PDA

View Full Version : Difference between Alkahest and the Universal Mercury (SM).



Axismundi000
05-05-2017, 09:53 PM
There has been much debate about SM.

So if there is a universal solvent which will dissolve even gold and there are other solvents other alkahest which dissolve the metals but not gold. So what is the essential difference between these two if Universal Mercury (SM) is present in all things what is it about these other alkahest that is different? These others they dissolve all the other metals but not gold so they have substance in them but it is not Universal Mercury?

elixirmixer
05-05-2017, 10:16 PM
While the term Spiritus Mundi has been coined to describe a particularly secret solvent, I believe the word Alkahest was implied to mean a compound, such as the deep red oil of the prepared Major Opus which can dissolve gold. Or in other words, SM is unspecified, however Alkahest's are made within the kingdoms

JDP
05-05-2017, 11:37 PM
There has been much debate about SM.

So if there is a universal solvent which will dissolve even gold and there are other solvents other alkahest which dissolve the metals but not gold. So what is the essential difference between these two if Universal Mercury (SM) is present in all things what is it about these other alkahest that is different? These others they dissolve all the other metals but not gold so they have substance in them but it is not Universal Mercury?

Besides the fact that there is no shred of evidence that either one of these substances actually exists:

1- The "Spiritus Mundi" concept was used by some alchemists to maliciously mislead "unworthy" seekers into wasting their time and money trying to carry out very improbable things (like "condensing" this unproven and vaguely defined "something" out of thin air), or by people who genuinely believed in the possibility that this hypothetical "something" to be found everywhere was the secret solvent of the alchemists

2- "Alkahest" was originally just a medicine for the liver in the Paracelsian system of medicine, but for some unknown bizarre reason Van Helmont arbitrarily took this word and applied it to a peculiar solvent that he claimed he knew how to prepare, which was capable of dissolving and decomposing all substances into their alleged "elements" or "principles", while it itself remained intact and could be reused over and over again to perform the same amazing task

Axismundi000
05-05-2017, 11:49 PM
JDP I do not give two hoots whether or not you think it exists my enquiry is this: There are supposed to be various secret solvents or alkahest and some can dissolve more than one metal but not gold. There is a 'universal Mercury' or Spiritus mundi that can dissolve all metals including gold. So from a purely Alchemical perspective what is the difference between these, what basic Alchemical principal has varied?

JDP
05-06-2017, 12:06 AM
JDP I do not give two hoots whether or not you think it exists my enquiry is this: There are supposed to be various secret solvents or alkahest and some can dissolve more than one metal but not gold. There is a 'universal Mercury' or Spiritus mundi that can dissolve all metals including gold. So from a purely Alchemical perspective what is the difference between these, what basic Alchemical principal has varied?

I already told you the origin of both claims, if you weren't so fixated in what I believe or not believe you would have noticed. They are not the same thing. The word "Alkahest" in the sense of "universal solvent" was (re)invented by Van Helmont, who himself never claimed to have discovered how to prepare the Stone (even though he did handle samples of it, and confirmed its transmuting power, but these samples were donated to him by others, he never said he knew how to prepare it), so his peculiar solvent (even if we assume it really actually exists) is not "alchemical". It is just a strange "chymical" solvent. Weidenfeld had in fact already pointed out the crucial difference between the secret solvent of alchemy and the Helmontian "Alkahest": the alchemical solvent eventually JOINS AND PERMANENTLY REMAINS WITH WHAT IT DISSOLVES, AND CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM IT OR RECOVERED AS IT WAS BEFORE THE "RADICAL" UNION WITH THE SOLUTE, while the Helmontian "Alkahest" DOES NOT REMAIN WITH WHAT IT DISSOLVES AND ALWAYS REMAINS WHAT IT IS AND CAN BE RECOVERED INTACT AS IT WAS BEFORE THE SOLUTION.

Illen A. Cluf
05-06-2017, 12:14 AM
I already told you the origin of both claims, if you weren't so fixated in what I believe or not believe you would have noticed. They are not the same thing. The word "Alkahest" in the sense of "universal solvent" was (re)invented by Van Helmont, who himself never claimed to have discovered how to prepare the Stone (even though he did handle samples of it, and confirmed its transmuting power, but these samples were donated to him by others, he never said he knew how to prepare it), so his peculiar solvent (even if we assume it really actually exists) is not "alchemical". It is just a strange "chymical" solvent. Weidenfeld had in fact already pointed out the crucial difference between the secret solvent of alchemy and the Helmontian "Alkahest": the alchemical solvent eventually JOINS AND PERMANENTLY REMAINS WITH WHAT IT DISSOLVES, AND CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM IT OR RECOVERED AS IT WAS BEFORE THE "RADICAL" UNION WITH THE SOLUTE, while the Helmontian "Alkahest" DOES NOT REMAIN WITH WHAT IT DISSOLVES AND ALWAYS REMAINS WHAT IT IS AND CAN BE RECOVERED INTACT AS IT WAS BEFORE THE SOLUTION.

Excellent, JDP!!! A most important distinction! Well done!

Axismundi000
05-06-2017, 12:42 AM
I'm not interested in intricate definitions and patronising my question is straightforward and I shall put it more simply because the above quotation does differ from other sources and these lesser alkahest can be recovered and recycled.

In Alchemy there are allegedly substances which can dissolve more then one metal but not gold these are in Modern stuff by Dubuis, Albertus and Bartlett called alkahest. There is also a universal solvent sometimes abbreviated to SM on this site which can dissolve gold and the other metals. What is the essential difference between these two if known please.

Spare me your empirical fanaticism JDP I do not care.

black
05-06-2017, 01:14 AM
I already told you the origin of both claims, if you weren't so fixated in what I believe or not believe you would have noticed. They are not the same thing. The word "Alkahest" in the sense of "universal solvent" was (re)invented by Van Helmont, who himself never claimed to have discovered how to prepare the Stone (even though he did handle samples of it, and confirmed its transmuting power, but these samples were donated to him by others, he never said he knew how to prepare it), so his peculiar solvent (even if we assume it really actually exists) is not "alchemical". It is just a strange "chymical" solvent. Weidenfeld had in fact already pointed out the crucial difference between the secret solvent of alchemy and the Helmontian "Alkahest": the alchemical solvent eventually JOINS AND PERMANENTLY REMAINS WITH WHAT IT DISSOLVES, AND CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM IT OR RECOVERED AS IT WAS BEFORE THE "RADICAL" UNION WITH THE SOLUTE, while the Helmontian "Alkahest" DOES NOT REMAIN WITH WHAT IT DISSOLVES AND ALWAYS REMAINS WHAT IT IS AND CAN BE RECOVERED INTACT AS IT WAS BEFORE THE SOLUTION.

It's good to see someone has been doing his homework !!!

Most people try to follow the NAME of something....better to follow the NATURE.

Visceral
05-06-2017, 01:22 AM
JDP is actually and incredibly helpful and useful personage, and has already answered the thread title, O OP.

He's the only one I've seen around here trying to lead people away from the single matter concept and a million thanks from the wise are his for that

Edit: if I may paraphrase what JDP is telling you, I think we could condense and summarize it into lesser solutions dissolve metals/materials to the degree they are able. The various claims of various practitioners are due to their wildly varying levels of success.

Axismundi000
05-06-2017, 01:23 AM
The above is not accurate because these 'alkahest' or whatever they are can be recycled and used again even though they cannot dissolve gold.

Perhaps I am wasting my time here.

Visceral
05-06-2017, 01:25 AM
The above is not accurate because these 'alkahest' or whatever they are can be recycled and used again even though they cannot dissolve gold.

Perhaps I am wasting my time here.

How is this inconsistent with what I told you?

You probably are, but not how you think

elixirmixer
05-06-2017, 01:27 AM
I think that the answer to your question roughly lies in the field of thus:

Because gold has quite a many gates that need to be unlocked, many common solvents fail in their ability to penetrate these layers of atomic energy within gold, for the obvious reason, it is simply too stable.

If we look at the elements, there are a few reasons as to why such solvents do not possess the required penetrative qualities that are needed. Take nitric acid for example, or HCL even, which are distilled from their salts. If we look at this process we notice that because of the heavy fire used in its preparation that it would possess quite a lot of the air, water, and fire principals, since these elements can only be separated by gentle and secret fires. However, there are still remaining feces within these elements which must needs be clarified before they will be completed effectual.

And, we must also consider the hand of the philosophers, in that without Sal Ammoniac, there can be no miraculous penetrative abilities, and these special salts are discarded during the preparation of these industry standard chemicals, or removed and used elsewhere, most likely in agriculture.

Hollandus believed that vegetables could be exalted to the point where that would penetrate prepared gold calx, it is believed that in this case, that gold calx is a gold oxide. He achieved these methods through the purification of the feces of each of the four elements, and the appropriate recombination, however, goes into greater detail about the hidden salts of the work (although you are left wanting) namely, Sal ammonic, which is a deck name for the volatile salts of sulfur found within the combustible oils of the plant matter.

Im sure he would further explain these things in his mineral works but im not there yet.

Visceral
05-06-2017, 01:31 AM
And, we must also consider the hand of the philosophers, in that without Sal Ammoniac, there can be no miraculous penetrative abilities, and these special salts are discarded during the preparation of these industry standard chemicals, or removed and used elsewhere, most likely in agriculture.

Hollandus believed that vegetables could be exalted to the point where that would penetrate prepared gold calx, it is believed that in this case, that gold calx is a gold oxide. He achieved these methods through the purification of the feces of each of the four elements, and the appropriate recombination, however, goes into greater detail about the hidden salts of the work (although you are left wanting) namely, Sal ammonic, which is a deck name for the volatile salts of sulfur found within the combustible oils of the plant matter.

Im sure he would further explain these things in his mineral works but im not there yet.

Just out of interest, why is the Sal Ammoniac required for the miraculous quality?

black
05-06-2017, 01:39 AM
The above is not accurate because these 'alkahest' or whatever they are can be recycled and used again even though they cannot dissolve gold.

Perhaps I am wasting my time here.

Axis this is a GREAT QUESTION ...you are not wasting your time.


Lets stir the pot a bit more.

We can add more words to this question:

MERCURY and MENSTRUM.

All part of the same equation.

elixirmixer
05-06-2017, 01:46 AM
Just out of interest, why is the Sal Ammoniac required for the miraculous quality?

If you have ever tasted calcined Salts of Tartar, you will know of their penetrative capabilities. If we consider these salts as Salt of Earth, than we can consider Sal Ammoniac to be considered Mercury of Earth. When these are rectified and united with their Spiritus Vini, than they become a glorified corpus.

This glorified corpus has that capabilities to penetrate gold and turn vulgar mercury into a medicinal water.

united with its other elements it is the quintessence and will prepare gold to a miraculous medicinal end. Apparently.

Common solvents do not possess the pure corpses required for such penetrative requirements.

Perhaps THIS is the reason that Don Vance puts NaCL in his gold dissolving formula??

Kiorionis
05-06-2017, 02:33 AM
We can add more words to this question:

MERCURY and MENSTRUM.

All part of the same equation.

Also: SULPHUR

That which gives potency to the Mercury?

JDP
05-06-2017, 02:39 AM
I'm not interested in intricate definitions and patronising my question is straightforward and I shall put it more simply because the above quotation does differ from other sources and these lesser alkahest can be recovered and recycled.

In Alchemy there are allegedly substances which can dissolve more then one metal but not gold these are in Modern stuff by Dubuis, Albertus and Bartlett called alkahest. There is also a universal solvent sometimes abbreviated to SM on this site which can dissolve gold and the other metals. What is the essential difference between these two if known please.

Spare me your empirical fanaticism JDP I do not care.

You are referring to modern authors, who themselves seem to follow the confusion that some writers from the 17th century onward propagated because they did not understand the differences between both solvents. Van Helmont NEVER claimed to be an "adept", he did not claim that he knew how to make the Stone, and therefore never claimed that his "alkahest" was the secret solvent of the alchemists, but a bunch of people after him kept confusing his mysterious "alkahest" solvent with that of the alchemists. The best contemporary (i.e. from the 17th century) discussion I can recommend that clarifies this confusion and the obvious differences between the two solvents is that of Weidenfeld in his "Concerning the Secrets of the Adepts", which I already referred to above and summarized, but which I will quote in full and verbatim here:

"But of these Difficulties, the first and greatest Obstacle withal, was my own unhappy
Preconception of some certain Alkahest: For being now out of the hope of attaining to the
preparation of this Liquor by other men's Books, as well as Paracelsus his own De Viribus
Membrorum, I betook my self to other places, treating of the Circulatum minus, and
Specificum corrosivum (as synonimous Terms of the Alkahest with some men) to which I
added the Aqua or Oleum Salis, Aqua Comedens, Aqua Regis, Circulatum majus, and one
after another being persuaded that some one only universal Menstruum was intended by all,
that I might find the Method of preparing this Liquor in all places compared together, which I
could not in each severally; but at length despairing, and being overcome by the manifold and
almost incredible, yet unsuccessful pains I took, I resolved to decline Chymy and Medicine, as
Arts too deep for my understanding. When behold! on a sudden the Eyes of my Mind were
opened, and I saw all these things differ, not in name only, but also in matter, preparation and
use; so instead of one Liquor Alkahest, which I sought for, I found in Paracelsus many
Menstruums, with the several Uses of them all in Medicine; now knew I how to prepare, and
according to Paracelsus; distinguish things into Essences, Magisteries, Astrums, Arcanums,
and those which he calls the less Medicines, so that which was in Paracelsus most difficult to
be understood by others, became more clear to me than any thing else; and so I obtained the
End sooner than the Beginning: Yet the Joy from thence accrewing, fell shorter than
expectation; for having tried several Experiments in vain, I came to understand that these
Menstruums of Paracelsus contained something abstruse and unknown, to be understood, not
in the least according to the Letter: whereupon, examining them more exactly and comparing
their Qualities with the Nature of the Liquor Alkahest, I found a vast difference between it and
them; for it is said, There is one Liquor Alkahest, and that universal; but many are the
Menstruums of Paracelsus, these indestructible, these destructible; these not mixing with
Bodies, these abiding with them; that preserves the Virtues of things, these alter them; that
ascends after the Essences of things in destillation, these before their dissolutions, etc. I
was at a stand sometime which part to take; one while I wished for one indestructible Liquor, rather
than many destructible Menstruums, supposing that one better than many, another while
changing my Mind, I desired the Menstruums, as sufficient for many Uses I knew before.
Truth overcame at length, enabling me now to demonstrate the most, if not all the
Medicines of Paracelsus in Guido and Basilius: On the contrary, I perceived the Arcanums of
Paracelsus, (commonly so called) as prepared by that Liquor Alkahest, or the like, to be more
and more different, yea contrary to the Authentick: wherefore as to the Preparation of
Medicines, I began to abstain, yea desisted from further enquiring into the obscure Matter,
Preparation and Use of that Liquor Alkahest, namely, that which I find described in one place
of Paracelsus as a Medicine, but not in the least as a Menstruum: Which Obstacle being
removed, I found an easie way from Paracelsus to Lully, Basilius, and other Philosophers of
the same Faculty, who I saw agreed all unanimously in confirmation of the Paracelsian
Menstruums; yea Light adding Light to Light, appeared so clear, that their preparation,
variety, simple and literal sense showed themselves all at once, one only Word remaining
unknown, yet expressing the universal Basis of all the Adepts, and that is Spirit of Wine, not
Common, but Philosophical; which being known and obtained, the greatest Philosophical,
Medicinal, Alchymical, and Magical Mysteries of the more secret Chymy, will be in the power
of the Possessor ...

But you that have hitherto desired one only universal, immortal, indestructible Menstruum,
I mean, the Liquor Alkahest or Ignisaqua, that undeclinable word, instead of one, whereof
you never yet knew the Name, Matter, Preparation and Use, behold! I offer a great many
kinds of universal Menstruums, in their Descriptions more clear, in Virtues equivalent, if not
better than this your Alkahest. What others have either obscurely, or impertinently said and
written of this Liquor Alkahest, we little regard, as Opinions and Conjectures. By the
Menstruums of the Adepts, we intend not all manner of Dissolvents, prepared without the
Spirit of Philosophical Wine, and only corroding, but not in the least altering the more minute
Particles of Bodies: Nor do we understand an immortal Liquor, not permanent with things
dissolved in it: But by Menstruum we mean a volatile Liquor made several ways of the Spirit
of Philosophical Wine and divers things, not only separating Bodies, but also continuing with
them, and altering them with the addition of it self, so as to be no more two, nor again, what
they were before.For out of this Dissolution (the solemn Wedlock, inseparable Union and
Combination of Body and Menstruum) emergeth a new Being, containing the unblemished
Properties of the thing dissolved, and the thing dissolving, not at all separable by Art or
Nature..."

Andro
05-06-2017, 05:20 AM
The terminology can be indeed confusing.

Now, nobody has to take my word for it, but if what we refer to as 'Spiritus Mundi' (or dozens of other names it has been given in many traditions) is not sufficiently present in our various menstruums, we most likely work in vain.

Perhaps one of the the best explanations of the conundrum explored on this thread are in the Recreations/ICH/Cylliani lineage (Fulcanelly and St. Didier also explain it), where the distinction is clearly made between the initially collected/extracted "Mercurial Spirit" (which can also contain 'superfluous phlegm', depending on conditions), and the subsequently prepared "Philosophical Mercury", which is the Universal Solvent and marks the end of the First Rotation. So here we have a clear distinction between the 'First Mercury' (Astral Spirit, Spiritus Mundi, Mercury Simplex, etc..) and the 'Second Mercury' (Philosophical Mercury, Alkahest, Mercury Duplex, etc...). The 'Philosophical Mercury' is in most cases a compound, sometimes of matters which are of the same nature and origin, but not always and not necessarily. It is generally the result of the interplay between the 'First Mercury' we have 'extracted' and the 'Philosophical Earth' we have chosen to work with. Also, 'Universal Solvent' does not mean it 'dissolves' in the traditional sense of the word. In the the above mentioned lineage, between 7 to 9 'Eagles' have to be performed to get rid of more and more 'Terra Damnata' to the point where the resulting 'Solvent' is potent enough to affect Gold or the Universal Sulfur. In the same lineage, it is explained that if we want to prepare medicines/fixed & living Sulfurs from other matters (plants, corals, eggshells, lesser metals, etc...), less 'Eagles' are required in the rectification process towards obtaining the Philosophical Mercury.

Weidenfeld's 'Philosophical Spirit of Wine' is essentially a compound of the same principles as the Universal Solvent/Philosophical Mercury, only (in most cases) lesser in potency/degree, and usually obtained via more 'traditional' laboratory methods - but the goal is the same, to obtain a menstruum rich and potent in the Primordial & UN-Differentiated Spirit present in all things.

And before anyone says this First/Primordial/Universal Spirit is "unproven", please keep in mind that you are only speaking for yourself, meaning it has not been 'proven' to YOU. It will only be your perspective (just like this post is my perspective, albeit based on personal experience, but still...) and not any sort of absolute 'empirical' truth.


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

Visceral
05-06-2017, 05:34 AM
If you have ever tasted calcined Salts of Tartar, you will know of their penetrative capabilities. If we consider these salts as Salt of Earth, than we can consider Sal Ammoniac to be considered Mercury of Earth. When these are rectified and united with their Spiritus Vini, than they become a glorified corpus.

This glorified corpus has that capabilities to penetrate gold and turn vulgar mercury into a medicinal water.

united with its other elements it is the quintessence and will prepare gold to a miraculous medicinal end. Apparently.

Common solvents do not possess the pure corpses required for such penetrative requirements.

Perhaps THIS is the reason that Don Vance puts NaCL in his gold dissolving formula??

I'm glad you added the "apparently" because I was going to say I think I understand what you're getting at, but thanks to this Alchemical Language we use I have to worry about a triple meaning filter to literally everything you just said.

I will assume I have not tasted Calcined Salts of Tartar then

JDP
05-06-2017, 05:47 AM
The terminology can be indeed confusing.

Now, nobody has to take my word for it, but if what we refer to as 'Spiritus Mundi' (or dozens of other names it has been given in many traditions) is not sufficiently present in our various menstruums, we most likely work in vain.

Perhaps one of the the best explanations of the conundrum explored on this thread are in the Recreations/ICH/Cylliani lineage (Fulcanelly and St. Didier also explain it), where the distinction is clearly made between the initially collected/extracted "Mercurial Spirit" (which can also contain 'superfluous phlegm', depending on conditions), and the subsequently prepared "Philosophical Mercury", which is the Universal Solvent and marks the end of the First Rotation. So here we have a clear distinction between the 'First Mercury' (Astral Spirit, Spiritus Mundi, Mercury Simplex, etc..) and the 'Second Mercury' (Philosophical Mercury, Alkahest, Mercury Duplex, etc...). The 'Philosophical Mercury' is in most cases a compound, sometimes of matters which are of the same nature and origin, but not always and not necessarily. It is a generally the result of the interplay between the 'First Mercury' we have 'extracted' and the 'Philosophical Earth' we have chosen to work with. Also, 'Universal Solvent' does not mean it 'dissolves' in the traditional sense of the word. In the the above mentioned lineage, between 7 to 9 'Eagles' have to be performed to get rid of more and more 'Terra Damnata' to the point where the resulting 'Solvent' is potent enough to affect Gold or the Universal Earth. In the same lineage, it is explained that if we want to prepare medicines/fixed & living Sulfurs from other matters (plants, corals, eggshells, lesser metals, etc...), less 'Eagles' are required in the rectification process towards obtaining the Philosophical Mercury.

Weidenfeld's 'Philosophical Spirit of Wine' is essentially a compound of the same principles as the Universal Solvent/Philosophical Mercury, only (in most cases) lesser in potency/degree, and usually obtained via more 'traditional' laboratory methods - but the goal is the same, to obtain a menstruum rich and potent in the Primordial & UN-Differentiated Spirit present in all things.

And before anyone says this First/Primordial/Universal Spirit is "unproven", please keep in mind that you are only speaking for yourself, meaning it has not been 'proven' to YOU. It will only be your perspective (just like this post is my perspective, albeit based on personal experience, but still...) and not any sort of absolute 'empirical' truth.

It is more than speaking for one-self, though. The proponents of "Spiritus Mundi" claim this "thing" is everywhere, but yet no one else has been able to obtain or observe it. How peculiar, isn't it? Seems like a huge contradiction that this "thing" is everywhere yet no one except its proponents have supposedly seen it. This is very different than the claims of the alchemists who say or imply that the matters for making the Stone are limited (two, or three, or four, or five, etc.), have to be kept secret, and have to be combined and made to react in the appropriate manner and the right proportions. They are not claiming that it can be done with virtually anything or that the secret solvent is found everywhere, so their claims at least have the obstacle of exclusivity, which the "Spiritus Mundi" claims do not. If "Spiritus Mundi" was real, what would be the chances that it would have still gone unnoticed after so many centuries??? In an age where scientific instruments can even detect tiny particles totally invisible to the naked eye, like solar "wind", while the alchemists did not even discover oxygen, which was a substance they were in daily contact with, yet somehow we are supposed to believe that they were able to discover this strange "Spiritus Mundi" that not even modern scientific instruments can detect anywhere??? Sorry, but such claims do not resist even superficial scrutiny. The reason why the alchemists could not really know any such things as the very real oxygen or the very hypothetical "Spiritus Mundi" is simply because their experimental methods and instruments were not suitable to study invisible substances like gases. They largely ignored the existence of such substances. You can very justifiably say that modern chemistry was in fact born out of the study of gases (discovery of carbon dioxide by Joseph Black, discovery of oxygen by Priestly, Scheele and Lavoisier, discovery of chlorine by Scheele, discovery of hydrogen by Cavendish, etc.) which alchemy and even "chymistry" had for the most part not even been aware of or largely ignored in favor of the investigation of reactions between solids & solids, solids & liquids and liquids & liquids.

Andro
05-06-2017, 06:10 AM
no one else has been able to obtain or observe it.

The following is meant for everyone who likes to speak for others: Please speak for yourselves. Don't assume anything on other people's behalf.

Correct way to put it: "I (insert your name) have not been able to obtain or observe it."

It is a tangible, physical substance with highly unusual & exotic properties, and it can be extracted theoretically from everything, (also - but not only) by most uncommon means, which would probably make zero sense to Chemistry or even to Chymistry.

It is not my job (or anyone's job) to convince anyone of anything. Or to 'prove' anything to anyone. I think everyone must convince themselves through direct experience and experimentation, just like JDP did with his chymical experiment with small/unprofitable, yet very much tangible and 'demonstrating' results. This sort of thing is truly invaluable and no one (probably) would have done it for him or 'prove' it to him. He did it himself. Kudos for that.

Now the horizons can be expanded even further, unless an overly dogmatic and rigid approach prevents us from EXPERIMENTING (not 'believing') with stuff that our 'rational'/'empirical' minds often tend to reject a-priori.

elixirmixer
05-06-2017, 06:56 AM
It is a tangible, physical substance with highly unusual & exotic properties, and it can be extracted theoretically from everything

I knew it, the stone is made from butter chicken! :cool:

Axismundi000
05-06-2017, 07:29 AM
Andro makes an interesting suggestion which I think is the following paraphrase and I think elixirmixer is in a similar direction.

These lesser solvents have a lower concentration of this universal principal so they work on the other metals some more than one. Because gold is considered difficult to open it needs the purer SM. assuming this was the view expressed it is a working hypothesis I think. Do please correct me if I understood wrong.

Otherwise the existence of these lesser solvents undermines the whole theory of SM (universal Mercury.). Because it would be more like chemistry were different acids work on different metals some better than others which is completely different to the general thrust of Hermetic thought. There are a number of thoughts for me here but I want to listen more before I comment further. Thank you all for the material so far.

Andro
05-06-2017, 07:54 AM
These lesser solvents have a lower concentration of this universal principal so they work on the other metals some more than one. Because gold is considered difficult to open it needs the purer SM. assuming this was the view expressed it is a working hypothesis I think. Do please correct me if I understood wrong.

You understood perfectly well what I have attempted to convey. Most likely (IMO) because those concepts were not strange to you to begin with...


Otherwise the existence of these lesser solvents undermines the whole theory of SM (universal Mercury.). Because it would be more like chemistry were different acids work on different metals some better than others which is completely different to the general thrust of Hermetic thought.

Even the (so-called) 'Particulars' or 'Chymical Operations' owe their transmuting effect to a small presence of made-available Universal Spirit. The chemicals involved in the various (working) particular processes only serve to render/make available just enough of this universally working force to accomplish feats such as small scale transmutations. To some, it may appear that's it's just the 'right combination/composition/processing' of common materials/chemicals that accomplishes this, but it is the "Hidden Passenger" who "delivers the goods" in these cases, not the Carrier/Envelope. This is my conclusion at this time, and it is fully in aligned with Hermetic Thought & Principles. The various combinations of more or less 'effective' acids (for example), do not 'dissolve' or otherwise affect the subject matter in the same manner as Menstruums in which some of this universally working 'Spirit' has been made available to perform work and exert influence.


Thank you all for the material so far.

My thanks as well, to everyone who is participating and sharing constructively.

JDP
05-06-2017, 08:49 AM
The following is meant for everyone who likes to speak for others: Please speak for yourselves. Don't assume anything on other people's behalf.

Correct way to put it: "I (insert your name) have not been able to obtain or observe it."

It is a tangible, physical substance with highly unusual & exotic properties, and it can be extracted theoretically from everything, (also - but not only) by most uncommon means, which would probably make zero sense to Chemistry or even to Chymistry.

It is not my job (or anyone's job) to convince anyone of anything. Or to 'prove' anything to anyone. I think everyone must convince themselves through direct experience and experimentation, just like JDP did with his chymical experiment with small/unprofitable, yet very much tangible and 'demonstrating' results. This sort of thing is truly invaluable and no one (probably) would have done it for him or 'prove' it to him. He did it himself. Kudos for that.

Now the horizons can be expanded even further, unless an overly dogmatic and rigid approach prevents us from EXPERIMENTING (not 'believing') with stuff that our 'rational'/'empirical' minds often tend to reject a-priori.

You still did not fully understand my argument against the likelihood that "Spiritus Mundi" can be real. It has nothing to do with my experience, or yours, or any one single isolated person's, but with the fact that the alchemists did not have the experimental tools and methods to be able to discover such a thing (even if we assume it actually exists), they could not even discover something relatively more "tangible" as OXYGEN, which they were in contact with on a daily basis!

And it also has to do with the fact that NO ONE besides those who propose the existence of this paradoxical (i.e. supposedly found everywhere, but nowhere to be seen or detected by any means) substance have seen it or obtained it. Several of the "chymical" processes I talk about, on the other hand, were also verified independently by other experimenters who took the time to test many of those processes that claimed to be able to produce silver and gold. You can discover them too, if you only invest the time and money to investigate the subject. Believe me, it does not require any "miracles" or "special powers", the whole thing is actually quite "mundane" and can be repeated by anyone, just like a "vulgar" chemical experiment like those we performed when we were in school. But "Spiritus Mundi" was NEVER confirmed by any serious empirical experimenter of the 17th-18th century. Modern chemistry and physics also do not confirm the existence of any such thing. There is no shred of anything in support of this claim, unlike "chymical" processes that can produce small amounts of silver and gold, which were tested and found to be true even by such very experienced investigators as Homberg, Juncker, Henckel, Pott, Teichmeyer, Creiling, Meyer, Crell (the founder of the very first chemical journal! Yep, he was convinced of transmutation through his own tests of some of those "chymical" processes), von Justi, Schröder, Weber... even LAVOISIER'S VERY OWN TEACHER, Rouelle, was well aware of some of these processes and was totally convinced of the reality of transmutation. But who does "Spiritus Mundi" have in support of its alleged reality? I hear only the chirp of crickets in the dead of the darkest and loneliest of nights... "Spiritus Mundi" never had any experimental champions of any weight in its favor. It's just a speculative phantom. A theoretical ghost. A conjectural specter. There is no need for it. It belongs in the pages of discarded obsolete concepts that once upon a time might have been entertained as "possible" by some minds but which later developments never confirmed, and therefore became eventually abandoned and left for dead & buried. Let the poor -and badly designed since its unfortunate conception- old ship sink once and for all. It never had a chance to float in the first place. "Let Sleeping Corpses Lie" (like the 70s zombie movie), do not disturb their eternal sleep. Let it rot in peace. It serves no purpose. It never did. And it never will. Ever. It's a decomposing carcass whose only "job" now is to feed the maggots of perpetual forgetfulness. Let it vanish into complete oblivion, where it belongs. Let its putrefying flesh dissolve into the primordial "ooze" of nothingness, never to return again to mislead anyone. **Amen!**

Axismundi000
05-06-2017, 09:13 AM
JDP I think that in this thread I have been fairly clear about examining the theory of universal Mercury or SM from the view of looking for internal contradictions rather than whether or not it actually exists. There have been numerous debates about the lack of empirical validity of universal Mercury. I'm am not interested in such a 'hamster wheel' debate I'm looking for possible internal contradictions to the idea of universal Mercury (SM) as I have clearly identified here. Whether or not it actually exists is not at issue here and I already know your view on this you have repeated it many times JDP.

Andro
05-06-2017, 10:06 AM
Whether or not it actually exists is not at issue here and I already know your view on this you have repeated it many times JDP.

Then all these endless repetitions can be simply ignored instead of addressed each and every time (the "hamster wheel"), IF they are not found to be especially constructive to this particular discussion thread (and to others).

On the other hand, all this is starting to sort of border on systematic thread hijacking, so this bit is less acceptable from an "administrative", forum-flow related perspective.

There is room on these forums for ALL perspectives, but there is a time and a place (and a season :)) for everything.

Axismundi000
05-06-2017, 11:37 AM
Aside from the idea of degree of concentration of this SM (universal Mercury) there is also the concept of compatibility which on the face of it seems contradictory. I mean if it is universal how can it lack compatibility?

For example I think Albertus (Albert Reidel) suggests that if you make a salt of the gold which presumably means make an acetate from it this universal menstruum will act more readily and rapidly. In this instance the Mercury has been produced via the so called acetate Alchemy or Sericonian as academics call it. Then the gold acetate is more compatible with the menstruum also derived from acetate works perhaps. If this is so we may have a method to prove these other 'alkahest' menstruum's contain lesser amounts if this SM substance. An alkahest that extracts oil from say copper but not tin, if the tin was made to an acetate would it now be more compatible and so the weaker alkahest would now have a chance to extract the Sulphur from tin as well? Taken to its logical conclusion would it be possible to get a weaker alkahest to extract from gold when Alchemical writings assert this is not feasible? This would be a way to test the SM concentration hypothesesis and if you could get treated gold to be extracted be a big difference to established views. My guess would be if you dry distilled gold acetate the solid matter that rises up and is scraped from the apparatus rather then left behind in the boiling flask would be the most likely to work. So many things to try!

elixirmixer
05-06-2017, 01:36 PM
What are you doing in that lab of yours Axis? ;)

Andro
05-06-2017, 01:48 PM
Another reminder to please STAY ON TOPIC.

If you don't know what the topic is (:confused:), read the title of the thread and the first post (by the OP).

This goes for all threads, not just this one.

This forum is not a chatroom, so please don't treat it like one.

It is not a personal blog either (unless you post in the blog section).

Thanks.

Salazius
05-06-2017, 01:53 PM
Aside from the idea of degree of concentration of this SM (universal Mercury) there is also the concept of compatibility which on the face of it seems contradictory. I mean if it is universal how can it lack compatibility?


I'd like to make a distinction here.

Spiritus Mundi has in its belly Universal Mercury.
But Universal Mercury is not alike Spiritus Mundi. Since this one has a Sulfur and Salt in it.

This said.

The capacity of a "Solvent" to open a metal is not linked to its degree of Spiritus Mundi, but it's capacity to bite it strong enough (Jurassic Park last film's punchline was good : "we need more teeth") - if I can use this image - and to extract it, i;e, to be eager.hungry for the Sulfur.

I made alchemical solvent that open gold on a table's corner at room temp, they open it, they don't extract it.

It's all a question of parameters.

So, a solvent can :
Open.
Dissolve.
Extract.

Some, do it all, some only one or two.

Salazius
05-06-2017, 02:44 PM
You still did not fully understand my argument against the likelihood that "Spiritus Mundi" can be real. It has nothing to do with my experience, or yours, or any one single isolated person's, but with the fact that the alchemists did not have the experimental tools and methods to be able to discover such a thing (even if we assume it actually exists), they could not even discover something relatively more "tangible" as OXYGEN, which they were in contact with on a daily basis!

And it also has to do with the fact that NO ONE besides those who propose the existence of this paradoxical (i.e. supposedly found everywhere, but nowhere to be seen or detected by any means) substance have seen it or obtained it.

But "Spiritus Mundi" was NEVER confirmed by any serious empirical experimenter of the 17th-18th century. Modern chemistry and physics also do not confirm the existence of any such thing. There is no shred of anything in support of this claim,

"Spiritus Mundi" never had any experimental champions of any weight in its favor.

There is no need for it. It belongs in the pages of discarded obsolete concepts that once upon a time might have been entertained as "possible" by some minds but which later developments never confirmed, and therefore became eventually abandoned and left for dead & buried. Let the poor -and badly designed since its unfortunate conception- old ship sink once and for all.


Well, they believed in it because they saw it manifesting itself - multiplication of salts in quantity, gains of weight in a sealed flask or crucible, and manifestation of a curious water in a sealed flask exposed in an impossible environement for such a manifestations, changes in temperatures of fusion of salts after exposition to SM, and even salts, without a sulfur able to transmute, after being exposed a short time to it, manifestation of an oil in a sealed flask exposed to fire (oil able to multiply the gold melted once poured over it, see DeLocques and De Yveteau)... etc.

That's simple, no need for big machinery. Just flasks, crucibles, and accepting the idea that it is a real thing.

Our old, ancients and wise ancesters in this Philosophy had less scientific knowledg and realised wonders.

They had a philosophy that accepted the idea of SM, and empirically they saw it.

So is SM, everyone can catch it.

There is no super powers involved at all. It's all very logical. But is requires a bit of Hermetic Vision to fit the logic involved. It is the backstages of the universe we are talking about. Not the chemical scenery.

Please, let aside "modern chemistry" not even able to consider that atoms can be broken in minutes with a simple salt, giving the three principles, or accepting the idea of transmutation of metals into silver or gold ... they really know very little about the real shit.
My opinion is they are blind and unable to see a simple evidence because it do no fit in the equation. I call this stupidity & prehistoric vision if not mental retardation.

My understanding is that there is no need for heavy weight champions for SM, and that's good as it is. Let what is to Cesar remain to Cesar' and to Alchemists...

A lot of people here dabbled and found the existence of such Spirit.
We already said it can be manifested as oil, yoghourt like butter, water, dry salts, colourful hue, tiny hair like salts ... Simply people saw it ! They are not super equiped scientits. And that's the wonder. Spiritus Mundi is condensed, or cooled "energy", under a tangible form, and it gives us three primordial Principles. That's all.

Axismundi000
05-06-2017, 04:57 PM
I'd like to make a distinction here.

Spiritus Mundi has in its belly Universal Mercury.
But Universal Mercury is not alike Spiritus Mundi. Since this one has a Sulfur and Salt in it.

This said.

The capacity of a "Solvent" to open a metal is not linked to its degree of Spiritus Mundi, but it's capacity to bite it strong enough (Jurassic Park last film's punchline was good : "we need more teeth") - if I can use this image - and to extract it, i;e, to be eager.hungry for the Sulfur.

I made alchemical solvent that open gold on a table's corner at room temp, they open it, they don't extract it.

It's all a question of parameters.

So, a solvent can :
Open.
Dissolve.
Extract.

Some, do it all, some only one or two.

I appreciate the distinction between SM and universal Mercury. The having more bite metaphor sounds like improving quality rather then via concentration the liquid, improving quantity. I will give this carefull an thought, ...thanks.

zoas23
05-06-2017, 06:24 PM
Well, they believed in it because they saw it manifesting itself - multiplication of salts in quantity, gains of weight in a sealed flask or crucible, and manifestation of a curious water in a sealed flask exposed in an impossible environement for such a manifestations, changes in temperatures of fusion of salts after exposition to SM, and even salts, without a sulfur able to transmute, after being exposed a short time to it, manifestation of an oil in a sealed flask exposed to fire (oil able to multiply the gold melted once poured over it, see DeLocques and De Yveteau)... etc.

Exactly.... I am no longer getting the "rational logic" of "alchemy is not chemistry" and then "The Spiritus Mundi doesn't exist because it's not chemically possible".
And its nature is simply too fascinating as to ignore it when it changes everything.
The first time I saw it I made a mistake that I consider a bit funny: I did something wrong and the whole thing vanished in front of my eyes. I even tried to put it in a very hermetically sealed flask as to avoid its escape. but it was pointless. I was both desperate and amazed. Thankfully I've learnt how to correct such mistake.
Then again, the whole thing is empirical... not a speculation.


That's simple, no need for big machinery. Just flasks, crucibles, and accepting the idea that it is a real thing.

That's true... something "funny" happened to a lot of persons (I can also include myself here, but also other persons who talked to me about their experiences):
They had a HUGE amount of glassware and the most complex equipments... One day the Spirit showed up and some equipments got stored... then some more ways to manifest it showed up and even more equipments got stored...

So it's somehow like a "trickster" that tells you: "Do you remember all those texts that said that you didn't need a LOT of money or huge investments as to see me? I am here as to show you how you bought so many silly things that were not needed to see me!". It is joyful and also a big lesson.


There is no super powers involved at all. It's all very logical. But is requires a bit of Hermetic Vision to fit the logic involved. It is the backstages of the universe we are talking about. Not the chemical scenery.

That's lovely.

The idea of "follow nature" is always questioned... but it is relevant. A flask can be a microcosm, almost like a mirror in a tiny scale... but some understanding of the macrocosm is needed. I like the metaphor of the astronomical clocks... the clock artisans who made them certainly had the technical skill that involves making a clock, but they ALSO needed to know how the planets move. A flask and an astronomical clock have several things in common.


Please, let aside "modern chemistry" not even able to consider that atoms can be broken in minutes with a simple salt, giving the three principles, or accepting the idea of transmutation of metals into silver or gold ... they really know very little about the real shit.
My opinion is they are blind and unable to see a simple evidence because it do no fit in the equation. I call this stupidity & prehistoric vision if not mental retardation.

Yes, I do remember that the first time I saw gold being "eaten" by a salt, the salt was somehow unrelated to the Spirit (I learnt later, thanks to some people who helped me to understand things better, that it was simply a poor Spirit, but a Spirit anyway)... I discussed what has happened with a friend who is a very good chemist. He said that it couldn't have happened, that is was impossible.... and even explained me why.
At some given point it was like having a cat as a pet and talking to a veterinary who explains you that he doesn't believe in the existence of cats... and you end up scratching your head and saying: "OK; but the cat I have at home is not really a philosophical theory".


A lot of people here dabbled and found the existence of such Spirit.
We already said it can be manifested as oil, yoghourt like butter, water, dry salts, colourful hue, tiny hair like salts ... Simply people saw it ! They are not super equiped scientits. And that's the wonder. Spiritus Mundi is condensed, or cooled "energy", under a tangible form, and it gives us three primordial Principles. That's all.

Yes, and it changes EVERYTHING.
But as to return to the strict topic of the thread, I see the captured Spirit as the "page 1" of any GOOD book on alchemy.
Maybe that's a metaphor that works... The captured spirit is "page 1".
The Universal Solvent involves almost understanding the whole book, not simply the first page.
And yet the spirit alone in its more simple form is powerful enough as to make some minds change their views and stop thinking "the recipe, the recipe, the recipe" and begin to think: "the philosophy, the philosophy, the philosophy".

The person who helped me the most NEVER gave me a "recipe" of ANYTHING, only philosophical ideas. Time taught me that those philosophical ideas had more value than any "recipe".... So I am absolutely thankful for such thing.

JDP
05-06-2017, 08:03 PM
Well, they believed in it because they saw it manifesting itself - multiplication of salts in quantity, gains of weight in a sealed flask or crucible, and manifestation of a curious water in a sealed flask exposed in an impossible environement for such a manifestations, changes in temperatures of fusion of salts after exposition to SM, and even salts, without a sulfur able to transmute, after being exposed a short time to it, manifestation of an oil in a sealed flask exposed to fire (oil able to multiply the gold melted once poured over it, see DeLocques and De Yveteau)... etc.


That's simple, no need for big machinery. Just flasks, crucibles, and accepting the idea that it is a real thing.

Our old, ancients and wise ancesters in this Philosophy had less scientific knowledg and realised wonders.

They had a philosophy that accepted the idea of SM, and empirically they saw it.

So is SM, everyone can catch it.

There is no super powers involved at all. It's all very logical. But is requires a bit of Hermetic Vision to fit the logic involved. It is the backstages of the universe we are talking about. Not the chemical scenery.

Please, let aside "modern chemistry" not even able to consider that atoms can be broken in minutes with a simple salt, giving the three principles, or accepting the idea of transmutation of metals into silver or gold ... they really know very little about the real shit.
My opinion is they are blind and unable to see a simple evidence because it do no fit in the equation. I call this stupidity & prehistoric vision if not mental retardation.

My understanding is that there is no need for heavy weight champions for SM, and that's good as it is. Let what is to Cesar remain to Cesar' and to Alchemists...

A lot of people here dabbled and found the existence of such Spirit.
We already said it can be manifested as oil, yoghourt like butter, water, dry salts, colourful hue, tiny hair like salts ... Simply people saw it ! They are not super equiped scientits. And that's the wonder. Spiritus Mundi is condensed, or cooled "energy", under a tangible form, and it gives us three primordial Principles. That's all.

Most of what you mention is not proof of anything, it can be explained with much more logical and probable facts. Gases in the atmosphere, for example, can combine with solid or liquid substances exposed to them, either in short or long periods of time, with heating or without it, and therefore show an increase in weight, which to some minds of the past might have looked "amazing", but to us it does no longer hold such a sense of wonder since other discoveries have allowed to better understand the observed phenomenon. And the other stuff, like "manifestations" of things out of nowhere in sealed flasks, has not been observed by any serious scientist. The fact that calcination was so tough for the alchemists and even the chymists to deal with and they could never really come up with a satisfactory explanation for even this comparatively easy reaction involving an "invisible" substance already speaks volumes against what you are claiming and saying they were able to supposedly do. Can you seriously believe that the alchemist and his experimental methods were able to discover something even more difficult to detect and isolate, then? I don't think so. This fact, by the way, says absolutely nothing against the Stone and transmutation since the alchemist and chymist was equipped with the tools and methods to be able to produce such things. But they simply could not deal with invisible gases, it was a subject they could never tackle. Let alone any supposed "Spiritus Mundi". The whole thing is a THEORY, folks, not any "fact". Take it for what it is and always was.

Illen A. Cluf
05-06-2017, 10:58 PM
I'm not interested in intricate definitions and patronising

It's got NOTHING at all to do with patronizing, Axismundi00! My ONLY goal is trying to find the TRUTH of alchemy and agreeing with conclusions based on good research.

You seem to dismiss what JDP said, yet it seems sad that your apparent pride dismisses the consideration of a very profound and well-researched truth that JDP offered you.

Please try to listen to and at least consider the valuable tips that experienced people offer, rather than downgrade them simply because of your very strong pre-conceived opinions, and as a result attack those people who verify those conclusions that differ from yours.

My comment was simply to add verification to what he said, based on my own extensive research. If two experienced people (each with over 17 years of extensive research) agree on a very important issue - it's well worth paying attention to it, and develop further considerations, rather than simply dismissing it out of hand, and insulting those who support such a claim.

In my experience, it's not often that such vital clues are so generously offered. It's so much easier to just remain silent than be constantly subjected to insults such as "patronising" others, when all we're trying to do is help steer researchers in more probable directions. No wonder so few of us are willing to offer helpful suggestions anymore. I'm personally continually and totally amazed that JDP continues to provide the most valuable insights despite all the negativity that he has received. It's my opinion that many people on this forum are FAR more interested in the entertainment value of totally erroneous imaginative and creative New Age solutions to Alchemy than in the serious objective study of the very roots of alchemy as derived from the earliest Arabic sources.

I rarely comment anymore as a result, but I just couldn't keep silent this time.

Just saying.

z0 K
05-07-2017, 01:26 AM
And the other stuff, like "manifestations" of things out of nowhere in sealed flasks, has not been observed by any serious scientist.

I think you should have a look at quantum physics experiments. Scientists created a very high vacuum in a sealed container.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/physicists-observe-weird-quantum-fluctuations-empty-space-maybe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state :

What the quantum physicists are calling Zero-point field is by no means empty space. “According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence. “

That behavior of particles popping in and out of empty space in a vacuum observed by quantum physicists with their instruments is what alchemists would say was Spiritus Mundi and Anima Mundi filling the pores with virtual Corpus Mundi empirically verified by experiments in quantum physics.

zoas23
05-07-2017, 05:07 AM
Most of what you mention is not proof of anything, it can be explained with much more logical and probable facts. Gases in the atmosphere, for example, can combine with solid or liquid substances exposed to them, either in short or long periods of time, with heating or without it, and therefore show an increase in weight, which to some minds of the past might have looked "amazing", but to us it does no longer hold such a sense of wonder since other discoveries have allowed to better understand the observed phenomenon.

Yes, like the famous oxidation of Antimony... that gains weight because it absorbs oxygen particles... and yet: How is this related to ANYTHING????

Gases in the atmosphere that combine themselves with solid or liquid substances... ok... How is this related to the Spiritus Mundi?????

You have no idea of what you are talking about, thus the criticism itself is absurd and absolutely unrelated to anything.


And the other stuff, like "manifestations" of things out of nowhere in sealed flasks, has not been observed by any serious scientist.

Out of nowhere? You put yourself in an absurd position when you criticize something that you don't even understand.

Any "serious" modern scientist gave an explanation of the stone???? Maybe you are living in a world of delusions, JDP, because I can't find any book by any "serious" modern scientist explaining the stone... So the stone doesn't exist, that's the rational and empirical conclusion, no modern book of physics or chemistry explains the composition of the stone.


(...) they could never really come up with a satisfactory explanation for even this comparatively easy reaction involving an "invisible" substance already speaks volumes against what you are claiming and saying they were able to supposedly do. Can you seriously believe that the alchemist and his experimental methods were able to discover something even more difficult to detect and isolate, then? I don't think so.

The Spirit can be made visible and touchable... The idea that it's "hard" or "difficult" to isolate it only speaks about your lack of experience, not about the facts.

Which ones have been YOUR empirical experiences with that thing that received the name "Spiritus Mundi"???


This fact, by the way, says absolutely nothing against the Stone and transmutation since the alchemist and chymist was equipped with the tools and methods to be able to produce such things. But they simply could not deal with invisible gases, it was a subject they could never tackle. Let alone any supposed "Spiritus Mundi". The whole thing is a THEORY, folks, not any "fact". Take it for what it is and always was.

As a general rule, it's not a good idea to write about something when what you know about such thing is NOTHING. The criticism is absurd mostly because it's completely unrelated to the subject.

I REALLY REALLY REALLY understood that you don't like this path... could you please then avoid disturbing those who are interested in it and avoid showing up in each thread where this issue is discussed?

What's your problem, honestly?

I have zero interest in Buddhism and I made a few comments in some Buddhists threads... but I do not feel the need to hijack EVERY thread about Buddhism and explain why I don't specially like Buddhism...


You seem to dismiss what JDP said, yet it seems sad that your apparent pride dismisses the consideration of a very profound and well-researched truth that JDP offered you.

Please try to listen to and at least consider the valuable tips that experienced people offer,

JDP or you can be experienced in LOTS of paths, but when it comes to the Spiritus Mundi... I don't know a lot about your ideas, but JDP is not simply poorly experienced, but COMPLETELY not experienced. His objections don't even make sense.

Are you experienced?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whpQxE9HbIc


My comment was simply to add verification to what he said, based on my own extensive research. If two experienced people (each with over 17 years of extensive research) agree on a very important issue - it's well worth paying attention to it, and develop further considerations, rather than simply dismissing it out of hand, and insulting those who support such a claim.

Which one is your experience with the Spiritus Mundi in your 17 years of extensive research? Which qualities did you find in it? Which ones have been your results with it?

Or the point is to bring complains in EACH thread that doesn't exactly match your interests?

JDP brings excellent points when he moves in HIS area of interest, that's impossible to discuss... but when a DIFFERENT approach shows up, he can't help hijacking the threads. I love to read the ideas of Salazius or Andro or a few others who are, unlike JDP, actually experienced in this specific approach.... but that PLEASURE is often "stolen" from me (and from many others) simply because JDP has the idea that he's the the way and the truth and the life and no one comes to the Stone except through reading his ramblings and complains.

And I do not discard the idea that he MAY be experienced in some paths, but when it comes to the Spiritus Mundi, he's completely lost till the point that his arguments don't even make sense (the chemical composition of the gases???? What the hell is he talking about???).

http://i.share.pho.to/f15d76b8_o.jpeg

JDP
05-07-2017, 05:34 AM
I think you should have a look at quantum physics experiments. Scientists created a very high vacuum in a sealed container.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/physicists-observe-weird-quantum-fluctuations-empty-space-maybe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state :

What the quantum physicists are calling Zero-point field is by no means empty space. “According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence. “

That behavior of particles popping in and out of empty space in a vacuum observed by quantum physicists with their instruments is what alchemists would say was Spiritus Mundi and Anima Mundi filling the pores with virtual Corpus Mundi empirically verified by experiments in quantum physics.

Quantum physics sometimes makes very strange claims that not all scientists agree on. Even if we assume that such claims are true, it would still have been impossible for the alchemists to know about such things. They just did not have the instruments, equipment and experimental methods to be able to discover such particles and waves. As pointed out before, the alchemists could not even figure out what exactly happened during calcination simply because gases like oxygen were invisible. The alchemists made their investigations with retorts, alembics, flasks, crucibles, dishes, furnaces, etc. They worked with matter that they could see, touch and manipulate. That's how their discoveries were made. Fortunately for them, the processes that lead to the Stone and transmutation can be achieved with such equipment and methods that were known to them. Thus why they were able to achieve such things, yet at the same time the behavior of invisible substances like the gases that surround us and which we are in contact with every day were mostly unknown to them. So it's just impossible that the alchemists could have discovered something as strange and recondite as "Spiritus Mundi". They did not have the equipment and experimental methods to be able to even detect the presence of such a thing (if we assume that it actually exists), let alone isolate it and make it "visible" to the eye.

JDP
05-07-2017, 06:03 AM
Yes, like the famous oxidation of Antimony... that gains weight because it absorbs oxygen particles... and yet: How is this related to ANYTHING????

Gases in the atmosphere that combine themselves with solid or liquid substances... ok... How is this related to the Spiritus Mundi?????

You have no idea of what you are talking about, thus the criticism itself is absurd and absolutely unrelated to anything.



Out of nowhere? You put yourself in an absurd position when you criticize something that you don't even understand.

Any "serious" modern scientist gave an explanation of the stone???? Maybe you are living in a world of delusions, JDP, because I can't find any book by any "serious" modern scientist explaining the stone... So the stone doesn't exist, that's the rational and empirical conclusion, no modern book of physics or chemistry explains the composition of the stone.



The Spirit can be made visible and touchable... The idea that it's "hard" or "difficult" to isolate it only speaks about your lack of experience, not about the facts.

Which ones have been YOUR empirical experiences with that thing that received the name "Spiritus Mundi"???



As a general rule, it's not a good idea to write about something when what you know about such thing is NOTHING. The criticism is absurd mostly because it's completely unrelated to the subject.

I REALLY REALLY REALLY understood that you don't like this path... could you please then avoid disturbing those who are interested in it and avoid showing up in each thread where this issue is discussed?

What's your problem, honestly?

I have zero interest in Buddhism and I made a few comments in some Buddhists threads... but I do not feel the need to hijack EVERY thread about Buddhism and explain why I don't specially like Buddhism...



JDP or you can be experienced in LOTS of paths, but when it comes to the Spiritus Mundi... I don't know a lot about your ideas, but JDP is not simply poorly experienced, but COMPLETELY not experienced. His objections don't even make sense.

Are you experienced?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whpQxE9HbIc



Which one is your experience with the Spiritus Mundi in your 17 years of extensive research? Which qualities did you find in it? Which ones have been your results with it?

Or the point is to bring complains in EACH thread that doesn't exactly match your interests?

JDP brings excellent points when he moves in HIS area of interest, that's impossible to discuss... but when a DIFFERENT approach shows up, he can't help hijacking the threads. I love to read the ideas of Salazius or Andro or a few others who are, unlike JDP, actually experienced in this specific approach.... but that PLEASURE is often "stolen" from me (and from many others) simply because JDP has the idea that he's the the way and the truth and the life and no one comes to the Stone except through reading his ramblings and complains.

And I do not discard the idea that he MAY be experienced in some paths, but when it comes to the Spiritus Mundi, he's completely lost till the point that his arguments don't even make sense (the chemical composition of the gases???? What the hell is he talking about???).

http://i.share.pho.to/f15d76b8_o.jpeg

If you can't understand how closely related the whole issue of VERY REAL INVISIBLE GASES THAT SURROUND US EVERYWHERE ON THE SURFACE OF THIS PLANET is to A TOTALLY SUPPOSITIOUS INVISIBLE "SPIRITUS MUNDI" THAT CAN ALLEGEDLY BE FOUND EVERYWHERE, then you are the one who should not talk about this subject since you truly don't understand anything of what is being explained. There is just NO FRIGGIN' WAY that a group of investigators who showed themselves quite incapable of discovering something as mundane and commonly found all over the planet as oxygen, and for the simple fact that is neither a solid nor a liquid that can be seen with the naked eye and manipulated with the naked hand, would at the same time be paradoxically capable of discovering and even isolating this other invisible substance that is also supposedly found all over the place. Face the REAL FACT: "Spiritus Mundi" is NOT any "fact" but a kooky theory by some people from past centuries. Back then it might have made sense to some people, but in this day and age to seriously consider such a thing as if it could be real is just silly. "Spiritus Mundi" is about as "real" as the Aristotelian "four elements". It's a speculative concept that belongs in the pages of history, not an empirical reality.

The Stone was seen and handled by a bunch of people throughout history, including even the so-called father of chemistry, Robert Boyle. Once again I ask: name even one very experienced serious investigator from any age that ever prepared or handled any sample of this fabled "Spiritus Mundi"? And even if you can find one that somehow claimed to have done so, prove that what he had at hand was in fact this "Spiritus Mundi" and not something else he confused for it due to what back then was deemed to be some "unusual" property but which in fact other matters can also exhibit? You can't make that mistake with the Stone, as there are hardly any other substances around that can TRANSMUTE MANY TIMES THEIR OWN WEIGHT OF BASE METALS INTO SILVER OR GOLD, so there is very little room for confusion in this case. If you had a sample of the Stone at your disposal, it was very easy to verify whether it was the genuine article or not. But with such a vaguely defined thing as "Spiritus Mundi"??? I am sure that you could easily fool many a "Spiritus Mundi" enthusiast from past centuries by simply giving them a vial of ether and showing them how volatile it is, how it seemingly vanishes into "nothingness" in the open air!

Axismundi000
05-07-2017, 08:26 AM
There have been some good posts on this thread but I think it is relevant to identify my disappointment also. I specifically identified that there have been several threads on whether or not SM and similar exists or not and that I was hoping to examine internal theories and possible contradictions within theories of SM, universal Mercury, alkahest etc. Not only has this once again deteriorated into a yes it does exist no it doesn't exist dispute. I have also been criticised for my reluctance to engage with this specific argument. This is particularly galling especially when I have participated in discussions on the existence or not of SM on other threads.

Whilst I appreciate the comments about alkahest vs SM and understanding what I was driving at despite the multiple meanings these terms can have. I shall now leave people to run desperately on the hamster wheel of yes it exists no it doesn't. May those that persist in such an endeavour progress in accordance with the aspiration they possess.

Illen A. Cluf
05-07-2017, 02:07 PM
Y

Or the point is to bring complains in EACH thread that doesn't exactly match your interests?

JDP brings excellent points when he moves in HIS area of interest, that's impossible to discuss... but when a DIFFERENT approach shows up, he can't help hijacking the threads. I love to read the ideas of Salazius or Andro or a few others who are, unlike JDP, actually experienced in this specific approach.... but that PLEASURE is often "stolen" from me (and from many others) simply because JDP has the idea that he's the the way and the truth and the life and no one comes to the Stone except through reading his ramblings and complains.

And I do not discard the idea that he MAY be experienced in some paths, but when it comes to the Spiritus Mundi, he's completely lost till the point that his arguments don't even make sense (the chemical composition of the gases???? What the hell is he talking about???).



This is why I rarely comment anymore. Everyone seems more interested in entertaining highly imaginative ideas and defending those ideas as a group, rather than studying the very basis and roots of alchemy and building on those basic blocks. I have seen those imaginative ideas change almost monthly for yet another imaginative idea, then another and another and another. Many join on the bandwagon, and when the excitement fades, another imagination comes up for discussion. Whenever an experienced voice (JDP) comes up, everyone assumes he is just spoiling the "fun", trying to be "different" on purpose, intruding, and complaining.

It's only different because it's based on many years of very hard, intensive and objective research rather than fun-filled meditative dreams. The real work is certainly not as "fun" as imagination and subjective opinion, but requires much hard and boring work. His hints are very generous as it could save you from many months of boring research as well as very costly acquisitions. Believe me - I have known JDP for a very long time, and he knows what he is talking about. He does not have all the answers yet, but is getting closer and closer. Just because his views differ significantly from the error-laden modern accounts from the last few centuries, does not mean that his views are necessarily wrong. If you go back far enough, the modern accounts are based on old Arabic accounts, and there have been many wrong translations and interpretations over the centuries. How many of you have actually taken the time to study those earliest accounts from which all of modern alchemy actually derive?

Why continually use modern accounts (which were all derived from the earliest accounts) to try to prove the earliest accounts wrong? That's illogical.

Perhaps we are indeed "spoiling the fun", if everyone would rather treat alchemy as highly imaginative and subjective entertainment based mostly on the 'inspiration of the day', rather than serious objective study based on established foundations.

Kiorionis
05-07-2017, 02:29 PM
Hi everyone,

Let's remember to stay focused on the topic at hand, the Differences between an Alkahest and the Universal Mercury.

Axismundi000
05-07-2017, 06:00 PM
This is why I rarely comment anymore. Everyone seems more interested in entertaining highly imaginative ideas and defending those ideas as a group, rather than studying the very basis and roots of alchemy and building on those basic blocks. I have seen those imaginative ideas change almost monthly for yet another imaginative idea, then another and another and another. Many join on the bandwagon, and when the excitement fades, another imagination comes up for discussion. Whenever an experienced voice (JDP) comes up, everyone assumes he is just spoiling the "fun", trying to be "different" on purpose, intruding, and complaining.

It's only different because it's based on many years of very hard, intensive and objective research rather than fun-filled meditative dreams. The real work is certainly not as "fun" as imagination and subjective opinion, but requires much hard and boring work. His hints are very generous as it could save you from many months of boring research as well as very costly acquisitions. Believe me - I have known JDP for a very long time, and he knows what he is talking about. He does not have all the answers yet, but is getting closer and closer. Just because his views differ significantly from the error-laden modern accounts from the last few centuries, does not mean that his views are necessarily wrong. If you go back far enough, the modern accounts are based on old Arabic accounts, and there have been many wrong translations and interpretations over the centuries. How many of you have actually taken the time to study those earliest accounts from which all of modern alchemy actually derive?

Why continually use modern accounts (which were all derived from the earliest accounts) to try to prove the earliest accounts wrong? That's illogical.

Perhaps we are indeed "spoiling the fun", if everyone would rather treat alchemy as highly imaginative and subjective entertainment based mostly on the 'inspiration of the day', rather than serious objective study based on established foundations.

Purely on a practical level you mention years of work in this post and 17 years of research (I think you wrote) for you and JDP in a previous post on this thread. I have been seriously practicing Lab Alchemy for about 6 years now. I will not ask you what you have achieved. For myself if I do not achieve practical experience of such things as Alkahest or SM, universal Mercury, actual transmutations, that kind of thing after 17 years of work....... Well I would certainly re-examine my whole practical and theoretical approach 'root and branch'. My current projects are based on modern writings because my lab results have been as predicted by these modern authors. I really like the clarity of description about what 'Alcahest' can do, how it can be recycled and I am particularly encouraged by having achieved more basic findings pretty much exactly how these modern authors describe. Older sources are more veiled and use older names for various substances so they tend to provide confirmation rather than directions for me. Posts on a forum can be valuable but all forums require a healthy pinch of salt especially for those who post of their experience but actually show nothing, my lab work is where my thoughts primarily reside. As I say if a further 11 years from now if I did not have at least several what could loosely be called alkahest, or even the universal solvent I would give my work a long hard look. So I hope you and JDP have progressed well after 17 years labour (if that timeframe is what you indicated).

Illen A. Cluf
05-07-2017, 06:22 PM
Purely on a practical level you mention years of work in this post and 17 years of research (I think you wrote) for you and JDP in a previous post on this thread. I have been seriously practicing Lab Alchemy for about 6 years now. I will not ask you what you have achieved. For myself if I do not achieve practical experience of such things as Alkahest or SM, universal Mercury, actual transmutations, that kind of thing after 17 years of work....... Well I would certainly re-examine my whole practical and theoretical approach 'root and branch'. My current projects are based on modern writings because my lab results have been as predicted by these modern authors. I really like the clarity of description about what 'Alcahest' can do, how it can be recycled and I am particularly encouraged by having achieved more basic findings pretty much exactly how these modern authors describe. Older sources are more veiled and use older names for various substances so they tend to provide confirmation rather than directions for me. Posts on a forum can be valuable but all forums require a healthy pinch of salt especially for those who post of their experience but actually show nothing, my lab work is where my thoughts primarily reside. As I say if a further 11 years from now if I did not have at least several what could loosely be called alkahest, or even the universal solvent I would give my work a long hard look. So I hope you and JDP have progressed well after 17 years labour (if that timeframe is what you indicated).

It was 17 years of intensive research for me (prior to that it was not intensive), but I believe that JDP's research is even much longer than that. All alchemical documents are veiled, but some of the older ones were actually not as veiled as some of the more modern ones.

In these older documents, the way I interpret them is that the alkahest is not really something separate that can simply be isolated and added to the metal/mineral to dissolve it, but rather a process of several matters working together and becoming inseparable. The word" dissolve", like so many alchemical terms when used in ordinary chemistry, is meant in a 'philosophical' way only. Once you start to understand that almost all alchemical terms that represent the chemical operations we know today are only meant in a philosophical and not literal sense, much of the haze disappears and the puzzle begins to open up. This is why so many alchemists repeat again and again not to take their words literally.

Much of the confusion lies in the understanding that the 'chemical' results of using the various alchemical terms literally, often results in very similar observations that are seen in the philosophical or alchemical process. That is why these terms were so appropriate and ingenious.

Ironically, the only time they were actually close to being literal, was in the philosophical/theoretical sections of their texts, which most modern alchemists seem to ignore as fanciful or irrelevant at most. Most jump right to the practical parts of the treatises, thereby missing the very most important clues of all.

My main focus over the 17 years was not specifically in the practical sections of the treatises, but rather in the philosophical/theoretical parts of the treatises, which were often contained at the beginning. I was criticized, attacked, de-friended and ridiculed over and over again over the years by most alchemists (who only focused on the practical sections) for this unusual and unaccepted approach. But I tend to work on my own using logic as much as possible, as well as trying to enter the thought processes of the ancient alchemists during the time that they were living (rather than by interpreting them in the way we view Nature today), and care little for what others think of me (for me it's not a popularity contest but a very sincere study). So for me, I truly believe that my research and approach has finally paid off tremendously.

But I don't want to discourage you from your approach.Like myself, each has to find his/her own way, and only personal trial and error will move one towards the truth.

I was only trying to provide some help and suggestions from my extensive research, by supporting the important point that JDP offered, but I know that most people are not really looking for help, but rather specific support for their own strongly-held beliefs.

Axismundi000
05-07-2017, 07:07 PM
Thank you for your comments Illen.A Cluf. The only thing I would observe is that a characteristic of online forums is that posts are often bellicose and it is unrealistic to expect otherwise. This forum has less of this kind of thing compared to others which is just as well because I think it is pretty much the only public forum on Alchemy available. I don't count Facebook groups because they are in many ways an entirely different milieu.

Illen A. Cluf
05-07-2017, 07:30 PM
Thank you for your comments Illen.A Cluf. The only thing I would observe is that a characteristic of online forums is that posts are often bellicose and it is unrealistic to expect otherwise. This forum has less of this kind of thing compared to others which is just as well because I think it is pretty much the only public forum on Alchemy available. I don't count Facebook groups because they are in many ways an entirely different milieu.

There's an enormous amount of psychiatry behind people's belief systems, so it's inevitable that posts sometimes become bellicose. The Western world has also become unusually sensitive to any hint of insult, so aggressive, defensive behaviour is often the result.

I've seen it all.

But you are right - this forum goes overboard to prevent such behaviour, and we should all be thankful for the excellent and selfless work of the forum 'referees'.

Most of the other public alchemical forums have more or less died down, and even the Facebook forums do not seem to offer the depth of discussion that this one does.

There's always a trade-off between diversity and specificality, amusement and seriousness. This forum allows both, and it's great that threads can be dedicated for each.

Back to the main subject of this thread :-)

zoas23
05-07-2017, 09:41 PM
This is why I rarely comment anymore. Everyone seems more interested in entertaining highly imaginative ideas and defending those ideas as a group, rather than studying the very basis and roots of alchemy and building on those basic blocks. I have seen those imaginative ideas change almost monthly for yet another imaginative idea, then another and another and another. Many join on the bandwagon, and when the excitement fades, another imagination comes up for discussion.

A LOT of persons here have been experimenting with the Spirit for a very long time. I don't get how that's an "imaginative idea"... and yet you have the right to think that way.
In my own case, I don't like at all the ORMUS concept.... BUT I do not feel the need to visit EACH Ormus thread as to write "You are wrong, the ORMUS path is not in the classical texts! Do what I say!".

The forum is quite free... anyone can create a thread and establish its limits. JDP and you have the right to do so. This thread WAS about the differences between the SPIRITUS MUNDI in its most "basic" form and the SPIRITUS MUNDI acting as an Alkahest.


Whenever an experienced voice (JDP) comes up, everyone assumes he is just spoiling the "fun", trying to be "different" on purpose, intruding, and complaining.

He has every right to create his threads... and even offer VERY interesting views there... or participate in the threads that match his views.
I know NOTHING about Taoist Alchemy... I don't feel the need to visit each Taoist Alchemy thread as to give my opinions and share my experiences in a path that I never practiced.


It's only different because it's based on many years of very hard, intensive and objective research rather than fun-filled meditative dreams.

He has researched a lot in several areas probably, this is not one of those areas. Your idea that the works with the Spirit are NOT based on objective and intensive research, but in fun-filled dreams only speaks about your fantasies, not about what the issue is actually about.

Being corrected is actually a PLEASURE. I've had a very nice experience with Ripley's Scroll, which I understood in a very specific way and then Z ok showed up as to show me how wrong my interpretation was. I was far from being disgusted, I was amazed and THANKED him.

We REALLY understood that JDP doesn't like the concept of "Spiritus Mundi" (I'm fine with it, I don't like the concept of "ORMUS" and I don't visit every thread about ORMUS as to provide my insights). and he is 100% free to create threads about whatever interpretation he has and even create his own rules for such thread. Hijacking every thread about the Spiritus Mundi is not constructive.


The real work is certainly not as "fun" as imagination and subjective opinion, but requires much hard and boring work.

Again, your PREJUDICES and FANTASIES... The paths that use the Spirit in a direct way are fun, but also a headache... they require much hard and "boring" work too (well, it depends on your definition of "boring"... I don't find such things boring, but I get that they may be boring to others, that's quite subjective).

The thread WAS about the difference between the "captured spirit" and the spirit acting as an alkahest. What's the PURPOSE of coming to this thread just to say that the Spirit does not exist and then speak about the chemistry of the gases?


His hints are very generous

Generous for SOME paths... and I don't discuss such thing, I never discussed such thing actually. I have no doubts that JDP has something valuable to offer.
The problem is when a person does not understand which one is his area of knowledge. Ask me a question about Qabalah and I will probably be able to offer help, ask me a question about Zen Buddhism and I'll simply tell you: "Well, I don't really get what they do". I do not break into Zen Buddhist temples and try to convince them to study Qabalah... because I get that they are probably doing the same thing by using OTHER means and that's fine for me. I don't like preachers.



Believe me - I have known JDP for a very long time, and he knows what he is talking about. He does not have all the answers yet, but is getting closer and closer.

Excellent! NOBODY ever even suggested that JDP is "wrong" in the paths he knows and he is excellent as a scholar when it comes to classical texts. How could anyone deny such thing? The only problem is his constant tendency to BELIEVE that his way is THE way and interrupt every damn conversation that doesn't exactly match his tastes.


Just because his views differ significantly from the error-laden modern accounts from the last few centuries, does not mean that his views are necessarily wrong.

NOBODY said that his views are wrong... and for the records, I do not think that his views are wrong WHEN he speaks about the paths he knows. He made his point about the Spiritus Mundi a thousand times... Fine. There are some people who are interested in exchanging their views, experiences, ideas... but it is getting impossible because JDP doesn't like it. The issue of this thread is INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT for a lot of us... and yet it has been quite impossible to develop it because JDP doesn't like it.


Perhaps we are indeed "spoiling the fun", if everyone would rather treat alchemy as highly imaginative and subjective entertainment based mostly on the 'inspiration of the day', rather than serious objective study based on established foundations.

Again, those are your FANTASIES and PREJUDICES... and your tendency to look down on people who don't agree with you.

Some people feels a great pleasure in "winning online debates". I don't.
Is it so HARD to accept the simple fact that several persons here work with a more or less similar path and they want to exchange constructive ideas instead of listening to a "preacher" again and again stating that his path is the path and his way is the way???

I have NOTHING against JDP, I admire his scholar knowledge, I understand that he is probably very gifted or skilled in some paths and that we ALL can learn a lot from him and his contributions. Such thing was NEVER questioned, at least not by me... and yet there is a CONTEXT for everything. As I've said, I don't go to threads about Zen Buddhism to speak about how everyone should study Qabalah and NOT Zen Buddhism (mostly because I find the idea of doing such thing absurd, but also because I get that I would be interrupting the constructive exchange of experiences and ideas between those who are interested in Zen Buddhism). Is it REALLY so hard to understand?

JDP
05-07-2017, 09:56 PM
Purely on a practical level you mention years of work in this post and 17 years of research (I think you wrote) for you and JDP in a previous post on this thread. I have been seriously practicing Lab Alchemy for about 6 years now. I will not ask you what you have achieved. For myself if I do not achieve practical experience of such things as Alkahest or SM, universal Mercury, actual transmutations, that kind of thing after 17 years of work....... Well I would certainly re-examine my whole practical and theoretical approach 'root and branch'. My current projects are based on modern writings because my lab results have been as predicted by these modern authors. I really like the clarity of description about what 'Alcahest' can do, how it can be recycled and I am particularly encouraged by having achieved more basic findings pretty much exactly how these modern authors describe. Older sources are more veiled and use older names for various substances so they tend to provide confirmation rather than directions for me. Posts on a forum can be valuable but all forums require a healthy pinch of salt especially for those who post of their experience but actually show nothing, my lab work is where my thoughts primarily reside. As I say if a further 11 years from now if I did not have at least several what could loosely be called alkahest, or even the universal solvent I would give my work a long hard look. So I hope you and JDP have progressed well after 17 years labour (if that timeframe is what you indicated).

But 17 years is nothing compared to the time some alchemists spent in their search. According to his very own autobiographical account, Bernard Trevisan started seeking for the Stone when he was a teenager and only finally found it when he was about 75 years old, after having spent a good deal of his personal family fortune travelling, buying manuscripts, contacting other seekers, and testing all manner of processes and experiments (most of which obviously were phony baloney and empty wind; this is one of the huge obstacles to research alchemy to begin with: there have been so many lies, false processes, cheats, charlatans, malicious purposeful intent to mislead others, honest errors, etc. that the subject had become a veritable pain in the neck to research even already in his times.)

Visceral
05-07-2017, 10:16 PM
ask me a question about Zen Buddhism and I'll simply tell you: "Well, I don't really get what they do".


I know a little about Zen, and I have to tell you this is probably the funniest post I've ever seen on the subject xD (in the best way). They would tell you they do nothing and have nothing to teach and could you please mosey on or if you insist on staying help with chores.


I don't like preachers

I doubt very much you'd find those at a legitimized Zen school

Axismundi000
05-07-2017, 10:20 PM
It's just a personal view. Spending more than 8 years let alone 17 without some kind of meaningful output would indicate to me that I would need to re-evaluate my overall approach. Obviously this is a relative thing and each person makes their own evaluation.

JDP
05-07-2017, 10:36 PM
The thread WAS about the difference between the "captured spirit" and the spirit acting as an alkahest. What's the PURPOSE of coming to this thread just to say that the Spirit does not exist and then speak about the chemistry of the gases?

I don't see why you keep getting puzzled by this. Which part of not being able to discover something as real as gases like oxygen or nitrogen precisely because they just happen to be invisible to the naked eye and cannot be handled with the naked hand do you not understand? Do you really fail to see the VERY OBVIOUS connection to a conundrum like "Spiritus Mundi"? These guys were simply not equipped, either regarding instruments or experimental methodology, to deal with invisible matter like most gases, which I suppose you will not be daring enough to deny their actual existence. That's why it had to wait until well into the 18th century for most of these substances to be finally discovered (and not by alchemists but by chemists with an expanded set of equipment and experimental methodology at their disposal), and yet you expect someone to actually believe that they were able to "materialize" this suppositious "spirit", also invisible and also found everywhere? Sorry but the logic doesn't add up. If they could not even discover very real things like nitrogen and oxygen, which they literally had right under their noses every single day of their lives, then let's not even talk about this hypothetical "spirit" that not even modern science and its much more adequate sets of instruments to research such things as invisible matter has been able to produce. An alchemist working with his crucibles, alembics, retorts, flasks, and with his MIXTURES of solids & liquids, would not have been able to discover such invisible substances. That's why such things as calcination remained a perpetual unresolved puzzle for the alchemists and even the later "chymists" of the 17th and the early 18th centuries. These people had to work with what they could directly see with their eyes and manipulate with their hands. "Spiritus Mundi" does not qualify as such. It's like the Aristotelian "four elements": lots of speculation about them, but no one had actually ever seen them or isolated them. Yet many people believed in their actual existence just because to their minds such a system made sense. Same thing with "phlogiston", which no chymist or chemist had ever seen or isolated, yet plenty of them used it as if it was a "fact" to explain combustion and calcination, despite the flagrant contradiction regarding the increase in weight, but that did not stop them in believing this thing was "real", which it was not. "Spiritus Mundi" is about as "proven" as "phlogiston". In other words: totally unproven, just ASSUMED to exist by some.

Visceral
05-07-2017, 10:59 PM
So if not SM, what does JDP suggest the real alchemists WERE trying to capture in their vessels, if we keep in mind that even the poorest puffer of the 1800s had more "technical" equipment and understanding than Hermes himself?

Axismundi000
05-07-2017, 11:11 PM
OK I will try again but if people have given up on this fair enough.

The theory is that because gold is harder to open these other solvents which in modern writings are called alkahest, they cannot work on gold. This theory suggests this is because the concentration of a thing called universal Mercury is either at lower concentration or less active (less bite) in these other solvents.

So if this is true is it possible to somehow open the gold so that it will work with these lesser solvents? If this were possible it would prove the above theory and open interesting possibilities. Or is it as for example the late Jean Dubuis proposed that various metals have energy potencies which can be classified kabbalistically and only 'mercuries' of a similar potency on the tree of life work on them?

Visceral
05-07-2017, 11:21 PM
I believe there is one solvent that will open gold, lesser degrees of perfection of the solvent will open lesser gates or metals.

How the solvent is prepared is what stumps me

That said I am still interested in JDPs technical chemical views that I asked about, but perhaps we should have a dedicated "JDP corrects your history work" thread or something.

Kiorionis
05-07-2017, 11:50 PM
So if this is true is it possible to somehow open the gold so that it will work with these lesser solvents?

"Aqua Regia" will open the gold and move it into a red powder. Whether or not this is a true 'opening' is up for debate. I've also seen a purple powder form of it. I think that will be your best bet to begin with regarding a 'lesser solvent' vs 'alkahest' approach.

From a theoretical approach, from John French's Art of Distillation might be of interest.

"THE SPAGYRICAL ANATOMY OF GOLD AND SILVER TOGETHER WITH THE CURIOSITIES THEREIN AND CHIEFEST PREPARATIONS THEREOF" (http://www.alchemywebsite.com/jfren_6.html)


So in all metals except gold, there is a twofold unctuosity. One is external, sulphurous, and inflammable which is joined to it by accident and does not belong to the total union with the terrestrial parts of the thing. The other is internal, very subtle, and incombustible, because it is of the substantial composition of argent vive and, therefore, cannot be destroyed by fire, unless with the destruction of the whole substance, whence it appears what the cause is that metals are more or less durable in the fire. For those which abound with that internal unctuosity are less consumed, as it appears in silver and, especially, in gold.


Or is it as for example the late Jean Dubuis proposed that various solvents have energy potencies which can be classified kabbalistically and only 'mercuries' of a similar potency on the tree of life work on them?

If John French's theory is correct, then it means gold and silver is perfect on account of how well it has assimilated and unified with the environment engendering it's origin. So I'm going to, for now, agree with Dubuis and say that only a solvent more potent than gold will be able to dissolve it.

zoas23
05-07-2017, 11:53 PM
I know a little about Zen, and I have to tell you this is probably the funniest post I've ever seen on the subject xD (in the best way). They would tell you they do nothing and have nothing to teach and could you please mosey on or if you insist on staying help with chores. I doubt very much you'd find those [preachers] at a legitimized Zen school

I assume that what I wrote can be funny... because I know NOthIng about Zen (or I know a bit, mostly from an indirect source, the musician John Cage, who was very much into Zen and was also an excellent writer... He explains quite often the main concepts of Zen in his books as to explain his ways of composing music). As for Buddhism, all I know is from a relationship with an Asian woman who was trained in a shamanic style of Buddhism since she was a little child (her father was a monk), but it was another branch of Buddhism, not Zen.

With the "preachers" I didn't mean "Zen preachers" but I was talking about myself... that I would be absurd if I visit a Zen school and begin to preach there and tell them that they are doing it wrong.


I don't see why you keep getting puzzled by this. Which part of not being able to discover something as real as gases like oxygen or nitrogen precisely because they just happen to be invisible to the naked eye and cannot be handled with the naked hand do you not understand? Do you really fail to see the VERY OBVIOUS connection to a conundrum like "Spiritus Mundi"? These guys were simply not equipped, either regarding instruments or experimental methodology, to deal with invisible matter like most gases, which I suppose you will not be daring enough to deny their actual existence. That's why it had to wait until well into the 18th century for most of these substances to be finally discovered (and not by alchemists but by chemists with an expanded set of equipment and experimental methodology at their disposal), and yet you expect someone to actually believe that they were able to "materialize" this suppositious "spirit", also invisible and also found everywhere? Sorry but the logic doesn't add up. If they could not even discover very real things like nitrogen and oxygen, which they literally had right under their noses every single day of their lives, then let's not even talk about this hypothetical "spirit" that not even modern science and its much more adequate sets of instruments to research such things as invisible matter has been able to produce. An alchemist working with his crucibles, alembics, retorts, flasks, and with his MIXTURES of solids & liquids, would not have been able to discover such invisible substances. That's why such things as calcination remained a perpetual unresolved puzzle for the alchemists and even the later "chymists" of the 17th and the early 18th centuries. These people had to work with what they could directly see with their eyes and manipulate with their hands. "Spiritus Mundi" does not qualify as such. It's like the Aristotelian "four elements": lots of speculation about them, but no one had actually ever seen them or isolated them. Yet many people believed in their actual existence just because to their minds such a system made sense. Same thing with "phlogiston", which no chymist or chemist had ever seen or isolated, yet plenty of them used it as if it was a "fact" to explain combustion and calcination, despite the flagrant contradiction regarding the increase in weight, but that did not stop them in believing this thing was "real", which it was not. "Spiritus Mundi" is about as "proven" as "phlogiston". In other words: totally unproven, just ASSUMED to exist by some.

You don't see why I am puzzled because I am not puzzled. I am only saying that your comments HERE are nonsensical and completely unrelated to anything.
You made your point several times and it is nonsensical and you don't even know WHY.
An alchemist who had been reading, say, Proclus would have certainly find there an inspiration to try something simple with a technology that was certainly VERY available and completely unrelated to "gases".
I take it for granted that you are very skilled in lots of paths, but this one is not one of your strong areas and that's fine... It is also OBVIOUS that you have no interest in it and that's fine too. Would you have the kindness of letting those who are interested in the subject talk about it in peace? Is such thing so hard to do?


So if not SM, what does JDP suggest the real alchemists WERE trying to capture in their vessels, if we keep in mind that even the poorest puffer of the 1800s had more "technical" equipment and understanding than Hermes himself?

I doubt there was a "Hermes", but it doesn't matter. I do not see ANY technological, scientific or philosophical improvement that would have made a classical Alexandrian be in worst conditions than an alchemist of the 1800's (WHEN it comes to the Spirit). It can be perfectly captured using ONLY technology that was available 2,000 years ago.

Visceral
05-07-2017, 11:57 PM
Later on, when I have time and a computer avaliable, I would love to show you why I think the Hermes character was very real and why the Art he summarized so beautifully is (imo) certainly much older than a mere 2000 or even 20,000 years.

If the claims of the stone are to be taken even half seriously, none of this will be very difficult to show and I would love to hear the feedback about this from persons as immersed in esoteric researches as the people who post here.

Edit. But my question was not about whether or not Alexandrian alchemists COULD perform real alchemy, I was asking what JDP thinks they capture in their vessels if not a "universal etheric whatever"

Visceral
05-08-2017, 12:20 AM
To clarify the point on Zen: (edit. Yes I understood what you were saying to jdp)

Zen is at least as full of entandric double speak as alchemy is, and just like alchemists a Zen master will never actually lie to you. But they will confuse the bajeezes out of you with their mastery of the truth.

It's essentially one of the very first traps that they put you into when you start to inquire about Zen, is you'll ask something along the lines of "so what do you people -do- here?" They will honestly respond with "Nothing." Because a Zen monastery has no "goals" or dreams of spreading Zen throughout the land or any other such thing. Same if you ask what they teach, as noone who had realized what the Buddha was talking about would presume to

1) be able to teach or tell you anything you don't already know
And
2) have any sort of conception as themselves being in any way a catalyst for your experience. It is in fact just one slice of a flow of time, if you learn anything from them it is a matter of osmosis, not a matter of effort on their part. (Remember Buddhism migrated through China to reach Japan and has a unique blend of hindu/buddhist/Taoist/shinto perspective.)

And that, if I may be so bold, is essentially the answer to the question "why bother practicing Zen Buddhism then?" Or to put it in very blunt, plain, nearly philistine-esque terms:

Genuinely reflecting upon and sincerely attempting to absorb the teachings of Zen masters leads to a life of those principles lived through the first person. A Zen master is not thinking he is "present". He is. He does not consider the philosophical debates of Buddhism because he is face to face with the roots of the Nature and Real Causes on a daily basis. He would not argue with you about the truth of existence any more than you would argue with a child about the existence of rain. He would probably turn all of your attempts at "points" and "perspectives" into a hilarious child like pun or else turn to talk about the weather or the light in the room or offer you tea, as is the idiom of the Logos.

to put it much better than I could ever think to:

One time D.T. Suzuki was asked what Sattori felt like. Without hesitation he responded, "Exactly like normal, everyday waking consciousness. Except about 2 inches off the ground."

Visceral
05-08-2017, 01:28 AM
Back on topic,

Is the Alekehest the same as the Universal Solvent? Is the stone itself considered the true solvent as its transmutation powers should apply to any and everything?

elixirmixer
05-08-2017, 01:59 AM
OK I will try again but if people have given up on this fair enough.

The theory is that because gold is harder to open these other solvents which in modern writings are called alkahest, they cannot work on gold. This theory suggests this is because the concentration of a thing called universal Mercury is either at lower concentration or less active (less bite) in these other solvents.

So if this is true is it possible to somehow open the gold so that it will work with these lesser solvents? If this were possible it would prove the above theory and open interesting possibilities. Or is it as for example the late Jean Dubuis proposed that various metals have energy potencies which can be classified kabbalistically and only 'mercuries' of a similar potency on the tree of life work on them?

It's hard to find good help these days...

Yes Axis! Gold can be worked upon by these other Alkahest's, albet, I wonder to what purpose and to what ends are you hoping to arrive, for there are many ways to work upon the gold. Are you seeking it's Sulfur?

JDP
05-08-2017, 05:21 AM
You don't see why I am puzzled because I am not puzzled. I am only saying that your comments HERE are nonsensical and completely unrelated to anything.
You made your point several times and it is nonsensical and you don't even know WHY.
An alchemist who had been reading, say, Proclus would have certainly find there an inspiration to try something simple with a technology that was certainly VERY available and completely unrelated to "gases".
I take it for granted that you are very skilled in lots of paths, but this one is not one of your strong areas and that's fine... It is also OBVIOUS that you have no interest in it and that's fine too. Would you have the kindness of letting those who are interested in the subject talk about it in peace? Is such thing so hard to do?

Of course you are puzzled by it, otherwise you wouldn't think it's "nonsensical". You seem to have a lot of problems following logical arguments if you can't understand why very real invisible gases found all over our surroundings, like oxygen or nitrogen, as well as unproven theoretical speculations about equally invisible substances supposed to be contained in almost everything, like "phlogiston", are not very similar cases as "Spiritus Mundi", which would therefore be just about as invisible and difficult to detect or "capture" as those other invisible things for people centuries ago. In fact, even by the admission of the proponents of "Spiritus Mundi" it would be way more difficult to accomplish, as you need the right "magnet" to supposedly attract this thing. But gases like oxygen are "attracted" and "corporified" by a BUNCH of readily available "magnets". Just about every base metal, for example, will "attract" and "fix" oxygen from the air by simply being strongly heated in contact with it. Yet this simple fact presented such a challenge for the alchemical mentality that they were never able to resolve it. All alchemical theories of combustion/calcination have the same fatal flaw: they cannot account for the seemingly contradictory changes in weight between substances before and after calcination, and the reason is, as explained a bunch of times already (but that you never seem to get it), because THEY HAD NO CLUE HOW TO DETECT AND MANIPULATE AT WILL INVISIBLE SUBSTANCES LIKE THE GASES THAT THEY HAD RIGHT UNDER THEIR NOSES. And yet you want to make us believe that these same people, who proved their (understandable and excusable) experimental ineptitude in this department of probing into the realm of invisible things that are found all over the place, somehow knew how to "capture" AN EVEN MORE RECONDITE, ARCANE, UNKNOWN, AND DIFFICULT TO DISCOVER AND EQUALLY INVISIBLE THING LIKE "SPIRITUS MUNDI"... go figure!


I doubt there was a "Hermes", but it doesn't matter. I do not see ANY technological, scientific or philosophical improvement that would have made a classical Alexandrian be in worst conditions than an alchemist of the 1800's (WHEN it comes to the Spirit). It can be perfectly captured using ONLY technology that was available 2,000 years ago.

The technology available 2000 years ago would also have technically allowed them, if correctly adapted for the purpose, to capture invisible gases and try to study them, yet they did not. It is a combination of not having the most appropriate equipment for the job and a very different experimental methodology that did not allow them to achieve such things.

JDP
05-08-2017, 05:32 AM
So if not SM, what does JDP suggest the real alchemists WERE trying to capture in their vessels, if we keep in mind that even the poorest puffer of the 1800s had more "technical" equipment and understanding than Hermes himself?

The alchemists worked with actual, visible, tangible substances, i.e. solids and liquids, as per the equipment and experimental methods available to them. Their secret solvent was prepared by such methods, they did not "capture" anything in their vessels other than the very real and visible (and therefore perfectly possible to be investigated and manipulated at will by them) distillates and/or sublimates from the matters that formed their initial MIXTURES/COMPOUNDS.

elixirmixer
05-08-2017, 05:39 AM
Well it looks like we are making headway, since we can all agree that te alchemists were actually using real stuff...

I wonder how that stuff differed from traditional chemicals? We know that other solvents can indeed break down gold such as cyanide, volatile ammonia salt mixtures, and hydrogen chloride and nitric acid mixes, so what do these solvents have in common with te secret solvents?

Could it perhaps be ther celestial fire as described by Bartlett? Or perhaps it's a special quantum relationship with gold itself? I know that many menstruum are capable of extracting the red Sulfur from prepared gold calx, although, it feels like in this thread your speaking about solvents that can dissolve gold entirely.... Is that correct?

JDP
05-08-2017, 06:12 AM
I wonder how that stuff differed from traditional chemicals? We know that other solvents can indeed break down gold such as cyanide, volatile ammonia salt mixtures, and hydrogen chloride and nitric acid mixes, so what do these solvents have in common with te secret solvents?

This is a recurrent topic in alchemical literature, particularly starting from the late Middle Ages onward, after the popularization of the mineral acids. Ramon Llull, Bernard Trevisan, Guido de Montanor, George Ripley, Thomas Norton, Antonio de Abbatia, Lucas Rodargirus, Weidenfeld, etc. have all discussed this interesting subject. If you go back earlier in the thread, where the subject of the secret alchemical solvent vs the Helmontian "alkahest" was being discussed, you will see that the most distinguishing characteristic of the alchemical solvent is its ability to eventually "radically" join the "body" it dissolves, and once this happens the solvent cannot be separated from the thing dissolved and be recovered as it was before the dissolution, but a whole new substance eventually emerges from this union, which is neither the secret solvent nor the metallic/mineral matter it dissolved as they were before the solution. This new inseparable substance is either the Stone, or so-called universal tincture (when the appropriate metallic/mineral matter is dissolved and coagulated with the solvent) or the "particular tinctures" of alchemy. The common acids, however, CANNOT accomplish this. It was quickly observed by the alchemists that these solvents do NOT permanently remain with the solute, they can always be separated from it (either by simple heating alone or by mixing them with some other substances) and the metallic bodies dissolved in them wholly recovered intact as they were before the solution. This is NOT a "discovery" of chemistry, BTW, as many people incorrectly think. It was the alchemists who first observed and noticed that the "vulgar" acids have no permanent and lasting effect on the metallic matters they dissolve. Read, for example, Thomas Norton's comments on the subject in his "Ordinal", written in funny 15th century English verse, where he clearly points out that by dissolving metals in "corrosive waters" you really do nothing to them and can always be recovered as they were before, and, for example, how from an ounce of silver dissolved in them you get no less and no more than the same ounce of silver back (after you remove the "acid", now combined with the metal in the form of a salt). Chemists did NOT "discover" such things as the conservation of mass in chemical reactions, alchemists did (however, unlike the chemists, the alchemists never elevated their observations into supposed "laws" that applied to everything. To them these observations applied to "vulgar" methods, not those of alchemy, where substances could be permanently altered and not recovered back as they were before.) This is an example of what great experimenters the alchemists could be when they delved into things they could see with their eyes and manipulate at will with their hands. Yet these same great experimenters and observers were totally stumped by something that to our modern ears sounds relatively simple: an INVISIBLE GAS joining a metal and adding its mass to its total weight. This apparently simple fact was such a stumbling block for the alchemical mind that it could never successfully resolve it.

Andro
05-08-2017, 06:27 AM
The alchemists worked with actual, visible, tangible substances, i.e. solids and liquids, as per the equipment and experimental methods available to them. Their secret solvent was prepared by such methods, they did not "capture" anything in their vessels other than the very real and visible (and therefore perfectly possible to be investigated and manipulated at will by them) distillates and/or sublimates from the matters that formed their initial MIXTURES/COMPOUNDS.

Perhaps ironically, this is entirely correct for what is referred to as 'Spiritus Mundi' as well. It IS tangible, 'real', visible, it can be manipulated and investigated at will.

Maybe 'captured' is not the BEST word choice. It is in fact 'extracted'. But then again, when we perform a common distillation, the distillate is also 'captured' in the receiver flask.

In many ways, it is not so different from more 'specified' spirits extracted by various means from their containing matters, like Alcohol (Spirit of Wine), for example.

Perhaps what is difficult to understand for the more scientific/empirical mind is that this more 'Universal' Spirit can also be extracted (in an extremely pure state) by highly unconventional means, which would not make much sense (or any sense at all) to the scientifically oriented mind. Although this presents us with with certain difficulties of semantics and communication, this does NOT make it a 'fantasy' or a 'speculation'. It is a FACT.

A number of people on this forum are extracting this Spirit from various holding matrix/matrices, by various means and methods, some more 'conventional' and some highly 'unconventional'. Still, the FACT remains that these people are working with a very tangible substance, which does indeed have some interesting and rather 'exotic' properties and can be tested, manipulated, investigated, etc... It is NOT an 'imaginary substance', no more than the classical 'Spirit of Wine' (alcohol) is an 'imaginary substance'.

As an example: Has anyone here ever fully and properly performed/completed the entire Archeus of Water? (a rather tedious and time-consuming procedure)

The most subtle fractions eventually start displaying quite exotic, unusual and unconventional properties, even if the Archaeus is performed in the traditional manner of distillation (and not in the more so-called 'philosophical' ways).

DO try this at home.

Perhaps it might help us exit this hamster wheel.

elixirmixer
05-08-2017, 07:23 AM
The Archeus is an entertaining idea. The waters Quintessense.

I'm sure there are multiple ways to execute this procedure. Do you have a particular way in mind Andro?

I assume by entire you are refering to the separation of all twelve fractions with their proper incubating times.

I was thinking today, that all this equipment ment for the Hollandus Vegi-stone would work great for the Archeus, and that performing the Archeus would sharpen my skills before the minor opus and then also, I'm sure it would be very handy to use in any works that involve dry herbs for sure!

You say that some of the very volitle fractions have exotic properties. Are these apparent or does it require further experimentation to discover these properties?

Axismundi000
05-08-2017, 07:56 AM
I think on a separate thread it was suggested that morning dew in the northern hemisphere march -may so in the Southern Hemisphere same months as UK autumn. Rainwater requires 10 times as much as dew apparently. For a loosely termed aalcahest or universal Mercury this is interesting I think. You are well placed to prepare before the Australian spring starts elixirmixer

Axismundi000
05-08-2017, 11:31 AM
"Aqua Regia" will open the gold and move it into a red powder. Whether or not this is a true 'opening' is up for debate. I've also seen a purple powder form of it. I think that will be your best bet to begin with regarding a 'lesser solvent' vs 'alkahest' approach.

From a theoretical approach, from John French's Art of Distillation might be of interest.

"THE SPAGYRICAL ANATOMY OF GOLD AND SILVER TOGETHER WITH THE CURIOSITIES THEREIN AND CHIEFEST PREPARATIONS THEREOF" (http://www.alchemywebsite.com/jfren_6.html)





If John French's theory is correct, then it means gold and silver is perfect on account of how well it has assimilated and unified with the environment engendering it's origin. So I'm going to, for now, agree with Dubuis and say that only a solvent more potent than gold will be able to dissolve it.

Your suggestion about using Aqua Regia to make a red powder is interesting and part of what I was considering. To briefly explain I was thinking Aqua Regia to give auric acid and then acetic acid to give gold acetate as follows:

Au + HNO3 + 4HCl = HAuCl4 + NO + 2H2O
Then
HAuCl4 + 3CH3COOH = Au(CH3COO)3 + 4HCl
Decant HCl and gently dry as well as the gold acetate definately outdoors if no lab facilities for fumes to get all the acetate.

So obviously it could just be then, dry distil in the established way or if you already have one of these lesser 'alkahest s' would it extract oil from the gold and more interestingly would this be considered THE Aurum Potable? A question well worth serious attention I feel.

Kiorionis
05-08-2017, 11:42 AM
It might be worth pursuing. I have very little experience with gold. I'm more familiar with copper and iron. There are also other members here that are better at chemistry equations than I am, so I won't get into that part of your post, Axis :D

Something I just remembered, and an experiment I have been interested in performing, is the use of gold, electrolytes, and electrolysis. If the chemicals themselves don't have enough energy to break something down, then perhaps stimulating/doping them in a different (electric, magnetic) way will?

JDP
05-08-2017, 12:09 PM
Perhaps ironically, this is entirely correct for what is referred to as 'Spiritus Mundi' as well. It IS tangible, 'real', visible, it can be manipulated and investigated at will.

Maybe 'captured' is not the BEST word choice. It is in fact 'extracted'. But then again, when we perform a common distillation, the distillate is also 'captured' in the receiver flask.

In many ways, it is not so different from more 'specified' spirits extracted by various means from their containing matters, like Alcohol (Spirit of Wine), for example.

Perhaps what is difficult to understand for the more scientific/empirical mind is that this more 'Universal' Spirit can also be extracted (in an extremely pure state) by highly unconventional means, which would not make much sense (or any sense at all) to the scientifically oriented mind. Although this presents us with with certain difficulties of semantics and communication, this does NOT make it a 'fantasy' or a 'speculation'. It is a FACT.

A number of people on this forum are extracting this Spirit from various holding matrix/matrices, by various means and methods, some more 'conventional' and some highly 'unconventional'. Still, the FACT remains that these people are working with a very tangible substance, which does indeed have some interesting and rather 'exotic' properties and can be tested, manipulated, investigated, etc... It is NOT an 'imaginary substance', no more than the classical 'Spirit of Wine' (alcohol) is an 'imaginary substance'.

As an example: Has anyone here ever fully and properly performed/completed the entire Archeus of Water? (a rather tedious and time-consuming procedure)

The most subtle fractions eventually start displaying quite exotic, unusual and unconventional properties, even if the Archaeus is performed in the traditional manner of distillation (and not in the more so-called 'philosophical' ways).

DO try this at home.

Perhaps it might help us exit this hamster wheel.

No, what you are referring to are not "facts" but theories and speculations about things these people might be obtaining and ASSUMING it is this suppositious "Spiritus Mundi" that's behind it all, which is a very different thing. What people like this are doing is very similar to what many a chymist and chemist of the 18th century did with the concept of "phlogiston": they too were handling and experimenting with very real substances but they were ASSUMING that this UNSEEN AND NEVER PROVEN mysterious "thing" they called "phlogiston" was behind the phenomena they were investigating. Today we know that they weren't observing any effects of this supposed "principle" of combustion and what was really going on was quite different than they thought was happening. That doesn't mean that what these chymists/chemists were doing was not real, it just means that their INTERPRETATION of the observed phenomena was mistaken. When they set substances on fire or calcined metals in furnaces and then weighed and investigated the byproducts, they were carrying out very real operations, it is what they thought was happening that was mistaken. They simply assumed that this speculative "phlogiston" was behind it all, just like the people who think that this equally UNSEEN AND NEVER PROVEN "Spiritus Mundi" must be behind what they are doing. This brings us back to an old fundamental topic: empirical facts vs theories/speculations/conjectures trying to "explain" them. Not the same thing.

JDP
05-08-2017, 12:15 PM
Your suggestion about using Aqua Regia to make a red powder is interesting and part of what I was considering. To briefly explain I was thinking Aqua Regia to give auric acid and then acetic acid to give gold acetate as follows:

Au + HNO3 + 4HCl = HAuCl4 + NO + 2H2O
Then
HAuCl4 + 3CH3COOH = Au(CH3COO)3 + 4HCl
Decant HCl and gently dry as well as the gold acetate definately outdoors if no lab facilities for fumes to get all the acetate.


This sounds like an unlikely reaction. Acetic acid is a weaker acid than hydrochloric acid, so it will probably not displace it from its combination with gold.

Andro
05-08-2017, 01:28 PM
The Archeus is an entertaining idea. The water's Quintessence.

Not the water's specifically. The most of the most subtle fraction of the distilled spirit (in this case - Archaeus - distilled in the traditional way), is not particular to any matter.

Dew and rainwater have more of this fraction than other waters (like tap water).

There has been an actual scientific experiment where they have chemically recreated the exact composition of rainwater, an exact replica.

Upon testing, such as watering plants, grass, etc - the exact chemical replica performed very poorly compared to the 'real' rainwater. There is 'something' in natural rainwater that isn't present in its chemically recreated counterpart. This 'special something' is most likely to be carefully separated as the most subtle and volatile fraction during the Archaeus process. But like Axis said, you have to use water that has enough of it in the first place... Dew, spring rain, etc... It would qualify as a sort of Universal Mercury (not an Alkahest) - the difference between which USED TO BE the topic of this thread before it got hijacked and trolled into oblivion.

Luxus
05-08-2017, 01:29 PM
I think Alkahest is what others call Azoth

Schmuldvich
05-08-2017, 02:56 PM
Back on topic,

Is the Alekehest the same as the Universal Solvent? Is the stone itself considered the true solvent as its transmutation powers should apply to any and everything?

YES!!!






http://i.imgur.com/wQz7Smj.jpg




"Mariya also said: The Water which I have mentioned is an Angel and descends from the sky, and the earth accepts it on account of its (the earth's) moistness. The water of the sky is held by the water of the earth, and the water of the earth acts as its servant, and its Sand serves for the purpose of honouring it. Both the waters are gathered together and the Water holds the Water. The Kiyan (Vital Principle) holds the Kiyan and the Kiyan is whitened by the Kiyan. She meant by this the coction of the Soul with the Spirit until both mix and are thoroughly cooked together and become a single thing like Marble.

As for her statement regarding the Angel, she meant by this the Divine Water which is the Soul. She named it Angel because it is spiritual, and because that Water has risen from the earth to the sky of the Birba. And as for her statement, the Water descends from the sky, she meant by this its return to Earth; and this Angel which she mentioned I shall explain to you in another way so that you may be aware of both explanations— if Allah will! She meant by this the child which they said will be born in the Air while Conception had taken place in the Lower region; this being through the Higher Celestial Strength which the water has gained by its absorption of the Air. Regarding this, Hermes said: 'The strength of the Highest and the Lowest will be found in it'.

They name this Water also The Rain which Revives the Lower World; and by all this is to be understood the Pure Silvery Water which is the Gold of the Sages. The Excellent Master, Hermes, named it the Good of many names.




The whole, then, of this antimonial secret is, that we know how by it to extract or draw forth argent vive, out of the body of Magnesia, not burning, and this is antimony, and a mercurial sublimate. That is, you must extract a living and incombustible water, and then congeal, or coagulate it with the perfect body of sol, i.e., fine gold, without alloy; which is done by dissolving it into a mature white substance of the consistency of cream, and made thoroughly white. But first this sol by putrefaction and resolution in this water, loseth all its light and brightness, and will grow dark and black; afterwards it will ascend above the water, and by little and little will swim upon it, in a substance of a white color. And this is the whitening of red laton to sublimate it philosophically, and to reduce it into its first matter; viz. into a white incombustible sulphur, and into a fixed argent vive. Thus the perfect body of sol, resumeth life in this water; it is revived, inspired, grows, and is multiplied in its kind, as all other things are. For in this water, it so happens, that the body compounded of two bodies, viz. sol and luna, is puffed up, swells, putrefies, is raised up, and does increase by the receiving from the vegetable and animated nature and substance.

Our water also, or vinegar aforesaid, is the vinegar of the mountains, i.e. of sol and luna; and therefore it is mixed with gold and silver, and sticks close to them perpetually; and the body receiveth from this water a white tincture, and shines with inestimable brightness. Who so knows how to convert, or change the body into a medicinal white gold, may easily by the same white gold change all imperfect metals into the best or finest silver. And this white gold is called by the philosophers "luna alba philosophorum, argentum vivum album fixum, aurum alchymiae, and fumus albus" (white philosophical silver, white fixed mercury, alchemical gold and white fume): and therefore without this our antimonial vinegar, the aurum album of the philosophers cannot be made. And because in our vinegar there is a double substance of argentum vivum, the one from antimony, and the other from mercury sublimated, it does give a double weight and substance of fixed argent vive, and also augments therein the native color, weight, substance and tincture thereof.

Our dissolving water therefore carries with it a great tincture, and a great melting or dissolving; because that when it feels the vulgar fire, if there be in it the pure and fine bodies of sol or luna, it immediately melts them, and converts them into its white substance such as itself is, and gives to the body color, weight, and tincture. In it also is a power of liquefying or melting all things that can be melted or dissolved; it is a water ponderous, viscous, precious, and worthy to be esteemed, resolving all crude bodies into their prima materia, or first matter, viz. earth and a viscous powder; that is into sulphur, and argentum vivum. If therefore you put into this water, leaves, filings, or calx of any metal, and set it in a gentle heat for a time, the whole will be dissolved, and converted into a viscous water, or white oil as aforesaid. Thus it mollifies the body, and prepares for liquefaction; yea, it makes all things fusible, viz. stones and metals, and after gives them spirit and life. And it dissolves all things with an admirable solution, transmuting the perfect body into a fusible medicine, melting, or liquefying, moreover fixing, and augmenting the weight and color.

Work therefore with it, and you shall obtain from it what you desire, for it is the spirit and soul of sol and luna; it is the oil, the dissolving water, the fountain, the Balneum Mariae, the praeternatural fire, the moist fire, the secret, hidden and invisible fire. It is also the most acrid vinegar, concerning which an ancient philosopher saith, I besought the Lord, and he showed me a pure clear water, which I knew to be the pure vinegar, altering, penetrating, and digesting. I say a penetrating vinegar, and the moving instrument for putrefying, resolving and reducing gold or silver into their prima materia or first matter. And it is the only agent in the universe, which in this art is able to reincrudate metallic bodies with the conservation of their species. It is therefore the only apt and natural medium, by which we ought to resolve the perfect bodies of sol and luna, by a wonderful and solemn dissolution, with the conservation of the species, and without any destruction, unless it be to a new, more noble, and better form or generation, viz. into the perfect philosopher's stone, which is their wonderful secret or arcanum.

Now this water is a certain middle substance, clear as fine silver, which ought to receive the tinctures of sol and luna, so as they may be congealed, and changed into a white and living earth. For this water needs the perfect bodies, that with them after the dissolution, it may be congealed, fixed, and coagulated into a white earth.




In the same manner of Sol which is our Sulphur, being reduced into Mercury by Mercury, which is the Viscous Water made thick, and mixt with its proper Earth, by a temperate decoction and digestion, ariseth the Vapour or Cloud, agreeing in nature and substance with that in the Bowels of the Earth. This afterwards is turned into most subtil water, which is called the Soul, Spirit, and Tincture, as we shall hereafter shew.

When this Water is returned into the Earth (out of which it was drawn) and every way spreads through or is mixed with it, as its proper Womb, it becomes fixed. Thus the Wise man does that by Art in a short time which Nature cannot perform in less than the Revolution of a Thousand Years.




The elements of our Art, then, are the humid and the dry, i.e., water and earth. In water there is enclosed air, and in earth fire. But the radical element from which all others are derived, is humidity, or water, that is, liquefaction, or, according to others, earth. We may reconcile the two views by stating, on the authority of Empedocles, that when water is thickened, it becomes earth: earth floats upon the waters, and is founded upon the waters, as we learn from Morienus and Hermes.




But here you must another secret know,
How the Philosophers child in the air is born,
Busy you not to blow at the coal too fast,
And take this neither for mockery or scorn,
But trust me truly, else is all your work forlorn,
Without your earth with water be revived,
Our true congealing you shall never see.

A soul it is, being betwixt heaven and earth,
Arising from the earth as air with water pure,
And causing life in every lively thing,
Incessant running upon our four fold nature,
Enforcing to better them with all its cure,
Which air is the fire of our Philosophy,
Named now oil, now water mystically.

And by this means air which we call oil or water,
Our fire, our ointment, our spirit, and our Stone,
In which one thing we ground our wisdoms all,
Goes neither in nor out alone,
Nor the fire but the water anon.
First it leads out, and after it brings in,
As water with water, which will not lightly twin.




God is an essential and hidden fire, which dwells in all things and chiefly in Man. From this fire everything is engendered. It engenders them and will for ever engender them; and what is engendered is the the true Divine Light; which exists from all eternity.

God is a Fire; but no Fire can burn, no Light can manifest itself in Nature without the presence of Air to maintain the combustion; thus the Holy Spirit should act within us as a Divine Air or Breath (Ruach), causing a breath to spring from the Divine Fire upon the interior Fire of the heart so that the Light may appear, for the Light must be fed by fire, and this Light is love, bliss and joy in the eternal Divinity. This Light is JESUS, who emanates for all eternity from JEHOVAH. Whoever does not possesseth Light within him is plunged into a fire without light; but if this light is within him, then the CHRIST is in him, is incarnate within him, and he will know the Light as it exists in Nature.

All things we behold are interiorly fire and light, in which is hidden the essence of the Spirit. All things are a Trinity of fire, light and air. In other words, the Spirit (the Father) is a superessential light; the Son is the Light manifested; the Holy Spirit is a moving Breath, divine and superessential.

All things have been made by the power of the Divine Word; which is the Spirit or Divine Breath emanated from the beginning from the Divine fountain. This Breath is the Spirit or Soul of the World and is called Spiritus Mundi. It was, at first, like air, then condensed to a nebulous fog and finally transmuted itself into water. This water was at first spirit and life, because it was impregnated and vivified by the Spirit. Darkness filled the abyss, but by the emission of the Word, the Light was engendered, the darkness was illuminated by the Light, and the Soul of the World was born.

This spiritual Light which we call Nature or Soul of the World is a spiritual body which may be rendered visible and tangible by alchemical processes; but as it is naturally invisible, it is called Spirit. It is a living universal fluid differed throughout Nature, and which penetrates everything. It is the most subtle of all substances; the most powerful, by reason of its inherent qualities. It penetrates every body and determines the forms in which it displays its activity. By its action, it frees the forms from all imperfection; it makes the impure pure, the imperfect perfect and the mortal immortal by its indwelling. This essence or Spirit emanated from the beginning from the Center and incorporated it self with the substance which the Universe is formed. It is the "Salt of the Earth", and without its presence the plant would not grow, nor the field becomes green and the more this essence is condensed, concentrated and coagulated in the forms, the more stable they become.

It is the most subtle of all substances. This Spirit is obtained in the same way as it is communicated to the earth by these stars and this is performed by means of the Water which serves as a vehicle to it. It is not the Philosopher's Stone, but this may be prepared from it by fixing the volatile. I advise you to pay great attention the boiling of the Water; do not let your spirit be troubled about things of less importance. Make it boil slowly, then let it putrefy until it has attained the fitting color, for the Water of Life contains the germ of wisdom. In boiling the Water will transform itself into Earth. This Earth will change into a pure crystalline fluid; which will produce a fine red Fire and this Water and this Fire, reduced to a single Essence, produce the great Panacea composed of sweetness and strength - the Lamb and the Lion united.




Alchemy is the perfect knowledge of whole Nature and Art, about the Kingdom of Metals.

The parts of Alchymy are two, The Theory, and the Practice. For, seeing that Art can do nothing about Metals except it imitate Nature, it is necessary that the Knowledge of Nature should precede the Knowledge of Art. Alchymy therefore in respect of the Theory is a Science whereby the Beginnings, Causes, Properties and Passions of all the Metals are radically known; that those which are imperfect, incompleat, mixt and corrupt, may be transmuted into true Gold.

The Matter of Metals is either remote or proximate. The Remote is the Rayes of the Sun and Moon by whose Concourse all Natural Compounds are produced. The Proximate is Sulfur and Argent-vive, or the Rayes of the Sun and the Moon determined to a Metallick Production, under the form of certain humid, unctious, and viscous Substance.

In the Union of this Sulfur and Argent-vive consisteth the form of Metals. Nature only effecteth this Union in the bowels of the Earth by a temperate heat.

The Union of this Water immediatelly flow forth two Properties of Passions common to all the Metals, Fusibility and Extensibility. It is necessary to resolve it into a matter like to that, of which Nature hath most nearly produced it. For naturally there is no new Generation made without a previous Corruption. And seeing that common Gold, as we said above, hath its nearest rise from an unctious and viscious Humidity, it is manifest that it cannot be made more than perfect except it be first resolved into such its first matter.

Therefore to resolve common Gold into a humid, unctious and viscous substance, there is required an humid, unctious, and viscous Agent. Not any one, but one that is homogeneous, and of the same Nature with Gold: such a one as hath eminently the form of Gold, or may obtain it by a new Specification and Determination, when it particularly insinuateth itself into common Gold.




Question. What is the Alkahest?

Answer. It is a Catholick and Universal Menstruum, and, in a Word, may be called Ignis-Aqua, a Fiery-Water, an uncompounded and immortal ens which is penetrative, resolving all things unto their first Liquid Matter, nor can anything resist its Power, for it acts without any reaction from the Patient: nor doth it suffer from anything but its Equal by which it is brought into Subjection; but after it hath dissolved all other things it remains entire in its former Nature, and is of the same Virtue after a thousand Operations as at the first.




Out of these Mountains of Salt (the Philosophers striking the Rock) flows a perpetual and copious River of an unctuous fat Water which moistens the whole Mountains, neither can it ever be dried by the heat of the Sun or exhausted by any Rivers which can flow from them.

This Water, from the Abundance of gold which it carries in its Streams deserves the highest praises and commendations of the Philosophers, much greater than TAGNS and PARTOLUS the sublime encomiums of the Poets; neither is it improperly and undeservedly Termed an Ocean because it is diffused through all things as it is the Radical Moisture of all the concretes of the Universe.

You may fitly and Ingeniously enough call it the Mediterranean Sea because it passes through the Center of our Earth, or Salt Mountain; the possession of this vast Sea is esteemed of great moment by the Philosophers, therefore it is counted by them of the highest price.




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

The above-mentioned Spiritus Mundi is a great Menstruum in extracting of Tinctures out of Metals, Minerals, Animals, and Vegetables, and in performing great things in the Art volatilizing all fixed Bodies, and principally Gold.

The Quality of our Mercurial Water: being to volatilize all fixed Bodies, and to fix all those that are volatile fixing itself with those that are fixed, according to the Proportion of it, dissolving its own Body, it unites inseparably with it, conserving always its own Qualities and Properties, and receives no Augmentation from any other created thing, but only from its crude Body. Our Mercurial Water has such a sympathy with the Astrums, that, if it is not kept very close, and Hermetically sealed, it will in a very short time, like a winged Serpent, fly away in a wonderful manner to its own Sphere, carrying along with it all the Elements and Principles of Metals, and not leaving so much as one single drop, or the least remainder, behind.

Although we use our Mercury simplex in the Extraction of its own Soul out of its Body, and for the Clarification of the latter; yet, since it is a philosophical and perpetual Menstruum, it loses nothing of its connatural Prerogatives, nor does in the least diminish in Quantity, being our true Alkahest, as Paracelsus is pleased to call it.




Take the Mineram Saturni... ...place the same with the Salt in a B.M. or in Horse-dung, the B.M. however must be constant, and for so long till only the Salt itself changes into an Oily, unctuous Liquor and separates from all uncleanness... ...Distill the Water again therefrom till it turns to a powder; place this in a closed glass in the Fire, and so the Phyton will fly and leave the Sol, as a not solid Earth, quite open and porous. This Earth sweeten several times with clean water, and dry it, of such a powder take a half shekel heavy, and from the above liquor or Lapide Alkahest 4 shekels heavy, rub it in a glass of Acures together, and put it in an Alingel, seal it up, that nothing can come in; place the vessel in the furnace, and give it Algir Fire, till it flows together to a red stone or powder.

Dear brethren with this can you also do wonders, for it transmutes all known metals into Sol.

When you also have the above Universal Mercury, which you have prepared out of the Volatile snake and the fixed, poured on the Albaon, so in the end such is green.

For there lies in such the life of all metals and minerals as the right key, and this concentrated Spiritus Mundi, can in all things be used in exaltations virtutia Elixiris de prolongandum vitam.

For Heaven and Earth are preserved through this. This is the right green Alazagi, with which one can do wonders, as I already before taught, and will show afterwards in the proper place.




The General Rules borrowed from Sendivogius, Together with the Verse.





Four Elements: Fire, Air, Water, Earth --- from God.
Three Beginnings: Sulphur, Salt, Mercury --- from Nature.
Two Seeds: Masculine, Feminine --- from the Metals.
One Fruit: Tincture --- through Art.


Who understands this table correctly
Sees how one goes from out of the other.
First everything dwells in a 4-fold state
The elements everywhere.

Out of this the 3 Beginnings spring.
Which bring forth two Sexes.
Masculine, feminine from Sun and Moon.

Out of which grows the Wise Son:
Who is like nothing else in the world
He surpasses all Kingdoms.

Now it is known to man, that God in this great Cosmos had given a living Spirit to all creatures, to maintain, multiply and to nourish themselves. This Spirit they have not only in themselves, but they are supported also by the heavenly Influence: This Spirit is Man’s true Balsam and Mumia, and State of Wisdom, whereby He is discerned by all creatures, or being different from all creatures. Also this Spirit and Vita Mundi is the true Balsam of Nature and Quintessence.




The Alcahest of Paracelsus transmutes all the bodies in nature by subtilizing them: for, when bodies are subtilized as high as possible, they at length change to another substance, but retain their seminal properties: and by means of the Universal Solvent all things are brought back to their Ens Primum, and retain their native virtues; whence great and unlimited powers may be obtained. And plainer still; This liquor only, can dissolve all solids into their first matter, without any diminution or alteration in itself. Whence he recommends the knowledge of that homogeneous and immutable menstruum, which dissolves its subjects into their first liquid matter; whereby the internal essences of things and their properties may be seen.


A couple of applicable quotes here, most but not all dealing with the subject of this thread.


Alkahest, simply put, is an ens or Fire-Water (think alcohol) which is penetrative and resolves all things into their Prima Materia or first liquid Matter. The Alkahest is our Universal Solvent. Once it has dissolved anything it remains the same Nature and is of the same virtue after a thousand operations as at the first, never reducing itself in quality or quantity.

Elsewhere (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?5247-(non)Mineral-(non)Metal-(non)Magnet&p=49452#post49452) I have explained the difference between our starting Matter and our Prima Materia, or Materia Prima and Prima Materia as Salazius explains (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2071-Spiritus-Mundi&p=14057#post14057) it. Andro who just yesterday gave his input (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?5253-Difference-between-Alkahest-and-the-Universal-Mercury-(SM).&p=49614#post49614), was the first person for years to attempt to explain Spiritus Mundi philosophically. Does anyone else want to provide their input as to what they think Spiritus Mundi is? ...Why is everyone still so caught up on this word!

Spiritus Mundi is the Light of Genesis and the Word spoken of throughout Scripture.

Spiritus Mundi means "World Spirit". Anima Mundi means "World Soul". Corpus Mundi means "World Body".

The Universal Spirit (Spiritus Mundi) from the Universal Soul (Anima Mundi) from the Universal Body (Corpus Mundi).


The way I conceptualize it...Keeping in mind that our Matter is simply One but at different stages of development.

Spiritus Mundi as the Upper Light
Anima Mundi as the Middle Medium
Corpus Mundi as the Lower Body





"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth— Now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. And God said, “Let there be Light!” And there was Light. And God saw the Light, that it was good, and God caused there to be a separation between the Light and between the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."
Genesis 1:1-5


"Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a Light to my path. I have sworn an oath and confirmed it."
Psalm 119:105-106


"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This one was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and apart from him not one thing came into being that has come into being. In him was life, and the life was the Light of humanity. And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it."
John 1:1-5


"I, Paul, became a minister. Now I rejoice in my sufferings on behalf of you, and I fill up in my flesh what is lacking of the afflictions of Christ, on behalf of his body which is the church, of which I became a minister, according to God’s stewardship which was given to me for you, to complete the Word of God, the Mystery which has been hidden from the ages and from the generations."
Colossians 1:23-26


"It escapes their notice that the heavens existed long ago and the earth held together out of water and through water by the Word of God, by means of which things the world that existed at that time was destroyed by being inundated with water. But by the same Word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire."
2 Peter 3:5-7


"What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and our hands have touched, concerning the Word of life—and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify and announce to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was revealed to us—what we have seen and heard, we announce to you also, in order that you also may have fellowship with us, and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write, in order that our joy may be complete. And this is the message which we have heard from him and announce to you, that God is Light and there is no darkness in him at all."
1 John 1:1-5


"I have written to you, fathers, because you have known the One who is from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the Word of God resides in you."
1 John 2:14

The word "capture" is what the majority of members here use when posting about Spiritus Mundi, when I think the word "condense" is what we should be using instead. The "Golden Chain Of Homer" (1723) aids us in visualizing this





"We have demonstrated that the primordial Vapour, or that fire and water, are after God, the First Matter of all Things. This two-fold Vapour by inspissation is become water and this water by the action of the invisible spirit therein diffused, has begun to ferment and then to generate Matter. At first, this water was perfectly subtil and pure, but by means of the action of the inward spirit, it becomes turbid, smelled badly and thus generated Earth. It was divided into various parts. Into a Spiritual, most subtil, into a half or less subtil, into a half corporeal, and into a Body. At first it was 1 and 2, -- now it is 1, 2, and 3, likewise 4 and 5.

1 as a simple Humidity;
2 as a Water containing a Spirit;
3 when it was separated into volatile, half fixt, fixt, that is, chemically speaking -- into Volatile, Acetum, Alcali; or Anima, Spirit, Corpus;
4 when it was divided into the four so-called Elements, Fire, Air, Water, Earth;
5 when it is by Art, assisted by Nature, formed into an indestructible fiery Quintessence.





http://i.imgur.com/WiBLH9W.jpg


Bacstrom is not an authority I like to reference often, but his "Aphorisms" (1797) is extraordinary!



The Soul of Man as well as all rational Spirits (the Angels) consist according to their primitive Essence of the Spirit of the World (Spiritus Mundi) or Anima Mundi (Soul of the World) and the power of reasoning. They are Unities and most simple, and consequently in their very essence immortal.

In the Beginning God created the Universal Spirit or the Universal Agent of Nature, the Soul of the Universe.

This is the first emanation of Divine Light; it is a unity and immortal, capable of manifesting itself, when moved or agitated, into Light and Fire.

It is multipliable and yet is and remains but one. It is Omnipresent and yet occupies no visible space or room, except when manifested or multiplied in its third principle, Fire. It has the power of becoming material and of returning again to universality.

This is the subject of the Stone or Medicine of the Philosophers. The more you take this in its simple, universal, unspecified or unmarried state, the easier, simpler and greater is your work, but the more this subject is already specified the more troublesome prolix and expensive is your process.

Our Magnet to attract it is Man, and principally (Hadamah, the Dust, Red Earth of Man), which in the months of March, April and May, the Sun in Aries and Taurus is abundantly found in the blood of a healthy man; the Spirit of the Universe during this season residing therein most abundantly, universally and unspecified.

Hadamah signifies the first man Adam or Red Earth, which appears when the subject is dried up. In Hadamah lies concealed the blood; that precious fluid wherein dwells the Universal Spirit, attracted by inspiration, and the Dust of the Red Earth, left by itself when the Universal fire nature quits it. This Universal Fire is truly Nature.

Ending this discussion with a quote from "Sophic Hydrolith or Water-Stone Of The Wise" is appropriate



The importance of starting with an exact knowledge of the first or otherwise the second Matter of the Philosophical Stone has been largely dwelt upon by all writers on this subject. This Matter is found in one thing, out of which alone our Stone is prepared (although it is called by a thousand names), without any foreign admixture; and its quality, appearance, and properties have been set forth in the following manner. It is composed of three things, yet it is only one. Likewise, having been created and made of one, two, three, four, and five, it is everywhere found in one and two. They also call it the universal Magnesia, or the seed of the world, from which all natural objects take their origin. Its properties are of a singular kind; for, in addition to its marvellous nature and form, it is neither hot and dry like fire, nor cold and wet like water, nor cold and dry like earth, but a perfect preparation of all the elements. Its body is incorruptible, and is not destroyed by any of the four elements, but its properties far exceed those of the four elements, and the four qualities, like heaven and the Quintessence. With respect to its outward appearance, figure, form, and shape, they call it a stone, and not a stone; they liken it to gum and white water, and to the water of the Ocean. It is named the water of life, the purest and most blessed water, yet not the water of the clouds, or of any common spring, but a thick, permanent, salt, and (in a certain sense) dry water, which wets not the hand, a slimy water which springs out of the fatness of the earth. Likewise, it is a double mercury and Azoth which, being supported by the vapour or exudation of the greater and lesser heavenly and the earthly globe, cannot be consumed by fire. For itself is the universal and sparkling flame of the light of Nature, which has the heavenly Spirit in itself, with which it was animated at first by God, Who pervades all things, and is called by Avicenna, the Soul of the world. For as the soul lives and moves in all the members of the body, so that spirit lives and moves in all elementary creatures, and is the indissoluble bond of body and soul, the purest and most noble essence in which lie hid all mysteries in their inexhaustible fulness of marvellous virtue and efficacy. Moreover, they ascribe to it infinite Divine power and virtue when they say that it is the Spirit of the Lord who fills the Universe, and in the beginning moved upon the face of the waters. They also call it the spirit of truth that is hid in the world, and cannot be understood without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, or the teaching of those who know it. It is found potentially everywhere, and in everything, but in all its perfection and fullness only in one thing. In short, it is a Spiritual Essence which is neither celestial nor infernal, but an aerial, pure, and precious body, in the middle between the highest and lowest, the choicest and noblest thing under heaven.

Now when you have the substance indicated (which is in part heavenly, in part earthly, and in its natural state a mere confused chaos without certain name or colour), and know it well (for this knowledge the Sages have always accounted the principal part of this work), then you must give your whole mind to manipulating it in the proper manner. But before doing anything to it with his hands, the student should remember not to begin the preparation of this great and inscrutable arcanum before he knows well the spirit that lurks in it according to its essential qualities and properties. "With this spirit," says a certain philosopher, "you should not meddle until you first have a full and exact knowledge of it. For God is marvellous in His works, and He is not mocked."

Through all this one learns that Spiritus Mundi is the medium or middle substance of Alchemy, itself being neither completely celestial nor completely terrestrial.



http://i.imgur.com/EbX2KPN.jpg

Illen A. Cluf
05-08-2017, 03:12 PM
Again, those are your FANTASIES and PREJUDICES... and your tendency to look down on people who don't agree with you.


Fantasies? What fantasies? Then prove that whatever I said was a fantasy.

"Look down"? Is that what you call trying to help others avoid a long journey that leads nowhere useful? Is your definition of helping others "looking down on them"?

Is that what you're currently doing now yourself by telling me so emphatically (not just expressed as your opinion, but presented as irrefutable fact) that everything I say are fantasies and prejudices?

If I was trying to force others into agreeing with me, or trying to boost my pride and ego, I would be posting 10 times a day like several posters seem to like to do (or even break their comments into several sequential posts rather than in one).

No, I'm afraid that's not my motive. You can easily check that I rarely post anymore. Help and valuable information is rarely appreciated or recognized for what it is, and is only met with insults and ridicule. So why should I even bother?

Axismundi000
05-08-2017, 03:58 PM
This sounds like an unlikely reaction. Acetic acid is a weaker acid than hydrochloric acid, so it will probably not displace it from its combination with gold.

Yes normally the Cl ion will react more readily than the acetic. Try it or even add some paracetic acid. You can always reclaim the gold through heat.

I will look through later on at the vast reams of other material added here.

zoas23
05-08-2017, 07:38 PM
Of course you are puzzled by it, otherwise you wouldn't think it's "nonsensical". You seem to have a lot of problems following logical arguments if (...)

There has been a discussion between the words "captured", "condensed" and "extracted"... The 3 of them make sense, the one I like the most is "captured", but I don't really have objections with the 2 other words.

I have an objection with "puzzled" though.... "Fed up", "bored", "tired", I don't know the English word, it's not "puzzled" though.
I have no problems in following logical arguments... I have some sort of fetish for Logic and Linguistics (I use the word "fetish" simply because I can't justify why I like such things... I guess I find them pleasant and somehow connected in an analogical way with alchemy -only in an analogical way).

Your comments are not logical, JDP... That's the problem. I can state: "I can lift 1,000 kilos easily" and you may say: "That's impossible, the world record is 264 Kilos, go to the Olympics and get your Gold Medal if you have such bizarre fantasies". Then again, I may do it easily with a set of pulleys (anyone can do it.... even in a glass booth).

Your comments are nonsensical because you don't see the pulley and talk about gravity and the human biology and the capability of the muscles, but never think of the pulley... which is the THING that makes it possible.

You are not omniscient... but you gladly criticize things that you don't understand without even getting that your criticism is nonsensical... and the problem is that the REAL issue of this thread is VERY interesting for a lot of persons who ALREADY know your objections. Again, I am not into ORMUS and I don't agree with several ideas which are the main basis of that path... BUT I do not feel the need to visit each ORMUS thread and boycott it and interfere in a conversation that would be, otherwise, productive for those who are exchanging ideas and experiences.


THEY HAD NO CLUE HOW TO DETECT AND MANIPULATE AT WILL INVISIBLE SUBSTANCES LIKE THE GASES THAT THEY HAD RIGHT UNDER THEIR NOSES. And yet you want to make us believe that these same people, who proved their (understandable and excusable) experimental ineptitude in this department of probing into the realm of invisible things that are found all over the place, somehow knew how to "capture" AN EVEN MORE RECONDITE, ARCANE, UNKNOWN, AND DIFFICULT TO DISCOVER AND EQUALLY INVISIBLE THING LIKE "SPIRITUS MUNDI"... go figure!

Didn't they have the texts of Anaximander, Plotinus, Proclus? Why they wouldn't have tried to find the "hen" or "arche"?


The technology available 2000 years ago would also have technically allowed them, if correctly adapted for the purpose, to capture invisible gases and try to study them, yet they did not. It is a combination of not having the most appropriate equipment for the job and a very different experimental methodology that did not allow them to achieve such things.

They had the most appropriate equipment at hand. To be honest, my next project involves using technology that was easily available by then because it's easier that way than with the "modern" equipments. My idea is not making it using "primitive" technologies for the sake of using primitive technologies, but simply because it's easier.


Fantasies? What fantasies? Then prove that whatever I said was a fantasy.

Fantasy in the sense of not knowing something, but having a WRONG idea of the whole thing and criticizing the idea you have instead of the actual thing.


"Look down"? Is that what you call trying to help others avoid a long journey that leads nowhere useful? Is your definition of helping others "looking down on them"?

Yeah, that's a very accurate definition... I mean the one you just given. Assuming what some other persons are doing (without having any clue) and explaining them that they are wrong... In my own case, I would NEVER go to a thread created by JDP and you explaining a path that I know nothing about and claim that it's "wrong" because it does not match my experience... and make your thread a living hell with completely unrelated comments.

We all like some things and dislike some others... I don't like DMT (or any other "narcotics" -as to use a word which can be discussed)... I do not go to every damn thread about DMT with my gospel of "Winners don't use drugs". Nor I look down on people who likes them, it is a matter of tastes.... and a matter f understanding that something that is NOT enjoyable for me is VERY enjoyable and worthy for others and that it is FANTASTIC that they can talk about it in peace and that UNDERSTANDING that they probably do not NEED my opinions on the subject at all. That my opinions would be idiotic.


Is that what you're currently doing now yourself by telling me so emphatically (not just expressed as your opinion, but presented as irrefutable fact) that everything I say are fantasies and prejudices?

Well, this thread is about the Spiritus Mundi that is "captured" ("condensed", "extracted", LOL... I am having some fun with the semantic discussion and that's an interesting discussion actually) and its differences with the Spiritus Mundi already acting as an Alkahest.

What do you have to say about the Spiritus Mundi that is captured and the Spiritus Mundi acting as an Alkahest and their differences?????? That it's a fantasy? O.K... the opinion has been expressed... I never suggested that EVERYTHING that you say is fantasies, but when it comes to this VERY SPECIFIC approach to alchemy, it gets obvious that you have no idea of what you are talking about (which is FINE, I do not know every damn path either... probably nobody does!).... But you have an idea, a wrong idea, about this specific path and coming here just to repeat again and again that it's not valid is.... stupid.

Stupid in the same way that it would be stupid from me to interfere with objections when JDP and you are talking about a path that I do not understand at all.


No, I'm afraid that's not my motive. You can easily check that I rarely post anymore. Help and valuable information is rarely appreciated or recognized for what it is, and is only met with insults and ridicule. So why should I even bother?

OK... What can you contribute to this specific subject? What can you contribute to the better understanding of this specific path? Help and valuable information about OTHER paths? That's the problem.

Illen A. Cluf
05-08-2017, 07:53 PM
OK... What can you contribute to this specific subject? What can you contribute to the better understanding of this specific path? Help and valuable information about OTHER paths? That's the problem.

Right there you just proved that you don't have a clue what JDP and I have been suggesting all along. I can't waste any more time with your nonsense. Now I AM looking down on you. Sad but true.

Axismundi000
05-08-2017, 10:04 PM
Right there you just proved that you don't have a clue what JDP and I have been suggesting all along. I can't waste any more time with your nonsense. Now I AM looking down on you. Sad but true.

Can't say I have particularly enjoyed interacting with zoas23 on occasion but the lack of substance either theoretical or practical is a fair comment. Even if JDP goes on about whether or not SM exists rather than what the thread started with he at least provides argument and supporting research. Where is the actual substance here?

elixirmixer
05-08-2017, 10:15 PM
Axis, this will be 'A' Aurum Potable, but not THE Aurum Potable.

Please be careful Axis if you intend to make silver acetate, as I hear it is VERY explosive.

It's interesting that your going for the acetate model here. May I recommend transforming your metallic gold, into a true mineral before the extraction? Aka: take your powdered gold and REFLUX it in it's Aqua Reiga juices. This will cause the gold to condense into green crystals, some people call this the Green Lion.

I'm not sure why your goin for the acetate specifically, nevertheless, gold ought to be truly mineralised before extraction.

Once the gold has been mineralised properly, you can use the Spirit Of Lead to extract, alternativly, your Kerk's menstruum should also do the trick. Ethanol apparently worls just not as well as a good prepared Alkahest.

An here in lies the difference between THE TRUE Aurum potable.

While this word TRUE will mean different things for different people, here I believe it is either one of two things. Either it is the Sulfur of Gold prepared using SM. Or, it is the Sulfur of Gold prepared using Philosophical Wine of the Adepts.

Axismundi000
05-08-2017, 10:25 PM
Working mainly with gold is not my objective due to expense. A small amount of gold acetate to see if a 'lesser solvent' extracts is my line of enquiry Elixirmixer.

elixirmixer
05-08-2017, 10:51 PM
Ah good. Yes then it is the red Sulfur you seek, in which case, your Kerk's menstruum will most likely do the trick.

Can I recommend NOT dry distilling it? You'll hurt it.

Best to dissolve, filter, coagulate. I'd LOVE to see a write up from you Axis, about a dry distillation of an oil, and then one without distilling and to compare the two.

Please remember, that while we are always working on 'Matters' there are very gentle "invisible gases" that are chased away via distillation. Nevertheless, I can see the benefit in distillation as you will have a very clean product.

Yep, Kerk's menstruum, Spirit of Lead, philosophical Wine, but your not up to that bit yet are you. Did you make Spirit of Lead when I told you too?? Cause I knew you would be here, and that it would be useful.......

Which Alkahest do you intend to use?

elixirmixer
05-08-2017, 10:56 PM
As far as I have been able to tell Axis, you've been roughly following the line of making 7 basics, then a spagyrical stone, then on to the metallic oils...

May I ask...

Have you done silver, and if so, how did you go?

Axismundi000
05-08-2017, 11:28 PM
Your questions are reasonable and intelligent elixirmixer. My rule is to only show something and claim ownership of it when I have surpassed it and ideally have pretty much succeeded with the next project along as well. I know you are showing stuff as it is being done to help people understand the personal process as well as the actual lab work. I am not doing it that manner though I admire your openness. So I will in time show things as I have before, but at present this criteria I employ is not satisfied. So for now I cannot answer your questions erudite though they are.

elixirmixer
05-08-2017, 11:46 PM
I respect your rules of engagement and I appreciate that you comprehend what it is I'm trying to achieve :o

I can't wait for the silver work, perhaps we can co-publish our work here as an excellent comparison of what will undoubtably be two completely different methods... Offers there if you wish..

Back to the work at hand.. My personal recommendation for your Alkahest, would be,

*Drum roll*... The Archeus!!!

The real PROOF! As to whether or not any EMPIRICAL evidence can be shown that the dissolution capabilities of a solvent relate to their SM contents, could be proved by The Archeus.

As I personally am mainly interested in a method of SM condensation that had O% impurities, I have not learnt how to use The Archeus as a magnet. However, the a Archeus had a deep relationship with SM regardless, being IT in a denser form.

If it could be shown that The Archeus can dissolve and/or extract gold, then Andro's comments about SM contents start to look very attractive. Perhaps I will undertake this task. As it seems very logical to practise this, which will require a lesser labour and cost, before I move on.

The Sophic Hydrolith or 'The Water Stone of the Wise' is still to this day one of the most interesting works, very similar to the golden chain of homer if I remember well...

The question that is asked in this thread is a pretty deep one, and one that I don't think many people here are capable of answering at this moment, and those who can, I feel probably enjoy watching us grow more than they do giving away the ending ;)

Good luck Axis, and be safe, look up the MSDS for gold acetate and make sure it's not explosive. I've also heard on the grapevine that gold acetate is not the easiest thing to synthesise.

zoas23
05-09-2017, 01:15 AM
Can't say I have particularly enjoyed interacting with zoas23 on occasion but the lack of substance either theoretical or practical is a fair comment. Even if JDP goes on about whether or not SM exists rather than what the thread started with he at least provides argument and supporting research. Where is the actual substance here?

Considering that you have no idea of what I do and what I don't do at the lab, it's quite an audacious claim... To be honest, I'm often more open to sharing than most people are, though ONLY with persons I trust and who make me smile (if the other person is a VERY gifted alchemist or not is not relevant...).
As for the theory... I prefer to talk about it either in private or in "friendly environments"... and only small things here, because my experiences have often been not exactly amazing when I did it.

The path of the spirit is the one I like the most... and if the "Empirical Gang" was a bit less obsessed with imposing a pensée unique, I would be more open to discussing some theories and ideas in a more open way.

-So far I've seen that in ancient times the technology was not available... which is false... and it would be easy to demonstrate it.
-I've also seen that the chemical composition of the air was not understood... which is irrelevant.
-That I have to be in a sealed glass booth filmed from every angle as to prevent "cheating" and adding ether to a flask (I don't get the point of adding ether to a flask when it comes to this path, nor I know which one would be the sense of "cheating", not I would know how to "cheat" because I don't know of other substances that behave like the spirit, so I would not know what the hell to use as to cheat).
-That nobody has isolated the spirit.... which is false.
-That there's people working with something invisible... which is false.
-That the Spiritus Mundi is a "new age" theory... which is false, it's in a lot of classical texts under different names (Spiritus Mundi, Materia Remota, Parergon, etc).
-That the arabian alchemists were using a compound matter... OK... fantastic!

we can't talk about Free Jazz because the Jazz Police gets pissed off... and I'm fine with King Oliver, but I prefer Coltrane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zsPqtias50

Andro
05-09-2017, 04:15 AM
Can't say I have particularly enjoyed interacting with zoas23 on occasion but the lack of substance either theoretical or practical is a fair comment. Even if JDP goes on about whether or not SM exists rather than what the thread started with he at least provides argument and supporting research. Where is the actual substance here?

Z, I think Axis was addressing Illen's comments here. Axis can clarify whether I am right or wrong about this, if so inclined.

Also, although there has been a lot of topic juggling on this thread, it's still worth noting that it hasn't spiraled down into personal attacks and insults.

Speaking of which, an email was recently received in the AF inbox, from someone (whom I will of course not name) wondering why people who are trolling and/or hijacking threads aren't getting banned.

I believe I speak for Awani, Mr. K and myself when I say that banning someone is THE LAST RESORT. And it doesn't matter who 'pushes the button', it's never for personal reasons and it's always an unanimous decision by everyone currently on the forum team, never just one person's decision or impulse.

Banning is almost exclusively reserved for either spammers or super-inflated egos who are not capable of getting satisfaction unless they personally insult or otherwise belittle/marginalize other people, on their righteous crusades of self-aggrandizement.

What I'm saying here is that we may ask people to stay on topic, we may send the occasional PM , we may even occasionally lock a thread if it's "beyond redemption" - but no one is getting banned here unless they start throwing personal insults at each other's throats or otherwise cause some severe damage/sabotage to the forums. What you will never see here, is someone getting banned because they disagree with one of the 'referees' (as Illen called us :)). If that would be the case, there would probably be only very few people left here...

I just wanted to clarify this, because quite a few people seem to have the wrong idea of how things are done here...

Regarding this thread, I am asking again to return to the topic, or the thread will be locked. The Spirit debate ('real or fiction'), Zen talk and other paths - all belong on their own dedicated threads, not here.

Live and let live, please.

And please don't reply to this post, it will probably be removed in a couple of days or so.

Thanks.

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

JDP
05-09-2017, 05:33 AM
There has been a discussion between the words "captured", "condensed" and "extracted"... The 3 of them make sense, the one I like the most is "captured", but I don't really have objections with the 2 other words.

I have an objection with "puzzled" though.... "Fed up", "bored", "tired", I don't know the English word, it's not "puzzled" though.
I have no problems in following logical arguments... I have some sort of fetish for Logic and Linguistics (I use the word "fetish" simply because I can't justify why I like such things... I guess I find them pleasant and somehow connected in an analogical way with alchemy -only in an analogical way).

You certainly have if you cannot see the very obvious connection of a supposed invisible "Spiritus Mundi" found all over the place with things like very real invisible gases also found all over the place, and hypothetical "principles" like the equally invisible and also found all over the place "phlogiston", which is what I keep pointing out to illustrate how unlikely the whole "Spiritus Mundi" claim is.


Your comments are not logical, JDP... That's the problem. I can state: "I can lift 1,000 kilos easily" and you may say: "That's impossible, the world record is 264 Kilos, go to the Olympics and get your Gold Medal if you have such bizarre fantasies". Then again, I may do it easily with a set of pulleys (anyone can do it.... even in a glass booth).

But that would be TRICKERY AND CHEATING. You do realize that it is your argument here that is NOT logical, do you??? You are trying to use an example of passing a TRICK for a "fact". Plus inside the glass booth we ALL COULD STILL SEE THAT YOU WOULD BE CHEATING BY USING PULLEYS. You keep on yielding to my examples and objections and giving them a perfectly good reason to be. Nice work.


Your comments are nonsensical because you don't see the pulley and talk about gravity and the human biology and the capability of the muscles, but never think of the pulley... which is the THING that makes it possible.

But that would be CHEATING!!! The whole point of the claim is YOU, WITHOUT USING ANY TRICKS, PERFORMING WHAT YOU CLAIM YOU CAN DO.


You are not omniscient... but you gladly criticize things that you don't understand without even getting that your criticism is nonsensical... and the problem is that the REAL issue of this thread is VERY interesting for a lot of persons who ALREADY know your objections. Again, I am not into ORMUS and I don't agree with several ideas which are the main basis of that path... BUT I do not feel the need to visit each ORMUS thread and boycott it and interfere in a conversation that would be, otherwise, productive for those who are exchanging ideas and experiences.

People can continue to believe in what they want to believe, but us skeptics and critical thinkers do not have to keep quiet either, and will point out lack of evidence when we see it.


Didn't they have the texts of Anaximander, Plotinus, Proclus? Why they wouldn't have tried to find the "hen" or "arche"?

How would that help them in isolating, "capturing" or "condensing" matters supposedly or really found all over the place but not seen by the naked eye and not easily manipulated with the naked hand?


They had the most appropriate equipment at hand. To be honest, my next project involves using technology that was easily available by then because it's easier that way than with the "modern" equipments. My idea is not making it using "primitive" technologies for the sake of using primitive technologies, but simply because it's easier.

It doesn't seem that what they had at the time helped them one bit in discovering something as common, abundant and right under their noses as oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, etc. which are just about as invisible and difficult to figure out they are actually there as the alleged "Spiritus Mundi". It was only as late as the 18th century that these things started to get discovered. Yes, that's how long it took for mankind to finally figure out that all these invisible substances were all over the place and we were in contact with them all this time without realizing it. And all because we could not see them with the naked eye and willfully manipulate them without the aid of some specialized instruments.


OK... What can you contribute to this specific subject? What can you contribute to the better understanding of this specific path? Help and valuable information about OTHER paths? That's the problem.

One of your problems is that you seem to think that there are many "paths" to the Stone. This is a mistaken assumption that many seekers make. Though there is more than one way of doing it, without the secret solvent or "water" there are ZERO "paths". And in order to prepare this substance you cannot do it in completely different and totally unrelated ways, like for example, "condense" it out of thin air, a la proponents of "Spiritus Mundi", or simply by manipulating one substance alone, a la "one matter only" proponents. It's just not gonna happen because this solvent doesn't exist already made anywhere, it has to be made by the intelligent intervention of the hand of man. Nature does NOT make it in any way, shape or form, so seeking it "somewhere" already made for one's convenience is as futile as seeking the Stone itself already made for our convenience (think of how much time and money it would save us if you could find the Stone already nicely packaged and ready to go in some cave or mine somewhere!) And the way you make it is by combining and making react the correct raw materials that nature (and human industry also) can provide you with. There is no other way.

Schmuldvich
05-09-2017, 05:35 AM
One of your problems is that you seem to think that there are many "paths" to the Stone. This is a mistaken assumption that many seekers make. Though there is more than one way of doing it, without the secret solvent or "water" there are ZERO "paths". And in order to prepare this substance you cannot do it in completely different and totally unrelated ways.


Preach!!!





Axis, this will be 'A' Aurum Potable, but not THE Aurum Potable.

While this word TRUE will mean different things for different people, here I believe it is either one of two things.

Truth is Universal. It does not mean different things to different people. It ever so simply is.

Just like Truth being simply Truth, there is not many different kinds of Aurum Potabile (Drinkable Gold) but simply one Aurum Potabile, our Drinkable Gold.





Which Alkahest do you intend to use?

Entirely like Truth being One, there are not multiple alcahests out there. Only one Alkahest (Universal Solvent) exists, our Alkahest (Universal Solvent) which reduces all things into their prima materia without any diminution or depletion of itself.





Truth is simple.

JDP
05-09-2017, 06:02 AM
YES!!!






http://i.imgur.com/wQz7Smj.jpg









































A couple of applicable quotes here, most but not all dealing with the subject of this thread.


Alkahest, simply put, is an ens or Fire-Water (think alcohol) which is penetrative and resolves all things into their Prima Materia or first liquid Matter. The Alkahest is our Universal Solvent. Once it has dissolved anything it remains the same Nature and is of the same virtue after a thousand operations as at the first, never reducing itself in quality or quantity.

Elsewhere (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?5247-(non)Mineral-(non)Metal-(non)Magnet&p=49452#post49452) I have explained the difference between our starting Matter and our Prima Materia, or Materia Prima and Prima Materia as Salazius explains (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2071-Spiritus-Mundi&p=14057#post14057) it. Andro who just yesterday gave his input (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?5253-Difference-between-Alkahest-and-the-Universal-Mercury-(SM).&p=49614#post49614), was the first person for years to attempt to explain Spiritus Mundi philosophically. Does anyone else want to provide their input as to what they think Spiritus Mundi is? ...Why is everyone still so caught up on this word!

Spiritus Mundi is the Light of Genesis and the Word spoken of throughout Scripture.

Spiritus Mundi means "World Spirit". Anima Mundi means "World Soul". Corpus Mundi means "World Body".

The Universal Spirit (Spiritus Mundi) from the Universal Soul (Anima Mundi) from the Universal Body (Corpus Mundi).


The way I conceptualize it...Keeping in mind that our Matter is simply One but at different stages of development.

Spiritus Mundi as the Upper Light
Anima Mundi as the Middle Medium
Corpus Mundi as the Lower Body





"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth— Now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. And God said, “Let there be Light!” And there was Light. And God saw the Light, that it was good, and God caused there to be a separation between the Light and between the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."
Genesis 1:1-5


"Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a Light to my path. I have sworn an oath and confirmed it."
Psalm 119:105-106


"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This one was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and apart from him not one thing came into being that has come into being. In him was life, and the life was the Light of humanity. And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it."
John 1:1-5


"I, Paul, became a minister. Now I rejoice in my sufferings on behalf of you, and I fill up in my flesh what is lacking of the afflictions of Christ, on behalf of his body which is the church, of which I became a minister, according to God’s stewardship which was given to me for you, to complete the Word of God, the Mystery which has been hidden from the ages and from the generations."
Colossians 1:23-26


"It escapes their notice that the heavens existed long ago and the earth held together out of water and through water by the Word of God, by means of which things the world that existed at that time was destroyed by being inundated with water. But by the same Word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire."
2 Peter 3:5-7


"What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and our hands have touched, concerning the Word of life—and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify and announce to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was revealed to us—what we have seen and heard, we announce to you also, in order that you also may have fellowship with us, and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write, in order that our joy may be complete. And this is the message which we have heard from him and announce to you, that God is Light and there is no darkness in him at all."
1 John 1:1-5


"I have written to you, fathers, because you have known the One who is from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the Word of God resides in you."
1 John 2:14

The word "capture" is what the majority of members here use when posting about Spiritus Mundi, when I think the word "condense" is what we should be using instead. The "Golden Chain Of Homer" (1723) aids us in visualizing this





"We have demonstrated that the primordial Vapour, or that fire and water, are after God, the First Matter of all Things. This two-fold Vapour by inspissation is become water and this water by the action of the invisible spirit therein diffused, has begun to ferment and then to generate Matter. At first, this water was perfectly subtil and pure, but by means of the action of the inward spirit, it becomes turbid, smelled badly and thus generated Earth. It was divided into various parts. Into a Spiritual, most subtil, into a half or less subtil, into a half corporeal, and into a Body. At first it was 1 and 2, -- now it is 1, 2, and 3, likewise 4 and 5.

1 as a simple Humidity;
2 as a Water containing a Spirit;
3 when it was separated into volatile, half fixt, fixt, that is, chemically speaking -- into Volatile, Acetum, Alcali; or Anima, Spirit, Corpus;
4 when it was divided into the four so-called Elements, Fire, Air, Water, Earth;
5 when it is by Art, assisted by Nature, formed into an indestructible fiery Quintessence.





http://i.imgur.com/WiBLH9W.jpg


Bacstrom is not an authority I like to reference often, but his "Aphorisms" (1797) is extraordinary!



Ending this discussion with a quote from "Sophic Hydrolith or Water-Stone Of The Wise" is appropriate



Through all this one learns that Spiritus Mundi is the medium or middle substance of Alchemy, itself being neither completely celestial nor completely terrestrial.



http://i.imgur.com/EbX2KPN.jpg

If you look at some of your own provided quotes above, you can see that the "alkahest" is in fact NOT the secret solvent of alchemy. Read the "Philalethes" quote, for example, and compare it with the Artephius or Roger Bacon quotes. Obviously two very different things. One radically "joins" and "coagulates" with what it has dissolved and forms a wholly new substance, different than the two "parents" (i.e. the solvent and the solute), while the other one does not combine with what it dissolves and remains intact, just as it was before the solution. This crucial difference was already explained in one of the threads (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?5253-Difference-between-Alkahest-and-the-Universal-Mercury-(SM).&p=49598#post49598) in the links (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?5253-Difference-between-Alkahest-and-the-Universal-Mercury-(SM).&p=49611#post49611) in your post above. It is very amusing to see how much confusion eventually developed from people who for some reason or another could not see this plain difference and started indiscriminately calling the alchemical solvent the "alkahest".

Schmuldvich
05-09-2017, 06:16 AM
If you look at some of your own provided quotes above, you can see that the "alkahest" is in fact NOT the secret solvent of alchemy. It is very amusing to see how much confusion eventually developed from people who for some reason or another could not see this plain difference and started indiscriminately calling the alchemical solvent the "alkahest".

What would you say the difference is between Alkahest and Universal Solvent?

JDP
05-09-2017, 06:25 AM
What would you say the difference is between Alkahest and Universal Solvent?

The problem is that the solvent of alchemy does not really fit the "universal solvent" definition. This claim began with people like van Helmont, but he was not an "alchemist", he never claimed he knew how to make the Stone (though he did test samples of it, but given to him by some of his friends, he never claimed he had made these samples himself), but as you can see from the descriptions of the proponents of the "alkahest", it does not have the same properties as the secret solvent of alchemy. The "alkahest" does NOT permanently join what it dissolves, the secret solvent of alchemy does.

Axismundi000
05-09-2017, 06:55 AM
Considering that you have no idea of what I do and what I don't do at the lab, it's quite an audacious claim... To be honest, I'm often more open to sharing than most people are, though ONLY with persons I trust and who make me smile (if the other person is a VERY gifted alchemist or not is not relevant...).
As for the theory... I prefer to talk about it either in private or in "friendly environments"... and only small things here, because my experiences have often been not exactly amazing when I did ..............

Whilst it is true that my comment about lack of substance was directed towards Ilen.A Cluf the above shows that it would have been better if I had not made it.

Axismundi000
05-09-2017, 07:02 AM
I respect your rules of engagement and I appreciate that you comprehend what it is I'm trying to achieve :o

I can't wait for the silver work, perhaps we can co-publish our work here as an excellent comparison of what will undoubtably be two completely different methods... Offers there if you wish..

Back to the work at hand.. My personal recommendation for your Alkahest, would be,

*Drum roll*... The Archeus!!!

The real PROOF! As to whether or not any EMPIRICAL evidence can be shown that the dissolution capabilities of a solvent relate to their SM contents, could be proved by The Archeus.

As I personally am mainly interested in a method of SM condensation that had O% impurities, I have not learnt how to use The Archeus as a magnet. However, the a Archeus had a deep relationship with SM regardless, being IT in a denser form.

If it could be shown that The Archeus can dissolve and/or extract gold, then Andro's comments about SM contents start to look very attractive. Perhaps I will undertake this task. As it seems very logical to practise this, which will require a lesser labour and cost, before I move on.

The Sophic Hydrolith or 'The Water Stone of the Wise' is still to this day one of the most interesting works, very similar to the golden chain of homer if I remember well...

The question that is asked in this thread is a pretty deep one, and one that I don't think many people here are capable of answering at this moment, and those who can, I feel probably enjoy watching us grow more than they do giving away the ending ;)

Good luck Axis, and be safe, look up the MSDS for gold acetate and make sure it's not explosive. I've also heard on the grapevine that gold acetate is not the easiest thing to synthesise.

Work with water is certainly valuable however with just a part of the month of May remaining I have missed the opportunity this year.

You make a lot of interesting comments and suggestions about the 'metal oils' elixirmixer. For myself I am mindful of the importance that these oils contain absolutely no metal in them as the finished product. The picture of the guy who took silver, went green and died is a useful reminder of the dangers involved. In fact because of the cumulative poison that is lead apart from that one small piece of Cerrusite I showed I do not work with lead. Appreciate the comments and observations elixirmixer.

Axismundi000
05-09-2017, 07:36 AM
The use of alkahest to extract the Sulphur from a metal is totally different to using an acid. An acid will produce a metal salt that is often toxic the alkahest will extract an oil which does not contain any actual metal. However the specific universal Mercury does completely dissolve gold which remains in solution (I think). This is an important difference then in what these things actualy do and leads to the possibility that these various 'alkahest' may be fundamentally different to the SM/universal Mercury. Yet I like the idea of greater or lesser concentration of the universal Mercury so I have a lot of work to do. Opinions on this whole debate what is alkahest what is SM welcome. I already understand that some are of the view that these do not really exist.

black
05-09-2017, 07:42 AM
The problem is that the solvent of alchemy does not really fit the "universal solvent" definition. This claim began with people like van Helmont, but he was not an "alchemist", he never claimed he knew how to make the Stone (though he did test samples of it, but given to him by some of his friends, he never claimed he had made these samples himself), but as you can see from the descriptions of the proponents of the "alkahest", it does not have the same properties as the secret solvent of alchemy. The "alkahest" does NOT permanently join what it dissolves, the secret solvent of alchemy does.


The Difference between Alkahest and the Universal Mercury (SM).

The understanding of this is one of the Major Crossroads in the study of
Alchemy...one road leads to Alchemy the other road leads nowhere !!!

Without the understanding of the hidden language of Alchemy you are
going nowhere.

I would like to believe that you do have this understanding and that you are
just playing the devils advocate for the sake of the beginners in this work.

If not I can only suggest that you pray a bit more or at least meditate on it.

I would not like to see you give up after so many years of good work.

zoas23
05-09-2017, 07:44 AM
Whilst it is true that my comment about lack of substance was directed towards Ilen.A Cluf the above shows that it would have been better if I had not made it.

O.K... no problem. I was a bit "weird" today because someone I know died... and I wrote what I wrote before going to the funeral. Probably not in my best mood. Sorry.

Other than that, the Spiritus Mundi is for a lot of persons more important than Alchemy itself (I simply mean that if someone offered me a method to produce kilos and kilos of gold 100% guaranteed without using the Spirit at all and the ONLY condition was that I have to promise that I will never again do something using the spirit in a direct way... I would not even need to think about it, the answer would be "no, thanks!").

Talking about the Spirit publicly is interesting and a rare opportunity we have. It would be easier to do it if such thing could happen without an ongoing boycott to the conversation itself.

Maybe one of the most interesting things about it is that is completely contradicts almost every single "law" of modern physics and modern chemistry... so to work with it is necessary to abandon the "common sense" and, I am stealing an expression by Salazius: "thinking outside the box". Its unique ways of behaviour are quite often puzzling and it is somehow necessary to become its "friend"... and there's a huge beauty in such thing.

The first time I touched it something "funny" happened to me: I began to walk all over my house touching different objects, almost like a baby who is discovering the world again.

How to make an alkahest with it is probably the BIGGEST technical achievement a person can do when it comes to Alchemy... and maybe the biggest "external" adventure.

As for the words used to describe how it shows up, I've heard "capture", "manifest", "condense" and a few others. The one I like is "capture", but not because it is more accurate than the others, but because it makes me remember of a lot of tales (the travels to capture Moby-Dick*, the myth of Atalanta -and I am not necessarily thinking of Maier-... or all the myths in which a person goes out to "capture" something).

*Moby-Dick sounds like a weird example, but I see a twisted love story in that book.

Axismundi000
05-09-2017, 08:03 AM
My condolences zoas23. I'm sure you are already aware of the Eros/Thanatos dynamic as that can be evoked by such an event.

@Black never mind whether or not I 'know', also I am a Hermeticist so the Royal path of Alchemy is part of a much larger pursuit for me. Whilst it is an entirely a voluntary thing do you have anything to actually say about alkahest and universal Mercury?

black
05-09-2017, 08:37 AM
The Difference between Alkahest and the Universal Mercury (SM).

The understanding of this is one of the Major Crossroads in the study of
Alchemy...one road leads to Alchemy the other road leads nowhere !!!

Without the understanding of the hidden language of Alchemy you are
going nowhere.

I would like to believe that you do have this understanding and that you are
just playing the devils advocate for the sake of the beginners in this work.

If not I can only suggest that you pray a bit more or at least meditate on it.

I would not like to see you give up after so many years of good work.

Hi Axis

Sorry for the confusion.

The above was directed @ JDP

Alkahest and the Universal Mercury (SM).

These words only have specific meaning in the context that they are used.

It's the same with the word Mercury. There may be several Mercuries
in Alchemy but which Mercury does this or does that ???

If there is no clear understanding of the process then the words mean nothing.

Hence the great confusion in terminology.

JDP
05-09-2017, 12:44 PM
The Difference between Alkahest and the Universal Mercury (SM).

The understanding of this is one of the Major Crossroads in the study of
Alchemy...one road leads to Alchemy the other road leads nowhere !!!

Without the understanding of the hidden language of Alchemy you are
going nowhere.

I would like to believe that you do have this understanding and that you are
just playing the devils advocate for the sake of the beginners in this work.

If not I can only suggest that you pray a bit more or at least meditate on it.

I would not like to see you give up after so many years of good work.


Hi Axis

Sorry for the confusion.

The above was directed @ JDP

Alkahest and the Universal Mercury (SM).

These words only have specific meaning in the context that they are used.

It's the same with the word Mercury. There may be several Mercuries
in Alchemy but which Mercury does this or does that ???

If there is no clear understanding of the process then the words mean nothing.

Hence the great confusion in terminology.

This has nothing to do with this, but who coined what and when, and how the descriptions of what one thing does are obviously not the same as the other. We have two very different claims here. One (viz. the "alkahest", in the way this word was used by Van Helmont and his followers, NOT Paracelsus, who only meant it as a specific medicine for the liver) is from the 17th century onward, the other one is of ancient origins. One solvent does not radically unite with what it dissolves and can always be recovered as it was before, the other one does the exact opposite.

Axismundi000
05-09-2017, 02:02 PM
Modern stuff does indicate that the alcahest can be re-used provided the material it acts on is 'philosophic'. So smelted metal lose alcahest, pure mineral ore get alcahest back. This seems contrary to the initial quotation that you employed JDP but that may have been referring to other descriptions of alcahest. With regard to the universal Mercury SM I have never produced it and I am unclear whether it can be recycled like these alcahest in modern terms I mention. Also I'm not clear which way round you mean when you observe one can be recovered the other not.

elixirmixer
05-09-2017, 08:37 PM
He means tht the Alkahest can be recovered, while the Universal Mercury will permanantly imbibe with the Materia.

Axismundi000
05-09-2017, 09:47 PM
If that is what was meant I think this also. So, if then the difference is how much 'Universal Mercury' or whatever it is termed why do they act differently the so called SM dissolving the gold but these other alkahest or whatever they are called can be recycled. If they have the same common factor why do they behave differently? One extracting the other joining?

JDP
05-09-2017, 11:48 PM
He means tht the Alkahest can be recovered, while the Universal Mercury will permanantly imbibe with the Materia.

Yes, one will permanently unite with the thing dissolved, the other one will not. Incredible that people in this day and age are still struggling to understand a difference that in reality is so simple to grasp!

JDP
05-09-2017, 11:57 PM
Modern stuff does indicate that the alcahest can be re-used provided the material it acts on is 'philosophic'. So smelted metal lose alcahest, pure mineral ore get alcahest back. This seems contrary to the initial quotation that you employed JDP but that may have been referring to other descriptions of alcahest. With regard to the universal Mercury SM I have never produced it and I am unclear whether it can be recycled like these alcahest in modern terms I mention. Also I'm not clear which way round you mean when you observe one can be recovered the other not.

I don't believe in any of the modern claims about the "alkahest" any more than I do those of the 17th century, when this whole subject that led to such confusion started. As Weidenfeld himself said in the quoted passage earlier in the thread, "what others have either obscurely, or impertinently said and written of this Liquor Alkahest, we little regard, as Opinions and Conjectures." Ditto! Whatever is it that the followers of Van Helmont thought they had obtained, it definitely was NOT the secret solvent of alchemy. But the most puzzling part is how could this confusion have happened in the first place? Van Helmont himself never made the claim that what he had obtained was the secret solvent the alchemists used to make the Stone. It was many of his followers who started the confusion.

elixirmixer
05-10-2017, 12:27 AM
Your knowledge into alchemical history is (sometimes) very enlightening JDP.

I don't really believe in an Alkahest either.

I mean, just consider what that means as a property. You have to be so active a molecule that you can dissociate other, apparently useless molecules aside, while hunting down "the Quintessense", seperate the subtle from the gross, and do all that, without being effected in the slightest itself.

That is a pretty crazy property to have, harder for me to imagine than The Stone itself.

However, this is Alchemy, and weird shit does happen. So while I don't really believe in it, id love to be proven wrong.

I'm thinking 'The Alkahest' and when I say that, I'm refering to "the solvent made in the vegetable realm that will extract red Sulfur from gold very easily and invoke great healing powers from it, and also, extract the Quitensense from plants in a very short time while bein un-effected, or even, improved, by the process." AKA "The Menstruum for The Aurum Potable" made from Philosophic Wine of the adepts; is indeed the Menstruum that's being spoken of here. I'll be making tht this year (I know I said I made it already, and I thought I had, but I went down the false path of pyro-distillation so I here-by retract that claim)

So when I do make it, I will test it to see, "If it extracts the Quintessense of herbs without losing anything of itself".... And it's effects on Gold calx

I've got a bad memory, and even worse for book titles and authors, so I don't really know where I come up with all this stuff, but it feels right, so just go with it ;)

black
05-10-2017, 01:48 AM
This has nothing to do with this, but who coined what and when, and how the descriptions of what one thing does are obviously not the same as the other. We have two very different claims here. One (viz. the "alkahest", in the way this word was used by Van Helmont and his followers, NOT Paracelsus, who only meant it as a specific medicine for the liver) is from the 17th century onward, the other one is of ancient origins. One solvent does not radically unite with what it dissolves and can always be recovered as it was before, the other one does the exact opposite.

Hi JDP

Yes I understand what you are saying and I totally agree with you.

But what I am inferring is the Alchemic twist on words.

We tend to become fixated on specific words having a specific meaning
and without fully understanding a process, beginners in this art can get
terribly lost and confused down this rabbit hole.


An example is that I could use the words UNIVERSAL SOLVENT in place
of UNIVERSAL MERCURY.

I could then use the word ALKAHEST in place of UNIVERSAL SOLVENT.

This of course would infer that the UNIVERSAL MERCURY and the
ALKAHEST are one and the same thing.

I'm sure you understand these twists after so many years study, but a mention
of it here may assist some beginners to question more, rather than to accept verbatim.

elixirmixer
05-10-2017, 03:02 AM
@ Black; you couldn't be more correct. If a psycologist had a look at me that woul diagnose me with Alchemical-Path disorder, where ones path changes hysterically, chasing the golden snitch, through grottos, caves, barns, toilets, fields, quantum physics, chemical reations, labyrinth-like sybolic-neurosis reforming, only then to have someone from the forum drop a hint, consciously or un-consciously, )since a lot of the info I've gained here, I don't think was intentional to share with me in the first place but I've cracked the AF-alchemical deckhand code) ad then throw everything in te bin and start again from scratch, a few times. Solve et coagula. And dam, what a year it's been, I feel a little sublimated, or about to be sublimating.

It must be brutally challenging for the regular, normal person who desires to learn these things. I har had very particular experienced in my life that has fueled my path from the get go, but a passing fancy in Alchemy, I suppose what I'm saying, is capable of doing you a lot more harm than good, because if you don't make it all the way through the tunnel, you'll be stuck in the darkness and it could well drive you mad.

IM psyco-alchemical O.

Andro
05-10-2017, 04:57 AM
I have personally never prepared/encountered/witnessed a substance that "extracts the (genuine) Quintessence" of any subject and remains unchanged in the process. This does not mean it has never been prepared. It only means I haven't witnessed this phenomenon myself. Therefore, I cannot earnestly proclaim that it's a "fantasy".

AFAIK, the closest thing the Philosophical Mercury comes to 'extracting' something, is in one particular instance, at the very end of the Second Rotation, where the Philosophical Sulfur is separated/extracted from its earth/matrix and subsequently floats on top of the Philosophical Mercury (which is in liquid form) that was used for its extraction/separation. The superfluous mass sinks to the bottom. There may be others, but I personally know less than half a handful of people who have successfully reached the end of the Second Rotation.

This sequence is also supported by my favorite (and IMO most generous) lineage. Quoth ICH:


Upon Lapidification follows the work of separation, in which the
depths of our Earth is swept out, the light is separated from darkness,
or our incombustible Oil is released and divorced from the Terra Damnata,
for as Basilius says in his fourth key: it is the spirit alone that
gives the power as well as the life, the body can do nothing in this
regard.

But the separation is one of the most necessary parts of our art,
because without such no Tincture can be achieved, that’s why Sendivogius
says: if you are not separating the root juice in the best possible manner,
you will not achieve anything, and Riplaeus agrees: if the greasiness
is not exterminated by Water and the subtle not divorced from
the coarse, you will never bring the work to the desired end.

But the separation must be achieved by nothing alien, but by our Water or Mercury,
and the Philosopher’s Vinegar, which extracts the Sulfur hidden intimately in
the feeble Earth, which in the beginning takes a very red coloring, but
later returns to its previous color at the time when the Sulfur contracts
itself and floats on the Water as a common Oil, which is the true sign of
a Sulfur or Oil prepared in a philosophical way.

This Oil now is the true volatile Gold of the wise, and is named by them the blood of the Red
Lion, and the blood of the Earth and the red wine; it is also depicted
under the figure of a winged dragon resting on the Earth, for in this
way they want to convey that this Oil or Quintessence is heavenly as well as
earthly. Heavenly it is, because like a common Oil it swims above
the Water; earthly it is, because it is also in favor of the Earth and can be
transformed into such, which has to happen once we proceed to the
third rotation; and by its dehydration it is transformed into a subtle,
greasy and impalpable Earth, which, regardless of its greasy nature, is
not sticky to the finger, and which is also named the red lion [etc...]______________________

Perhaps (and what follows is my speculation and should be treated as such), the Philosophical Mercury/Vinegar/Alkahest/etc is more 'forgiving' with 'lesser' matters, such as bio-masses (as z0 k calls them) from the vegetable realm, or 'lesser' mineral matters. Perhaps with these 'lesser' matters, the same 'Alkahest' can extract a tincture from such subjects without going through all the previous stages of the Second Rotation in the Universal Work. Again, this last part/paragraph is speculative on my part and nothing more. But if it's true, then the COMPLETE Ens Mellisae process (not the simple, popular one) could be a sort of example for this.


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

black
05-10-2017, 05:36 AM
A possible theory.

I think what some of the old masters are referring to here is the SPIRITUS VINI that is
used to extract the OIL / SULFUR.... then when separated can be used again for
other extractions.

Examples of this can be found in Basil Valentines TRIUMPHAL CHARIOT.

Axismundi000
05-10-2017, 06:36 AM
Whilst the literature gives a complex view I appreciate the pointers provided. Personally I am certain that some of these lesser solvents can be reclaimed but I have read that the solvent that can dissolve gold is not recycled.

I think what Andro was saying about how some metals are easier to act on then others ties in with Jean Dubuis Kabbalistic approach to this issue. His approach which I oversimplify here was that by ascribing metals to the tree of life and atrributing methods and solvents to the Otz Chim also, we can produce a taxonomy of what can dissolve which metal.

Personally I like the view that the main point is how much of this universal Mercury is present and how much 'bite' it has. I look forward to the possibility of directly feeling it and then afterward going around and inspecting various objects with this new understanding as zoas23 described.

JDP
05-10-2017, 07:22 AM
Whilst the literature gives a complex view I appreciate the pointers provided. Personally I am certain that some of these lesser solvents can be reclaimed but I have read that the solvent that can dissolve gold is not recycled.

Many solvents can dissolve SOME matters, remain "intact" and be recovered as they were before the solution. For example, water can dissolve many salts, or sugars, and you can get the water as well as the solute back as they were before the solution. But these solvents are truly only acting as a mere solvent, nothing else. They do nothing to the things they dissolve. This is a very different case than the "alkahest". This solvent also "reduced" all substances it dissolved back to their "elements" and yet it itself remained intact! You supposedly could keep on "recycling" it for decomposing more substances into their "elements" over and over again. It would never be affected itself, yet it affected all the substances it dissolved. The whole thing sounds highly unlikely. Many alchemists and chymists tried to prepare it, but failed. The already quoted Weidenfeld tried during his younger years to obtain it, when he himself had been caught in the confusion between it and the secret solvent of alchemy, yet he could never prepare it, and after he realized the obvious difference between it and the secret solvent of alchemy he ended up rejecting the "alkahest" as the conjectural idea of some writers. Kunckel also scoffed at the idea of the "alkahest" or "universal solvent" and pointed out the conundrum that if it supposedly dissolves and decomposes everything it comes in contact with, then how could it possibly be prepared and contained in the first place, as it would dissolve & decompose the very apparatuses used for the purpose!

Salazius
05-10-2017, 07:34 AM
I have personally never prepared/encountered/witnessed a substance that "extracts the (genuine) Quintessence" of any subject and remains unchanged in the process.

Everything depends of what you call Qe.

I call Qe a volatilized Sulfur.
There, the Radical Mercury used stays the same. But sometimes, but the use of it, it will loose some of its power and need to be renewed by the same process it was born.




AFAIK, the closest thing the Philosophical Mercury comes to 'extracting' something, is in one particular instance, at the very end of the Second Rotation, where the Philosophical Sulfur is separated/extracted from its earth/matrix and subsequently floats on top of the Philosophical Mercury (which is in liquid form) that was used for its extraction/separation.

As far as I can say, there, the "Universal Mercury" will not loose its power in the process because of its 100% radical nature, and extremely fix capacity to stay almost the same, even under very strong conditions.
There is a trick in order to make move up the prepared Sulfur.

In the process, the Sulfur is completely swallowed, and makes one with the Rad Mercury. Then, after a "trick", the Sulfur comes up, floating on the surface, prepared and purified, ready to be used.

Without the "trick", the Sulfur will sink down, and progressively make one with the Mercury, and will not be recovered floating after that. And the process to revover/purify the Mercury will be more tedious and long.

I also wanted to say that the Rad Mercury, depending of its nature and confection will alway "reject" (when used properly) in its own way the Sulfur prepared. And will remain clean after that.

Also a fact is that, with some Radical Mercuries, I had the surprise to witness several PH in the same solution : PH 4 5 6 7 8 9. Not neutralizing themselves !

elixirmixer
05-10-2017, 09:09 AM
I like Andro's thoughts here, I would bet that a lot of people would be working on gold in it's pure state, or, perhaps a gold calx of sorts, m-state ect...

But what about gold in it's mineral form? In these forms the gold atoms are more evenly spread out amount other atoms ie: easier to isolate for a given solvent. (This coul be considered as a "lesser" metal, in regards to the spiritus, and in terms of it's extract-ability)

Now, if we take a nicely prepared gold calx - white, Don Vance or the Fool style, then we mix with fresh Aqua Regis, and reflux, ten the gold becomes a brilliant green crystal/mineral, and I would expect, that a true Quintessense of gold should be extracted by the universal solvent via the U. S.

Again, just my theories, but doesn't the green lion come before the red?

JDP
05-10-2017, 01:47 PM
I like Andro's thoughts here, I would bet that a lot of people would be working on gold in it's pure state, or, perhaps a gold calx of sorts, m-state ect...

But what about gold in it's mineral form? In these forms the gold atoms are more evenly spread out amount other atoms ie: easier to isolate for a given solvent. (This coul be considered as a "lesser" metal, in regards to the spiritus, and in terms of it's extract-ability)

Now, if we take a nicely prepared gold calx - white, Don Vance or the Fool style, then we mix with fresh Aqua Regis, and reflux, ten the gold becomes a brilliant green crystal/mineral, and I would expect, that a true Quintessense of gold should be extracted by the universal solvent via the U. S.

Again, just my theories, but doesn't the green lion come before the red?

Gold rarely forms actual minerals because of its low reactivity, that's why it's a "noble" metal. Most gold found in nature is metallic, either "pure" or in the form of alloys with some other metals. That's also why gold is one of the oldest known metals. It didn't take any metallurgical technology for man to stumble upon it, he did not have to smelt it to have discovered it. Aluminum, on the other end of this scale, is never found in its metallic state in nature because of its high reactivity. Thus why it was only discovered as late as the 19th century. The technology had to be developed that could allow man to extract it out of its mineralized forms.

Axismundi000
05-10-2017, 05:24 PM
The idea that this universal solvent is like the blood of the xenomorph in the Alien films, a universal corrosive, need not be true though the deductive reasoning put forward by JDP is pleasing. It is possible to argue that this universal solvent acts on different materials depending on how concentrated it is. So for example it doesn't act on glass but at a certain concentration will work on gold, at a lesser concentration on iron but not gold etc. Obviously this has no chemical basis and I am not a chemist.

Salazius makes some interesting comments about how to recycle this solvent after it has dissolved gold. In which case it does have this property in common with these other 'alkahest' that do not dissolve gold but do dissolve other metals and also can be recycled.

Salazius
05-11-2017, 07:43 AM
Salazius makes some interesting comments about how to recycle this solvent after it has dissolved gold. In which case it does have this property in common with these other 'alkahest' that do not dissolve gold but do dissolve other metals and also can be recycled.

I wasn't pointing gold specifically.

Just remember Fulcanelli. He said 'universal' because it dissolves our little microcosmus, or inferior astrology in fact. It is not an "all" solvent.

Gold is easy to work with, true challenge comes with iron.

Axismundi000
05-11-2017, 10:34 AM
I wasn't pointing gold specifically.

Just remember Fulcanelli. He said 'universal' because it dissolves our little microcosmus, or inferior astrology in fact. It is not an "all" solvent.

Gold is easy to work with, true challenge comes with iron.

Thank you for your comments and observations I shall give them carefull thought along with any others you may choose to make.