PDA

View Full Version : Can you make the stone without the solvent?



Dwellings
04-10-2017, 06:45 AM
In the secrecy thread, everyone is debating about the need for a solvent besides other issues.

So, my question is this, is it really necessary? Can we do without it? If yes, then how?

I hope this discussion brings out new perspectives.

*** ADDENDUM ***

Many approach alchemy with the only thought that there is a solvent and they need to work with gold using the solvent. At least, that is the feeling I get.

But I find this is leading many to pigeonhole themselves.

My original intention was to get the readers thinking along a different line of thought. Secret solvent still enters the work, not in the conventional way.

*** ADDENDUM ***

Since working with Gold is extremely difficult due to the length and care that needs to be taken. How can we simplify it?


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

JDP
04-10-2017, 07:12 AM
In the secrecy thread, everyone is debating about the need for a solvent besides other issues.

So, my question is this, is it really necessary? Can we do without it? If yes, then how?

I hope this discussion brings out new perspectives.

Answers, in the order asked above: Yes; No; Not possible.

If you are wondering why, ask yourself this: can you make an omelette without eggs? The answer is obviously "No!" Just like eggs are the "agglutinant", which will form an integral part of the omelette itself once the eggs "coagulate" with the other ingredients into a "cooked" mass, the secret solvent/"water" is also an integral part of the Stone itself, it "coagulates" and becomes part of its final "cooked" mass. Many alchemists actually refer to it as "the food" of the Stone/Elixir. So trying to make the Stone without the secret "water" or solvent is simply futile. It's just not going to happen. The Stone/Elixir can only exist because of it (and its combination/union with the "earth" or "sulphur", which would be like the herbs, cheese, onions, potatoes and/or peppers of a French or Spanish omelette; but the most crucial ingredient are the eggs, you just can't make any kind of omelette without eggs! So with the Stone and its "water".)

z0 K
04-10-2017, 07:35 PM
Answers, in the order asked above: Yes; No; Not possible.

If you are wondering why, ask yourself this: can you make an omelette without eggs? The answer is obviously "No!" Just like eggs are the "agglutinant", which will form an integral part of the omelette itself once the eggs "coagulate" with the other ingredients into a "cooked" mass, the secret solvent/"water" is also an integral part of the Stone itself, it "coagulates" and becomes part of its final "cooked" mass. Many alchemists actually refer to it as "the food" of the Stone/Elixir. So trying to make the Stone without the secret "water" or solvent is simply futile. It's just not going to happen. The Stone/Elixir can only exist because of it (and its combination/union with the "earth" or "sulphur", which would be like the herbs, cheese, onions, potatoes and/or peppers of a French or Spanish omelette; but the most crucial ingredient are the eggs, you just can't make any kind of omelette without eggs! So with the Stone and its "water".)

I completely agree with you about the secret solvent. The omelet is a good analogy. It is not possible to make an alchemical stone without the secret solvent/water/mercury of the philosophers. The secret solvent is necessary to make a vegetable stone as well as the stone from metals (still working on it:)).

Making a plant stone without our mercury is well documented these days. Operators following that methodology learned it from the writings of Albertus and Junius which are now major components in mainstream alchemy taught at various schools. I refer to that methodology as Spagyrics to distinguish it from alchemical methodology.

The methodology of spagyrics destroys the matter necessary to make the alchemical vegetable stone. That essential material they replace with alcohol thinking it to be the mercury of the vegetable kingdom. What they produce, their stone, requires adept skill in the laboratory. Spagyric plant stones can be great medicines, but they do not behave as the ancients describe for a vegetable stone.

The alchemical plant mercury is found in plants of course. Every plant possesses it. We extract it while the spagyrist burns it off as a gesture of return to the world. Once our plant mercury is extracted the rest of the parts of the plant the spagyrists use to make their stones can be discarded, or those parts can be used to make an alchemical plant stone.

I believe our plant mercury extracted and purified is the basis for our vegetable solvent to make the Elixir of metals. This is the hypothesis driving current lab experiments for me. The solvent is a complex of "elements" derived initially from the plant kingdom that become integrated into what could be called a philosophical flux.

The solvent is composed of what the alchemists called fire, air and water all derived from the starting matter. They are purified by rectification and joined to purified earth for a basic alchemical plant stone. The fire is found in the stinking red oil. The water is below it. The air is in them both and must be coaxed out.

Once purified and joined the fire, air and water can be "cured" one way or another through ageing and fermenting with other "flavorings" to borrow from the omelet analogy. Then an alchemical dough is fashioned and properly baked into the Philosophers Stone.

Though I have not done the experiment I do believe that the secret solvent could be obtained from eggs following the same alchemical methodology and protocols used for the plant work:)

Schmuldvich
04-10-2017, 08:27 PM
Great words z0 k! But...


No one here is in possession of "our Solvent".


No one eve on the whole internet has shown anyone. Do you really think someone here has touched this miraculous Solvent?

elixirmixer
04-10-2017, 09:13 PM
@ Z: I like your chat about vegetable Mercury but remember, this is not universal mercury, and as far as I can tell, you will not be able to separate out the small amount of super special solvent that is in the plants.

Also, come chat with me in vegetable stone thread Z.

@ Schmuldvich, you have said that no one has the solvent a few times now. Alas, I think that some of our more humble members do in fact possess it. (Not me)

Love EM

Schmuldvich
04-11-2017, 02:19 AM
@ Z: I like your chat about vegetable Mercury but remember, this is not universal mercury, and as far as I can tell, you will not be able to separate out the small amount of super special solvent that is in the plants.

Also, come chat with me in vegetable stone thread Z.

@ Schmuldvich, you have said that no one has the solvent a few times now. Alas, I think that some of our more humble members do in fact possess it. (Not me)


The secret solvent is necessary to make a vegetable stone as well as the stone from metals (still working on it:)).

The alchemical plant mercury is found in plants of course. Every plant possesses it. We extract it while the spagyrist burns it of.

I believe our plant mercury extracted and purified is the basis for our vegetable solvent to make the Elixir of metals.

What would you guys say is the difference between vegetable mercury vs. Alchemical Mercury (vs. "Our Mercury" if you want to go even further...)?






Everyone is debating about the need for a solvent besides other issues. So, my question is this, is it really necessary? Can we do without it? If yes, then how?

z0 k's response pointed out what he calls "Spagyrics" which is doing things without "our Solvent" ala the methods of Junius, Albertus, etc. As z0 k said, these "stones" in no way do anything worthwhile and in no way compare to the power the Ancients had with their actual Stone. So I would ask, other than sheer curiosity and firsthand laboratory experience, what value do these "false paths" have in our lives?

elixirmixer
04-11-2017, 02:27 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb here:

Vegetable Mercury is directly extracted from the vegetable realms.

Alchemical Mercury is directly extracted from the heavens.

Our Mercury is a compilation of Alchemical Mercury and some other things :cool:

elixirmixer
04-11-2017, 02:31 AM
Wow! Missed this the first time!


I believe our plant mercury extracted and purified is the basis for our vegetable solvent to make the Elixir of metals. This is the hypothesis driving current lab experiments for me. The solvent is a complex of "elements" derived initially from the plant kingdom that become integrated into what could be called a philosophical flux.

I've never thought of it, but damn that is an epic possibility. I have some well prepared silver white as snow, and typically I would use Spirit of Lead to extract my Tinture, but it would be cool to see if I can do something with vegetable mercury....

Axismundi000
04-11-2017, 08:11 AM
?...............
z0 k's response pointed out what he calls "Spagyrics" which is doing things without "our Solvent" ala the methods of Junius, Albertus, etc. As z0 k said, these "stones" in no way do anything worthwhile and in no way compare to the power the Ancients had with their actual Stone. So I would ask, other than sheer curiosity and firsthand laboratory experience, what value do these "false paths" have in our lives?

Specific to Alchemy unless someone is prepared to show a method clearly how to make Universal Mercury (SM) what do you expect people to do? Also they are not 'false paths' they are Spagyrics nothing more nothing less. Further I can say many of the Spagyric preparations made by me have excellent benefits and various uses. For example Spagyric preparations aid greatly in seeing visibly Enochian angels in a liquid mirror the Spagyric being the body of the mirror. Said Enochian angels have given me good advice about the universal Mercury and plenty of exciting work I am now doing. This approach of having Gods Angels instructing in Alchemy is the original meaning of the word Theosophy. It is obtuse in my view to denigrate peoples work without actually showing ones own.

Edit: Before you ask me to show it let me freely admit it is work in progress and I have not clearly and repeatedly made the universal Mercury, so it would be potentially misleading and unethical for me to show what I am doing with this currently. I refuse.

______________

Logistical Note: Spin-off continued here: Guidance & The Angelic Hierarchy (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?5221-Guidance-amp-The-Angelic-Hierarchy)


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

Dwellings
04-11-2017, 11:29 AM
The stone is undetermined this follows that the substance from which it created must also be undetermined in nature. So, IMO, there is no vegetable, animal, mineral stone and only a single stone i.e. the Philosopher's stone.

The solvent still enters the work, but not in the traditional way i.e. you need to do away with vulgar gold, yet must end up with the stone. Think along these lines.

When you acquire the solvent by the traditional path i.e. fight with the dragon, it poses a significant difficulty. This is what I want you to avoid. Also, solvent obtained by this fight is passive in nature so you must know how to activate it. This is another difficulty.

Don't look straight, think tangentially for therein lies success without much effort.

black
04-11-2017, 11:58 AM
Hi Dwellings

Is this something you wrote, or is it a message from "SPIRIT" that you transcribed ???

__________________________

Logistical Note: Answered HERE (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?5221-Guidance-amp-The-Angelic-Hierarchy&p=49065#post49065).

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

z0 K
04-11-2017, 03:43 PM
What would you guys say is the difference between vegetable mercury vs. Alchemical Mercury (vs. "Our Mercury" if you want to go even further...)?



There is no difference between vegetable mercury and alchemical mercury. Alchemical mercury carries the principle of growth often referred to as the seed. That is why Ripley sometimes calls it vegetable mercury. It is the alchemical seed water. Plant mercury is the same thing only it is not necessary to further cure it to make an alchemical plant stone.


z0 k's response pointed out what he calls "Spagyrics" which is doing things without "our Solvent" ala the methods of Junius, Albertus, etc. As z0 k said, these "stones" in no way do anything worthwhile and in no way compare to the power the Ancients had with their actual Stone. So I would ask, other than sheer curiosity and firsthand laboratory experience, what value do these "false paths" have in our lives?


I never said nor intended to relate that Spagyric elixirs and stones "in no way do anything worthwhile and in no way compare to the power the Ancients had with their actual Stone."

What I actually wrote was:


What they produce, their stone, requires adept skill in the laboratory. Spagyric plant stones can be great medicines, but they do not behave as the ancients describe for a vegetable stone.

Those spagyric stones do not flow like wax when heated resisting the fire over 500F as I have tested on the alchemical plant stone. Nor do they remain coherent when placed in water. Still they can be very good medicines, better than what big pharma will give you.

Weidenfeld
04-12-2017, 05:50 AM
In order to show that this ‚water‘ is most crucial the 18th century Rosicrucian and alchemist Johann Rudolf Johann Fridrich Schmid wrote a monographic treatise in Latin about that subject.

Enchiridion alchymico-physicum sive Disquisitio de menstruis universalibus vel liquoribus alcahestinis … Jena 1739.

Unfortunately Schmid did not reveal or he didn’t even know the secret of its preparation.

As far as I am aware there is only the original Latin version and a German translation.

Andro
04-12-2017, 06:26 AM
The title of the German translation appears to be: Ueber die Allgemeinen Auflösungsmittel (About The Universal Solvent/s) by R.J.F Schmid

Here's a list of other works that this book is sourcing/referencing: http://www.academia.edu/4644439/Sources_in_R.J.F_Schmid_Enchiridion_Alchymico-Physicum

zoas23
04-12-2017, 08:51 AM
In the secrecy thread, everyone is debating about the need for a solvent besides other issues. So, my question is this, is it really necessary? Can we do without it? If yes, then how? I hope this discussion brings out new perspectives.

I think a question zero should be asked: "What is the philosopher's stone? Which ones are the things that it should be able to do?"
The first question is if the solvent is necessary: yes, it is.
The second question is if it can be done without it: I disagree a bit with what everyone else said... it can somehow be done without it, but it's a tricky reply that needs an explanation.
The third question was answered by yourself: "The secret solvent still enters the work, not in the conventional way."

My answers are based on the experiences of 4 persons who are not in this forum (nor they have ever been)... The claims of one of them are a bit dubious to me, the other 3 are not dubious at all to me. The 3 of them created "weak transmutational stones" which can transmute a small amount of other metals into gold (no medicinal use at all though, it would be crazy and suicidal to ingest them).

The 4 persons followed very different procedures (I have my own reasons to doubt about one of them)... in all cases very tedious, long, dangerous and expensive procedures.

What they did? Let's pretend that the solvent is alcohol and you need a pure ethanol. Their procedure would be similar to making a beer which produces a 5% of alcohol. So the solvent is there, but very diluted, very weak... and what they got was "transmutational stones", but I think that calling them "Philosopher's Stones" is maybe going too far.
And as to use a metaphor of JDP... it's not the "chicken of the golden eggs", because their outcome probably only covered the costs.


Since working with Gold is extremely difficult due to the length and care that needs to be taken. How can we simplify it?

The 4 cases I know use gold... they are very very very long paths... and quite dangerous actually (and they need a LOT of care in all the senses: a lot of active work and a lot of caution).

So after this explanation, I can clarify my answers: "Can we do without it? If yes, then how?"... actually you can't do it without it, but you can do a weak transmutational stone with different procedures that end up creating small amounts of it mixed with a lot of things which are not "it".

Other that that these 4 (or 3, because I am not sure about one of them) persons didn't "simplify" anything when it comes to the practice... what they did is tedious, expensive, dangerous, very long, difficult in a technical way, etc.... and I do not dare to say that their result is "The Philosopher's Stone", but a weak "transmutational stone" that produces a limited "miracle" which covers the costs of its manufacture (though if you give yourself a symbolical "salary" for your work, then it doesn't). I think it is philosophically easier and technically harder.

Maybe it fits into the realm of "transmutational chymistry" (stealing an expression from JDP) than exactly "alchemy"... or a gray zone between these two things.
(In a strange way, the procedures use matters which are probably quite typical for a modern chemist, but no modern chemists would follow these procedures because they would sound crazy to him -i.e, no modern chemist would distil the same water 1,000 times during a whole year, the procedure would not make sense to him.... in the same way that probably no person here takes a shower 40 times per day).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb6nYlpCZuA

JDP
04-12-2017, 04:50 PM
I think a question zero should be asked: "What is the philosopher's stone? Which ones are the things that it should be able to do?"
The first question is if the solvent is necessary: yes, it is.
The second question is if it can be done without it: I disagree a bit with what everyone else said... it can somehow be done without it, but it's a tricky reply that needs an explanation.
The third question was answered by yourself: "The secret solvent still enters the work, not in the conventional way."

My answers are based on the experiences of 4 persons who are not in this forum (nor they have ever been)... The claims of one of them are a bit dubious to me, the other 3 are not dubious at all to me. The 3 of them created "weak transmutational stones" which can transmute a small amount of other metals into gold (no medicinal use at all though, it would be crazy and suicidal to ingest them).

The 4 persons followed very different procedures (I have my own reasons to doubt about one of them)... in all cases very tedious, long, dangerous and expensive procedures.

What they did? Let's pretend that the solvent is alcohol and you need a pure ethanol. Their procedure would be similar to making a beer which produces a 5% of alcohol. So the solvent is there, but very diluted, very weak... and what they got was "transmutational stones", but I think that calling them "Philosopher's Stones" is maybe going too far.
And as to use a metaphor of JDP... it's not the "chicken of the golden eggs", because their outcome probably only covered the costs.



The 4 cases I know use gold... they are very very very long paths... and quite dangerous actually (and they need a LOT of care in all the senses: a lot of active work and a lot of caution).

So after this explanation, I can clarify my answers: "Can we do without it? If yes, then how?"... actually you can't do it without it, but you can do a weak transmutational stone with different procedures that end up creating small amounts of it mixed with a lot of things which are not "it".

Other that that these 4 (or 3, because I am not sure about one of them) persons didn't "simplify" anything when it comes to the practice... what they did is tedious, expensive, dangerous, very long, difficult in a technical way, etc.... and I do not dare to say that their result is "The Philosopher's Stone", but a weak "transmutational stone" that produces a limited "miracle" which covers the costs of its manufacture (though if you give yourself a symbolical "salary" for your work, then it doesn't). I think it is philosophically easier and technically harder.

Maybe it fits into the realm of "transmutational chymistry" (stealing an expression from JDP) than exactly "alchemy"... or a gray zone between these two things.
(In a strange way, the procedures use matters which are probably quite typical for a modern chemist, but no modern chemists would follow these procedures because they would sound crazy to him -i.e, no modern chemist would distil the same water 1,000 times during a whole year, the procedure would not make sense to him.... in the same way that probably no person here takes a shower 40 times per day).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb6nYlpCZuA

What you are talking about was pretty much already explained by the anonymous author of "The Ancient War of the Knights" (the one published in the "Hermetic Triumph", not the older German text with the same title):

https://books.google.com/books?id=xhBbAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA154&dq=%22However,+as+for+particulars%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjL5YLmrJ_TAhXEOyYKHSXMAjYQ6AEIJDAA#v=on epage&q=%22However%2C%20as%20for%20particulars%22&f=false

"However, since you happen to speak to me of (Processes, or) Particulars, I'll explain to you in what they differ (from the Art), some Artists who have wrought with me, have carried on their Works so far, that they succeeded so far as to separate from me my Spirit, which contains my Tincture; so that mixing it with other Metals and Minerals they arriv'd thus far, that they communicated a final part of my Virtues, and of my Power to such Metals as have some Affinity and Friendship with me. Yet these Artists who have succeeded in this way, and who have indeed found one Part (of the Art,) are really but a very small Number: but as they knew not the Original whence the Tinctures come, it was impossible for them to carry on their Works beyond that; and at the casting up of their Accounts, they have found no vast Profit in their Proceeding. But if these Artists had carried on their Search further, and that they had well examined which is the Wife who is proper for me; and that they had sought for her, and united me with her; then could have ting'd a thousand Times (more; ) but (instead of that) they entirely destroyed my own Nature, by mixing me with foreign Things; 'tis truly for that Cause, that at the making up of their Accounts, they have found some Gain, however, but indifferent, in comparison of the great Power which is in me; 'tis apparent, nevertheless, that (this Gain) did not proceed, nor had its Original, but from me, and not from any other Thing whatsoever (wherewith I might be mixed)"

"However, as for Particulars, of which you make mention, it is thus with them: Some are come thus far, that they have been able to extract my tinging Spirit, which they have joined to other Metals, and brought it about by many Operations, that I have participated to such Metals as had any Affinity with me, a small Matter of my Virtue and Power; which, however, but very few succeeded in: Likewise did they partly find it by Chance. And by Reason that they did not penetrate into the Foundation, whence Tinctures come, therefore they could not proceed further, and thus they could not reap very great Advantages therefrom. But if the Artist had looked further about for my own [proper] Wife, and joined [or united] me with her, I then could have tinged a thousand Times more: But they thus spoiled my Nature [or Property] with foreign Things. However, whatever they found, (although but a small Matter in Comparison of my true Power and Efficacy,) it proceeded from me, and of no other Thing whatsoever."

By the way, most of the processes of "transmutational chymistry" (I see that you are getting a taste for my nomenclature and classifications, which are based on those of some older writers, like Alsted) do not have anything to do with the secret solvent/water of alchemy at all, they in fact involve "direct" transmutations without having to prepare any "tincture" first. The precious metal yields of most of these processes are too small to reap any profit from them, though. But they do answer the purpose of clearing up for the hesitant seeker the issue of whether transmutation is real or just the result of some collective errors, delusions, or fantasies (which implausible "explanation" is what chemists and physicists would like us to believe.)

So to sum it all up:

Alchemy NEEDS the secret solvent/water, you simply can't make the Stone/Elixir without it. Transmutational chymistry and its practitioners, on the other hand, do not need, or know how to use, or even actually know how to make this "water", and its processes mostly rely on other things, but the yields of its positive processes are usually too small to be profitable.

zoas23
04-12-2017, 07:27 PM
What you are talking about was pretty much already explained by the anonymous author of "The Ancient War of the Knights" (the one published in the "Hermetic Triumph", not the older German text with the same title):
(...)
"However, since you happen to speak to me of (Processes, or) Particulars, I'll explain to you in what they differ (from the Art), some Artists who have wrought with me, have carried on their Works so far, that they succeeded so far as to separate from me my Spirit, which contains my Tincture; so that mixing it with other Metals and Minerals they arriv'd thus far, that they communicated a final part of my Virtues, and of my Power to such Metals as have some Affinity and Friendship with me. Yet these Artists who have succeeded in this way, and who have indeed found one Part (of the Art,)

Yes, you perfectly understood it. You may understand now why I was not interested in the "powder that eats the gold" that we discussed not so long ago: it was such an incoherent mix of Particulars that it ended up being more a problem rather than a solution to anything. The process (and the others I mentioned) fall into a gray area between "transmutational chymistry" and "alchemy", because they produce a "transmutational stone", which I do not dare to call "philosophical"... and the [diluted] solvent is mixed with a chaos of substances in such a way that it is easier to "do it differently" than trying to separate it from that chaos.

Funny that you bring Saint-Didier... one of these processes I know (but have never done myself, nor I have the intention of doing it) was a "mix" between the Hermetic Triumph and Roger Bacon (Or, as to say it properly, an "interpretation" of what they meant... which I think is wrong because of the same reasons that you showed in the blue quote).

And yet this brings for me a specific question which is probably the SOURCE of all of our discrepancies. No need to be a genius to say that one of the BIG discussions in the Hermetic Triumph (and War of the Knights) is what is "Particular" and what is "Universal"....

So how would YOU define an "Universal" as opposed to a "Particular"?
(I have my definition and I think that you know it and you don't agree... but I am curious about your definition).


By the way, most of the processes of "transmutational chymistry" (I see that you are getting a taste for my nomenclature and classifications, which are based on those of some older writers, like Alsted) do not have anything to do with the secret solvent/water of alchemy at all, they in fact involve "direct" transmutations without having to prepare any "tincture" first. The precious metal yields of most of these processes are too small to reap any profit from them, though.

Yes, that's why I said "a gray area" in the middle of "transmutational chymistry" and "alchemy"... or a transmutational chymistry that produces a weak stone rather than a "direct transmutation", though you (and the War of the Knights) are right about the issue of "profits", at least in the cases I know.


So to sum it all up:

Alchemy NEEDS the secret solvent/water, you simply can't make the Stone/Elixir without it. Transmutational chymistry and its practitioners, on the other hand, do not need, or know how to use, or even actually know how to make this "water", and its processes mostly rely on other things, but the yields of its positive processes are usually too small to be profitable.

Yes, that's why I said that the answer to "how" is " "the secret solvent still enters the work, not in the conventional way."... but the results are not, as to steal your expression, "the chicken of the golden eggs".

pierre
04-13-2017, 12:45 AM
The gold needs to be didissolved to extract his sulphur, no doubts about it.
But, what if there could exist a substance of minera "origin" that we could make evolve imitating to the nature in our laboratories?
The word "origin" implies that such substance, it's not in the minerals... but in a previous condition. Then a solvent would not be necessary, maybe.
Do you think such a matter could possibly exist?
I'm just thinking out loud...

JDP
04-13-2017, 05:46 AM
Yes, you perfectly understood it. You may understand now why I was not interested in the "powder that eats the gold" that we discussed not so long ago: it was such an incoherent mix of Particulars that it ended up being more a problem rather than a solution to anything. The process (and the others I mentioned) fall into a gray area between "transmutational chymistry" and "alchemy", because they produce a "transmutational stone", which I do not dare to call "philosophical"... and the [diluted] solvent is mixed with a chaos of substances in such a way that it is easier to "do it differently" than trying to separate it from that chaos.

Funny that you bring Saint-Didier... one of these processes I know (but have never done myself, nor I have the intention of doing it) was a "mix" between the Hermetic Triumph and Roger Bacon (Or, as to say it properly, an "interpretation" of what they meant... which I think is wrong because of the same reasons that you showed in the blue quote).

And yet this brings for me a specific question which is probably the SOURCE of all of our discrepancies. No need to be a genius to say that one of the BIG discussions in the Hermetic Triumph (and War of the Knights) is what is "Particular" and what is "Universal"....

So how would YOU define an "Universal" as opposed to a "Particular"?
(I have my definition and I think that you know it and you don't agree... but I am curious about your definition).



Yes, that's why I said "a gray area" in the middle of "transmutational chymistry" and "alchemy"... or a transmutational chymistry that produces a weak stone rather than a "direct transmutation", though you (and the War of the Knights) are right about the issue of "profits", at least in the cases I know.



Yes, that's why I said that the answer to "how" is " "the secret solvent still enters the work, not in the conventional way."... but the results are not, as to steal your expression, "the chicken of the golden eggs".

My take on "universal" vs "particulars" is the same as that of the alchemists: the "universal tincture" (which is the Stone/Elixir) is capable of transmuting all base metals into silver and gold, and also capable of doing so in large quantities, while the "particular tinctures" only turn some metals into silver or gold, and the quantities produced are smaller as well.

And then there's what I call "chymical" processes, which most alchemists considered as "sophistical" and "false", but which contrary to their claims some of them in fact do work and produce gold and silver from some metals (gold from silver, and silver from lead, tin, copper, bismuth), but the yield is usually too small to be of profit for the operator (but there also appear to be a minority of them that give higher yields, enough so to cover the expenditure of carrying them out and to still leave some profit for the operator.) Anyone interested in these types of processes should investigate the works (either printed books or unpublished manuscripts) of "chymists" like Porta, Libavius, Eglin, Fabre, the anonymous author of the German text entitled "Brief and Excellent Treatise on the Particular and Universal Tincture", Kessler, Glauber, Orschall, Becher, Kunckel, the anonymous author of "Alchymia Denudata", "Sincerus Renatus" (pseudonym of Samuel Richter), Kellner, Teichmeyer, Juncker, Creiling, Henckel, etc. As can be seen from this "roster", the Germans were the indisputable masters of "transmutational chymistry". No other people have produced more of such investigators than them. Beware, however, that almost all of these chymists had the VERY BAD HABIT of burying these truthful processes in the midst of a bunch of other totally false processes. It was a kind of defense mechanism, by which they would "weed out" the "unworthy" or superficial seeker who gave up easily after some failures, and the truth would only be found out by the most persistent and tireless investigator who could get through the barrier of false processes they erected. But rest assured that some of the processes they wrote not only DO work but they are written very plainly, quite literally, while some other of these processes only need a "tweak" or two to make them actually work, but nothing too difficult to figure out for any experienced investigator.

And for those of you who want to dig into the historical background of these types of processes, peruse the old medieval "puffer" and "multiplier" manuals and collections of "recipes" (like, for example, Constantine of Pisa's "Book of the Secrets of Alchemy", which second part is nothing more than a compilation of "puffer" recipes, or some of the texts of the late 15th/early 16th century writer who called himself "Salomon Trismosin", and which often have strange sounding titles that resemble Greek words, like "Viatolon", or even weirder ones like "Sarona Doap Auri"), you will find many of the basic "chymical" techniques already described in such older texts, but proceed with the same caution as you should take with the texts of the later "chymists": there's a ton of false processes also described in those older texts, which makes it very tedious for the neophyte to learn which one is which. And there is no way to determine this other than to gain experience, or for someone who already knows which are true and which are false to tell you about it (but this is VERY UNLIKELY to happen, because whoever discovers any of the true ones does so at such a high cost in time and money that there is hardly anyone who will be willing to pass the information to someone else.) The empirical results will let you know what works and what does not. But you need to be a good experimenter, you need to be well acquainted with assaying, otherwise you won't know what you are doing, even if you manage to get some gold and silver (if you don't know how to assay your raw materials to determine their lack of precious metal content you will never know if what you are getting is truly artificial gold or silver or if it was just natural gold or silver already contained in your raw materials as an impurity. This type of investigations DEMAND people well acquainted with assaying, if you don't know about the subject then either get familiar with it first or move on to something else.)

Weidenfeld
04-13-2017, 07:37 AM
I think the universal solvent is not just a solvent but an integral part of the stone itself and that’s why it is not exchangable by any other means. The water carries within the power to release the real sulphur of gold, which becomes philsophical gold. The power of the ‘water’ should be understood by the condensed universal mercury, or short before, by the enchained ‘spiritus mundi’ collected by an appropriate magnet. The trick might be to release the corporified ‘universal spirit’ by pyrolytic distillation of the mass (chaos, the impregnated magnet) and its subsequent condensation.

Dwellings
04-13-2017, 08:13 AM
The gold needs to be didissolved to extract his sulphur, no doubts about it.
But, what if there could exist a substance of minera "origin" that we could make evolve imitating to the nature in our laboratories?
The word "origin" implies that such substance, it's not in the minerals... but in a previous condition. Then a solvent would not be necessary, maybe.
Do you think such a matter could possibly exist?
I'm just thinking out loud...

Exactly Pierre. This is where I wanted the line of thought to go.

By using Gold, a substance perfected by nature and not by us, we are making the art "unnatural", as a result of this, it becomes complicated.

JDP
04-13-2017, 08:56 AM
The gold needs to be didissolved to extract his sulphur, no doubts about it.
But, what if there could exist a substance of minera "origin" that we could make evolve imitating to the nature in our laboratories?
The word "origin" implies that such substance, it's not in the minerals... but in a previous condition. Then a solvent would not be necessary, maybe.
Do you think such a matter could possibly exist?
I'm just thinking out loud...

The problem with this theory is, as I can clearly see that you yourself have also considered (otherwise you would not be asking "Do you think such a matter could possibly exist?"): no one has ever found any such "mineral... in a previous condition" (by this you obviously mean "something" from which minerals supposedly spring up, but which itself is not "mineral".) As for your pertinent question of whether it can possibly exist: do you seriously think that if it really existed it could have totally escaped the attention of mineralogists for such a long time? Miners today have gone deeper and wider into the Earth than anyone from the time of the alchemists ever had, and such a supposed "mineral precursor" is still found nowhere. There is no such thing as "unspecified" matter of any kind, at least not down here on Earth. This is another one of those theoretical ASSUMPTIONS/SPECULATIONS/MYTHS which some alchemists simply uncritically accepted as if it was a reality, when in fact they had no shred of evidence that such a thing existed anywhere on the planet. If something exists in our planet, by force it has to be "specified". Nothing can exist in our planet that somehow does not belong in either the mineral, vegetable or animal "kingdoms", or to put it in more modern terms, nothing can exist which paradoxically is neither inorganic nor organic (or at least a "composite" between the two.) It is a paradox. It does NOT and it CANNOT exist, at least certainly not down here on Earth (which is where the alchemists lived, not in some parallel universe "somewhere along the infinite corridors of time", as they said on The Time Tunnel TV show.)

pierre
04-13-2017, 02:05 PM
The problem with this theory is, as I can clearly see that you yourself have also considered (otherwise you would not be asking "Do you think such a matter could possibly exist?"): no one has ever found any such "mineral... in a previous condition" (by this you obviously mean "something" from which minerals supposedly spring up, but which itself is not "mineral".) As for your pertinent question of whether it can possibly exist: do you seriously think that if it really existed it could have totally escaped the attention of mineralogists for such a long time? Miners today have gone deeper and wider into the Earth than anyone from the time of the alchemists ever had, and such a supposed "mineral precursor" is still found nowhere. There is no such thing as "unspecified" matter of any kind, at least not down here on Earth. This is another one of those theoretical ASSUMPTIONS/SPECULATIONS/MYTHS which some alchemists simply uncritically accepted as if it was a reality, when in fact they had no shred of evidence that such a thing existed anywhere on the planet. If something exists in our planet, by force it has to be "specified". Nothing can exist in our planet that somehow does not belong in either the mineral, vegetable or animal "kingdoms", or to put it in more modern terms, nothing can exist which paradoxically is neither inorganic nor organic (or at least a "composite" between the two.) It is a paradox. It does NOT and it CANNOT exist, at least certainly not down here on Earth (which is where the alchemists lived, not in some parallel universe "somewhere along the infinite corridors of time", as they said on The Time Tunnel TV show.)


I apologize JDP, because I may not have been able to express myself correctly. English is not my mother lenguage.
I just wanted to raise the idea that maybe we can get The mineral or metallic matter in an "embryonic" state, but not necessarily, already specified in a mineral, metal, or (less) in a “magical” matter, of course.
If in the minerals (or gold) this “seed” is difficult to obtain, because we must use an unknown solvent, then I ask myself: What if we look for a matter where the metallic trace is in formation and we can manage (if its possible) to make it evolve, free of the future impurities in his cave? We will need to give him in the laboratory all the conditions that nature offers him for his evolution, obviously. A suitable "earth" where to grow ... etc.

Fulcanelli told us in the chapter on antimony, that our material extracted from the "mine", is not “properly” (yet) mineral and less, metallic. Or something like that…

Thats what a I mean.
That “mine”… what can it be?
What thing(s) can have mineral traces inside and no to be a mineral?
Or we can only use our “metallic matter” coming from a “mineral rock”?

Illen A. Cluf
04-13-2017, 02:47 PM
I apologize JDP, because I may not have been able to express myself correctly. English is not my mother lenguage.
I just wanted to raise the idea that maybe we can get The mineral or metallic matter in an "embryonic" state, but not necessarily, already specified in a mineral, metal, or (less) in a “magical” matter, of course.
If in the minerals (or gold) this “seed” is difficult to obtain, because we must use an unknown solvent, then I ask myself: What if we look for a matter where the metallic trace is in formation and we can manage (if its possible) to make it evolve, free of the future impurities in his cave? We will need to give him in the laboratory all the conditions that nature offers him for his evolution, obviously. A suitable "earth" where to grow ... etc.

Fulcanelli told us in the chapter on antimony, that our material extracted from the "mine", is not “properly” (yet) mineral and less, metallic. Or something like that…

Thats what a I mean.
That “mine”… what can it be?
What thing(s) can have mineral traces inside and no to be a mineral?
Or we can only use our “metallic matter” coming from a “mineral rock”?

Very well stated, Pierre. You're on the right track for sure!

JDP
04-13-2017, 03:31 PM
I apologize JDP, because I may not have been able to express myself correctly. English is not my mother lenguage.
I just wanted to raise the idea that maybe we can get The mineral or metallic matter in an "embryonic" state, but not necessarily, already specified in a mineral, metal, or (less) in a “magical” matter, of course.
If in the minerals (or gold) this “seed” is difficult to obtain, because we must use an unknown solvent, then I ask myself: What if we look for a matter where the metallic trace is in formation and we can manage (if its possible) to make it evolve, free of the future impurities in his cave? We will need to give him in the laboratory all the conditions that nature offers him for his evolution, obviously. A suitable "earth" where to grow ... etc.

Fulcanelli told us in the chapter on antimony, that our material extracted from the "mine", is not “properly” (yet) mineral and less, metallic. Or something like that…

Thats what a I mean.
That “mine”… what can it be?
What thing(s) can have mineral traces inside and no to be a mineral?
Or we can only use our “metallic matter” coming from a “mineral rock”?

Your meaning was already pretty clear enough in the first post. Like I said, it is impossible for something to exist on this planet which is neither mineral, nor animal, nor vegetable. If it existed somewhere it would already have been observed by people other than the alchemists as well.

Fulcanelli was talking about the "Mercury of the Philosophers", "Philosophical Mercury", "Double Mercury", or "our Mercury", which is the product of the action of the secret solvent (or "First Mercury") on metals (it extracts their alleged "sulphurs", or "seeds", or "spirits", supposedly "destroying" their metallic nature, thus making them irreducible back to metals, and will eventually, under proper thermal treatment, radically unite with them to form the alchemical "tinctures", the most powerful of which is the Stone/Elixir), he was not talking about some strange natural matter found in some mine somewhere. He was obviously referring to an artificial composite substance made by the alchemist himself by means of the secret solvent:

"This product, allegorically expressed by an angel or by a man --- the attribute of the evangelist St Matthew --- is none other than the Mercury of the Philosophers, double in nature and quality, partly fixed and material, partly volatile and spiritual, which suffices to begin, achieve and multiply the work. It is the unique and only matter that we need, without having to worry about finding any other; but we must know, so as not to err, that authors generally begin their treatises with this mercury and how to acquire it. This Mercury definitely is the matrix and the root of gold, and not the precious metal which is absolutely useless and without function in the way we are studying. Eirenaeus Philalethes says with much truth, that our Mercury, barely mineral, is even less metallic because it only contains the spirit or metallic seed, while the body tends to move away from the mineral quality. It is nevertheless the spirit of gold, contained in a transparent oil, easily coagulable; the salt of metals, since all stone is salt, and the salt of our stone, since the stone of the philosophers, which is this mercury of which we speak, is the subject of the Philosophers’ Stone...

Valentine gives philosophical mercury the nickname of pilgrim or traveler, because it must, says he, go through six celestial cities before fixing its residence in the seventh; if Philalethes affirms it is our only path this is not sufficient to invoke that these masters claimed to designate common antimony as the regenerator of philosophical mercury. This substance is too far from perfection, from purity, and the acquired spirituality of the humid root or metallic seed --- which one could anyway not find on earth --- to be genuinely useful to us. The antimony of the sages, raw matter directly extracted from the mine, "is not properly mineral, and even less metallic as Philalethes teaches us; but without partaking of these two substances it is something between one and the other."

pierre
04-13-2017, 04:14 PM
Very well stated, Pierre. You're on the right track for sure!

Time will tell, Illen... time will tell. ;)

pierre
04-13-2017, 04:49 PM
Your meaning was already pretty clear enough in the first post. Like I said, it is impossible for something to exist on this planet which is neither mineral, nor animal, nor vegetable. If it existed somewhere it would already have been observed by people other than the alchemists as well.

Fulcanelli was talking about the "Mercury of the Philosophers", "Philosophical Mercury", "Double Mercury", or "our Mercury", which is the product of the action of the secret solvent (or "First Mercury") on metals (it extracts their alleged "sulphurs", or "seeds", or "spirits", supposedly "destroying" their metallic nature, thus making them irreducible back to metals, and will eventually, under proper thermal treatment, radically unite with them to form the alchemical "tinctures", the most powerful of which is the Stone/Elixir), he was not talking about some strange natural matter found in some mine somewhere. He was obviously referring to an artificial composite substance made by the alchemist himself by means of the secret solvent:

"This product, allegorically expressed by an angel or by a man --- the attribute of the evangelist St Matthew --- is none other than the Mercury of the Philosophers, double in nature and quality, partly fixed and material, partly volatile and spiritual, which suffices to begin, achieve and multiply the work. It is the unique and only matter that we need, without having to worry about finding any other; but we must know, so as not to err, that authors generally begin their treatises with this mercury and how to acquire it. This Mercury definitely is the matrix and the root of gold, and not the precious metal which is absolutely useless and without function in the way we are studying. Eirenaeus Philalethes says with much truth, that our Mercury, barely mineral, is even less metallic because it only contains the spirit or metallic seed, while the body tends to move away from the mineral quality. It is nevertheless the spirit of gold, contained in a transparent oil, easily coagulable; the salt of metals, since all stone is salt, and the salt of our stone, since the stone of the philosophers, which is this mercury of which we speak, is the subject of the Philosophers’ Stone...

Valentine gives philosophical mercury the nickname of pilgrim or traveler, because it must, says he, go through six celestial cities before fixing its residence in the seventh; if Philalethes affirms it is our only path this is not sufficient to invoke that these masters claimed to designate common antimony as the regenerator of philosophical mercury. This substance is too far from perfection, from purity, and the acquired spirituality of the humid root or metallic seed --- which one could anyway not find on earth --- to be genuinely useful to us. The antimony of the sages, raw matter directly extracted from the mine, "is not properly mineral, and even less metallic as Philalethes teaches us; but without partaking of these two substances it is something between one and the other."


I will say it this way:
I believe there is a physical and palpable matter from which the alchemical metallic principle(s) can be drawn for our work, and such matter (phisycal) is neither mineral nor metallic, in the traditional sense (rock, stone or metal).
No magic, no Harry Potter...

I repeat ... it is just my belief.
Let´s Fulcanelli out of this. It just confuses things.

JDP
04-13-2017, 05:29 PM
I will say it this way:
I believe there is a physical and palpable matter from which the alchemical metallic principle(s) can be drawn for our work, and such matter (phisycal) is neither mineral nor metallic, in the traditional sense (rock, stone or metal).
No magic, no Harry Potter...

I repeat ... it is just my belief.
Let´s Fulcanelli out of this. It just confuses things.

But you did mention Fulcanelli, that's why I quoted him.

OK, even if it does exist, it is obviously not found in nature already made. It has to be made by the alchemist. It is an artificial product. And for that you need the secret solvent. There's no way out of it, no "shortcuts", no "alternatives" when it comes to this: alchemy wholly depends on the secret solvent, the Stone/Elixir CANNOT be made without it.

Dwellings
04-13-2017, 06:44 PM
But you did mention Fulcanelli, that's why I quoted him.

OK, even if it does exist, it is obviously not found in nature already made. It has to be made by the alchemist. It is an artificial product. And for that you need the secret solvent. There's no way out of it, no "shortcuts", no "alternatives" when it comes to this: alchemy wholly depends on the secret solvent, the Stone/Elixir CANNOT be made without it.

I think you need to consider alternative viewpoints.

What if nature already gives everything you need in a package, kind of like a cake mix?

It still poses the difficulty of exactly mimicking nature but that can be figured out by observation and comman sense.

pierre
04-13-2017, 07:15 PM
But you did mention Fulcanelli, that's why I quoted him.

OK, even if it does exist, it is obviously not found in nature already made. It has to be made by the alchemist. It is an artificial product. And for that you need the secret solvent. There's no way out of it, no "shortcuts", no "alternatives" when it comes to this: alchemy wholly depends on the secret solvent, the Stone/Elixir CANNOT be made without it.

I'll ask you this with a lot of respect JDP and I'll give this topic over for my part, I do not want to bore anyone with my crazy thoughts, but... have you ever considered that there may be a way that nothing is necessary to dissolve...?

JDP
04-13-2017, 07:29 PM
I think you need to consider alternative viewpoints.

What if nature already gives everything you need in a package, kind of like a cake mix?

It still poses the difficulty of exactly mimicking nature but that can be figured out by observation and comman sense.

How can such a thing possibly exist already made somewhere in nature and yet NOBODY has ever noticed it???

There is nothing to "mimick" in nature because IT DOES NOT MAKE THE SECRET SOLVENT OR THE STONE. If it did, we would expect mineralogists from time to time to encounter this remarkable product in some caves or mines, but no such thing has ever happened, and it will never happen. Nature does not know how to make the secret solvent or the Stone. The amount of coincidences that would have to happen for the right materials, the right proportions and the right treatments to occur in a natural setting are simply astronomical. You have better chances of winning the lottery than for the right conditions to be met in nature for it to be able to make the secret solvent and the Stone. These things are the product of man's intelligent and intentional industry. All that nature can do is provide raw matters.

JDP
04-13-2017, 07:39 PM
I'll ask you this with a lot of respect JDP and I'll give this topic over for my part, I do not want to bore anyone with my crazy thoughts, but... have you ever considered that there may be a way that nothing is necessary to dissolve...?

No, because if that was the case then alchemy would have ceased to be a "mystery", or a "dream", or a "delusion" for most of humanity a long time ago. All that would require is for you to be a bit lucky and stumble upon this mythological matter somewhere in nature. But it's just not going to happen. The reason why alchemy is pretty difficult to discover is precisely because it is not as simple as just finding some substance already made somewhere and just "cooking" it inside a flask. This in fact takes us back to that whole "one matter only, one vessel only, one furnace only" nonsense trap, which unfortunately tormented and ruined a lot of seekers who spent the rest of their lives searching for such a substance somewhere in nature. Too bad it does not exist. YOU have to make this "one substance", and you do so by working on a secret combination of several materials, which materials nature can provide for you. Nature will not do the mixing and treatments for you, though. It can't. It doesn't know how. Nature does not "think", it just "does" what it "does" and it just "is" what it "is". Only man can figure this out. It requires intelligence and purposeful design.

Kiorionis
04-13-2017, 07:48 PM
How can such a thing possibly exist already made somewhere in nature and yet NOBODY has ever noticed it???

Cause have you like, even seen the new episode of New Girl?!? It's like, totally OMG!

Schmuldvich
04-13-2017, 08:32 PM
I think you need to consider alternative viewpoints.

What if nature already gives everything you need in a package, kind of like a cake mix?


IT DOES!

The Artist needs to prepare his starting Matter. Which, for all intents and purposes, is "already found" out "in Nature" just raw. Raw meaning that we must prepare this incredible Matter in order to produce the results we seek...

Honestly, I am under the impression JDP & I are fundamentally in agreement with each other, but semantics is what is impedes us from openly agreeing with each others' statements.

Illen A. Cluf
04-13-2017, 10:24 PM
Time will tell, Illen... time will tell. ;)

Don't stray the course...

Awani
04-13-2017, 11:15 PM
Cause have you like, even seen the new episode of New Girl?!? It's like, totally OMG!

I know, totally rad. Epic to the max Bro.


It doesn't know how. Nature does not "think", it just "does" what it "does" and it just "is" what it "is".

You clearly are not following the scientific advancements that are happening on a daily basis. Although I agree that Nature does not "think", because that is a pretty "low" concept that usually only humans entertain. However Nature is more conscious that you think. And this is not some New Age mumbo-jumbo... as we speak our knowledge of evolution is about to change. It is not "survival of the fittest", rather "survival of the most fit to co-operate". And now I am quoting NASA hardcore scientists by the way. Nature is conscious. The universe is built on energy. Only "fools" call it magic. Those that know and understand call it normal.

:cool:

JDP
04-13-2017, 11:16 PM
IT DOES!

The Artist needs to prepare his starting Matter. Which, for all intents and purposes, is "already found" out "in Nature" just raw. Raw meaning that we must prepare this incredible Matter in order to produce the results we seek...

Honestly, I am under the impression JDP & I are fundamentally in agreement with each other, but semantics is what is impedes us from openly agreeing with each others' statements.

I think it's more like a problem of basic arithmetic: I don't understand how can you agree with the "one matter only" claim when in fact that "one matter only" is actually made from the interaction between several substances, and many of the more honest alchemists, including the above cited Fulcanelli, openly admit it without any problem. It is therefore not really "one matter only". For the "one matter only" claim to be 100% true all you would have to do is pick up "one matter only", what the claim literally says, and then work on it BY ITSELF, NOTHING ELSE ADDED TO IT. Now you tell me how in blazes can you possibly prepare the secret solvent from "one matter only" because the only thing you can do to that "one matter only" is heat it by itself inside a flask, there is nothing else you can do to it, if you add ANYTHING to it (even something like moisture from the air, A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G-!) then the claim is no longer true and it is obviously misleading, because you would in fact be working with more than "one matter only". So there is no way that this is going to happen. No single natural substance heated by itself, nothing else added to it in any way, shape or form, will EVER show you all the phenomena described by the alchemists. For centuries countless seekers who fell for this trap took all sorts of minerals, or plant or animal derived products by themselves, without mixing them with any other, and proceeded to distill and/or digest them. Of course, none found anything of what the alchemists described. The reason is simple: the "one matter only" they spoke about is really an artificial concoction (what the above cited Fulcanelli calls the "Philosophical Mercury") made by the alchemist himself, and he does this by making several carefully selected matters in the right proportions interact with each other (yes, "reactions", folks, without them NOTHING happens), first to produce the secret solvent, and then to produce the "sulphur" or "earth" that will be joined to it "radically" to form the Stone/Elixir, and not something they fortunately and very conveniently found "somewhere" already made for them by nature ready to be "cooked" up into the Stone.

JDP
04-13-2017, 11:31 PM
I know, totally rad. Epic to the max Bro.



You clearly are not following the scientific advancements that are happening on a daily basis. Although I agree that Nature does not "think", because that is a pretty "low" concept that usually only humans entertain. However Nature is more conscious that you think. And this is not some New Age mumbo-jumbo... as we speak our knowledge of evolution is about to change. It is not "survival of the fittest", rather "survival of the most fit to co-operate". And now I am quoting NASA hardcore scientists by the way. Nature is conscious. The universe is built on energy. Only "fools" call it magic. Those that know and understand call it normal.

:cool:

I guess that next you will be telling us about how rocks have "feelings" too, and how they are master chess players as well :)

elixirmixer
04-13-2017, 11:48 PM
I guess that next you will be telling us about how rocks have "feelings" too, and how they are master chess players as well :)

Vegetable, animal, and mineral species are (hermetically speaking) different emulations from an unspecified Prima Materia. If we refer to spiritual alchemy, we would consider this Prima Materia to be consciousness itself.

The four elements, while in laboratory work, refer to state changes of matter, when refering to spiritual alchemy, we think in terms of state changes in conciousness.

Fire being the higher self or spiritual properties of the mind
Air being the intellectual properties
Water being the emotional properties
Earth being the properties of sensation

Do rocks have a water element? Therefore.... :o

Kiorionis
04-14-2017, 12:14 AM
Fire being the higher self or spiritual properties of the mind
Air being the intellectual properties

I have also heard these two as being switched around. That the Air principle is the higher self and/or spiritual properties of the mind, and the Fire principle is the intellectual properties or 'light of the mind'.

The curious thing, and something I think you might be interested in, EM, is that Hollandus says something about how Fire and Air are inseparable.

Is this what the "solvent" targets?

Schmuldvich
04-28-2017, 03:06 AM
The Artist needs to prepare his starting Matter. Which, for all intents and purposes, is "already found" out "in Nature" just raw. Raw meaning that we must prepare this incredible Matter in order to produce the results we seek...

I think it's more like a problem of basic arithmetic: I don't understand how can you agree with the "one matter only" claim when in fact that "one matter only" is actually made from the interaction between several substances, and many of the more honest alchemists, including the above cited Fulcanelli, openly admit it without any problem. It is therefore not really "one matter only". For the "one matter only" claim to be 100% true all you would have to do is pick up "one matter only", what the claim literally says, and then work on it BY ITSELF, NOTHING ELSE ADDED TO IT. Now you tell me how in blazes can you possibly prepare the secret solvent from "one matter only" because the only thing you can do to that "one matter only" is heat it by itself inside a flask, there is nothing else you can do to it, if you add ANYTHING to it (even something like moisture from the air, A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G-!) then the claim is no longer true and it is obviously misleading, because you would in fact be working with more than "one matter only". So there is no way that this is going to happen. No single natural substance heated by itself, nothing else added to it in any way, shape or form, will EVER show you all the phenomena described by the alchemists. For centuries countless seekers who fell for this trap took all sorts of minerals, or plant or animal derived products by themselves, without mixing them with any other, and proceeded to distill and/or digest them. Of course, none found anything of what the alchemists described. The reason is simple: the "one matter only" they spoke about is really an artificial concoction (what the above cited Fulcanelli calls the "Philosophical Mercury") made by the alchemist himself, and he does this by making several carefully selected matters in the right proportions interact with each other (yes, "reactions", folks, without them NOTHING happens), first to produce the secret solvent, and then to produce the "sulphur" or "earth" that will be joined to it "radically" to form the Stone/Elixir, and not something they fortunately and very conveniently found "somewhere" already made for them by nature ready to be "cooked" up into the Stone.


http://i.imgur.com/j5uwRhS.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/tR82Vnh.jpg)

http://i.imgur.com/kB2RX70.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/nkxOA9g.jpg)

JDP
04-28-2017, 08:06 AM
http://i.imgur.com/j5uwRhS.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/tR82Vnh.jpg)

http://i.imgur.com/kB2RX70.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/nkxOA9g.jpg)

Some other quotes from the same source you quoted above (viz. Grasshof's "The Greater and Lesser Edifier"):

You should note further that only three items (respective loquendo) are necessary to the perfection of the tinctured Stone, in which, if it is correctly prepared, the mastery of this entire Art consists; namely, the Stone of the Sun, which signifies or includes the Red Lion: Red, incombustible Sulphur; and after this the Stone of the Moon, in which the pure and clear, incombustible white Sulphur dominates, as is explained in CLANGOR BUCCINAE in TURBA fol. 484. “In the lunar SUBJECTO there is a white Sulphur.” And, finally, the Stone in which our Mercury contains both natures, the white as well as the red. This is the basis of the entire mastery, since our Mercury is the earth, into which one sows, and which brings forth. It is the third Stone, which is the intermediary between the first two, and includes both their natures within itself: “Nam Lapis Mercurli amplectitur utramque naturam”, as has been said. You should conceal completely these three metallic and mineral species from the common uncomprehending and unworthy people and let the fools wander on their own false paths, for they are not predestined or foreordained to this knowledge, and it will remain closed to them until they can bring the Sun and the Moon into one body...

This point is to be well noted, for many people have erred therein and think that when they have the MERCURIUM PHILOSOPHORUM or the SAL METALLORUM, then they have also the PRIMAM MAPERIAM. No; but rather it will first become the PRIMA MATERIA after the Composition has occured, of both the Man and the Wife, as is attested by the Count in fol. 21 in fine and 22. There he says: “In principio turn demum ista conjunctio dicitur prima materia et non prius”. Then only after the conjunction or composition is it called the first material of the Stone, or of all metals. In this connection read TURBA, fol. 415, 364 and so on...

Hermes the great King and Father of the Philosophers, says in his book, DE CHAO GENERALI (chapter 19, fol. 268, n. 14): “The most excellent purification of our Mercury is that one removes from it its leaden darkness or form with the help of wine, so that it is made glorious, clear and translucent, like crystalline transparent Salt. This cannot be done, unless the FORMA METALLICA is removed, so that a spiritual essence is created, as is intended in the solution”...


Also TURBA part 1: “Our white camel is the seventh in the number. According to the exalted philosophers, the Sun and the Moon, as well as Jupiter, our Mars and Venus, are contained and gathered in our Mercury, but Saturn is the seventh, in which all of them are contained and united. He is the spatula, the sword, the knife and the incision of that which is born in miracle, with which one can resist one’s enemies, and in addition a cask of good wine.” What could be more clearly or distinctly said; he even provides additionally the agent of dissolution, for this is contained in the wine cask. This is, in the first place, wine, which is Spiritus Vini; but it is also Acetum Vini, Sal Tartari, and other things as well, in addition to which other agents may be used. These, however, may not remain, but must be removed again after the Solution....

Magister Degenhardus, Lullius and Matthesius, in his SAREPTA CONCIONE 3, write that the material of the metals should be like buttermilk before it hardens into a metallic form, and that it can be spread like butter. They call it GUR, and I have found it myself in mines where Nature has made lead. And if one is also able to make such a material here above the earth, then that should be a sure sign not only that one has the correct MATERIA, but also that one is undoubtably on the right path. This I can make, praise be to GOD, with my own hands. When left in warmth an hour it goes into a state of Putrefaction, so that it turns black, then reddish, and finally red-brown. The philosophers call it Lac Virginis, the Milk of the Virgin. Thus, if one puts a little SALIS METALLICI in our water, it becomes like a white milk, and if one puts a lot therein, then it turns thick like butter and can be spread like fat or a similiar substance. I have thought it well to mention this, in order that you may harbor no doubts concerning the MATERIA...


Conclusion: Grasshof obviously did NOT work with "one matter only" but with several. Like I told you before many times, the whole "only one matter" thing is a HUGE TRAP. Do not fall for it. It will never get you anywhere.

Luxus
05-03-2017, 09:53 PM
You cannot make the stone without the solvent because the corpus has the four elements contained in it but they are loosely bound, secondly there is earthy impurity's clinging to them. The only way to both separate the impure from the pure and unify the four elements is to dissolve the corpus.

Luxus
05-04-2017, 10:22 AM
http://i.imgur.com/j5uwRhS.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/tR82Vnh.jpg)

http://i.imgur.com/kB2RX70.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/nkxOA9g.jpg)

"The artist must gradually purify without heat"

"They can be brought to perfection by means of a steady subsequent cooking or digestion"

These two quotations seem to contradict and I have noticed similar statements in other text I have read.

black
05-04-2017, 11:01 AM
"The artist must gradually purify without heat"

"They can be brought to perfection by means of a steady subsequent cooking or digestion"

These two quotations seem to contradict and I have noticed similar statements in other text I have read.


Perhaps they are referring to PHILOSOPHIC cooking ?

Luxus
05-04-2017, 11:15 AM
I think it's more like a problem of basic arithmetic: I don't understand how can you agree with the "one matter only" claim when in fact that "one matter only" is actually made from the interaction between several substances, and many of the more honest alchemists, including the above cited Fulcanelli, openly admit it without any problem. It is therefore not really "one matter only". For the "one matter only" claim to be 100% true all you would have to do is pick up "one matter only", what the claim literally says, and then work on it BY ITSELF, NOTHING ELSE ADDED TO IT. Now you tell me how in blazes can you possibly prepare the secret solvent from "one matter only" because the only thing you can do to that "one matter only" is heat it by itself inside a flask, there is nothing else you can do to it, if you add ANYTHING to it (even something like moisture from the air, A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G-!) then the claim is no longer true and it is obviously misleading, because you would in fact be working with more than "one matter only". So there is no way that this is going to happen. No single natural substance heated by itself, nothing else added to it in any way, shape or form, will EVER show you all the phenomena described by the alchemists. For centuries countless seekers who fell for this trap took all sorts of minerals, or plant or animal derived products by themselves, without mixing them with any other, and proceeded to distill and/or digest them. Of course, none found anything of what the alchemists described. The reason is simple: the "one matter only" they spoke about is really an artificial concoction (what the above cited Fulcanelli calls the "Philosophical Mercury") made by the alchemist himself, and he does this by making several carefully selected matters in the right proportions interact with each other (yes, "reactions", folks, without them NOTHING happens), first to produce the secret solvent, and then to produce the "sulphur" or "earth" that will be joined to it "radically" to form the Stone/Elixir, and not something they fortunately and very conveniently found "somewhere" already made for them by nature ready to be "cooked" up into the Stone.

Ice melts in water does it not, isn't it a fact that Ice and water are the same substance just in different forms. The solvent infact bares the same relationship to the corpus as water does to Ice. So yes the stone is made from one thing only.

Luxus
05-04-2017, 11:18 AM
Perhaps they are referring to PHILOSOPHIC cooking ?

You mean the secret fire?

black
05-04-2017, 12:12 PM
You mean the secret fire?

Secret fire sounds good for cooking.

I think some of the old masters also wrote about gently cooking in vinegar.

Dwellings
05-04-2017, 01:22 PM
I think some of the old masters also wrote about gently cooking in vinegar.

Not the one brought from the market.

Luxus
05-04-2017, 02:26 PM
Not the one brought from the market.

Double vinegar

Hellin Hermetist
05-04-2017, 03:50 PM
Not the one brought from the market.

Yeah. Better try the one from the grocery store.

JDP
05-04-2017, 10:43 PM
Ice melts in water does it not, isn't it a fact that Ice and water are the same substance just in different forms. The solvent infact bares the same relationship to the corpus as water does to Ice. So yes the stone is made from one thing only.

False analogy based on states of matter at different temperatures that does not translate into the subject at hand. It's about as false as saying: rock melts into lava, does it not? Isn't it a fact that rocks and lava are the same substance in different forms? Ergo, the Stone is made from one thing! (huh???)

Bottom line, based on REALITY, not false analogies and speculations: there is no single matter that can perform everything that the alchemists describe in their books. It does not exist in nature. So no, the Stone is not "made from one thing only" but out of the interactions between several chosen specific matters in the appropriate proportions.

JDP
05-04-2017, 10:53 PM
"The artist must gradually purify without heat"

"They can be brought to perfection by means of a steady subsequent cooking or digestion"

These two quotations seem to contradict and I have noticed similar statements in other text I have read.

Yes, there are contradictions in many alchemical texts, but in this case there might be a possible solution provided by the author himself, since Grasshoff is here quantifying the amount of heat:

"This the Artist must gradually purify without heat. For as soon as the outward warmth becomes greater than the warmth within, then the metallic Spirit flows away and cannot be introduced into the dead body, as one can perceive in all metals, which are all dead, since their life has escaped them in fire and has flown away."

His objection to heat would thus only count if the "outward warmth" (i.e. external heat) was greater than this supposed "warmth within". So he should rather have said "without a strong heat" rather than "without heat".

Seth-Ra
05-05-2017, 02:56 AM
Yes, there are contradictions in many alchemical texts, but in this case there might be a possible solution provided by the author himself, since Grasshoff is here quantifying the amount of heat:

"This the Artist must gradually purify without heat. For as soon as the outward warmth becomes greater than the warmth within, then the metallic Spirit flows away and cannot be introduced into the dead body, as one can perceive in all metals, which are all dead, since their life has escaped them in fire and has flown away."

His objection to heat would thus only count if the "outward warmth" (i.e. external heat) was greater than this supposed "warmth within". So he should rather have said "without a strong heat" rather than "without heat".

Sounds like an exothermic reaction within the flask, and too much external heat would ruin the work.
So maybe it doesn't need external heat - it very well may provide its own.




~Seth-Ra