PDA

View Full Version : The general process of the magnum-opus



Luxus
04-27-2017, 04:20 PM
After reading alchemical text on and off for years the general process of the magnum-opus has formed in my mind. I would like to see how this confirms to others here. I'm my mind the process is "child's play" but there is a depth in its simplicity.

First the prima-materia is obtained at the correct time from the correct place.

Second the prima-materia is dissolved with the correct solvent given various names such as lye, vinegar, Azoth, menstrum, mercury etc

Third the mixture is placed in a glass globe and filled not more then half. The glass is to be sealed tightly so that nothing can escape or enter to contaminate the ingredients. I am unsure if by "hermetic seal" a vacuum is implied.

Forth the ingredients is to be heated for a calculated time period usually going through four degrees of heat.

As far as I have been able to understand this is all that is required to produce the stone...it sounds easy but it is most challenging to workout all the minute details.

As you can see from my understanding an Alchemist need not use much equipment and therefore an extensive alchemical laboratory is a sign which may mark one as a puffer.

Difficulty's are, learning the correct prima-materia to use, learning what the correct solvent is to use, understanding the degrees of heat that are to be applied and how long the heating process should be continued, when to begin and when to end.

Making it more difficult is that Alchemists often do not agree on these matters and then we have the added difficulty of distinguishing between Alchemists who have produced the great work and others who have not.

An example could be the firing time some say they can produce the stone in a matter of hours, others weeks, others months and then there are those who say it requires a year or more.

Added to this there is two distinct methods, the wet and the dry. The wet taking longer then the dry.

JDP
04-27-2017, 06:51 PM
You seem to have fallen for a couple of the malicious traps of many alchemists. Alchemy is not as simple as just finding two (or even worse, supposedly "only one") already made matters and "cooking" them together for some time. If it was that simple then much more people would have discovered it and in fact alchemy would no longer be considered either a "mystery" (for most people) or an "impossibility" (as chemists and physicists think.)

Yes, you need the right solvent, or "water", or "mercury", or whatever you want to call it, but it has to be PREPARED, you won't find it already made in nature. Nature does not make either it or the Stone itself, these are up to man to make. Nature only provides raw matters. And in order to make this secret solvent so necessary for alchemy you need a certain amount basic technology. There is a reason why alchemy is only about 2500 years old, give or take a bit. The technology necessary for carrying out some of the crucial operations had to be developed first. If alchemy was just a matter of taking a couple of naturally occurring matters and placing them together inside a flask and "cooking" them for some time then we should also expect alchemy to be much older than it is, as the technology needed to carry it out would have been already known way further back than just about two and half millennia ago. It is only sometime after DISTILLATION began to appear among human activities that we also start hearing about alchemy.

Regarding the "wet and dry" methods, and them supposedly being "longer and shorter" respectively: this is a relatively modern claim. It is true that solid forms of the secret solvent are already mentioned even as far back as the lengthy alchemical dialogue between King Marqunis and King Sanfaja (this is the oldest source discovered so far to mention the solid form of the secret solvent; the text appears to be pre-Islamic in origin, probably Alexandrian or Byzantine, but it only has survived to our times in a medieval Arabic version), but there does not seem to be any implication in the older sources that the "dry" forms of the secret solvent supposedly act "faster" than the "humid" forms. This claim began to appear around the 17th century. And needless to say, the claim that the "dry" method is supposedly carried out from beginning to end only in crucibles and high temperatures so far can only be traced back to the second half of the 17th century, with the claims made by the anonymous donor of a sample of the Stone in Helvetius' transmutation account.

Luxus
04-27-2017, 08:38 PM
Several text talk about the substance being one to which nothing must be added or taken away, brought to perfection in one vessel only.

Yes the double vinegar must be prepared as no solvent other then the water of the clouds is ready to hand.

If there is any truth to Hermes being the inventor or rediscover of this art is is far older then 2500 years old.

My reading of the wet and dry method is that the wet method uses a liquid form of the prima-materia and the dry method uses a solid form of the prima-materia, not to be confused with liquid and solid forms of solvents. Dr Sigismund Bacstrom details the dry method in his writings.

JDP
04-27-2017, 09:13 PM
Several text talk about the substance being one to which nothing must be added or taken away, brought to perfection in one vessel only.

Yes, and it is a malicious trap in which many fell. There is no such one single natural substance that can perform all the things the alchemists describe.


Yes the double vinegar must be prepared as no solvent other then the water of the clouds is ready to hand.

There are other natural solvents, like acidic and vitriolic waters, and even including many salts themselves which can corrode and dissolve other substances, but as they are they do not work for making the Stone (some of these basic substances can work as they are for the "particulars" of "chymistry", though.)


If there is any truth to Hermes being the inventor or rediscover of this art is is far older then 2500 years old

But there isn't any. There is no actual historical record of any "Hermes". It's a legendary figure. The oldest actual surviving historical record showing that alchemy was already around is from 144 BC (and this is in China, not Egypt.) So give some centuries for alchemy's earliest (unrecorded) developments and you have an approximate age of maybe around 2500 years.


My reading of the wet and dry method is that the wet method uses a liquid form of the prima-materia and the dry method uses a solid form of the prima-materia, not to be confused with liquid and solid forms of solvents. Dr Sigismund Bacstrom details the dry method in his writings.

I am not talking about "solvents" but THE secret solvent used in alchemy, which can take solid and liquid forms, depending on the method of preparation.

Bacstrom died in poverty, he never managed to make the Stone. Plus Bacstrom lived at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century, he is hardly an older source. His claims regarding "dry" and "wet" methods are obviously influenced by the aforementioned claims that began to appear around the 17th century. The older sources say nothing about the "dry" way supposedly being "faster" or being carried out only crucibles and at high temperatures.

elixirmixer
04-27-2017, 09:59 PM
In reality, the 'general' process is a very specific one. For instance, if you would wish to pull off a 'one flask - one matter' type situation, you need to know exactly HOW MUCH of THE secret solvent to use, otherwise the stone will not congeal. In other words, it is much more likely that success will come from someone who is constantly monitoring and adjusting his parameters, rather than someone who just tries to find the ingredients and throws then Into the 4 degrees of fire.

As JDP has suggested, even if you find the great work to be child's play, the preparation of it's materials is not.

Luxus
04-27-2017, 10:54 PM
When I stated it was child's play I put it in quotation marks because that is exactly what several alchemists call it. The specifics however make it a challenge because even though the outline of the process is deceptively simple working out all the variables is not which is why some have suggested that a teacher is needed (someone who has done it)

How do you distinguish a puffer from an Alchemist??

http://novashirts.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Alchemist-of-the-Puffer-Type-Image-Template.jpg

https://distillatio.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/800px-pieter_bruegel_the_elder_-_the_alchemist.jpg

elixirmixer
04-28-2017, 12:04 AM
A puffer is someone who is attemptin to perform the Opus without any knowledge concerning it's Hermetic origins, therefore usually working with vulgar materials to create the stone or simply tryin to create gold via other means.

As I've stated before, there are many ruby red crystals of significant medicinal properties, all of which use a similar understanding of the 4 elements and 3 principals. However; THE stone, is made from THE solvent.

I believe there is much to be gained within the Minor Opus of the plant realm, and it surprises me how many attempt this work before mastering alchemical Spagyrics.

I believe my understanding of our solvent is quite sound now due to some good moral souls who have helped me, yet I have no intention of creating this material until I have completed The Lesser Work... (The real one)...

However, yearning for answers, asking the hard questions, never givin up!! These are good qualities if you have a serious interesting in these treasures. :)

JDP
04-28-2017, 01:17 AM
When I stated it was child's play I put it in quotation marks because that is exactly what several alchemists call it. The specifics however make it a challenge because even though the outline of the process is deceptively simple working out all the variables is not which is why some have suggested that a teacher is needed (someone who has done it)

How do you distinguish a puffer from an Alchemist??

http://novashirts.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Alchemist-of-the-Puffer-Type-Image-Template.jpg

https://distillatio.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/800px-pieter_bruegel_the_elder_-_the_alchemist.jpg

Not through the equipment in their labs, that's for sure. You will find descriptions of furnaces and apparatuses in alchemical texts and "puffer" compilations of "recipes". They are virtually the same. The difference is that the alchemist usually was not interested in other methods of transmutation and in fact even denied their very possibility, and only focused on the Stone. The "puffers" were interested in the Stone too, but not having a better understanding of the subject of how to prepare it they also focused on many other methods of making silver and gold. Contrary to what most alchemists claimed, some of the processes of the "puffers" do indeed work and give small amounts of silver and gold.

elixirmixer
04-28-2017, 01:34 AM
I'm actually about to plan my first puffer experiment. A big recycling company asked me to try and change the m-state materials back to their metallic form. That's puffing.

Luxus
04-28-2017, 12:02 PM
A puffer is someone who confuses our water for water of the clouds, our sol for common gold, our luna for common silver, our lead for common lead, our sulphur for common brimstone, our salt for common salt, our mercury for common quicksilver etc etc

In addition to this they surround themselves with large amounts of laboratory equipment and chemicals. Instead of lengthening their life they shorten it by breathing noxious fumes. They know not what they seek "the quintessence" and therefore they have zero chance of finding it...that is what a puffer is.

JDP
04-28-2017, 06:02 PM
A puffer is someone who confuses our water for water of the clouds, our sol for common gold, our luna for common silver, our lead for common lead, our sulphur for common brimstone, our salt for common salt, our mercury for common quicksilver etc etc

In addition to this they surround themselves with large amounts of laboratory equipment and chemicals. Instead of lengthening their life they shorten it by breathing noxious fumes. They know not what they seek "the quintessence" and therefore they have zero chance of finding it...that is what a puffer is.

That's the fairy tale that some alchemists concocted in an attempt to better distinguish themselves and the "puffers" and "multipliers" they kept maligning, which is a different thing. The fact is that the alchemist himself stuffed his lab with furnaces and apparatuses, just like the "puffer/multiplier" did. You don't learn about alchemy by merely "meditating", and no little "angel" is going to come down from "Heaven" to conveniently hand you the process for the Stone either, no matter how much you "pray" for it (such an approach is about as useless as "praying" to win the lottery, which millions of hopeful and desperate people do every day despite the fact that their "prayers" are never answered, but yet they continue to engage in this futile practice. Think about it. Even if you assume that some "God" really exists somewhere out there, how much of an ego-centrist do you have to be to think that "He" has nothing better to do all day than to listen to and grant you your particular desires and needs???) The way you discover how to make the Stone is exactly the same way the "puffers/multipliers" made their own discoveries: trial and error, process of elimination, pure empiricism. There is no other way, and there are no "shortcuts". And for this empirical investigation you NEED the right tools (furnaces, crucibles, calcining dishes, distillation flasks/alembics/retorts, receivers, bottles, flasks, etc.) Without them you are lost and will never accomplish anything.

elixirmixer
04-28-2017, 09:35 PM
I mostly agree with what JDP is saying.

You can study, a shit load, like many individuals here do. And you may even start thinking that you know how to make the stone! But until you try, you really will have no idea. You could get to your first process, after twenty years of reading, praying, meditating, and the very first step could behave significantly differently to the way you visualised it. What then?

Practical application and appreciation of these principals is nesscesary for success, which is why again I will make the point the creating a ruby red crystal within the vegetable realm ought to be the first goal.

Because if you can not create the stone in the vegi realm, what chance do you have of creating it within an unspecified unknown realm of matter?

To me, the basic process is thus:

Prepare our waters

Split in two.

Drop gold in one vial

Silver in the other

Incubate.

Conjoin.

Putrify.

Distill.

Solve et Coagula.

Bake.

Repeat final steps 3 times.

'Ding!' READY!!

(I acknowledge the fact that the true process is rather different, but this is just my rough guess as I'm not currently studying the Magnus Opus specifically but I still find all P-Stone threads very interesting)

zoas23
04-28-2017, 11:03 PM
That's the fairy tale that some alchemists concocted in an attempt to better distinguish themselves and the "puffers" and "multipliers" they kept maligning, which is a different thing. The fact is that the alchemist himself stuffed his lab with furnaces and apparatuses, just like the "puffer/multiplier" did. You don't learn about alchemy by merely "meditating", and no little "angel" is going to come down from "Heaven" to conveniently hand you the process for the Stone either, no matter how much you "pray" for it (such an approach is about as useless as "praying" to win the lottery, which millions of hopeful and desperate people do every day despite the fact that their "prayers" are never answered, but yet they continue to engage in this futile practice. Think about it. Even if you assume that some "God" really exists somewhere out there, how much of an ego-centrist do you have to be to think that "He" has nothing better to do all day than to listen to and grant you your particular desires and needs???)

Did Luxus mention any kind of meditation? Did Luxus say something about an Angel?
Did he use the word "God" somewhere? Did Luxus say something about prayer?

You have a very specific and clear idea about how alchemy should be... and you don't even give yourself a second to consider that it's your INTERPRETATION... instead of doing such thing, you rush to strike like a thunder when anyone posts something that doesn't exactly match all your ideas. You don't even care about what the other person thinks, he becomes some sort of mystical lunatic that expects that "God" will give him the stone and doesn't understand that the "wicked evil alchemists of the past made it all very complex because they wanted to deceive the readers"...

There's many ways to get out of Rome, not just ONE way.
There's many ways to do the same thing, not just ONE way.
Sometimes a person doesn't agree with you and the person is not a lunatic....

... And Luxus arrived a few days ago to the forum... Maybe you would learn more from him if you listen to his ideas and create a positive exchange instead of preaching your Gospel of the Empiricist.

Your ideas about alchemy are OK, JDP... however YOUR path is not the one and only path. Your interpretation is not the one and only interpretation.

I do remember how some years ago I was AMAZED by a silly photo that Ghetto Alchemist posted of his distillation apparatus... a home-made oddity that was FANTASTIC. I laughed, but I also felt admiration. I think he switched to more conventional equipment later, but I still remember his old photos.


The way you discover how to make the Stone is exactly the same way the "puffers/multipliers" made their own discoveries: trial and error, process of elimination, pure empiricism. There is no other way, and there are no "shortcuts". And for this empirical investigation you NEED the right tools (furnaces, crucibles, calcining dishes, distillation flasks/alembics/retorts, receivers, bottles, flasks, etc.) Without them you are lost and will never accomplish anything.

You also need a philosophical understanding... the "tools" can be replaced or even created with some intelligence. It's not a "shortcut".

There's no such thing as "the one and only way to do it"... nor there is a specific X equipment that you MUST have, since with some intelligence it is possible to "replace" whatever you need by using the brain.

Nonsense is nonsense and it leads nowhere...
But being TOO rigid may make you discard a lot of options which can teach you a lot too.

JDP
04-29-2017, 02:18 AM
Did Luxus mention any kind of meditation? Did Luxus say something about an Angel?
Did he use the word "God" somewhere? Did Luxus say something about prayer?

He doesn't have to. His very own claims preclude the alchemist from being able to investigate the subject on his own. No alchemist was born with the knowledge of making the Stone, they had to learn it through reading the writings of those who preceded them and their own experimentation. Luxus' claims are trying to deprive the alchemist of the very tools of his trade.


You have a very specific and clear idea about how alchemy should be... and you don't even give yourself a second to consider that it's your INTERPRETATION... instead of doing such thing, you rush to strike like a thunder when anyone posts something that doesn't exactly match all your ideas. You don't even care about what the other person thinks, he becomes some sort of mystical lunatic that expects that "God" will give him the stone and doesn't understand that the "wicked evil alchemists of the past made it all very complex because they wanted to deceive the readers"...

It's because what you think are "my ideas" are simply realistic and based on common sense and experience, while those claims I debunk are nonsense that have been entertained by countless people before and never got anyone anywhere.


There's many ways to get out of Rome, not just ONE way.
There's many ways to do the same thing, not just ONE way.

To quote the great Sammy Hagar:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir4oBB-Vgck

"But there's only ONE WAY, there's only ONE WAY to rock!" (or in our case, "to the Stone!")


Sometimes a person doesn't agree with you and the person is not a lunatic....

But most of the times it is.


... And Luxus arrived a few days ago to the forum... Maybe you would learn more from him if you listen to his ideas and create a positive exchange instead of preaching your Gospel of the Empiricist.

I read enough to know what he thinks.


Your ideas about alchemy are OK, JDP... however YOUR path is not the one and only path. Your interpretation is not the one and only interpretation.


What you call "my interpretation" is just normal common sense, and logic, and realism, and based on experience. What else could there possibly be, then, that is truthful regarding this subject other than the above approach? Answer: none.


I do remember how some years ago I was AMAZED by a silly photo that Ghetto Alchemist posted of his distillation apparatus... a home-made oddity that was FANTASTIC. I laughed, but I also felt admiration. I think he switched to more conventional equipment later, but I still remember his old photos.



You also need a philosophical understanding... the "tools" can be replaced or even created with some intelligence. It's not a "shortcut".

There's no such thing as "the one and only way to do it"... nor there is a specific X equipment that you MUST have, since with some intelligence it is possible to "replace" whatever you need by using the brain.

Nonsense is nonsense and it leads nowhere...
But being TOO rigid may make you discard a lot of options which can teach you a lot too.

You misunderstood what I said. I was not talking about having professionally made tools. It doesn't matter whether they are improvised or professionally made, but you DO need such tools for the job. To go around pretending that alchemists don't need furnaces, crucibles, flasks, retorts, etc., is as silly as going around saying that carpenters do not need hammers, nails, saws, glue, etc., for their trade.

zoas23
04-29-2017, 07:08 PM
Sometimes a person doesn't agree with you and the person is not a lunatic....

But most of the times it is.

OK... we have different perspectives then.

Michael Sternbach
05-01-2017, 01:33 PM
After reading alchemical text on and off for years the general process of the magnum-opus has formed in my mind. I would like to see how this confirms to others here. I'm my mind the process is "child's play" but there is a depth in its simplicity.

First the prima-materia is obtained at the correct time from the correct place.

Second the prima-materia is dissolved with the correct solvent given various names such as lye, vinegar, Azoth, menstrum, mercury etc

Third the mixture is placed in a glass globe and filled not more then half. The glass is to be sealed tightly so that nothing can escape or enter to contaminate the ingredients. I am unsure if by "hermetic seal" a vacuum is implied.

Forth the ingredients is to be heated for a calculated time period usually going through four degrees of heat.

As far as I have been able to understand this is all that is required to produce the stone...it sounds easy but it is most challenging to workout all the minute details.

As you can see from my understanding an Alchemist need not use much equipment and therefore an extensive alchemical laboratory is a sign which may mark one as a puffer.

Difficulty's are, learning the correct prima-materia to use, learning what the correct solvent is to use, understanding the degrees of heat that are to be applied and how long the heating process should be continued, when to begin and when to end.

Making it more difficult is that Alchemists often do not agree on these matters and then we have the added difficulty of distinguishing between Alchemists who have produced the great work and others who have not.

An example could be the firing time some say they can produce the stone in a matter of hours, others weeks, others months and then there are those who say it requires a year or more.

Added to this there is two distinct methods, the wet and the dry. The wet taking longer then the dry.

Is it okay to get back on topic? :D

I don't think the prima materia is a particular kind of matter that could be found somewhere. Rather, it is matter reduced to its primal undifferentiated state as in the proton hyle of the ancient Greeks.

The process that turns ordinary matter into prima materia is the nigredo at the beginning of the Great Work.

Awani
05-01-2017, 02:13 PM
Is it okay to get back on topic?

Good idea.

Off-topic debate regarding what alchemy is and isn't, and if the paranormal is normal or not, moved to this thread: Is Spiritual Alchemy a Valid Path? (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4824-Is-Spiritual-Alchemy-A-Valid-Path)

The debate from this thread starts here (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4824-Is-Spiritual-Alchemy-A-Valid-Path/page24).

If we want to discredit (or credit) Spiritual Alchemy then do this in that (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4824-Is-Spiritual-Alchemy-A-Valid-Path) particular thread to avoid clutter.

:p

Michael Sternbach
05-02-2017, 12:16 AM
There are at least four major approaches to creating the Stone. Keeping this really sketchy:


Based on lead acetate (Ripley, Hollandus)
Based on gold chloride (Valentine)
Based on quicksilver purified by the star regulus, plus gold (Flamel, Philalethes)
Based on water received from the air in some way and extracting the spiritus mundi from it (Kirchweger, Mutus Liber)

elixirmixer
05-02-2017, 01:28 AM
Hmmm.... There are some obvious reasons as to why this group has not arrived at a consensus about this process. An I believe the major reason is that we are always talking about Stones in terms I their matter, and the physical processes that these matters har to go through.

Shouldn't alchemical theory be spoken of in terms of the 4 elements, and 3 principals?

GENERAL PROCESS OF STONE WORK:

Take your matter, (what is it? Does it really MATTER?)

Allow our matter to play with Mary on a summers day. Now from ONE THING we now have, well as many as we want but in my theory, we are going to start with 4.

The first fraction of your matter is Water of Matter
Then Air
Then Fire
With Earth still in the Bay.

Dry your earth and calcine.

Take your Water of Matter and put half with your dry Earth and circulate them together seven times, or until your salts transverse the helm. Discard anything that refuses. If you do not gain nice crystal salts, than you are confused as to the correct Materia (not that it should Materia in most cases)((this is a pun))

Now we have Salt

Next, take the other half of your water element and mix with half of your Air element. Here is a simple Mercury.

Then, take your fire element and mix it with te other half of your air element, this is now Sulfur

Right. Salt, Sulfur, and Mercury, when combined, petrified and distilled, gives just, Philosophical Mercury, our Androgyounousillious compound.

This, can now be used as a Philosophical Mercury in which ever realm that you got it from.

Now, bottle and preserve this substance. Now go through the entire process again, but instead of putrefying your collected principals, simply put them in the bay and allow tem to dry and go crystalline. The feces should be well removed from each of the elements before you combine them into principals.

Now you have a highly active and fiery philosophic Sulfur

This is all you need! Go hard with your solve et coagula with both your Philosophic Sulfur and Philosophic Mercury....


Now this might not be a perfect representation of our work, but shouldn't e be talking in terms of elements and principals, rather than substances and processes?

Schmuldvich
05-02-2017, 01:43 AM
There are at least four major approaches to creating the Stone. Keeping this really sketchy:


Based on lead acetate (Ripley, Hollandus)
Based on gold chloride (Valentine)
Based on quicksilver purified by the star regulus, plus gold (Flamel, Philalethes)
Based on water received from the air in some way and extracting the spiritus mundi from it (Kirchweger, Mutus Liber)


Oh man, please tell me you are not speaking literally! :confused:



Hmmm.... There are some obvious reasons as to why this group has not arrived at a consensus about this process. An I believe the major reason is that we are always talking about Stones in terms I their matter, and the physical processes that these matters have to go through.

Shouldn't alchemical theory be spoken of in terms of the 4 elements, and 3 principals?

...
...
...

Now this might not be a perfect representation of our work, but shouldn't we be talking in terms of elements and principals, rather than substances and processes?

YES! I believe we get lost when we attempt to denote these physical substances as such things like gold chloride, lead acetate, nitre, etc. We already know that our Matter is constantly evolving, so attempting to name it at each point of its evolution is in pointless in my opinion. In theory it is a fantastic idea, but attempting to label something we know so little about as a certain element or molecule already known is going to be tough because our Matter is in a constant state of progression/transformation towards perfection. Not saying it cannot be done, just that it is a very impractical task for the researcher.

Michael Sternbach
05-02-2017, 01:58 AM
If you say so.

http://i63.tinypic.com/2cr4weo.gif

elixirmixer
05-02-2017, 02:53 AM
If you say so.

http://i63.tinypic.com/2cr4weo.gif

Hilarious post! It's things like this that keep me stirring this pot.

@Schmulivch: yeah now we are turning this ship somewhere with better weather.

Can we, then, discuss how the 4 elements relate to this work?:

AN EM ELEMENTAL THEORY BREAKDOWN *DJ Scratch Sound*

Let us observe the main physical archetype in our local 3D universe. The Sun. Light comes down, and interacts first with consciousness fields, then magnetic fields, then a differential in atmospheric pressure, and has then some quite physical contact with our ozone layer, the ozone layer, quite literally absorbing these photonic forces from the Sun. Now what happens there exactly? I don't know... That might be tonight's homework for me actually, but basically the point that I'm slowly constructing is that we see, that from the top down, we have a steady condensation of a particular energy, which, depending on the state that it is in, we call it fire, air, water, or earth, respectively.

Now when these states take FORM than they begin to quire certain attributes, of which these attributes give definition behind what the art has deemed the Three Principals.

Now the question that's been on my mind lately, is the specific process that allows the elements to each, individually hold form, what is form? How do we use the form of each element to work with the form of another element?

If each of the four elements then, have within themselves each of the three principals, what does that mean for us? What are we required to do with these essentials, in order to rectify our 4 elements?

I'm thinking again of the Star Trek guy, if this all sounds nuts to you guys, that must mean I'm getting close ;) :p

Does anyone else understand the points I'm trying to address?

elixirmixer
05-02-2017, 04:18 AM
So, we can see clearly that the Universe creates it's matter using state changing parameters and ingecting some very pure but crazy complex radiation/photon force that we generally give the term LIGHT!

And when making the Stone it's these principals that we are seeking to harness,
Since we want our stone to be as pure as possible an not tainted with refusal matters.

However!!

I rather like the idea of te Minor Opus, which really, instead of trying to bring Fire down to Earth, we are bringing Earth up to the Fire realm, and, since we are men and not Gods, since we look up and creation and not down, perhaps it is wise of us, to learn to behave as wise men, rather than trying to ignorantly play Elohims.

You see when we seek to raise our earth up to heaven, we calcine, we notice then that directly we have moisture and smokes assend (moisture first). So then it is first our Water element, and then our Air, and then we see, while we calcine that our fire stays fixed to the earth, and the Vapourizes away after our water and air have left us. Our Earth, as you would expect, then stays fixed indefinitely, for that is it's most outward appearing virtue. Fixidity.

And this really is an amazing revelation, because it shows, that when doing the work of men on earth, our most volatile element, Water, is also the closest in nature to that which is most fixed, and this allows us to transcend our earthy matters into their higher more pure form, bringing the true Salt, if we were in the plant realm here, we would be talking about the Volatized Salts of Tartar it is this, that allows our true Quintessence to remain fixed, yet maintaining it's volatile nature.

Is it, or is it not, an understanding of these matters that will bring one into an alignment with whatever the f' the emerald tablet was talking about?!?!?!

Is anyone down for more elemental chats here? Any of you magic people getting in on this? I would love to be able I compare, these elemental principals, and there inter-process-relationships, on the mental realm working with pure consciousness alone, alas, without a dedicated mentor I think that this is a bit over my head.

I like Stones. That is all.

JDP
05-02-2017, 04:22 AM
There are at least four major approaches to creating the Stone. Keeping this really sketchy:


Based on lead acetate (Ripley, Hollandus)
Based on gold chloride (Valentine)
Based on quicksilver purified by the star regulus, plus gold (Flamel, Philalethes)
Based on water received from the air in some way and extracting the spiritus mundi from it (Kirchweger, Mutus Liber)


1- There is no definitive evidence that Ripley worked with lead acetate or any other acetate. Such claims are based on very literal interpretations of some passages in some of his texts, where he says such things as "take Sericon/Antimony/Green-Lion/Red-Lead/etc., dissolve it in vinegar/juice of grapes etc." But the reactions and byproducts he describes after do not match well with the distillation of lead or any other acetates.

2- According to the German lawyer/alchemist Franz Clinge, Basil Valentine made the Stone with gold and the secret solvent (which can be either liquid or solid, depending on the method of preparation, as he explains), but also with copper and iron and the secret solvent (Clinge himself prefers these latter metals, as they are cheaper but also rich in "sulphur/tincture".) Anyone who has read Valentine's "Last Will and Testament" will understand why Clinge reached such conclusions.

3- That approach is total dead-end. No one ever got anywhere with it. Not even the likes of Boyle and Newton could ever achieve anything with antimonial amalgams. The above referred to Clinge blasts "Philalethes" for having deceived many with such insinuations about antimony & mercury.

4- No one has even proven that such a thing as "spiritus mundi" really exists in the first place, so these types of claims are extremely dubious at best. Water from the atmosphere is nothing more nothing less than vulgar H2O with some impurities, the very same "water from the clouds" condemned en masse by the bulk of alchemists.

JDP
05-02-2017, 04:26 AM
GENERAL PROCESS OF STONE WORK:

Take your matter, (what is it? Does it really MATTER?)

Of course it matters. Why else do you think alchemical literature is so evasive regarding precisely this very topic? The entire secret depends on what materials are used. Most substances do NOT work for alchemy. If virtually any substances could be used to make the Stone alchemy would have been publicly discovered a long time ago already. Alchemy relies on a much more limited group of substances than either "chymistry" or chemistry.

Schmuldvich
05-02-2017, 04:41 AM
Of course it matters. Why else do you think alchemical literature is so evasive regarding precisely this very topic? The entire secret depends on what materials are used. Most substances do NOT work for alchemy. If virtually any substances could be used to make the Stone alchemy would have been publicly discovered a long time ago already. Alchemy relies on a much more limited group of substances than either "chymistry" or chemistry.

Or maybe even just one substance! :p



Can we, then, discuss how the 4 elements relate to this work?

Let us observe the main physical archetype in our local 3D universe. The Sun. Light comes down, and interacts first with consiousness fields, then magnetic fields, then a differential in atmosphiric pressure, and has then some quite physical contact with our ozone layer, the ozone layer, quite literally absorbing these photonic forces from the Sun. Now what happens there exactly? I don't know... That might be tonight's homework for me actually, but basically the point that I'm slowly constructing is that we see, that from the top down, we have a steady condensation of a particular energy, which, depending on the state that it is in, we call it fire, air, water, or earth, respectively. Now when these states take form than they begin to quire certain attributes, of which these attributes give definition behin what the art has deemed the Three Principals.

Now the question that's been on my mind lately, is the specific process that allows the elements to each, individually hold form, what is form? How do we use the form of each element to work with the form of another element? If each of the four elements then, have within themselves each of the three principals, what does that mean for us? What are we required to do with these essentials, in order to rectify our 4 elements?

Does anyone else understand the points I'm trying to address?

Your top point is something I completely agree with. The Sages agree too. Depending on the state it is in "our Matter" becomes (or takes alikeness to) Fire, Air, Water, Earth.






TURBA PHILOSOPHORUM
Eighth Dictum

Pythagoras saith: --- I affirm that God existed before all things, and with Him was nothing, as He was at first. But know, all ye Philosophers, that I declare this in order that I may fortify your opinion concerning these four elements and arcana, as well as in the sciences thereof, at which no one can arrive save by the will of God. Understand, that when God was alone, He created four things- fire, air, water, and earth, out of which things He afterwards created all others, both the sublime and the inferior, because He predestinated from the beginning that all creatures extracted from water should multiply and increase, that they might dwell in the world and perform His judgments therein. Consequently, before all, He created the four elements, out of which He afterwards created what He willed, that is to say, diverse creatures, some of which were produced from a single element.

The Turba saith: --- Which are these, O Master!

And he: --- They are the angels, whom He created out of fire.

But the Turba: --- Which, then, are created out of two?

And he: --- Out of the elements of fire and air are the sun, moon, and stars composed. Hence the angels are more lucid than the sun, moon, and stars, because they are created from one substance, which is less dense than two, while the sun and the stars are created from a composition of fire and air.

The Turba saith: --- And what concerning the creation of Heaven?

Then he: --- God created the Heaven out of water and air, whence this is also composed of two, namely, the second of the rarer things, which is air, and the second of the denser things, which is water.

And they: --- Master, continue thy discourse concerning these three, and rejoice our hearts with thy sayings, which are life to the dead.

But the other answereth: --- I notify to you that God hath further made creatures out of three and out of four; out of three are created flying things, beasts, and vegetables; some of these are created out of water, air, and earth, some out of fire, air, and earth.

But the Turba saith: --- Distinguish these divers creatures one from another.

And he: --- Beasts are created out of fire, air, and earth; dying things out of fire, air, and water, because flying things, and all among vegetables which have a spirit, are created out of water, while all brute animals are from earth, air, and fire. Yet in vegetables there is no fire, for they are created out of earth, water, and air.

Whereat the Turba saith: --- Let us assume that a fire, with your reverence's pardon, does reside in vegetables.

And he: --- Ye have spoken the truth, and I affirm that they contain fire.

And they: --- Whence is that fire?

He answereth: --- Out of the heat of the air which is concealed therein; for I have signified that a thin fire is present in the air, but the elementary fire concerning which you were in doubt is not produced, except in things which have spirit and soul. But out of four elements our father Adam and his sons were created, that is, of fire, air, water, and likewise earth. Understand, all ye that are wise, how everything which God hath created out of one essence dies not until the Day of Judgment. The definition of death is the disjunction of the composite, but there is no disjunction of that which is simple, for it is one. Death consists in the separation of the soul from the body, because anything formed out of two, three, or four components must disintegrate, and this is death. Understand, further, that no complex substance which lacks fire eats, drinks, or sleeps, because in all things which have a spirit fire is that which eats.

The Turba answereth: --- How is it, Master, that the angels, being created of fire, do not eat, seeing thou assertest that fire is that which eats!

And he: --- Hence ye doubt, each having his opinion, and ye are become opponents, but if ye truly knew the elements, ye would not deny these things. I agree with all whose judgment it is that simple fire eats not, but thick fire. The angels, therefore, are not created out of thick fire, but out of the thinnest of very thin fire; being created, then, of that which is most simple and exceedingly thin, they neither eat, drink, nor sleep.

And the Turba: --- Master, our faculties are able to perceive, for by God's assistance we have exhausted thy sayings, but our faculties of hearing and of sight are unable to carry such great things. May God reward thee for the sake of thy disciples, since it is with the object of instructing future generations that thou hast summoned us together from our countries, the recompense of which thou wilt not fail to receive from the Judge to come.

Arisleus saith: --- Seeing that thou hast gathered us together for the advantage of posterity, I think that no explanations will be more useful than definitions of those four elements which thou hast taught us to attain.



"A Subtle Allegory Concerning The Secrets Of Alchemy Very Useful To Possess And Pleasant To Read" by Michael Maier is an entire tract dedicated to Earth, Water, Air, and Fire; surprisingly not very pleasant to read but certainly very useful to possess.

Sendivogius is an incredible resource as well. The following was written in 1646.






Epistle 12
April 29, 1646

God then dear companion did in your begining create your matter out of nothing, but altogether without any form (as Pseudo-Philosophers do fancy it, very indirectly) but in the form of a primordial Water, your element or more properly to be called the first Principle. Hence most Part of the Philosophers and not without Reason do hold, but one Element to be, to which they do attribute the primordial Properties, namely Power active and passive. To which they they have added three primordial active, viz: Hylem, or the Body; Archoum, or your Soul; and Azoth or a middle between both and as it were a Servant of one and to the Other, which is your universal Spirit. Last of all they have assigned four primordial instuments for all Actions and Passions viz: the four first Qualities.

This is the first and fundamental Degree of the first Genesis.


Epistle 13
May 3, 1646

Secondly dear companion God hath separated and divided this primordial water in four Parts, or Regions by a mystick, as it were Distillation, which Parts are called Elements though to speak properly they are not Elements, but rather Parts of the foresaid Element; yet because they have a small different Affection from the former primordial Element, according to which Affection every divided Part hath his more intensive Quality above the others more symbolical Qualities joined, therefore are they still called Elements, being stilled Elements elementated none of which suffers any thing from the others joined to him in her Radix or Offspring viz: as to that State and Condition in which they were created first.

But when once the man having sinned came to be troubled and to mourn your Habit and first State of all things made for his use and subjected to him, began to be corrupted and went from day to day to be more corrupted as I have taught in my Treatise de Sulphur.

But your Archeus residing in everyone's Center is called the elementary Element.
The property of these Elements by God so constituted are chiefly that they should be in a continual Conflict amongst themselves because of their disymbolical Qualities and incompatability of their contrariety, for this end their own substance from whence by means of your symbolical and agreeing qualities, other Substances should spring forth of a middle sort fitted for the second Genesis, which partly do retain the nature of the Elements, partly that of your mixtum as it shall appear hereafter.

Wherefore the said Elements are called your principating Principles of Things.

But into these Principles no mixtum can possibly be resolved except by God's Power, because, as is said before the last form cannot be drawn back, that it should be become such a one as the Form was of your first single compounding Elements and on the contrary neither can they at once at least not alltogether coalesce into one compound or mixture, because of the Repugnancy of the said contrary Qualities, which without a Medium cannot be brought to an agreement, to abide together; Eve said, All, for some of them viz: such whose domineering Qualities do not strive together may be physically united in one natural Compound namely in principated Principles.

And this is the second Degree of Creation.

Schmuldvich
05-02-2017, 04:55 AM
Epistle 14
May 9, 1646

Thirdly God hath exalted a fifth Essence (as they call it) of the said Elements that is to say God hath as it were by a mystical Rectication separated the purer Parts of them out of which he hath made the Heavens and Stars, not by way of Composition or (to say properly) coagulation which for the most Part founds a Union, but by way of concretion or condensation. For the Heavens are made out of the most purified Part of the Elemental Water, but the other Stars out of the most purified Part of the Air, the others out of the purified Part of the Fire, others lastly out of the most subtle and smooth Parts of the Earth.

This Doctrine is demonstrated by the sole natural Light. For there is no man so void of Sense, but that he can judge, seeing the Moon to be opaque and not lucid of itself, but to borrow her Light from the Sun, that she needs must be earthy. For the Earth is only opaque, so contrary the Sun to be fiery, because splendent and lucid of itself. For it is alone the Fire that shines of itself and give Light and heat to other Bodies, for the Light is a Property flowing from its Essence and is always [concomitant] to it, though it doth not always appear, because of the Interposition of other dark and opaque Bodies and Substances. Hence it is that Fire often is signified by the Name and Light and contrary Light by the name of Fire. So in Genesis when the Creation of the Fire is expressed by the name of Light, and by the like Reasoning it may be concluded that many pale Stars are aireal and like unto transparent Bodies that receive their Light from the Sun like unto Glass or rather as if air do, which if it were not so the Stars could not impart their influences now hot, because of the Predomination of hot Planets now Cold, by the Accession of cold Stars to this lower Region, neither could they cause such divers Mutations in subjected Bodies while those Qualities which belong to the Elements do only proceed from the Elements and are communicated wheresoever they are met with; see here of our Harmony committed to the case of Briscius to see it printed.

The affections of the coelestial Stars and Orbs are that they incessantly do move according to their proper Motions and so continue to the End of the World equally in respect to themselves, but unequally with respect to other Stars, at least the most part of them moving; and that for this Purpose that according to their various configurations they should also send forth various Irradiations and have various Influences into the lower Bodies and to concur as universal and upper causes to all natural Motions and Actions, as also Generations and conceptions as well universal or primordial as particular (of which we shall treat presently) and lastly to all Mutations and Alterations of Time and Weather, Durations, Commensurations and of many such other effects. And with this the Solution and Separation of the first Matter, is absolved.

Follows the Composition, or so to speak properly, the Coagulation of things, that is the Union as hath been said before of several different Parts. And this shall be our next matter to be treated of. In the mean time.



Epistle 15
May 9, 1646

Fourthly then God hath united and brought together Conflavis, the principated Principles, or the upper mixture which are Bodies of a middle Substance, between the Elements, and the lower mixture. And these are; First Sulphur a substance made out of Fire and Air cojoined and coagulated by a Heat common to both.

2. A compound out of Air and Water by the help of Moistness symbolizing with both.e

3. Mercury made out of Water and Earth, by the agent of Cold proper to both.
The chief Properties of these Principles are divided in common and singular.

The common are to be the highest principiated Principles and to be the medium to join the Extremes in the mixture, viz: that by their means and intervention, the disagreeing Qualities of the Elements (which otherwise are incompatable) might agree in each Family's mixture. For it seems that the symbolizing Qualities in any mixed Bodies might be able to reconcile contrary and repugnant Qualities; yet according to God's Laws given to Nature it was inconvenient that contraries should stand together and be suddenly conjoined without some previous Leauge of Friendship made in the intrinsecal parts of the mixtum.

And to this that such a Diversity of Temperaments and such various complexions and constitutions could not have been any other but this way effected; at least not in things of a firm constitution and of long Duration. The singular Properties we will explain in the next.



Epistle 16
May 21, 1646

The particular or singular Properties of the aforesaid divers Principles are chiefly to be considered.

1. The chiefest of Sulur are these. To be the Seat of natural Heat. To receive immediately hot and fiery Impressions and influences of the coelestial Bodies and to impart them to the other parts of the Body it resides in; to contain the Scent and Tincture of all things, and to receive also the actions of Scent and Tincture of all other mixtures.

2. Of Salt are these to be the Radix of Coagulation and Coagulability in all things. For it doth incorporate, coagulate, or consolidate all other Principles: To open the Pores of other Bodies being applied with a Due Quantity of Mercurius whose Salts moving in which the Compass and Connection of the homogeneal Parts doth consist the on the other Hand receiving more powerful actions of other Salts, they might yeild to the Dissolution of the Parts of its own Body; To preserve and keep the Taste of tasteful things and to communicate it to other Bodies, and also to receive reciprocally it's communication from others. And truly any Part of an animal that wants its salt must needs [to] lose both taste and feeling. For it is the Salt which purges and is purged in all Motions of our appetites, lastly to receive moist and hot influences.

3. Of Mercurius are these. To be the seat of radical Moisture, to keep and to nourish it in all things. To give everywhere all cold and Moist impressions and again to suffer the actions of agents of like quality, viz: cold and moist and to distribute to the same amongst the other parts of its body wherever he lies hid. To dissolve Salt and to help it in order to the solution of all other solid Bodies. These are the particular Properties of the principated Principles of the highest Ranks. Hereafter we will come to other things.



Epistle 17
June 6, 1646

Fifthy dear companion God hath framed out of the three said, two other principiated Principles, of secondary mixture; viz: Nature's Sperm and the monstruia of the World, which do retain as well as the Properties of the former Principles as their first Names mainly Sulphur and Mercury. For Sulphur is called Sperma and Mercurius menstruum. But besides the forenamed Properties these have also got new ones, to wit from their own new Temperament. For Sulphur which before was naturally hot because of its innate Heat is now above that become coagulative the fixative being mixed with Salt. And from hence it is called by the Philosophers living Sulphur. And Mercury which before cold is now become hot and moist and better digested by the accession of congealed air which he hath received from the Salt. Hence he is also called living Mercury. The Properties which do follow the form substantial of these are likewise common and singular or particular.

The common are; to be mixture subalternate viz: of the second or middle Ranks.

The singular are first of Sulphur.

To contain itself the seeds as well primordial as secondary (of which hereafter) yet not all at once or confusedly everywhere, but distinct and determinate Ones according to the nature and condition of Places, in which as in Nature's Kidneys and spermatic vessels they receive their last Digestion and Determination and hereby are multiplied. Therefore it is called the sperma natura, the Sulphur vivium may introduce the seed into a proper Matrix and there let it lye to this Purpose that there they might fulfil their Office for Generation (whence the Radix of masculine Faculty is attributed to him) That from elsewhere it might attract the mercurial spirit out of the menstruum. And from thence it hath the name of Magnes Chalybs and such like.

2. Of Mercurius. That he in an eminent Manner do contain the forsaid Mercury which is more digested and nearest disposed to receive the Actions and Fermentations of the seeds, i.e.: that he may be converted and coagulated according to their Intention or Inclination and lastly that he with food and like food be transmuted into the substance of all Nourishing Things. From whence he hath the Name and Title of menstruum mundi.



Epistle 18
June 6, 1646

Sixthly out of these two dear companion God hath made one Principle which likewise retains the name of Mercurius and though in him be joined and physically imitted without Distinction as well as the forenamed two principles as Mercurius himself yet because the signatures of Mercurius do more abound in him and also appear to the Senses viz; the waterish Humidity, and the fine and subtil Earth being thoroughly mixed with the Water it is rather called Mercurius than either Salt or Sulphur. Yet according to the Diversity of Degrees of its natural Digestion which he undergoes he changes names, signs, and even Nature, and gets the property of Salt. And at another Time when he comes nearer to living Sulphur digestion, it assumes also to himself the name, Essence, and Faculty of Sulphur. But so long as it remains in the State and Temperament of Mercury it is only called Mercurius. Therefore He hath the Name of Proteus and that is of Hermaphroditical partaking of masculine and femminine Nature and many such other Nick names he hath given him by Philosophers.



Epistle 19
June 9, 1646

Seventh and lastly dear companion God hath made out of the said last Principle as the nearest and immediate Matter all those inumerable Mixtures, so many as there are in the World in all three Families animal, vegetable, and mineral with their infinite Species appertaining to each Family and in the following manner.

Namely out of a Portion of the said universal Spirit being digested unto a Sulphureal Temper. He hath made all those innumerable Seeds, of all Families, Genera and Species according to his inexhaustible Treasure of Ideas, as well in the Air as in the Water and Earth, out of which Seeds (but not all; for that he hath left many empty) and with the said universal Spirit only Mercurally digested He hath formed Individuals divers in Sex, viz: masculine and feminine, commiting to the one secondary and particular Seed for the Multiplication of the Species and to the other the menstruum and the proper material Principle for generation of its Species. And lastly he hath given to those Individuums amongst almost infinite Properties this principle one also that they could multiply their species in the said Man and Woman which that it may clearer be demonstrated you are to know.



...Oh look! A general process of the Magnum Opus! ;)

JDP
05-02-2017, 06:46 AM
Or maybe even just one substance! :p

That is going too far in the opposite direction of those who claim that "anything" works.

Luxus
05-02-2017, 10:33 PM
Is it okay to get back on topic? :D

I don't think the prima materia is a particular kind of matter that could be found somewhere. Rather, it is matter reduced to its primal undifferentiated state as in the proton hyle of the ancient Greeks.

The process that turns ordinary matter into prima materia is the nigredo at the beginning of the Great Work.

The process of creation was squaring the circle (the word), the process of alchemy is circling the square (the word made flesh). But you need the unspecified matter which is called the prima materia. The Alchemist can only invert nature but not back as far as the first cause, he instead seeks the quintessence or the undifferentiated atom.

elixirmixer
05-02-2017, 11:03 PM
Let's get back to basics shall we?

Which of the four elements makes up each of the three principals?