like Geber and Raymond Lulle, dont make any mention to it at all), affirms emphatically that this substance has nothing to do with the Magnum Opus. At least it may give you a good solvent to perform extractions.

Hellin Hermetist
01-05-2016, 08:25 PM
And yet, these authors use prepared matters/spirits which are characterized by their strong affinity for Spiritus Mundi - Urbigerus and Lully included (similar methods) - for better concentration of SM after being 'liberated' from the various materials where it was previously imprisoned. (e.g. Philosophical Spirit of Wine, etc...)


Lulle says that we need the stinking menstrual and one of the perfect bodies, when Urbigerus extracts all the principles for his work from a certain mineral. I dont think that their methods are similar. Lulle and his followers (Vallois and the Flers alchemists) say that we need to extract/liberate the metallic humidity (not Spiritus Mundi) from the body of gold. We use a corrosive to do that (the fire against nature to get the natural fire). Kirchweger in his Golden Chain says that what you call Spiritus Mundi is nothing more than common niter and salt and their spirits. Not sure if you have adopted his opinion.

Hellin Hermetist
01-05-2016, 08:30 PM
According to my poor understanding, the realm of the spirit has a renewing power. Encourages material life. It is the breath of life that animates matter. The divine spark. It is the place of residence of the quintessence that gives life to the four elements. Is living Spirit. Is sacred fire. An inextinguishable light...
A piece of that is what we trying to catch in our realm without any corruption.
A spark of pure and living Spirit!

Is that realm complex as our physical realm or is it composed of only one undifferentiated essence? What do u believe shall be the form of that spark when it shall manifest itself in the physical realm without any corruption?

pierre
01-05-2016, 08:53 PM
Is that realm complex as our physical realm or is it composed of only one undifferentiated essence? What do u believe shall be the form of that spark when it shall manifest itself in the physical realm without any corruption?

As far as I know, there are 3 different ways in which the Spiritus Mundi manifests in our realm through art. Red liquid / colorless gelatin / red dust...
And, yes ... the spirit realm is pure light. It only dualized when manifested in our world naturally, to create the elements.
All these things are well described in the post on the Spiritus Mundi of Androgynus.

Hellin Hermetist
01-05-2016, 08:57 PM
As far as I know, there are 3 different ways in which the Spiritus Mundi manifests in our realm through art. Red liquid / colorless gelatin / red dust...


Sounds interesting. Do you know that from personal experience or you have heard/read that from other persons?

Andro
01-05-2016, 09:29 PM
Lulle says that we need the stinking menstrual and one of the perfect bodies, when Urbigerus extracts all the principles for his work from a certain mineral. I dont think that their methods are similar.

I may not be fully informed about the "Lully" approach, since all I know of those paths comes from "Secrets of the Adepts', which is highly consistent with Urbigerus (in my subjective innerstanding).


Lulle and his followers (Vallois and the Flers alchemists) say that we need to extract/liberate the metallic humidity (not Spiritus Mundi) [...]

Have you contemplated the connection Metallic Humidity > Radical Humidity > Spiritus Mundi?


We use a corrosive to do that (the fire against nature to get the natural fire).

Yes, this is a common (although rather complicated, laboratory-wise) way of 'liberating' a spirit from a matter/metal/etc...


Kirchweger in his Golden Chain says that what you call Spiritus Mundi is nothing more than common niter and salt and their spirits. Not sure if you have adopted his opinion.

My (personal) view is to take such statements with a grain of Salt (and Niter :)), while realizing the difference between Carrier and Passenger. It's the Passenger that we're interested in. Common Salt and Common Niter would be the Carriers/Hosts in this equation, but in their common state the Passenger cannot express itself, being tightly "locked" inside.

Such "Carriers" need to be brought to a state of "opening" to express the Passenger (Spiritus Mundi). In other words, the doors of the material prison (or Cyliani's 'temple') need to be opened first with these procedures. Many authors don't make an explicit mention of of this correlation. Some notable exceptions are found in a handful of German R+C texts.

By the way, I am in no way dismissing the work with corrosives/"fires against nature" to "liberate" what lies "hidden" in matter. I am familiar with the methodology.

What I am merely pointing out is the significance of the SM "Passenger" in this whole equation, without which it would all be just chemistry.
______
I.M.S.I.

Hellin Hermetist
01-05-2016, 10:13 PM
I may not be fully informed about the "Lully" approach, since all I know of those paths comes from "Secrets of the Adepts', which is highly consistent with Urbigerus (in my subjective innerstanding).

Okay. I was refering to the Testament which is much different from the works mentioned in the book of Weindefeld (mainly Lumiere de Mercures, Appertoire and Book of Quintessence by Rupessica). Of course all those works are pseudepigrapha, but when I speak about Lulle I am refering to its Testament with its theory and practice.



Have you contemplated the connection Metallic Humidity > Radical Humidity > Spiritus Mundi?


Not really. Can you elaborate?



Yes, this is a common (although rather complicated, laboratory-wise) way of 'liberating' a spirit from a matter/metal/etc...


What do you define as a spirit? Is, for example, ethyl alcohol a vegetable spirit and nitric acid a mineral spirit, or you give a different definition to the word spirit?

pierre
01-05-2016, 10:40 PM
Sounds interesting. Do you know that from personal experience or you have heard/read that from other persons?


Collection takes several months, almost a year. I have not finished the process. So I have not seen the SM directly. But providence, a person and this forum has opened my eyes a little. Besides, the members of this forum I mentioned earlier, have been very generous in their posts.
Now only remains to wait for the results... if I have done everything right.

JDP
01-06-2016, 10:31 AM
Okay. I was refering to the Testament which is much different from the works mentioned in the book of Weindefeld (mainly Lumiere de Mercures, Appertoire and Book of Quintessence by Rupessica). Of course all those works are pseudepigrapha, but when I speak about Lulle I am refering to its Testament with its theory and practice.

Weidenfeld mentions and quotes a whole bunch of alchemical works attributed to Ramon Llull, including the "Testament". It is in fact probably the most quoted alchemical "corpus" in Weidenfeld's book. For example, Weidenfeld cites several passages where the author describes how to make a special "vitriol" from "Argent Vive" by using the "dry Vitriolated Vapour, which is a sharp Water" straight out of several chapters from the Lullian "Testament".

zoas23
01-07-2016, 05:19 AM
And yet, these authors use prepared matters/spirits which are characterized by their strong affinity for Spiritus Mundi - Urbigerus and Lully included (similar methods) - for better concentration of SM after being 'liberated' from the various materials where it was previously imprisoned. (e.g. Philosophical Spirit of Wine, etc...)

Indeed, this line of authors does use various corrosives - "Radical Vinegars" and the "Vinegar of the Mountains" (read "Metals") on starting matters such as minerals, metallic oxides, salts (vegetable salts in the case of the Circulatum Minus), etc, but they omit (perhaps innocently) the affinity that the resulting spirits and/or prepared matters have for SM and the role those prepared spirits/matters play in its concentration via repetition of lab cycles/sequences.

I'm trying to check if I am following your idea.
Pierre talked about 2 paths... one of them "material", the other "universal".

Do you place Urbigerus and LLull among the "materialists"?

Which text is more specific about the "universal path"?

Ghislain
01-07-2016, 08:44 AM
This is an interesting article which explains the presence of certain compounds in the atmosphere.

HYGROSCOPIC PROPERTIES OF ORGANIC AND INORGANIC AEROSOLS (http://e-collection.library.ethz.ch/eserv/eth:29977/eth-29977-02.pdf)

Ghislain

Andro
01-08-2016, 11:06 PM
Have you contemplated the connection Metallic Humidity > Radical Humidity > Spiritus Mundi?
Not really. Can you elaborate?


There is an Alchemical differentiation between 'Accidental Humidity' and 'Radical Humidity'.

All bodies possess both, but we are only interested in the latter.You can Google Radical Humidity (https://www.google.com/search?q=radical+humidity) and find some interesting excerpts.

Like This One (https://books.google.com/books?id=L7Wx21p4f5IC&pg=PA316&lpg=PA316&dq=radical+humidity) and even better, THIS ONE (https://books.google.com/books?id=acOk-oCuuMsC&pg=PA299&lpg=PA299&dq=radical+humidity+of+metals&source=bl&ots=cByXbagmhY&sig=HdLBpxrnHbllqR35BGCdoRCiu30&hl=iw&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiosorQpZvKAhVFxQ8KHY5RCwMQ6AEIRjAF#v=on epage&q=radical humidity of metals&f=false).

In many writings, the Radical Humidity of bodies (from all Kingdoms) is equated with the Mercury of those bodies.

This work can lead to a multitude of both Archemical preparations and Alchemical Particulars.

Furthermore, the SM connection was very well explained by Green Lion:


The captation and the use of pure Spiritus Mundi were never described. All the alchemists authors used a material which they transformed into a magnet of the wise. And it is this magnet of the wise which get and keep then Spiritus Mundi.


I consider (but it is my personal vision, as all the rest of what I write or explain, being nothing by definition the Absolute Truth) that the most important things in alchemy are to understand what the Spiritus Mundi is and what the Magnet of the Wise is.

The presentation which I make of the alchemy takes as support Spiritus Mundi. Simply because from my point of view, it is what was the least described and explained in alchemical texts, but also because by understanding the mechanisms of Spiritus Mundi, we understand de facto what is the Magnet of the Wise.

The Magnet of the Wise is a state of the material. It is not A material. It is not THE material.

The treaties of alchemy explain it only very rarely. It is what makes that everybody is in search of a material or of a set of materials which can serve in Great Work. It is for it that everybody "fights" by saying that there is only one material and that the ideas of the others are necessarily in the error. It is a non-problem. It is moreover for me the biggest trap which the alchemical authors left us.

While the key is to understand the changes of states of the material. And by understanding them, we manage to perceive what can be the Magnet of the Wise. It is for it that I consider Aureae Catenae Homeri as one of the biggest treaties of alchemy. Because he insists enormously on the changes of states of the material, on the law of the mediums which governs the passage from an element to the other one.

Other works consider that the reader has already understood what is the Magnet of the Wise, that it is not the material which counts, but its qualities, its changes of states in such or such condition.

If you content with reading and with analyzing treaties (that it is the one of Artephius, those of Fulcanelli, Valois, Philalèthe, etc...) as if they indicated first and foremost finding THE material and if it is then enough to apply their "recipe", you will not go farther than of High Spagyric. Simply because you will miss "the spirit ", Spiritus Mundi. You will believe to have the magnet of the Wise by focusing you on the various resultant materials that you will have obtained. While what counts, it is the state in which is the material which you work. Any material can potentially bring to the Philosopher's stone. Some are easier than the others to work because they have characteristics, qualities more or less close to the state necessary to obtain the Magnet of the Wise. It is only the capacity of capturing Spiritus Mundi that has the worked material which determines if we stay in Spagyric or if we really pass into alchemy.

Sorry for the long quotations, he just explained it much better...

Hellin Hermetist
01-11-2016, 06:34 PM
Ok. I think that is the opinion of GL, but if you agree wholeheartedly with all of his words, I guess that this is your opinion as well. I agree with some things of the above quotation and disagree with others. I would like to ask you sth else. Why do you think nature can produce only gold and not the philosophers stone without the aid of the artist?

JDP
01-11-2016, 07:02 PM
Ok. I think that is the opinion of GL, but if you agree wholeheartedly with all of his words, I guess that this is your opinion as well. I agree with some things of the above quotation and disagree with others. I would like to ask you sth else. Why do you think nature can produce only gold and not the philosophers stone without the aid of the artist?

You can answer that question very simply and decisively by asking yourself another question: has anyone ever found the Philosophers' Stone already made in a natural setting, like, say, a mine? Obviously not, otherwise it would have been noticed a long time ago by miners that such a remarkable substance can sometimes be found already made in some mines.

Hellin Hermetist
01-11-2016, 09:17 PM
You can answer that question very simply and decisively by asking yourself another question: has anyone ever found the Philosophers' Stone already made in a natural setting, like, say, a mine? Obviously not, otherwise it would have been noticed a long time ago by miners that such a remarkable substance can sometimes be found already made in some mines.

Yes my friend, but I asked what is the obstacle which doesnt allow nature to produce the philosophers stone by herself and in what way the artist has to aid or support nature. I didnt ask if nature can produce the stone alone or not.

Andro
01-11-2016, 10:46 PM
Ok. I think that is the opinion of GL, but if you agree wholeheartedly with all of his words, I guess that this is your opinion as well.

I generally agree, only there is a lot more to it, in my innerstanding.


I agree with some things of the above quotation and disagree with others.

Just curious, which parts resonate with you and which don't?


I would like to ask you sth else. Why do you think nature can produce only gold and not the philosophers stone without the aid of the artist?

I have a very detailed (personal) explanation for this, but I'm afraid it's a bit too "crazy sounding", especially in light of some recent debates on this forum.

I need some time to think when/if I'm ready to publish it.

It's not some big secret/formula, it's just an elaboration on the invisible underlying real reality (as opposed to perceived reality) and the causality and laws/habits that accompany it.

This INNER-standing mostly supports (and expands on) the brief above exposition of GL, and can also give us usable keys for implementation as well.

Sorry for being a bit vague at this time, I myself need to 'sit' on this by myself for a while longer...

JDP
01-12-2016, 10:21 AM
Yes my friend, but I asked what is the obstacle which doesnt allow nature to produce the philosophers stone by herself and in what way the artist has to aid or support nature. I didnt ask if nature can produce the stone alone or not.

OK, I understand the proper context of your question now, the way it is written it was difficult to determine if you were asking him why he believed that the Stone is not produced in nature (as if it was something not warranted by actual observation), or if you were asking him why it is a fact that the Stone is not produced in nature.

To answer your question: because the whole "follow nature" alchemical mantra is just that: a mantra. It is just a theoretical assumption based on how most alchemists thought nature produced metals and minerals in the bowels of the earth, which they imagined their own methods resembled. The fact is that no one really knows for sure how metals and minerals were formed (modern science has its own views on the subject), and, as you are well aware of, since the Stone is not produced in nature it obviously means that the operations and conditions necessary for producing it are in fact the result of human ingenuity, not something that nature employs. So you can very safely ignore those "follow nature" alchemical mantras. If you follow them to the letter I can almost guarantee you that you will never succeed in anything regarding alchemy. Nature knows nothing about making the Stone, not any more than it knows how to produce sodium amalgam, nylon or TNT, for example. If it did, rest assured it would produce it too wherever the suitable conditions presented themselves.

Hellin Hermetist
01-14-2016, 06:30 PM
Just curious, which parts resonate with you and which don't?



I agree that its a certain condition or state of matter that we are looking for, but I believe that we have to work upon the perfect metals and bring them under such a condition in order to produce the stone. So, I think that the perfect metal is essential to the work, but the matter which will be used as a solvent or a menstrue is not. By this I mean, that we can use different solvents to bring the perfect metal under the desired condition, and not only one magical solvent as teach most alchmical treatises.

As concern the Spiritus Mundi concept, I believe that we have to do with a playing of words. For example, when a theosophist speaks about a mineral monad and says that: "The mineral monad is not an individuality latent, but an all-pervading Force which has for its present vehicle matter in its lowest and most concrete terrestrial state", does it give a definition which agree with your Spiritus Mundi term. Or when we see Tiffereau ascribe the metallic and mineral tranformations to the presence and act of mineral microbes, do you agree with him or not? The same goes for the magnet. If Spiritus Mundi is everywhere and every matter that is subjected to tranformation is a magnet of it, does that mean that wine which is reduced to vinegar is a magnet of Spiritus Mundi but vinegar which stays unaltered is not? By answering some of those questions you will help me to understand your thinking.

JDP
01-14-2016, 07:05 PM
So, I think that the perfect metal is essential to the work, but the matter which will be used as a solvent or a menstrue is not. By this I mean, that we can use different solvents to bring the perfect metal under the desired condition, and not only one magical solvent as teach most alchmical treatises.

But if that was true, then why isn't the Philosophers' Stone more commonly found by seekers and there has always been such a huge rate of failure? In fact, if there were so many different solvents that can give the same result, one would expect that the Stone would have ceased to be such a difficult thing to discover how to make and would very likely have passed to be a "public domain" thing quite a while back. I would agree that when it comes to "particulars" things are less limited and restricted and a variety of solvents might effect similar results, but when it comes to the Stone things are quite different. Here a more specific and restricted, and therefore difficult to find out, solvent is needed.

pierre
01-14-2016, 10:41 PM
IMO the solvent should dissolve the metal without corrosion. Like an ice cube is dissolved in water. Therefore, the solvent must not be very different from the material to dissolve.
I like to think that they are of the same nature. But that's my belief.

Hellin Hermetist
01-14-2016, 10:46 PM
But if that was true, then why isn't the Philosophers' Stone more commonly found by seekers and there has always been such a huge rate of failure? In fact, if there were so many different solvents that can give the same result, one would expect that the Stone would have ceased to be such a difficult thing to discover how to make and would very likely have passed to be a "public domain" thing quite a while back. I would agree that when it comes to "particulars" things are less limited and restricted and a variety of solvents might effect similar results, but when it comes to the Stone things are quite different. Here a more specific and restricted, and therefore difficult to find out, solvent is needed.

I guess that a simple solution shall not produce the stone and the essential manipulations are more complex and tricky than that. Kirchewer says that the menstrue which he describes at his Golden Chain, which is produced by volatilize common vitriol by repeated distillation with common spirit of niter, is a menstrue able to make volatile all the metals, even gold. So here we have a certain solvent able to dissolve gold which is unknown to modern chemists, and also a method to volatilize metals by repeated distillation with a solvent, a procedure which is not accepted by modern chemistry as well. Samuel Cottereau Du Clos says that he had seen the work of some members of the Academy, which used a special solvent produced from marl earth and with it they dissolved gold and made it pass to the receiver by distillation. So we have to know both the necessary manipulations to produce a suitable solvent and also the correct method of application of that solvent in order to dissolve gold and produce the Stone. I believe that the correct application is a tedious work and we dont need simply to put metallic gold in a suitable solvent and leave it there as preaches some the alchemists. Its the humid part of gold who dissolves its own earth to produce the stone and the solvent is only used to separate the metallic earth from the metallic humidity, which Vallois and some others say that its a most tedious work.

PS: By the way, may the mods want to open another thread where we shall speak about interesting solvents found in various works.

Hellin Hermetist
01-14-2016, 10:56 PM
IMO the solvent should dissolve the metal without corrosion. Like an ice cube is dissolved in water. Therefore, the solvent must not be very different from the material to dissolve.
I like to think that they are of the same nature. But that's my belief.

The only thing that dissolves without corrosion is the metallic humidity which dissolves its own earth. If the first solvent dissolved without corrosion, we shouldnt have to pass from the fire against nature to the non natural and from there to the natural, as Vicot has shown in his excellent treatise. In that case all should be natural. Nor we should need the putrefaction to remove the fire against nature from the rebis, which fire against nature is nothing more than the corrosive humidity and saltiness which has stayed with it from the first menstrual. At least thats the doctrine of the autors I have found most charitable. Dont forget that almost all authors say that we have two dissolutions. One violent and against nature and one natural and gentle.

Andro
01-14-2016, 11:17 PM
Yes, in this lineage, most definitely. I am in agreement with your elaboration, as far as this path/lineage is concerned.

It is (as I see it) the lineage of the Philosophical Spirit of "Wine". (Hollandus, "Lully", etc talk more or less about the same path, and starting matters may vary (metallic, mineral, vegetable, etc...)

The distinction you have pointed out between the two "dissolutions" is very important IMO and should be taken to heart by those reading this thread.

You have been generous in sharing/summarizing this for the forum readers.

Experimenting with this path can teach us valuable lessons towards further advancement in innerstanding the Great Work.


The only thing that dissolves without corrosion is the metallic humidity which dissolves its own earth. If the first solvent dissolved without corrosion, we shouldn't have to pass from the fire against nature to the non natural and from there to the natural, as Vicot has shown in his excellent treatise. In that case all should be natural. Nor we should need the putrefaction to remove the fire against nature from the rebis, which fire against nature is nothing more than the corrosive humidity and saltiness which has stayed with it from the first menstrual. At least that's the doctrine of the authors I have found most charitable. Don't forget that almost all authors say that we have two dissolutions. One violent and against nature and one natural and gentle.

Andro
01-14-2016, 11:25 PM
IMO the solvent should dissolve the metal without corrosion. Like an ice cube is dissolved in water. Therefore, the solvent must not be very different from the material to dissolve.
I like to think that they are of the same nature. But that's my belief.

It depends what effect we wish our solvent/menstruum to perform.

Do we wish it to dissolve the matter?

Do we wish it to "unlock" ("open") the matter?

Do we wish it to volatilize the matter?

Or fix it?

Or make it from a "Two-Thing" into a "One-Thing"?

Do we wish it to change the state of the matter?

Do we wish it to extract/separate something from the matter (i.e. its Radical Humidity, its Quintessence, its superfluities, etc...)?

Do we wish it to "cook" the matter?

Do we wish it to re-incrudate the matter?

I think these are some of the important questions to ask ourselves when discussing Solvents and Menstruums.


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

Andro
01-14-2016, 11:27 PM
By the way, may the mods want to open another thread where we shall speak about interesting solvents found in various works.

Yes, good idea, thank you for the suggestion!

Please see the new spin-off thread: Solvents & Menstruums (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4619-Solvents-amp-Menstruums)

Hellin Hermetist
01-14-2016, 11:43 PM
Androgynus I have answered you in an earlier thread about the points I am in agreement with GL's and your opinion. Not sure if you saw it. I would like to hear your answer at my questions about Spiritus Mundi and the philosophical magnet and also to ask you which authors except Cyliani has decribed that approach.

pierre
01-14-2016, 11:54 PM
Pedro Borello, a chemical Parisian doctor, could not agree with you, Hellin. He claimed to have found a natural solvent which is capable of dissolving the gold without corrosion, without smoke, without boiling, without fire and in total harmony. With this solvent, Borello obtained an oily salt from metallic gold. I refer to this author. What you read there, maybe surprise you.

Andro
01-15-2016, 12:04 AM
Pedro Borello, a chemical Parisian doctor, could not agree with you, Hellin. He claimed to have found a natural solvent which is capable of dissolving the gold without corrosion, without smoke, without boiling, without fire and in total harmony. With this solvent, Borello obtained an oily salt from metallic gold. I refer to this author. What you read there, maybe surprise you.

HH is correct in the context of the path/lineage he is referring to.

There are other paths which do not involve corrosives as a precursor, but arrive to various solvents without the first (corrosive) dissolution.

One path doesn't necessarily invalidate the other.

pierre
01-15-2016, 12:06 AM
It depends what effect we wish our solvent/menstruum to perform.

Do we wish it to dissolve the matter?

Do we wish it to "unlock" ("open") the matter?

Do we wish it to volatilize the matter?

Or fix it?

Or make it from a "Two-Thing" into a "One-Thing"?

Do we wish it to change the state of the matter?

Do we wish it to extract/separate something from the matter (i.e. its Radical Humidity, its Quintessence, its superfluities, etc...)?

Do we wish it to "cook" the matter?

Do we wish it to re-incrudate the matter?

I think these are some of the important questions to ask ourselves when discussing Solvents and Menstruums.


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

Uff... what a questions, A.
The idea would be to dissolve the gold for its sulfur, I guess...

pierre
01-15-2016, 12:08 AM
HH is correct in the context of the path/lineage he is referring to.

There are other paths which do not involve corrosives as a precursor, but arrive to various solvents without the first (corrosive) dissolution.

One path doesn't necessarily invalidate the other.

Totally agree. My position does not cancel options, but attempts to add options.

Andro
01-15-2016, 12:12 AM
also to ask you which authors except Cyliani has described that approach.

ICH, Hermetic Recreations, and various R+C works (mostly in German, at least the ones I know of), such as the 'Thesaurus Thesaurorum a Fraternitatae Rosea et Aureae Crucis'. (among others).

Bacstrom's Aphorisms mention it as well, as does "Chemical Moonshine".

Sometimes referred to as Universal Spirit, sometimes as Astral Spirit, sometimes as Spiritus Mundi.

Those works also mention magnets/agencies to "attract" it/render it tangible.

Hellin Hermetist
01-15-2016, 12:25 AM
Pedro Borello, a chemical Parisian doctor, could not agree with you, Hellin. He claimed to have found a natural solvent which is capable of dissolving the gold without corrosion, without smoke, without boiling, without fire and in total harmony. With this solvent, Borello obtained an oily salt from metallic gold. I refer to this author. What you read there, maybe surprise you.

I shall tanscript a method for the production of a solvent which dissolves gold without violence, heat and smoke from an author I find reliable in the other thread. But this doesnt prove anything about alchemy or metallic transmutation. Maybe you can transcript the receipt for Borello's solvent there as well if it isnt a secret.

JDP
01-15-2016, 10:15 AM
I guess that a simple solution shall not produce the stone and the essential manipulations are more complex and tricky than that. Kirchewer says that the menstrue which he describes at his Golden Chain, which is produced by volatilize common vitriol by repeated distillation with common spirit of niter, is a menstrue able to make volatile all the metals, even gold. So here we have a certain solvent able to dissolve gold which is unknown to modern chemists, and also a method to volatilize metals by repeated distillation with a solvent, a procedure which is not accepted by modern chemistry as well. Samuel Cottereau Du Clos says that he had seen the work of some members of the Academy, which used a special solvent produced from marl earth and with it they dissolved gold and made it pass to the receiver by distillation. So we have to know both the necessary manipulations to produce a suitable solvent and also the correct method of application of that solvent in order to dissolve gold and produce the Stone. I believe that the correct application is a tedious work and we dont need simply to put metallic gold in a suitable solvent and leave it there as preaches some the alchemists. Its the humid part of gold who dissolves its own earth to produce the stone and the solvent is only used to separate the metallic earth from the metallic humidity, which Vallois and some others say that its a most tedious work.

PS: By the way, may the mods want to open another thread where we shall speak about interesting solvents found in various works.

You can find solvents and methods that will do that to gold, but still no Philosophers' Stone is found at the end. Kunckel already attacked and mocked this idea that volatilizing gold was some sort of "big secret" and clearly describes an experiment to achieve it (it is in fact the real source of Fulcanelli's experiment with gold using aqua regia and sulfuric acid, which, as usual, he does not give his actual source any credit for.) Like I said before, various solvents could appertain to "particulars", which can rely on a less restrictive amount of reagents, but actual alchemy (by which should only be understood the production of the Philosophers' Stone) is a different case. Here the alchemists are quite persistent in saying that their solvent or "Water" or "Mercury" is very specific and must be figured out. Just about any solvent won't do it. This has a very pertinent reason for being:the solvent itself forms an integral part of the matter of the Stone. It is its "food", so to speak. Unlike other solvents, the one of alchemy actually "coagulates" with the proper metallic matter it dissolved, and in the process of doing so forms the Stone. Common solvents will NEVER do such a thing. Read, for example, Antonio de Abbatia's epistles on alchemy, or Thomas Norton's "Ordinal". Like many other alchemists, they point out how common "aqua fortises" or "corrosives" do NOT permanently remain with what they dissolve. They can always be separated and the metals dissolved in them recovered intact. They use the example of silver dissolved in such acid liquors and how it remains the same after the "corrosive" is removed. Norton even points out that the weight of the silver remains exactly the same, before and after the solution in such corrosive solvents, thus anticipating gravimetric observations that chemistry thinks are its own "discovery" but which in fact were known by many alchemists many centuries before.

Hellin Hermetist
01-15-2016, 04:02 PM
Here the alchemists are quite persistent in saying that their solvent or "Water" or "Mercury" is very specific and must be figured out. Just about any solvent won't do it. This has a very pertinent reason for being:the solvent itself forms an integral part of the matter of the Stone. It is its "food", so to speak. Unlike other solvents, the one of alchemy actually "coagulates" with the proper metallic matter it dissolved, and in the process of doing so forms the Stone. Common solvents will NEVER do such a thing.

Thats an opinion found in most of the alchemical treatises, but some other alchemists, especially from the Lullian lineage, doesnt seem to agree with that. Vicot for example writes:

"Because the water we are looking for can not be found on earth, we are obliged to make it by art, and by this I mean that we have to extract it from gold, which gold we must at first dissolve using an external and corrosive water, which will let us later to extract the internal and natural humidity of the body. We can see then that the first solution isn't natural but against nature, and have to make the body move away from its present temperament, without nevertheless kill or destroy totally its metallic specifiaction."

And in another point:

"Τhe first water we call water of mercury. Its that which makes the stone volatile, and its the first key with which we open the body, which nevertheless is extremely subtile and hasnt taken a specification to any one of the genres, so it can act and affect without difference the one or the other genre. This first water isnt essential nor homogeneous with our matter, but with the help of it we can set free from our composition a certain heavenly virtue, about which we shall speak more clearly in another place. But our second water is the water of the body, which is essential to our stone and is extracted from the aformentioned body by the first water, which second water the more is purfied from the first water and its phlegmatic and terrestrial nature, the more perfect it appears to us. The third water is permanent, and many times is confused with the second, as its nothing more than this second purified to the highest possible degree".

And again:

"Τhe body is reduced at the beginning to an oily or viscous water, after to a water permanent, then to a clear water and at last to a water like common mercury".

Now we can clearly see how different is that doctrine from the doctrine of pseudophilosophers and their homogeneous solvent which reduce gold to a running mercury in a moment, when the above philosopher has clearly shown that the metallic tempermanet must return and the body takes the form of metallic mercury only at the final stages of the Work, after the putrefaction and the essential purification of its components parts has taken place. And if Sendivogius has almost plagiarized his chapters about the generation of the metals from the manuscript of Vallois (who was Vicot companion) and pseudo-Valentine has for sure plagiarized his first book of twelve keys from the alchemical poem of their manuscripts, why do I have to listen the students and their followers and not the original teachers?

JDP
01-15-2016, 05:02 PM
Thats an opinion found in most of the alchemical treatises, but some other alchemists, especially from the Lullian lineage, doesnt seem to agree with that. Vicot for example writes:

"Because the water we are looking for can not be found on earth, we are obliged to make it by art, and by this I mean that we have to extract it from gold, which gold we must at first dissolve using an external and corrosive water, which will let us later to extract the internal and natural humidity of the body. We can see then that the first solution isn't natural but against nature, and have to make the body move away from its present temperament, without nevertheless kill or destroy totally its metallic specifiaction."

And in another point:

"Τhe first water we call water of mercury. Its that which makes the stone volatile, and its the first key with which we open the body, which nevertheless is extremely subtile and hasnt taken a specification to any one of the genres, so it can act and affect without difference the one or the other genre. This first water isnt essential nor homogeneous with our matter, but with the help of it we can set free from our composition a certain heavenly virtue, about which we shall speak more clearly in another place. But our second water is the water of the body, which is essential to our stone and is extracted from the aformentioned body by the first water, which second water the more is purfied from the first water and its phlegmatic and terrestrial nature, the more perfect it appears to us. The third water is permanent, and many times is confused with the second, as its nothing more than this second purified to the highest possible degree".

And again:

"Τhe body is reduced at the beginning to an oily or viscous water, after to a water permanent, then to a clear water and at last to a water like common mercury".

Now we can clearly see how different is that doctrine from the doctrine of pseudophilosophers and their homogeneous solvent which reduce gold to a running mercury in a moment, when the above philosopher has clearly shown that the metallic tempermanet must return and the body takes the form of metallic mercury only at the final stages of the Work, after the putrefaction and the essential purification of its components parts has taken place. And if Sendivogius has almost plagiarized his chapters about the generation of the metals from the manuscript of Vallois (who was Vicot companion) and pseudo-Valentine has for sure plagiarized his first book of twelve keys from the alchemical poem of their manuscripts, why do I have to listen the students and their followers and not the original teachers?

The text by Vallois might not be as old as you think. The oldest manuscripts of it seem to be from the 17th century. Also, older treatises like the "Scala Philosophorum" of Guido Montanor already write about the "First Water" as a "sharp water" (a generic name for acids in the Middle Ages) to "open" the body of metals, but these acids are only "auxiliaries", the secret solvent, which he arbitrarily calls "Second Water", is still necessary to accomplish the Stone. The common acids were only used by some operators to reduce metals to a fine state of division. These solvents will never accomplish any truly radical union with what they dissolve, though. You will always be able to separate them from the resulting metallic salts. There is no escaping the need for the special solvent of alchemy, which does remain radically united with what it dissolved, and after due "digestion" actually "coagulates" with it into a wholly new substance, totally different from its "parents": the Stone.

Hellin Hermetist
01-15-2016, 05:59 PM
My contemplation of the Work is the following. We use the first water, which is corrosive and sharp and not essential to the stone, to dissolve the body of gold and separate its humid from its earthly part. So we dont use the first water to perform only a division of parts or to reduce the metal to a salt, but by certain manipulations, which constitue one of the secrets of the art, we distill a certain humidity from the metal and leave at the bottom the earthly part of it. This metallic humidity, which is distilled by the help of the first water, is the second water, which is essential to the stone. After that, we take the earthly part which has stayed behind and we purify it using the first sharp water. We keep the pure part of that earth and reject the impure. Then we combine the pure earth with the metallic or second water, and that is the real rebis or first matter of the stone which shall be subjected to putrefaction and the other operations, as from that moment on the Nature works alone in the closed vessel. So we use the second water not to dissolve common metallic gold, but the purified earth which we have earlier separate from it by certain manipulations and with the help of the first water. Thats the water which dissolves its own earth and coagulates itself with it. Thats my opinion at the present time.

JDP
01-15-2016, 06:07 PM
Thats an opinion found in most of the alchemical treatises, but some other alchemists, especially from the Lullian lineage, doesnt seem to agree with that. Vicot for example writes:

"Because the water we are looking for can not be found on earth, we are obliged to make it by art, and by this I mean that we have to extract it from gold, which gold we must at first dissolve using an external and corrosive water, which will let us later to extract the internal and natural humidity of the body. We can see then that the first solution isn't natural but against nature, and have to make the body move away from its present temperament, without nevertheless kill or destroy totally its metallic specifiaction."

And in another point:

"Τhe first water we call water of mercury. Its that which makes the stone volatile, and its the first key with which we open the body, which nevertheless is extremely subtile and hasnt taken a specification to any one of the genres, so it can act and affect without difference the one or the other genre. This first water isnt essential nor homogeneous with our matter, but with the help of it we can set free from our composition a certain heavenly virtue, about which we shall speak more clearly in another place. But our second water is the water of the body, which is essential to our stone and is extracted from the aformentioned body by the first water, which second water the more is purfied from the first water and its phlegmatic and terrestrial nature, the more perfect it appears to us. The third water is permanent, and many times is confused with the second, as its nothing more than this second purified to the highest possible degree".

And again:

"Τhe body is reduced at the beginning to an oily or viscous water, after to a water permanent, then to a clear water and at last to a water like common mercury".

Now we can clearly see how different is that doctrine from the doctrine of pseudophilosophers and their homogeneous solvent which reduce gold to a running mercury in a moment, when the above philosopher has clearly shown that the metallic tempermanet must return and the body takes the form of metallic mercury only at the final stages of the Work, after the putrefaction and the essential purification of its components parts has taken place. And if Sendivogius has almost plagiarized his chapters about the generation of the metals from the manuscript of Vallois (who was Vicot companion) and pseudo-Valentine has for sure plagiarized his first book of twelve keys from the alchemical poem of their manuscripts, why do I have to listen the students and their followers and not the original teachers?

I just reviewed the text by Valois, and it has similar statements that condemn common acids and distinguishes them from the secret solvent of alchemy, which this author also says is a "Strong Water", but not like the common ones, which can't radically unite with what they dissolve. Some examples, taken from the First Book of Nicolas Valois' "Five Books":

"It is a powerful and strong vinegar, and, to say it in a single word, it is a Strong Water that has the power, without any other help other than its own, to convert all the bodies in its first matter, since it is it which kills everything.

Even though some have defended Strong Waters, which knaves and charlatans use to corrupt and break-up the bodies of metals, they understand these Strong Waters, which are made from various compositions and elements contrary to the substance and the quality of our one and single subject...

The spirit of common salt dissolves gold well but it does not mix inseparably with it, while our Salt dissolves gold by such an admirable solution, that there is no difference between the gold and the Water, which turn into one only thing, and the cause of it I will tell you."

As can be seen from these passages, Valois' treatise is a very standard alchemical text, making pretty much the same statements as the vast majority of the literature. It clearly distinguishes common solvents like vinegar or aqua fortis from the secret solvent of alchemy.

JDP
01-15-2016, 06:22 PM
My contemplation of the Work is the following. We use the first water, which is corrosive and sharp and not essential to the stone, to dissolve the body of gold and separate its humid from its earthly part. So we dont use the first water to perform only a division of parts or to reduce the metal to a salt, but by certain manipulations, which constitue one of the secrets of the art, we distill a certain humidity from the metal and leave at the bottom the earthly part of it. This metallic humidity, which is distilled by the help of the first water, is the second water, which is essential to the stone. After that, we take the earthly part which has stayed behind and we purify it using the first sharp water. We keep the pure part of that earth and reject the impure. Then we combine the pure earth with the metallic or second water, and that is the real rebis or first matter of the stone which shall be subjected to putrefaction and the other operations, as from that moment on the Nature works alone in the closed vessel. So we use the second water not to dissolve common metallic gold, but the purified earth which we have earlier separate from it by certain manipulations and with the help of the first water. Thats the water which dissolves its own earth and coagulates itself with it. Thats my opinion at the present time.

If this operation is really possible, then rest assured that the "First Water" in question is not any common acid. When you actually put this theory to the test you will find that your gold will not yield any such special "certain humidity" when you use common acids. What you will find is that the "corrosive" part will be separated and leave behind the metal intact, as it was before the solution. In fact, this fact is one of the main reasons that chemistry eventually came to think that alchemy was mistaken and transmutation is a "dream" (chemists quite mistakenly thought that they were observing something "new" when in fact alchemical literature is quite full of references to how ineffective such common solvents are in affecting metals, other than making superficial changes in them.)

By the way: I do not hold exactly the same view of the alchemists and chemists regarding the supposed inability of acids to affect any radical changes on metals. See some of my comments around these forums on the subject of the "gradatory" acids of the more experienced "puffers" and chymists. But this topic appertains to "particulars" where some gold is produced directly from silver, not to making the Stone. When it comes to making the Stone, things like aqua fortis, oil of vitriol and the like "corrosives", no matter how specially or intricately prepared, are not going to cut it. They will never radically join with what they dissolve.

Hellin Hermetist
01-15-2016, 06:28 PM
I know of those statements of Vallois, but in other parts it seems that the salt from which he exracts his first water is nothing more than niter, to which him, as some other philosophers as well, seems to ascribe some universal power. In another point for example he says: "If I named that salt with its proper and common name, you would not believe me, at least if you are not able to understand my philosophy". Check also the third chapter where he describes his practice. There he says that we must dissolve gold at the first water, and after that remove the phlegm by distillation in balneo and the acidity by distillation in the cendres, and we have to repeat many times that operation. If the solvent was homogeneous with the body, why should we be able to remove by distillation the plhegm and the acidity from it afterwrds?

Hellin Hermetist
01-15-2016, 06:30 PM
By the way: I do not hold exactly the same view of the alchemists and chemists regarding the supposed inability of acids to affect any radical changes on metals. See some of my comments around these forums on the subject of the "gradatory" acids of the more experienced "puffers" and chymists. But this topic appertains to "particulars" where some gold is produced directly from silver, not to making the Stone. When it comes to making the Stone, things like aqua fortis, oil of vitriol and the like "corrosives", no matter how specially or intricately prepared, are not going to cut it. They will never radically join with what they dissolve.

Hasnt Lawrence Principe showed, following Valentine, that a common solvent like aqua regis can volatilise gold and make it pass through the alembic, a fact not accepted by modern chemists?

JDP
01-15-2016, 06:38 PM
Hasnt Lawrence Principe showed, following Valentine, that a common solvent like aqua regis can volatilise gold and make it pass through the alembic, a fact not accepted by modern chemists?

Yes, but the gold remains the same. It can be easily reduced back to metal. The solvent does not really radically unite with it. Kunckel had already shown how to volatilize gold by using some acid mixtures and heating the resulting salts in a retort long before that, and he did not see anything special about it either. The gold remains gold.

Also, notice that Principe says that volatilizing gold as the commentator of the "12 Keys" suggests is quite difficult and requires skill and patience. Any normal heating of the gold chloride will easily decompose it back to metal, separating the chlorine that was formerly attached to it.

z0 K
01-15-2016, 06:38 PM
I agree that its a certain condition or state of matter that we are looking for, but I believe that we have to work upon the perfect metals and bring them under such a condition in order to produce the stone. So, I think that the perfect metal is essential to the work, but the matter which will be used as a solvent or a menstrue is not. By this I mean, that we can use different solvents to bring the perfect metal under the desired condition, and not only one magical solvent as teach most alchmical treatises.

As concern the Spiritus Mundi concept, I believe that we have to do with a playing of words. For example, when a theosophist speaks about a mineral monad and says that: "The mineral monad is not an individuality latent, but an all-pervading Force which has for its present vehicle matter in its lowest and most concrete terrestrial state", does it give a definition which agree with your Spiritus Mundi term. Or when we see Tiffereau ascribe the metallic and mineral tranformations to the presence and act of mineral microbes, do you agree with him or not? The same goes for the magnet. If Spiritus Mundi is everywhere and every matter that is subjected to tranformation is a magnet of it, does that mean that wine which is reduced to vinegar is a magnet of Spiritus Mundi but vinegar which stays unaltered is not? By answering some of those questions you will help me to understand your thinking.

We learn and know by experimenting in our laboratories. Some may not realize we are living laboratories. To follow Nature is to follow yourself.

There is a certain condition or state of matter that we are looking for before any consideration of bringing perfect metals into such a condition to produce the stone.

The matter that is used as a solvent or menstrua is essential to all philosophical operations; the perfect metal: Au is not. There are many mensturms but all philosophical menstrums contain that certain condition or state of matter essential to all philosophical operations.

Weidenfeld compiled many menstrums compounded of various materials all containing the matter we are looking for. We can use different solvents to bring the perfect metal to the desired condition for the menstrum.

For the Philosophy to work Spiritus Mundi or Anima Mundi should translate or transfer or transform from an all pervading Force to its present vehicle matter in its lowest and most concrete terrestrial state. Philosophers call that terrestrial state the magnet.

Spiritus Mundi is Undetermined as an all prevading Force. The Artist must be determined to catch it because it is made manifest by the fire against nature. The Spirit is known by the magnetic quality of drawing elements to it manifesting a philosophical body.

Philosophical wine and vinegar of the mountains can be mothers of the Spirit if the fire against nature is properly contained.

I hope this helps to understand some of my thinking:)

z0 K

JDP
01-15-2016, 06:45 PM
I know of those statements of Vallois, but in other parts it seems that the salt from which he exracts his first water is nothing more than niter, to which him, as some other philosophers as well, seems to ascribe some universal power. In another point for example he says: "If I named that salt with its proper and common name, you would not believe me, at least if you are not able to understand my philosophy". Check also the third chapter where he describes his practice. There he says that we must dissolve gold at the first water, and after that remove the phlegm by distillation in balneo and the acidity by distillation in the cendres, and we have to repeat many times that operation. If the solvent was homogeneous with the body, why should we be able to remove by distillation the plhegm and the acidity from it afterwrds?

We could conjure up the explanation given by Weidenfeld, for example: the secret solvent in such cases might be mixed with another solvent. So you would be separating the parts of the common solvent, say, for example, aqua fortis, while the secret solvent remains behind with the dissolved metal. In such a case the common solvent was added to make the metal into a salt, and therefore more finely divided, and thus easier for the secret solvent to mix with it.

Another possible explanation: maybe the secret solvent evolves some "phlegm" and "acidity" during the solution of the metal/salt, and this is what is separated. What remains behind is what is radically joined to the metal.

True Initiate
01-19-2016, 02:25 AM
Lulle says that we need the stinking menstrual and one of the perfect bodies, when Urbigerus extracts all the principles for his work from a certain mineral. I dont think that their methods are similar. Lulle and his followers (Vallois and the Flers alchemists) say that we need to extract/liberate the metallic humidity (not Spiritus Mundi) from the body of gold. We use a corrosive to do that (the fire against nature to get the natural fire). Kirchweger in his Golden Chain says that what you call Spiritus Mundi is nothing more than common niter and salt and their spirits. Not sure if you have adopted his opinion.

Ah, the joys of discrepancy between German vs French traditions! I am getting nostalgic!

True Initiate
01-19-2016, 02:43 AM
For the Philosophy to work Spiritus Mundi or Anima Mundi should translate or transfer or transform from an all pervading Force to its present vehicle matter in its lowest and most concrete terrestrial state. Philosophers call that terrestrial state the magnet.

Spiritus Mundi is Undetermined as an all prevading Force. The Artist must be determined to catch it because it is made manifest by the fire against nature. The Spirit is known by the magnetic quality of drawing elements to it manifesting a philosophical body.


Now if we go beyond the realm of chemistry we will arrive in the realm of physics where forces of Nature are at work. The most revealing hint that z0 K gave us:

Spiritus Mundi is Undetermined as an all prevading Force. The Artist must be determined to catch it because it is made manifest by the fire against nature.

SM is a Force and it's manifest itself as a fire against nature or lightning. The term Spirit was used by the ancients to describe a form of energy not a liquid as the 16th century alchemists imagined.

Michael Sternbach
01-19-2016, 05:06 PM
Hasnt Lawrence Principe showed, following Valentine, that a common solvent like aqua regis can volatilise gold and make it pass through the alembic, a fact not accepted by modern chemists?

Where did he show this?

JDP
01-19-2016, 06:20 PM
Where did he show this?

It's in his The Secrets of Alchemy book, the section where he discusses Basil Valentine's "12 Keys". There's some very specific conditions for the effect to happen, though. The gold chloride must be heated in an atmosphere of chlorine gas. These conditions can happen in the repeated solutions, coagulations and heatings (or "cohobations", if you will) inside glass vessels that are prescribed by one of the 12 Keys' commentators. Normal heating of gold chloride simply decomposes it back to its metallic state.

Schmuldvich
03-04-2017, 04:45 AM
If this operation is really possible, then rest assured that the "First Water" in question is not any common acid. When you actually put this theory to the test you will find that your gold will not yield any such special "certain humidity" when you use common acids. What you will find is that the "corrosive" part will be separated and leave behind the metal intact, as it was before the solution. In fact, this fact is one of the main reasons that chemistry eventually came to think that alchemy was mistaken and transmutation is a "dream" (chemists quite mistakenly thought that they were observing something "new" when in fact alchemical literature is quite full of references to how ineffective such common solvents are in affecting metals, other than making superficial changes in them.)

Have you any firsthand experience with this Water, JDP?

JDP
03-04-2017, 07:55 AM
Have you any firsthand experience with this Water, JDP?

If I did, I would be an "adept", not merely a "seeker". But I have a few ideas on what it could be, based on several reactions I have witnessed with my own eyes and wrought with my own hands.

Aham
03-04-2017, 02:12 PM
I have a very detailed (personal) explanation for this, but I'm afraid it's a bit too "crazy sounding", especially in light of some recent debates on this forum.

I need some time to think when/if I'm ready to publish it.

It's not some big secret/formula, it's just an elaboration on the invisible underlying real reality (as opposed to perceived reality) and the causality and laws/habits that accompany it.

This INNER-standing mostly supports (and expands on) the brief above exposition of GL, and can also give us usable keys for implementation as well.

Sorry for being a bit vague at this time, I myself need to 'sit' on this by myself for a while longer...

Hi Andro, you made these comments about a year ago and I was curious if you were ready for the 'crazy talk' :D :cool:

Andro
03-04-2017, 02:42 PM
Hi Andro, you made these comments about a year ago and I was curious if you were ready for the 'crazy talk' :D :cool:

My perspectives on the topics you are referring to are already posted all over this forum. I have elaborated here and there, in various threads and contexts.

Those concepts can be quite difficult for the mind to grasp, however they are not THAT (technically) difficult to apply/realize in practical Alchemical lab work.

The moment we SEE that the same Law(s)/Principle(s) apply to basically EVERYTHING, things start to look much clearer, in both theory and practice.

Aham
03-04-2017, 03:22 PM
My perspectives on the topics you are referring to are already posted all over this forum. I have elaborated here and there, in various threads and contexts

I had a feeling you might say that so before asking I did a quick search and found that you had posted ~700 since Jan 2016 :eek:

Now I'm all for reading and educamating myself but thought that was a bit much to sift through so if you ever get some free time where you're looking for something to do :), it would be interesting for me, and others I'm sure, to read your perspective in one post.

Kiorionis
03-04-2017, 03:30 PM
Hey,

Just for reference, you can use the Advanced Search (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/search.php) feature on the forum to search through threads more quickly by filling in the 'User Name' criteria, along with any specific 'Tags' relevant to the search.

You can also View Forum Posts (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/search.php?searchid=399569) directly or search through the Threads Started (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/search.php?searchid=399573) by a member.

zoas23
03-04-2017, 08:28 PM
If I did, I would be an "adept", not merely a "seeker". But I have a few ideas on what it could be, based on several reactions I have witnessed with my own eyes and wrought with my own hands.

LOL... the problem of our very metaphorical talks are that we sometimes get lost in what the other person is talking about.... I had a very specific solvent in mind, I was all the time assuming that you were talking about the same thing... and now I am not sure.